1947-03-20, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hoaring reconvened at 1330 hours, 20 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again is session.
KURT BLOME Resumed
DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, the case of the Defendant Mrugowsky will be dealt with on Monday or Tuesday. I beg to request that he be released from this session for this afternoon so as to give me an opportunity to discuss a number of matters with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky, whoso case has been called next, has requested that Defendant Mrugowsky be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this afternoon in order that his counsel may consult with him preparatory to presenting his defense. The request is granted. Defendant Mrugowsky may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal for this afternoon's session.
MR. HARDY: I wish to clarify that, is it their intention to put on the case of Mrugowsky prior to that of Rudolf Brandt?
THE PRESIDENT: Is it counsels understanding that the Defendant Mrugowsky ease will procede the evidence to be offered by Rudolf Brandt?
DR. FLEMING: No, Mr. President, Mrugowsky will be dealt with after Rudolf Brandt. I think, however, that the case of Rudolf Brandt will not take up a long time.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky the defendant may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this afternoon
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Blome): Mr. President, at the conclusion of the session the Prosecution submitted a now document against which I objected yesterday. This is the Document Number 190. Mr. Hardy was kind enough to give me the original of this document last night and I find myself forced to maintain my objection to the admissibility of this document. Looking at this document in its original — you will—
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document has only been offered for identification, not offered as an exhibit in evidence in the case. Not up to this time has it been offered as an exhibit.
DR. SAUTER: In this case I ask the prosecution to state whether they intend to use this document against the Defendant Blome, or whether they are going to withdraw that document.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, at such times when the prosecution will formally introduce each one of their exhibits, that is, after the case of the defendants is in, I assume we will introduce all the exhibits that have been offered at this time and during cross examination for purposes of identification, only then we will be able to answer Dr. Sauter's question. At this time I am not prepared to answer same.
DR. SAUTER: Well, Mr. President, if the prosecution intends to use this document, no matter under what designations it may use it, we must be clear about whether this document can be used, whether it is authentic, and where from it originates. Nothing is gained by the defense if it is said by the prosecution that we are merely submitting this document to the defendant, that the Tribunal will take judicial note of it, and then at a later date it is said that it will got no exhibit number. I know it is being discussed here, it is being submitted here, and in my opinion it has to be clearly established whether it is permissible to use that document.
THE PRESIDENT: The question suggested by counsel for the Defendant Blome is at this time purely a moot question as the document had not been offered it has not been proven, no foundation for its admission has been laid, The Tribunal does not know the purpose of the prosecution. It may be used simply for purposes of asking questions. The Tribunal will have to decide such questions as they arise, but the question is premature at this time.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, excuse me if I again revert to this point. The question already came up yesterday regarding that document. This document was submitted to the defendant, this document was distributed among all defense counsel, and I assume that the prosecution intends to make use of that document. I, therefore, don't understand, Mr. President, why the question regarding the authenticity or the admissibility of this document should not be discussed at this present stage because the prosecution certainly will not be able to use this document in any other way but showing it to the defendant, and this already happened yesterday. It was done by Mr. Hardy.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time there is no question whatever before the Tribunal. We will await the further proceeding and cross examination by counsel for the prosecution. If counsel for the Defendant Blome dooms any question propounded by the prosecution objectionable, counsel may then object to the question but there is nothing before the Tribunal at this time.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Blome, during the course of your direct examination you have stressed that the euthanasia program was of no concern to Dr. Conti in his capacity as Reichsarztefuehrer [Reich Medical Guide] and Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer [Reich Health Leader], to the contrary, only of concern to Conti in his position as Secretary of the State for Health Matters in the Ministry of the Interior. Is that right?
A: I have stated that that was stated to me by Dr. Conti.
Q: Isn't it true that your former chief, Dr. Wagner, in his position as a predecessor to Conti, was very much concerned with the euthanasia program?
A: I don't know that. Perhaps you can give me more explanations about that matter. In that case I shall be glad to answer you.
Q: I am going to ask you to read the section in your book on page 272, which is duly marked in rod pencil. This is a survey of a speech of Wagner, which was hold in the Reichs Party Congress in 1934. Will you kindly read this page, doctor? Read slowly so that the interpreters can follow you.
A: We are concerned with the reproduction of a speech made by the late physicians leader, Dr. Wagner, on the occasion of the Reichs Party Rally in the year 1934. I quote the passage underlined by the Prosecution.
The economic burden placed upon the people by sick persons suffering from hereditary diseases, people who without their own guilt, are in such a moral and physical state from the parents side, that any independent life is impossible for them without any help from outside, who became a danger to the State and to society. If these people were listed all together it is necessary to have 301 million Reichsmarks per year for the upkeep of these hereditary sick people, not included is the expenditure for 200 thousand drunkards and about 400,000 psychopathic cases. The funds for that purpose have been assessed at about 200 million, and the work which cannot be permitted owing to the hereditary diseases, amounted to nether 300 million per year. Wagner then pointed out how these inferior families are through wrong selection the ones who have the most children and thereby permitted such a distorted picture of to future to arise. Whereas, the population of the German Reich in the year 1870 amounted to a population of 41 million people, and in the year 1910 had increased to 65 million, the number of insane people who were housed in institutions increased during that period from 40,375, that is one out of a thousand of the population, to 220,881 which is equal to 3.4 per thousand of the population. This is an increase of the population from 50 to 100. We have an increase of the insane cases of 450%, and he declared very deliberately that the right of the healthy strong man had to be affirmed against the weak and disappearing life, for we are believing in the future and the greatness of humanity.
The problem of racial mixture which he mentioned, as the last subject, was described by using very impressive figures. In the years from 1910 to 1920 thirteen Jews emigrated doily from Eastern Europe into Germany, thereby overcrowding all of the free professions. In the case of physicians, one found in the year 1945 there were 32% Jewish persons in the profession, and in the case of lawyers their participation was even greater, with 50.2 per cent. Berlin in the year of 1931 had fifty per-cent Jews at its faculty, and Goettinger in it's judicial faculty had 45 per-cent Jews, and Frankfurt on the Main 55 per-cent. In that connection I should like to read also a short excerpt which was not underlined by the Prosecution because this would better illustrate the sense of what Wagner said.
Q: Go ahead.
A: (reading)
We are convinced, said Wagner, at the time of his speech, that in the not too distant time every nation and every people will realize that in the purity of its spirit and blood there lies its strength. We believe that in the clear differentiation between blood and blood, between spirit and spirit there lies the only guarantee for a peaceful life, together, of the various kinds of human beings living in this world.
Q: Now, doctor, will you return the book, please. I am glad that you read that last extract in addition to what I have outlined. Aren't you convinced that speech gives every thing from the Nazi point of view to justify euthanasia and stresses very much the high expenses incurred for the insane and oven goes so far as to define people who are bodily and mentally deficient as a danger to the state and society, doesn't it?
A: No, were you a physician, you wouldn't say such a thing. These statements no doubt refer to the sterilization law which was already active at that time. It say in the passages which I have just read that it was not considered to be desirable to continue to let live useless heritage. In addition, however, it was stated that the life of the most severely ill group of people is certainly a life without value. This latter fact cannot be contested by any human being, be it physician or be it layman.
Furthermore, I want to draw your attention to the fact that this speech was given directly after the sterilization law had been promulgated in Germany in the years 1933 and 1934. I point out to you that the necessary understanding was not shown towards sterilization law by all circles, but at the same time I must point out that during the course of the years, the sterilization law was accepted and became a matter of course in the realm of the moral thoughts of the German people, as it is true of all nations of the earth.
Q: Be that as it may, doctor, it seems to me that the difference you have made in direct examination in your entire defense against the charge of euthanasia is that Conti, the Secretory of State, the Ministry of the Interior, and not Conti the Reich Health Leader was concerned with euthanasia, is that right?
A: I said very clearly that Conti dealt with euthanasia in his capacity as under Secretory of State in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q: Well now are you aware of the foot that among German legal circles, even Lammers, they were not so sharply concerned with the fact that this was only Conti's job in so for as he was Secretory of the State. I want to have you look at the document, 621-PS, which has been admitted in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 595. The German is on the bottom and the English on the top. Now you will note this is a short letter from Lammers to The Reich Ministry of Justice, Dr. Guertner, which states:
Dear Dr. Guertner I herewith acknowledge your letters of 26 September, forwarded to me with further material about the death of inmates of nursing homes. I forwarded the enclosed reports of the Chief Prosecutors of Stuttgart and Nurnberg to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Reich Health leader, for further action.
So now that indicates that those reports were not received by Conti only in his capacity as Secretary of State, but as it states in the Document, by Conti, the Reich Health Leader, were they not?
A: No, that is not correct. Perhaps I may read the same text to you once more.
Q: No, you need not bother, doctor, you needn't bother reading the text. I have read the text. It is very clear. No will continue.
A: Well, if you are reading a charge against me, you must give me an opportunity to defend myself, accordingly, that is my right.
Q: We will let the document speak for itself, doctor. There is no necessity of you reading it. I have previously read it I do not wish you to read it. We will go on to another question.
A: In that case I am not permitted to answer to that charge which you have must made against me.
Q: I asked you a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may explain what he desires in connection with that document.
A: In this document it says clearly "I have given the letter to the Reich Minister of Interior — Reich Health Leader, for further dealing." Dr. Conti was quite generally designated as Reich Health Leader in the German Reich. He didn't want to be called Secretary of State and, as it here, Reich Minister of Interior (Reich Health Leader), it means very clearly that the Reich Minister of Interior is meant, and in this the Department of Health. The head of the Department of Health was also the Reich Health Leader and Secretary of State Conti. He was that in his State capacity in his function as leader of the Professional Association of German Physicians. That is what I wanted to say about that document.
Q: We won't quibble about it any further. We will allow the document to speak for itself but I must say the words "Reich Health Leader" do not appear in parentheses. Now, Doctor, do you approve of Euthanasia as it was carried cut in Germany during the War?
A: I wouldn't want to be impolite now. It is very far from me and is not within my dignity. I believe, however, to have made it clear made it absolutely clear — in my book and in my statement so far what my attitude toward Euthanasia was.
Q: I was going to ask you to read that, Doctor. You may do so. It page 222 of your book, marked in red pencil.
A: Do you mean the passage underlined?
Q: The passages circled in red pencil, doctor, on page 222. Read that passage where it is marked.
A: May I draw your attention to the fact that this has already be submitted as a document and has received an exhibit number. That came in my document book.
Q: All right. Read it for me, Doctor, please.
A: In that case I ask you to let me read it in the way which does not tear it out of its context but I want to read it as submitted by me in document book, otherwise I would not care to read it once more.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the witness please read the portion of the be requested by Prosecution. After reading it he may make any explanation desires to make within reason.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
be considered it to be nonsensical that, for instance, insane people who threatened their own life as well as others, or idiots of a high degree who perhaps can not even keep themselves clean or eat by themselves, were brought up and kept alive with great effort and expense. In free nature these creatures would not be able to exist and would be exterminated according to the Divine law. We also did not understand that persons inferior in character and spirit, asocial creatures, who had murdered were, it is true, condemned to death, but were then pardoned principle and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense of the public; but also in quite different cases where it is not a question of putting an end to inferior life, we wondered whether the physician should not be give the legal possibility to end an unhappy life prematurely. We are thinking seriously suffering, incurable sick persons, who until their death had to expect only enormous mental and physical suffering and who themselves asked the physician to free them from their suffering.
May I say something else.
Q: Go right ahead.
A: I further say I remember some cases of incurable suffering in my patients in which the patients implored me to put an end to their life. "Doctor, please give me another injection so that I don't wake up any more. I can't stand it any longer." Cases where the daughter drew me aside and also asked me, "Please help my father fulfill his request." There was nothing left for a to say, "According to the law a physician is forbidden to do that." And, yet there are cases in which the physician for deeply humanitarian reason considered his own sense of responsibility as higher law.
Q: Now, Doctor, in the passage you have just read, if my understanding is clear, you say it was nonsense to keep alive insane people who were dangerous to themselves and others or those who had idiocy of a high degree, with a lot of care and expense and further you speak about people of little value, as call them, asocial creatures, who may have committed murder and were pardon and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense of society. Don't you think this opinion is very much the same as the opinion of your Chief Conti in matter, and wasn't it on this basis that Euthanasia was planned and carried out by the Nazis?
A: In that connection I would like to tell you that this opinion, which I am repeating here, and as it is expressed by me in the preceding text, was not only my opinion but also the opinion of innumerable physicians. I ask to be permitted to say, with reference to your explanations of my book, to point out expressly what I actually wrote — black and white — in my book. No human being will be able to blame me that I have written such matters in my book, least of all will any sensible human being be in a position to assert these my statements were not driven by a moral and profound feeling of humanity.
Q: Doctor, how do you account for the statement, and I will quote from your book as it is here in this exhibit:
We also did not understand that persons inferior in character and spirit, a social creatures, who had murdered were, it is true, condemned to death, but then as a rule pardoned and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense of the public.
It was your opinion and the opinion of your colleagues, as described in this book, to also subject them to extermination under the guise of euthanasia, wasn't it?
A: In that connection I may point out that at least according to the translation as it came through my earphones, we are concerned with certain distortion of my words going by your description. I must say that we had no understanding for a situation that in Germany every criminal murderer who had been condemned to death, should be principally pardoned and never be executed. That is what I want to say in this very brief passage very clearly, and it has nothing to do with Euthanasia.
Q: All right, Doctor. First I want to tell you that we have had now seven of the defendants on the stand, and you are the first that has had difficulty with the translations and interpretation of the men who are there in the booth. I want to inform you that they are pretty capable men and I don't want you to complain any more about translations. We will continue.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is aware that errors in translation may happen and if a witness, or any counsel, believes there has been an error in translation it is the duty of this person to call the matter to the attention of the Tribunal at once.
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.
You were present in a meeting in 1940 or 1941, according to your affidavit where Euthanasia was discussed. Now, at that mooting was Conti with you?
A: In my affidavit I stated that Dr. Conti one day, and I think that was in 1941, stated that during a meeting which was to take place in Munich, Professor Brandt would give an explanation about the so-called Euthanasia action in front of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. The reason why Conti told me that was that I wanted this situation clarified but could not obtain clarification. Thereupon he one day told me that this meeting was going to take place. This meeting actually took place in 1941, I think, as far as I know it was 1941, in Munich. From what I still remember about the meeting that I repeated in an interrogation at Oberursel which was set down later in an affidavit.
Q: Now then, Doctor, was Conti present at that meeting?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Professor Brandt present?
A: No, I already stated that this word Brandt was either a mistake my part or that, at that time, it was a mistake on the part of Conti. At that time, Victor Brack was present, and Victor Brack represented Reichleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler. Brandt, as I convinced myself in the meantime, was not a participant of this meeting.
Q: Well now, what was the reason for your being in attendance at the meeting? Purely at the request of Conti?
A: As far as I know, all the Gauamtsleiter [Gau (or District) Office Leaders] and Reich Chamber of Physicians leaders had been invited and it was a matter of course that I was invited too.
Q: (Interrupting) Well then, was this matter —
Pardon me. Go ahead, Doctor.
A: I was saying that was customary during such meetings.
Q: Was this a matter which concerned the Reich Chamber of Physicians.
A: In that connection I may tell you the following: Just as much as I was interested in this secret procedure, a number of leading physicians belonging to the Reich Chamber in Germany were also interested. In addition to myself, a number of other leaders of the Reich Chamber of Physicians and Bauambleiter wanted Conti's explanation of that affair, and perhaps I may express myself in such a manner, that the result of the various requests which went into Conti was, in effect, this meeting which took place in Munich in 1941.
Q: Now, did you voice any objections to this proposed euthanasia law or draft at that meeting?
A: May I ask you just what you mean? Do you mean the draft or do you mean the law which was later to be published — the law to be published in peace time which I spoke about in my affidavit?
Q: We'll take that piece by piece, Doctor, Did you voice any objections as to the carrying on of euthanasia without having duly published the law?
A: Yes. I am there referring to the affidavit which was already been made by Professor Klare of Bielefeld, and I refer also to what I said during direct examination. I wanted a publicly promulgated law and, for this reason, I define my attitude to that question in my book. I chose this for of my own experience as I found it in practice. It is my point of view that even after our experiences of today and after everything; that I have hoard that the settlement of the euthanasia question is well a problem which should be settled by way of law. This is my point of view in particular because apart from my factual experiences, I, myself, had a terrible experience in my own family. At the beginning of 1940 my mother was afflicted with cancer When seeing my mother for the last time in December, 1944, her suffering had progressed to such a terrible extent that my mother asked me daily during that visit — she said: "My boy, please do me a favor. Give me an injection so that I will not wake up again and would finally be relieved from pain." I did not do this favor to my mother. I tried to help her. I lied to her, kept her true condition from her and I represented it in a different fashion from what it really was. I tried to give her hope, and in March, 1945, my mother, after torturing herself for months, finally died. In that connection I must say that this was my most personal experience and this is why I assumed the point of view that the euthanasia question is worthy of a legal settlement. It is my point of view that three demands have to be fulfilled The first: we have to be concerned with incurably sick persons. Secondly: we have to have people who have expressed the desire or, rather the members of their family, to undergo euthanasia as sometimes they themselves can not overlook the extent of their suffering, and thirdly: there has to be a public legal basis for any such procedure.
Q: Now, Doctor, inasmuch as you did not consider this legal unless law had been published, did you go, after this meeting, to Conti and objection and ask Conti to act, as afterwards anything that did happen might backfire on the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer [Reich Health Leader]?
A: I didn't understand the last part of your question. I don't know exactly what you meant — what were these uncomfortable consequences?
Q: Did you go to Conti and ask him to act in regard to euthanasia which you understood that the law would not be duly published?
A: As I said before, I went to Conti immediately after the meeting a demanded that we had to interfere on the behalf of the Physicians' Leadership.
Q: Do you remember, in one of the interrogations, Doctor, where you stated that you went to Conti after this conference and asked him to act, because you didn't want anything to backfire on the Reich Health Leader? Do you remember that?
A: No, I didn't say that during an interrogation. I said something completely different, and I am quite sure of it.
Q: Well, Doctor, why did you go to Conti and ask Conti to act, and object to Conti after the meeting? Was it purely a personal reason why you went, or did you go because you did not want your position to be tainted by having your office participating or consenting to the euthanasia program?
A: You are asking whether I was afraid. I must tell you that I was never afraid throughout my entire life. Cowardice is one thing that I really detest. I didn't go to Conti because I was frightened. I went to Conti because I considered it to be my duty and for no other reason.
Q: Well, then, you felt, and it was your opinion, that in your title as Deputy Reichsaerztefuehrer [Reich Medical Leader] and Deputy Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer [Reich Health Leader] you were one of the responsible officials in this matter, didn't you?
A: No, that is not correct. I didn't bear a legal responsibility and I never thought that I should bear any such legal responsibility. For the responsibility for an act is borne by the individual who is competent for the execution of that act. The Reich Ministry of the Interior was competent and not the Reich Physicians' leadership. If, in spite of that, I tried to interfere in that matter, then I did it for reasons already stated.
Q: Now, Doctor, we'll go on to the subject of blood coagulation. Now, in this question, taking up again the personality of Robert Feix. Was the reason why an attempt was made to declare him half-Aryan, or half-Jew so, that he could continue his work with Rascher?
A: No, that was not the reason, for if he had not been released he could still have continued his work with Rascher. He needn't be released in order to continue his work.
Feix wanted to be released on his own initiative and he was then transferred to some other place where there was a factory, but he could have worked there as a prisoner just as in the case of concentration camp tens or tens of thousands of inmates had been detailed to work in certain factories. The reason why I interfered on Feix' behalf, was only because I was convinced that an injustice was done to Feix. Quite accidentally by pure accident, without knowing Feix closely, I had the opportunity to interfere on his behalf, and I did that, not moved by an official obligation but from merely human reasons, and I was very glad to be able to help this man.
Q: Well, was Robert Feix able to go about to these various manufacturing establishments where they intended to manufacture polygal? Was he able to go about in the classification of a concentration camp inmate?
A: No. I already stated during an interrogation that Feix was given vacation. I don't know whether he was finally released from the concentration camp, but I know that he was in a position to move about freely. He himself visited me in civilian clothes, in the summer of 1944, without being accompanied by anyone; therefore I concluded he must have been able to move about quite freely.
Q: Now, doctor, I have a few entries to mention in Sievers' Diary. The Court has covered these — pretty well on direct examination, and I have one two I want to go over with you now. Now on the entry of 22 February — I don't have a German copy available, Doctor, so you will have to boar with me — on the entry of 22 February, this is of the Sievers' Diary, Document No. 3546-PS, which is Prosecution Exhibit No.123 and is the Sievers' Diary for the year 1944.
INTERPRETER: What document book is it, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: Document Book No. 11 will be one of the document books, Document Book No. 11 in the English, and Document Book No. 3 in the German I believe.
Q: Do you find that entry of the 22nd of February, doctor?
A: Yes, I have found the 22nd of February.
Q: It states:
1000 hours. No. 7. Further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Dr. Ploetner to be lone through RGF.
Would that RGF mean the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer? Do you follow me?
A: I do not think I understood something correctly. I have the 22nd of February but there is nothing mentioned about Ploetner of 1000 hours.
Q: Under the 22nd of February you will find number 7 — under the 22nd of February, number 7.
A: Yes, yes. I have found it.
Q: That states:
Further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner to be done through RGF.
Now the initials RFG — that initial was the common initial for the Office of the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer, wasn't it?
A: There was not an abbreviation for the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer in that form. For instance — well, I really don't know RGF. Perhaps you could later ask Mr. Sievers.
I really don't know. I don't know Sturmbannfuehrer [Major] Ploetner. I never made his acquaintance.
Q: You never worked in collaboration with Ploetner or heard anything about him in your official duties, is that right?
A: No, I did not know him at all.
Q: Now you will notice in the next entry under the same date, header Dachau, at 1630 hours, you go down to #2. It says again:
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner
and under Entry B:
Curator's agreement to working through RGF
None of that is familiar to you, is that correct, doctor?
A: No, I cannot explain it. In this connection where you say RGF an Curator, if RGF is to mean Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer there cannot be the expression of curator because not any such expression existed. In addition I have to say with reference to this entry that this is not a meeting in which I participated in any way. Here we are obviously concerned with a conference which took place in Dachau, where Dr. Sievers was discussing matters with Ploetner and Rascher and Sturmbannfuehrer von Luetzelburg. I, at any rate, did not participate in any such conference. I was not in Dachau a single time throughout the entire year of 1944, so, therefore, I cannot really tell you what RGF is supposed to mean. I must therefore ask you to kindly ask Mr. Sievers about that matter.
Q: Well, now, Doctor, I have another entry here, right on the same line, which is No. 3, which will be right underneath the entry we were just discussing, which the Tribunal took up with you, and I have one question to ask you in that regard. Now it states:
3. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, c) Supply questions for production of polygal. d) Experiments Professor Blome.
And then it goes down to:
f) Polygal report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Pro Dr. Gebhardt.
Then it continues on, discussing polygal problems, etc., ending up with:
1) Success report on polygal.
Now to I understand it correctly that when the Tribunal asked you what the reference by Sievers, stating
Experiments Professor Blome
meant, that you answered that that possibly meant some work in connection with cancer?
A: I stated in that connection that I am not responsible for the terminology which Dr. Sievers cared to apply in his diary. In this connection it is out of the question that we are concerned with polygal. The polygal problem had already been cleared at that time. Therefore we can only be concerned with examinations of this new successful cancer drug. There is no other possibility. I should like to ask you to see Mr. Sievers about that matters. Sievers is the one who wrote that diary. I am seeing these entries now for the first time, and I really cannot tell you what RGF is supposed to mean in that connection. I cannot tell you for certain. I want to tell you once more that we are not concerned here with any conferences in which I participated. Otherwise I would perhaps be in a position to give you some explanation, from memory.
Q: Well, some of those entries refer to telephone conversations and other conferences at which your name was mentioned. In this connection, doctor, you are not aware of any experiments performed on human beings in order to test the effectiveness of polygal, is that right?
A: Yes, that is correct. I merely found out afterwards, from what I heard in Oberursel, that skin of the upper thigh of the human being had become bloody during a narcosis. That is the only thing that I afterwards heard about Rascher. It is absolute scientific nonsense, as I said at the time, and only here in the files did I learn about these experiments.
Q: Well, now, you recall that the Pohl affidavit which was, I believe document NO-065, stated that Sievers had told Pohl that in order to test this polygal that inmates were shot in the leg, and I believe Professor Gebhardt corroborated that when he was on the stand. You never heard of any of those experiments or tests made by Rascher?
A: No, I heard nothing at all about these experiments.
Q: I am going to read to you a section of an affidavit to see whether you have ever heard of this condition, doctor, in connection with polygal. This is Document No. NO-1424, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No.462, which is an affidavit by Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher an uncle of Dr. Rascher.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give the Tribunal the identification number
MR. HARDY: The identification number is 462, Your Honor.
Q: Now, doctor, I want you to turn to paragraph 5. Now I will read this paragraph:
In August 1943 I was twice with my nephew in the Dachau concentration camp. The first time I went only to his private quarters and did not see the laboratory. The second time he showed me his laboratory and introduced me to his colleagues. I still remember the following names: Dr. Punzengruber and Dr. Feix. I inspected the chemical evaluation of clot-forming blood. At that time he also told me of sub-cooling experiments. He said that he had carried these out on himself at first and then he introduced to me one of his colleagues who had volunteered three times for these experiments. If I remember rightly, Himmler is supposed to have been present at one of these experiments and to have pardoned the man who were condemned to death. During the absence of my nephew I accidentally found the following document in his desk:
It refers to a report about the shooting execution of four people for the purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic preparation "Polygal 10". As far as I remember they were a Russian Commissar and a Cretin. I do not remember who the other two were. The Russian was shot in the right shoulder from above by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet emerged near the spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched, convulsively, then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes. In the dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the Aorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures were tamponed by hard blood-clots. That could have been the only explanation for the comparatively long span of life after the shot. After reading this first protocol I was so shocked that I did not read the others. At that time I took a sample of the hemostatic preparation from the desk which I submit herewith to the files.
Now, Doctor, did you ever see that report about the shooting of these poor people for the purpose of experimenting-with polygal?
A: No, if I had seen it then I would have pointed out to Rascher how nonsensical such a method was. If I want to test a blood coagulation drug, every doctor with any decree of training at all knows the best way and the surest way to do so is on normal operations, and that the most accurate observations can be obtained in this way. If I shoot someone dead I cannot judge whether polygal is a good method for coagulating blood or not. It is absolute nonsense from a scientific point of view.
Q: Now, Doctor, were you on fairly good terms with Rascher during the course of your collaboration with him?
A: That is a very flexible concept "you are on good terms." I have already spoke about Rascher in the direct examination. In the beginning I thought he was all right, I thought he was industrious and capable; but then I began to have misgivings, especially because of his purely business-like attitude in regard to sharing production transactions, but I cannot say that I was especially attached to Rascher in any way. He did not belong to my office, I did not belong to his office, and he was not my subordinate.
Q: Then you maintain the only tests Rascher told you about in connection with this polygal work, was the test wherein he took drops of blood from the fingers of some of the prisoners, is that right?
A: No, that is not true. I have already told you that Rascher told me about a thigh which was rubbed bloody, and I also told the Tribunal that I myself saw the laboratory tests in Dachau where the coagulation of the blood was ascertained, where prisoners did the work on one another; and then I also said that, at my suggestion, the drug was sent to clinics, and that Dr. Feix later told me that a well known surgeon, I believe it was Breidtner in Insbruck, had had excellent results with polygal in operations. That is what I know about blood tests with polygal.
Q: Now, Doctor, I want to ask you a few questions concerning Document No.690, which has been admitted in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 120, which Your Honors will find in document Book No. 3. This is the list of research assignments that we have discussed here at great length with you in the Reichs Research Council. At the top of this document it says:
Worked on by Dr. Yurt Blome, Berlin SW 68, Lindenstr. 42, Telephone 174871.
Was your address Lindenstr. 42?
A: Yes, that was my office in Berlin.
Q: Was your telephone number 174871?
A: 174871 was an exchange. There were several telephones. One of them was 174871.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me again the page of the book and the number of the document?
MR. HARDY: I haven't looked up the page. It is Document Book 3, Document No. 690, Exhibit 120.
THE PRESIDENT: Page what?
MR. HARDY: Page 154, Your Honor.
Do you have the document, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q: Now, Dr. Bloom, under the heading "Registration Number" you do not dispute the fact that No. 15 was your number, do you?
A: No, I have already said that No. 15 was my number.
Q: And No. 10 was Geheimrat Sauerbruch's number?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you maintain that these two entries, the one concerning Rascher and the rewarming after general freezing of the human body, and the other entry concerning Hirt's activity at Strassbourg, are in this document by mistake, that somebody made a mistake when they put them in the document, is that your contention.
A: I don't know how that got into the document. I did not ask to have them put in. Who in the Reich Research Council put them on my account I do not know, and I state with full right that these two assignments were not under my competence of Geheimrat Sauerbruch. After I received an extract of my account from the Reich Research Council, where these two assignments were listed, I called up the Reich Research Council I said these matters had nothing to do with me, they belonged to Sauerbruch. I demanded that they be taken off my list, and that was promised.
Q: Then this number 1879/15 concerning Rascher's rewarming was inserted in this document or this assignment sheet by mistake, that is your contention.
A: Yes, in any case it does not belong there.
Q: Well, now,—Document Book 11, I believe you have the German copy on your ledge there.
A: Yes.
Q: Is that Document Book 11?
A: Yes.
MR. HARDY: On page 29, your Honors, is Document NO 656, which is Prosecution Exhibit 247.
THE WITNESS: May I ask for the number again?
Q: No. 656, which is Exhibit 247. You will find it in the first section of the book, about page 29 and 30 in the German book, I believe.
Do you have it, Doctor?
A: Yes, I think I have it.
Q: All right now, this document is from the Ahnenerbe Society. It says at the top of the letterhead:
The Reichsfuehrer-SS, Personal Staff, Office Ahnenerbe.
The defense counsel discussed the second portion of this document with you yesterday, concerning the subject "Polygal." Now, notice the first portion of the document where it says No. 1, which refers to 4 October 1943, Journal No. Rf 1157/43 g, Codeword: 'Rewarming Humans." Then it states:
Research ordered: No. 1, Rewarming after general freezing of the human body.
And:
2, Recovery from partial freezing, especially of the extremities.
3, Adaptation to cold of the human body variously nourished to establish whether an increase of resistance against freezing can be attained.
Then immediately underneath that, as a part of Section 1, you find:
Priority SS. Wehrmacht order number.
Then we have the following number:
"SS4891-0328
Then in parenthesis the familiar
1879/15—III/43
How does it appear to you that No. 15 appears in this document from the Ahnenerbe. I suppose both the Reich Clerk of the Reich Research Council and the Ahnenerbe made a mistake, is that right?
A: I think I can very easily explain this: This file note of the Ahnenerbe, for that is what it was, indicates that these research assignments were sent to the Reich Research Council by the Ahnenerbe, and I ask you to inquire of Mr. Sievers about this. And since the Ahnenerbe, as Rascher's superior office, sent in the assignments, this file note came from them.
Q: Be that as it may, Doctor, this file note appears as a summary of the tasks assigned to Rascher by the Reich Research Council, which fully indicates Rascher has as the code letter, No. 15, in connection with rewarming; now, did you ever receive any reports as a result of Rascher having this information, be it a mistake or be it correct, did Rascher as a result thereof make reports to the Reich Research Council using as his number 1879/15, whereby said reports would have been delivered to you; — Did such a thing as that ever occur?
A: No, I never saw any report on this subject by Rascher, and far as I know Rascher never sent in a report on research to the Reich Research Council, not on the polygal assignment either.
Q: Now, Doctor, we will go on.
A: May I add something?
Q: Go right ahead.
A: May I point out once more what I have already said in direct examination — that was that such experiments were not carried out at all that winter and not later either and that another entry in this diary confirms this. Consequently, the Reich Research Council could not have received any report on any results of experiments. And may I add something else? It occurs to me that there were other mistakes made in research assignments; for example, I was by mistake sent things which had nothing to do with medicine at all, but with agriculture and that was also a mistake by the office personnel in the Reich Research Council. Assignments for the combatting of insect tests were entered by mistake on the account of the agricultural men, which actually belonged to my biological research assignment. It was not a unique occurrence to have such a mistake.
Q: All right, we will go on. The Tribunal and defense counsel have taken you rather elaborately over Documents NO-290 and 229 regarding the appointment of Rascher to a university professorship or lecturer. In that connection, Doctor, do you deny that you talked to Professor Pfannenstiel concerning Rascher?
A: As far as I can recall, I did not talk to Professor Pfannenstiel about Rascher, but I wrote a letter to Professor Pfannenstiel in which Himmler's desire for Rascher's habilitation was presented, and then I received a refusal from Mr. Pfannenstiel, as he did not want Rascher to habilitate with him, and then I did nothing more in this matter as I did not see why just I should take any steps in the matter, as not even Rascher's superior, who was at the same time a professor and could have carried out this Qualification as a lecturer, was not willing to do it. I told Rascher at the time that he should find another professor, he should make suggestions and I would take care of the matter, but Rascher did not make any suggestions either and I don't know that Rascher received an habilitation at all.
Q: Well now, did you contact Professor Dr. Menzel regarding Rascher's appointment?
A: I did talk to Menzel about it.
Q: And after that time Menzel dealt directly with Pfannenstiel at Marburg and you were not longer in the picture, is that right?
A: No, I consider it quite impossible that Menzel went to Pfannenstiel. I turned to Menzel because I knew either from Himmler himself, or from Rascher or Severs, I don't know, that a secret habilitation was desired, and in order to clear that up when I visited the Reich Research Council I went to Professor Menzel, but not in his capacity as head of the managing committee of the Reich Research Council but Menzel was also a chief of the Office for Science in the Ministry of Culture. I could get the best information from him but I do not believe that Menzel did anything in this matter.
Q: Well now, this secret thesis which concerned Rascher's work at Dachau, upon which he was going to base his receiving his university lecturer's position or title — did you see that secret thesis prior to the time it was submitted to the university? Did you see it?
A: Rascher sent the document to me and asked me to help him with the habilitation. I received it by mail, I looked through it, I remember that, and it had quite a number of charts and tables. I did not read it. Then I wrote to Pfannenstiel but I cannot tell you whether I sent this document to Pfannenstiel or whether I merely inquired by mail without perhaps sending the document along. I cannot tell you. All I remember is that Pfannenstiel refused and I believe that is in some document which has been submitted during the course of this trial.
Q: The document has not yet been submitted; however, we have it and I will show it to you in a moment. Didn't you know the type of work Rascher was doing after you had seen this thesis?
A: No, I cannot tell you the title and it is not true that I read it. I said expressly that I did not read it. If I had read it I would be glad to tell you the title and the contents because that would not be anything punishable if I hear subsequently about such scientific experiments that valuable results might be expected for future research.
I should like to emphasize once more that I was not Mr. Rascher's so-called habilitation professor; I was merely asked to negotiate for him. If I had been his habilitation professor, I would have had to study and judge the thesis in detail and then turn it in to the faculty and several other professors would also have to deal with it and give their opinion.
Q: Doctor, I also recall you stated in direct examination that when Rascher submitted the thesis to your office that you had a specialist in your office check it over.
A: No, that is a mistake on your part. There was no specialist in my office.
Q: Now, Doctor, you were to intercede for Rascher with Professor Pfannenstiel at Marburg University. Do you mean to tell me you would attempt to intercede for another man so as to pave the way for his receiving the title "University Lecturer" without acquainting yourself with his ability and without acquainting yourself with his thesis? Would you recommend a man to another man without knowing whether he was fully qualified to hold down that job?
A: I must say the following. It was not my duty to take care of Rascher's habilitation. I was merely asked to look for a professor who would take charge of this. It would have been the business of this professor, as I often said, to study the thesis thoroughly.
Q: Inasmuch as this was a secret thesis and you had it in your hands, didn't the human element of curiosity bother you a little to find out what it was about?
A: If I may say something about that, I was well known as never being curious and my duties were so extensive that I had no interest in dealing with things that did not concern me directly. I can assure you that directly.
Q: We will now refer to Document NO-1057, which is to be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 463. Now this document is heading by the stationery of Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Dachau 3-K, 18 November 1943, addressed to University Professor Pfannenstiel, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel], Marburg, Hygienic Institute of the University:
Dear Professor,
I was informed by the Deputy Reich Chief of Physicians, SA-Gruppenfuehrer Prof.
Dr. Blome, with whom I am working together, that he has sent you my probationary treatise some time ago.
This way had to be taken since the Reichsfuehrer-SS has ordered that the treatise will be treated as top secret. Consequently, I was not allowed to hand you over the treatise personally. Therefore I beg your pardon for having taken this way. May I respectfully ask you, dear professor, when I could possibly see you for a conversation regarding the formal admission.
At the same time I would like to ask you whether you are still interested in experiments to establish increasing high altitude resistance by administration of vitamins. In the affirmative I would respectfully ask you to be kind enough to apply to the President of the Reich Research Council, chief of the managing advisory board, SS-Standartenfuehrer [Standard Leader] Sievers, Berlin-Steglitz, Gruenwaldstrase 35, for a portable low-pressure chamber of the Luftwaffe for our experiments. I discussed such experiments with the Reichsfuehrer-SS on 27 October 1943 and he agreed fully that such experiments could be conducted here. I am in a good position to coordinate such investigations with my present work. I beg to ask you respectfully, dear professor, to let me have your reply at your convenience. Heil Hitler.
And the signature Rascher Now, Doctor, is it not clear from this document that you not only submitted Rascher's probationary treaties to Professor Pfannenstiel, but in addition thereto Rascher states that he was informed by you, "SA-Gruppenfuerer Dr. Blome, with whom I am working together," that he has sent the treatise.
Now this shows a pretty close association between you and Rascher, doesn't it?
A: No, it was just as I have described it to you. It was no different. This document does not in any way refute what I have told you. I said Himmler asked me to help Rascher. I said that I went to Pfannenstiel. I believe in the preliminary interrogation I told you why it was Pfannenstiel that I went to, that that was due to a coincidence, that in December 1942 I believe I met Pfannenstiel on the way to Lemberg, and that was why I happened to arrive at Pfannenstiel because he was a high SS officer. He was a SS-Standartenfuehrer, I believe, perhaps even Oberfuehrer, at least in the rank of a Colonel in the US Army. He was a university professor, and he seemed to be the most suitable person, and I did not know, as I learned later, that Rascher had had something to do with him before. I did not know that. And this document in no way refutes what I said truthfully, that I did not know about the contents of the thesis because I actually did not read it. It could have been on an entirely different subject.
I think that here during the trial, unless I am quite mistaken, other witnesses have talked about this habilitation of Rascher. I think that Gebhardt spoke of it, that Rascher spoke to him about habilitation in the surgical field. In the beginning Rascher said to me that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer in the field of blood coagulation; and then I think in some other connection a document was submitted here, a letter or some such thing, in which Rascher or Sievers complained somehow. One had to chose a certain subject. I can't say exactly, but anyhow what I have testified is the truth.
Q: Well, I am not going to argue about what the subject of this treatise was. It is perfectly obvious from this letter that it was on the high-altitude or freezing, whichever it may have been, and not specific. I thought you would know. But now here is another question I have to ask you in connection with this document, Doctor.
You stated in direct examination that in the Reich Research Council nothing originated from the Reich Research Council, that is, the Reich Research Council was merely an organization which had several plenipotentiaries, and the plenipotentiaries originated in research. Is that right?
A: I am sorry, but I don't quite understand. The Reich Research Council had the principal duty of dealing with research. I don't quite understand —
Q: Well, then —
A: — what I heard in the translation here.
Q: Well, then, if their principal duty was concerning research, then these matters concerning re-warming that were assigned to Rascher on that assignment sheet of the Reichsforschungsrat [Reich Research Council] with your name "Worked on by Blome" — assume for a moment that that was true, that you did work on that experiment, who originated that assignment? Who made that assignment in the Reichsforschungsrat?
A: The originator of the research assignment is established by documents. It was given by Himmler. Rascher could have conducted his re-warming experiments without any connection with the Reich Research Council.
Q: You don't understand me, Doctor. You don't understand me. Just a moment. On Document No. NO-690 that we have gone over so many times, you have listed there four assignments. Three of the assignments are in connection with biological warfare, and two of them which you deny as having been assigned to you were one was with Hirth's activities and the other concerning Rascher's activities; now who originates those assignments on that assignment sheet? That is a Reich Research Council job, not Himmler. Who put those assignments on that sheet and sent it to you?
A: You mean this paper that was shown to me a little while ago?
Q: Yes.
A: That was from the Reich Research Council, of course.
Q: Yes. Well, now, who determines what Blome will work on, what Sauerbruch will work on, what Handloser will work on, or John Doe will work on? Who determined that in the Reich Research Council?
A: Who specifically issued these assignments I can not tell you. I can only tell you once more that I was net competent for issuing the assignments. That these assignments belonged to Mr. Sauerbruch, and how the registration took place, I do not know. I have already said that such a card, index card, I never knew before. I saw that only in captivity. I don't know.
Q: Well, now, these assignments wore obviously issued either to Sauerbruch, or to Blome, or to other members of the Reichsforschungsrat. Who was responsible for the issuance of the assignments? Not Goering.
A: No.
Q: Goering denied any knowledge of these things when he was on the stand here before the International Military Tribunal. Now, who was responsible for making these assignments? You were a high official in the Reichsforschungsrat. You were one of the plenipotentiaries.
A: I can not tell you. I can only tell you with certainty that all the assignments in the cancer field and in the field of biological warfare were issued by me. In the field of freezing, re-warming, assignments on the effects of chemical warfare agents or in general medicine, that is under Geheimrat Sauerbruch. I have already said that, and I have also pointed out that this Hirth chemical warfare agent assignment was listed on a file care, index card, with Sauerbruch, and I have also said that I did not know Hirth at all. I don't know the man.
Q: Well, now, if each plenipotentiary issued the assignments, that is, the plenipotentiary for cancer research, the plenipotentiary for surgery and the various groups, then after they issued an assignment, like you say that the notable Sauerbruch was assigning things to Rascher, if he assigned something to Rascher when Rascher reported to him, who would Sauerbruch in turn report to? The presidial council? Who did Sauerbruch in turn report to, the presidial council?
A: I did not quite understand this.
Q: Well, new, Doctor, you stated in direct examination that you were plenipotentiary for cancer research, point number one; number two, that any assignments in the cancer research field were made by you, that the agencies or particular research scientists to whom you assigned these tasks reported to you as plenipotentiary.
Then you said that you in turn did not report to the Reich Research Council; there was not any such place to report to, that they did have meetings of the presidial council at various intervals, and that you would make reports at those meetings, but nobody bothered to attend the meetings because they were all disinterested, and that the only person you reported to or had any duty to report to was Hermann Goering. Now, is that right? Did I understand you clearly?
A: No. You did not understand me quite. Perhaps I did not speak explicitly enough so that you could understand me. It was like this: the man who received a research assignment had to report to the head of his specialist department (Fachsparteileiter) every three months or every six months. The plenipotentiary or the head of the special department sent — I believe it was every six months — a report on the whole field of research to the Reich Research Council, to the address of the head of the managing committee. He had the reports from the heads of the various departments compiled and then this was printed in the Reich Printing Office. I believe it was kept top secret and then it was sent out. It was sent to Goering, doubtless to the members of the presidial council, to all the plenipotentiaries, heads of the departments and to other agencies that were interested. That was the reporting and I am convinced that the Americans must have some of these reports. So many of than were sent out that there can be no question that all of them having been destroyed.
Q: Well, then you would be willing to state, Doctor, that any assignment made on the behalf of the Reich Research Council, that voluminous reports would have been sent out to these various people that you mentioned.
A: Not from the individual head of the specialized department (Fachsparteileiter) but the compiled report of the Reich Research Council, was sent to numerous people. I sent it to a member of the presidial council, I sent to the management, and all the others sent their reports to the same place, and the management set up a report which was bound in red and was printed as top secret in the Reich Printing Office and then sent out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)