1947-03-21, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants arc present in court with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser, absent on account of illness pursuant to excuse by the Tribunal.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): Mr. President, in agreement with the prosecution and my colleague, Dr. Sauter, I ask for two minutes of your attention. The defense has succeeded in finding the film "Ich Klage an" (I accuse). This morning at 9:30 there will be a test run of this film. After that will be discussed what technical preparations are necessary to present this evidence.

I ask that the Defendant Viktor Brack be excused from the session this morning and that he be permitted to attend the trial run of this film.

THE PRESIDENT: The court having heard the counsel for the Defendant Brack, a request that he be excused — was that excused for this morning only?

DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Viktor Brack may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this morning pursuant to request made to the Tribunal in open session by this counsel.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I thank you, Mr. President.

KURT BLOME — RESUMED CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Now, Doctor, I do not intend to delve into the question of the tubercular Poles to any great extent, and I do wish to call your attention to Document Number NO-250, which was prosecution Exhibit No.205, which is contained in Document Book Number 7 on page 11. This is your letter to Greiser. Now, in this letter is a solution of the tubercular Pole problem, and you set forth three proposals; one, special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) of the seriously ill persons; two, most rigorous isolation of the most seriously ill persons, and number three, creation of a reservation for all TB patients. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal what the first mentioned, as a solution of this problem was, what was the intention of the special treatment of the seriously ill persons, number one?

A: I have already stated and believe I proved, I never had had any such intention. This was Greiser's intention confirmed by Himmler, and I prevented it. Preparations were made, and I myself certainly did not participate in such preparations. How Greiser and Himmler proposed to do this I do not know and Greiser did not tell me anything about it. When I learned about Himmler's order I went to see Greiser and I printed out to him how impossible such a project was and suggested a decent humane solution and discussed it with him.

What Greiser's ideas about the technical details. were, I cannot tell you, he didn't tell me.

Q: We have gone all over that before, doctor. What I am getting at is in your letter you state those three methods, three ways to be taken into consideration. Now, the first way was special treatment of the seriously ill persons. Would that mean outright extermination of all the TB Poles that were considered to be in a serious condition?

A: This expression "special treatment" comes from Greiser. It would have meant the killing of those incurably sick Poles.

Q: Where did you hear the name Sonderbehandlung [special treatment] for the first time?

A: I can't tell you exactly. I would assume that I heard this expression from Greiser for the first time.

Q: You never heard it in any other connection?

A: I can't tell you whether I ever heard it in any other connection. In any case, I never in my life had any part in projects or plans of so-called Sonderbehandlung.

Q: As soon as you heard the word Sonderbehandlung did you immediately realize what it meant?

A: At this moment, I cannot tell you, how in a discussion in 1942, that is almost five years ago, my reaction was in detail to any specific expression. That would be asking too much of my memory if I am to answer that truthfully today.

Q: Well, doctor, on page 12, Document Book Number 7, Document NO 250, you state, after the first page, eliciting the problem,

Number of sufferers, Tuberculosis, in the Gau.

You state as a fact, very boldly and frankly, as follows:

Therefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide the most efficient way in which this can be done. There are three ways to be taken into consideration.

Then you elicit the three ways and you continue on in the next paragraph and say:

For the planning, attention must be paid to different points of view of the practical, political and psychological nature. Considering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the following: Aided by the X-Ray battalion we could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of the Gau, during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment and isolation is to be prepared and carried out according to the regulations of tuberculosis relief. Approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious will be specially treated, all other Polish consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to save them for work and to avoid their causing contagion.

Now, Doctor, you offer to me, to the Tribunal, that the purpose of this letter was to prevent the extermination of the tubercular Poles. That language that I just read sounds pretty decisive, doctor. It doesn't sound to me as if it is a plea to avoid the extermination. You state that the approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious will be specially treated. What do you say to that language, Doctor?

A: I believe that in the direct examination I expressed myself very clearly and very unequivocally on this point. If you now read such a sentence from my letter which I actually wrote, which is torn out of context, then, of course, a person who has not read all of this latter might get the impression that I personally would have approved such a plan.

I admit that anyone who hears this out of context night get such an impression. But in my direct examination I have explained that it took me days to write this letter, to figure out what successful tactics I would have to take in order to prevent this crime. I discussed the tactics with Professor Olfelder and also with Dr. Sundermann — I beg your pardon — Gundermann. I had to consider the mentality of the people is power, and even today I consider it that it would have been hopeless for me to say at the time, "That is a crime; that is out of the question."

I have already said that the simplest thing for me would have been to say this, that letter would have taken five minutes to write. I have also explained that the simplest thing for me would have been to take this opportunity to resign from my offices, but I may remind you that in discussing this problem I pointed out quite clearly that in such a case the fate of these tubercular Poles would have been sealed, that is, I don't know who else would have prevented this order from Himmler. That would have been the simplest thing for me to do at the time. The result would have been the following: 40,000 Poles would have been killed. I might even have been put in a concentration camp. In any case, I would not sit here today for a crime which I neither planned nor prepared but which I definitely prevented, as Himmler's answer to my letter shows quite clearly; and that the tactics which I took had 100% success should be clear from Himmler's letter, who accented my suggestion to set up a special tuberculosis settlement — reservation — and even to use it for propaganda purposes.

Q: Now, this same document, the last paragraph on page 12 of the document book, you state:

There can be no doubt the intended programs being the most simple and most radical solution. If absolute secrecy can be guaranteed, all scruples regardless of what nature could be overcome, but I consider simply maintaining secrecy impossible.

Now, doctor, you stated there that there could be no doubt about the intended program of extermination being the most simple and radical solution if absolute secrecy could be guaranteed.

Now, wasn't the element of secrecy the only thing that concerned you?

A: No, let me refer you to our discussion in the preliminary interrogation, and specifically to the interrogation which I had with you after I had already been given the indictment, and at which I was not even warned that I was not obliged to testify without having my defense counsel present. I did not have any lawyer yet at that time. At the time I have most willingly testified and you will confirm that you asked me several questions and that the purpose of these questions was to get a statement from me; for example, as you ask it now in the form of a question. Today I can only repeat what I said clearly at that time, that the motives of my action and my choice of tactics toward Himmler were exclusively based on principles of humanity and medical ethics.

I repeat that here expressly because it is true and it conforms with my innermost attitudes toward such Plans. Perhaps in this connection I may also refer to one point in my direct examination. I was not only the one who prevented the murder of these 40,000 Poles but it was also thanks to me that the intention was not realized that the Polish intelligentsia were to be eliminated by sterilization. The thinking on the latter point is based on the same moral principles as my action in this case. I was interested in preventing the plan at any cost, that is why I chose this tactic as the only possible one. That these tactics were right is proved by the 100% success and that is the important thing.

Q: You go on to say in connection with this maintaining secrecy:

What I consider simply maintaining secrecy is impossible,

and your next sentence on top of Page 13,

Experiences taught us that this assumption is true.

What experience is that, doctor?

A: If I refer to experience here, then that is based on the information which I get from the foreign radio. If when listening to foreign broadcasts one is quite astonished that other countries knew hundred times more than we did ourselves, but will you please in this connection permit me briefly to refer to a similar case.

Q: Just a moment, doctor. I am going to refer to another sentence of the same paragraph and you may answer it all at one time. You state that experience has taught that this assumption is true, that secrecy could not be maintained. Then in the same paragraph, in the middle of the paragraph, you state the euthanasia program — talking of the manner in which this was done and which methods were used. Now, it seems from that language that you were quite familiar with the activities concerned in the euthanasia program. You knew that those secrets leaked out and you were fearing that the secrets would leak out if you carried out such an extermination program. Now you may answer.

A: No, this deduction of yours is not quite right. You just said more or less that I had knowledge of the procedure of the euthanasia action. Unfortunately, I had no knowledge of it. Those are things which I just like every other German learned by rumors without having any exact and official information. And if I use euthanasia as a comparison here, I did so in order to prevent Greiser's and Himmler's plan because Greiser and Himmler had no doubt realized what reaction the euthanasia program had brought forth among the people. That is why I referred to an example of a similar nature which had happened a short time before, which was dealt with not only by the German people but also by the foreign broadcasts.

Q: Doctor, set up a hypothetical situation. Assume that the extermination of these 35,000 tubercular Poles could have been carried out with absolute secrecy and no leaks whatsoever. In other words, the only ones who would have known about it would have been Himmler, Greiser, and yourself. Would you have been opposed to it then?

A: I can answer you quite clearly. I would never have participated in any such thing. I said so before and I believe my conduct as a doctor is the best evidence that such crimes could not be committed with my assistance.

Q: Now, I ask you again, Doctor, why did you write this last paragraph on page 12:

If absolute secrecy could be guaranteed all scruples regardless of what nature could be overcome;

was that purely a defensive argument?

A: It has nothing to do with defense. I did not have to defend myself then. I have to defend myself today. The entire text of my letter was build up under definite tactics, according to only tactics which promised success I did not refer to humanitarian reasons but to the political factors and their inevitable consequences, the only ones which were of importance to Himmler.

Q: Now let's move to another section of the letter) page 14 of the Document Book which is on page 5 of the original German letter there, doctor. You go into the second solution, you say another solution, that is the second paragraph on page 14 of the English Document Book. This will be found on page 5 of the original German. Do the interpreters have that?

Another solution to be taken into consideration would be a strict isolation of all the infectious and incurable consumptives without exception in nursing establishments. This solution would lead to the comparatively rapid death of the same. With the necessary addition of Polish doctors and nurses personnel the character of a pure death camp would be somewhat mitigated.

Explain that language, Doctor?

A: I will be glad to. I may go back to the explanation which I had already given. It is generally known that seriously infectious patients isolated. The great majority of the doctors in the World will no doubt support my opinion. This unfortunately not the case in tuberculosis. There have been debates in all countries aiming to create laws with provisions for isolation of severely infectious tuberculosis patients. This is the general point of view of the hygienists. I have taken into consideration here, and it is a well known fact, now known only to doctors but well know among laymen, that hopeless cases, and those are the ones we are talking about, find it very unpleasant to be isolated, or hospitalized in large hospitals, even in the case of non infectious cases they are put in separate rooms where people usually die, and do not come out again alive; and when now in this specific case, the most serious cases of tuberculosis are isolated.

Then these patients understand and I so do their relatives, what their fate is, and now in order to avoid the feeling of hopelessness and having to die.

I suggested that this plan should be decided on, then these people should have to be given the necessary Polish nurses and the necessary doctors; then I said in conclusion to this problem the only right solution, the best solution seemed to me the establishment of a big settlement or a reservation, such as is well known in German and foreign literature and for which we had examples in Germany, England and I believe Holland.

Q: Be that as it may, Doctor; from reading this letter which you wrote Greiser, don't you think there is a point that Himmler upon reading this let would have reason to believe from your language and your approach that you were completely in favor of the extermination of the Poles, if it could have been kept a secret and the Fuehrer had approved it; now Himmler's attitude, after reading the letter that you wrote?

A: I do not believe so, you must consider in order to judge a question one has to read the whole letter. For everyone who knows condition in German at that time, it is quite obvious that I could not take any other tactics if I wanted to have success. I know such examples from the military side, first you say yes and then you try to do what is really the right thing in order to avoid opposition and then let the simplest and decentest views prevail. As for this point of secrecy, I should like to point out that I have a different attitude than that, for example, the deputy Gauleiter [district or regional leader] of Niederdonau in his letter to Heinrich Himmler of 24 August, 1942; this letter is about sterilization of gypsies, and this letter shows clearly that the Gauleiter was not opposed to this plan, and for that reason he docs not write, concerning secrecy, and that secrecy is impossible, but he writes and I quote, it is a very brief sentence:

We realize quite well that such matters must be treated as a state secret of most extreme dangerousness.

You say that is something entirely different; now since you are citing an example for the reason of clarity, I may also give an example, let us assume that we two knew each other at that time and you shared my point of view and you rejected such a thing, I would have told you about the plan and I would have written you a letter to the following effect:

Dear Mr. Hardy: Himmler has the following plan that is nonsense, that is madness and a crime and I have thought the matter ever, because I know and am acquainted with the conditions of the authorities in Germany and with consideration of the mentality of those in power I have now written the letter to Heinrich Himmler and I hope I will have the necessary success with it.

I believe if we were not opposing each other here as prosecutor and defendant, if we were to discuss the case, then, after you had gained such great knowledge of the nature and the thinking process of the leading personalities in Germany at that time, that you would then hold the same view as I. You would say, "Blome, I say today it was the only way to prevent such a crime That is my opinion, Sir."

Q: Then you offer as your defense for the extermination of the tubercular Poles, that the reason for you writing this latter was to prevent any such program being carried out; and you state in substance to me that the reason why you expressed yourself in the manner you did, was because you felt that it made a greater impression on Himmler than if you expressed out-right opposition to the program; is that right?

A: Yes, you have expressed my point of view correctly. If I had taken a different point of view this murder of Polish tubercular patients could not have been prevented.

Q: Of course, Rudolf Brandt says it was not prevented. We'll go on to biological warfare, Doctor, Reich Marshal Goering —

A: You don't think it is necessary for me to answer the last question?

Q: You may answer; I said question: Rudolf Brandt has testified that the Poles were exterminated; you have no knowledge of that?

A: I should like to state that the testimony of Rudolf Brandt is not true. It is not up to me to tear apart the testimony of Mr. Brandt; and I intentionally did not have an affidavit taken from Rudolf Brandt to present it to the Tribunal. It is not necessary in this case, for in the course of the trial I will be proven beyond any doubt that the testimony of Rudolf Brandt is not true at all.

Q: Doctor, that is up to the Tribunal to decide.

A: Very well.

Q: Reich Marshall Goering in his capacity as the president of the Reich Research Council made you plenipotentiary of biological warfare; is that right?

A: I will formulate it carefully. He appointed me plenipotentiary for cancer research and with this assignment there was connected, as a secret assignment, the research on counter measures on biological warfare; that is the correct way.

Q: Am I correct in assuming that when you carried on experiments and research of biological warfare; you did it in the name and title of plenipotentiary for cancer research?

A: I did not quite understand that.

Q: Are you stating that Goering gave you the position of plenipotentiary for cancer research and attached thereto was the secret order of research for biological warfare; now whenever you transpired any business in your research for biological warfare; you did it under the name of plenipotentiary for cancer research; what I am getting at is that cancer research is a camouflaged title for biological warfare activities?

A: Yes and no; all cancer research was under me. I, myself, had worked before that on cancer research and I believe I can express it most clearly. Under the form plenipotentiary for cancer research there was at the same time cancer research going on as well as biological warfare research. I had only one letterhead, which said plenipotentiary for cancer research and I used this letterhead for all cancer research which was under me, as well as for biological research. I did not have any special letterhead for biological research; perhaps that explains the matter most clearly.

Q: Now for this purpose; that is the dual purpose of cancer research and biological warfare you set up an institution in Nesselstedt; is that right?

A: It was under construction; it was not finished in Nesselstedt near Posen.

Q: In Nesselstedt near Posen?

A: Yes, Nesselstedt is a village or a suburb of Posen; it belongs to the district of Posen.

Q: Did Schreiber work with you there?

A: No, no work was done there.

Q: You never did any work there at all?

A: No work at all, it was impossible. If I tell you that when the Russian marched into Posen there were three hundred laborers still working on the building and not a single room was ready to be used, that is the best proof that no work was done in Posen.

Q: Did you set yourself up there in Posen; did you have any office or maintain an office there yourself?

A: In Nesselstedt near Posen you mean?

Q: Yes.

A: I did not have an office there, I had something in Posen itself as there was a sort of biological small institute there dealing with the combatting of insect pests, which was trying to find new chemicals to combat insect pests and then in the Polish — former Polish University of Posen, I had some rooms for my statistical assistants, who evaluated the well known cancer research. I had no office in Nessilstedt aside from administration let us say of an agriculture nature, because to a certain extent it had nothing to do with research.

Q: You state that you did not start any experiments or biological warfare in your institute near Posen?

A: Yes.

Q: Don't you recall in your own Document book on page 22, which is the testimony of Walter Schreiber before the I.M.T., he states in answer to the question:

How do you explain that the German High Command did not carry out the plans?

Schreiber answers as follows:

The High Command probably did not carry out the plans for the following reason: In March 1945 —

That is your first Document book, Doctor; do you have it?

A: Yes, what page?

Q: It is page 22 of the English. It is No. 7, Document No. 7 in the book.

A: Yes, I found the Document.

Q: It is page four of the original which you have, it states:

The High Command probably did not carry out the plans for the following reason: In March 1945 Professor Blome visited me at my office in the Military Camp.

He came from Posen, was very excited and asked me to lodge him an his people in the laboratories in Sachsenburg, so that they could continue their work there. He told me that he had been forced to leave his institute at Posen by the advance of the Red Army, that he had been compelled to flee from the institute, and that he had not even been able to blow it up. He said he was quite worried that the arrangement for human experiments which were in that institute and which were recognizable as such, might be recognized by the Russians very easily. He said he had tried to have the institute destroyed by a Stuka bomb, but that this had not been possible and now he asked me to see to it that he might be able to continue to work with his plague, cultures which he had saved, at the Sachsenburg. Upon this I told Mr. Blome that the Sachsenburg had f or some time not been under my command, that I could not, therefore, give him that permission, and referred him to the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Handloser.

Now, Doctor, Schreiber states that you were excited when you left Posen and that you could not continue your work there and you were quite worried about the arrangements you had made for human experiments and you thought it might be recognized by the Russians; why were you worried about such a thing as this, Doctor?

A: I can only repeat what I said in my direct examination, I would suggest to you, if you do not believe that no work was actually done there, that you inquire of the Polish Government, as then you would receive confirmation that it was an institute, which was unfinished, that no work was ever done there, that would be the simplest and easiest confirmation of my testimony.

Q: Now, you had attempted to experiment on human beings at Posen had you not, according to Schreiber's testimony?

A: What Schreiber says is not decisive for me; in Schreiber's testimony I have already pointed out several inaccuracies. No work was done at Posen; how Mr. Schreiber figured out this testimony of his, I cannot tell you and I have tried to find an explanation for it and feel that this explanation is unbelievable. I said the following in my direct examination with some other comments, I believe when my defense counsel asked me about a conversation with Himmler, I said; "Himmler had asked me to produce a plague vaccine and an order to get such plague vaccine."

I was to make and conduct experiments on human beings. I said that at first it was my intention, after getting this order from Himmler to do so, but then later I had misgivings and then consequently no such experiments were undertaken.

Q: Now, didn't you state in direct examination that if you were going to conduct human experiments that it would have been necessary to obtain the approval of Schreiber?

A: No, that was not what was said. I said that if Germany had wanted to make an offensive preparation for biological warfare, this could not have been done without calling upon Schreiber as the man in charge of epidemic control. Schreiber was the man in Germany in whose hands all the threads of epidemic control ran together. That is what I said, and then I went on to say that neither Schreiber or any other epidemic research man ever received such a research assignment from me.

Q: Well, now, Doctor, you have stated in your direct examination that all of your activities or the activities of the Blitzableiter in connection with this biological warfare business was allegedly of a defensive nature; that is, the purpose of your research was to prepare a defense in event that the enemy resorted to biological warfare. Now what would be the difference between defensive research and offensive research in biological warfare?

A: The difference is an essential one. You may be sure if I had the assignment or rather the intention of a biological offensive, I would have undertaken quite different things, and as is generally known and has been shown by the evidence so far, there would not have been such negligence in the treatment of the whole problem. There would have been a great deal more energy behind the research, the same importance which was given to rocket research or other big war problems.

Q: Well, now, Doctor, in Document No. NO-1308 which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 325, you recall that is what Dr. Sauter refers to as the file note of Kliewe. In the second paragraph it states: I quote:

Especially America would have to be attacked simultaneously with different human and animal disease agents as well as with plant parasites.

Now in that connection that doesn't indicate anything of a defensive measure, does it, on the German side? Don't you agree with me there?

A: It certainly looks peculiar, but you must consider I had no knowledge of this session. I did not participate in this session.

This session and the statement of Professor Schumann I learned about only here, and I have expressed my opinion on the personality of Professor Schumann. I said that he was not to be taken seriously, that he was notorious for not even believing himself what he said, and besides, the document which was found in the possession of Professor Kliewe shows clearly that only defensive research was carried on.

Q: Well now, where it states here in this document 1308 that "Professor Blome suggests experiments on human beings," do you deny that you ever made such a suggestion?

A: No, and that is not forbidden either.

Q: Well, were these suggested experiments on your part to be made on Russian prisoners of war?

A: No.

Q: Well, do you know that the —

A: The document very clearly says that I suggested that these experiments should be conducted in the Military Medical Academy. The Military Medical Academy was in Berlin, not in any prisoner-of-war camp or concentration camp.

Q: Well now, do you know when you were fully aware of the fact that the International Military Tribunal found in its judgment that experiments were actually carried out that they were carried out on Russian prisoners of war and they very often proved fatal? Now do you want this Tribunal to believe that you in your capacity as plenipotentiary for biological warfare, having received this commission from Goering, really did not know that these experiments were carried out and did not take part in them?

A: I do not want to make the Court believe anything, and I do not want to make any false statement. First, I learned of such things which are supposed to have happened only here in the prison when I read the judgment of the Nurnberg trial. Second, I consider it quite impossible that such experiments actually took place. That is what I can answer clearly and truthfully, but perhaps I may point out in this connection that I believe in the Nurnberg judgment there is some mention of August, '43. Perhaps you might lock that up for me. I don't have the judgment here.

Q: All right, Doctor.

A: And the first opportunity for cooperation with the Wehrmacht, with the Blitzableiter Committee, was given my by an authorization from Keitel on behalf of Goering, and that can be proved that that was in August, 1943. That is at the same time when these things are supposed to have happened. For that reason alone I could not have had any share in them, and if in the documents which are doubtless among my files in your hands — if you will look through them, you will find this order from Goering to Keitel, and you will find a notation as to when it was sent on to me.

I owe my knowledge about this matter to my interrogator in July, 1945, in Heidelberg. I was in Heidelberg for two weeks, and I talked to the English and the American gentlemen and about all questions of biological warfare all day long and sometimes into the night. I was asked about developments, and I told about this order from Goering to Keitel which Keitel passed on to the persons concerned, and I was told:

We will show you an order; perhaps it is the one.

And I recognized the order and, therefore, I remember the date exactly. I think it took two months. It was dated June, and it took it until August before it got into my hands.

I think that I have proved well enough that I could have had nothing to do with such things as are stated in the Nurnberg judgment.

Q: Well, now, do you assume that the activities which took place as are listed in the Nurnberg judgment happened during the time when you were plenipotentiary for biological warfare? Do you answer for your responsibility for them?

A: I assume all responsibility for things which happened on my orders or under my supervision, but if a man from my office, for example, without my knowledge should commit a murder, then it wouldn't be quite right if I took over the responsibility for that.

Q: Well now, did you ever report to Conti that you intended to experiment on human beings in your institute near Posen?

A: I hardly talked to Mr. Conti. The relationship between Mr. Conti and me as can be proved was so poor that we hardly saw each other.

Q: Now, in order to see if I can refresh your memory as to whether or not you ever had a discussion with Dr. Conti about your intention to experiment on human beings at Posen, I am going to introduce Document No. NO-3061 which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 464. This, if the Tribunal please, is a penciled note made by Dr. Conti in his cell here in Nurnberg prior to his suicide last November, the suicide note that he left to the interrogator.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I object to the use of this document at this time. In December I made application to use the so-called testament of the former Reich Physicians' Leader Conti. Then I received a decision of the Court on the 8th of January, 1947, which says that the Prosecution intends to submit this document himself. In paragraph 2 it says that in this case the document must be submitted twenty-four hours before it is produced in court. I must rely on this ruling of the Court, and I, therefore, ask the Court to rule that this document if it is to be submitted by the Prosecution be submitted only after twenty-four hours, that it can be made the subject of an examination only after twenty-four hours.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Court, I won't discuss the admissibility of this document at this time inasmuch as I am only marking it for identification and not offering it formally as an exhibit. I trust that I will offer it formally as an exhibit to come three or four weeks from now, and Dr. Sauter is receiving a copy now and that will be sufficient time to comply with the twenty-four-hour ruling of the Court.

Furthermore, Your Honors, the Prosecution selected to retain this document for cross-examination purposes, and as I understand, the rules of evidence do not compel us to supply the Defense Counsel with a copy of a document we are going to use for cross-examination purposes twenty-four hours before such time as we use same.

JUDGE SEBRING: Well, now Mr. Hardy, you are asking that this be marked for identification only. Of course, by merely marking it for identification only it does not in any sense become an exhibit in the trial and never could become an exhibit in the trial until it was formally received in evidence and given an exhibit number. You understand, that, of course?

MR. HARDY: That is right.

JUDGE SEBRING: Now what is the purpose at this time for having it identified?

MR. HARDY: That was the procedure we established when we started — when the defense started their case at the suggestion of the Tribunal.

JUDGE SEBRING: I understand, but you are now asking the witness about certain aspects of it and it was not quite clear to me what your purpose was. I seem to have missed that.

MR. HARDY: I asked the witness if he had discussed any intention to experiment on human beings in his institute at Posen with Conti and he said he never talked to Conti in that regard and in this dying declaration of Conti he has stated that he talked to Blome about experiments to be performed at Posen.

JUDGE SEBRING: This is not a dying declaration in the sense that a dying declaration is recognized in the rules of evidence. The point I am making is there that he states, assuming this to be Conti's statement and assuming it to be true, he says:

Blome always told me of his intention to experiment on human beings, and that the discussion I had planned did not materialize because Blome was constantly traveling and because the war became so awful, was surely not a serious omission. He must have known what he was doing. Furthermore, I never learned whether he started the experiments.

MR. HARDY: That is the section about which I want to put a question to the defendant. May I pass the original exhibit up for your Honors to look at?

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, as far as I can see from the copy which I have been given, it seems to be only an excerpt or a part of another document, to which the author refers.

I do not see any evidence of the authenticity of the signature. It is quite obvious that there was no official who could certify to the signature, and there is no certificate, and, therefore, in my opinion, no use can be made of this document. I object to the use of this document for this reason as well. He starts the document with the sentence:

I part from life because I made a false statement under oath.

That is the Conti on whom the Prosecution wants to base their evidence, but I do not believe that this document can be used since Conti is dead, and in this document, as I can prove, he is again not telling the truth in the face of death, and if the Prosecution wants proof of that matter they need only look at the Dachau records and they will see what part Dr. Conti had in the Dachau experiments about which the defendant knew nothing at all. That was another lie and I don't think we need to go into that. I am of the opinion that this document is inadmissible.

MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honors, that consistent with the ruling of the Tribunal yesterday to an objection that this is not the time to object to this document and that no objection could be made thereon until such time as the Prosecution formally introduced it as an exhibit.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution has offered no identification of this document whatever. The original which has been exhibited to the Tribunal indicates nothing except there is a document, and what that document is.

MR. HARDY: Didn't the original have a certificate?

This matter can be easily handled, your Honors. A certificate can be had. However, in answer to Dr. Sauter's objection about not having a notary, it is simply impossible for a man writing a suicide note to commit suicide with a notary present. I don't know how that is possible when you are in solitary confinement.

JUDGE SEBRING: Before this document may be used even to frame a question the document should be established before the Tribunal in some manner.

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Doctor, Blome, you have stated that the testimony of the witness Walter Schreiber before the International military Tribunal was incorrect. That you never told Schreiber that you had any plans or had made arrangements for human experiments in the Institute at Posen. You also stated you had never chatted with Conti about these matters. You had no intention of experimenting on human beings in your institute at Posen. Now, in view of this testimony of Schreiber and Conti, and the documents that have been offered here in evidence, do you still state you did not experiment on human beings in your institute in Nesselstedt near Posen?

A: I give the following answer to that: I did not say that I discussed never such a thing with Conti. I said I considered it impossible that I discussed such a thing with Conti because of the poor relationship between us. That as far as your statement about Dr. Conti goes, as for the value of the statements of Professor Schreiber, I have gone into that in detail. In the direct examination I disproved Professor Schreiber's statement and I believe credibly. Now you ask me at last quite exactly whether I deny having carried out human experiments in Posen. I say once more definitely no scientific work was done in Posen and certainly no permissible or inadmissible human experiments were conducted there. The quickest confirmation is the accuracy of my statement. As I said before you can get it by inquiring of the Polish Government by telegraph.

Q: Now after you fled from Posen and took the plague cultures with you, according to the testimony of Schreiber which you deny, did you experiment on human beings in any other place, for example Sachsenburg?

A: I can tell you the following: First I did not flee from Posen. On the way to Sachsenburg in case another gauleiter had already left Posen, I went to the East of Posen and was in my so-called Institute for twenty-four hours, and there very calmly after the last German had left and as it was proper I left the Institute. There was no question of fleeing.

I was never at Sachsenburg. I do not even know it and my associate Dr. Cross did not work at Sachsenburg. I asked that rooms be made available at Sachsenburg but for reasons which I shall explain I did not make any use of them, as neither I nor my associate, Dr. Gross, was at Sachseburg. This indicates that no human experiments, nor experiments at all, not even animal experiments, were conducted on my behalf at Sachsenburg, and I state once more very emphatically, in the entire field of biological war research to my knowledge, with my support, on my orders, or with my knowledge, not a single human experiment was conducted, whether admissible or inadmissible.

MR. HARDY: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(A short recess was taken)