1947-06-06, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 June 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
The witness is reminded he is still under oath.
Counsel may proceed with the examination.
PAUL DORN — Resumed
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. NELTE (for defendant Handloser):
Q: Witness, during your examination and cross examination you have spoken of the consignments of typhus carrying lice to Buchenwald. And, if my notes I took are correct then you said in that connection it was generally talked about in the camp that this officer from Cracow came from an institute of the Wehrmacht. Is this note of mine correct?
A: Yes, your note you took is correct.
Q: You cannot tell anything, therefore, from your own personal knowledge?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that Dr. Hoven knew from where this dispatch of lice came?
A: I assume yes.
Q: Well, now if you were to assume that Dr. Hoven knew that this consignment of lice did not come from Cracow and not from an Institute of the Armed Forces and if Dr. Hover were to testify this under oath, would you then believe that the rumor circulating the camp which reached you too, was false?
A: Yes.
DR. NELTE: I have no further questions, I should merely like to draw the attention of this Tribunal to Dr. Hoven's affidavit, Document Ha-13, Exhibit 9 which states:
the consignment of lice which are mentioned in Ding's Diary and in the testimony of Kogon and Kirchheimer came from Dr. Haas from Lemberg. The reason why I know this to be accurate is, that I told Dr. Haas the lice were destroyed. I can therefore say from my own personal knowledge that the statements of Kogon and Kirchheimer—(Dr. Kogon was not yet with Dr. Ding at that time) -were erroneous, namely, that assignments of lice came from Cracow.
Thank you very much.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, to begin with, I should like to speak about the affidavit which came up for discussion yesterday and I would like to say that the decision of this Tribunal is in the record of 3 January 1947, on page 1118 of the German record; and this ruling of the Tribunal states that the Tribunal has ruled that to begin with the affidavit can be admitted subject to a later objection by the defendant Hoven and that the defense is not showing whether the defendant Hoven has answered any questions at all. Should he have been interrogated without having been properly warned, he can say so on the witness stand at a letter date. If he did not understand the English language and if the affidavit was not translated to him, he will be able to clear that up, too; but it was admitted provisionally without prejudice to the right of defense counsel to later object to its admissibility. If the Tribunal should then assume that this affidavit is not to be admitted in evidence then it will be struck from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. That is the ruling of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, to note for the record, the contention of prosecution of this matter during yesterday's session is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: The record will be made to show exactly what happened and will speak for itself.
BY DR. GAWLI:
Q: Witness, the nurses in Block 46 — did they act independently to a considerable extent?
A: I wouldn't so much say the nurses as the prisoner kapo, Aurthur Dietzsch.
Q: If Dr. Ding was absent, was it necessary at all in such cases that an SS Doctor took his place?
A: No, all the work and every action was carried right out by Dietzsch, Dietzsch independently.
Q: Did defendant, Dr. Hoven, have the essential knowledge in order to give orders to Dietzsch and the other nurses who were working in Block 46?
A: I have already said before that I never thought that Hoven was a good doctor and I hardly think that he took as much interest in the typhus experiments as was necessary for him to give instructions.
Q: Is it true that you met the nurses working in 46 repeatedly?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you also talk about during such meetings that King's experiments were carried out by the Kapo Dietzsch?
A: But, of course — we, the prisoners, interested ourselves considerably in these matters and we had it confirmed repeatedly that Dietzsch and Ding carried them out alone in Block 46.
Q: It would be correct to say then that amongst the nurses of Block 46 and the nurses in the sick bay the general assumption was that these experiments were carried out by Ding and Dietzsch but not the defendant Hoven?
A: Yes, indeed.
Q: The figures relating to deaths were discussed yesterday, the Buchenwald death figures, that is, and you said that you had read various publications about Buchenwald which showed that the death rate never exceeded 2%.
A: Quite correct.
Q: But this wouldn't exclude the possibility, would it, that the death rate in Buchenwald was considerably lower temporarily.
That is correct, too, isn't it?
A: (No response)
Q: In order to refresh your memory, I now submit to you, not as an exhibit but merely for this purpose, a document which has been submitted to Tribunal II in Case IV and I would like you to read please — read aloud, the death rate in the concentration camp of Buchenwald from it.
MR. HARDY: Is it proposed to offer this document in evidence here?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I don't want to submit it in evidence, as I have already told you. I am merely using it to refresh the memory of this witness. That is the purpose and also to question him on it, of course.
A: The death rate —
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Did this witness testify before Tribunal II?
DR. GAWLIK: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you asked him to read this affidavit into the record. That is not refreshing his recollection. He is not testifying from his own recollection when he answers your question. He is simply reading this exhibit. If he knows he may glance at that to refresh his recollection then he could testify from his own knowledge but if he is simply reading a record he is not testifying from his own recollection at all.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall put a few questions subsequently with reference to it but, if you like, I will read it.
MR. HARDY: Inasmuch as that is the case, Your Honor, I suggest that the defense counsel process the document in due form and offer it as an exhibit.
DR. GAWLIK: No, I don't want to submit it as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may present to the Tribunal a certified copy of this exhibit which would be admitted in evidence or if the witness has his own recollection, he can testify from his own knowledge as he pleases. He could also be asked whether or not he agrees with the statement in the document.
DR. GAWLIK: I now propose to read this figure and then ask the witness whether the figures are correct and I beg to have your decision whether this is permissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Of course, you understand, Counsel, that the document will not become evidence unless it is introduced before the court.
DR. GAWLIK: No I don't want to submit it in evidence. I am merely using it in order to give a basis to my question.
This is a letter from Pohl dated 30 September 1943 and addressed to Himmler. Attached to it is a table of death figures for the month of August, 1943, in concentration camps. It mentions Buchenwald and there the strength was 17,600 detainees and the number of deaths was 118, equaling a percentage of 0.67%.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, there was that many deaths in what period of time?
DR. GAWLIK: August 1943, Your Honor, the month of August 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: For one month, and that was the record.
DR. GAWLIK: The average for all concentration camps in August 1943 was 2.09%.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Is it correct that it was owed to defendant, Dr. Hoven, that the death rate for the concentration camp of Buchenwald was considerably lower than the overall average?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: It was later mentioned during the cross examination whether you knew anything about the death of Jupp Collinet?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you describe this case in detail?
A: I knew the prisoner Jupp Collinet during approximately two years. I know that Jupp Collinet came from Aid-la-Chapelle and that he owned, several houses there. The special commissioner of the political section of Buchenwald had been a criminal commissioner in Aschen earlier and he had a row with Jupp Collinet in the course of which Collinet fired a shot at Leclair. Later on Leclair went to the political department of Buchenwald as a special commissioner and amongst the prisoners there he recognized Collinet. Following efforts made with the camp Kommandant, he succeeded in getting an order for Collinet's liquidation. I know for certain that Collinet was not killed by Dr. Hoven. On that day, on the day when Collinet had been beaten half to death and was brought to the sick bay, Hoven wasn't present in the camp. The killing was carried out in the presence of the first and second camp leader, Max Schober, and Untersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Gust. I cannot give you any more detail about this affair.
Q: Is it correct that the political section was under the secret state police?
A: Yes.
Q: You were speaking about gypsies yesterday and the grouping of gypsies. Do you have anything to add to that part of your testimony?
A: I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the Gypsies who were not declared as social elements were removed from Dachau to the labor house in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution have any more questions to be propounded to the witness?
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: What is the extent of your education?
A: Initially I was a waiter at the Grand Hotel in Nurnberg. For conditions in my family I had to give up this profession and I was re-trained as a motor mechanic. As a very young man I went to Africa and I was a soldier in the French army for several years. In 1938 I returned to Germany and went into business on my own. After the German capitulation I started afresh, starting as a taxi owner.
Q: Are you a graduate of any University?
A: No.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not from your knowledge Dr. Hoven was considered to be a so-called ladies' man?
A: I don't quite understand, a so-called what?
Q: Ladies' man.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I object to that question. First of all this is an utterly irrelevant question, and secondly, I believe that now in the re-cross examination only such questions can be put which are due to my re-direct examination. I do not believe that a cross examination can be started all over again after the Prosecution had completed cross examination yesterday.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honors, this is a question concerning the character of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel states the rule correctly but the practice of this Tribunal allows very liberal direct examination and cross examination, and counsel for defense, of course, may re-examine the witness in connection with any matters which are new. The objection will be overruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: To your knowledge, did Dr. Hoven have mistresses, that is lady friends other than his wife?
A: One might well assume so.
Q: Do you know whether or not Dr. Hoven had relationships with the wife of the Camp Commandant Koch?
A: Quite decidedly no.
Q: You don't know that?
A: This would not have remained unknown in the camp.
Q: Are you married, witness?
A: Who, me?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: How long have you been married?
A: Since the 10 of August last year.
Q: How friendly were you with Hoven while you were in the Buchenwald concentration camp?
A: I must say that I had a large number of advantages through Hoven but there was never a relationship which you could call friendship between Hoven and myself. I have never talked with Hoven off duty.
Q: Did you wear a violet triangle?
A: No.
Q: Witness, when you were testifying here on direct examination, I noted that you were using notes to refresh your recollection, do you still have those notes before you?
A: No.
Q: Where are those notes?
A: I only have before me here the names which Mr. Prosecutor read out to me, Dietzsch and Collinet and others.
Q: What did you do with the notes you were using to testify why?
A: I am not sure but I think they are lying on the table in my apartment.
Q: Were those typewritten notes, some of them?
A: That I don't know.
Q: Well, who prepared the notes?
A: Pardon.
Q: Who prepared the notes?
A: Nobody has prepared anything for me.
Q: Well, you had typewritten notes before you when you were testifying yesterday; who typed those notes for you?
A: As soon as I knew I was coming to Nurnberg, of course, I prepared myself with reference to the trial, for I was able to tell approximately the questions which would be put to me.
Q: Did Dr. Gawlik give you any typewritten notes?
A: I talked with Dr. Gawlik a few days before appearing here.
Q: Did he give you any typewritten notes?
A: No, I filled a typewritten sheet before me which had 14 Questions on it, and I sent it to the Tribunal.
Q: Did you have any other typewritten notes before you?
A: No, only what I wrote with my own hand.
MR. HARDY: I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may examine the witness, if he desires.
DR. GAWLIK: I don't have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the witness will be excused from the stand.
The Tribunal will proceed with the case against Beiglboeck.
DR. STEINBAUER: (For defendant, Professor Dr. Wilhelm Beiglboeck, from Vienna.)
Mr. President, Your Honors, I shall begin the case on behalf of my client, Dr. Beiglboeck, by reminding you with one sentence of my opening speech. First of all, I want to picture to you the personality of this defendant and then I shall show that he carried out sea water experiments against his own will under explicit military orders, and, thirdly, he carried them out in such a way that you cannot conclude crimes against humanity or war crimes from the way they were carried out.
In order to draw you a good picture I should like to remind you of an air railway, when I speak of my representation as an air railway, as a new rope, and that is represented by the defendant on the witness stand and the few documents, and on the contrary if that rope were to break than I have the safety rope. The scientific pillar, namely, the evidence that bears on internal medicine it is out of the question, that these experiments can be called criminal. — I am not pleading Mr. Hardy, I am merely explaining. I am awfully sorry Professor Alexander has had so much work to do but I should like to save work for the Tribunal and myself and the scientific description lists, I think the chart has 132 pages, and I would like to save my honored colleague, Mr. Hardy and myself the trouble since we are no experts and also I would like to put all of these scientific questions back. I would like to ask you, Mr. President, that my client, Dr. Beiglboeck, take the witness stand as a witness now.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Beiglboeck will take the witness stands.
The defendant Beiglboeck took the witness stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Please raise your right hand and be sworn: repeating after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: Your name is Dr. Wilhelm Beiglboeck, isn't it, and you were born on the 10 of October 1905 at Hochneukirchen in Lower Austria, as the son of a country doctor. You attended the secondary school at the Benedictine Monk' College in Melk and you studied medicine at the University of Vienna and there got your degree, didn't you?
A: All of that is correct.
Q: What is the medical training you had?
A: I first of all began working chemically, pathology and atomology. I turned to internal medicine and after I was promoted I joined the third medical clinic in Vienna, the chief of which was Prof. Dr. Chwostek.
Q: Who was Professor, Dr. Chwostek?
A: Chwostek was the son of an also very well known and famous internal medical man, a student of Meinert and Neussert, and also acting as an internist and neurologist, and was particularly famous for his diagnosis and was highly esteemed in this field and sought after in the whole of Europe as being a representative of the typical old Vienna school.
Q: How long did you remain with Professor Chwostek?
A: I stayed with him as long as he was the head of that clinic, in other words, about two years, and then Chwostek was pensioned off and his clinic was dissolved, and I went to the first medical clinic, the chief of which became at that time Professor Eppinger.
Q: Eppinger, he has been mentioned here quite often — who was Eppinger?
A: It is difficult to say, in which field of internal medicine Professor Eppinger did not contribute highly important work. Even when he was young he became famous because of his work about internal secretions, particularly activities of the thyroid gland, and he carried out research into the vegetative nervous system and created with Wess the conception of Vago Unsimpaticonus.
Q: You have to speak more slowly and make short sentences.
A: Those two conceptions have become general knowledge in medicine today. Eppinger then worked on kidney diseases, dropsy and later as Benkebach's scholar he worked on shock and collapse treatment and he became the man who cleared up the causes of collapse to a considerable extent and modified and cleared it up in a basis manner.
Later on he worked on metabolism of heart diseases and he created a basis for the functional disease of the heart science. His first work was on pathology of the liver and his research in this field created complete novelty. It was due to this that his reputation became international, and it was later on that he devoted his entire research to this field apart from hundreds of smaller works in this metabolism field. The name Eppinger was known the world over and I do know, as his chief deputy, that his scientific correspondence extended to all countries of the world. The external symptoms of this international reputation as a physician and scientist was that doctors from every country of the world — Europe, America, Asia — worked in his clinic all the time and that Eppinger himself was called abroad a great deal, also, as a doctor, of course. I only want to say that he treated Kemal Pascha, that the Queen of Roumania called him, and the King of Bulgaria and that he also treated Marshal Stalin.
Q: I think that is enough in order to elucidate the international importance of Professor Eppinger.
A: I would say that it was this international reputation which was the reason he received a professorship in Vienna. It was known quite well why Eppinger became a University Professor. The conception that he was an ass is certainly not held by me.
Q: Professor, how long did you remain in Eppinger's clinic?
A: It was in 1936 that I became Eppinger's assistant following Austrian regulations. In 1939 I became his chief assistant doctor and in 1940 I was given the title of chief medical officer. I remained with him until the end of the War at which time I was released. I had been called up to the Army since 1941 and remained there on the strength of the clinic only nominally.
Q: When were you habilitated?
A: My habilitation occurred in 1939 and in the beginning of 1940 I was given the title of Dozent (lecturer).
Q: That is a very long period. How do you explain that?
A: Contrary to the custom in Germany the Austrian habilitation regulations prescribed it that first of all you had to spend eight years in a clinic before qualifying for habilitation.
Q: Well, now it might be said that you are a Nazi professor. If we, the Austrians, had not been occupied would you still have become a professor?
A: As early as the beginning of 1938, before the Anschluss Eppinger had given me instructions to prepare my habilitation and he had already taken the first steps in the Collegium of Professors in Vienna.
Q: When did you first become a University Professor?
A: It was in 1943 that Eppinger submitted my name for this nomination and in June 1944 I was nominated.
Q: Were you a member of medical unions academies?
A: I was a member of several medical unions, particularly in Vienna — the Order of Doctors of Vienna, Society of Internal Medicine in Vienna, Society of Micro-Biology in Vienna, and Biological Society in Vienna. I was also a member of the German Society for Internal Medicine and German Society for Circulation Research.
Q: Did you also write scientific works yourself?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Mr. President may I submit a few documents with reference to what has been said so far and I shall be as brief as possible. Beiglboeck Exhibit 1, I offer the affidavit "Testimony of the Medical Faculty of the University of Vienna" and I present this to the Tribunal. I shall read from page 2 of the Document Book.
MR. HARDY: May I ask defense counsel if he purports that the Dean of the University is acting as notary here?
DR. STEINBAUER: I can show Mr. Prosecutor the original but since this is a vital document to my client who will need it later on I have had it photostatted and I am certifying that it is a true copy. Please would you give the original to the Prosecutor.
MR. HARDY: No objection, your Honor.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: I shall read from this document, from the middle of the second paragraph:
Especially apt for the quick orientation at the sick bed, Dr. Beiglboeck showed splendid diagnostic ability. He is fully conversant with all modern methods of examination and treatment.
And then the final paragraph:
His engaging manner, his diligence, his great skill and, last but not least, his humane behavior towards the patients entrusted to his care, have always brought him the fullest recognition from his superiors.
I also submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Beiglboeck No. 2. It is a certificate from the First Medical Clinic of the University, dated 11 January 1935. Again it is submitted as a photostatic copy. I shall read paragraph 2 of that certificate:
He shows a special interest That's Beiglboeck. He shows a special interest in the execution of scientific research, which has enabled him to write, at my clinic, a series of excellent works, in connection with which special attention must be drawn to his great thoroughness and exactitude.
Exhibit No. 3 which I now submit is the testimony from the First Medical University Clinic Prof. Dr. Hans Eppinger, dated 18 December 1943. I shall read only one sentence, the last sentence of that document. I quote:
I look upon the said person, in whose appointment as a lecturer in 1940 I was instrumental and whose appointment as a Professor extraordinary I proposed, as the ablest of my pupils.
Exhibit No. 4 which I now submit to the Tribunal is an index of the scientific works written by Prof. Dr. Beiglboeck. It lists 53 works written by him and 11 demonstrations — a selection of them.
Witness, I shall have to ask you with reference to that document, did you yourself write the works listed in that index and publish them?
A: I published the bulk of them and wrote them all. Some of these works, two or three of them, I am not sure, weren't printed as far as I know. I composed this index on the basis of a list which I still held and I composed it to the best of my knowledge.
Q: Thank you. The next document is a letter from a nurse of Eppinger's Clinic. It is Exhibit 5.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, exhibit is merely a letter written to Steinbauer. It contains no jurat as to the signature of the writer of the letter. Hence it is not admissible by the Tribunal.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. Hardy is perfectly correct. Because I knew you were going to come out with that objection I sent the letter back to Mrs. Brever and asked her to have her signature notarized. Therefore I submit to the Tribunal a document which is properly certified by notary although my signature would do it just the same.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I submit that document is not admissible. I object to its admission.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Tribunal understand from counsel that the document is now properly certified? It will be submitted as such.
MR. HARDY: It is not properly certified. The certificate put on by Dr. Steinbauer was put on after the date of the signature.
DR. STEINBAUER: The Prosecution hasn't understood what I said. I received this letter of Mrs. Brever and since she gave it to me personally I certified its authenticity but in the meantime the Tribunal has ruled in spite of the fact as of 11 March 1947 all signatures were to be notarized by a Notary. Consequently I returned this to Mrs. Brever and asked her to have it certified by a notary.
MR. HARDY: Just a moment. I will have Dr. Alexander look at it. The English document doesn't indicate this and I can't read the German.
No objection, your Honor.
DR. STEINBAUER: In that case, subject to the Tribunal's permission I would like to read the letter, I quote:
From 1937 Professor Dr. Wilhelm Beiglboeck was my superior at the clinic of Prof. Eppinger, ward C 2. In March 1938 I was to be dismissed from the clinic for my outspoken antagonism towards national socialism. Professor Beiglboeck stood up for me in the most helpful manner, and succeeded insofar that I was left in my position. In the course of the following years I was often attached, because I tried continually to fight against the Nazi Regime, and it was always Prof. Beiglboeck who helped me. After the days of the Jewish Pogrom I heard. Dr. Beiglboeck say to a colleague whom he knew well: "I will not take part in this, this is too much for me, we do not want this."
I write these lines freely and without constraint, in gratitude for the assistance which Beiglboeck gave me from 1938 until the time of his Military Service (1941).
The next document I submit is a certificate from the Medical University Clinic, Professor Dr. Heilmeyer, which is page 96 of Document Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: What document number is this?
DR. STEINBAUER: Exhibit 6.
THE PRESIDENT: What document number does it bear?
DR. STEINBAUER: Number 24. I beg your pardon.
MR. HARDY: May I ask counsel if it contains a jurat?
DR. STAINBAUER: Mr. Hardy, this is a certificate of the University Medical Clinic. In order to meet a possible objection by the Prosecutor I have returned this testimony to the Professor with an order to return it to me properly certified immediately. Unfortunately this letter has not yet come back since the mail takes about a fortnight, but I would like to ask that it be admitted provisionally until the sworn certificate is returned to me. Actually it is only a University Clinic headed by Professor Heilmeyer, and perhaps you will be good enough to show this to the President.
MR. HARDY: The document has no jurat.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will admit the document provisionally subject to the correct certificate being added later.
DR. STEINBAUER: I don't even want to read the whole document, only the first paragraph:
I made the personal acquaintance of Univ. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Beiglboeck of Vienna, at lectures given at scientific meetings. I have known his scientific works however, for a long time. He drew particular attention to himself through his excellent work as a pupil of the most prominent German internist, Prof. Eppinger. In particular, his research into the effects of various vitamins and into the pathology of the liver and epidemic Hepatitis has made a great impression. Prof. Beiglboeck is doubtless among the most promising research workers in the field of internal medicine. I know also, that Prof. Eppinger always spoke of him in terms of the highest regard.
Q: Now, let's carry on; witness, what about your military service, how did that progress?
A: In May of 1941 I was called up into the German Air Force as a Medical Soldier, and my basic training I passed in Baden near Vienna. In August of 1941 I became a non-commissioned officer, and I was sent to the air force hospital at Welz, Austria, and I was promoted, to noncommissioned officer corresponding to the rank of sergeant, and after serving in the air force hospital of Vienna for a short time I went to the war college at Eger in 1942 and then in August of the same year I left for a motorized company in Russia. I remained there until the end of 1943.
Q: What duties did you have in Russia?
A: I headed the internal ward of a field hospital.
Q: Did you hold the position of a section doctor?
A: From point of discipline, no, I was kept on the list as assistant to the surgeon.
Q: And where did you go from Russia?
A: Subsequently I was transferred as an assistant to the internal department of the air force hospital at Brunswick, and from there in March of 1944 went to the war hospital at Taraviso, Italy.
Q: So even in Brunswick you didn't become department medical officer?
A: No.
Q: And you didn't receive that title in spite of three years of service and although you were a university professor and already had been admitted for professorship?
A: It was only in March 1944 I became an independent section medical officer for the first time.
Q: In the indictment you are described as an consultant medical officer of the air force though?
A: I was never the consultant to the air force. Admittedly at the beginning of 1944 I had been earmarked for that position in the Parachutist Army, but for reasons which Professor Dr. Sievers has described here a younger colleague of mine was preferred.
Q: So you didn't participate in any meeting, particularly none of the meeting mentioned here in this trial, is that right?
A: You mean the meetings, the congress of the assisting consultants?
Q: Yes.
A: You are right. I didn't participate in any one of these meetings.
Q: Did you have any contact with your fellow defendants before this trial.
A: I only knew Professor Handloser who during the years of 1938 and 1939 worked in Vienna where he was the military district medical officer, and I also knew him listening to lectures of his occasionally, but I do not believe he knew me, because he probably impressed me more as a general than I impressed him as a civilian. Of course I knew Professor Schroeder, Chief medical officer, by name.
He was my highest superior. The first time I saw him personally was when I was ordered to work on experiments and reported to the medical inspectorate. It was done by means of the common brief military report for duty. It was on that occasion I met Dr. Becker-Freyseng and later in October 1944, Dr. Schaefer. As the evidence has already shown I had a brief conference with Mr. Sievers in Dachau and I didn't know any other of my fellow defendants before.
Q: Well, I think I can conclude the chapter regarding your character and personality, and in order to save trouble to the interpreters a number of testimonies and certificates have not yet been submitted by me. Now, let's pass on to the question of the order, when did you receive the order to carry out seawater experiments?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, before proceeding with that matter the Tribunal will be in recess.
(Thereupon a short recess was taken.)