1947-06-21, #4: Doctors' Trial (late Saturday afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: I offered the affidavit of Buhlick and I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal in this connection to the affidavit of Arthur Dietzsch, which I have already submitted in my document book, on page 1 where Dietzsch said:
In practice, however, he (Dr. Hoven) did not concern himself about the experimental station in Block 46. In practice Dr. Hoven did not have any activity in Block 46.
I should also like to call the attention of the Tribunal to No. 2, showing that from the beginning of January 1942 until 5 days prior to the liberation by the American Army, April 1945, Dietzsch worked in Block 46 during the entire period when experiments were being carried out in Block 46. Dietzsch is a person who has the necessary knowledge to answer this question: At what intervals were the experiments carried out in Block 46?
Q: Is it true that 3 to 5 persons were infected with typhus monthly, in order to have this virus living in the blood?
A: That is possible. I never heard anything about it and I never took any interest in it. I had so much to do in the hospital that it took up all my time.
Q: Who performed these injections if Dr. Ding was absent from Buchenwald?
A: I do not know. I was not there.
Q: I shall now show you Document NO-1063, Exhibit 328 of the prosecution. This is the file of the Office for War Crimes in Amsterdam. It is not in any document book. It was submitted subsequently by the prosecution. I should like to show you page 14 showing that a certain van Levvarden testified that you injected typhus serum into him. What do you have to say about that?
A: It is very difficult to say anything since I never infected anyone with typhus. I never injected typhus serum according to Levvarden. This must be an experiment of 120 people. I gather that and my assistant Dr. Platzer, infected all of these people. But I never heard of Dr. Platzer having anything to do in Block 46, Finally he says nobody died of these experiments. If what Levvarden says were true, this experiment would at least be mentioned in the diary and it would certainly say that I carried out this experiment. An experiment on 120 persons was a big experiment even for the conditions under which Dr. Ding worked. I assume that Levvarden knows me but not from the infection which I allegedly performed. It must be a matter of confusion. That's the only explanation I can think of. It is especially tragic for me that it is a Dutchman that accuses me of a deed that I did not do, tragic because in the spring of 1942 the sport teacher Jan Robert in Buchenwald and I reached an agreement that the Dutch confidential agents were to tell me whenever a Dutch person was in any special danger or was to be sent on the Nacht und Nebel [Night and Fog] transport, so that I could help him. Jan Robert was head of a Catholic movement and wanted to come here as a witness in my trial but he had a fatal accident, as the witness Pieck has already testified. But it seems odd to me that Levvarden according to his own testimony was the only Dutchman who participated in this alleged experiment. According to his own testimony for six weeks he received excellent food before he was infected. That means that the Dutch confidential agents had plenty of time to inform me about this case, even if I had nothing more to do with the selection of the experimental subjects, these confidential agents knew very well that everything was done by the illegal camp administration and myself to prevent foreigners being used in these experiments.
It agrees with the fact that Levvarden says at Christmas 1942 we came to the Gustlof Works. That was one of the drives which together with the illegal camp administrator Jan Robert and Henry Pieck undertook to save the Dutchmen from the Nacht und Nebel transports to Natzweiler. This is a true fact that Dutchmen were quartered in blocks 46 and 50 and were considered essential. It was intended that all the Dutch were put on these Nacht und Nebel transports by the Gestapo and Levvarden was included in this reserve. On the last page a Dutchman by the name of Henry van Dalen says that he worked in Block 46 for several years as a laboratory assistant. He would surely have mentioned me and reported on my activity if I had had anything to do with the experiments in Block 46 but he does not even mention my name. In conclusion I can only say that Levvarden must be mistaken. I don't want to say that he does this intentionally but I assume that the experimental subjects in Block 46 were in such a condition that confusing the persons is quite possible.
Q: Now, I put to you the testimony of Dr. Kogon on page 1161 of the English transcript. Dr. Kogon testified that you were Ding's deputy for the experimental station 46. What do you have to say to that?
A: Kogon cannot testify to that from his own knowledge. Only in the spring or summer of 1943 he became Dr. Ding's secretary but I assume that Kogon deduced from the fact that I visited the illegal workshops in Block 46 frequently that I worked as a doctor in Block 46. On the other hand, as he himself stated, he went into the typhus problem thoroughly so that he must know that I lack all the most fundamental prerequisites to act as deputy in Block 46. But my real connections with Block 46 make it possible to make this mistake.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the affidavit of Arthur Dietzsch once more, page 2 of the Hoven Document Book. No. 9 and 10:
9. Did Dr. Hoven frequently visit Block 46?
Yes.
10. What did Dr. Hoven do during his visits to Block 46?
Dr. Hoven only visited the shoemaker, the tailor, and the furrier shops which he had set up there illegally.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Did you ever give any orders to Dietzsch to carry out experiments?
A: No, Dietzsch was directly under Dr. Ding and besides he certainly knew more about typhus than I did.
Q: Did you have any opportunity to prevent the execution of the experiments?
A: No, I believe it has become known in this room that it was not possible to fail to carry out a Himmler order. Himmler had ordered these experiments. One could only try to sabotage them and I did so in the question of destroying the typhus dice.
Q: The prosecution has submitted that you were Ding's subordinate, page 1097 of the English transcript.
A: I was never Ding's subordinate. No experimental series were started during Ding's absence from Buchenwald and he did not need any deputy to take care of them. I have already given in detail the other reasons for this statement of mine. Dietzsch and the other nurses worked independently when Dr. Ding went away. When he left, he gave Dietzsch all the necessary instructions.
Q: Could you give any orders to Ding?
A: Of course not.
Q: What do you know about the number of experimental subjects?
A: I can say nothing about that. After my arrest the experiments continued for over a year and a half. And I did not take any direct interest in them.
Q: What can you tell us about the number of experimental subjects who died from typhus experiments?
A: I can give no exact information on that.
Q: According to page 1182 of the English transcript Kogon said that the total number of persons who died in Buchenwald from typhus experiments, eliminating passage persons, was 140 to 160.
A: I can say nothing about the number of dead from these experiments. I do not know. That figure might be too high or too low.
Q: Were there experiments in Buchenwald with typhus infected lice?
A: Yes.
Q: How many shipments of typhus infected lice arrived in Buchenwald?
A: Two.
Q: How many experiments with typhus infected lice took place in Buchenwald?
A: One.
Q: What happened to the first shipment of lice?
A: At my instigation Kapo Dietzsch and I burned it.
Q: Please describe to the Tribunal how the first shipment of lice was destroyed?
A: The prisoners informed me it was a nurse — that a shipment had arrived with infected typhus lice and they asked me to see to it that this shipment was destroyed. The nurses and doctors were afraid of an epidemic and they asked me to try to prevent the experiments.
Ding was away at the time. I think he was in Weimar. I went to Block 46. I looked at the cages. There were fifty cages with 600 lice each, if I remember correctly. I know that it was a cold time of year. It must have been the end of 1942. The stove was heated in the anteroom of Block 46. I saw that the cages were fastened with wax and it occurred to me to say that they were not tight. And Dietzsch and I threw them into the stove and made a report on the basis of my position as camp physician I could not take the responsibility of an epidemic breaking out. I believe later I had a dispute with Ding about it. I can't remember exactly what he said. He said I should answer for what I did and send this report about the destruction of the lice to the office which had sent them.
Q: For what reason was the second shipment of lice not used?
A: The lice were brought by an officer in the Wehrmacht uniform; they come from an institute in Lemberg; and he had orders to attend the experiment.
Q: Please describe to the Tribunal how prisoners were infected by the lice in the second shipment?
A: In the beginning I was not present; when I arrived the cages were fastened to the prisoners' thighs.
Q: Was Dr. Ding present at the experiment?
A: Whether he was in the room at the beginning, I do not know. I heard that he was somewhere in the building.
Q: For what reason were you present at the experiment?
A: I had learned from the illegal camp administration that a political prisoner named Bach, B-a-c-h, was to be used as an experimental subject in this experiment. For this reason I went to Black 46 to prevent his being used as an experimental subject; and in order, if possible, to stop the experiment before it was finished; and, finally, in order to carry out a plan which we had arranged — to tell him there was a car to take him to Weimar, and when he was gone to get an opportunity to destroy the lice.
Q: I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal in this connection to the Dietzsch affidavit, No. 8, page 2. There Dietzsch describes the destruction of the lice shipment. He says:
the first shipment of lice was destroyed by Dr. Hoven and myself in the presence of a number of male nurses whose names I no longer remember. Dr. Hoven and I agreed to prevent the inoculation with typhus infected lice because we disliked such experiments.
Then, Dietzsch describes the dost destruction of the second shipment of lice, especially for what reason it was not possible to destroy these lice immediately. Did any prisoners die because of these lice experiments?
A: No.
Q: Did any fall ill?
A: Not as far as I know.
Q: Please look at Document Book XII, of the Prosecution, page 41 of the English, Document NO-265, Exhibit 287, the Ding Diary. It says that — infections on the 3rd of December, 1942 five persons developed an atypical disease. What does an a typical disease mean?
A: That shows that they did not contract typhus.
Q: Now, I come to the selection of the experiment subjects. Did you select all the experimental subjects for the typhus experiments?
A: No.
Q: On page 1178 of the English transcript, Dr. Kogon said that at times the camp physician was involved in the selection of the experimental subjects. Will you comment on this?
A: That was a very complicated matter. The experimental subjects were selected by the Gestapo, and by the camp administration, and the list was sent to Dr. Ding. One day an agent of the foreign prisoners came to me and reported that there were two or three I don't know exactly how many, foreign political prisoners among the experimental subjects. I immediately went to the SS office — whether that was the commandant's office in the Gestapo Section, I don't remember exactly. At any rate, I talked to the SS member who had drawn up this list on behalf of his chief, I pointed out to him that I was responsible for the selection of the experimental subjects, which, of course, was not the case — but which gave me the necessary authority in his eyes. I told him that these two or three foreigners — and they were the ones that I was interested in — were not suitable as experimental subjects, and I succeeded in having these two or three names taken off the list. The same thing happened thereafter once more. A representative of the foreign and German prisoner groups came to me with the request that I should prevent somehow — once and for all — foreign political prisoners from being used for these experiments.
There was always danger that if I happened to be away there would be no one in the camp to get these political prisoners off the list. Therefore, we arranged that these lists were first sent to the hospital, and from the current card index which we had there in the hospital, which gave all the previous convictions of all prisoners, the German and foreign prisoners selected the worst traitors and stool pigeons. Their names were known to the prisoners, but we wanted to make sure by means of the card index who they were to get an exact picture of it. This list was sent to the head of the protective custody camp who took over prisoners whom he did not approve of. That was supposed to be the final decision; but we were forced again to strike off the names put on the list by the head of the protective custody camp if they were political prisoners, German foreign. It was a very difficult matter. Finally, the list came to Block 46, and I can very well imagine that there was the rumor prevalent in the camp, that I was responsible for selecting the prisoners.
Q: Witness, the witness Roemhild, according to page 1633 of the English transcript, testified that selection of experimental persons was done on the basis of the card index in the office of the hospital. What do you have to say about that?
At I have just told you how it was done. I mentioned the card index in the prisoners hospital. That is the same card index Roemhild was referring to.
Q: Now, who selected these people — these traitors or stool pigeons who were exchanged for valuable political prisoners. You personally, or did you let the prisoners do that?
A: I will be very precise on this point. I never selected even a single experimental person or a prisoner for an experiment — never. The representatives of the German and foreign prisoners only reviewed the names of the prisoners selected. The purpose was to prevent the SS of the Gestapo from putting German and foreign political prisoners in these experiments, Then, when the list had been reviewed by the prisoners, I signed it.
Neither the prisoners nor I actually had anything to do with the selection of the experimental subjects, because the fact that experimental subjects were selected could not be changed either by the prisoners or by myself, but we could prevent the SS or the Gestapo putting unpopular political prisoners whom they did not like in such experiments, not from the medical point of view, of course. And actually these measures prevented German and foreign political prisoners being taken for these experiments. This was my connection and that of the German and foreign political prisoners with the selection of experimental subjects.
Q: Did any of your superiors, especially Grawitz or Lolling, over give you the assignment of selecting these prisoners for experiments?
A: No, neither of these two persons gave me such an order; neither Grawitz nor Lolling, and I don't believe that they had anything to do with the selection of experimental subjects. It was exclusively up to the Gestapo or the camp administration.
Q: Did some experimental subjects volunteer for the experiments?
A: As far as I know, there were volunteers for some experiments.
Q: Did the experimental subjects get any special privileges or any advantages?
A: As far as I know they did have some advantages. They had good and ample food, which is always a special inducement; and then they got out of hard work details, and so forth.
Q: Dr. Kogon on page 1167 of the English transcript testified that the experimental subjects selected fro Block 46 included not only Germans but Poles, Russians and Frenchmen in the last year. What do you have to say about this?
A: Of course, Dr. Kogon's statement is true. That was the reason why the prisoners asked me to see to it to take some part in the selection. While I was active I cannot imagine foreign prisoners being used for experiments. The foreign and German political prisoners were in charge of reviewing the lists of experimental subjects just so that no political prisoners would be taken. Kogon says that in the last year Russians, Poles and Frenchmen were used for experiments. I can't say whether that is true or not. At that time I was under arrest by the Gestapo.
Q: And I tell you that Kogon testified that there were prisoners of war among the experimental subjects. This is page 1167 of the English transcript. What do you have to say about that?
A: I believe that I have already explained that, where I interfered the German and foreign prisoners reviewed the lists of experimental subjects; there could not have been any prisoners of war on the list, because they were considered political prisoners; and it was our purpose, as I have said repeatedly, to prevent German and foreign political prisoners being put on the lists.
Q: Did the illegal camp committee select political prisoners for the experiments?
A: No, because the committee consisted of political prisoners, Germans and foreigners.
Q: The witness Kogon on page 1162 of the English transcript testified that the selection of experimental subjects was not the same at different times. He described it as follows: in the first period, volunteers; later, subjects provided by the camp doctor or the camp administration; from the Fall of 1943 the Reich criminal police office supplied criminals.
Is that true?
A: I consider this subdivision that he makes correct, but that there were volunteers in the first period I cannot say. I knew only that there actually were volunteers. How many and at what time I do not know. As to Point 2, Kogon heard that at the request of the German and foreign political prisoners I intervened and that the lists went back and forth. He didn't know the details, of course, since that was an agreement between the illegal camp administration and the representatives of the foreign prisoners and myself. Now, as to the selection of the experimental subjects in the fall of 1943 on I can say nothing because I was under arrest by the Gestapo.
Q: On page 1633 of the English transcript Roemhild testified that, predominantly, criminals and homosexuals were selected. Is this true?
A: It may be. I did not know that mainly homosexuals were taken since neither the illegal camp administration or I would be able to prevent experimental subjects being taken. Our endeavor was to prevent German and foreign prisoners being taken for these experiments; when such persons were on the list the names were taken off the list and the names of the informers were put in their place.
Q: Did you select passage persons?
A: No, I never heard anything about passages at my time. I didn't know why such passages would be made. I learned that during this trial from the prosecution.
Q: Now, I should like to refer you to Document NO 257, Prosecution Exhibit 283. It is on page 11 in the German and English Document Book 12. This is a statement. Page 11 — I beg your pardon — that is page 10 in the English. Ding makes the following statement — "page "11" of the English, third paragraph from the bottom:
Dr. Hoven had the order to get the prisoners (professional criminals sentenced to death) that had been released for the experiments from the Reich Security Office and the chief of the concentration camps, ready for the vaccination or the infection after an examination of their physical fitness.
Is this true?
A: There is not a word of truth in it. I hear it for the first time that professional criminals condemned to death were used for experiments during my time. Dr. Ding tries to indicate that the selection was made by me but I think even the prosecution witnesses have proved that this was not the case. And any how I selected or had the persons selected has also been shown. Dr. Ding forgot to say that he, in the last analysis, had to decide who was used for these experiments because he was the one that carried them out; an order from the R.S.H.A. to the inspector of the concentration camps about the selection of the experimental subjects never reached me.
Q: How do you explain this incorrect statement by Dr. Ding-Schuler?
A: Persons condemned to death were not in the concentration camp Buchenwald, at least not at my time. It did happen that persons who were in concentration camps were condemned by SS and police courts or the execution was ordered by Himmler himself but these were exceptions and these persons were executed shortly after sentence was passed. There was no large number of persons condemned to death in the concentration camp Buchenwald. This alone shows that Ding's statement is not true. A large number of Poles — I think 70 — were to be hanged because of sexual relations with German women and girls but since this depended on the doctor, there was not a single execution actually carried out. These Poles didn't all come to Buchenwald at once but over a course of three quarters of a year. I should like to say that during my time not a single professional criminal condemned to death entered Block 46. This is true until the 12th of September 1943. For the rest I refer to the testimony of Dr. Kogon who described very correctly how and in what way the experimental subjects were selected. He mentioned the camp doctor in addition to the other officers which actually did select the experimental subjects because Kogon no doubt heard for what reason I intervened in the selection of experimental subjects.
During my time the political prisoners and I did everything possible to prevent German and foreign prisoners being used for experiments.
Q: I now come to the affidavit of the defendant, Dr. Hoven, in his document NO 429, prosecution Exhibit 281, on page 1 of Document Book 12.
I should like to call the special attention of the Tribunal to the decision on page 1079/80 of the English transcript in the session of the third of January 1947, the Tribunal made the following decision on this document during the session of 3 January 1947:
The affidavit would be accepted temporarily independent of later objection. The affidavit does not show whether the defendant Hoven was answering any questions, if he was interrogated without having been warned, he can indicate that later on the witness stand; if he did not understand English and this affidavit was not translated, he may clarify this point also. But at this time the affidavit will be admitted provisionally without influence on the right of his defense counsel to object to it later; and if then the Tribunal believes that this affidavit is not to be admitted, then it will be stricken from the record.
Mr. President, I don't know whether the transcript of the 3rd of January 1947 is in the hands of the Tribunal at the moment; therefore, I have brought it with me. Shall I hand it to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: That is the transcript that counsel has just read?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: In what language was this affidavit given to you?
In English. After I had given this affidavit, I was called again two or three days later. This time I was given the first part of the affidavit, that is, my life history; but not in English, in German. And it turned out that there were so many mistakes in the German text that the interrogator had to go through it again with me. Then he had it copied again, and I signed it for the second time.
Q: In order to make it quite clear, this life history was handed to you in Germany after you had signed the whole affidavit in English?
A: That is true. The affidavit included my life history in English and this part of the affidavit was given to me three days later in German to sign.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, to clarify for the record, I might call to the attention of the Tribunal the affidavit he is referring to is the German language one contained in Document Book No. 1, which is the document book which lists the position of the defendants. Defendant Hoven executed two affidavits. One was a small one which is document Book No. 1 and the affidavit that is at issue here was executed by the Defendant Hoven for me. As a matter of fact, I wrote it, then the defendant Hoven corrected it in my presence.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Would you please comment on this, witness?
A: What Mr. Hardy says is true, but after I had gone through the affidavit with Mr. Hardy in English and it was ready to me in English, after that, three days later, I was called again and part of the affidavit giving my life history was given to me in German with the explanation that there were mistakes in this part of the affidavit which the interrogator had noticed, and then the interrogator — and it wasn't Mr. Hardy — went through my life history copied again after I had made corrections — and then I signed it again. That was after I had given the affidavit to Mr. Hardy.
Q: And you only signed the life history the second time?
A: Yes, in German.
Q: Part of the affidavit which said nothing about the charges against you, only your life history?
A: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to examine the original of this affidavit. The Tribunal would like to examine the original affidavit. Is it available here or in the office of the Secretary General? If it is not here, it can be produced Monday morning.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
A: I speak English well enough to carry on a conversation. There are many words that don't come to me, but in conversation I can avoid them.
I am sure I did not understand the exact wording and the exact sense of the affidavit.
Q: Did you study English in school?
A: No.
Q: When were you in the United States?
A: 1921 to 24.
Q: After that did you have an opportunity to refresh your knowledge of English?
A: No.
Q: From this entire affidavit as contained in Document Book 12, page 1, did you see a German translation before you signed it?
A: No.
Q: To make it quite clear, I am talking about this entire affidavit in Document Book 12. Was it translated to you orally before you signed it?
A: No, with the exception of the life history; but that was a few days later; as I have already said.
Q: To make it quite clear the life history was translated for you after you signed the whole affidavit?
A: Yes, three days later.
Q: Did you dictate this affidavit in Document Book 12?
A: No.
Q: Does the wording come from you?
A: No.
Q: Who drew up the affidavit?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were you present when it was set up?
A: No.
Q: On the basis of what material was it set up?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were you interrogated before hand?
A: Yes.
Q: Were notes taken at this interrogation?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you sign these notes which were taken down before hand?
A: No.
Q: Were these notes shown to you for your approval?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any knowledge of what was taken down?
A: No.
Q: Before the interrogation were you informed that you could refuse to testify if you might incriminate yourself?
A: No.
Q: Did you read the affidavit before you signed it?
A: Yes, I read the English, I did not see any German text. I was given the English text. It was read to me and I read it myself.
Q: Did you understand the general sense of the affidavit?
A: There were many words that I did not understand, and they are important in such a document. I don't speak English well enough to understand the exact meaning of this statement. In general, of course, I know what it was about. I know ordinary conversational English. I do not know any special technical terms.
Q: For what reasons did you sign the affidavit?
A: I thought it was the form in which I said these things at the interrogation; and for that reason I only read it superficially. You must put yourself in my place at the time of the interrogation. I had been in Gestapo prisons for one year and in the concentration camp for half a year; and I don't have to explain in this room what that means. Then I was in American captivity. My nerves and my health had suffered considerably from being in the custody of the Gestapo. Then I was in the PA camp at Krcuznach, Freibach, Freising, and August, 1945, I came to Dachau.
September '46, I came to Nurnberg. I was in no way acquainted with American penal procedure, and I was not informed whether I was to be a witness or a defendant. I did not know that I could refuse to sign this affidavit and demand that it be translated into German. The interrogator did not inform me about all these things.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, with reference to the ruling of the Tribunal in the session of 3 January 1947, page 1079 and 1080 of the English transcript, I make application that the affidavit, Document NO-429 not be admitted and that it be stricken from the record. From the testimony of the witness it can be seen that he did not answer any questions. He was interrogated without being warned. Also he did not understand English well enough in order to get the meaning of the affidavit where every word is important, and the affidavit was not translated for him.
In regard to the final point, I refer especially to the work of Warden, Evidence in Criminal Cases, Volume 3, edition 1935, page 21-26 where it is expressly stated that it is absolutely essential to employ a translator if the person making the statement does not understand English.
EXAMINATION
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, as I understand your testimony it is that the affidavit which appears in prosecution document book 12 at page 1, as prosecution document NO-429, prosecution exhibit 281 was taken in the English language, was then given to you in English, that you then read it over and signed it. Is my understanding of what you have said correct?
A: Yes, Your Honor, it was read to me. It was read aloud and I read it myself, and as I already said, I can carry on a conversation in English. When I can't think of words I can circumscribe them, I understood the general meaning of the affidavit but not the exact meaning and not every word.
Q: Do you have before you now a copy of the English version of that affidavit?
A: I have the German text.
Q: Will the page hand to the witness the English text? Are you able to read English, witness?
A: Yes, I think so.
Q: Will you please —
A: Pronunciation won't be quite right. I have been learning a little more English since this trial has been going on.
Q: Well, you read English well enough to know, regardless of your pronunciation, when you come to an English word or phrase or sentence that you do not fully understand, don't you?
A: Yes, your Honor. If something is read to me and I am just following, I understand the general sense and then I imagine that I understood, but afterwards I find out as in this case, that there are many words that I did not understand and sometimes the meaning was different from what I thought. For example, when I read books — I have been reading some English books lately — I understood the general sense and I knew what the story was about, but I didn't understand all the details.
Q: Well, I am going to read to you the last paragraph of this document, your affidavit, and I want you to listen carefully and when I have finished with it I want you to talk into the microphone in German, giving you version of what you have understood this to mean, and I want you to get the English channel and; I read it to you, not the German channel. Can that be arranged? Are you hearing now?
A: I am hearing in English.
Q: Yes. Then I shall read the last paragraph.
A: I shall not read with you, sir?
Q: Can you hear me?
A: I can hear you.
Q: Yes. Well now, listen to what I read.
A: Yes sir.
Q: Quote:
The above affidavit written in the English language, consisting of five pages, is true and correct to the best of my know ledge and belief.
This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily without promise of reward and I was subject to no duress or threat of any kind.
Unquote. Now, do you understand what that means as I have read it to you?
A: Shall I answer in German or in English?
Q: You may answer in English if you care to.
A: Since this trial there are many words I have heard now which I didn't know before, One word, sir, you started was I think "quoted", "I quote". And that's a word I have heard many times now in these sessions. I didn't know it before.
Q: What other words are there in the quotation I have read you which you do no understand?
A: "Subjected."
Q: Will you repeat, please?
A: "Subjected", I think you said.
Q: Perhaps if you will turn to the English version at page 6, that last paragraph, and read that if you will, and then explain to us any words there you do not understand?
A: It is the word "affidavit". I only knew it after the beginning of this trial. I didn't hear it before.
Q: What other words?
A: It seems to be very funny, but it's true, "voluntarily", I didn't know it before, but of course, I know it now as I heard it many times.
Q: "Reward", (spelling) r-e-w-a-r-d. And as I told you before, "Subjected", and the word "threat", I didn't know. My opinion was it means a traitor or something like that.
Q: Now, are there other words?
A: No, that's all, sir.
Q: In other words, you said that prior to the time you signed this affidavit you were not familiar with the word "affidavit"?
A: Yes, that's right?
Q: You were not familiar with the word "voluntarily"?
A: That's right.
Q: You were not familiar with the word "subjected"?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: You were not familiar with the word "duress" (spelling) d-u-r-e-s-s; is that correct?
A: Duress — I think it was "reward" (spelling) r-e-w-a-r-d.
Q: Reward?
A: Reward.
Q: You did not know what the word "reward" meant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then the final word that you did not understand was the word —
A: "Threat" (spelling) t-h-r-e-a-t. But I know it now of course.
Q: Threat, you did not know that word?
A: "True"?
Q: No, (spelling) t-h-r-e-a-t?
A: "Threat", yes, that's right.
Q: You did not know that word?
A: No.
Q: So then if we are to take those words out of the final paragraph in the first line then will appear this statement, which as I understand you say you understood at the time.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Quote:
The above written in the English language, consisting of five pages is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This affidavit —
— you said you did not understand "affidavit", so I will delete that, so it would read:
This was given by me freely and without promise.
Now, isn't that the effect of you understanding of that final paragraph?
A: I think the misunderstanding arises because I do know a little conversational English; as I have already said in the course of this trial I have frequently listened to the English translation and have learned a great deal in that way. And since I could carry on a conversation more or less by circumscribing the words I did not know, then I thought that what was read to me and what I followed was right but there were some words that I did not understand; but I thought that I understood the meaning and that it was more or less what I had testified. Besides, it went off rather fast and I had the impression that there were a great hurry for me to sign it an I did sign it.
Q: Will you be prepared when the Tribunal convenes on Monday, to have gone over the English text of this document and its translation, and then advise the Tribunal from the witness stand just what portions of it you now say that you did not understand at that time?
A: Your Honor, I shall be glad to do that. I should like to point out once more that at the time, I did not quite realize the meaning those various words because I did not know the purpose of this affidavit. I did not know that it was going to be used in an indictment against myself. There were individual matters which could have been clarified or explained and they distort the meaning without being explained. I found out quite definitely that part of the affidavit, concerning the selection of experimental subjects, was never said by me in this form, never. Since on the whole I understood the general form of this document and saw a few words that were right, I assumed that it was just what I said. I realize that if the person who wrote this affidavit was not present at the interrogation it would be very easy to distort the meaning.
Q: Well suppose you prepare yourself to comply with the request of the Tribunal regarding such portions of the affidavit in the English language as you are prepared to say that you did not know at the time you signed the affidavit what you were signing and then, following that, be prepared to tell the Tribunal what portions of that affidavit you now say are true and what portions you say are untrue and do not reflect what you said at that time or do not reflect the truth.
A: I shall try, Your Honor, to follow your instructions. It will take some time especially since in the meantime I have learned a good many words, especially words which appear repeatedly in this affidavit, but I shall try to reconstruct what I know at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is nothing more to be said, the Tribunal will now take its recess.
Does counsel desire to make any other statement?
MR. HARDY: Of course I anticipate the Tribunal will not rule out this affidavit before I have had the opportunity to cross examine the witness on the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will certainly not rule before you have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 June 1947, at 09:30 hours.)