1947-06-23, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
May it please your Honor, defendant Pokorny is absent having been excused by the Tribunal this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will not for the record the absence of defendant Pokorny, having been excused by the Tribunal in order that he may consult with his counsel.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor the Tribunal, several days ago during the course of the presentation of the case against defendant Beiglboeck, prosecution requested the Tribunal to impound the charts in the two books which were the records of the experiments conducted at Dachau Concentration Camp concerning sea water.
At this time, the prosecution requests that the Tribunal permit them to be allowed to send those charts and records to Frankfurt. Prosecution desires to have the charts and records checked over by document experts, handwriting experts and people sufficiently capable to determine the extent of the alteration and markings on the documents.
In view of the ruling of the Tribunal that these records will not be perused by either defense counsel or prosecution without the presence of a member of the office of the Secretary General, it therefore seems apparent to the prosecution that it will be necessary, in order to carry out their request, that a member of the office of the Secretary General accompany a member of the prosecution to Frankfurt while these documents are being worked on. If that meets with the approval of the Tribunal, we should like to have such a member from the Secretary General's office appointed to carry out this mission; or if the Tribunal deems it unnecessary to send such a representative, the prosecution requests that they be allowed to withdraw, or to take the documents and have them sent up to Frankfurt for that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Beiglboeck not being present, the Tribunal would be glad to hear from him in connection with this matter before final direction is given.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, we are not in a position to wait for a period of a week for the defense counsel for Beiglboeck. I think he has gone to Vienna. This is a matter which prosecution deems relevant and would like to have permission to send them up inasmuch as we have now received —
THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel indicates that Dr. Steinbauer is present in Nurnberg.
MR. HARDY: Could we take that up later today so that we could send these representatives up tomorrow inasmuch as the laboratories in Frankfurt will be available to us tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: The matter may be taken up as soon as the defense counsel for Beiglboeck arrives.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, we can continue with our examination. When the defense counsel for Beiglboeck arrives we can take up the matter again.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Hoven may proceed. The other matter may be taken up when the counsel for Beiglboeck arrives.
MR. HARDY: Am I correct in assuming the defense counsel for Beiglboeck is here in the city?
DR. GAWLIK: My colleague, Dr. Nelte, has gone out to get Dr. Steinbauer. I assume my colleague Steinbauer will be here shortly. He is in Nurnberg. He has not left.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Counsel may proceed.
WALDEMAR HOVEN — Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel the defendant Hoven):
Q: I come to the subject of killings. Were prisoners killed with your knowledge or by you?
A: Yes.
Q: How large is the number of prisoners killed with your knowledge?
A: I can no longer give the exact number.
Q: Can you give an estimate?
A: Fifty or sixty.
Q: I put to you the testimony of the witness Roemhild who said that one thousand would not be too low a figure. This is on page 1639 of the English transcript. What do you have to say about that?
A: That is quite fantastic. Roemhild could not know because he was never there. These killings had to carried out very secretly. Henry Pieck and others have explained very well that it would be contrary to the laws of conspiracy if other persons were informed.
Q: Kogon said that the figure was one hundred. What do you have to say about that?
A: Since Kogon was never present, as he himself says, he cannot know the figure either.
Q: How were these people killed?
A: By injection of Evipan or Phenol.
Q: Did you yourself perform these killings or were the injections administered by other persons with your knowledge?
A: In the case of persons with strong connections with the SS, where the killings would have been of great danger for other prisoners, I carried out these killings myself. In other cases, the prisoners killed them.
Q: What do you know about the killing of two Polish doctors?
A: I heard subsequently of the killing of one Polish doctor by Dr. Ding through the prisoners but I never heard anything definite about it. One of the Polish liaison men told me that they were Fascists. The others said the opposite. In any case, the Gestapo must have gone to Ding inasmuch as they were not able to accomplish anything with me.
Q: Why were these two people killed?
A: I do not know.
Q: Is it true that Kogon went to you and Dr. Ding and tried to help these two people?
A: Whether he went to Dr. Ding for this purpose, I do not know. If I had known anything about the arrest and intended killing, it would certainly not have taken place. Kogon testified himself that I was always willing at any time to try to save prisoners, and it wouldn't have to be Dr. Kogon who suggested to me to save prisoners. I tried to help any prisoner if it was in my power. In this whole affair, I know only that Polish prisoners informed me, and then it was arranged that another prisoner, also a Polish doctor, named Tczipyulowsky was saved. I transferred him to the outside camp in Wernigerode in order to get him out of the sight of Dr. Ding; but one must understand the environment and the mentality of the prisoners in order to know that in such a case I could not learn the truth. The fear of Dr. Ding was so great that no prisoner wanted to tell me exactly what was going on, since otherwise, he would be afraid for his life.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, Dr. Steinbauer has arrived. Shall I interrupt my examination of the prisoner?
THE PRESIDENT: You may, counsel.
MR. HARDY: Does the Tribunal desire that I repeat my request again?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, counsel.
MR. HARDY: During the course of the presentation of the case against the defendant Beiglboeck, charts and two notebooks were presented. containing information taken at the time of the sea water experiments at Dachau. At the time the prosecution requested that these documents be impounded by the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Tribunal ruled that said documents would be retained solely in the possession of the Tribunal, and that the prosecution and defense may peruse them at any time, but in the presence of a member of the office of the Secretary General.
The prosecution desires to have these charts studied by experts in their laboratory in Frankfurt in order to ascertain when some of the markings were made thereon, and the other obvious discrepancies in the charts and to report to the prosecution the results of their findings. In order to do that, the prosecution requests that they be allowed to send the documents to Frankfurt. In view of the ruling of the Tribunal the prosecution assumes that it will be necessary for the Tribunal to appoint a member of the Secretary General's office to take the documents to Frankfurt with a representative of the prosecution. That is substantially the request of the prosecution, your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Steinbauer — I mean, for the defendant Beiglboeck, Dr. Steinbauer, being present has heard the statement by the prosecution.
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Your Honors, I believe that this application of the prosecution is superfluous. By the detailed examination in the presence of the Court and the concessions of the witness Beiglboeck, it has been clearly determined what corrections he made. As for the names, the General Secretary's office already has a list of names which is to be photostatted and made available to the Tribunal and the prosecution. I don't remember how many names were in this list. As I recall, there were many more than submitted in court, and it also explains in which group this person was so that this list of names contains more information that the charts even if there had been no erasures. The important thing is that in the lists, in the curves on the front which are the proper, no changes were made; and that Professor Ivy testified here as an expert, and no doubt he had been informed by the prosecution what changes bad been made, and he testified that these documents were an adequate basis for an opinion. I believe that was the reason why the Court accepted these documents. If the Court, contrary to my expectation, should grant the request of the prosecution, I ask that the defense counsel also be given an opportunity to examine the expert and to confirm with him.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, this request is in the same nature as the request made by Dr. Flemming many months ago to have the Ding diary analyzed by an expert.
THE PRESIDENT: The request will be granted by the Tribunal. The only question concerns some detail. Do I understand counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck, if the documents are sent to Frankfurt for expert examination, he desires a representative to accompany the documents as well as a representative of the prosecution?
DR. STEINBAUER: If a representative of the prosecution goes, I should like the defense to have the same right.
MR. HARDY: Of course, your Honors, the defense may take the documents to his own expert. He has one in Nurnberg, the defense counsel does, but we haven't been able to make him available to the prosecution. The prosecution does have a laboratory, however, in Frankfurt to determine whether or not the ink notations contained on the notes of 12 September —
JUDGE SEBRING: As I stated, the request to send them to Frankfurt will be granted by the Tribunal. Mr. Hardy, how long do you anticipate that it will take your expert to make his inspection and findings? Will he be able to do that on the same day that the documents are taken there?
MR. HARDY: Unfortunately, your Honor, I am not able to estimate that; however, I would think it would take longer than one day. There are 44 charts, and how extensively they do their work with microscopes and whatever is the process used in such work, that I am not too familiar with. The laboratory is run by the U.S. Army, by the C.I.D., and they have working in there German nationals who are experts in this type of work. How long it takes, I am unable to determine, Your Honor. Perhaps I could inquire and report later, but I don't think I could get any further information.
JUDGE SEBRING: It has been referred to the Tribunal that perhaps if the matter could be completed in a day, there might be a possibility of ordering a member of the Secretariat to retain the documents in his custody, to take them to Frankfurt, and there act with the power of the Tribunal as a commissioner; and at that time, be empowered to take such questions and answers as might be propounded by either side, reduce them to writing, and bring back the papers and make his return as commissioner of the questions and answers together with the analysis and report of the experts.
MR. HARDY: That could be easily done that way. Your Honor. However, I am merely certain that such an operation would take more than a day.
JUDGE SEBRING: Could you investigate that?
MR. HARDY: I can investigate that, but I will be unable to report today unless I could use the recess time. As soon as possible, we would like the mission to return to Nurnberg inasmuch as we may be done here in a week or two.
DR. STEINBAUER: May I make a remark, Mr. President? In case these big charts are submitted, then I ask that the two small books are taken along, too. As far as I recall, Professor Beiglboeck said that the weights entered in ink on the upper edge were not written by him at all, but by a French medical man; and these books which were kept by the Frenchman, there is the handwriting of this Frenchman, and it would be necessary to compare them. If he only has the charts, of course he cannot compare the handwritings.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the request of the prosecution included the two small books. These will go with the charts? This might be done: The documents might be sent to Frankfurt under the cover of the Secretary General. The experts then might examine them and when they have done so, counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defense could go over and listen to the report of the experts and ask them any question that they might desire to ask.
MR. HARDY: The purpose of the prosecution in sending the documents to Frankfurt is to ascertain what, where and when the entries were made.
And this is purely on the behalf of the prosecution. If defense counsel has any objections, I don't see why they can't send a representative there with him; however, the prosecution doesn't necessarily mean to take the documents out of the hands of the Secretary General, inasmuch as they have been duly and correctly impounded by the Tribunal. But if a member of the Secretary General's office could accompany — in other words, take the documents there, then the prosecution could have the work done that they deemed to be necessary. It may prove that the work is fruitless; however, it may in turn prove enlightening in some things that we have misgiving about.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck is entitled to examine the expert that makes the report.
MR. HARDY: Assuming of course, the Prosecution wishes to introduce the report, if the Prosecution determines that the alterations are something of material value to the Tribunal, then we will, of course introduce a report, and if necessary have the particular experts involved come here to testify. However it is next to impossible to have this work done here in Nuernberg due to the fact we don't have the laboratory.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that thoroughly, if it understands counsel for the Prosecution correctly he stated after the Prosecution has the reports and if he desires to use them before the Tribunal the expert who made to examination would be available here in Nuernberg.
MR. HARDY: We can make the chief of that department available in Nuernberg for a day. I don't see why that would be impossible. I think that it is very possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well if the Prosecution undertakes that, if the documents are used here with that report by any expert from Frankfurt, that that expert will be here available for cross examination, and if the defendant desires to cross examine the witness he will be here available, then I question whether there is any particular necessity for a counsel for defendant Beiglboeck going to Frankfurt with the documents. Do you agree, Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will enter an order that the documents in question be taken to Frankfurt by a representative of the office of the Secretary General to be named and that a representative of the Prosecution may accompany the documents and call the attention of the experts to those matters upon which he desires the expert to concentrate his attention, and then when the expert has made his report if the Prosecution desires to use that report in any way whatever before the Tribunal that the expert who made the report will be available or someone who understands the matter will be available here in Nuernberg for cross examination by defense counsel and will testify before the Court as to his view.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor. Would that appointment of a representative of the Secretary General
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon.
MR. HARDY: Would that appointment of a representative of the Secretary General's office be fulfilled today so that orders can be made out and so forth to leave perhaps tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the appointment can be made at any time. I don't know whether Mr. Wartina could go or not of whether he would be suitable or any one who would be suggested to accompany the mission as custodian of the documents.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution during the afternoon recess shall ascertain what representative of the Secretary General can take the documents.
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir, I will ask Colonel Ray.
THE PRESIDENT: And then order should be prepared for signature by the Tribunal, an order should be prepared embodying the order of the Tribunal, a written order.
Counsel for defendant Hoven proceed.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Witness, what do you know about who killed these two Polish prisoners.
A: In May 1945, Dr. Ding at Freyseng accused me of killing a Polish doctor. Ding assumed that I was no longer alive. On the basis of this accusation I was arrested and also taken to Freyseng. This was on the 23rd of June 1945. When Ding learned that on the 23rd June 1945 I would come to Freyseng he attempted suicide on the evening before, that is on the 22 June 1945. The attempt was unsuccessful, however. He had cut the artery in his left hand.
On the 28th June 1945, I was interrogated in Freyseng because of this accusation of Ding's. Since I knew nothing even about the killing of the doctor I was to be confronted with Dr. Ding personally, but Dr. Ding preferred instead to make a confession and admitted that he had done it himself. That is all I know about the matter.
Q: And I put to you the testimony of Dr. Kogon in this connection. This is on page 1215 of the English record. Kogon said the following I quote:
Who exactly killed the three prisoners?
Whether it was Dr. Ding or Dr. Hoven I did not see myself. It was said in the camp that each of the two doctors had killed one prisoner or one of them had killed two but I cannot say myself.
What do you have to say about this?
A: When he reports rumors which circulated in the camp he knows exactly as well as I do what to think of them. When Dr. Kogon was Ding's first secretary such incredible rumors were circulated about him in the camp, that he was in the same with Dr. Ding and so forth. When I first heard of it I didn't even find it necessary to inform Dr. Kogon.
Q: Did you know the prisoners Freudemann and May?
A: Yes.
Q: In what category of prisoners were they?
A: They were professional criminals who had been previously convicted.
Q: Is it true that these two prisoners treated the Camp Commandant Koch who had contracted syphilis?
A: No, Walter Kramer, a former Reichstag [Parliament] delegate was the one Kogon meant here who was my first Kapo in the hospital with whom I was great friends The thanks that Kramer got from Koch was that he was put in an outside camp and shot. The material had been supplied by Kuschnia-Kuschnarev who was Walter Kramer's bitterest opponent. I wrote a letter to the Commandant in favor of Kramer but the only result was that Koch did not venture to murder Walter Kramer in Buchenwald.
Q: Is it true that these two prisoners, Freudemann and May, were put in a typhus experiment because they had treated Koch in order to aid him in this way?
A: No, they were not put in the experiment for that reason.
Q: Is it true that these two prisoners were murdered in the prisoners hospital, killed there?
A: That is true.
Q: At whose instigation were these two German professional criminals, Freudemann and May, killed?
A: At the instigation of the Committee of German and Foreign Political Prisoners.
Q: In this connection, I remind you of Kogon's testimony on page 1282 of the English Transcript, in answer to my question and I quote:
Are you aware that the political committee, that is the illegal camp administration, was involved in this killing?
End of quotation.
And Kogon answered: I quote:
Later while I was in the camp I learned of that.
Is this true?
A: When Kogon says later he means the time and the reason for my arrest by the Gestapo. Since I refused to give the names of the prisoners who had been involved in the killing of these two SS spies I was accused because of this killing. Among other things these two were the best collaborators of the SS. The killing of these two informers and traitors was necessary because otherwise hundreds of decent German and foreign prisoners would have been betrayed to the SS by Freudemann and May and been killed in the camp. They were called Jew slaughterers because they literally beat Jewish prisoners to death.
Q: By what right were these traitors and SS and Gestapo informers killed?
A: The justification against people like these two one cannot judge from normal circumstances. The issue was not that they were informers, not just that they betrayed their fellow prisoners to the SS and Gestapo, but beyond that they had hundreds of murders on their conscience, not only murders they had instigated but murders they had performed themselves. The Prisoner Committee and I realized that they would continue in this activity if they were not stopped. They were morally very inferior characters who gave way to their own murderous instincts and against whom there was no protection. The victims among these were the most valuable among the prisoners, those who were under arrest for political reasons. One must imagine that men like Henry Pieck, Dr. Horn and Dr. Kogon were their victims. But what they themselves were like, the Prosecution witness, Dr. Kogon, has shown with the example of Kuschnia-Kuschnarev. This was not an unusual case. It was a typical one. There was no other possibility of rendering such creatures inoffensive. I can imagine that the heads of partisan groups who are today considered heros in their own countries had the same problem as the prisoners and I did. I know that such a decision was not easy and is incomprehensible to a person who does not know such an environment from his own experience and observation. But that such a decision was an absolute necessity is a fact which can be explained only in a comparative sense, as connected with the environment. If there had been any other possible solution the prisoners and I would not have chosen this solution but there was no owner. If we had not acted in this way thousands of prisoners, the most valuable people, would have been killed by the SS. Such informers and traitors of the class of Kuschnarev might now be on trial but their victims could not be brought back and punishment would not bring them to life. None of those who fell victim to the camp justice which took the place of the criminal SS justice was without considerable degree of guilt.
There was no one among them who aid not have many lives on his conscience. The Prisoners Committee and illegal camp administration combated such people and I helped them against such people. In full awareness of my responsibility I helped in the counter action against 14-F-13 only in the interest of the prisoners and in collaboration with them. I prevented death transports, some times the very same transport several times. I took prisoners into the hospital under false diagnosis in order to protect them from death through the Gestapo or SS. I helped German and foreign Jews whenever I could without consideration of a position which would be more than illogical as at the same time other prisoners had been killed those who played this terrible part in the camp. My whole conduct would have been inconsistent and senseless if it were not based on the single motive which always ruled me — that is, to help people who deserved it and to participate in the elimination of those who were nothing but murderers and criminals by instinct.
Q: Were these killings carried out because these traitors and stool pigeons betrayed their comrades to the SS?
A: The betrayal of their comrades was not the reason.
Q: Then why were these stool pigeons and traitors killed?
A: In order to prevent more political prisoners being killed, which would have happened if they had remained alive.
Q: Did you make a distinction between decent and indecent prisoners?
A: No.
Q: You heard Dr. Horn. He said that you had a better name for the indecent prisoners. What was that name?
A: The name used by the prisoners for those who Dr. Horn mentioned was of three kinds: Informers, traitors and stool pigeons.
Q: In what way was it determined that these prisoners actually were stool pigeons, informers or traitors?
A: As a rule a representative of the illegal camp administration determined this in the first place. But, I should like to say right now that every case was different. I can only describe this very generally. If the Gestapo section of the camp administration carried out arrests or transferred people to the stone quarries by way of punishment the illegal camp administration endeavored to find out the cause. I must add that in the course of time the prisoners and I were able to put representatives in important offices of the SS camp administration, But I should like to emphasize that in spite of all our efforts we did not succeed in having agents in all offices. Those agents reported to the illegal camp administration who was responsible for those arrests or transfers. In the first investigations the illegal camp administration acted quite independently. In many cases I had no knowledge of the matter. As a rule I was involved only when the illegal camp administration with the aid of its agents was not able to determine the cause of the arrests. In these cases I went to the camp commandant, the head of the protective custody camp, the Gestapo section, and tried to find out the cause. The activity of these stool pigeons and traitors was now supervised by the illegal camp administration. They warned the traitors against going on. In some cases I had agents warn these traitors and stool pigeons. In many cases the illegal camp administration had the contacts of these traitors in the camp broken. Thus they were often unable to inform the Gestapo or other sections of the camp administration. On the other hand these traitors did not want to lose the benefits which they got from their activities. Therefore, they gave the Gestapo or some other office of the SS camp administration false information. The counter actions of this was that prisoners who had in no way acted against the SS were arrested and killed. This made their activities so horrible. If they had betrayed prisoners who were members of illegal German or foreign resistance movements at least they would have had the appearance of justification but the names of these prisoners were so secret that even the informers learned one or another name only by accident.
But since they wanted to have successes to show to the SS or Gestapo perfectly innocent prisoners had to suffer, persons who sometimes did not even know that there was a resistance movement in the camp. Therefore, there was general uncertainty in the camp and fear. Every prisoner had to expect to be arrested on the basis of such false accusations. After the traitors had repeatedly been warned in various sections by representatives of the illegal camp administration and Prisoners Committee and they refused to stop their activity, the Committee, the representatives of the foreign groups, reach the decision to kill such prisoners in order to save the lives of a number of decent prisoners, in this way, prisoners who otherwise would have been irrevocably lost.
Q: Mr. President, to support what the witness has just said and to prove the activities of these informers and traitors, I offer Document Hoven #9 as Exhibit 7. It is on page 33 of your document book. It is an affidavit submitted by the prosecution in Case IV as Document NO. 2122, Exhibit 179, an affidavit of a certain Karl Adam Roeder who describes the activities of such a traitor and informer. I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal especially to #7. He speaks of a certain Christian Knoll who was under Section 51 of the German penal code. I may add that this was a person considered legally irresponsible. Then I quote:
Zill, the leader of the protective custody camp, made use of this man as an instrument for murdering hundreds of Jewish and other prisoners. I myself and a number of other prisoners were witnesses when Zill once asked him when he intended to come for his next meal (one chunk of bread and one piece of sausage. This meant that Knoll was to murder a round figure of one hundred prisoners before he got this meal. This Knoll answered: "I have 97 and shall quickly dispatch the remaining 3 by noon." At noon we saw him go into the orderly room (office building) and we also saw him return from the orderly room with the meal received. I myself saw repeatedly in the camp how he ill treated prisoners in the most heinous way with the unambiguous intention to kill them. In his capacity as Capo of the plantation he took an active part in the shooting of numerous Jewish prisoners by pulling the prisoners' caps from their heads and throwing them across the chain of sentries, so as to give the sentry a reason for shooting.
Witness, was the activity of the informers and traitors, killed by you or with your knowledge, similar to the description given in this affidavit?
A: Similar. There were many varieties.
Q: Now, I come back to your affidavit, Document No. 429, Exhibit 281, in Document Book 12, page 1. I should like to discuss #10 which is on page 5. Please read #10 and tell me whether it is true that one purpose of killings was to keep prisoners in key positions as this paragraph might indicate, and what do you have to add to this paragraph which is only a brief summary?
A: This gives a false picture. It shows only one side. It was impossible, in an interrogation, to describe true whole environment in which I lived. It is impossible to summarize this description in a brief affidavit. It is quite true that prisoners who were in key positions were envied by other prisoners and that traitors made false accusations against such prisoners to the camp administration, as well as to the Gestapo, in order to have such prisoners arrested and killed. A typical example of this is Kogon himself who admitted when he was examined that I saved him three times. Because of the position which he held, Kogon was envied by many prisoners and the most nonsensical rumors circulated about Kogon and accusations were made against him. Such traitors and stool pigeons, however, worked not only against prisoners in key positions. That was the minor part of the accusations made in the camp. Kuschnia-Kuschnarev, for example, betrayed Russian prisoners of war, among others, who did not hold any key positions. Freudemann and May betrayed Jewish prisoners, none of whom held any key position. It is, of course, extremely difficult to sum this up in a few sentences. I tried to describe the conditions during my interrogations and, on the basis of this statement which I made, the affidavit was drawn up, not by me but by the prosecution, as I have already said. I did not know what the prosecution was interested in.
I did not know that the statement would be used against me. I had no reason to assume that it would be and, therefore, I did not consider it important to defend myself. As far as the statement was read to me, it was not incorrect, but merely incomplete. Therefore, I signed it assuming that I would have an opportunity, in case there was any lack of clarity here, to make a more detailed statement.
Q: And what was the further reason that you did not realize that this statement under #10 might give a wrong impression?
A: Well, one reason was that I didn't understand some of the English words.
Q: Please tell the Tribunal who Kuschnia-Kuschnarev was and what role he played in the Camp-Buchenwald?
A: Kuschnia-Kuschnarev was a Russian immigrant. Why he was in the camp, I do not know. He was already there when I came to the camp. In the course of time, he had succeeded in creating for himself an important position with the camp administration. No one less than then Chief of the Gestapo and the SD, Heydrich, had recommended him to the camp commandant. He went in and out of the commandant's office without appointment which was not permitted even to the SS officers. This small example shows clearly what position Kuschnia-Kuschnarev had. He took advantage of his powerful position for personal advantages and betrayed prisoners to the camp commandant, the Gestapo and the head of the protective custody camp. Kuschnarev had no inhibitions only his own advantage. He had unrestrained hatred, especially against the political prisoners, especially the foreign prisoners. The main treacherous activity of Kuschnarev reached its climax when the Russian prisoners of war came to Buchenwald.
Kuschnia-Kuschnarev received the assignment from the Gestapo to pick out the commissars, especially Jewish commissars, from among the Russian prisoners of war. I do not believe that there were any commissars left among the Russian prisoners of war who had already gone through several camps. In order to prove his efficiency and to maintain his position with the camp commandant, Kuschnir-Kuschnarev pointed out a large number of these prisoners of war as commissars and he said that the others were all really convinced Bolshevists. Kuschnir-Kuschnarev was repeatedly warned by the illegal camp administration, especially representatives of the foreign prisoners. In this case of Kuschnir-Kuschnarev, the foreign agents took an especially important part. On the basis of his important position, we had to proceed very carefully. I cannot describe the details. I don't know them. The result of the warning was that the agents who had approached him were arrested and killed by the Gestapo. The head of the Illegal Camp Administration, a former German Reichstag delegate Walter Kraemer, whom I have already mentioned, who was in charge of the hospital under me for more than a year and with whom I was on very good terms and with whom I collaborated closely, was a victim of Kuschnarev's activity as an informer. Kuschnarev's did not stop his murderous work. There was only one solution and that was to do away with him.
Q: Was Kuschnir-Kuschnarev a member of the United Nations?
A: No, he was a Russian immigrant.
Q: How was Kuschnir-Kuschnarev killed?
A: By an injection with evipan or phenol, I don't know which.
Q: I remind you of the testimony of Dr. Kogon on page 1204 of the English transcript; Dr. Kogon testified that you killed other persons at the suggestion of the SS, is that true?
A: That was quite impossible, since I was collaborating with the prisoners. As for the prisoners whom the Gestapo and SS did not like whom they wanted to eliminate and against whom they had informers or agents working, I fought against these agents together with the prisoners during the whole time I was in Buchenwald, and I saved the prisoners from the Gestapo and the SS. And Kogon must know that best, because he was one of them, one of the people who were on the liquidation list of the SS, and he has also testified how it came about that he was in a position, to testify here, because I helped him against the SS and Gestapo and kept him off the transports, not once but three times, and it would be asking too much if on the one hand I risk my life to save prisoners and on the other hand kill them. The risk of my life would be unnecessary; but I need only have folded my hands, watched the informers and threatened collaborators with the SS and Gestapo to gradually clear the whole camp of German and foreign prisoners. But the Gestapo for a long time, especially since the death of their collaborator Kuschnir-Kuschnarev, discussed me and the death transports from which I had removed many people did not pass unnoticed in the course of time. The Gestapo had for some time been collecting evidence against me. My agents who worked for the Gestapo or SS had found that out from statements made by the SS and Gestapo and had warned me, but what I had to do was prescribed to me, just as for the illegal camp administration and the members of the foreign prisoner groups, and I continued to do this until the end. But if Dr. Kogon's testimony, which I believe camp from the camp rumors, were true you may be sure you would not now have the leading prisoners, and the German and foreign groups, like Pies, Dr. Horn, Seegers, Gootschalk and many others.
They knew my work very thoroughly, and that they did so shows that they are just as brave and courageous as they were formerly and are not afraid of any unpleasant consequences and danger, but come to help me in my need just as I helped them; but they would never have done that if I had ever supported the SS and Gestapo against the prisoners.
Q: Then how does Kogon come to make this statement, can you explain that?
A: Kogon did not know of the circumstances, especially, since he did not belong to the committee of German and foreign prisoners, at least not during my time. During my time he did not take any active part. Many prisoners assumed that if a prisoner was killed it was at the instigation of the SS. They did not know that was an informer. Then, of course, this informer had a lot of followers who saw to it that such rumors did not come out, because these informers through the people that were working for the SS and the Gestapo could put their friends into good positions, and their friends in turn supplied them with information on the camp and the life of the prisoners, which they passed on to the SS and Gestapo, but since the names of the committee of prisoners were known only to a very small group of persons, only mine was left. This is how Kogon's testimony and many others came about.
Q: Were any prisoners killed by you or with your knowledge in the course of ATB action?
A: Not that I know of.
Q: I remind you of the testimony of Kogon on page 1214 of the English transcript, where Kogon said he could not say that while you were camp doctor or under your administration, patients were killed by infection in the hospital or in the course of a TB action, but Kogon testified that there were epidemics.
The camp officer Wuest, who was a violent opponent of the Jews could be named as having killings carried, what do you know about that?
A: I know nothing about that. It has already been stated here, that this was before my time.
Q: Now, I should like to show you the affidavit of Dr. Link, who has died in the meantime, dated 20 July 1945. It is Prosecution document NO 257, Exhibit 283, on page 9 of the German, 10 of the English Document Book 12.
THE PRESIDENT: As reading that affidavit will take sometime, the Tribunal will now take its recess before you start reading this affidavit.
The Tribunal will be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)