1947-06-24, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 June 47)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In regard to the matter of the interrogatories under discussion before the noon recess, these interrogatories were propounded by defense counsel by way of cross examination of certain witnesses whose written statements were offered by the prosecution and received in evidence by the Tribunal. These interrogatories being, as I said, by way of cross examination — interrogatories and the answers thereto a part of the original statements or affidavits which were received in evidence and are therefore now admissible before the Tribunal over the objection on the part of defendants who propounded the interrogatories. The Tribunal would, however, in view of all the circumstances, direct that they simply be numbered and filed and received in evidence as documents in the case, of course subject to pertinent portions thereof which are deemed of importance being read in the record.
Defendants have a right, in view of this ruling, to apply to the Court to summon these witnesses before the Tribunal or to propound other written interrogatories to these witnesses if the answers may be taken and procured before the close of the evidence. An application is made to summon the witnesses the Tribunal will consider it, but it has not been the practice of the Tribunal to direct that witnesses from foreign countries be brought here, due to passport and other difficulties and also due to the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal to require the presence of a witness residing in a foreign country. These questions and answers then will be filed as documents and may be received in evidence as a part of the exhibit which is already in evidence.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I hereby apply that the witnesses — Lee Warden and Johann Pieter Schacker be called as witnesses. But since this trial is approaching its end I make this application immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel must prepare the usual written application. It will be considered by the Tribunal and passed on promptly.
WALDEMAR HOVEN — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Hoven, did you at any time ever participate in the experiments at Block 46?
A: No.
Q: Do you contend that the testimony of Leuvarden is erroneous?
A: That I cannot judge, whether it is erroneous or whether it is perjury. I think there is confusion, that he has confused me with someone else here, because it is perfectly clear that if this is an experiment involving 120 persons it would be stated in the diary, therefore it is clear that I did not carry out the experiment. I don't understand anything about it and I never carried out experiments.
Q: Leuvarden, however, says that you injected him. Do you deny that?
A: Repeat your question please?
Q: Leuvarden, however, states that you injected him in the course of an experiment at Block 46.
A: That is impossible, because I never did that.
Q: Did you ever witness the execution of Russian commissars by shooting?
A: Once.
Q: When was that?
A: I can't tell you the exact date. I was sent there on orders of the illegal camp management and the foreign political prisoners committee to observe the activity of Kushnareff.
Q: How many Russian commissars were killed on that occasion?
A: I cannot tell you that because I left almost immediately because it turned my stomach.
Q: Who else was there?
A: Members of the Kommandantur staff. How many there were and who I cannot say.
Q: When did this happen?
A: I can't tell you the date.
Q: Where did it happen?
A: In a so-called stable.
Q: Who did the killing?
A: Members of the Kommandantur staff.
Q: What medical officer was present other than you?
A: I cannot tell you whether my boss was present or not.
Q: Who pronounced them dead?
A: I told you, right after it started I left, because the sight turned my stomach. I therefore did not carry out any medical activities there.
Q: Who ordered the execution?
A: I assume that Himmler did, the Gestapo.
Q: How do you know that?
A: I don't know it. I just said I assume that.
Q: Dr. Hoven, at any occasion during the course of your time at the Buchenwald concentration camp, did you request that a prisoner's head be placed on your desk?
A: No, never.
Q: Never did that?
A: No.
Q: You know a man named Josef Ackermann?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was Josef Ackermann?
A: A political prisoner. I don't know what party he belonged to. I accommodated him in the pathological department. He was one of the prisoners who did not take an active part in the fight against the SS but who was being helped by me, the illegal camp management, and the political prisoners committee. He was to be sent sway on a transport several times. The illegal camp management wanted him rescued and I helped do so.
Q: Did you ever point out an inmate walking across the camp yard to Ackermann and tell him that you wanted that man killed?
A: No, never.
Q: Let us look at Document NO-2631. This will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 522 for identification, your Honor. This is an affidavit by Josef Ackermann. I want you to turn to paragraph No. 2 and in paragraph No. 2 we go down to the 4th sentence beginning with the words "During the last years" and the affidavit reads as follows. I quote:
During the last years my superior was the camp physician Dr. Waldemar Hoven. Every corpse of a prisoner was brought into the mortuary of the pathological section. I had also to compose the so-called post-mortem findings on these prisoners who were shot on escape, which findings were distributed in numerous copies, among others also to the SS-Court in Dusseldorf.
Now we will turn to the next page — page 3 and on page 3 of the English, we will find on page 2 of the German — the last sentence on page 2 of the German, which is the sentence beginning just about the middle of page 3 of the English, above the words in parentheses (page 3 of original) the sentence beginning "Dr. Hoven stood once." Do you have that?
A: Yes.
Q: And I quote therefrom:
Dr. Hoven stood once together with me at the window of the pathological section and pointed to a prisoner, not known to me who crossed the place where the roll calls were held. Dr. Hoven told me: I want to see the skull of this prisoner on my writing desk until tomorrow evening. The prisoner was ordered to report to the medical section, after the physician had noted down the number of the prisoner. The corpse was delivered on the same day to the dissection room. The post-mortem examination showed that the prisoner had been killed by injections. The skull was prepared as ordered and delivered to Dr. Hoven.
Do you know anything about that doctor?
A: This is the biggest lie I ever saw in my whole life.
Q: You don't know anything about that?
A: First of all, Mr. Hardy, there was never a skull on my desk.
I never interested myself in the pathological section. There was a doctor there from Berlin by the name of Miller, and before him a Dr. Leve. Moreover I only visited once the pathological section. Ackermann usually stood at the door, used to greet me, and thank me for saving political prisoners and such things. But, never in my life did I have a prisoner killed and acquire his skull. I wasn't interested in skulls. This is an unmistakable lie.
Q: In the Buchenwald Concentration Camp were prisoners beaten, that is, given lashes?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it necessary for a medical officer to approve the beating of a prisoner?
A: There was an order to that effect, namely, that a doctor should be present and that the doctor should examine the prisoner before hand.
However, this order was never observed by my predecessors. I was the first doctor to require that the prisoners who were beaten should first be physically examined. Together with representatives of the political prisoners we did everything we could to suppress these penalties — these beatings. And the decision as to whether a man was in good enough condition to be beaten, was not reached by me but by prisoner nurses and the trustees of the illegal camp committee. We did everything we could to see to it that no foreign or German political prisoners were beaten. That was our greatest success.
Q: Well then suppose a professional criminal was involved. Would you approve the beating of a political criminal?
A: I was against these beatings but we couldn't change orders from Himmler. That was impossible. The only way you could help was to try to keep as many beatings as possible from taking place but if I had refused to be present or if I had simply asserted that no prisoners could be beaten, then I would have been replaced or penalized and the consequences of that would have been that all prisoners who were to be beaten would have been beaten and in that case there would have been no opportunity to help the prisoners.
Q: Well, before a man was beaten or before approval was granted for him to be beaten, wasn't it necessary that the flogging be approved by the medical officer?
A: I just told you that was not done before my time. I was the first to introduce that — the prisoners told me such an order did exist and I went myself to the SS and insisted that we should be allowed to see the prisoners before they were beaten and to be sure that the interests of the prisoners were being represented. The illegal camp management sent its representatives to me. They made the selection, saw to it that the prisoners were sent to the hospital, etc.
Q: Well here is a document. It is Document NO-2313, your Honor, which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit 523 for identification, which apparently, Dr. Hoven is the slip necessary to be filled out and the approvals marked thereon before a prisoner can be beaten.
Now, I want to pass this up to you and see if you can identify on the reverse side the signature of the medical hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain]. Whose name is that t here?
A: Dr. Plaza.
Q: How do you spell that?
A: P-l-a-z-a.
Q: Was he your assistant, at that time?
A: He was a camp doctor. Yes.
Q: Well, was he your assistant?
A: I can't say assistant. He was a camp doctor. He was subordinate to me.
Q: Yes. Well now you turn to the front page and you will notice this person was a Polish worker, considered a shirker and he left his labor squad without permission and was found later smoking in a hall. And that on page 3 of the translation, your Honor, we note that before any prisoner can be punished the medical opinion must be given and in this case Dr. Plaza has stated, quoting from the document:
The culprit, named on the reverse side, was medically examined by me before the execution of the flogging. I do not have any objections against the application of flogging from the medical point of view.
And then the other statement is
I, as a physician, either raise objections against the flogging — and gives the reason, or does not raise and crosses out the word "raise".
Well, was that the usual procedure in every case of flogging?
A: This what I first insisted on — that prisoners be brought before me. Previously the practice was that the orders came from Berlin and the man was flogged. The medical certificate was just read, was never previously paid any attention to.
This certificate went to Berlin and came back signed and the prisoner was flogged and then after he was flogged it was out to my predecessor then his doctor and signed post facto and I was the first one to object to that procedure.
Q: How many of such floggings did you sign? Did you sign many each week and allow floggings to go on because the person was physically able to endure the flogging?
A: Mr. Hardy, I didn't judge according to the state of health of a person. I didn't really examine him at all. What we did was everything we could whether healthy or not. We were fundamentally against the practice of flogging and all political prisoners, including the foreigners, were saved by us so far as possible from the flogging. I can't give you the exact percentage any more but I know we did save some. It wasn't all. If I would have tried to save everyone I would have been fired and penalized and the prisoners would have had no recourse. If this man here was really flogged in September 1942 I can only explain it by the fact I wasn't present at that time and Plaza didn't consult me in the matter of medical examination for this prisoner. As I have already said I did whatever I could whenever I could, namely kept as many as possible from being flogged, making no difference, whether German or foreign.
Q: Would it make a difference if he was a political prisoner or a criminal prisoner?
A: Well, if he was an out-and-out informer whom we knew of, then I had no objections — none at all — to the man's being flogged. He deserved it.
Q: Well, did you know the name of the man who was on that particular slip there? Kisiliczka?
A: No, I didn't know him.
Q: Did you know a man named Woidellek, Ernst. W-O-I-D-E-L-L-E-K?
A: No, I can't remember that I did know him.
Q: Was that man a notorious criminal in the camp?
A: Could you please spell the name again?
Q: W-O-I-D-E-L-L-E-K.
A: I can't remember the name, at the moment.
Q: Well, I note that you approved that he be given twenty-five lashes. He is a professional criminal. Because he tried to escape one day from a labor squad and did escape and was captured a few days later. And you approved that he be given twenty-five lashes. Now, that is Document NO 2312, which is marked Prosecution Exhibit 524 for identification. Now, on the reverse side of that document, is that your signature, Dr. Hoven?
A: Yes.
Q: Tell us about that case.
A: How can I do that. I don't know this case at all. I told you that I left this up to the agents and liaison men of the foreign and German prisoners and these men did whatever they could.
Q: Then you approved of beating a man — giving him twenty-five lashes — without having examined him yourself and then certified that you did find him physically fit to be flogged?
A: I told you that the nurses and these agents of the political resistance movements did this on my orders. That was much better than if I had done it myself because in the first place, those were all comrades and, secondly, they were actually more interested in this than I was and, thirdly, they know their cases better than I did.
If for instance ten blows were ordered and they managed to reduce it by six, then they did so. I couldn't take care of everything in the whole camp. It wasn't a Sunday school. But, it is also possible and this did happen, that prisoners who were caught while escaping were to be shot and then, through the work of the illegal resistance groups and through having connections with the administrative head of the protective custody camp, it was possible to commute that sentence to a flogging and I can tell you that the prisoner was very glad for the commutation. Moreover, we had an illegal treasury from which various officials were bribed.
THE PRESIDENT: will the Counsel pass to the Tribunal the original of Prosecution Identification Exhibit 523?
MR. HARDY: I am handing up for the Judges' perusal also, Exhibit 524.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, I shall have handed to you Document # 2313, which has been marked for identification as Prosecution Rebuttal Exhibit 523, and I direct your attention to the fact that on the front side of the document, at the top, are certain pencil notes, will you please examine those notes and state, if you know, in whose handwriting they appear and state, if you can read the note, what the note says?
A: I can try to explain it, Your Honors, although I cannot say for certain. I assume that this is "III" which is at the top in the middle — I think that must mean "Department III". That was the administrative head of the protective custody camp. His office.
Q: Who was in charge of that office?
A: That was the first administrative head of the protective custody camp. At this time that was I think Sturmbannfuehrer [Major] Schobert. S-C-H-O-B-E-R-T.
Q: Well then, I direct your attention to the handwritten note which appears on the front of that instrument, to the left of the red pencilled markings "III", and ask you, if you will read that,
A: I can see only the numbers "17-9-42".
Q: Would that not indicate to you 17 September 1942?
A: Yes, that's the way I should construe that.
Q: Now, what else is in that pencil notation?
There is a German Gothic script "V". Then there is a German "R" and an "S" in Gothic script, and a "B" and an "L".
Q: Can you say what that stands for?
A: No, Your Honors, I do not know what that means.
Q: On the English translation of that document which has been supplied to the Tribunal, at the head of the document, appears the words "died — D-I-E-D — 17 September 1942". Does anything of that sort appear on the front page at the top of that document?
A: So far as I can read here, I see, as I say, a small "v" and a small "r" and a small "s". Then a capital "B" and an "L". That's all I see.
Q: Very well, thank you.
Mr. Hardy —
THE WITNESS: (Interrupting) All of these letters are in Gothic script.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, I direct your attention to the English translation of Document NO 2313.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: Do you note, at the top, the words "Died 17 September 1942 "?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor,
JUDGE SEBRING: Where did that come from?
MR. HARDY: I imagine it came from the certificate of translation — the translator, Frank W. Young. I was about to take issue on the point before you took it up with the defendant. Due to the explanations now, it won't be necessary for me to do so.
JUDGE SEBRING: Take issue with whom?
MR. HARDY: With the defendant on the notation.
Can I ask the interpreters to make an attempt to decipher the German words on the top of this document?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
MR. HARDY: There's a handwritten notation.
INTERPRETER: These could be the letters "v r s t r b" with a period which would be a possible abbreviation for the German word "verstorben" which means died.
Q: Do you know whether or not this prisoner Kisiliczka died after these beatings, Doctor?
A: No, I don't know the name. I only know that there was strict prohibition for the prisoners, provision against the prisoners being allowed to be taken into the hospital after the beatings, However, I always did so myself.
Q: How severe were the beatings?
A: What do you mean by severe?
Q: Well, could ten lashes be sufficient to contribute to the cause of death of one of these inmates?
A: I shouldn't think so.
Q: How about twenty-five?
A: That I cannot tell you. I have already told you all I know about this.
Q: Did they get hospital treatment after twenty-five lashes?
A: That was forbidden. But whenever I personally could I did take the prisoners into the hospital, if they needed care. That is a well known fact.
Q: Did a person usually get care after twenty-five lashes?
A: Certainly.
Q: What did you have to do, Doctor, with the construction of Block 50, did you have anything to do with that?
A: Yes, I was the deputy in Block 50.
Q: Did you have anything to do with the construction?
A: I was imprisoned before then, but I recruited all the workers there, including foreign scientists, and all the prisoners who were in danger. I didn't go to Block 50 on my own initiative, but on the explicit wishes of the political resistance camp management.
Q: Did you conduct the business necessary for the construction and furnishing of equipment for Block 50?
A: No, the SS camp administration did that, but the rooms in Block 50 were excellent. They were fixed up with illegal work shops, and so forth, but that is very difficult to explain now. All the groups worked hand in hand with each other.
Q: Did you ever have any dealings with, for instance, the Chief of the Construction Bureau of the Waffen-SS and police concerning the building of Block 50?
A: Most of the time Dr. Ding was there, but I was his deputy, for the reason I have already given you, namely I took the job for the sake of the illegal camp management and the resistance movements. The important thing was that we should safeguard the prisoners and that was my point of view, and that was why I was there.
Q: I have a document here which is Document NO-1944, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 125 for identification; you will note here in this document several letters dealing with the equipment used in Block 50 and the furnishings of Block 50, and the general construction of Block 50, and in most instances it is referred to you. We note on page 3 that the letter is addressed to you; on page 4 you were mentioned in that letter; now, just what was your capacity concerning the construction of Block 50, and the equipping or the furnishing of it?
A: I have already told you I was the deputy. I usually left this up to the prisoners there, busying myself with it personally as.Little as possible.
Q: The prisoners weren't building Block 50, were they, that was on orders from Berlin that the SS build it? Do you mean the prisoners were engaged in the contraction of Block 50 and in the production of typhus vaccine and not the hygienists of the SS?
A: You misunderstood me, Mr. Hardy, let me tell you that I have made efforts to be Ding's deputy in Block 50 in order to be able to help the illegal camp management. The reason for this was to save endangered prisoners and prominent foreign politicians by taking them to Block 50 as workers.
That this was done you know. That if in the course of this work I did some administrative work that is quite understandable. I was advised in all this by the prisoners. We received suggestions. There was the Jewish engineer who was mentioned already several times, Max Hoechster. I let him take care of this, because I knew much too little about it.
Q: You have Document NO-265, the Ding diary before you, Dr. Hoven?
A: What page?
Q: This will be page 39 of the English under the date 17 March 1942, concerning the visit of Professor Rose and Professor Gildemeister to Buchenwald?
A: I have it. I have it.
Q: Now, we note that in that entry that Dr. Ding was sick with spotted fever and was in the hospital in Berlin, is that correct?
A: That is what it says here.
Q: Who conducted Professor Gildemeister and Professor Rose around during their visit?
A: I didn't. I assume it was one of our doctors, I didn't do it simply because I could give these gentlemen no information about what they wanted to know, because I understood nothing about it. As a doctor I didn't want to lay myself open in that way. My professional reputation would have suffered. My reason was only this, so I assume some other doctor took them around. Professor Gildemeister came around several times.
Q: Well, now, the entry just above that indicates that persons were infected with virus and that an experimental series was in progress on the 3rd of March, and it says:
I didn't see the results of that first experimental series until 19 March.
Now, when Dr. Ding was in the hospital at Berlin, the entry 17 March states that you were the supervisor during his absence; now, isn't it true from those entries that those experiments were underway while you were in a position of supervisor during the absence of Dr. Ding?
A: No, he had already indoctrinated his people, particularly the capo Dietzsch. I didn't know anything about this, consequently I could not make the arrangements, and Ding, of course, know that.
Q: Were you present on the occasion that the inmates were infected with lice, that is the day the lice in the cages were tied to the thighs of the inmates in Block 46, so as to infect them with the lice of the second shipment; did you see that infection?
A: I was told this when I was in the hospital.
Q: Kindly answer my question, did you see the infection, did you see the men sitting or standing or whatever position they were in with a cage strapped to their thighs with lice therein, and thereby causing infection, did you see that?
A: They were sitting on chairs with cages strapped to their thighs and I saw it. I was there. I was smuggled there in order to save the political prisoner who was among the experimental subjects.
Q: Now, were you indicted by the SS Police Court after your arrest?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you served with an indictment?
A: I was at the Gestapo and I received some sort of red slip of paper.
Q: Were any charges ever read off to you?
A: Not read to me, no. No charges were read to me. I told you once in the interrogation that I got this red slip of paper, and I have also told you what the ostensible reasons were that they had to put me on trial, namely the killing of the three —
Q: Let's go to these other things first. You were arrested in September 1943, is that correct?
A: 12 September.
Q: Did you ever go to trial.
A: Yes.
Q: When?
A: One year later.
Q: When was your trial, on the 11th September?
A: No, earlier, the beginning of September 1944.
Q: And then you were sentenced as a result of that trial?
A: No, I wasn't. The trial was squashed, they were going to put me on trial on political charges and then I was sent to Buchenwald as a prisoner.
Q: Have you ever seen the results of your trial, that is the report written by the judges, I suppose; your trial that was held in September of 1944?
A: I never saw it, but the reports that were written about a Gestapo and SS trial were written up in whatever way they pleased.
Q: Who tried you; what court?
A: The Highest SS and Police Court.
Q: Who as the judge?
A: I don't know his name.
Q: You mentioned Konrad Morgen; what did Morgen have to do with it?
A: He was the Prosecutor. That was a wonderful piece of cooperation they had in the SS, the pre-trial judge also became the Prosecutor.
Q: Well, then, Dr. Morgen was the judge actually; wasn't he?
A: No, he was the Prosecutor.
Q: I have here a Document No. 2366, Dr. Hoven, that I want you to look at. This will be offered for identification. This, Your Honor, is a voluminous indictment in the case of SS Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Koch vs. Dr. Hoven. I am only going to refer to a few excerpts from it. The reproduction of the German is rather difficult. I have only one copy for defense counsel, the photostat and the English excerpts will be very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what is the purpose, what is the evidentiary value of this document?
MR. HARDY: The document lists everything that Dr. Hoven did while he was at Buchenwald, as charged by the SS.
JUDGE SEBRING: Yes, but did not the man say he was acquitted and was not tried?
MR. HARDY: That is not what these records bear out, Your Honor. To accompany this, Dr. Hoven, I have another document No. 2380, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 536 for identification, No. 527, pardon me.
DR. GAWLIK: I object to this document, to document No. 2380. I question the probative value of this since it originates from the Gestapo, an organization which in the verdict of the I.M.T. was declared a criminal organization. The Prosecution would have to first prove that this organization and the report that was drawn up by the officers of this organization are credible persons who can be believed. It must also prove that no criminal goals were being perused in this document and in this trial of Dr. Hoven. I have tried to show in the conduct of my defense that Himmler through the Gestapo was trying to exterminate the political prisoners in the concentration camps and everything that was opposed to this goal of his was combated by Himmler and the Gestapo by every means at their disposal. That is the contents of this document and I cannot see what purpose the Prosecution is pursuing unless it is going to align the Gestapo on the side of the Prosecution. I see neither the purpose of the probative value of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course an indictment itself is no proof of anything, but the proceedings which follow the indictment might be of probative value. In any event, the matter of probative value of any document present in evidence may be argued and will be finally determined by the Tribunal and if it has no probative value it will be disregarded.
DR. GAWLIK: But, this is an indictment, Your Honor, you have just said that the probative value must be decided by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be part of some subsequent proceedings, which is not indicated, in any event it is not offered in evidence, but merely marked for identification.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, is it your purpose to prove that based upon their indictment this document is some final judgment of some court of jurisdiction?
MR. HARDY: The defendant stated that because of some inquiry on the part of Konrad Morgen, SS Judge and SS Hauptstumfuehrer [Captain], he was then dismissed and sent to the concentration camp for political reasons. I don't see any indication of that in the report signed by Dr. Morgen, SS Judge of the reserve Morgen imposed on Koch and I want to have Dr. Hoven explain his statements as opposed to the statements contained in these documents and explain some of the reasons for the accusations made in these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Hoven, taking the voluminous photostatic copy of the alleged indictment; will you turn to page 51 of that report?
A: There is no pagination in this document that I can see.
Q: I think there is the pagination in the upper right hand corner.
A: Oh, yes, I see, 51.
Q: Yes, 51.
Now, you will note on page 51 the paragraph concerning your activities and in that paragraph is a statement:
Besides Hoven had a bad conscience because of the executions he directly imposed upon Koch for carrying them out—
What does the investigator mean by that statement?
A: I have already told you that the Gestapo and Dr. Morgen carried in the indictment anything they wanted to. I was Koch's greatest opponent, that was known throughout Buchenwald. Koch hated me fervently because he could not prove anything regarding my political activities against the SS. For this reason he charged me with these killings, the killings of Freudemann and May, I mentioned before, who were known as Jew slaughters. Because I would not give him the names of the prisoners who had actually done the killings, he charged me with it in the course of the proceedings against me in the pre-trial proceedings.
I can give you the exact date for this, I shall always remember it, 28 December, 1943, after an air attack on Frankfurt on the Main in the presence of his secretary.
Q: Let us be more brief.
A: I am just getting to the main point.
Q: Just a moment —
THE PRESIDENT: Please allow the witness to finish his answer. The witness may continue his answer.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Continue, witness, but let me repeat my question and let your answer be brief; did you impose on Koch to carry out executions? That simply can be answered with "yes" or "no".
A: I was going to continue what I had to say and then I would answer you right away.
This evening, in the presence of his secretary whom I met in the course of the interrogation, Dr. Morgen said he found out from a phone call that his house in Frankfurt had been bombed by the American Air Force. Then, he came back into the room in an enraged state, shouted at me and said, I don't know what curses he used against me, but he said, if you killed the American swines for that you would deserve nothing but God's thanks, however, in the meantime if ten political prisoners are killed that is something we might talk about because they were the worst enemies of the SS. He said, "You killed political prisoners," and "that it was none of my business." He was so excited and inconsistent in what he was saying, my confidence was shaken completely. I can only bring this up now, because this man is saying now he worked for the welfare of the prisoners, however, as Himmler's personal deputy he simply furthered the extermination plan which Himmler outlined for the concentration camps, however, the exterminations were not meant for informers or professional criminals but for Jews and political prisoners.
Now, to answer your question directly, I never directly imposed on Koch.
Q: It is not necessary for you to go on to such an extensive length to answer my question when it is as simple as that, Doctor. Now, on page 67, we note a reference made to Schaufelmeier; did you know Schaufelmeier?
A: This is a killing with which Dr. Morgen charged me also.
Q: Did you know Schaufelmeier?
A: I cannot remember him, I had nothing to do with him.
Q: Did you know Titz?
A: I believe that was a man who worked under Koch, if I remember correctly; is that so?
Q: I am asking you, Doctor?
A: I think he was an orderly who worked for Koch, I do not know for sure, but if you will tell me I will know if I am right.
Q: Did you participate in the murder of Titz?
A: If this is the Titz I am thinking of, who was a servant of Koch, then I can tell you he is still alive. I saw him by accident on the day when I was taken prisoner. He is still alive, he is fine.
Q: Who is Sommer?
A: He was a supervisor in the bunker?
Q: An SS man?
A: Yes.
Q: Is he one and the same Sommers who is now on trial here in Nurnberg?
A: No, he has nothing to do with him.
Q: Did you know the camp commandant's wife, Frau Polk?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever have any relations with her?
DR. GAWLIK: I object to that question. I don't know what probative value the question is supposed to have.
THE PRESIDENT: What probative value could that have, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: To show the reason for the animosity the defendant contends he had with the camp commandant.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to me immaterial and the objection is sustained.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Did the prisoner doctors contribute to the writing of your doctor's thesis?
A: No.
Q: You are certain of that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you participate in the killing of Collinet?
A: No, but since investigations of this case were immediately undertaken against the illegal camp management, and I wanted to keep the prisoners from getting into any trouble and since the Gestapo had already arrested me I took it upon myself. I did admit some things I was asked and the things I didn't admit they said I did any way. That is the way they work. May I make an explanation of this, Mr. Hardy?
Q: Go ahead.
A: I want to tell you so that you will understand that better. I don't want to use up the Tribunal's time describing my experiences with the Gestapo when I was in prison because you probably know about the methods of the Gestapo but I want to remind you, Mr. Hardy, what their measures were, their practices. Your American fellow citizen, Frau Mildred Fish who married a German scientist von Harneck. She was going to teach in the University of Baltimore and is known for her translation of Edmund's "Drums along the Mohawk" and Stone's novel, "Lust for Life", which she translated into German. She was involved in some affair with her husband in a fight against Hitler, and sentenced to six years, after having been in the hands of the Gestapo. When she was taken by the Gestapo she had blond hair. She was a pretty young woman and left for the trial with white hair after Hitler had commuted the sentence and had condemned Mrs. Fish to death. Now these are the sort of methods the Gestapo used so you can understand such a document as this can come out of the Gestapo and it is pretty harmless in comparison with their other stuff.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, returning to the subject of punishment in Buchenwald, with what instrument were these floggings administered? How was it made and of what material?
A: It was a leather whip. I can't tell whether there was a steel rod in the middle or only a wooden one. That I don't know.
Q: How long was it?
A: About so long. (Indicating)
Q: Approximately one meter?
A: Yes, roughly, yes.
Q: How heavy was it?
A: I don't believe I have ever picked up one. I can't really say how heavy it was.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)