1947-06-24, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, the Tribunal anticipated you a moment. It is unimportant. The Tribunal is now in session. Counsel, you may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Hoven, during the course of this examination —
A: There is a noise in the system, Mr. Hardy. I can't understand you very well. There is such a noise over the earphones. There must be a ventilator.
MR. HARDY: We will have the ventilators turned off.
Q: Dr. Hoven, during the course of your examination here you have related with considerable frankness your activities at Buchenwald. Now I want you to be as equally frank in the question which I am now about to put to you. You were in Buchenwald in one capacity or another from October 1939 to September 1943. During that period of time you must have seen many dignitaries and officials of the Government, the Party, and the SS come and go to and from the camp. You undoubtedly talked to many of them or with others who knew the purposes of their visits, and also you may have had the occasion or must have had the occasion to see many orders, decrees and directives and correspondence concerning the activities of the camp.
Now, from what you have seen, read or heard from authoritative sources concerning Buchenwald can you tell us what governmental or Party or military or SS officials, organizations, departments or agencies had knowledge of the program of medical experimentation which was carried on with the prison inmates at Buchenwald?
A: I shall, of course, give you information about everything I know. I am the last one to protect the SS or who has any reason to do so.
Q: Did you ever see any dignitaries visiting Buchenwald?
A: The Reichsstatthalter [Reich Governor] Sauckel who died in the meantime, the Prince of Waldeck and Piermont who was in Buchenwald frequently because he was the highest judge of the Fulda-Werra, district "SS-Oberabschnitt" and the camp commander of Buchenwald Koch was his deputy as judge. There was a great enmity between these two.
Koch was the one who finally lost. Then Heydrich visited the camp and about fifty to sixty high Wehrmacht officers.
JUDGE SEBRING: Who were some of them?
THE WITNESS: I was not introduced to them. They had the ranks of Generals and Colonels. Also physicians of the Wehrmacht visited the camp. As far as I saw, they visited the hospital.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Did any of them visit the experimental station?
A: I heard that the Prince Waldeck visited it; then Dr. Morgen whom I already mentioned before; also the so-called chief judge of the Prince Waldeck from Kassel, a Dr. Paulmann (spelling) P-a-u-l-m-a-n-n Paulmann.
Q: Did any of the Wehrmacht physicians visit the experimental station?
A: Of those who are present here?
Q: No, of those who visited Buchenwald that you spoke about.
A: I didn't understand that question, Mr. Hardy.
Q: You stated that Wehrmacht physicians visited Buchenwald. Did they inspect or have the opportunity to see the experimental station at Block 46?
A: I cannot recall whether they visited Block 46 because at that time I was in the hospital and I showed them the hospital.
Q: Did you ever see any correspondence or orders or directives or any other communications or literature which indicated to you that the Wehrmacht or any members thereof had knowledge of the program of medical experimentation in Block 46?
A: No, I did not see that. I assume that later on when I was already arrested this must have gone over Block 50, if that's how it was. I never saw any correspondence I didn't even know that they had a diary on Block 46.
Q: Who in the SS had knowledge of Block 46 and the experimental work going on there? Did you have any knowledge as to that?
A: About the experiments?
Q: Yes.
A: I cannot remember anybody at the moment. Whether I was told that somebody was there. I believe in September 1943 Mrugowsky was there. I know for certain that he was in Buchenwald at the beginning of September 1943. I met him on that occasion of his visit.
Q: Well, was it generally know amongst the medical departments of the SS that an experimental program was being conducted at Buchenwald? Were you in a position to ascertain that?
A: Do you mean the physicians who were at Buchenwald? Of course, they knew it.
Q: How about other SS officials? Did they have knowledge of medical experiments which were conducted on prisoner inmates at Buchenwald?
A: Well, the camp commandant frequently got visits, also visits of higher persons. I assume that he told them that there was an experimental station but I cannot say that for sure. You have to consider that actually I was mostly in the hospital and concerned myself with the problems of the prisoners mostly. We were happy if we didn't see those big shots.
Q: Well, from what you have seen, read, or heard from various sources, can you tell us what officials had knowledge of the program of Euthanasia or the program of extermination of prisoner inmates?
A: I told you, Mr. Hardy, when we met for the first time that I believe it was a slight error when you asked me "Do you know about the Euthanasia program of the German people"? At the moment I didn't know what you were referring to and then you said "When was action 14F13 started?" And, I told you I thought at the end of 1941 but about the Euthanasia Program of the German people I knew, peruse, nothing more than many Germans knew, namely that in insane asylumns the patients were supposed to be exterminated or had been killed. These were rumors, I even believe that I heard it for the first time from inmates themselves who had gathered it from some kind of notices in the newspapers and found out that something must be wrong.
But this action 14F13 — you want to know who knew about that? What offices?
Q: Yes.
A: Well, the order, I was told, was given by Himmler. The inspectorate in Berlin must have known about it, therefore.
Q: Which inspectorate is that, doctor?
A: That was the Inspector Gluecks at the time.
Q: Did you ever work for Gluecks?
A: No. I know Gluecks because he visited Buchenwald two or three times.
Q: Did he know about the existence of action 14F13?
A: Mr. Hardy, of course, I cannot tell you from my own knowledge. But, according to all the connections which I found out about he must have known about it.
Q: Is there anyone else you feel must have know about it? How about Grawitz? Did you understand me, doctor?
A: I understand you. I am just thinking it over. I don't know it from my own knowledge. I don't know whether I can give you an answer which only expresses my assumptions.
Q: Were you in a position to ever ascertain whether the high command of the Wehrmacht had any knowledge of these matters of experimentation and extermination?
A: No, that I don't know.
Q: Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not high SS officials, Himmler, Heydrich, and medical officials like Grawitz had any knowledge of this matter?
A: Himmler certainly because he ordered that. At least that is what we were told, that is certain.
Q: Do you have any knowledge whether the civilian sectors, men like the Minister of the Interior Frick, later Himmler, and doctors therein, Dr. Conti, for instance, had any knowledge of these matters?
A: I can't tell you that from my own knowledge. I never had any. thing to do with them and didn't know them either.
Q: Then you don't feel you are in a position to inform us as to the knowledge of the Government, Party, military, SS officials and organizations?
A: As far as action 14F13 is concerned?
Q: And experiments, yes.
A: Mr. Hardy, I told you everything that I know.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, do you have Before you Prosecution Document NO 2312 which has Been marked for identification as Prosecution Rebuttal Exhibit 524?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Will the page please hand that to the witness.
You will notice on the first page of that document appears —
MR. HARDY: (interrupting) Your Honor, I don't Believe he has 2312. I had only one other copy.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Do you have it now before you?
Q: Do you notice that on the first page of that document appears the wording "reason for protective custody"?
A: Yes, your Honor. After "Headquarters of the Concentration Camps".
Q: Exactly. Now, under there appear ten categories as follows under the heading "Reason for protective custody" there appear the categories: "Political", "Politically revertible", "Professional criminal", "Bible researcher", "Racial polluter", "Homosexual", "Emigrant", "Expulsion", "Work shirker", and, finally, "Care". All of those are listed under the title "reason for protective custody", and I assume that this entire document deals with prisoners in Buchenwald who were Being held there under protective custody. Is my assumption correct?
A: Yes, that's correct, your Honor.
Q: From you understanding of the situation under "reason for protective custody" what would be meant by the word "political"?
A: They were the inmates who were arrested for political reasons. In the camp they were designated as "political prisoners". The term "political" refers to the German prisoners as well as to the foreign political prisoners.
Q: Are you familiar enough with the law that was in existence at that time as to know generally the types of actions on the part of these men that would make them a political prisoner? Would it be some action or breach, either against the government, or against the Party, or against individuals of the Party, or against the program of the Party, or against the flag of the Party, or any of the other things that are listed in the German criminal law of that period which set out penalties for any adverse action against the Party or its members? Is that what you would understand by a "political prisoner"?
A: Your Honor, do you mean what I personally mean by it or what the SS understood by that?
Q: Well, first what you understood by it.
A: The political prisoner — I understand that it is a person who, because of his conviction, was an opponent of the then existing National Socialist government, either after serving a sentence which was passed by a special court or a regular court — a prison sentence or a penitentiary sentence — and who was then sent to a concentration camp. From my fairly good knowledge which I had through contact with political prisoners, the following has to be taken into consideration. Political prisoners could, as I said before, by a German regular court or a German special court, be sentenced because of any political crime — for example, the distribution of pamphlets or objection to National Socialism or one of its followers — they could be condemned because of high treason. They could be sentenced to prison or a penitentiary. After having served this sentence — I know from my own knowledge that on this very same day, let us assume that he was sentenced to three years in prison at the very hour after the three years were up he was again discharged from the prison. That is what was the usage before. Then he had to report to the Gestapo, or the Gestapo had already established a contact with the prison where he was being kept, and on the basis of his crime, on the basis of the sentence which was passed against him, that is, the Gestapo decided whether a further so-called "protective custody" was necessary or not.
By protective custody was meant that, in order to protect the German people from these political criminals, they were then sent to a concentration camp and, as I have already said yesterday, the following regulation existed, the so-called "Heydrich paragraph". The Heydrich paragraph said that for the protection of the security of the state and the German people, all political crimes had to be punished and political prisoners who had served a sentence, until the state was certain that they would not be revertible anymore, they would then be sent to a concentration camp for their improvement. The Gestapo office which sent them to the concentration camp was supposed to request a report on the behavior of the prisoner. If the report was bad, then they were supposed to ask for it again three months later. If the report on the behavior was bad again, then the Gestapo could wait one year before the next report, and it was up to the discretion of the concentration camp leader, the block leader who was a prisoner. In practice, it was handled this way: The prisoner was given a punishment by the camp and automatically his protective custody within the camp was prolonged by half a year. In practice, of course, the political prisoners hardly ever were released again. I personally remember a case in which it was being considered that a political prisoner, who had not done anything wrong be kept longer in the camp. Therefore it was said that he spit on the floor and had thus endangered the health of the rest of the prisoners and had damaged state property. Political prisoners showed the report to me one day. From their trusted men they got a copy, and that actually occurred. This was the reason given in the report — sent not only to the commander, but it also to Berlin, and it was recognized as a reason. In practice, release was practically impossible unless special persons did something about it or the prisoner was released through some accident, I stated already yesterday how many steps he had to overcome. The SS and Gestapo, strange as it may seem, said that an inmate of a concentration camp was actually not a prisoner, but put in protective custody.
That was supposed to be a stage between a prisoner and a free citizen. It was supposed to be a better class than a prison inmate or a penitentiary inmate. Of course, this was not in accordance with the facts because a prison was considerably more pleasant.
Q: Can you say to what extent this practice of treatment toward the political prisoner was known in the high circles of the SS or Wehrmacht or the government or the Party?
A: Excuse me. I forgot to answer one of your questions before. This was not the only reason why the political prisoners were sent to concentration camps, but it could also happen that a Kreisleiter [district manager] or a high-up Party official was insulted by some man or other who was not of his opinion politically. Thus, this official could, through his connection with the Gestapo, immediately have this man sent to a concentration camp. Of course, this was not the officially prescribed, way, but, in practice, it was handled that way. Thus, it occurred, and I know of such inmates and in part I could even achieve their discharge, such prisoners who were sent to concentration camps with completely empty files. Only their names were on their papers. They were sent to concentration camps and then afterwards, they thought over what they might have done and remembered they had some fight with some Kreisleiter or somebody in the government and they assumed that was why they were sent to concentration camps. They were the practical cases that I know. Thus, there did not, of course, have to be a sentence of a regular court or a special court, but in most cases this was the procedure.
Q: Now, can you state to what extent this program in actual practice was known among the officials of the Party, or the Wehrmacht, or of the SS, or of the government? In other words, was this practice pursued toward political prisoners an open secret — something that everyone knew about, generally speaking?
A: No, no. The peculiar thing that, one of the former witnesses attempted to explain, but it did not come out quite clearly. In order to answer your question directly, your Honor, the RSHA certainly knew it.
Only the RSHA was concerned with political prisoners. Of course, the RSHA knew about it. Also the superior offices of the concentration camp commanders knew about it because these decrees had not been issued by the commanders, but by the RSHA which was also over the individual Gestapo offices. The conditions could not be known among the German people and everybody in general because every inmate who was released had to sigh a document in which he gave a so-called affidavit that he would not report anything about the events in the concentration camp, but this would not have been necessary even, because he knew quite well that he was not allowed to report anything, in fact, because if he had reported it and then he was returned to a concentration camp his death was certain. That is a matter which the inmates themselves, of course, knew very well. Individual inmates told me that they did not even tell the truth to their wives for precautionary reasons.
Q: Do you know of the fact that confined at Buchenwald as political prisoners were citizens from the Sudetenland, from Bohemia and Moravia, from Poland, or certainly that part of it that was taken over by the Government General, I believe it was called, or from Russia, or from the Netherlands or from France, or from Denmark or from any other occupied countries?
A: Such prisoners were at Buchenwald, and in order to answer your last question, during my time there were no Danish prisoners. But during the time when I was an inmate in Buchenwald myself I heard from the concentration camp inmates that Danish police officers were supposed to have been there, they also told me once when I was in the cell that America parachutists and English troops had come to Buchenwald.
Q: Now, in passing on to the next category, to "Reason for Protective custody" appears the category "Political by revertible" what do you understand is meant by that term?
A: That was as follows: a prisoner who had already been once in a concentration camp and was then released and now for any reason whatsoever came into conflict with the law — that is of course for political reasons, was then without serving a sentence, without being sentenced by the Court, immediately returned to the concentration camp. Those prisoners had a red triangle and about this red triangle they had a horizontal stripe, about 3 centimeters wide and 8 to 10 centimeters long. This was worn about the triangle.
Q: In other words, a political prisoner with the red triangle though, the politically revertible, wore the same triangle with the red stripe above the red triangle, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct. There is also a third category which is not shown here. They were "action" inmates. They were inmates who had been in concentration camps once for political reasons. They were released and at the beginning of the war they were returned to the concentration camp without their having committed any political crime or any crime whatsoever, but only for the security of the state. They then wore a red triangle, and the red horizontal stripe was not above the triangle, but about two centimeters below the top of the triangle, and at the end of this stripe that went through the triangle the prisoner's number was written.
Q: I think I understand. The next category "Professional Criminal."
A: They wore green triangles, and of course there was also the same category of "green revertible prisoner."
Q: Then we come to the category "Bible Researcher" what did you understand by that?
A: Jehovah Witnesses. That was quite a peculiar affair. The Jehovah Witnesses were by Himmler at the beginning of the War sent to the concentration camps, and at least those who were sent there their lives were saved by Himmler, because they were conscientious objectors, and the Wehrmacht would have shot them if they had refused to take a gun into their hands. The reason why Himmler did this was that manpower was badly needed, so it was not an altruistical reason, but a very practical one. As a matter of fact the Jehovah Witnesses were a very stable background in the camp. They were people who never lied, nor never stole. Therefore, they also succeeded, and after the original chicanery they had to suffer by the SS and informers they got positions in the food stores, which they administered excellently and then after their original difficult times they had very good positions in the camps. They had a purple triangle.
Q: The next category is "Racial Polutor," what do you understand by that?
A: They were Jews, who had had sexual intercourse with German women or girls. They wore the Jewish star, and around it there was a black rim about two centimeters wide. This was around the entire star. I believe that theoretically German women and girls who had had sexual intercourse with Jews were also supposed to be put into concentration camps and also wore the Jewish star with the same black rim. I only heard that from stories told me by the inmates.
Q: Was this Jewish star a yellow star?
A: The Jewish star in the case of the political jews who were sent to the camp was a red triangle and a yellow triangle. They were put over each other in the form of a Jewish star. Theoretically, of course, Jewish professional criminals would have existed too, but I don't remember any Jewish professional criminals in Buchenwald.
Q: Passing to the next category, We have "Homosexual." I suppose that term almost answers itself. It is what we understand in the medical profession as homosexuality?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Then I will pass to the next category "Imigrant", is "Imigrant?"
A: An imigrant, they were German political opponents of Naziism, who after the seizure of power by Hitler had left the German Reich and were living abroad, and were staying with friends who had the same political opinion as they had. For example, those who fought in the Spanish Civil War, and men, who for example, were living in France, and were supported by people of the same point of view and as far as I remember, especially those who fought in Spain were later on the basis of an agreement handed over. One thing for certain: when the Government again got them into their hands they imprisoned them in concentration camps. They wore a blue triangle, if I remember correctly.
Q: The next category "Expulsion," E-x-p-u-l-s-i-o-n? what is that?
A: I don't understand that, Your Honor. I heard that for the first time myself now.
Q: Does that appear on that document you have there?
A: Yes, it is on the document.
Q: But you do not understand the meaning of the term?
A: No, I don't understand the meaning of the term.
Q: We will pass to the next, the next is "Work Shirker." Who do you understand to be a work shirker within the nomenclature of the concentration camp system?
A: Here in the Court, Your Honor, you heard that mentioned already under another designation, namely asocial. They are the asocial people, who wore black triangles. They were the people who on the whole were treated best in the concentration camp, because usually they were neutral. They did not belong to any one of the extreme groups.
Q: And then the final category is "Care", C-a-r-e-; what do you understand by that?
A: "Care," — before Hitler's time, that is before 1933, there were as far as I know in the German criminal procedure institutions which kept juveniles who had committed crimes, such as stealing or sexual crimes, and who were not old enough that is they were not of age yet, not old enough to be tried under the penal procedure. They were sent to care Institutions for that. I cannot state it with absolute certainty, but I assume they were people who had formerly been in reformatories, because they had committed some crimes they had to atone for, and after they became of age were then sent to concentration camps. They sure must have been very few of them. I never had anything to do with them, and I heard very little about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you very much.
Is there any re-examination of this witness?
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: During the course of the cross-examination there was repeatedly talked about the fact that you were working for four years at a concentration camp as a physician, perhaps you will correct this now, namely, as the facts actually were. Do you have your affidavit before you of the 22nd, no that is the 24th of October, 1946; please look at that affidavit. What did you mean to express by the term "four years in a concentration camp"; describe what had to be differentiated here, the different parts and what different parts you were working in?
A: Counsel, I believe Mr. Hardy's question was whether I had been four years in a concentration camp irrespective of what positions I held there. Actually, from 26 October, 1939 until the beginning of January 1941, I was assistant physician and later troop physician in the guard troop. At that time I had nothing to do with the concentration camp at all, because troop physicians were forbidden to enter the concentration camp, a special pass was needed for that and only camp physicians got this pass.
Q: To what extent during that time did you have insight into the actual conditions in the concentration camp?
A: It is actually as follows: even people who were in the nearest surroundings of the concentration camp did not find out the facts maybe even less than some outsiders, because (1) it was strictly prohibited to speak to prisoners at all, (2) they only saw them once in a while when they went to work and (3) if there had been the possibility to speak to inmates, they certainly would not have told the outsiders anything.
Q: In your affidavit, please look at paragraph 7 on page 3 of your affidavit, page 12 of the German document bock, you mention the figure of 500 inmates; as I understood you and please tell me if that is correct; you did not name the figure, but Mr. Hardy told you the figure; is that correct?
A: I can no longer state whether it was Mr. Hardy or the interrogator, at any rate one of the two of them gave me the figure.
Q: And since you had full confidence in these gentlemen, which went even to the extent that you would have been willing to take these two gentlemen as your defense counsel, you agreed to the figure; is that how this figure came about?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And the further figures of 10% and 20% how did you. arrive at those figures?
A: I heard those from prisoners.
Q: In reference to the justification of these killings you began to make statements with what persons you discussed this at the time you were camp physician in Buchenwald, I believe that you did not conclude these statements; do you have anything to add?
A: It was a very difficult problem, of course, for me, who did not feel that I was in a position to make a decision and was not up to it. I then did the next best thing and got in touch with inmates who knew me very well and had confidence in me. I also discussed the matter with lawyers as to what could be done to assist in this emergency. Among others, I discussed it with the Dutch Minister of Justice, who was a hostage in Buchenwald, I also spoke with Polish prosecutors and Czech judges, I spoke with authors, politicians and artists and we discussed together what could be done.
You have to imagine that these men formerly occupied a very important position in their country and also had the corresponding character. I have to insert here the remark that this Minister of Justice in particular and the Lawyers and other people, with whom I spoke, were a big exception from other political prisoners in the camp. They represented a higher stage, because as far as I know, they did not ask for any advantages that they could have had, because it was their opinion that if they could get another piece of bread or additional butter, they did not want it in order not to harm their comrades. That was their basic principles.
One day I was sitting opposite these men. They had their hair shaved off, they were thin and poverty stricken and they sat opposite me in their blue striped suits. We then discussed the questions which were in our minds because of this terrible terror of the informers. I, as a lay-man, was informed by them in a manner which seemed very obvious to me. They said, first you have to see who is your superior, legal office. That was very simple, that was the highest legal office, which was my superior and also that of the inmates, it was Himmler himself and his deputies. That we could not expect any justice from them was clear to everybody. We did not even have to talk about that. In addition, the paradoxial and unique feature of that was that Himmler in particular and his associates, who had established the concentration camps, who were the superiors of the guards, were also the highest judges. Himmler and his plenipotentiaries held these combined positions. This informer system and this killing system through the combination of criminally charged persons and the political Inmates who were not considered criminals, they had thought out this mean and complicated system for the camps which held about 15,000 people.
They had then under their control by this method and besides certain groups, which later combined a resistance group, no inmates could trust another one.
Therefore, one was confronted with the question what one should do next. Not a single inmate, either a political prisoner or a foreigner, was sure of his life and he never knew whether he should live to see the next day. These political prisoners, who agreed to be informers, were those professional criminals or some others who agreed to fulfill this task. They did this in order to receive a reward or because of personal hatred of the representatives of the bourgeois circles.
These facts existed and the officers of the justice administration said that no help was to be received from the legal officers, they would not do away with the conditions, therefore one would have to form an illegal committee which would then have to decide what was to be done with these informers. They did not feel entitled to judge the acts of such informers, but they told me there would only have to consider those cases in which they were forced to prevent further crimes that would cost the lives of a large number of other prisoners.
The other credible thing and the terrible thing that even today seem to be unbelievable to me was that political prisoners, be they Germans or foreigners, who fought against the SS, also assumed the risk that they would be discovered or their movements would be discovered and that they should be shot or hanged. But among them there were also some whose principle was, "I don't care about any one, I do not take any active part and I do my work in a way that nobody notices me." It was possible and it could happen that an informer happened to see this person's name on a list or heard from another inmate and put him on such a list, and the inmate then disappeared.
In such a manner, he was reported and innocently was accused.
The terrible thing was that this system had become some sort of home remedy. Individual blocks in which the prisoners lived five hundred together, there chief officer was an inmate who was called the block eldest or the block trustee.
When I was working with the illegal camp administration and committee, the conditions were as follows: These block trustees, if they were professional criminals or if they had been condemned before, had the following system:
(1) they needed money and (2) they needed food. They had no other means at their disposal than taking the daily food which the prisoners got three times a day, they took 20 to 50 portions away, especially from prisoners who had been newly delivered into the camp.
Q: Dr. Hoven, I only wanted to know with whom you discussed the justification of the killings?
A: I talked with legally trained persons.
Q: Can you name one of them?
A: I named this one Minister of Justice of Holland.
Q: Do you still remember his name?
A: At the moment I cannot recall it, but it is known.
Q: When was he Minister of Justice in Holland?
A: It must have been before 1939.
Q: I now come to another point that was discussed here, that once you were in the horse stable where Russians were being shot. Were you there in capacity as physician or on order of the illegal camp administration?
A: I was there only on the order of the illegal camp administration.
Q: What was the purpose of your visit there?
A: To observe Kuschnir Kuschnar and to observe what he did. This was impossible for the camp inmates. They were not admitted. Naturally the political prisoners were very interested in finding out what happened to their associates there.
Q: Did you observe Kuschnir Kuschnar there?
A: Yes, only for a short time.
Q: I now submit to you again document 2312, that was submitted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 524.
A: I have it here.
Q: No, please at the original. Please pay attention to the dates. When was the document composed?
A: 22 — no Buchenwald 6 August 1942.
Q: When was the penalty with twenty five lashes executed?
A: On the 6th of August 1942.
Q: Now please turn the document over and read when the permission was granted?
A: 10 August 1942.
Q: Do these dates give you any reasons for knowing whether you signed this document before the execution of the penalty or after?
A: It must have been after the execution. I don't quite understand what you mean counsel.
Q: When was the document composed?
A: 6th of August 1942.
Q: When was Woidelek delivered into the concentration camp Buchenwald?
A: On the same day — 6 August 1942.
Q: When was this penalty executed?
A: On the 6 August 1942.
Q: When was the permission granted?
A: That can be seen on the back of the page.
Q: On the 10th August 1942?
A: On the 10th of August 1942.
Q: What results as a conclusion from these dates?
A: That on the 6th of August while on his flight he was returned to the camp and on the 6th of August 1943 he was given the punishment.
Q: Does the possibility exist that the document was submitted to you only after the punishment was carried out so that you could no longer prevent this punishment when you see this date?
A: I said this already before. I said it was submitted to me afterwards.
Q: Can you give a reason for this?
A: Well certainly, if he was brought back to the camp, I can give the best reason. It won't be a legal one but from experience I assume that after he fled he was brought back to the camp. He came into the camp and on the order of the commander he was immediately given 52 lashes. That is my experience. It is not a legal reason but that usually took place without long discussions, that is what I assume, and I do know actually that orders existed that prisoners who fled should be shot and this commander Pister who signed this, had a somewhat softer heart and changed it by placing instead the death penalty, he had 25 blows administered to them, which essentially was much pleasanter, I assume that from the fact he was delivered on the same day that he got the blows on the same day.
Q: Could you have prevented the carrying out of this penalty?
A: I certainly could not have done so.
Q: Now to speak about the category of professional criminals, what kind of inmate are we concerned with here, to what category did he belong?
A: To the professional criminals, the green ones.
Q: What can be concluded from that as to the nationality of the inamte?
A: At least he was a German, a Volksdeutscher.
Q: Where was he born?
A: I see in Berlin, he was a German.
Q: So what was he?
A: He was a German professional criminal.
Q: In regard to the carrying out of the penalty of the beating, I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the statements which I shall submit, especially the affidavit by Gottschalk, document Hoven 2, Exhibit No. 14, on page 11 of the English document book. Gottschalk takes an attitude in regard to the carrying out of his punishment, especially to the fact that Hoven did everything in his power to prevent this punishment and it shows in particular that political prisoners, especially the illegal camp committee, also interfered the matter, end that the illegal camp committee were present during the investigation. May I quote:
When Dr. Hoven became physician and thus came under the influence of Walter Kraemer, Karl Peix — the underground movement — a change set in. Hoven refused his signature under influence and as the first of all the doctors had the courage to demand and carry out a medical examination before the whipping. Since we prisoners were present
— and Mr. President I think this is decisive —
at these examinations we were able to save quite a number of political prisoners, and also some others who were all right, from the whip. We could not save them all but so far as I remember from that tire until my release scarcely a political or otherwise prisoner from conviction went to the whipping post.
The same can also be been by Richart's affidavit to which I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal, document Hoven No. 5, Exhibit Hoven No. 15, pages 18 to 22 of the document book. I beg your pardon, your Honors, it is not Richart's affidavit, it is the affidavit of Schaeuben, document Hoven No. 19, Exhibit No. 4, No. 2 and 3. In No. 2 Scheublen describes his own case:
Easter 1941 was reported for punishment by the camp leader of his time, Plaul, for alleged laziness. In consequence of this report I was supposed to be dealt 25 strokes 2 days later. My comrades and acquaintances advised me to see Dr. Hoven and to ask his help. I thereupon petitioned Dr. Hoven. Dr. Hoven made inquires regarding the incident and in some illegal way prevented the execution of the punishment.
Then Schaeublen describes another case where the witness, Dr. Hoven in 1942, prevented the carrying out of the punishment with flogging of two Polish prisoners. This was supposed to be a public flogging.
In the affidavit of Schaeublen I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Schaeublen was a professional criminal. This can be seen on the first page of the affidavit where he says
I received the green triangle because of some previous convictions, and I belonged to the category of professional criminals.
This shows that Dr. Hoven did not only prevent the flogging of political inmates, but also of professional criminals who wore the green triangle unless they were informers or traitors.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how much longer do you anticipate your redirect examination of this witness will require?
DR. GAWLIK: About fifteen minutes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q: Witness, during the cross examination Document NO-265, the diary of Ding was discussed. Dr. Hoven, do you have that?
A: Yes, I have the document book.
Q: Page 36 of the German. It is the entry of the 17th of March 1942. By means of referring to the document please find out when the experiments took place and when, the illness of Ding you once exceptionally were supposed to supervise Blocks 44 and 49.
A: I supervised 44 and 49, yes, that is correct, but during that time no experiments were carried out.
Q: When were the experiments carried out, on what date?
A: By Dr. Ding, you mean?
Q: Yes, when? You can see that on page 37.
A: On the 6th of January 1943 and 1 February 1942.
Q: Please repeat. I didn't understand.
A: On 3 March 1942.
Q: When did it become apparent that Ding was sick?
A: On 17 March 1942.
Q: And when was the next experiment carried out?
A: On 19 August 1942.
Q: Now, I am going over to another point, to Document NO-2366. Do you have that before you? It is the report by Dr. Morgan.
A: No, I don't have it.
Q: Please tell the Tribunal what we are concerned with here, whether it is a sentence or a judgment or what kind of a document it is.
A: It is an investigation, the final report on an investigation.
Q: Please, what does it say on the first page?
A: Indictment, indictment, it says.
Q: And who wrote the indictment?
A: Dr. Morgen.
Q: Please turn to page 46 where Dr. Morgen gives his opinion about the legal situation of the killings. Do you have that paragraph? Please read what legal opinion Dr. Morgen had about a killing of inmates.
A: On page 48?
Q: It is page 46.
A: Oh, 46.
Q: The legal situation.
A: I can't see anything.
Q: The typewritten page 46.
A: Yes, it says about an embezzlement. The numbers are at the right upper corner of the page.
Q: In typewritten — not handwritten 46.
A: Oh, with the typewriter — there is a hole here.
Q: 53 in handwriting.
A: The right—shall I read?
Q: Yes please.
A: (reading)
The right to decide about life and death of concentration camp inmates is transferred to the Reichsfuehrer SS. He, for certain categories of inmates, especially members of the Easter peoples, has delegated this power to central offices of the RSFA.
Q: All right, thank you. Now please turn to page 67, typewritten page 67.
A: I can't read it.
Q: Page 74 in handwriting.
A: Page 74, yes.
Q: In that middle of the page, what Dr. Morgen wrote about you. Please start with the sentence, "His large achievement in Buchenwald"-it says here "direction" Leitung, but it must mean Leistung, achievement.
A: (reading)
His great achievement in Buchenwald is that among the inmate nurses and physicians he recognized the really able persons and left them free play. Through his good connections of official and private nature he also secured for the hospital all kinds of advantages and prevented disturbing interruptions. Due to that — and this is a personal achievement of Hoven's — the camp remained free of pests and with in the scope of what is humanly possible everything was done for the sick people that was possible at all when one takes into consideration the temporal and camp conditions.
Q: Please continue.
A: (reading)
This attitude of Dr. Hoven's already also had some disadvantages since he relied blindly on political inmates. It is to be assume with certainty that this key position which they had because of that, they misused for the purpose of camp administration.
A: All right, then please turn three pages over.
A: Page 76?
Q: No, 70, page 70, what he says about Kuschnir Kuschnarev, page 77 in handwriting.
A: Page 77?
Q: Yes, in handwriting.
A: I don't see page 77 in handwriting.
Q: I think you confuse the figures — the handwritten figure 77 and typewritten page 70.
A: All right.
Q: What does Dr. Morgen say about Kuschnir Kuschnarev?
A: (reading)
"The inmate, Kuschnir Kuschnarev—"
Q: I do not want to take up the time of the Tribunal. Begin with the sentence, "SS Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Koch"—
A: (reading)
"SS Standartenfuehrer Koch used him as camp informer against the Communist cliques among the concentration camp inmates.
Q: Thank you, that is all.
A: But not only Koch did that, but it was done in agreement and on or of Heydrich. Because of this man he reproached me especially. He described him as the most devoted and helpful assistant of the SS.
Q: Please look at the affidavit of Ackermann again.
A: I don't have it.
Q: Please turn to page 2. Did you ever have a conversation of that kind with Ackermann?
A: I never had such a conversation with Ackermann. What surprises me most in this matter is how a man can get this idea at all. It is just about the most absurd thing that I have ever heard and everyone who knows me would laugh about it. Moreover, I never had a skull on my desk. The only thing that the inmates put on it was a bunch of flowers every day. I could have obtained such things for some medical interest from prisoners who had died if I had been interested in it, but I didn't have any interest in it at all.
Q: Finally, the following. Is it correct that you killed two informers and traitors who were described to you as such by the illegal camp committee, is that correct?
A: Yes. I had to kill them because no one else could do it.
Q: Is it correct that you had knowledge about the killing of about fifty further informers and traitors?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: And is it furthermore correct that with the last — the ninety you had nothing to do?
A: No, I only found out about the killing afterwards.
Q: And if the killing of these informers and traitors would have been reported by you to the SS what would have been the result?
A: A very welcome action against political German and foreign prisoners. At least, would have had reason for their actions.
Q: Do you have anything more to say to the question of the Prosecution, namely why you will not mention the names of the illegal camp committee who carried out the killing of about 50 informers?
A: That would not lessen my responsibility. I said already that there was no other possibility. I understood that and there were no ethics in a concentration camp — only the naked life of the inmates was concerned. And I do assume the responsibility for that.
Q: And what were the further motives that are decisive here?
A: That a smaller number of other inmates would be killed.
Q: No, you misunderstood my question, Dr. Hoven. What motive is decisive for your not naming these names?
A: My case has not yet been decided and as long as it has not been decided I do not have the right to name these names because it is my opinion that if I did name them I would not be better than the traitors and informers against whom I fought.
Q: I have one more question. With regard to Ackermann's affidavit. Can you make some statements to the effect whether it is possible at all to prepare a skull from day until tomorrow. That is, within 24 hours.
Don't you know that?
A: I can't answer that from my own experience. But I really can't imagine it and I believe if he would be such an honorable person as he tried to describe himself he would at least had tried to convince me not to give such terrible awful order, even considering conditions in a concentration camp regardless of the fact that I never even thought of saying such a thing.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President I have no further questions to the witness but I have to submit three further documents.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I ask the Tribunal to excuse the defendant Mrugowsky tomorrow afternoon from the session. A witness which the Tribunal permitted me to call arrived in the prison yesterday. I do not intend to summon him here on the witness stand but if possible shall submit an affidavit from him. For the preparation, however, I have to discuss a number of questions with Mrugowsky, Therefore, I ask that he be excused by the Tribunal during the afternoon session tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the request of counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky the defendant Mrugowsky may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal during the session tomorrow afternoon counsel desiring to consult with his client concerning the latter's defense. Counsel for the defendant Hoven may proceed to offer the documents.
MR. HARDY: It is my understanding that the testimony of Hoven has been completed?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The defendant Hoven may be excused from the witness stand.
DR. GAWLIK: The next document which I submit as Document Hoven No. 11, Exhibit Hoven # 17, that is page 38 of the Document Book. It is an excerpt from one of the documents submitted by the Prosecution in Case IV, 499PS, Exhibit 123. By this document I want to prove what means were used by the defendant Dr. Hoven or with his knowledge the the informers used who were killed, and what means they had to kill the decent inmates, especially political German and foreign prisoners.
The next document I want to submit as Document Hoven 15, Exhibit Hoven. No. 18 on page 54 of the Document Book. This document, your Honor, is a supplement to Pieck's testimony, page 4785-86 of the German transcript and page 4725-26 of the English transcript and a supplement to the affidavit of Pallandt van Eerde, page 45 of your document Book, Document Hoven #13, which I already submitted as Exhibit Hoven No. 10. From this affidavit by Palland as well as from Pieck's statement results that Hoven maintained his contact with the Netherlands hostages. Document Hoven No. 15, that is Exhibit 18, you see this was strictly forbidden and that the defendant Hoven by that acted contrary to existing regulations. Inmates of the camp under Keitel decree, NN-decree, as it is known were forbidden every correspondence with others.
And as a further document in the same connection I submit Document Hoven #16 as Exhibit Hoven 19. It is an excerpt from a document which the Prosecution submitted in case IV — Document NO 1553, Exhibit 69, in that case. The 2 paragraph says:
In the case of NN inmates, care must be taken that they do not get into touch with their relatives or any other authority.
And from the first paragraph, I submit that as evidence to the subject: Releases from the camp. From this it appears that it was even forbidden to make application for discharge to RSHA or RKPA. In spite of that the defendant Hoven acted contrary to those regulations and illegally especially with the help of his office, succeeded in having large numbers of inmates discharged in this manner. With this I have concluded my submission of evidence for the defendant Hoven for the time being. However, I reserve the right to submit further evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The right to offer further evidence is reserved to counsel for the defendant Hoven. The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.