1947-06-25, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honors, I should now like to begin with the submission of affidavits from my Document Book 1. I should like to point out that by mistake an exhibit number is entered in the document books. These numbers will not be correct.

The first document Pokorny No. 1 — I shall offer the affidavit of the sister of the defendant, Olga Hensel. It is on page 1. This will be Exhibit No. 1. I should like to read a few passages from this affidavit. On page 1 the second paragraph reads:

I am the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny's sister. I was born on 17 April 1885 in Theresienstadt in Czechoslovakia. We have no other brothers or sisters.

Our father was a military official with the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Austria of that time. We moved about a good deal within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy owing to my father's frequent transfers. We have lived in Dalmatia, Herzegovina, Bosnia, Galicia, and Bohemia. In this way we became acquainted with many peoples and languages. Aside from his profession my father spent a great deal of time on botany and was very much interested in agriculture. He had graduated from the Agricultural College and therefore retained a certain freedom of motion. We learned at this wish, supported by our frequent change of residence, aside from German and Czech, the Serbian-Croatian and Italian languages.

My brother was drafted into the Austro-Hungarian army in 1914 and returned in 1918. He disliked going to war and returned a fully convinced pacifist and anti-militarist. Apparently the experiences of the war 1914-1918 also moved him to become a doctor, to help suffering humanity in this way.

In the same affidavit I should like to read on page 2, the second paragraph on page 2:

My brother wanted to finish his medical studies as soon as possible and therefore worked very hard and intensively. For professional and humanitarian reasons he enjoyed the particular support of important Prague professors, such as Professor Biedl and Ghon.

He finally became assistant to Professor Kreibich in which capacity he also did scientific work.

He strongly disliked anti-semitic excesses and did not participate in the riots against Professor Steinherz at that time, which caused special comment as he had been suggested as lecturer. Apart from this he married a colleague in Prague, Miss Lilly Weil, who was Jewish. As a result of the situation at the University of Prague at that time he also refused the position of lecturer, as in these circumstances one did not dare to appoint him as lecturer owing to the views of certain student groups. In 1925 therefore he went to Komotau as a doctor and accepted a position in the hospital.

Our contact after this remained very close despite the distance that separated us, as we understand each other very well to this day owing to our joint pleasant experiences in the home of our parents.

I frequently visited my mother, who lived with my brother in Komotau and in this way maintained the personal contact with my brother and his wife, who lived in another apartment in Komotau.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it does not seem to the Tribunal necessary that you read these documents which are simply repetitious in so far as the testimony of the witness, the defendant Pokorny, himself, is concerned. We have the documents before us and they are in evidence and will be considered, but so far this affidavit is simply repeating what the witness has himself said. It is not reasonable to suppose that this will be denied by the prosecution as to the history of his past life. I don't imagine that it will be, but if it is you may then bring further evidence. Read such portion of the affidavit that will be helpful to the Tribunal, but I would not encumber the record with matter that is merely repetitious.

DR. HOFFMAN: Very well.

Then as Pokorny Document No. 2 I offer, on page 6, an affidavit by Georg Baierle, who is now in Munich. This document will be Exhibit 2.

The affiant has know the defendant for years and he repeats what the defendant Pokorny has already said about his life history and his attitude.

The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Rosa Schipek on page 8.

This will be Exhibit No. 3. I should like to read only a few brief passages from this document:

I have known Dr. Adolf Pokorny since the fall of 1917. At that time he was a soldier but had obtained leave to carry on his study of medicine. Together with him and some other colleagues (including Dr. Fritz Fischer, who later became Chief Surgeon of the Ophthalmological Clinic in Leipzig, and the present professor of ophthalmology in Bern, Dr. Hans Goldmann) I prepared myself for the examination for the doctor's degree and so I became more acquainted with him than with other fellow students from the lecture room. As a personality he was beyond reproach, a pleasant and helpful colleague, and most popular on account of his kind and cheerful nature. After completion of his term of studies he engaged himself in the field of dermatology and very soon became assistant physician at the clinic of Professor Kreibich. Up until the time of his marriage to a student of roentgenology, we met at least once a week after the meetings of the Medical Association.

He always remained the same; he never aimed at any position of outward distinction.

Then I offer an affidavit by Antonie Mueller which is on page 10. This will be Exhibit No. 4. I received this affidavit unsolicited as indicated by the introduction. It says:

Through radio and newspaper reports it has come to my knowledge that one of the physicians indicted before the Allied Military Tribunal in Nuernberg is Dr. Adolf Pokorny who, born in Vienna, lived last in Komotau in the Sudeten district where he had his permanent residence.

As I have known Dr. Pokorny since the year 1928, I consider it my duty to give you as his defense counsel a brief account of his previous private and political life, requesting you to use my statements for his defense if you find them to be in the interest of Dr. Pokorny.

The next document is an affidavit of a certain Julius Strauss on page 12. This will be Exhibit No. 5. Strauss worked on the farm of the defendant Pokorny. He was a miner by trade. He can give testimony which is not influenced by social or other considerations. The affidavit mentions the treatment of a Pole who worked on the farm of Dr. Pokorny. He also says that Pokorny did not belong to the NSDAP.

Then I offer the affidavit of Mrs. Marie Helmer on page 14. This will be Exhibit No. 6. Mrs. Helmer was a patient of the defendant Pokorny for a long time. They discussed conditions in the Sudetenland after the occupation and in this affidavit she has set down what she know about the subject.

Then I should like to offer an affidavit by a certain Karl Hans Mueller on page 16. This will be Exhibit No. 7. Mueller speaks of the general treatment of Dr. Pokorny after the occupation of the Sudetenland and he repeats what Dr. Pokorny said on the witness stand.

I also offer an affidavit by Dr. Franz Peiker on page 18 which will be Exhibit No. 8. I should like to read two paragraphs from this affidavit because they have not been discussed yet. The affidavit reads:

I have personally known Dr. Adolf Pokorny, who was residing at Rott on the Lech, since January 1945. Dr. Pokorny was known to me by name since September 1940. At that time I was for six weeks troop physician at Komotau, and Dr. Pokorny was known to me in connection with the fact that no patients with skin or venereal diseases were to be sent to him for treatment because he had, as it was called at that time, 'not a clean record' politically.

Ever since I made the personal acquaintance of Dr. Pokorny, I have esteemed and respected him both as men and as physician. Our relations became friendly and intimate from the day when Dr. Pokorny learned from me that I, too, did not belong to the NSDAP and the former Sudeten German party of Henlein. During subsequent numerous political discussions Dr. Pokorny expressed to me frankly his democratic convictions and did not hide his anti-national socialistic attitude. From our many intimate conversations I also knew of his continuous difficulties with the local peasant leader and other 'leaders' at Komotau which were due to his political attitude.

The next affidavit is by Mrs. Ilse Renatus on page 20. This will be Exhibit 9. This is a very brief affidavit. Therefore, I should like to read the essential paragraphs:

I am surprised to see Dr. Pokorny — who lived as a sub-tenant in my house from 26 June 1942 until the end of 1944 — in the dock, when in view of his political attitude I should have expected to see him in quite a different place. Dr. Pokorny was surely anything but a National Socialist. When we listened to radio music in the evenings, I had to turn off the radio the minute news or other political reports came through. He did not want to listen to any of that humbug. I was surprised when he in his position as an officer expressed very freely to his wife and to me his adverse opinion of the Hitler regime. Jokingly I repeatedly told him that some day he would be dragged forth from our nice sofa corner and be put in jail if he did not keep his mouth shut. His answer was always, 'Renate, you won't betray me.'

Then I offer an affidavit of Oswald Flachsel on page 31 which will be Exhibit No. 10.

Flachsel was in the hospital which Dr. Pokorny had as a doctor in the Wehrmacht. I should like to read the first paragraph:

Dr. Adolf Pokorny from Komotau has not been involved in politics in any way. Between 10 February 1944 and 10 October 1944 I was his first medical orderly and assistant in Hohenstein-Ernstthal. I have been an anti-fascist myself since 1929. I was a member of the Communist Party of Germany since 1938 and since 1 February 1946 I have been a member of the SED, that is, the Social Unity Party of Germany. I was closely connected with Dr. Pokorny and can well remember how he hated military life, how he had only the one desire to see the war ended and to return to his native country. Dr. Pokorny had already engaged me for his practice, since in addition to his practice as a doctor he was an enthusiastic farmer. In addition to members of our Wehrmacht we treated voluntarily and for humanitarian reasons about 150 prisoners of war, who came to us from the prisoners' hospital about one-half hour away.

The next document is an affidavit by Konrad Ritschel, on page 23, which will be exhibit 11. I should like to read one paragraph:

During the war, in 1944 and 1945, I was three times in the hospital in Lichtenstein in Saxony and was treated there by the physician in charge, Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Dr. Pokorny. Dr. Pokorny took the same interest in all his patients, he took the same good care of everyone, whether they were privates, officers or prisoners of war, no matter what their nationality. He was not one of those doctors who indiscriminately declared everyone fit for service and never dismissed people from the hospital before they had not been properly cured.

He did not allow his superiors or the recruiting commission to interfere and thus had to overcome a good deal of opposition. In the hospital he was generally liked for his humane and professional qualities.

The next affidavit is by a certain Edgar Bauer. It is page 25. This will be Exhibit 12. Bauer was also stationed at the Hohenstein-Ernstthal Hospital, which was under the direction of the defendant. I shall read briefly paragraph 5.

Dr. Pokorny avoided all "ceremonial speeches." He had others deliver those speeches and was never present at 'celebrations' of such kind.

Dr. Pokorny and his wife, who visited him frequently, listened every day to the enemy broadcasts, especially the 'Voice of America', when this aroused suspicion, he asked anti-Fascist soldiers to listen in on these broadcasts, and to inform him about the news.

Dr. Pokorny had voluntarily on his own initiative installed a POW station for skin and venereal diseases.

Two or three times a week he took care of about 20 Englishmen, 20 Russians and 10 members of other nations.

Another patient of defendant Pokorny is a certain Wilhelm Walter Helmut Reinhold, who was given an affidavit which is on page 27. I shall assign Exhibit 13 to this affidavit. Here again I shall read briefly:

I was a member of the Wehrmacht as a technical sergeant, and in February 1945, I came to the hospital at Hohenstein-Ernstthal in Saxony, which was directed by Dr. med. Adolf Pokorny. The hospital was later transferred to LichtensteinCallnberg. As a matter of fact, I was to have been qualified for discharge after about 14 days. I am sure that my release was intentionally prevented by the chief physician, which he personally substantiated, just as with me he kept numerous other comrades by this procedure from further duty. Obviously he was an adversary of the war, and especially an opponent of the then existing government. As an example, I mention that he expressly forbade the Hitler salute and the use of military titles. I had the impression that the whole hospital staff had been influenced by him in this sense. Dr. Pokorny had two radio sets in his private room in which I was often present. The one radio he used in the interest of the hospital for following the air reports. The other radio was permanently tuned in to the English transmitter, as I heard for myself. Dr. Pokorny even saw to it that these were transmitted to the other members of the hospital.

Finally, I offer an affidavit by Dr. Fischer, on page 29, Exhibit 14. Dr. Fischer was the doctor through whose hands Dr. Pokorny's promotion from lieutenant to campain had to go. He writes:

As far as I remember, the promotion of Dr. Pokorny to Stabsarzt was due only to general seniority for promotion determined by length of service as usual. I do not know anything of political or special military reasons for the promotion.

For the time being, your Honors, I have completed the submission of documents and would like to continue the examination of the witness, Dr. Pokorny.

DR. POKORNY DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)

BY DR. HOFFMANN:

Q: Witness, can you tell the Tribunal something about the general political feeling in the Sudetenland after the occupation in 1938?

A: A description of political conditions in the Sudetenland from the beginning of the German invasion until the end will, of course, take on certain personal conditions for me. The entry of German troops was undeniably enthusastically welcomed by the population. Some individual citizens had misgivings, however, when on the same day the tax notes were posted in the most remote villages. The subsequent events changed the picture rather quickly. First, the population was disturbed about the manner in which the Jews were driven out, and following the arrest of the Communists and Social Democrats, the eleven Jehovah witnesses in the city were also arrested. These political people were sent to a concentration camp. Then there came a surprising change, and even the National Socialists who had prepared, for the overthrow, but who were fairly loyal to the Republic were also arrested. The civil service positions were filled by officials from the Reich, which was not welcomed by our population. We felt that the Sudetenland had been sold out. People came over from Saxony in cars and took cloth and coffee, etc. out of the district in large quanti ties.

The financial situation of the population changed suddenly. The Czech Korun was set at the exchange rate of one to ten. If a person had the sum of 100,000 Korun and was a rich man how he suddenly had only 10,000 marks. The complaints about this rate of exchange led to a change and the rate of exchange was made one to eight. Property ownership was arranged differently than it had been. Real estate was no longer rated at its true value, but according to the sale value, and agricultural price ceilings stopped higher income, but wages continued to rise. The most important point perhaps is that the population shifted. Czech workers in the beginning voluntarily came, then came transports of Poles, prisoners of war — for example in the neighboring city of Bruecks there were members of perhaps 27 nations working. In the village where I had my farm, for example, 50 percent of the population were foreigners. The resulting picture was an undeniably friendly reception of the Germans into Sudetenland, which soon gave way to a less friendly attitude. On this soil of general passive resistance we learned through the Poles and Czechs, through the Communists and Social Democrates released from the concentration camps things which were not known in the rest of the Reich. A whispering campaign began. People listened to the Allied radio and I considered it important that people on leave and the wounded who came from the Eastern front told that the Russian prisoners of war in the camps behind the lines and on transports had very high losses. Some Prague business men who had constant contact with Prague brought the news, more and more alarming news, that the Jews in Prague were being loaded into trains and sent off toward the East. There was much discussion about their fate, and even more whispering.

Q: Witness, what special news and rumors did you yourself hear after the occupation; especially during the war?

A: I think I have already answered that question.

Q: After the occupation of the Sudetenland and later during the war did you hear anything about sterilization?

A: Yes, we heard of the legal sterilization carried out according to law in Germany, and I remember that the execution was often discussed by our doctors in the Sudeten Gau. At the end of July 1941 in the months of August or September I had a private patient who came from outside. His name was Voigt. I do not remember his first name exactly.

Q: Please spell the name?

A: V-O-I-G-T, his first name was Karl or Hermann, or perhaps both, I had no reason to fill out the index card. At the time, he told me about Himmler's racial ideas and the proposed sterilizations to be performed, primarily on members of undesirable races, Jews, Gypsies, etc. Of course, I cannot remember the exact wording of our conversations, that was seven years ago and in the seven years I have experienced a great number of serious things. I am therefore forced to tell you the general impression that I gained at the time. He told me that experiments were performed to this end and the executions of these measures had already begun. The means of sterilization was operations and x-rays.

He came to speak of this subject after reading an article in "Umschau", to which I had a subscription. He happened to pick up this magazine as he was waiting for me. Since a certain degree of confidence developed in the course of the treatment and since he was from out of town and did not know my political reputation, he was possibly more open with me than he would have been with someone else. On the other hand, I could not determine what position the man held. I observed he was extraordinarily, well informed about conditions in Berlin, especially the important personalities and especially Himmler.

Q: Witness, in what connection did this person tell you about intended secret sterilizations?

A: I have seen from the documents that he presented it in a somewhat different context than was actually the case. He told me of these proposed measures in connection with settlement in the East. He went on the assumption, whether this was his own idea or whether he was giving me this as news from Berlin, I do not know, but he said that the German family had an average of two children, whereas the Slavic people had eight to twelve children. I had to conclude from the conversation that Himmler wanted to apply this mass sterilization to various masses, especially the Slavs.

It was not possible for me to check this information, but I felt that there was a great danger here and if I may refer to what I said before, the situation in which we were at the time with the illegal spreading of news by whispering, propaganda, etc., was the only possibility to learn the facts. We were inclined to believe any news that we heard. He also mentioned caladium and under the suggestive influence of this article, he imagined that the effect desired could be obtained with one injection, quite unnoticed. I believe that he emphasized the apparent advantage of mass use. I connected these statements with the Eastern theater of war. As I have already said, I thought that the big losses, of which we were informed, of the Russian Prisoners of War behind the lines and in the camps might be connected with this program. This racial hatred of all Slovaks and especially Jews and half-Jews, as well as various hatred illusions, I thought I had to interpret that these intentions were to be extended to them.

Q: Dr. Pokorny, what effect did these statements have on you; what was your frame of mind when you heard them?

A: Because all orders came from above in the Third Reich and absolutely had to be carried out, there seemed to be nothing to be done about it. Of course, I was indignant and shocked and was in an actually desperate frame of mind. At first I tried to dissuade him;

I pointed out, for example, how impossible it would be to import, and I tried to make the thing ridiculous and I said that I doubted these statements of his. He answered, I should believe him, he had it directly from Berlin. He was in an important position with the SS and he made me promise to keep it a secret and he pointed out the consequences of an indiscretion. I remember that he said to me that he would tell Himmler about this matter, about this caladium. I was in a rather difficult position. Later when I thought it over, I said I would do so myself. One may wonder that on the basis of this relatively superfluous news there was such a violent reaction on my part, but his credibility was proven by a rather remarkable coincidence; he told me that the Einsatzstaebe of the SD were already prepared for Tiflis.

I did not know if the man was crazy or not, but look where the German troops were at that time and where Tiflis is located.

On the next Sunday, I visited an estate owner, whose wife was a Czech, whom I had released from prison shortly before that by a trick and he showed me a draft card as an agriculture worker, as Sonderfuehrer or special leader. He said, "Look at this; the place where I am to work is Tiflis." From this coincidence, I concluded that Voigt was well informed. I also concluded from this and other remarks that he was not in the SS but in the SD.

Q: Witness, did this impression of this conversation give rise to any other plans or thoughts in you?

A: One can understand, that I began to think over how those intentions of Himmler could be interferred with, or sabotaged. Voigt's statements had directed my attention to the article in the "Umschau" and the periodicals, but critical reflection made me realize that this idea was unscientific and impossible of execution, that the work and the experiments on which the article was based had perhaps been done on false hypotheses, that the conclusions did not quite correspond to the facts; and so I got the idea that this impossibility of execution might be a way out.

Q: Witness, now what did you want to do about this article in "Umschau?"

A: According to the situation in 1941-1942, the possibility of sterilization by drugs in general and with caladium in particular, as I shall show later, was quite impossible. Since the other two methods could be effective, I saw a way out here and a possibility of helping.

Q: Now, what did you do?

A: First of all I procured the first work on which this publication in "Umschau" was based, from the Magazine for Experimental Medi cine.

I studied the literature, I found nothing about caladium, but I became more and more convinced that, as I had said, sterilization by drugs in general and by caladium in particular would have no effect whatsoever, even if this idea were to be taken out of my hands for some reason or other.

Q: Witness, do you have Document Book 6 there? Please take your letter, NO-035, Exhibit 142, page 3 in Document Book 6; explain to the Tribunal whether you wrote this letter and if so, why?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Now, to go into the details. First of all this letter mentions the name of Professor Hoehn. Who was Professor Hoehn? How did you come to mention him? What does he have to do with this letter?

A: I came upon him by accident. I treated the nobility of our district too and I was personally acquainted with some families. I had a villa at Rothenhaus. I heard that there was a guest at the castle who was a friend of Himmler. I imagined that a friend of Himmler who was a guest of a prince would be an influential person, who would be suitable for taking information to Himmler and exerting influence on Himmler and I determined to take advantage of this opportunity. I went up to the castle and I had someone whom I knew take my name in. I could not learn the name of the gentleman in question. There was remarkable secrecy about it. When he received me, I asked him whether he would take a letter to Himmler and I told him in broad outline the contents of the letter, but I referred to the high losses of the Russian soldiers and I motivated the contradiction in these losses with the effect that we needed workers for reconstruction. I repeated this idea very urgently and asked him to tell this to Himmler. I imagined that this suggestion I was making was to counter-balance Himmler's intentions. He promised to do so and I asked, "What shall I do with the letter?" He said, "Send the letter to Professor Hoehn in Berlin," and he gave me the address, but I have forgotten the address in the meantime. I don't know whether that was really Professor Hoehn or not but I think so. After a few days I dictated the letter; it was sent by mail. The important thing was that I had to give Hoehn the impression of credibility so that he would influence Himmler to that effect.

Q: In your letter you say:

Led by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but destroyed.

Do you find that?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you get this expression from?

A: I either heard this somewhere or read it or got it from the radio, but whether it was told me that it was something Himmler had said I don't remember.

In any case I considered these words suitable, considering Himmler's character, to get his attention.

Q: Why do you write that you are "writing to Himmler as the Reich Deputy for the Consolidation of German Folkdom"?

A: It is a mistake. I learned about that here by accident. The title is incorrect; it shouldn't be Deputy but Commissar. I knew so little about titles in Berlin that I made this mistake. I selected this title because I wanted to get Himmler's attention concentrated on the East.

Q: Witness, why did you enclose the articles of Madaus and Koch in the Magazine for Experimental Medicine, and also the article of Madaus in the "Umschau"?

A: The article in the Magazine for Experimental Medicine and even more the article in the Umschau, which is a semi-scientific work, had enormous suggestive effect by the inclusion of various quotations, so that I believed I should take advantage of this suggestive effect on Himmler. Himmler's inclination toward biologic homeopathy and other mystical ideas was perhaps not generally known but had long been known to me. These ideas were at any rate discussed among doctors, because these experiments, such as for example those in — I believe it was the Gustav Wagner Hospital in Dresden, the magazine Hippocrates, the newly published book by Brauchle — all referred to the new direction of thought. These sentences which had a particularly suggestive effect are underlined in red to bring them out.

THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that these preliminary discussions are unduly protracted. Can you not expedite the witness with that part of the story which deals indirectly on the charges upon which he is being tried before this Tribunal.

DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I believe that the explanation which the witness is giving of the various terms used in this letter is important in judging the matter. Of course, I shall submit to the wishes of the Tribunal and bring this down to a minimum.

THE PRESIDENT: Just condense the matter as much as you can, counsel.

BY DR. HOFFMAN:

Q: Witness, in the first paragraph of your letter you used a number of expressions:

If it were possible to obtain a drug which after a relatively brief time night produce unnoticed sterilization in human beings, we would have a new effective weapon.

Then you write of three million prisoners of war, using the term "Bolshevists". Will you please tell us why you used such terms?

A: These few sentences include all the demands Himmler would make of such a drug, the short time, the imperceptible effect, and the effective weapon; that was the demand of the time, a new effective weapon. My own plan was built up on delay, to be achieved through the necessary preliminary experiments and so forth.

Q: I want to ask you about the second part of your letter, where you say Dr. Madaus was not allowed to make any further publications of this nature, where you speak of the growing of the plant which can be easily grown in hot houses, and you say that immediate research of human beings, criminals, should be carried out. You suggested that the chemical structure of the effective chemical substance be determined. Will you please explain how you came to say this?

A: I believe the most important thing is this picture of three million prisoners of war. This was to have a suggestive effect on Himmler; unfortunately it has had the same effect on the prosecution and on the press. As I say, I learned of the whole thing in connection with the settlement in the East, and I was thinking of the high losses of the Russian prisoners of war in the East and therefore I coordinated these various concepts. I need not have used the words "prisoners of war" at all; I could have said Russian civilian population, or gypsies, or Jews, or something else. The word "Bolshevists" I need not have used either but I think I chose it because I think I assumed that Himmler used it and the number of three million — that was chosen to make my suggestion as noticeable as possible. All these expressions were aimed at one goal, that is, to make the suggestion as plausible as possible.

I thought the whole thing over for three or four weeks. The suggestions which I made are absolutely impossible for execution from the scientific as well as the practical point of view. The whole idea was based on their being impossible in practice. To take individual sentences out of a context of course distorts the picture. One must remember that the plan originated by my asking myself: how can I make the idea plausible.

You ask why Madaus was not publishing any more articles. That was probably a reflection on a remark of Vogt's who was astonished that such important scientific information was published. "The enemy listens" was a political slogan at the time which was posted on every street corner and printed in all the newspapers. The politic al tendency of the letter consists of one slogan after another. That was just about all I knew positively about National Socialism.

Q: Witness, do you agree with me that this letter, if it had been seriously meant and had had practical success, would have brought misfortune on many people?

A: I was convinced that all the suggestions were absolutely impossible of execution but that they were so camouflaged that one would have to fall for them because they seemed to contain an enormous advantage. I was convinced that even on a small scale nothing could be done with the idea. There was a certain risk, of course, but in view of the expected effect one would have had to take that chance.

Q: Witness, is it true that your explanation of this letter had been distrusted? Did you not have another reason for writing this letter?

A: There are several possible reasons for writing such a letter. For example, a declaration of loyalty which is understandable since I was in a rather unpleasant situation politically. But I have already said that in 1940 my political persecution, or inconvenience is a better word, had stopped and I had no cause whatever for a declaration of loyalty, for if I had followed National Socialist ideology, then, after 1938, in view of what I have described, I would certainly have been cured.

There were no financial reasons either. My practice was so big at the time that I would have been glad to give up half of it. Besides I had my income from agriculture and real estate. Another possible reason would be that I was ambitious, that I wanted position — as the press said, misdirected ambition — but I believe that is refuted by the fact that I gave up my university career.

I never wanted outward honors. I had no more fears about being drafted. I had obtained the news that I was to be taken as an Oberarzt [Senior Physician] Lieutenant. Second, because of a heart defect after typhus I was not qualified for military service.

As another reason I should like to point out that there was no possibility of attempting to prevent Himmler's intention; all one could do was try to get him on a false trail. In a democratic system one can go to the press, or I am sure there are other ways. In an authoritarian state we had no other way than the one I took.

Q: Now, witness, what did you think would happen?

A: Because of the violence of the letter and the apparent specialized knowledge and reliability apparently expressed by this letter, I thought that Himmler would take up the idea, but I did not hear any more about it and I thought that it had been realized how impossible the idea was of execution.

Q: Did you hear anything later on?

A: Yes, in the spring of '42 — I can't say exactly when — I received an inquiry from a Berlin office, I think it was an SS office, inquiring who produced the drug. I remembered that because I noticed that they were inquiring about a drug, and I had not said anything about a drug but about an experiment. That there actually was a drug, caladium D-1, I did not know. I do not have the letter either.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I request that the defendant repeat that last paragraph as some of it didn't come through very clearly to me, when he was referring to the drug.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the defendant repeat the last sentence of his testimony?

THE WITNESS: I said that I had not mentioned a drug but an experiment; that there actually was a drug, caladium D-1, a homeopathic preparation, in existence at that time I did not know.

That is mentioned in the yearbook of the Madaus Company for 1940 which I did not know. I shall speak of this drug later.

BY DR. HOFFMANN:

Q: Then you received an inquiry, witness?

A: Yes, and I answered it.

Q: Why did you answer and what did your answer say?

A: At first I did not intend to answer, or at least I let a long time pass. I knew that the idea had taken hold, so to speak. I thought, as it were, as a beginning of the sabotage, to postpone this answer as long as possible.

Q: And how did you come to answer?

A: I met Voigt quite by accident at the railroad station in Weiberg between trains, and the repetition of his story and the plans and his opinions in an even stronger form made me think that it was time to make the drug known or rather the firm. Otherwise my whole plan would have been pointless.

Q: Witness, you wrote this letter. Can you remember what this second letter said?

A: It is difficult to say. Because of the length of time, I had forgotten the details of the letter and the article. Only after seeing the letter and the article again was I able to reconstruct. Besides it is hardly possible for me to distinguish what I wrote or thought or said at the time or read or what Voigt said.

Q: Then you can not tell us anything accurate about the second letter?

A: No, but I know that I told them the name of the firm.

Q: Now, witness, aside from writing these two letters did you give any caladium; did you perform any experiments; did you do anything else; or was your activity limited to these two letters?

A: I never owned any caladium. I did not have a hothouse on my farm. I never had any experimental animals. I never performed any such experiments on human beings or animals.

I wrote only these two letters on the basis of my reflections at my desk.

DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I should like to show the defendant a document, but perhaps this would be a good time to recess?

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)