THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document has only boon offered for identification, not offered as an exhibit in evidence in the case. Not up to this time has it been offered as an exhibit.
DR. SAUTER: In this case I ask tho prosecution to state whether they intend to use this document against the Defendant Blome, or whether they are going to withdraw that document.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, at such times when tho prosecution will formally introduce each one of their exhibits, that is, after tho case of the defendants is in, I assume we will introduce all the exhibits that have been offered at this time and during cross examination for purposes of identification, only then we will be able to answer Dr. Sauter's question. At this time I am not prepared to answer same.
DR. SAUTER: Well, Mr. President, if tho prosecution intends to use this document, no matter under what designations it may use it, we must be clear about whether this document can be used, whether it is authentic, and where from it originates. Nothing is gained by tho defense if it is said by tho prosecution that we are merely submitting this document to tho defendant, that tho Tribunal will take judicial note of it, and then at a later date it is said that it will got no exhibit number. I know it is being discussed here, it is being submitted here, and in my opinion it has to be clearly established whether it is permissible to use that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Tho question suggested by counsel for tho Defendant Blome is at this time purely a moot question as the document had not been offered it has not been proven, no foundation for its admission has boon laid, The Tribunal does not know tho purpose of tho prosecution. It may be usod simply for purposes of asking questions. Tho Tribunal will have to decide such questions as they arise, but tho question is premature at this time.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, excuse me if I again revert to this point. Tho question already came up yesterday regarding that document. This document was submitted to tho defendant, this document was distributed among all defense counsel, and I assume that the prosecution intends to make use of that document. I, therefore, don't understand, Mr. President, why tho question regarding the authenticity or the admissibality of this document should not be discussed at this present stage because tho prosecution certainly will not be able to use this document in any other way but showing it to tho defendant, and this already happened yesterday. It was done by Mr. Hardy.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time there is no question whatever before tho Tribunal. We will await the further proceeding and cross examination by counsel for the prosecution. If counsel for tho Defendant Blome dooms any question propounded by tho prosecution objectionable, counsel may then object to tho question but there is nothing before the Tribunal at this time.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Blome, during the course of your direct examination you have stressed that tho euthanasia program was of no concern to Dr. Conti in his capacity as Reichsarztefuehrer and Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer, to tho contrary, only of concern to Conti in his position as Secretary of the State for Health Matters in the Ministry of the Interior. Is that right?
A I have stated that that was stated to me by Dr. Conti.
Q Isn't it true that your former chief, Dr. Wagner, in his position as a predecessor to Conti, was very much concerned with the euthanasia program?
A I don't know that. Perhaps you can give no more explanations about that matter. In that case I shall be glad to answer you.
Q I am going to ask you to read tho section in your book on page 272, which is duly marked in rod pencil. This is a survey of a speech of Wagner, which was hold in tho Reichs Party Congress in 1934. Will you kindly read this page, doctor? Read slowly so that tho interpreters can follow you.
A We are concerned with tho reproduction of a speech made by tho late physicians leader, Dr. Wagner, on tho occasion of tho Reichs Party Rally in the year 1934. I quote the passage underlined by tho Prosecution.
"The economic burden placed upon tho people by sick persons suffering from hereditary diseases, people who without their own guilt, are in such a moral and physical state from the parents side, that any independent life is impossible for them without any help from outside, who became a danger to the State and to society. If these people were listed all together it is necessary to have 301 million Reichsmarks per year for the upkeep of these hereditary sick people, not included is tho expenditure for 200 thousand drunkards and about 400,000 psychopathic cases. The funds for that purpose have been asessed at about 200 million, and the work which cannot be permitted owing to the hereditary diseases, amounted to nether 300 million per year. Wagner then pointed out how these inferior familes are through wrong selection tho ones who have the most children and thereby permitted such a distorted picture of to future to arise. Whereas, tho population of tho German Reich in tho year 1870 amounted to a population of 41 million people, and in the year 1910 had increased to 65 million, the number of insane people who were housed in institutions increased during that period from 40,375, that is one out of a thousand of tho population, to 220,881 which is equal to 3.4 per thousand of the population. This is an increase of the population from 50 to 100. We have an increase of the insane cases of 450%, and ho declared very deliberately that the right of tho healthy strong man had to be affirmed against the weak and disappearing life, for we are believing in the future and the greatness of humanity.
The problem of racial mixture which he mentioned, as the last subject, was described by using very impressive figures. In the years from 1910 to 1920 thirteen Jews emigrated doily from Eastern Europe into Germany, thereby overcrowding all of the free professions. In the case of physicians, one found in the year 1945 there were 32% Jewish persons in the profession, and in the case of lawyers their participation was even greater, with 50.2 per cent. Berlin in the year of 1931 had fifty per-cent Jews at its faculty, and Goettinger in it's judicial faculty had 45 per-cent Jews, and Frankfurt on tho Main 55 per-cent. In that connection I should like to rend also a short excerpt which was not underlined by the Prosecution because this would bettor illustrate tho sense of what Wagner said.
Q Go ahead.
A We are convinced, said Wagner, at the time of his speech, that in the not too distant time every nation and every people will realize that in the purity of its spirit and blood there lies its stronght. We believe that in the clear differentiation between blood and blood, between spirit and spirit there lies tho only guarantee for a peaceful life, together, of the various kinds of human beings living in this world.
Q Now, doctor, will you return the book, please. I am glad that you read that last extract in addition to what I have outlined. Aren't you convinced that speech gives every thing from the Nazi point of view to justify euthanasia and stresses very much tho high expenses incurred for the insane and oven goes so far as to define people who are bodily and mentally deficient as a danger to tho state and society, doesn't it?
A No, were you a physician, you wouldn't say such a thing. These statements no doubt refer to tho sterilization law which was already active at that time. It say in tho passages which I have just read that it was not considered to be desirable to continue to let live useless heritage. In addition, however, it was stated that tho life of the most severely ill group of people is certainly a life without value, This letter fact cannot be contested by any human being, be it physician or be it layman.
Furthermore, I wont to draw your attention to tho foot that this speech was given directly after the sterilization law had been promulagated in Germany in the years 1933 and 1934. I point out to you that tho necessary understanding was not shown towards sterilization law by all circles, but at tho same time I must point out that during the course of the years, the sterilization law was accepted and became a matter of course in the realm of tho moral thoughts of the German people, as it is true of all nations of the earth.
Q Be that as it may, doctor, it seems to me that the difference you have made in direct examination in your entire defense against the charge of euthanasia is that Conti, the Secretory of State, the Ministry of the Interior, and not Conti the Reich Health Leader was concerned with euthanasia, is that right?
A I said very clearly that Conti dealt with euthanasia in his capacity as under Secretory of State in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q Well now are you aware of tho foot that among German legal circles, even Lammers, they were not so sharply concerned with tho fact that this was only Conti's job in so for as he was Secretory of the State. I want to have you lock at the document, 621-PS, which hes been admitted in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 595. The German is on the bottom and tho English on the top. Now you will note this is a short letter from Lammers to The Reich Ministry of Justice, Dr. Guertner, which states: "Dear Dr. Guertner I herewith acknowledge your letters of 26 September, forwarded to me with further material about the death of inmates of nursing homes. I forwarded the enclosed reports of tho Chief Prosecutors of Stuttgart and Nurnberg to tho Reich Ministry of tho Interior, Reich Health leader, for further action So now that indicates that those reports were not received by Conti only in his capacity as Secretary of State, but as it states in the Document, by Conti, the Reich Health Leader, were they not?
A No, that is not correct. Perhaps I may read the same text to you once more.
Q No, you need not bother, doctor, you needn't bother reading the text. I have rod the text. It is very clear. No will continue.
A Well, if you are reading a charge against no, you Must give me an opportunity to defend myself, accordingly, that is my right.
Q We will let the document sped for itself, doctor. There is no necessity of you reading it. I have previously rod it read I do not wish you to red it. We will go on to another question.
A In that case I am not permitted to answer to that charge which you have must made against me.
Q I asked you a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may explain what he desires in connection with that document.
A In this document it says clearly "I have given the letter to the Reich Minister of Interior -- Reich Health Leader, for further dealing. Dr. Conti was quite generally designated as Reich Health Leader in the German Reich. He didn't want to be called Secretary of State and, as it here, Reich Minister of Interior (Reich Health Leader), it means very clearly that the Reich Minister of Interior is meant, and in this the Department of Health. The head of the Department of Health was also the Reich Health Leader and Secretary cf State Conti. He was that in his State capacity in his function as leader of the Professional Association of German Phy That is what I wanted to say about that document.
Q We won't quibble about it any further. We will allow the document to speak for itself but I must say the words "Reich Health Leader" do n appear in parentheses. Now, Doctor, do you approve of Euthanasia as it was carried cut in Germany during the War?
A I wouldn't want to be impolite now. It is very far from me and is not within my dignity. I believe, however, to have made it clear made it absolutely clear - in my book and in my statement so far what my tude toward Euthanasia was.
Q I was going to ask you to read that, Doctor. You may do so. It page 222 of your book, marked in red pencil.
A Do you mean the passage underlined?
Q The passages circled in red pencil, doctor, on page 222. Read that passage where it is marked.
A May I draw your attention to the fact that this has already be submitted as a document and has received an exhibit number. That can in my document book.
Q All right. Read it for me, Doctor, please.
A In that case I ask you to let me read it in the way which does tear it out of its context but I want to read it as submitted by me in document book, otherwise I would not care to read it once more.
THE PRESIDENT: bill the witness please read the portion of the be requested by Prosecution. After reading it he may make any explanation desires to make within reason.
A. Yes, Your Honor. "be considered it to be nonsensical that, for instance, insane people who threatened their own life as well as others, or idiots of a high degree who perhaps can not even keep themselves clean or eat by themselves, were brought up and kept alive with great effort and expense. In free nature these creatures would not be able to exist and would be exterminated according to the Divine law. We also did not understand that persons inferior in character and spirit, asocial creatures, who had murdered were, it is true, condemned to death, but were then pardoned principle and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense cf the public; but also in quite different cases where it is not a question of putting an end to inferior life, we wondered whether the physician should not be give the legal possibility to end an unhappy life prematurely. We are thinking seriously suffering, incurable sick persons, who until their death had to expect only enormous mental and physical suffering and who themselves asked the physician to free them from their suffering." May I say something else.
Q Go right ahead.
A I further say I remember some cases of incurable suffering in my patients in which the patients implored me to put an end to their life. "Doctor, please give me another injection so that I don't wake up any more. I can't stand it any longer." Cases where the daughter drew me aside and also asked me, "Please help my father fulfill his request." There was nothing left for a to say, "According to the law a physician is forbidden to do that." And, yet there are cases in which the physician for deeply humanitarian reason considered his own sense cf responsibility as higher law.
Q Now, Doctor, in the passage you have just read, if my understanding clear, you say it was nonsense to keep alive insane people who were dangerous to themselves and others or those who had idiocy cf a high degree, with a of care and expense and further you speak about people cf little value, as call them, a social creatures, who may have committed murder and were pardon and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense cf society. Don't you think this opinion is very much the same as the opinion of your Chief Conti in matter, and wasn't it on this basis that Euthanasia was planned and carried out by the Nazis?
A. In that connection I would like to tell you that this opinion, which I am repeating here, and as it is expressed by me in the preceding text, was not only my opinion but also the opinion of innumerable physicians. I ask t be permitted to say, with reference to your explanations of my book, to point out expressly what I actually wrote -- black and white -- in my book. No human being will be able t blame me that I have written such matters in my book, least of all will any sensible human being be in a position to assert these my statements were not driven by a moral and profound feeling of human.
Q. Doctor, how do you account for the statement, and I will quote from your book as it is here in this exhibit. "We also did not understand that persons inferior in character and spirit, a social creatures, who had murdered were, it is true, condemned to death, but then as a rule pardoned and kept alive in penitentiaries at the expense of the public." It was your opinion and the opinion of your colleagues, as described in this book, to also subject them to extermination under the guise of euthanasia, wasn't it?
A. In that connection I may point out that at least according to the translation as it came through my earphones, we are concerned with certain distortion of my words going by your description. I must say that we had no understanding for a situation that in Germany every criminal murderer who had been condemned to death, should be principally pardoned and never bo execute That is what I want to say in this very brief passage very clearly, and it has nothing to do with Euthanasia.
Q. All right, Doctor. First I want to tell you that we have had now seven of the defendants a n the stand, and you are the first that has had difficulty with the translations and interpretation of the men who are there the booth. I want to inform you that they are pretty capable men and I don't want you to complain any more about translations. We will continue.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is aware that errors in translation may happen and if a witness, or any counsel, believes there has been an error in translation it is tho duty of this person to call the matter to the attention of the Tribunal at once.
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.
You were present in a meeting in 1940 or 1941, according to your affidavit where Euthanasia was discussed. Now, at that mooting was Conti with you?
A. In my affidavit I stated that Dr. Conti one day, and I think that was in 1941, stated that during a meeting which was to take place in Munich, Professor Brandt would give an explanation about the so-called Euthanasia action in front of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. The reason why Conti told me that was that I wanted this situation clarified but could not obtain clarification. Thereupon ho one day told me that this meeting was going to take place. This meeting actually took place in 1941, I think, as far as I know it was 1941, in Munich. From what I still remember about the meeting that I repeated in an interrogation at Oberursel was sot down later in an affidacit.
Q Now then, Doctor, was Conti present at that meeting?
A Yes.
Q as Professor Brandt present?
A No, I already stated that this word Brandt was either a mistake my part or that, at that time, it was a mistake on the part of Conti. At that time, Victor Brack was present, and Victor Brack represented Reichleiter Bouhler. Brandt, as I convinced myself in the meantime, was not a participant of this meeting.
Q Well now, what was the reason for your being in attendance at the meeting? Purely at the request of Conti?
AAs far as I know, all the Gauamtsleiter and Reich Chamber of Physicians leaders had been invited and it was a matter of course that I was invited too.
Q (Interrupting) Jell then, was this matter --
Pardon me. Go ahead, Doctor.
A I was saying that was customary during such meetings.
Q Was this a matter which concerned the Reich Chamber of Physicians.
A In that connection I may tell you the following: Just as much as I was interested in this secret procedure, a number of leading physicians belonging to the Reich Chamber in Germany were also interested. In addition to myself, a number of other leaders of the Reich Chamber of Physicians an Bauambleiter wanted Conti's explanation of that affair, and perhaps I may express myself in such a manner, that the result of the various requests which went into Conti was, in effect, this meeting which took place in Munich in 1941.
Q Now, did you voice any objections to this proposed euthanasia law or draft at that meeting?
A May I ask you just what you mean? Do you mean the draft or do you mean the law which was later to be published - the law to be published in peace time which I spoke about in my affidavit?
Q We'll take that piece by piece, Doctor, Did you voice any objections as to the carrying on of euthanasia without having duly published the law?
A Yes. I am there referring to the affidavit which was already real made by Professor Klare of Bielefeld, and I refer also to what I said during direct examination. I wanted a publicly promulgated law and, for this reason, I define my attitude to that question in my book. I chose this for of my own experience as I found it in practice. It is my point of view that even after our experiences of today and after everythin; that I have hoard that the settlement of the euthanasia question is well a problem which should be settled by way of law. This is my point of view in particular because apart from my factual experiences, I, myself, had a terrible experience in my own family. At the beginning of 1940 my mother was afflicted with cancer When seeing my mother for the last time in December, 1944, her suffering had progressed to such a terrible extent that my mother asked me daily during that visit - she said: "My boy, please do me a favor. Give me an injection so that I will not wake up again and would finally be relieved from pain." I did not do this favor to my mother. I tried to help her. I lied to her. kept her true condition from her and I represented it in a different fashion from what it really was. I tried to give her hope, and in March, 1945, my mother, after torturing herself for months, finally lied. In that connection I must say that this was my most personal experience and this is why I assumed the point of view that the euthanasia question is worthy of a legal settlement. It is my point of view that three demands have to be fulfilled The first: we have to be concerned with incurably sick persons. Secondly: we have to have people who have expressed the desire or, rather the members of their family, to undergo euthanasia as sometimes they themselves can not overlook the extent of their suffering, and thirdly: there has to be a public legal basis for any such procedure.
Q Now, Doctor, inasmuch as you did not consider this legal unless law had been published, did you go, after this meeting, to Conti and objection and ask Conti to act, as afterwards anything that did happen might backfire on the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer?
A I didn't understand the last part of your question. I don't know exactly what you meant - what were these uncomfortable consequences?
Q Did you go to Conti and ask him to act in regard to euthanasia which you understood that the law would not be duly published?
AAs I said before, I went to Conti immediately after the meeting a demanded that we had to interfere on the behalf of the Physicians' Leadership.
Q Do you remember, in one of the interrogations, Doctor, where you stated that you went to Conti after this conference and asked him to act, because you didn't want anything to backfire on the Reich Health Leader? Dc you remember that?
A No, I didn't say that during an interrogation. I said something completely different, and I am quite sure of it.
Q Well, Doctor, why did you go to Conti and ask Conti to act, and object to Conti after the meeting? Was it purely a personal reason why you went, or did you go because you did not want your position to be tainted by having your office participating or consenting to the euthanasia program?
A You arc asking whether I was afraid. I must tell you that I was never afraid throughout my entire life. Cowardice is one thing that I really detest. I didn't go to Conti because I was frightened. I went to Conti because I considered it to be my duty and for no other reason.
Q Well, then, you felt, and it was your opinion, that in your title as Deputy Reichsaerztefuehrer and Deputy Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer you were one of the responsible officials in this matter, didn't you?
A No, that is not correct. I didn't bear a legal responsibility and I never thought that I should bear any such legal responsibility. For the responsibility for an act is borne by the individual who is competent for the execution of that act. The Reich Ministry of the Interior was competent and not the Reich Physicians' leadership. If, in spite of that, I tried to interfere in that matter, then I did it for reasons already stated.
Q Now, Doctor, we'll go on to tho subject of blood coagulation. Now. in this question, taking up again the personality of Robert Feix. Was the reason why an attempt was made to declare him half-Aryan, or half-Jew so, that he could continue his work with Rascher?
A No, that was not the reason, for if he had not been released he could still have continued his work with Rascher. Ho needn't be released in order to continue his work.
Feix wanted to be released on his own initiative and he was then transferred to some other place where there was a factory, but he could have worked there as a prisoner just as in the case of concentration camp tens or tens of thousands of inmates had been detailed to work in certain factories. The reason why I interfered on Feix' behalf, was only because I was convinced that an injustice was done to Feix. Quite accidentally by pure accident, without knowing Feix closely, I had the opportunity to interfere on his behalf, and I did that, not moved by an official obligation but from merely human reasons, and I was very glad to be able to help this man.
Q Well, was Robert Feix able to go about to these various manufactuing establishments where they intended to manufacture polygal? Was he able to go about in the classification of a concentration camp inmate?
A No. I already stated during an interrogation that Feix was given vacation. I don't know whether he was finally released from the concentration camp, but I know that he was in a position to move about freely. He himself visited me in civilian clothes, in the summer of 1944, without being accomppanied by anyone; therefore I concluded he must have been able to move about quite freely.
Q Now, doctor, I have a few entries to mention in Sievers' Diary. The Court has covered these -pretty well on direct examination, and I have one two I want to go over with you now. Now on the entry of 22 February -- I don't have a German copy available, Doctor, so you will have to boar with me -- on the entry of 22 February, this is of the Sievers' Diary, Document No. 3546-PS, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 123 and is the Sievers' Diary for the year 1944.
INTERPRETER: What document book is it, Mr. Hardy?
MR, HARDY: Document Book No. 11 will be one of the document books, Document Book No. 11 in the English, and Document Book No. 3 in the German I believe.
Q Do you find that entry of the 22nd of February, doctor?
A Yes, I have found the 22nd of February.
Q It states: "1000 hours. No. 7. Further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner to be lone through RGF." Would that RGF mean the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer? Do you follow me?
A I do not think I understood something correctly. I have the 22nd of February but there is nothing mentioned about Ploetner of 1000 hours.
Q Under the 22nd of February you will find number 77-- under the 22nd of February, number 7.
A Yes, yes. I have found it.
Q That states: "Further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner to be done through RGF." Now the initials RFG -- that initial was the common initial for the Office of the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer, wasn't it?
A There was not an abbreviation for the Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer i that form. For instance....well, I really don't know RGF. Perhaps you could later ask Mr. Sievers.
I really don't know. I don't know Sturmbannfuehrer Ploetner. I never made his acquaintance.
Q You never worked in collaboration with Ploetner or heard anything about him in your official duties, is that right?
A No, I did not know him at all.
Q Now you will notice in the next entry under the same date, header Dachau, at 1630 hours, you go down to #2. It says again "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner" and under Entry B-"Curator's agreement to working through RGF None of that is familiar to you, is that correct, doctor?
A No, I cannot explain it. In this connection where you say RGF an Curator, if RGF is to mean Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer there cannot be the expression of curator because not any such expression existed. In addition I have to say with reference to this entry that this is not a meeting in which I participated in any way. Here we are obviously concerned with a conference which took place in Dachau, where Dr. Sievers was discussing matters with Ploetner and Rascher and Sturmbannfuehrer von Luetzelburg. I, at any rate, did not participate in any such conference. I was not in Dachau a single ti throughout the entire year of 1944, so, therefore, I cannot really tell you what RGF is supposed to mean. I must therefore ask you to kindly ask Hr. Sievers about that matter.
Q Well, now, Doctor, I have another entry here, right on the same line, which is No. 3, which will be right underneath the entry we were just discussing, which the Tribunal took up with you, and I have one question to ask you in that regard. Now it states: "3. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, c) Supply questions for production of polygal. d) Experiments Professor Blome." And then it goes down to "f) Polygal report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Pro Dr. Gebhardt." Then it continues on, discussing polygal problems, etc., ending up with "1) Success report on polygal." Now to I understand it correctly that when the Tribunal asked you what the reference by Sievers, stating "Experiments Professor Blome" meant, that you answered that that possibly meant some work in connection with cancer?
A I stated in that connection that I am not responsible for the terminology which Dr. Sievers cared to apply in his diary. In this connection it is out of the Question that we are concerned with polygal. The polygal problem had already been cleared at that time. Therefore we can only be concerned with examinations of this new successful cancer drug. There is no other possibility. I should like to ask you to see Mr. Sievers about that matters. Sievers is the one who wrote that diary. I am seeing these entries now for the first time, and I really cannot tell you what RGF is supposed to mean in that connection. I cannot tell you for certain. I want to tell you once more that we are not concerned here with any conferences in which I participated. Otherwise I would perhaps be in a position to give you some explanation, from memory.
Q Well, some of those entries refer to telephone conversations and other conferences at which your name was mentioned. In this connection, doctor, you are not aware of any experiments performed on human beings in order to test the effectiveness of polygal, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct. I merely found out afterwards, from what I heard in Oberursel, that skin of the upper thigh of the human being had become bloody during a narcosis. That is the only thing that I afterwards heard about Rascher. It is absolute scientific nonsense, as I said at the time, and only here in the files did I learn about these experiments.
Q Well, now, you recall that the Pohl affidavit which was, I believe document NO-065, stated that Sievers had told Pohl that in order to test this polygal that inmates were shot in the leg, and I believe Professor Gebhardt corroborated that when he was on the stand. You never heard of any of those experiments or tests made by Rascher?
A No, I heard nothing at all about these experiments.
Q I am going to read to you a section of an affidavit to see whether you have ever heard of this condition, doctor, in connection with polygal. This is Document No. NO-1424, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 462, which is an affidavit by Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher an uncle of Dr. Rascher. 4773
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give the Tribunal the identification number
MR. HARDY: The identification number is 462, Your Honor.
Q Now, doctor, I want you to turn to paragraph 5. Now I will read this paragraph:
"In August 1943 I was twice with my nephew in the Dachau concentration camp. The first time I went only to his private quarters and did not see the laboratory. The second time he showed me his laboratory and introduced me to his colleagues. I still remember the following names: Dr. Punzengruber and Dr. Feix. I inspected the chemical evaluation of clot-forming blood. At that time he also told me of sub-cooling experiments. He said that he had carried these out on himself at first and then he introduced to me one of his colleagues who had volunteered three times for these experiments. If I remember rightly, Himmler is supposed to have been present at one of these experiments and to have pardoned the man who were condemned to death. During the absence of my nephew I accidentally found the following document in his desk:
"It refers to a report about the shooting execution of four people for the purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic preparation "Polygal 10". As far as I remember they were a Russian Commissar and a Cretin. I do not remember who the other two were. The Russian was shot in the right shoulder from above by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet emerged near the spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched. convulsively, then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes. In the dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the Aorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures were tamponed by hard blood-clots. That could have been the only explanation for the comparatively long span of life after the shot. After reading this first protocol I was so shocked that I did not read the others. At that time I took a sample of the hemostatic preparation from the desk which I submit herewith to the files."
Now, Doctor, did you ever see that report about the shooting of these poor people for the purpose of experimenting-with polyfal?
A No, if I had seen it then I would have pointed cut to Rascher how nonsensical such a method was. If I want to test a blood coagulation drug, every doctor with any decree of training at all knows the best way and the surest way to do so is on normal operations, and that the most accurate observations can be obtained in this way. If I shoot someone dead I cannot judge whether polygal is a good method for coagulating blood or not. It is absolute nonsense from a scientific point of view.
Q Now, Doctor, were you on fairly good terms with Rascher during the course of your collaboration with him?
A That is a very flexible concept "you are on good terms." I have already spoke about Rascher in the direct examination. In the beginning I thought he was all right, I thought he was industrious and capable; but then I began to have misgivings, especially because of his purely business-like attitude in regard to sharing production transactions, but I cannot say that I was especially attached to Rascher in any way. He did not belong to my office, I did not belong to his office, and he was not my subordinate.
Q Then you maintain the only tests Rascher told you about in connection with this polygal work, was the test wherein he took drops of blood from the fingers of some of the prisoners, is that right?
A No, that is not true. I have already told you that Rascher told me about a thigh which was rubbed bloody, and I also told the Tribunal that I myself saw the laboratory tests in Dachau where the coagulation of the blood was ascertained, where prisoners did the work on one another; and then I also said that, at my suggestion, the drug was sent to clinics, and that Dr. Feix later told me that a well known surgeon, I believe it was Breidtner in Insbruck, had had excellent results with polygal in operations. That is what I know about blood tests with polygal.
Q Now, Doctor, I want to ask you a few questions concerning Document No. 690, which has been admitted in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 120, which Your Honors will find in document Book No. 3. This is the list of research assignments that we have discussed here at great length with you in the Reichs Research Council. At the top of this document it says "Worked on by Dr. Yurt Blome, Berlin SW 68, Lindenstr. 42, Telephone 174871. Was your address Lindenstr. 42?
A Yes, that was my office in Berlin.
Q Was your telephone number 174871?
A 174871 was an exchange. There were several telephones. One of them was 174871.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me again the page of the book and the number of the document?
MR. HARDY: I haven't looked up the page. It is Document Book 3, Document No. 690, Exhibit 120.
THE PRESIDENT: Page what?
MR. HARDY: Page 154, Your Honor.
Do you have the document, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.