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.
Q Now, Dr. Bloom, under the heading "Registration Number" you do not dispute the fact that No. 15 was your number, do you?
A No, I have already said that No. 15 was my number.
Q And No. 10 was Geheimrat Sauerbruch's number?
A Yes.
Q Now, you maintain that these two entries, the one concerning Rascher and the rewarming after general freezing of the human body, and the other entry concerning Hirt's activity at Strassbourg, are in this document by mistake, that somebody made a mistake when they put them in the document, is that your contention.
A I don't know how that got into the document. I did not ask to have them put in. Who in the Reich Research Council put them on my account I do not know, and I state with rull right that these two assignments were not under my competence of Geheimrat Sauerbruch. After I received an extract of my account from the Reich Research Council, where these two assignments were listed, I called up the Reich Research Council I said these matters had nothing to do with me, they belonged to Sauerbruch. I demanded that they be taken off my list, and that was promised.
Q Then this number 1879/15 concerning Rascher's rewarming was inserted in this document or this assignment sheet by mistake, that is your contention.
A Yes, in any case it does not belong there.
Q Well, now,--Document Book 11, I believe you have the German copy on your ledge there.
A Yes.
Q Is that Document Book 11?
A Yes.
MR. HARDY: On page 29, your Honors, is Document NO 656, which is Prosecution Exhibit 247.
THE WITNESS: May I ask for the number again?
Q No. 656, which is Exhibit 247. You will find it in the first section of the book, about page 29 and 30 in the German book, I believe.
Curt No. 1.
Do you have it, Doctor?
A Yes, I think I have it.
Q All right now, this document is from the Ahnenerbe Society. It says at the t p of the letterhead "The Reichsfuehrer-SS, Personal Staff, Office Ahnenerbe." The defense counsel discussed the second portion of this document with you yesterday, concerning the subject "Polygal." Now, notice the first portion of the document where it says No. 1, which refers to 4 October 1943, Journal No. Rf 1157/43 g, Codeword: 'Rewarming Humans." Then it states "Research ordered: No. 1, Rewarming after general freezing of the human body." And "2, Recovery from partial freezing, especially of the extremeties." "3, Adaptation to cold of the human body variously nourished to establish whether an increase of resistance against freezing can be attained." Then immediately underneath that, as a part of Section 1, you find "Priority SS. Wehrmacht order number." Then we have the following number "SS4891-0328". Then in parenthesis the familiar "1879/15--III/43." How does it appear to you that No. 15 appears in this document from the Ahnenerbe. I suppose both the Reich Clerk of the Reich Research Council and the Ahnenerbe made a mistake, is that right?
A I think I can very easily explain this: This file note of the Ahnenerbe, for that is what it was, indicates that these research assignments were sent to the Reich Research Council by the Ahnenerbe, and I ask you to inquire of Mr. Sievers about this. And since the Ahnenerbe, as Rascher's superior office, sent in the assignments, this file note came from them.
Q Be that as it may, Doctor, this file note appears as a summary of the tasks assigned to Rascher by the Reich Research Council, which ful ly indicates Rascher has as the code letter, No. 15, in connection with rewarming; now, did you ever receive any reports as a result of Rascher having this information, be it a mistake or be it correct, did Rascher as a result thereof make reports to the Reich Research Council using as his number 1879/15, whereby said reports would have been delivered to you;
did such a thing as that ever occur?
A No, I never saw any report on this subject by Rascher, and far as I know Rascher never sent in a report on research to the Reich Research Council, not on the polygal assignment either.
Q. Now, Doctor, we will go on.
A. May I add something?
Q. Go right ahead.
A. May I point out once more what I have already said in direct examination - that was that such experiments were not carried out at all that winter and not later either and that another entry in this diary confirms this. Consequently, the Reich Research Council could not have received any report on any results of experiments. And may I add something else? It occurs to me that there were other mistakes made in research assignments; for example, I was by mistake sent things which had nothing to do with medicine at all, but with agriculture and that was also a mistake by the office personnel in the Reich Research Council. Assignments for the combatting of insect tests were entered by mistake on the account of the agricultural men, which actually belonged to my biological research assignment. It was not a unique occurrence to have such a mistake.
Q. All right, we will go on. The Tribunal and defense counsel have taken you rather elaborately over Documents NO-290 and 229 regarding the appointment of Rascher to a university professorship or lecturer. In that connection, Doctor, do you deny that you talked to Professor Pfannenstiel concerning Rascher?
A. As far as I can recall, I did not talk to Professor Pfannenstiel about Rascher, but I wrote a letter to Professor Pfannenstiel in which Himmler's desire for Rascher's habilitation was presented, and then I received a refusal from Mr. Pfannenstiel, as he did not want Rascher to habilitate with him, and then I did nothing more in this matter as I did not see why just I should take any steps in the matter, as not even Rascher's superior, who was at the same time a professor and could have carried out this Qualification as a lecturer, was not willing to do it. I told Rascher at the time that he should find another professor, he should make suggestions and I would take care of the matter, but Rascher did not make any suggestions either and I don't know that Rascher received an habilitation at all.
Q. Well now, did you contact Professor Dr. Menzel regarding Rascher's appointment?
A. I did talk to Menzel about it.
Q. And after that time Menzel dealt directly with Pfannenstiel at Marburg and you were not longer in the picture, is that right?
A. No, I consider it quite impossible that Menzel went to Pfannenstiel. I turned to Menzel because I knew either from Himmler himself, or from Rascher or Severs, I don't knew, that a secret habilitation was desired, and in order to clear that up when I visited the Reich Research Council I went to Professor Menzel, but not in his capacity as head of the managing committee cf the Reich Research Council but Menzel was also a chief of the Office for Science in the Ministry of Culture. I could get the best information from him but I do not believe that Menzel did anything in this matter.
Q. Well now, this secret thesis which concerned Rascher's work at Dachau, upon which he was going to base his receiving his university lecturer's position or title - did you see that secret thesis prior to the time it was submitted to the university? Did you see it?
A. Rascher sent the document to me and asked me to help him with the habilitation. I received it by mail, I looked through it, I remember that, and it had quite a number of charts and tables. I did not read it. Then I wrote to Pfannenstiel but I cannot tell you whether I sent this document to Pfannenstiel or whether I merely inquired by mail without perhaps sending the document along. I cannot tell you. All I remember is that Pfannenstiel refused and I believe that is in some document which has been submitted during the course of this trial.
Q. The document has not yet been submitted; however, we have it and I will show it to you in a moment. Didn't you know the type of work Rascher was doing after you had seen this thesis?
A. No, I cannot tell you the title and it is not true that I read it. I said expressly that I did not read it. If I had read it I would be glad to tell you the title and the contents because that would not be anything punishable if I hear subsequently about such scientific experiments that valuable results might be expected for future research.
I should like to emphasize once more that I was not Mr. Rascher's so-called habilitation professor; I was merely asked to negotiate for him. If I had been his habilitation professor, I would have had to study and judge the thesis in detail and then turn it in to the faculty and several other professors would also have to deal with it and give their opinion.
Q. Doctor, I also recall you stated in direct examination that when Rascher submitted the thesis to your office that you had a specialist in your office check it over.
A. No, that is a mistake on your part. There was no specialist in my office.
Q. Now, Doctor, you were to intercede for Rascher with Professor Pfannenstiel at Marburg University. Do you mean to tell me you would attempt to intercede for another man so as to pave the way for his receiving the title "University Lecturer" without acquainting yourself with his ability and without acquainting yourself with his thesis? Would you recommend a man to another man without knowing whether he was fully qualified to hold down that job?
A. I must say the following. It was not my duty to take care of Rascher's habilitation. I was merely asked to look for a professor who would take charge of this. It would have been the business of this professor, as I often said, to study the thesis thoroughly.
Q. Inasmuch as this was a secret thesis and you had it in your hands, didn't the human element of curiosity bother you a little to find out what it was about?
A. If I may say something about that, I was well known as never being curious and my duties were so extensive that I had no interest in dealing with things that did not concern me directly. I can assure you that directly.
Q. We will now refer to Document NO-1057, which is to be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 463. Now this document is heading by the stationery of Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Dachau 3-K, 18 November 1943, addressed to University Professor Pfannenstiel, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer, Marburg, Hygienic Institute of the University:
"Dear Professor, "I was informed by the Deputy Reich Chief of Physicians, SA-Gruppenfuehrer Prof.
Dr. Blome, with whom I am working together, that he has sent you my probationary treatise some time ago.
"This way had to be taken since the Reichsfuehrer-SS has ordered that the treatise will be treated as top secret. Consequently, I was not allowed to hand you over the treatise personally. Therefore I beg your pardon for having taken this way. May I respectfully ask you, dear professor, when I could possibly see you for a conversation regarding the formal admission.
"At the same time I would like to ask you whether you are still interested in experiments to establish increasing high altitude resistance by administration of vitamins. In the affirmative I would respectfully ask you to be kind enough to apply to the President of the Reich Research Council, chief of the managing advisory board, SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers, Berlin-Steglitz, Gruenwaldstrase 35, for a portable low-pressure chamber of the Luftwaffe for our experiments. I discussed such experiments with the Reichsfuehrer-SS on 27 October 1943 and he agreed fully that such experiments could be conducted here. I am in a good position to coordinate such investigations with my present work. I beg to ask you respectfully, dear professor, to let me have your reply at your convenience. Heil Hitler."
And the signature Rascher Now, Doctor, is it not clear from this document that you not only submitted Rascher's probationary treaties to Professor Pfannenstiel, but in addition thereto Rascher states that he was informed by you, "SA-Gruppenfuerer Dr. Blome, with whom I am working together," that he has sent the treatise.
Now this shows a pretty close association between you and Rascher, doesn't it?
A No, it was just as I have described it to you. It was no different. This document does not in any way refute what I have told you. I said Himmler asked me to help Rascher. I said that I went to Pfannenstiel. I believe in the preliminary interrogation I told you why it was Pfannenstiel that I went to, that that was due to a coincidence, that in December 1942 I believe I met Pfannenstiel on the way to Lemberg, and that was why I happened to arrive at Pfannenstiel because he was a high SS officer. He was a SS-Standartenfuehrer, I believe, perhaps even Oberfuehrer, at least in the rank of a Colonel in the US Army. He was a university professor, and he seemed to be the most suitable person, and I did not know, as I learned later, that Rascher had had something to do with him before. I did not know that. And this document in no way refutes what I said truthfully, that I did not know about the contents of the thesis because I actually did not read it. It could have been on an entirely different subject.
I think that here during the trial, unless I am quite mistaken, other witnesses have talked about this habilitation of Rascher. I think that Gebhardt spoke of it, that Rascher spoke to him about habilitation in the surgical field. In the beginning Rascher said to me that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer in the field of blood coagulation; and then I think in some other connection a document was submitted here, a letter or some such thing, in which Raxcher or Sievers complained somehow. One had to chose a certain subject. I can't say exactly, but anyhow what I have testified is the truth.
Q Well, I am not going to argue about what the subject of this treatise was. It is perfectly obvious from this letter that it was on the highaltitude or freezing, whichever it may have been, and not specific. I thought you would know. But now here is another question I have to ask you in connection with this document, Doctor.
You stated in direct examination that in the Reich Research Council nothing originated from the Reich Research Council, that is, the Reich Research Council was merely an organization which had several plenipotentiaries, and the plenipotentiaries originated in research. Is that right?
A I am sorry, but I don't quite understand. The Reich Research Council had the principal duty of dealing with research. I don't quite understand -
Q Well, then -
A -- what I heard in the translation here.
Q Well, then, if their principal duty was concerning research, then these matters concerning re-warming that were assigned to Rascher on that assignment sheet of the Reichsforschungsrat with your name "Worked on by Blome" -- assume for a moment that that was true, that you did work on that experiment, who originated that assignment? Who made that assignment in the Reichsforschungsrat?
A The originator of the research assignment is established by documents. It was given by Himmler. Rascher could have conducted his re-warming experiments without any connection with the Reich Research Council.
Q You don't understand me, Doctor. You don't understand me. Just a moment. On Document No. NO-690 that we have gone over so many times, you have listed there four assignments. Three of the assignments are in connection with biological warfare, and two of them which you deny as having been assigned to you were one was with Hirth's activities and the other concerning Rascher's activities; now who originates those assignments on that assignment sheet? That is a. Reich Research Council job, not Himmler. Who put those assignments on that sheet and sent it to you?
A You mean this paper that was shown to me a little while ago?
Q Yes.
A That was from the Reich Research Council, of course.
Q Yes. Well, now, who determines what Blome will work on, what Sauerbruch will work on, what Handloser will work on, or John Doe will work on? Who determined that in the Reich Research Council?
A Who specifically issued these assignments I can not tell you. I can only tell you once more that I was net competent for issuing the assignments. That these assignments belonged to Mr. Sauerbruch, and how the registration took place, I do not know. I have already said that such a card, index card, I never knew before. I saw that only in captivity. I don't know.
Q Well, now, these assignments wore obviously issued either to Sauerbruch, or to Blome, or to other members of the Reichsforschungsrat. Who was responsible for the issuance of the assignments? Not Goering.
A No.
Q Goering denied any knowledge of these things when he was on the stand here before the International Military Tribunal. Now, who was responsible for making these assignments? You were a high official in the Reichsforsch ungsrat. You were one of the plenipotentiaries.
A I can not tell you. I can only tell you with certainty that all the assignments in the cancer field and in the field of biological warfare were issued by me. In the field cf freezing, re-warming, assignments on the effects of chemical warfare agents or in general medicine, that is under Geheimrat Sauerbruch. I have already said that, and I have also pointed out that this Hirth chemical warfare agent assignment was listed on a file care, index card, with Sauerbruch, and I have also said that I did not know Hirth at all. I don't know the man.
Q Well, now, if each plenipotentiary issued the assignments, that is, the plenipotentiary for cancer research, the plenipotentiary for surgery and the various groups, then after they issued an assignment, like you say that the notable Sauerbruch was assigning things to Rascher, if he assigned something to Rascher when Rascher reported to him, who would Sauerbruch in turn report to? The presidual council? Who did Sauerbruch in turn report to, the presidual council?
A I did not quite understand this.
Q Well, new, Doctor, you stated in direct examination that you were plenipotentiary for cancer research, point number one; number two, that any assignments in the cancer research field were made by you, that the agencies or particular research scientists to whom you assigned these tasks reported to you as plenipotentiary.