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.
Then you said that you in turn did not report to the Reich Research Council; there was not any such place to report to, that they did have meetings of the presidual council at various intervals, and that you would make reports at those meetings, but nobody bothered to attend the meetings because they were all disinterested, and that the only person you reported to or had any duty to report to was Hermann Goering. Now, is that right? Did I understand you clearly?
A No. You did not understand me quite. Perhaps I did not speak explicitly enough so that you could understand me. It was like this: the man who received a research assignment had to report to the head of his specialist department (Fachsparteileiter) every three months or every six months. The plenipotentiary or the head of the special department sent -I believe it was every six months -- a report on the whole field of research to the Reich Research Council, to the address of the head of the managing committee. Ho had the reports from the heads of the various departments compiled and then this was printed in the Reich Printing Office. I believe it was kept top secret and then it was sent out. It was sent to Goering, doubtless to the members of the presidual council, to all the plenipotentiaries, heads of the departments and to other agencies that were interested. That was the reporting and I am convinced that the Americans must have some of these reports. So many of than were sent cut that there can be no question that all of them having been destroyed.
Q Well, then you would be willing to state, Doctor, that any assignment made on the behalf of the Reich Research Council, that voluminous reports would have been sent out to these various people that you mentioned.
A Not from the individual head of the specialized department (Fachsparteileiter) but the compiled report of the Reich Research Council, was sent to numerous people. I sent it to a member cf the presidual council, I sent to the management, and all the others sent their reports to the same place, and the management set up a report which was bound in red and was printed as top secret in the Reich, Printing, Orrice and then sent out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants arc present in court with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser, absent on account of illness pursuant to excuse by the Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack): Mr. President, in agreement with tho prosecution and my colleague, Dr. Sauter, I ask for two minutes of your attention. The defense has succeeded in finding the film "Ich Klage an" (I accuse). This morning at 9:30 there will be a test run of this film. After that will be discussed what technical preparations are necessary to present this evidence.
I ask that the Defendant Viktor Brack be excused from the session this morning and that he be permitted to attend the trial run of this film.
THE PRESIDENT: The court having heard the counsel for the Defendant Brack, a request that he be excused -- was that excused for this morning only?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Viktor Brack may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this morning pursuant to request made to the Tribunal in open session by this counsel.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I thank you, Mr. President.
KURT BLOME - RESUMED CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, Doctor, I do not intend to delve into the question of the tubercular Poles to any great extent, and I do wish to call your attention to Document Number NO-250, which was prosecution Exhibit No. 205, which is contained in Document Book Number 7 on page 11. This is your letter to Greiser. Now, in this letter is a solution of the tubercular Pole problem, and you set forth three proposals; one, special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) of the seriously ill persons; two, most rigorous Isolation of the most seriously ill persons, and number three, creation of a reservation for all TB patients. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal what the first mented, as a solution of this problem was, what was the intention of the special treatment of the seriously ill persons, number one?
A. I have already stated and believe I proved, I never had had any such intention. This was Greiser's intention confirmed by Himmler, and I prevented it. Preparations were made, and I myself certainly did not participate in such preparations. How Greiser and Himmler proposed to do this I do not know and Greiser did not tell me anything about it. When I learned about Himmler's order I went to see Greiser and I printed out to him how impossible such a project was and suggested a decent humane solution and discussed it with him.
What Greiser's ideas about the technical details. were, I cannot tell you, he didn't tell me.
Q. We have gone all over that before, doctor. What I am getting at is in your letter you state those three methods, three ways to be taken into consideration. Now, the first way was special treatment of the seriously ill persons. Would that mean outright extermination of all the TB Poles that were considered to be in a serious condition?
A. This expression "special treatment" comes from Greiser. It would have meant the killing of those incurably sick Poles.
Q. Where did you hear the name Sonderbehandlung for the first time?
A. I can't tell you exactly. I would assume that I heard this expression from Greiser for the first time.
Q. You never heard it in any other connection?
A. I can't tell you whether I ever heard it in any other connection. In any case, I never in my life had any part in projects or plans of so-called Sonderbehandlung.
Q. As soon as you heard the word Sonderbehandlung did you immediately realize what it meant?
A. At this moment, I cannot tell you, how in a discussion in 1902, that is almost five years ago, my reaction was in detail to any specific expression. That would be asking too much of my memory if I am to answer that truthfully today.
Q. Well, doctor, on page 12, Document Book Number 7, Document NO 250, you state, after the first page, eliciting the problem, "Number of sufferers, Tuberculosis, in the Gau." You state as a fact, very boldly and frankly, as follows: "Therefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide the most efficient way in which this can be done.
There are three ways to be taken into consideration." Then you elicit the three ways and you continue on in the next paragraph and say, "For the planning, attention must be paid to different points of view of the practical, political and psychological nature. Considering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the following: Aided by the X-Ray battalion we could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of the Gau, during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment and isolation is to be prepared and carried out according to the regulations of tuberculosis relief. Approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious will be specially treated, all other Polish consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to save them for work and to avoid their causing contagion."
Now, Doctor, you offer to me, to the Tribunal, that the purpose of this letter was to prevent the extermination of the tubercular Poles. That language that I just read sounds pretty decisive, doctor. It doesn't sound to me as if it is a plea to avoid the extermination. You state that the approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious will be specially treated. What do you say to that language, Doctor?
A. I believe that in the direct examination I expressed myself very clearly and very unequivocally on this point. If you now read such a sentence from my letter which I actually wrote, which is torn out of context, then, of course, a person who has not read all of this latter might get the impression that I personally would have approved such a plan.
I admit that anyone who hears this out of context night get such an impression. But in my direct examination I have explained that it took me days to write this letter, to figure out what successful tactics I would have to take in order to prevent this crime. I discussed the tactics with Professor Olfelder and also with Dr. Sundermann - I beg your pardon - Gundermann. I had to consider the mentality of the people is power, and even today I consider it that it would have been hopeless for me to say at the time, "That is a crime; that is out of the question."
I have already said that the simplest thing for me would have been to say this, that letter would have taken five minutes to write. I have also explained that the simplest thing for me would have been to take this opportunity to resign from my offices, but I may remind you that in discussing this problem I pointed out quite clearly that in such a case the fate of these tubercular Poles would have been sealed, that is, I don't know who else would have prevented this order from Himmler. That would have been the simplest thing for me to do at the time. The result would have been the following: 40,000 Poles would have been killed. I might even have been put in a concentration camp. In any case, I would not sit here today for a crime which I neither planned nor prepared but which I definitely prevented, as Himmler's answer to my letter shows quite clearly; and that the tactics which I took had 100% success should be clear from Himmler's letter, who accented my suggestion to set up a special tuberculosis settlement - reservation - and even to use it for propaganda purposes.
Q. Now, this same document, the last paragraph on page 12 of the document book, you state, "There can be no doubt the intended programs being the most simple and most radical solution. If absolute secrecy can be guaranteed, all scruples regardless of what nature could be overcome, but I consider simply maintaining secrecy impossible."
Now, doctor, you stated there that there could be no doubt about the intended program of extermination being the most simple and radical solution if absolute secrecy could be guaranteed.
Now, wasn't the element of secrecy the only thing that concerned you?
A. No, let me refer you to our discussion in the preliminary interrogation, and specifically to the interrogation which I had with you after I had already been given the indictment, and at which I was not even warned that I was not obliged to testify without having my defense counsel present. I did not have any lawyer yet at that time. At the time I have most willingly testified and you will confirm that you asked me several Questions and that the purpose of these questions was to get a statement from me; for example, as you ask it now in the form of a question. Today I can only repeat what I said clearly at that time, that the motives of my action and my choice of tactics toward Himmler were exclusively based on principles of humanity and medical ethics.
I repeat that here expressly because it is true and it conforms with my innermost attitudes toward such Plans. Perhaps in this connection I may also refer to one point in my direct examination. I was not only the one who prevented the murder of these 40,000 Poles but it was also thanks to me that the intention was not realized that the Polish intelligentsia were to be eliminated by sterilization. The thinking on the latter point is based on the same moral principles as my action in this case. I was interested in preventing the plan at any cost, that is why I chose this tactic as the only possible one. That these tactics were right is proved by the 100% success and that is the important thing.
Q. You go on to say in connection with this maintaining secrecy, "What I consider simply maintaining secrecy is impossible", and your next sentence on top of Page 13, "Experiences taught us that this assumption is true." What experience is that, doctor?
A. If I refer to experience here, then that is based on the information which I get from the foreign radio. If when listening to foreign broadcasts one is quite astonished that other countries knew hundred times more than we did ourselves, but will you please in this connection permit me briefly to refer to a similar case.
Q. Just a moment, doctor. I am going to refer to another sentence of the same paragraph and you may answer it all at one time. You state that experience has taught that this assumption is true, that secrecy could not be maintained. Then in the same paragraph, in the middle of the paragraph, you state the euthanasia program - talking of the manner in which this was done and which methods were used. Now, it seems from that language that you were quite familiar with the activities concerned in the euthanasia program. You knew that those secrets leaked cut and you were fearing that the secrets would leak out if you carried out such an extermination program. Now you may answer.
A. No, this deduction of yours is not quite right. You just said more or less that I had knowledge of the procedure of the euthanasia action. Unfortunately, I had no knowledge of it. Those are things which I just like every other German learned by rumors without having any exact and official information. And if I use euthanasia as a comparison here, I did so in order to prevent Greiser's and Himmler's plan because Greiser and Himmler had no doubt realized what reaction the euthanasia program had brought forth among the people. That is why I referred to an example of a similar nature which had happened a short time before, which was dealt with not only by the German people but also by the foreign broadcasts.
Q. Doctor, set up a hypothetical situation. Assume that the extermination of these 35,000 tubercular Poles could have been carried out with absolute secrecy and no leaks whatsoever. In other words, the only ones who would have known about it would have been Himmler, Greiser, and yourself. Would you have been opposed to it then?
A. I can answer you quite clearly. I would never have participated in any such thing. I said so before and I believe my conduct as a doctor is the best evidence that such crimes could not be committed with my assistance.
Q Now, I ask you again, Doctor, why did you write this last paragraph on page 12 "If absolute secrecy could be guaranteed all scruples regardless of what nature could be overcome;" was that purely a defensive argument?
A It has nothing to do with defense. I did not have to defend myself then. I have to defend myself today. The entire text of my letter was build up under definite tactics, according to only tactics which promised success I did not refer to humanitarian reasons but to the political factors and their inevitable consequences, the only ones which were of importance to Himmler.
Now let's move to another section of the letter) page 14 of the Document Book which is on page 5 of tho original German letter there, doctor. You go into tho second solution, you say another solution, that is the second paragraph on page 14 of the English Document Book. This will be found on page 5 of the original German. Do the interpreters have that? "Another solution to be taken into consideration would be a strict isolation of all the infectuous and incurable consumptives without exception in nursing establishments. This solution would lead to the comparatively rapid death of the same. With the necessary addition of Polish doctors and nurses personnel the character of a pure death camp would be somewhat mitigated Explain that language, Doctor?
A I will be glad to. I may go back to the explanation which I had already given. It is generally known that seriously infectious patients isolated. The great majority of the doctors in the World will no doubt support my opinion. This unfortunately not the case in tuberculosis. There have been debates in all countries aiming to create laws with provisions for isolation of severely infectious tuberculosis patients. This is the general point of view of the hygienists. I have taken into consideration here, and it is a well known fact, now known only to doctors but well know among laymen, that hopeless cases, and those are the ones we are talking about, find it very unpleasant to be isolated, or hospitalized in large hospitals, even in the case of non infectious cases they are put in separate rooms where people usually die, and do not come out again alive; and when now in this specific case, the most serious cases of tuberculosis are isolated.