Dr. KOCH will be asked by the defense to what extent he himself believes that the scientific assertion which he made, that caladium can be used to sterilize a human being, is true. He will also be asked by the defense whether it is at all possible in practice to produce enough caladium to justify even thinking of poisoning by caladium. Finally, he will also be asked to testify, what progress the caladium experiments which HIMMLER had ordered had made by the end of the war. It will then be shown that the caladium experiments were, at the end of the war, still in the stage of animal experiments and had not yet led to any usable result. If the witnesses from the MADAUS Firm in Dresden should in this connection not seem to be disinterested witnesses, Instructor (Dr. JUNG of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Wuerzburg, who has been called by the defense as an expert, will discuss objectively the scientific value of Dr. MADAUS' and Dr. KOCH's thesis of sterilization with caladium. Moreover, he will state specifically whether caladium is capable of sterilizing a human being at all. He will finally state how high the general scientific value of drugs produced by the MADAUS Firm is and what German physicians think in general of the preparations which the MADAUS Firm has produced. Dr. JUNG will say in this connection that it is his opinion that German medical men know from experience that publications and drugs of the MADAUS Firm do not have absolute scientific validity, because it must be considered that this is a firm whose aim it is also to sell the drugs which it produces. Finally, the defense will call witnesses who will testify to the reputation, the political attitude, and other conduct of the defendant Dr. POKORNY during his civilian activity up to 1942 as well as during his period of military service. Evidence as to Dr. POKORNY's attitude will furthermore be given by numerous affidavits which will appear in the document book.
DR. HOFFMAN: The opening statements have now been concluded.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal pleases, the Prosecution has several comments to make concerning certain questions which have been raised by the opening statements of the Defense Counsel to the Tribunal. Does the Tribunal wish to adjourn prior to these remarks for the afternoon recess?
THE PRESIDENT: What are the nature of the comments the Prosecution desires to make and how long will it take to make them?
MR. MCHANEY: They concern briefly the motions and the nature of the motions to dismiss certain paragraphs of the Indictment as contained in a number of the opening statements, as well as the attack on Count 1 of the Indictment; that is to say, the Count which charges conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Prosecution, of course, is not prepared at this time to make any argument on any of these points, but I think it would be well if we could reach some agreement as to the manner in which these questions are to be settled. In other words, the Prosecution would look with disfavor upon the procedure now, to settle each and every motion to dismiss prior to the time the Defense Counsel began to put in evidence on behalf of their defendants. We would prefer, if it is suitable with the Tribunal, and with the Defense Counsel, to have the Tribunal rule upon the particular motions to dismiss, as made by each Defense Counsel, prior to or immediately after such Defense Counsel has put in his approval.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the rulings will be made in the case of each individual defendant when that defendant has rested his case?
MR. MCHARNEY: That would suit the Prosecution very much. The problem is this: The first question raised by substantially all of the opening statements is the legal basis for the crime of conspiracy. That question is common to all of the defendants, since each of them have been charged in Count 1. The Prosecution would be prepared to submit a brief on this question at a rather early date, I should think, at the least, by Monday of next week, so that the Tribunal could at any time rule on the question of conspiracy.
Be that as it may, I do not think there is any necessity for a ruling on that particular question because I do not think it affects the rights of any of the defendants in so far as proof is concerned. In other words, a conspiracy is made out normally by showing the participation of the defendants or their connection with the subsequent crimes that is, with the war crimes as alleged in Count II or the crimes against humanity as alleged in Count III, and which is not normally the subject of separate proof in and of itself.
And, I should think that whatever the ruling may be on the conspiracy question, each of the defendants will put in all of the proof that he has available; that he was not connected in any substantial manner with any of the crimes charged there -- Counts 11 and III.
As to the motion to dismiss with respect to certain paragraphs of Count II, there may be a slightly different question there which might require an early ruling by the Tribunal, but even as to that I am not sure.
The third question which has been raised by the opening statement is that a number the defendants have been implicated by proof of criminal experiments which were not explicitly particularized in the Indictment. For example, the blood coagulation, fleckfieber and warfare experiments. The Defense Counsel uniformly have taken the position that they are going to ignore this proof on the ground they were not claimed with the crimes which were involved in the experiments. As to that point, I should think there would necessarily have to be a ruling by the Tribunal before any defendant, who is affected by such proof, has completed his case.
And, I might say, without extended argument, that the Prosecution takes the position that the defendants have been sufficiently charged under paragraph 6 of the Indictment with having committed war crimes, in that they performed medical experiments on involuntary human beings which resulted in murders, tortures, and other inhuman acts.
The sub-paragraph of paragraph 6, purports to give particulars of certain of such experiments, but it is explicitly stated in the Indictment, and in paragraph 6 that the experiments were not limited to those particularized. The Prosecution urges that, because we have made every effort to advise the defendants in great detail of the nature of the crimes with which they are charged, we should not thereby be limited in submitting our proof and incriminating these defendants because they happen to have been involved in one or the other experiments which are not particularized in the Indictment. This last point I should think, would require an early ruling by the Tribunal. The ruling on the motion to dismiss, and particularly on the conspiracy Count I think, could be handled on an individual, basis sometime before the defendant had rested its case.
To rule on all of these questions, as raised by the defendants, would put an intolerable burden upon the Prosecution in preparing the necessary briefs for all 23 defendants, and would also require extended study by the Tribunal before a ruling could be reached, and this would result in a delay in the continuation of the presentation of the defendants evidence for, I should think, a minimum of a week, and very likely much longer than that. So, my position is that we be permitted to file brief on each defendant at a time, I should hope, before he begins to present his defense evidence. Such briefs, of course, would be made available to the Defense Counsel, and at same point before the conclusion of his case the Tribunal would reach a ruling in the question raised.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will ask the Counsel for the Prosecution that before the defendants are call upon to proceed with their evidence, the Prosecution Intends, itself, to ask a dismissal as to any count against any defendant?
MR. McHANEY: That may well be, Your Honor, I am not prepared, at this time, to make any detailed statement on that print, but after a careful analysis of the proof as it has gone into the Prosecution's case in chief, we will attempt to be quite liberal in eliminating any points which we ***n think are genuinely in issue and not genuinely proved by the Prosecution.
The PRESIDENT: It would seem, as to the objections raised by Defense Counsel, to certain evidence that has been introduced, as not fallin within the charges named within the Indictment, that the sooner that question be settled the better in order that the defendants would know what evidence they would have to prepare. If that question was not settle' until each defendant was called he would probably feel compelled to prepare evidence on these points which might or might not be pertinent.
MR. McHANEY: I think that is very true, Your Honor, and that was the third pain which I have stated has been raised by the opening statements of the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the Counsel for the Prosecution, but I had the impression that the Counsel for the Prosecution thru each one of these questions could better be settled as the case of each individual defendant was called instead of settling it in advance. I may be incorrect. I may have misunderstood the Counsel for the Prosecution.
MR. McHANEY: I probably did not express myself clearly. I think the ques tion could probably be ruled upon rather easily and without the submission of any extensive briefs. A simply is a question of whether or not the charge contained in paragraph 6 is proof enough to permit the Prosecution to make proof of experiments which are not particularized, in sub-paragraphs of paragraph 6. And, once the Tribunal has decided one way or the other on that question then it will be either incumbent on the defendants to meet that proof in their case or they may if they chose disregard it.
Of course, the evidence, I think, no matter what way the Tribunal rules on the question just raised would be admissible and could be considered by the Tribunal against the particular defendant, especially on the conspiracy Count, and in any event, going to the notice and knowledge of the particular defendant; that is, knowledge of the scope of medical experimentations on concentration camp inmates.
Going to the question of admissibility of evidence, it is simply a question of whether or not it now constitutes a charge of crimes against the defendant upon whether he could be found guilty by the Tribunal; and, that is the question which, I think, would have to be ruled upon probably before any of the Defense Counsel presents any evidence in order that they would be advised of the Tribunal's attitude on that point.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, the Tribunal understands as far as Count II and Count III are concerned, charges of crimes against Humanity and war crimes they are in and of themselves sufficient basis on which to predicate proof of criminality. The particulars of sub-paragraphs A to L, inclusive, are not a limitation upon the general allegate, but merely descriptive particulars of the general crime charged. Is that what you contend?
MR. McHANEY: That is correct, Your Honor.
DR. FLEMING: Attorney for the Defendant Mrugowsky; Mr. President, the Prosecution has just suggested that it did not desirable to them if the Court should now decide whether the indictment is insufficient on certain arounds and should therefore be dismissed.
I would like to point out the following: The majority of defense counsel hold the paint of view that there is no legal basis for the charge on the count of conspiracy. If the Court decides this question now, there will be no necessity for any defense counsel's going into this question during his case. It will therefore save time for the defense counsel and it will also save time for the Court who would have to listen to statements of defense counsel later.
Furthermore, the Prosecution in regard, to Count II of the Indictment, has stated that they consider it desirable, unless I misunderstood the translation, to state in detail what is charged against each defendant only when the case of that defendant comes up.
If the suggestion of the Prosecutions followed on this point, the consequence would be that the defense would not know, during the whole period of preparation, for which counts it must prepare material.
For example, in the case of Defendant Mrugowsky, I have five counts of Count II of the Indictment. I have stated that the charge is not founded and should be dismissed. The question now is whether I must call witnesses for those five counts, have affidavits prepared --- generally, prepare the entire defense -- or whether the Court will now examine the question whether the Prosecution has presented evidence on these counts which may be considered conclusive proof against tho Defendant Mrugowsky.
If the Prosecution has not submitted such proof, then, in my opinion, the charge should be dismissed and the Tribunal and the defense will not have to concern themselves with these counts anymore. Other defense counsel are in exactly the same position.
Further, the Prosecution pointed out that during its case, it submitted material on counts which were not included in the Indictment at all. I may point out that a regular charge, as demanded by the Charter, has not been made.
The Charter requires that the Defendant knows when he is charged and with what he is charged, and that he be presented with this information in sufficient detail. We do not know even today, which of the defendants the Prosecution is charging for the various experiments. I refer, for example to the Polygal experiments and similar experiments.
In the entire case of the Prosecution, this has not been stated. We are told only now which defendants are charged with which crimes, and what evidence and what proof the Prosecution has. I should therefore like to ask the Tribunal; whether at the present stage of the trial; a decision can be reached as to which counts the charges are inadequate and not according to the charter of the Tribunal; and should therefore be dismissed.
I ask that so defense counsel may know for the preparation of our case, what we have to deal with and what evidence we will have to present.
DR. FLEMMING: Attorney for Viktor Brach, Mr. President, part of defense counsel in their opening statements did not mention the inadmissability of Count I of the Indictment. I do not know the reasons for this. I can only speak for myself, consequently, when I say that I expressly and intentionally did not discuss this question because I consider it a part of the final plea. However, since the Prosecution has brought this important point up for discussion, and has suggested that it might be expedient to have the Tribunal decide on certain important points now, I should like to state, expressly for my client, Viktor Brach, that he agrees with the statements of defense counsel who objected to Count I this morning.
MR. McHANEY: I would like to state the Prosecution recognizes that the issue of the legal basis of Count I is being raised by all defendants. They need not make their application. We concede they all raise this question, although it has not been mentioned by all of them.
THE PRESIDENT: The record may show that is understood and agreed to by the Tribunal.
DR. SEIDEL: Attorney for the defendants Gebhart, Oberhauser, and Fischer; Mr. President, to supplement the statement of my colleague, Dr. Flemming, I should like to add the following:
I make the application which the Prosecution has just suggested. In the course of the proceedings, documents have been submitted concerning experiments and medical experiments which are not listed in the indictment.
At the beginning of the trial, one defense counsel stated that the Indictment did not fulfill the requirements of the Charter. It was pointed out that the Indictment did not list, in detail, the crimes with which the defendants are charged, and that it limited itself to legal statements.
I refer to Article IV of the Charter where it says:
"To preserve the rights of the defendants, the following procedure is to be taken: The defendants are to be given a copy of the Indictment as well as all documents within a reasonable period before the proceedings. The Indictment is to list the charges clearly and in sufficient detail in order to inform the defendants about the punishable actions with which they are charged."
I take the liberty of pointing out that before the proceedings the defendants were not given any documents whatever.
I take the liberty of pointing out, further, that in all these nine counts of the Indictment, for example, the experiments on Polygal are not mentioned.
Then, months after the beginning of the trial, the Prosecution comes with new charges. This is in opposition of the Charter, and the rights of the defendants are being infringed upon. Those rights were to be protected by these rules.
I, therefore, make application that the intention of the Prosecution to introduce new charges be rejected.
MR. McHANEY: I think the Tribunal understands the position of the Prosecution on this point, I do not want to even begin to engage in extended argument. It comes as something of a surprise to hear any defense counsel, who participated in Case Number I before the International Military Tribunal, suggest that we have not advised the defendants of the nature of the crimes with which they are charged.
The Indictment in this case contains so many more particulars and is so much more definite than the Indictment which was sustained before the International Military Tribunal that there is no comparison between the two. The prosecution has made an effort to advise each and every defendant in the dock of the major charges against him.
We now hear the suggestion made that we are to be limited because of the particulars which we have given. The crime charged against these defendants is that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in that they they have unlawfully and criminally experimented upon involuntary human subjects. I submit that it would not have been a closed question if Paragraph 6 without any particulars whatsoever would have been a sufficient indictment, particularly in face of the Indictment which was sustained in Case I.
Also, in the charge sheets which are submitted to the defendants before the Military Commissions, such as the one at Dachau, they have tried upwards of 79 men on a charge sheet of not more than one page and which contains only general language of crimes.
It is not here a question of dismissing any paragraph of the Indictment. These men are charged under Paragraph 6 and under Paragraph 11 with having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity respectively. We describe the way in which those crimes were submitted.
If the Prosecution is prepared to concede it has not proved that Karl Brandt was implicated in the high-altitude experiments or that Blome was not implicated in one of the other experiments; it is not a question of dismissing any part of the Indictment. The crime charged is contained in Paragraph 6. The Prosecution nay well concede we have made no proof on a particular sub-paragraph thereof; but it constitutes no dismissal of anything against that particular defendant.
It does relieve him of the liability of going forward with proof that he was not implicated in that. Of course, this Tribunal has every right to now review the evidence in the prima facie case made by the Prosecution. If it decides we have not put in a prima facie case against Karl Brandt on the high-altitude experiments, the Tribunal can so advise Karl Brandt, and he will not have to go forward with proof on that particular experiment. But, certainly, there is no question of dismissing anything in the Indictment. Karl Brandt stands equally accused under Paragraph 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel's position is correct in ruling that if the prosecution has not made a case under a count, it would not call for a dismissal. It would call for a ruling that the defendant would be relieved from going ahead with rebuttal evidence on that certain charge or count or what it might be called.
MR. McHANEY: That is correct. That is the way the Prosecution understands it.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has taken note of the questions raised by the defense counsel as to whether, as a matter of law, not a matter of fact, the defendants may be held to answer the charge of conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is a basic legal question which, because of its extreme importance, the Tribunal is of the opinion should be answered only after the question has been fully briefed and argued by all parties to the cause. Therefore, the Tribunal will not pass upon the question at this time, but will reserve its ruling thereon until final hearing and after full consideration end argument and will incorporate its conclusions on the question in such opinion and, judgment of the Tribunal as will finally be rendered.
Second: Something was said by the Prosecution immediately prior to the afternoon recess of the Tribunal to the effect that it was not the desire of the prosecution to put any defendant upon proof as to any charge which the prosecution might feel it had failed to establish. In view of the statement of the prosecution, which the Tribunal commends, the Tribunal suggests to the prosecution that it be prepared to make any announcement upon that matter which it wishes to make prior to the opening of the defendants' case on Monday, 3 February 1947.
Third: Concerning questions raised by defendants' counsel as to evidence introduced by the prosecution concerning acts of defendants not specifically charged as crimes by paragraph 6 and paragraphs "A" to "L", inclusive, of the Indictment, the Tribunal announces that it reserves its ruling upon any such question until the close of the case.
Is there any further matter to be called to the attention of the Tribunal?
MR. MCHANEY: In connection with the Tribunal's ruling on the second point, I would like to ask if it would be satisfactory if on Monday we made such announcements as we may have to make with respect only to the case of Karl Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to the Tribunal that it would be only fair to the defendants if that announcement were made as soon as possible. It might not necessarily be made Monday morning, but, if any such announcement is to be made, it would be well to make it as soon as possible so that the defendants would be advised that as to any such specification or charge it would not be necessary for them to procure witnesses or introduce evidence. That was the only point in the mind of the Tribunal in suggesting that announcement be made Monday morning. The Tribunal is not holding the Prosecution to anything in connection with that matter, and if the announcement, if any, is made as soon as possible, with due regard to the matter which I have just mentioned, that would be satisfactory to the Tribunal.
MR. MCHANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that answer your question?
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, indeed.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for Defendant Schaefer): Mr. President, I have a question which has been touched upon neither by the discussion before the recess nor by the ruling which has just been given by the Tribunal. It is a question connected neither with the question of the conspiracy nor with the statements by the Prosecution.
I made the request with regard to the defendant Schaefer that his case be immediately dismissed. I believe that I have understood the member of the Prosecution correctly to the effect that he means that such a dismissal could only be decided upon when the case is being presented. However, when the case is being presented and the presentation of evidence has been completed, then we may just as well wait until the verdict.
It is the practice of the English and American courts to which I have referred, as far as it has come to my knowledge from the literature which has been made available to me, has the effect of finishing the case before the presentation of evidence; that is, after the presentation by the Prosecution when it is already demonstrated that the defendant can not be sentenced. Therefore, I want to point out once more the possibility with regard to the case of Schaefer to make a ruling to this effect before I present evidence on behalf of the defendant Schaefer. That is the question of the dismissal of the proceedings against Schaefer and his discharge from confinement.
DR. WEISGERBER (For defendant Silvers): Mr. President, may I be permitted to ask one more question with regard to point No. I? If I have correctly understood the ruling of the High Tribunal, then the decision can only be made on Point I when the defense has made a statement with regard to this question.
In my presentation this morning I stated that I have not taken any stand with respect to the question of the conspiracy because I have joined in the statement of my colleagues, and, therefore, I have not made any statement of my own in this connection in order to avoid repetition. If the Tribunal should desire a statement of all the Defense Counsel who have not touched this question specifically, then I would request the Tribunal to make a statement with regard to this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: I stated that this question would be reserved until the close of the case when all defendants may be heard upon the matter. The ruling of the Tribunal is made strictly without prejudice to the right of any defendant to urge the matter of the conspiracy charge and its inapplicability to any or all defendants.
The right is expressly reserved to any or all defendants. The right is expressly reserved to the defendants to argue and present that question at the proper time at the close of the case.
Upon the question just suggested by Counsel for the defendant Schaefer, which has been suggested by other Defense Counsel, the Tribunal will reserve its ruling upon any such motions, which may be renewed at an appropriate time. The Tribunal strictly preserves to the defendants the right to urge the question which has been suggested. The Tribunal at this time reserves its ruling.
There being no further question to come before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will recess until 0930 o'clock Monday Morning.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 3 February 1947)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Murnberg, Germany, on 3 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in the court.
The defense may proceed.
MR. MCHARNEY: May it please the Tribunal, prosecution wishes to announce that in order to shorten the trial and to eliminate argument it voluntarily removes as issues in this action. The following charges contained in the indictment. Against the Defendant Karl Brandt, the Charge in paragraph, 6a concerning participation in the high-altitude experiments; against the Defendant Handloser, the Change in paragraph 6a concerning participation in high-altitude experiments. We will have further announcements of this sort to make in the course of the next few days we expect. It is understood that the removal of these issues from the case with respect to the foregoing-defendants constitutes no admission by the prosecution that such defendants did not as a matter of fact participate in these experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the elimination of the Charges as stated by the prosecution.
The defense may proceed.
MR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Karl Brandt): On behalf of the Defendant Karl Brandt, and with the permission of the Tribunal I shall call the defendant to the witness stand at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal grants the permission. Defendant Karl Brandt will take the witness stand.
MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, we have no objection to the defendant Brandt taking the witness stand at this time. However, I wish the record to show that the prosecution has not been advised that the Defendant Brandt would take the stand at this time and henceforth I will ask that all defense counsel comply with the rule of the Tribunal which requires that a minimum of 24 hours notice be given to the prosecution. It is to be expected that prosecution will have a few questions to put to one or the other of the witnesses to be called by the defense and we would like to have some time to consider those questions.
THE PRESIDENT: In the future the defense counsel will observe the rule and give the prosecution 24 hours notice of the calling of any witness whether a defendant or a witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, on Saturday the Marshal of the court asked me who the witnesses would be that I was going to call and I told him that the defendant himself would be the first to take the stand. I assumed that the prosecution too would be informed accordingly. That is how the error arose.
KARL BRANDT, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Hold up your right band and be sworn, repeating after me; I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, state your name and when you were born.
A My name is Karl Brandt and I was born on January 8, 1904.
Q Will you describe to the Tribunal an element of your life until you started studying at the University.
A First of all, in my home town at Muehlhausen I visited school and secondary school. In 1919 when Muehlhausen and Alsace had been occupied by the French I was instructed to leave and I temporarily took up residence in Thuringia, where I visited a prep school for secondary school, and the last two years until my matric I spent at Dresden in a boarding school where I passed my matriculation examination. I passed my matriculation in 1923.
Q What did you decide to study and how did you arrive at that decision.
A On my mother's side my family was one of doctors. So that it was a fairly obvious thing to me to study medicine. A brother of my mothers has been a pupil of the first psychologist in Zurick, Professor Borel, recently mentioned by Professor Leibbrand.
A Where did you study until the completion of your studies?
A First of all at Jena. I should like to point out that those days were very difficult ones for us. It was the time of inflation with all its social complications. My studies at Jena did not proceed altogether too smoothly. Since I was studying medicine and was intending to become a doctor. I was short of connections with real patients during the pre-clinical part of my studies. Just as soon as my fourth term I visited the clinical lectures and in that manner I got into touch with my later chief. Professor Magnus, who in those days was the Chief medical officer at the surgical clinic at Jena. I owe it to him that after four terms I succeeded in passing my physicum examination so that I actually arrived at the clinic prematurely. After I had passed this physicum examination, I first of all preceded to Freiburg where I continued my studies, and since even in those days I had already decided I would he a surgeon, my further studies were adjusted accordingly to this surgical teaching and I changed universities quite frequently. I went to Berlin where I studied most of all under August Bier. I went to Munich because there Professor Sauerbruch was lecturing. And finally, for the purpose of passing my State examination, I returned to Freiburg where I was during 1927 and 23, during the winter terms, to pass my examination.
I immediately proceed did to pass my doctor examination so that the spring of 1928 for the conclusion of my studies at universities.
Q Then where did you actually receive your practical instructions as a practical doctor?
A I had previously mentioned the name Professor Magnus who at the time had been medical officer at the surgeons university clinic at Jena and in the meantime he had become chief doctor at the hospital at Bergmanns Heil at Bochum which was a large hospital with a great deal of accident surgery, accident cases. From there I went upon completion of my study and temporarily during my year of practice I also practiced at Chemnitz and at a General Hospital in Weimar. And from the beginning of 1929 I became assistant doctor at the surgeon's department at Bochum. Work in that hospital had the particular characteristic that the medical department was closely connected with the places of work where the actual accidents had occurred. As far as the coal mining industry is concerned, that and the ste** industry, was leading there.