Now, if the army medical inspector makes an inspection and finds some objection, he will, of course, intervene directly; and the immediate superiors will be present. But if, for example, he is working in his office in Berlin and he hears accidentally that in the post hospital in Stuttgart something is said to have happened which he does not think is right, assuming peace conditions, he will turn to the corps physician. He will write to him: "I have learned that in the Stuttgart hospital this certain matter has happened. Please investigate it and report to me." Need I add anything to that?
Q If I have understood you correctly, supervision was in charge of the immediate supervisor?
A Yes.
Q It is not so that the supervision was connected with every superior over everyone subordinate to him in rank? The supreme superior has supervision over everyone directly under him; he has to see to it that these people are in order. They have supervision over the next category and have to see that is kept in order and the higher officer must intervene if he hears anything from anywhere, but he can do this only through the immediate supervisor, that is, the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, through the Luftwaffe, Army or Navy Chiefs?
A Well, there is perhaps a little difference between the Army Medical Inspector and the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. The Army Medical Inspector could, of course, in exceptional cases, if he learned of something, inquire directly, but it was customary that the answer went back through channels, that is, through the immediate superior of the person who was said to have done something wrong, or the immediate superior got a copy; at least they were always informed about it and not eliminated from the whole matter. And you no doubt understood correctly that in general the Army Group Physician was responsible to the Army Medical Inspector and the Corps Physician or Army Physician was responsible to the Army Group Physician. But it was a little different with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. The Army Medical Inspector, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and the Chief of the Medical Service of the Navy were the superior officers of all their medical officers; but the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, according to the service regulation which we discussed yesterday, was not a superior. In the case of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service there was no other way than to go to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, or the Army Medical Inspector, etc. He was not superior. The medical chiefs in question of the individual groups would have resented it if the example which I just gave for the Army Medical Inspector, if he had done the same thing as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service to the Army, the Navy, or the Luftwaffe; they would certainly have written to him:
"I recognize the necessity of this investigation but under the existing regulations we must ask that the investigation of this case be left to us." Consequently, official supervision, as such, within the medical services of the Army, the Navy, or the Luftwaffe, rested with the medical chiefs of these groups, not with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services. Have you understood me correctly?
Q Thank you.
DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q In line with the explanations which you have just given, will you answer these questions? Let us assume that the evidence in this case is sufficient to prove that medical experiments on human beings were conducted on concentration camp inmates without their consent, resulting in death, and let us assume further that the evidence is sufficient to prove that such experiments were ordered or conducted by and for the benefit of one of the several branches of the Wehrmacht, from your knowledge what would have been General Handloser's responsibility for such experiments?
A Your Honor, do you assume that the Defendant Professor Handloser knew of these matters?
Q I am not making any assumption at all in that regard. You may consider the question either from the assumption, first, that General Handloser did know of them; secondly, from the point of view that he did not have actual knowledge, actual personal knowledge, but that memorandums or information in the matter passed through his office; or, thirdly, that he did not have personal information and that such memoranda did not pass through his office. I would like for you to explore that entire field upon the assumption, the postulate, that the Court has given you.
A. First of all I will assume that there was no knowledge that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service knew nothing about it, then there must have been someone who either ordered such experiments, or the person who conducted such experiments did them on his own initiative. In this connection, of course, in my opinion there can be no responsibility at all for the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. He can be responsible only for his orders. If he had ordered such and such experiments are to be conducted then he would be responsible for this order as such. If he did not order it but if he learned of it, then according to the situation, according to the regulation in effect he could not be held responsible for the execution of any such experiment as such, but --
Q. Who would have been responsible?
A. The person who had official supervision over the field sphere where the experiments were carried out.
Q. Now, then let us suppose that such experiments had been ordered or conducted by the Waffen SS either for its own benefit or for the benefit of one of the several branches of the Wehrmacht, in such event who would have been responsible for the conduct of such experiments?
A. The person in the Waffen SS or the SS who had ordered the experiments would be responsible or if he did not order them, but learned about them and permitted them to be continued, although in his opinion they are inadmissible, it seems to me that the concept of responsibility is still valid. Something can happen somewhere for which the person concerned has supervision without his faving ordered anything illegal, and then he knows it is necessary when he hears about it, to have the matter followed up, if he believes that something wrong is being done.
Q. Witness, according to the translator you referred to the regulations of 1942 and 1944 in connection with the duties of defendant Handloser, did you refer to the orders designating defendant Handloser to the two positions to which he was appointed in 1942 and 1944? That word was translated to us "regulations". Did you mean "regulations" or did you mean what it included, the duties assigned to defendant Handloser? Do you understand?
A. I would ask the interpreter to sum the question up again. (question was again translated in German). One must make a distinction between the order appointing him to the position, that is the order effective the 1st of September, 1942. The Army Medical Inspector is appointed Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. That is an order, about a personnel change. On the other hand, what I have called service regulations, Dienstanweisung, these are service regulations issued for this individual case, and signed by Hitler in the case of the Fuehrererlass, and the service regulations describe the duties and are signed by Field Marshall Keitel. Those were regulations, not orders. We use the word "regulation" for an order, if you like, which defines the duties of an officer exactly or characterizes it in general, as was the case of this regulation of 1942.
Q. Your explanation clears the matter. I would like to ask you further what reports came to the office of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, who reported to him regularly or specially?
A. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service received reports from the Medical Chief of the Army, Navy and Luftwaffe, and the units of the Waffen SS attached to the Wehrmacht and other units attached to the Wehrmacht for their sphere. Let us say the Army Medical Inspector of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe reported to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service about things which he wanted to know about medical matters in the Luftwaffe.
Q. You stated that when the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service obtained knowledge of something that had happened and again when you said when he hears accidently of something that would happen, how would he obtain knowledge or how might he hear accidently of things that would happen; was there anyone whose duty it was to report to him, to give him knowledge and advise him and inform him of things that were happening other than the Chiefs of these services you have just mentioned?
A. In general there were no special officers who could have reported to him, but I shall assume that in some post the doctor in charge, -- there is a doctor in charge of a civilian hospital, during the War. He may at the same time be doing military service in the military hospital, and I will assume that on some occasion, at a meeting.say, he has an opportunity to speak to the Medical Inspector of the Army, and to tell him he had a suggestion to make, whether in this or that field, one could not change something in the hospital. That was not the customary way, as in all Armied it was customary to report first to the immediate superior, but such cases may have happened now and then; or, for example one can imagine that someone quite outside the military sphere might comp plain about some incident, let us say the father of a patient who is in the hospital. The patient is a soldier. The father is a civilian, and has no connection with any military authorities. He visits his son in the hospital, and thinks he sees something wrong. This person is, of course, above if he does not prefer to go to the doctor in charge of the hospital or to the higher superior in that town, no one can prevent him from writing and complaining to the Medical Inspector. That is one way in which the Medical Inspector might learn of an incident outside the usual channels, and then after he learns of it he will send it to the next superior, or will say "please investigate this matter and report to me." Perhaps he may add, "please report to me in case something is wrong here what you have done about it."
Q. Would the officer who received that letter in the hospital be required to answer it; is that an order from the Chief Medical Inspector to that officer which the officer is bound to obey?
A. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service would not be able to do that. He could speak only to the Medical Chiefs of the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and so forth. He had no authority to issue orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Is there any further questions?
DR. NELTE: No, Your Honor, please, but I should like to say the following: The witness spoke of the system of reports in answer to your questions yesterday.
In December I made application to have the War Regulation for the Army, second part, submitted in evidence. This has not yet been possible, as the General Secretaries Office tells me. Here I have these written regulations, and if you agree I shall have these parts of these regulations copied and submitted which refer to the regular method of giving reports.
THE PRESIDENT: Hand the volume to the Tribunal for examination, if you please.
DR. NELTE: Such a regular reporting procedure did not exist for the Wehrmacht as a whole. As you see from the copy it is the War Medical Regulation for the Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may submit copies of that portion of the volume which he desires the Tribunal to consider, and the volume itself and those copies prepared should be deposited with the copies in the Office of the Secretary General.
DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to this Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one more question to the witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Now many persons comprised the staff of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service; how many persons were there under his direct command, just approximately?
A. In his staff?
Q. Yes.
A. I cannot give any exact information but that because from 1943 on I did not have any connection. I could not see conditions anymore. I can only speak from my knowledge from the beginning of this development, at the beginning until I left. As far as I remember there was only the Chief of Staff and one Medical Officer from the Navy and a few clerical personnel, but there was no one else who was directly subordinate. In the beginning important work was given to offices of the Army, the Navy or the Luftwaffe, and as long as I was there the most important task was to coordinate personnel strength, and the available equipment.
Lists were drawn up by thou offices which the Chief of Staff had asked to do this work, and then were submitted to the Staff for final decision.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the witness will be excused.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(The witness is excused.)
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the witnesses, General Schmidt Brucken, the chief of staff of Professor Handloser, as Army Medical Inspector, Professor Eyer, head of the OKH Typhus Institute in Cracow, and third, Professor Kilian, are still missing.
Dr. Schmidt Bruecken has been requested since the 12th of December; however, Captain Rice of the General Secretary's office has told me it has not been possible to induce the English military authorities to release this witness, who is in the Muenster Camp in England, to come to Nuernberg. As soon as this witness appears, I should like to hove him called. If there should be difficulties, I ask for the permission of the Tribunal to have an affidavit drawn up in the Muenster Camp.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness appears in Nuernberg, he may be called at a later date in the Tribunal. If counsel desires to take a deposition of the witness on an interrogatory, have him file an affidavit and that may also be permitted when it is ready.
DR. NELTE: The second witness, Professor Eyer, as I have heard and as I have told the prosecution, is sick. With the approval of the Tribunal, I should like to obtain permission to ask the witness questions in the Eidlinghausen Camp where he is at present. Yesterday I informed the prosecutor of this so that he would have the opportunity of appointing a representative in this case. I shall submit an affidavit.
The third witness, Professor Kilian, is in the Russian zone. He sent me a letter, or rather a telegram, which concerns the meeting of the consulting physicians. I believe that I can dispense with this witness since we are not well informed about these meetings.
Then I come to the end of my case by submission of a few documents. I believe that the Tribunal now has the third document bank.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not seen it. Will you hand that to Dr. Nelte? Counsel, there are several documents in Books 1 and 2 which have not been offered in evidence. Is it your intention to offer these or are they to be abandoned?
DR. NELTE: Insofar as I have not offered them in evidence and will not do so now, I will let then drop. From Document Book No. 1 I have not offered HA 34. That is a memorandum of Reich Student Fuehrer Scheel, page 69. I shall submit this now. There is a supplement which I ask the General Secretary to see. Mr. President, the defendant Handloser ...
MR. MC HANEY: I understand that Dr. Nelte is offering Document HA-34 which is in Document Book 1. I should like to know the number of that.
THE PRESIDENT: It is page 69 of the document book.
DR. NELTE: Yes, Document Book 1, page 69.
THE PRESIDENT: The document was incorrectly indexed.
DR. NELTE: The defendant Handloser on the witness stand spoke ...
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just a moment. I understand you are offering in evidence Document HA-34?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you assigned a number to that exhibit?
DR. NELTE: Exhibit 40.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. NELTE: I do not intend to read this document. The defendant mentioned the attempt to have the student companies, the medical personnel, who are given leave to study medicine, the attempts to remove them from the authority of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and nut them under the political service. As evidence in support of this testimony I submit this document because the memorandum of the Reich Student Leader Dr. Scheel shows what opposition Handloser voiced and what differences there were in this field. The defendant Handloser during his examination also referred to the difficulties made for him by certain people that the Catholic nurses were to be kept in the hospitals. To prove the correctness of this statement and at the same time to illustrate the personality of the defendant, I will read from Document HA-39, Exhibit 49, Document Book 2, page 58.
The Praelat Dr. Krautz, president of the German Charity Association Caritas, writes on page one of the letter of the 21st of January at the bottom:
"I therefore was pleased when Professor Dr. Handloser was called to head the Medical Inspectorate since I know that he and his family are religious Catholics and that he in no way was inclined to hide that fact. I was not disappointed. His official environment made me realize soon that he not only felt very kindly toward the Catholic members of orders and to the deaconesses, but also that he above them preference since they were nursing for religious grounds."
Then, at the bottom it says: "Later I was always able to notice that in the most important points of contact between the sisters and the doctors men were almost always used who heeded such last desires. I always was very grateful for that and I attribute this almost frictionless conduct of the war nursing service above all to the expressed supreme will of the Medical inspector Professor Dr. Handloser. Without having had an opportunity to gain insight into his personal conduct, I was told repeatedly that Professor Handloser is a convinced Catholic and that he expressed that at every opportunity. Many heads of the orders, whose sisters were employed, told me that, in contrast to the continuous chicaneries which the NSDAP inflicted on the sisters and choir headquarters, Professor Dr. Handloser was governed by professional ethics which revealed an inner greatness because it was based on lasting values.
"On the basis of my experience I consider it impossible that Professor Dr. Handloser could have adopted any steps or measures or admissions which were in conflict with his conscience and his professional ethics. Dr. Kreutz, Prelate."
Now, in connection with this document I must add that the Prelate is an Apostolic Protonotar; that he asked that his signature not be certified by a notary. I ask that in view of the origin of this letter this fact will not limit the value in evidence.
MR. HcHANEY: The prosecution must object to this document and ask that the words which Dr. Nelte has read from it be stricken from the record. I would like to observe first that I would appreciate Dr. Nelte's offering the document before he begins reading it. It is very difficult for the prosecution to make a sensible objection when he just refers to document on a certain page and proceeds to read it without offering it and giving us an opportunity to object.
I think this document is clearly inadmissible because it is not in the form of an affidavit; it is not sworn to, nor is there any statement on the part of the writer of the letter that he has any objection to making an oath. This is nothing but a latter in reply to one written by Dr. Nelte himself apparently. I certainly think it is inadmissible.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Document Book 2 has been in the hands of the prosecution for one week. I did not call this letter an affidavit. I cannot call it an affidavit. According to Ordinance 7 the Tribunal can admit any document, even if it is not certified by a sworn statement. What value you assign to this, to the contents of this document is another question. I ask that this document be admitted as such.
THE PRESIDENT: The offered exhibit states that it is written in reply to a letter fr a Dr. Nelte of January 4. If Dr. Nelte would submit a copy of the letter which he wrote to Dr. Kreutz there would be before the Tribunal something upon which the Tribunal could rule. A letter in the form in which Document HA-39 is now before the Tribunal is clearly inadmissible, being merely a letter. If Dr. Nelte can submit a copy of the letter to which this is in answer, the Tribunal would then rule upon the admissibility of Document HA-39.
MR. McHANEY: I would ask the Tribunal to instruct Dr. Nelte henceforth to made his offer before reading the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, both for prosecution no defense, will follow the plan outlined now by counsel for the prosecution; that is, a document should be offered to the Tribunal by number, volume and page so that opposing counsel may have an opportunity to examine the document and refamiliarize himself with it before the document is begun to be read in the record.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding further, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, in connection with the petition of Dr. Nelte to recall the witness Fuerler or to submit an affidavit by the witness, the prosecution strenuously objects to any such procedure. We submit again that the witness was on the stand here, he was elaborately examined by defense counsel and was cross-examined by the prosecution. There was redirect examination by defense counsel, and he had ample opportunity to clarify any statements made on cross-examination.
I further suggest to the Tribunal that approval of any such procedure as this would tend to create a precedent that any witness who has been impeached, or might tent to have been impeached, could be so recalled after consultation with the defense counsel, and it would go on forever. Therefore, the prosecution respectfully requests that this recalling of the witness Wuerfler or submission of this affidavit he disapproved.
INTERPRETER: Will the prosecutor please repeat the last sentence?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution respectfully requests that the recalling of the witness Wuerfler or the submission of an affidavit from this witness be disapproved.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands the position of the counsel for the prosecution. It rules that counsel for the defendant Handloser may recall the witness Wuerfler for examination upon this one particular point. The witness, of course, will be subject to recross-examination by the prosecution. The weight of the testimony of the witness will before the Tribunal to determine.
MR. McHANEY: In view of the Tribunal's ruling, unless the Tribunal itself wishes to hear the witness or unless there is any compelling reason on the part of defense counsel to have him appear personally, we mill agree to the admission of the affidavit rather than take the necessary time of recalling him. I don't think we have any questions to put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Handloser may either recall the witness or submit the affidavit, as he pleases.
DR. NELTE: Since this case has already taken up so much time, believe that my presentation of the affidavit will be sufficient, specially since, as I have previously stated, the affidavit does not contain any new facts but is only an explanation of the facts to which the witness testified.
General Secretary, I have given you the German copy of this affidavit, and it has now been handed to the President. With the permission of the President, I shall now read this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What number does counsel for the defendant assign to the affidavit?
DR. NELTE: I want to submit this affidavit as document No. HA-55 and it will be exhibit -- In this case I must ask the President his. The statement by Prelate Dr. Kroutz was temporarily admitted as Exhibit 41, or is this exhibit to be withdrawn until I have also presented my letter?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may withheld the exhibit -
DR. NELTE (Interposing): No. I wanted to ask you to admit it temporarily, with the reservation that I shall subsequently present my letter also.
THE PRESIDENT: The Counsel may reserve the Exhibit until they are finally ruled upon, and then assign them numbers.
DR. NELTE: Very well, your Honor.
I am now submitting temporarily the letter of Dr. Kroutz as Exhibit 41, and the affidavit by Paul Wurfler will become Exhibit 42. Dr. Wurfler's statement is as follows:
"Todays questions of the Prosecutor, under the unusual circumstances of the cross examination, on the occurrence of 11.9.42 (Dr. Rascher's intended *nference with the State Secretary) which was brought to my notice and slipped from my memory, and on the difference between Romberg's report and my recollection left me no peace. The question constantly arose for me upon which the difference could be based, and I came to the following result.
"As I have stated, I was called by telephone from my strenuous work to conference which was unknown to me and which had been ordered by the State Secretary. Precisely this circumstance that I was called by telephone, have me, in my opinion, the possibility of clarification. It resulted from his that I was not invited. I was apparently informed because no represenative of the Sanitary Inspectorate of tho Luftwaffe was present. As soon as I could free myself, I drove from the office in Templehof to the Reich Air Ministry. As I know for certain that I did not see the film, I can only have arrived after the film had come to an end. The discussion, of which **poke, covers Dr. Romberg's exposition of the facts according to which **. Rascher refused to give me any information. As, for the reasons stated, was in a hurry and I drove off shortly afterwards.
"I am ready to state this as a witness."
The affidavit is signed, "Paul Wufler".
I now continue to present my documents. I am now coming to a letter, a certificate of the Chief of the order of the Benedictines. I present this document because this man also did not want to have this statement certified because he assumed that his statement as a high official of tho clergy would be sufficient. I do not know if the Tribunal will make the same ruling in his case as it did in the presentation of the letter by Dr. Kroutz.
In that case, I would withdraw the presentation at this time, and I would submit it at the same time with my initial letter, at a later period of time.
MR. MCHANEY: The Presecution offers the same objection to this documents. I also state now in order that there will be no element of surprise, that we will raise the same objection on the presentation of whatever letters Dr. Nelte may there have written from these people. I do not think that the Tribunal should make the praxis here so liberal that we can engage in some sort of mail order business for evidence here. The Prosecution has on several occasions presented documents which were certainly in much better form than this and they were rejected, and I refer particularly to three statements obtained by the duly constituted police officials in Austria. As a result which the Prosecution had to go to a great deal of trouble and effort to secure oaths to these statements. I think, in view of the liberal ruling of the Tribunal, with respect to the defendant's affidavits, that this procedure should be followed and that the letters should not be admitted.
DR. NELTE: May it please the Tribunal, I want to state briefly that those are certificates of a special kind. I understand that the Apostolic Prenetary is a notary in the official position with the catholic church, and maintains the point of view that he has the same authority as any other notary to make certain records, and that he believes that they will have an official character which a letter will also have in a private character. I only want to point put this again that the Prior of the Abbey Maria Laach had this authority. The same a plies to the Prior of Abbey Maria Laach.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Exhibit, the letter from the Apostolic Prenetary is not admissible in the present form; that it should either be made as a statement in lieu of the oath or properly verified and sworn to before some person with authority to administer an oath. The more fact that a person has authority to swear somebody else, to administer an oath, does not confer upon that person authority to administer an oath to himself. So, the Tribunal rules that those letters will not be admissible until prepared in proper form, according to the rules of this Tribunal. The Counsel may offer them at some later date if they are presented to the Tribunal in a form that complies with the rules.
* Feb 47-M-FJC-10-3- Beard Court No. 1
DR. NELTE: The defendant Handloser has been charged by the prosecution on the basis of his organizational responsibilities. The Prosecution accuses Professor Handloser of having had knowledge of incidents which should have caused him to intervene. The defendant has denied having had such knowledge. with regard to this fact, the question is very important if you affirm the **racity of the defendant. I believe that he has proven his veracity on the witness stand. However, in order to support it and to strengthen it, I have to present several testimonies which give proof of the character of the defendant, of his attitude as a human being and a physician, so that you will see that the impression which he was won, and which he has explained to you, here on the witness stand, also corresponds to his attitude toward the world, and his previous behavior. In this connection, I present the affidavit by Professor Siegmund, which has been properly certified. It is no of tho few documents which I will road in its entirety because it really gives a true picture of this man; a picture which is rarely given in such a *anner by anybody. This is document HR 47. You will find it in document book Roman numeral III, on page 11, and I request that it be admitted as Exhibit 43.
"I -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Just a moment counsel. I do not find that document indexed in document book III.
DR. NELTE: In the English document book there has been a typing mistake made, it should read page 11 and not page 8. You will find it in the third art of the index, the affidavit of Professor Siegmund, dated 29 January 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: I misunderstood the Counsel. He is referring to document Handloser 47, is that correct?
DR. NELTE: Yes, it is document HA-47, an affidavit by Professor Siegmund
THE PRESIDENT: I understood the Counsel to say HA-43.
DR. NELTE: This document HR-47 will become Exhibit 43.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor Nelte, on page 11, the document is HA-48.
DR. NELTE: This is also a typing mistake in English and I want to correct it at this time. The original is HA-47.
THE PRESIDENT: There has been an error in this document and on the index page. We have it straightened out now and the Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE: I will read the affidavit.
Copy! Exh. 39 Doc. HA 48 Pathological Institute (21) Muenster (Westphalia) Westring 17 Director:
Professor Dr. H. SIEGMUND For submission to the American Military Tribunal I in Nuernberg I, Professor Dr. med.
Herbert Siegmund, depose herewith under oath the following facts, which are known to me from my own knowledge:
My name is Herbert Siegmund. I was born on 14 April 1892 in Rybnik, Upper Silesia, reside at present in Muenster, Studtstrasse 17. I am a licensed physician and specialist for pathology; and since 1 August 1942 I have been a professor at the University of Muenster and director of the Pathological Institute, after having previously been professor and director of the Pathological Institute at the University of Kiel since 1 October 1935, and before that at the universities of Tuebingen and Cologne. I am chairman of the medical and dental examining board at the University of Muenster. At the same time I am the head of the working association for paradentosis research, an honorary member and honorary president of the ARPA Internationale (International Working Association for Paradentology with its seat in Geneva). Furthermore I am honorary member of various German and foreign scientific societies, especially the French working association and the Danish working association for paradentology, as well as the German Society for Dental, Mouth, and Jaw medicine.
I met Professor Dr. Handloser through my scientific work in the sphere of paradentology and my research on burns; as far as I remember it was in 1934 or 1935 in Stuttgart, where he was stationed on military service. At that time I repeatedly discussed with him scientific questions which revolved around the problem of paradentosis, heat stroke and sunstroke.
Furthermore I repeatedly met him, after his transfer from Stuttgart at scientific meetings of German physicians and of German dentists, and I then got to know him more intimately and personally and as a human being. During the war he was Army Physician of the Liszt Army, to which I was during that time attached as Consulting Pathologist to the Army Physician. During the position a warfare in the Eifel in the autumn and winter of 1939/40, as well as during the advance through France as far as Dijon, I was in constant touch with him on official duty as well as privately. When, after the end of the French campaign, the Liszt Army was transferred to Poland, I continued my work as Consulting Pathologist under Professor Handloser until he was transferred to the Army Medical Inspectorate. Later on I attended numerous meetings at which I kept meeting Prof. Handloser. After having become Rector of the University of Muenster, I met him repeatedly on official duty with regard to the training of medical officers and the transfer of the medical faculty of the University of Muenster to Bad Salzuflen, I know him very well, as a soldier and also as a physician and as a human being, and that for a period of approximately 12 years. He was an exemplary soldier. He was very strict in his demands on himself and his subordinates. He was an exemplary worker, excellent organizer, sparing in his recognitions, and just in his punishments. The medical units under his command, therefore, did exemplary work, during reconstruction and organizing in times of inactivity as well as during mobile and positional warfare. Professor Handloser always personally inspected the work of the medical formation under his command and never spared any trouble or trips in order to fulfill his duty.
Prof. Dr. Handloser had an excellent professional training in the branch of internal medicine at the University of Giessen. He therefore surpassed the majority of other active medical officers by his outstanding ability in the entire sphere of medicine. His interests were in no way exclusively and mainly directed toward internal diseases, but he was also to a large degree and very successfully, interested in all questions of war surgery and hygiene as well as in the health service of the troops.