So far as the small number of experiments permits of conclusions, the inhalation of aerosol from Hexamethylentetramin for more than 1/2 an hour has a working effect, if inhaled for more than 2 hours, it has a life saving effect."
Signed "Prof. O. Beckenbach."
Now, Professor, I want to show you another part of tho same document. How, will you turn to the second page of that, where you have the second report; do you see that?
A Yes.
Q This is also labeled "Military Secret," to the Chief Deputy of the Fuehrer for Medical and Health Affairs, Physician General Prof. Dr. Brandt. This is on page 2 of the English Translation, Your Honor. "Berlin, Ziegelstr. 5-9 Surgical clinic of the University. 2nd Report." The subject of this report is "Investigations on the decrease in concentration of phosgene in the chamber used and its hydrolysis under the influence of atmospheric moisture." The first paragraph reads:
"Before carrying out the planned phosgene experiments the chamber used needed to be examined to be draught-proof and the condition of the walls phosgene-proof. For this purpose continual readings of the phosgene content in the chamber atmosphere were carried out. We used WIRTH'S (1) method, whereby the chlorine formed by the phosgene are potentiometrically titrated. Our experiences with this method are shown in a separate report by Dr. RUEHL."
I skip reading the rest of it, and go to page 3 of the English translation, page 3 of the original. The second paragraph reads:
"In accordance with the Head-Physician (Oberarzt) Doctor WIRTH during his inspection of our institute stranger concentrations were then experimented with."
Witness, that indicates that Dr. Wirth of the Army Medical Inspectorate had I looked over this laboratory at Fort Fransecky?
A, That is probably the case. It says so here. I don't know.
Q Lets turn to page 9 of the original, and page 9 of the English translation. You see, Witness, this is a series of seven reports. In order to understand them, we have to look at several of them together. We have here the fourth report, and from this, among other things, we are going to see the date, which doesn't appear on some of the other copies of those reports. This fourth report is dated Strassbourg, 11 August 1944; so I think we can probably assume that the fifth, sixth and seventh reports follow the 11th August 1944; and since Strassbourg fell, as I recall, sometime around September 1944, we can pretty well fix the dates of those subsequent reports, can't we, witness?
A. Yes, it can be assumed that the fifth report was made after the fourth report. I don't know exactly when that was.
Q Will you be good enough to read this fourth report for us?
A Yes.
"Concentration of hexamethylentetramin in the blood and the use after intravenous injection and oral administering of diluted solution commercial tablets, and powders in capsules of pulverized substance.
"When the protective effect of hexamethylentetramin against phosgene gas with human beings had been ascertained, beginning and duration of this effect were tested. From the outset, it was impossible to carry out this test by means of serial experiments on human beings. Assuming that the protective effect was a function of the concentration of hexamethylentetramin in the blood, speed and extent of the resorption and secretion of the protecting substance were measured.
"The method chosen for the determination of hexamethylentetramin in the blood and in theurine will be demonstrated by one of us in a separate report.
"After an intravenous injection of o,03 g/kg there occurs during the first minutes a considerable charge in the concentration as a sign of the incomplete mixture with the whole of the circulating blood as well as a quick decrease of the concentration to about 6 mg % during the first half hour. After 6 hours the concentration has decreased 2 mg %. The secretion is obviously a direct function of the concentration in the serum "On oral taking of a diluted solution of about 10% hexamethylentetramin were traced regularly in the serum after 6 minutes.
The speed of resorption depends on the contents of the stomach. Shortly after a meal, resorption sets in later and is slower (curve 4), whereas on an empty stomach, Hexamethylentetramin can be traced in the stomach in quite a considerable concentration after 3 minutes (curve 5)*.
Psychological influences soon to play a role, too: In the case of curve No. ** which refers a nervous Russian prisoner of war, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties resorption took place at a delayed rate. All the other curves show about the same course; quick increase to 5 to 6 mg.%, highest concentration after about one hour, a somewhat slower decrease to values of about 3 to 4 mg.% after 2 to 3 hours and then a slow secretion during 24 hours. Even after one day, traces of hexamethylentetramin can always be found in the blood."
"Here, too, the secretion is in proportion to the concentration in the blood.
"The diluted solution is out of the question for practical use in the Armed Forces. Therefore, the resorption of the urotropin tablets made by the firm of Schering was measured. These obviously firmly compressed tablets dissolve only slowly in water if not previously pulverized mechanically. Accordingly, resorption from the gastro-intestinal canal after taking the tablets is delayed. Curve 15 to 19 show the course.
"Therefore, it was tried to compress tablets which dissolve more quickly. This problem, which is of importance for the practical use had to remain unsolved because of lack of a suitable machine for the manufacture of tablets and partly also because of lack of the necessary substances. We have therefore also measured the resorption of powder in capsules of the dried pulverized substance and have obtained curves whose resorption rate almost equals that of a diluted solution. It can be assumed that the same applies to tablets which dissolve quickly because they are mixed with starch or pectin. Finally it was tried to find out whether it is possible to obtain a blood level of about 2 to 3 mg.% in the serum with smaller doses of the drug, doing without the first steep increase of concentration. It has been proved that with a dosage of powders in capsule form of 0.015 g/kg body weight the individual range of fluctuation is considerable and that the desired concentration is not obtained in every case.
Summary.
"After oral administering of digestible doses of hexamethylentetramin (2 to 3 g) in a diluted solution and in powders in capsules the substance is traceable in the blood at the latest after about six minutes. In some cases, especially on an empty stomach, the protect substance can be traced in the blood already after 3 minutes. Its concentration increases within the first hour to a maximum of 5 to 6 mg% in the serum and decreases slowly in the course of 24 hours. The secretion in the urine is in proportion to the concentration in the serum.
"Consequently it can be assumed that the protective effect against the inhalation of phesgone gas sets in about 5 minutes after swallowing the drug and that it reaches its maximum after an hour to one hour. Concentrations of 3 to 4 mg% remain in fact for many irurs." Strassburg, 11 August 1944 (Signature) Dr. Fritz ..........
MR. McHANEY: We would like the record to show this is in the fourth report and it was addressed to the Plenipotentiary of the Fuehrer for Medical and Health matters, Generalarst Proff. Dr. Brandt, Berlin, Ziegelstrasse 5-9, Surgical Clinic of the University, labeled "Top Secret" (Military.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel should have this identified in some manner by some number.
MR McHANEY: If Your Honor please, for reasons which are satisfactory to the Prosecution, I have put the Document itself, which consists of some twenty pages in the original, in piece-meal fashion, but it all carries the same number, Document No. 8852 and will be admitted under one exhibit number. We will identify each report as it comes up, it is the fourth report on page nine of the English Translation. I will offer the document as a whole as seen as we have completed putting it to the witness.
Herr Professor, it appears from this fourth report that Dr. Bickenbach and his collaborator Dr. Letz were working on some Russian prisoners of war. You will see on the top of page nine of the original, where it say "Phychological influence seen to play a role, too: In the case of curve No. 12, which refers to a nervous Russian prisoner of war, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties, resorption took place at a delayed rate." They could not even talk to the wretched Prisoner of War, could they? Can you tell from this report what were doing to him?
THE WITNESS: I believe, Mr. Mchaney, that you over-estimate the dangerousness of this drug. Hexamatethy **tetramin you can buy in every drug store in America or Germany. For decades it was commercially sold and every man who has any bladder trouble knows these table Us and has to any during the course of a day. I myself worked scientifically on this question, which can be seen in Exhibit 4. Anything I wrote can be seen, but I don't remember all the facts.
I think that Bickenbach could have saved hinself this work, for it is generally known that hexamet Hylentetrain goes into the blood, as well as into fluid of the drain, that it goes from the gall bladder to the urine and these two peculiarrities of this drug have led it to being used in bladder cases and also in the case of any inflamations of the brain. A number of people who received brain wounds during the war had to undergo treatment with the drugs for days. I think that three to six tablets are being mentioned here, I think I read it that the Russian Prisoner of War received six tablets of uretropin. Thousands of people used this druq in all countries
MR. McHANEY Well, Herr Professor, what you say may be true, but I think I am being relatively calm under the circumstances. Isn' t it true that they were testing this drug, making preliminary tests if this drug with which they seen hoped be bring protecting against phosgene gas and were they not testing the drug on the Russian Prisoner of War?
THE WITNESS: That I cannot see from this report, but just a moment, let me look at it. On page 10 at the top, it says that after two to three hours traces of hexamethylentetranin can always be found in the blood. It also says that psychological influences seem to play a role,too and that the Curve No. 12, which is made available here, shows that in the case of a Russian Prisoner of war psychologically impressed by the taking of this drug and the resorption took a different course in other cases. Maybe I could ask you to show me the curves, then I could be more about it, but there is nothing else I can say from the report here.
MR. McHANEY: Well, Herr Professor, look at the paragraph of the report, that will show you what they were doing and why they were testing this drug, "Consequently it can be assumed that the protective effect against the inhalation of phosgene gas sets in about 6 minutes after swallowing the drug and that it reaches about this report is the appearance of the Russian Prisoner of War in Fort Vonsek and Herr Professor because I have read the seventh report, which is an page 16 of the English translation.
Does the Tribunal wishtoadjourn before I read this? I might say to you, witness, you may possibly read this report during the recess. I think you will find from it that they carried out experiments on forty prisoners, which from the fourth report we assume to have been Russian Prisoners of War to when they could not even speak. If you will read the appendix carefully to this seventh report, you will see that they killed seven of them with phosgene gas.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
JUDGE ROBERT TOMS: If Your Honors please, as presiding judge of Tribunal II, which is now in session trying the case of United States against Erhardt Milch, I respectfully request that the Marshal be directed to remove the defendant Rudolf Brandt from this Tribunal to Tribunal II, where he has been approved as a witness for the defense. Tribunal II is now ready to hear his testimony if your Honors see fit to release him from this Tribunal at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The presiding judge of Tribunal II having requested that defendant Rudolf Brandt be excused from attendance before this Tribunal for the balance of this morning's session to serve as a witness before Tribunal II, it appearing to the Tribunal that the absence cf Rudolf Brandt at this time will not prejudice his case, the Tribunal directs that the Marshal remove defendant Rudolf Brandt from the dock before this Tribunal and escort him to Tribunal II, returning him to this Tribunal when his testimony is ended before that Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: Herr Professor, I think you will probably now appreciate the significance of Report Number 4 where it is stated that they were carrying out a test with a certain drug on a Russian prisoner of war; and I assume you have now read Report Number 7. For purposes of the record I will now read this report. It is stamped: "Top Secret (military); 3 copies; 3rd copy."
"To the Fuehrer's General Plenipotentiary for Sanitiation and Health Matters Surgeon - General Prof. Dr. BRAUDT, Berlin Ziegelstrasse 5/9, Surgical Clinic at the University.
7th Report:
On the protective effect of hoxamethylentetramin for phosgene poison Experiments were carried out on 40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramin in cases of phosgene poisoning.
12 cf those were protected orally, 20 intravenously and 8 were used as controls.
The method:
The chamber has a capacity of 20 cbm. In experiment I to XIV the chamber was given a coat of paint which had a strong deteriorating effect on phosgene. This decrease in concentration was measured after experiment IX. The curves are shown on chart I.
The heaviest decrease measured was taken as basis for the calculations of the average concentration for experiment I to XI. In experiments XII to XV, the initial concentration and its decrease were measured separated in each case. In the tables II and III Co stands for the quantity of phosgene infused into the chamber in mg/cbm, cm for the calculated average concentration, t for the time of reaction. Cm was measured as an arithmetic medium from 5 to 7 and calculated on the curve values obtained through interpolation.
B. The experimental subjects were throughout persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed Condition. On principle, the healthier were used as control, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found. In the first experiments up to 6g hexamethylentetramin were given orally, later despite the much higher concentrations 0.06 g/ kg body weight, orally as well as intravenously.
Results: The intravenously protected experimental subjects, without exception, all survived the phosgene posioning with a c.t. of 207 to 5400. There were no symptoms of pulmonary edema after intravenous protection, even with a c.t. of 2970. Only experiment no. 10 with a c.t. of 3960 caused pulmonary edema of the first degree, which was overcome without any therapy; and in experiment no. XIV the intravenous protection was penetrated to an extent as to cause pulmonary edema of the 3rd degree, which however was overcome by oxygen inhalation. The experimental subject recovered.
All control subjects fell ill. With a c.t. of 768 and 1180 a first degree pulmonary edema resulted which was overcome. With a c.t. of 227, one control subject died, the second contracted a second degree pulmonary edema but recovered.
A c.t. of 5400 killed one control subject after hours; the other after 14 hours.
After oral protection; a c.t. of 247 to 768 was suffered without any edema, even when the protective solution of hexamethylentetramin was drunk only 2/3 minutes before the inhalation of the phosgene. 2 control subjects showed a marked edema with a c.t. of 768. With a c.t. of 1485 one protects subject fell seriously ill with a second degree edema; a second subject like wise protected; having breathed the same phosgenic air, was unaffected. The cause of this striking difference must be sought in the different resorption of the hexamethylentetramine on the one hand and in the different reaction and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects on the other hand. Even a c.t. of 2275 resulted in only a slight pulmonary edema in an orally protected test subject, whereas one control subject died after 4 hours, and a second contracted a second degree pulmonary edema. The oral protection was penetrated by a c.t. of 5400. The protected test subject died; as did the two control subjects.
Experiment XV is characteristic of the test schedule and its results, and will therefore again be specially described. Of 4 test subjects; the first was protected orally; the second intravenously; the third received an intravenous injection of Hexamethylentetramine after the poisoning, in order once more to ascertain the effect of therapeutic treatment; the fourth was not treated at all. The four subjects were placed in the chamber in which a phial containing 2.7 grains of phosgene was smashed. The test sujects remained in this concentration for 25 minutes. The phosgene content was measured three times during the inhalation. The readings showed an average concentration of 91 mg per cbm. The subject protected intravenously remained healthy; and did not show the least sign of difficulties or symptoms. The orally protected subject contracted a slight pulmonary edema, subsequently bronchopneumonia and pleurisy; from which he received One control subject also survived his pulmonary edema; the second die" hours later, end the autopsy showed the characteristics of very serious pulmonary edema.
Summary: The conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varyim constitutions and the general poor state of nutrition and of physique of the experimental subjects, as well as by the different behavior and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects under gas, which was here demonstrated for the first time. But the experiments gas the following decisive conclusions:
1) A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of Hexamethylentetrmine completely prevents serious toxical and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c.t. of 2275.
2) An endurable quantity of Hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactic cally weakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome without treatment, c.t. = 2275.
3) Non-fatal, but nevertheless edema producing poisonings are made positively ineffective by intravenous application and arc weakened by oral applications. c.t. 250 to 1960.
4) The oral application of Hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective against phosgene poisoning of a c.t. = 5400. The intravenous injection, however, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject is able to overcome a lung edema.
5) THE DOSIS LETHALIS MINIMA (minimum lethal dose) based on these experiments cannot yet he determined with certainty. One c.t. of 2275 resulted in the death of one experimental subject; and the second developed second degree edema of the lungs which was cured.
6) Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop edema cf the lungs remained completely healthy; others suffered from slight bronchitis with a. brief fever, in every case they recovered without treatment.
Attached to this report is an appendix. There we find Table II, which shows intravenous injections, Table III, which shows oral injections. The tables list the experimental subjects, who were numbered from 1 to 40. You see the current number to the left-hand column; next the experiment; then the name of the experimental subject, which is given only with initials; In then you find the various technical data concerning the injections, the amount of phosgene which was used; and then in the last column to the right we see that the effect of the phosgene poisoning on the subject after treat ment with this drug is shown with certain characters, a plus sign being an edema of the first degree, two plus marks being an edema of the second degree; and the large plus sign with the cross-hatch marks on either end of the cross bars means death from edema of the lungs.
I note for purposes of the record that experimental subject Number 30 on Page 20 of the English translation, which was under Experiment 15, a man identified with the initials "J. Rei," was killed as a result of these experiments. The same is true of experimental subject Number 35, second from the bottom of the page on Page 20. In experiment number 14, identifi by the initials A. Eck, the subject was also killed, as was the following experimental subject Number 46. In experiment Number 14, name, A. Ho., the subject was also killed. On the next page, under Table 3, page 21, of the English translation, we find that four additional experimental subjects were killed, namely, Number 39, who is the fifth number from the bottom of the page; Number 33; Number 35; and Number 36.
JUDGE SEBRING: Now, Mr. McHaney, don't you have a duplication there?
MR. MC HANEY: I think you are quite correct, your Honor, I an just now observing that. That is quite correct. There were apparently a total of four deaths, namely, numbers 33, 35, 36, and 39; there being duplication of the three which I read on the first page.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Now, Herr Professor, must you not conclude on the basis of this report number 7 that Bickenbach and his associates carried on experiments on human beings contrary to the testimony of the defendant Brandt?
A. First I should like to say this report which I have here is not signed. I do not know who drew it up. I did not. I did not work on these experiments either. The report was not addressed to me. I did not read it. It has no connection whatever with me personally. I assume that I am being asked as an expert witness on the contents of the report. Of course. I must admit that there were four cases of death in these experiments. The effect of this hexamethylentetramin was new to me. I did not know about it.
Q. You swear to this Tribunal that you have never seen this report before today, that you know nothing about the experiments which Bickenbach was carrying out. Is that right?
A. I did not see this report before.
Q. bid you ever talk to Karl Brandt about Bickenbach's work?
A. Brandt did not tell me anything about it.
Q. I think you will agree with me that we can assume this report was received shortly after 11 August 1944, that it was sent to Karl Brandt at his office in the Surgical Clinic where you maintained an office two or three doors away from him?
A. Brandt had his office at the clinic, yes, but in Ziegelstrasse 5-9 there were the Third Universe Polyclinic, the Eye Clinic; the Designer of the University even had his studio there at one time. I do not know what kinds of letters and.reports were received by all men who had offices in this big building. I did not read this report - the whole thing.
Q. In suite of the fact that you were Chief of Brandt's office for Science and Research?
A. I believe I have said this fop the second time now - the department for defense measures against gas had nothing to do with me. That was Brandt.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I offer this Document NO-1852as Prosecution Exhibit 456 for identification.
DR. SERVATIUS (for Karl Brandt): Mr. President, not the original documents but photostatic copies are presented here. I must make application to have the originals submitted. That is especially important in this case. I must also ask that the report be submitted which led to the finding of the documents. The documents show that the last two reports which are so specially significant here were apparently never sent. They are the first copies - the first preparation - with the original signature which could not have been sent. Page 1 - the cover page - of this collection shows that/under No. 6 it says "first cony", and under No. 7 again says "first copy". The first document in this connection is also designated as a "first copy" - also Document 6. The last document is designated as "first copy" on the envelope but inside it says "third copy". The original will show that they are not folded, that they were never in an envelope. For that reason I consider it important that only the originals be admitted. It is also shown that the letters are in part not dated, in part they have the original signature, while in cases of carbon copies there is usually no signature. If one considers that the letter No. 7 is of 11 August 1944 and it seems one knows that Stressbourg was evacuated soon after that, then it seems quite likely that these last two reports were not sept, that the originals were left behind and that my client, defendant Karl Brandt, never received them. This is of decisive importance. Karl Brandt on the witness stand said that he knew nothing about these things. Therefore, I apply for submission of the originals and the report how these documents were found, indicating where and under what circumstances they were found so that one can judge how these various copies were made.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, this foldier of reports was received by the prosecution following the time when Karl Brandt had left the stand. Consequently, they were not available to out to him during cross examination. The only things that we have received are the photostatic copies which the Tribunal now has before it. These were received from French authorities. They were found in the apartment of Professor Bickenbach in the foldier of which there is a Photostatic copy here before the Tribunal. That is all we have. We do have letters and certificates showing where the documents came from. However. I submit that we should not be required to produce the originals since that may very well be impossible since they are in the possession of the French. We will, of course, be happy to produce the letters which to received along with the Photostatic copies.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit is not now offered in evidence but merely marked for identification by prosecution. When the exhibit is formally offered in evidence, it will be subject to any objection or argument that any counsel might have. It would seen that the prosecution might well make an effort to at least procure a loan of the original document, Evidence is certainly available as to where it was found and by whom and when. The matter is not now before the Tribunal because the exhibit is not being offered on evidence. Coucel for the defendant Brandt may make an application to the Tribunal for Production of the original document. The Tribunal will men consider the application, the written application, for production of the original document.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. Witness, I now want to hand to you Document NO-692.
Q. I now hand you the photostatic copy of the original and ask you if you did not sign this letter?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
Q. I now offer Document NO. 692 as Prosecution Exhibit 437 for identification. witness, this is a letter on the letter head of the Commissioner for Medical and health matters the Delegate for medical Science and Rosean che, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Dated Berlin 14 September 1944, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's address to the Reich Research Council?
A. From the copy which I have here I can't see that. It has the heading "List of medical institute working on problems of research which were designated as urgent by the discussion research on 26 August 1944 in Beelitz. Summary according to the 650 orders for research submitted to us."
Q. Now, witness, is this something which you wrote up after this first meeting in the summer of 1944 which you have previously testified to?
A. That is probably what it is.
Q. But does not document indicate that you and your associates went ever 650 specific research assignment as listed on this document, were classified as urgent?
A. I think I must thank you for presenting this document. This is a single document from all my files and in it shows first quite clearly that I was a little mistaken in the date. I spoke of summer. It was the 26th of August if you can call that summer and this is how it happened. We discussed twelve subjects. We, not I but one of my associates, selected which research assignments which affected. I can't remember to whom this document was sent. Maybe the original shows that. I only saw it for a short time and I didn't notice that. If I sat down and had time I could see from this what fields were considered urgent at that time.
Q. Well, but this document doesn't speak of fields of research. This document lists 45 specific research assignments and it gives the place where the scientist was working, his name and the subject of research, and I submit that it was not a very accurate description which you gave us earlier today about simply designating broad fields of research, I must assume that you went over a list of 650 research assignments and picked out these 45 and classified them "urgent".
A. Now, that's not right. First, we decided which fields were urgent and then one of my associates sat down and went the 650 index cards in the card index and picked but which ones, research assignments in this card, index fitted those twelve groups. I did not do that myself.
Q. Will you look at the photostatic Copy of the original and tell me the significance of the hand written initials RFR up at the top of the document on the first page? I take it those stand for the Reich Research Council - Reichsforschungrat?
A. It's quite possible, but those letters were no doubt not on my original letter. There are all kinds of notes. There's the receipt stamp with all kinds of indications which I don't know. That RFR might have been put on by the Reich research Council. I don't know. Some agency might have put it on. I don't know, I can't tell. At the top right hand corner my name is printed. I don't imagine that I wrote that. I assume that was put on later and whether this receipt stamp here is that of the Reich Research Council, that I cannot...
Q. You don't know to whom you sent this letter, is that right?
A. To whom this copy went I don't know.
Q. Well, can you tell us to when you sent any copy?
A. That one sent to the Reich Research Council I consider quite certain. The A mament Ministry too and the various medical branches of the Whermacht and the committee for economic expansion, but I don't know where this particular copy went.
Q. Will you and the document to Mr. Hardy and will he pass it up to the Tribunal, please?
Now, Doctor, let's look at some of the research assignments on this document No.692, Prosecution Exhibit 457, for identification. We find your own name under #5. "#5 - University Clinic for Surgery Ziegelstrasse (Restock) - chemotherapy, penicillin". I assume you know what you were "#6 we find Robert Koch Institute (Gildemeister) - typhus, malaria, Chemotherapy". You know Gildemeister, of course?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Were you acquainted with the details of his research on typhus?
A. No, I was not. This document, which is the only one of my office that I have seen, shows very clearly what I know about the individual matter I know that Gildemeister was working on typhus and malaria and chemotherapy. Who in my office didn't know about those things? And I was told at the time that the Anatomical institute, Herr Hirt was working on chemical warfare agents. I had forgotten that and I believe that there is hardly anyone in this room who had a card index with 650 entries two years age and today still remembers all 650 entries.
Q. Now, Professor, maybe you can enlighten us about those check marks plus marks and minus marks that appear on this document. You see, at the bottom of the first page where it says "check mark equals scientific research commission already submitted to FL or BL - office"? What does that mean?
A. The PL office - that was probably the planning office in the Reich Research Council and the WFG is probably the military research commission. A document of that has been submitted here. I don't have my notes. It was a prosecution document. You probably know it. Then, the plus sign "Circular #5 already sent"- I could say that means but my associate who was in charge of the research card index will probably appear as a witness here and maybe you could ask him about this matter. He will probably know more details about this.
Q. You don't know what the minus sign means either?
A. No. I cannot remember what circular #5 was.
Q. Were those notations put there by your office?
A. I don't remember exactly. When 1 king through the document just now I don't note that. I don't know. Perhaps if I might see the photostatic copy again I could tell something from it.
(Photostatic copy was handed to the witness).
Yes, I think I understand the matter now. This RFG - that was added later in handwriting. It was probably like this. This copy hero wont to the Reich Research Council and the report in the Reich Research Council put those checks and plus and minus sign on. That Circular#5 which I could not remember as I have said once before was not circular of name. It was a circular of the Reich Research Council and this chuck means that the works marked with this check were some applications to the planning office by the Military Research commission. Those checked and so on at the button that was added after the letter had left my office.
I think that is quite clear.
Q. I suppose you have already observe that research assignments 42, 43 and 44 concerned Strasbourg and related to research work by Haagen, Bickenbach and Hirt respectively?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you still any that you know anything in detail about the experiments carried out by Haagen?
A. Yes, I must admit that I didn't notice it at the time when the 650 cards war shown me. I'm quite certain that I did not remember it but only what is given here as the facts. Just a few words about the type of the research assignment.
Q. And in spite of the fact that research assignments by Bickenbach and Hirt were determined to be urgent by your meeting in August, 1944, you deny that you had any knowledge about the research work of Hirt and Bickenbach? 3411
