A I personally am of the opinion that this is so. I tried to point it out by saying that my directives have been fully included in the entire contents, at the beginning of all now measures for the year 1943 our ideas were used.
Q Then I beg the Tribunal to turn to page 32 of the document book, and I shall quote the last but one paragraph. I quote: "The thoroughness of the surgical wound treatment should in no way be lessened even by the additional application of sulfonamides." End of quotation. Now I want to ask you, docs this final paragraph not indicate, quite clearly, the final conclusion that the decisive point in fighting wound infection was the surgical treatment? And that use of sulfonamides was only in addition?
A Yes. I emphasize that particularly by pointing out that there was possibility of misinterpretation in the statement of Frey. Frey only writes that sulfonamides ought to be used when they can be inserted into the depths which of course, means to every expert that the wound would have to be opened, which is exactly the same as is expressed here.
Q Now the shoulder blade, which had been inserted, transplanted to the patient by the name of Lardiss by Dr. FISCHER, removed from a detainee Ruck-- wasn't it? Were we there concerned with a Polish woman; in other words, an experimental subject, who had been sentenced to death, and who was to have this chance of reprieve in the case of survival?
A In my opinion, most certainly. I've said that in every part of my testimony, namely that these a.septic people chosen by Stuppfaeger, belonged to the same group, and that there were similar conditions, and that there are two who were listed in this testimony.
Q The removal of the shoulder blade-- was that an operation which entailed danger to the life of the experimental person?
A No, in no way. I have always strictly differentiated, that these aseptic non-gangrenous wounds did not have the same risk which our infections did have.
Q The prosecution introduced as a new exhibit today, a letter which you wrote on the 11th of Juno 1943, to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Exhibit 459, Document NO-232. Is it correct that I had already given you a copy of that letter even before the beginning of the trial?
And that, therefore, you were not in any way surprised by the contents of this letter?
A No, of course not. I draw attention to the fact that I had not read it before but that I had read it here.
Q Then the prosecution also referred to Himmler's Decree, 15 Hay 1944, of which we also know of course that it was going to be presented. Now, I want to ask you: After the 15th of May 1944, did you receive any further applications for experiments apart from the sea water experiment, and the examination of the end material?
A Not to my recollection; certainly not. But, in these hectic days, I couldn't even remember these two you were just talking about. It was only when I saw them here that I remembered them.
Q Did you support the Luftwaffe's application for sea water experiment.
A Yes.
Q Didn't you do that, last but not least, because, on the basis of the reasons given in the application you had the right to be convinced, that jeopardy, for the life or the health of the experimental persons was out of the question?
A Will, it states definitely in the letter from Mr. Schroeder, or from Grawitz, that there was no question of danger. On the other hand, the greatest German in turn is Eppinger himself, a started to participate in this experiment.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
TEE PRESIDENT: I have a question to the witness. I understand Witness, that p.s to these experimental subjects you wore informed by what was to you competent authority, that they wore of persons who had been sentenced to death. Did you ever make any investigation or ask any questions after that concerning these witnesses as to whether they had over been tried or sentenced as to these subjects?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, the person who communicated this fact to mo was Himmler. At that time I had no doubt whatever that this was right, what the highest man was saying, and presently considering our relations, I didn't have any doubts either of the test. I assumed that as far as I was concerned he would act particularly correctly and my inquiries were addressed to Himmler. I did not ever deal with any subordinate persons.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that you said that you never made any inquiry or endeavor to ascertain to any extent the status cf these experimental subjects, as to whether they had over boon tried for anything or whether they were simply hold in a concentration camp for some other reason.
THE WITNESS: No, Mr. President, please don't misunderstand me. There had been a definite discussion between Himmler and myself with reference to those persons, and Himmler expressly stated, as the highest man on the basis of his documents, that this was tho situation, and it w s particularly at tho end when everybody was interested during conferences with foreign countries, that it was as clear as it could possibly be, and I can refer to his words right hero, and Himmler told me at the end, with your experiments you are correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Did it occur to you that it might be a little curious that there were sixty women in a concentration camp under sentence of death and the sentence had never boon executed but they were just held in the camp?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, there weren't sixty, there were surely hundreds of them, thousands of them who wore together, all intelligence agents who were caught during acts in Poland and were arrested and wont to Ravensbruck, and according to tho documents used up to now there might be, must be at least seven hundred.
Sixty of these were not shot because they partook in this experiment, assuming that Himmler's information was true, which to doubt I had no reason at that time, even considering all the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: How many of those women did you say wars hold in tho camp, six or seven hundred?
THE WITNESS: It had boon definitely told here that a transport of seven hundred had arrived. Later on the Swedes collected two thousand Polish women who were still there. They must nave boon Polish women who had boon sentenced to death, and there must be Polish women who came afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: Were the rest of them executed?
THE WITNESS I only know what I have hoard here. Everyone of these other witnesses stated that nor comrades have boon shot. Mr. President, I deliberately did not interest myself in anything else. It seemed those wore the people called, according to information given to us, because they had boon sentenced to loath who had been operated on and who remained alive. Mr. President, y u will believe me, I have never bothered about or entered in the conditions in tho concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
Counsel will not be limited to further examination of this witness Monday morning. I didn't mean, when I inquired into tho length of this examination, to limit him. to that, so he may resume tho examination of the witness when the Tribunal convenes Monday morning.
The Tribunal will now recess until fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 March 1947, at 1115 hours.(
CORRECTION SHEET
COURT NO. 1., 10 MARCH 1947 This is a corrected transcript, please distroy all prior copies of this transcript.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, and al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 10 March 1947, 1330, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the Defendant Oberhauser, who is absent due to illness.
THE RESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberhauser, who is excused on account of illness, she being in the hospital.
Counsel may proceed.
KARL GEBHARDT - Resumed.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt): Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to tin. witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of this witness by defense counsel on account of the questions asked him, recently after cross examination?
BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q. Professor, in the cross examination you stated that the Ahnenerbe was under the Freundeskreis, circle of friends, and financed by it. Do you know the organization of the Ahnenerbe?
A. No, I can say nothing more about it, but I assumed that that was the case as I understood it.
Q. Than that is a pure assumption on your part? You have no concrete evidence for it?
A. I can only say that I was once asked to join the Freundeskreis. That was at the beginning of the war, and. I remember it was a combination of friends and Institutes were attached to it; and, as I said, I met professor Wuest at some meeting. I have no more concrete knowledge.
DR. WEISGRUBER: I have no other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross-examination of this witness on the part of the prosecution?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Gebhardt will be excused from the stand as a witness and. resume his place.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt): Mr. President, three witnesses have been approached for the Defendant Gebhardt. One of these witnesses has meanwhile arrived. This is Dr. Karl Brunner. In order to shorten the proceedings, I small dispense with examining this witness before the Tribunal, in agreement with the prosecution, I shall take the liberty of submitting an affidavit from this witness at a later period. The same is true of the other two witnesses, Professor Lothar Kreutz and Dr. Jaedicke. Here again I shall submit affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand from counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt this course is taken pursuant to an a agreement with the prosecution, is that right?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the course suggested by Dr. Seidl would be highly satisfactory because the prosecution feels that in this way we will be able to shorten the proceedings substantially. Of course, we are not advised in great detail as to what these gentlemen will state in their affidavits, but I think the chances are very good that we will not find it necessary to cross-examine them or to bring them here. In an exceptional case that might be necessary. On the other hand, we could probably secure a cross affidavit of some sort, so we are quite agreeable and pleased that Dr. Seidl is suggesting this course.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, where are the three witnesses you just named? Are they now in Nurnberg?
DR. SEIDL: One witness is in Nurnberg, that is Dr. Karl Brunner. The other two witnesses are in internment camps in the British Zone. It is doubtful whether they can be brought here at all in the near future.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances, the arrangement outlined by counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt has the approval of the Tribunal.
DR. SEIDL: In the question of my case for Defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt I have only to submit the rest of the documents which are in my document book. The first one, which I submit, is on page 44 of the document book. It is from the Manual of Virus Research. This is an excerpt from a book published in 1944. I shall not read any of this into the record, but in my concluding speech I shall refer to it. This will be Gebhardt Exhibit No. 11. The next exhibit is on page 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what page? The translation did. not come through.
DR. SEIDL: The next document is on page 72, It is an affidavit of an attorney, Karl Weiss. The contents speak for themselves. I ask the court to take judicial notice of this affidavit. I have included it in this document book as an example, and I shall give some other affidavits of this type in the supplementary volume. Then I go to page 75 of the document book-the affidavit from Karl Weiss on page 72 is submitted as Exhibit Gebhardt 12. -Then I go to page 75 of the document book, it is an affidavit of Gerhard Schiedlausky. This affidavit has already been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 224.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this exhibit in its entirety been submitted on behalf of the Prosecution and admitted by the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: This exhibit was submitted by the Prosecution in connection with the sulfonamide experiments. It is in the English document book number ten, but the Prosecution did not read the entire affidavit into the record but only excerpts. In order to simplify the task of the Tribunal, I have out into the Gebhardt document book that part of the affidavit to which I shall refer in my concluding speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel desire to read this into the record?
DR. SEIDL: I should only like on page 76 to read one paragraph. It is an excerpt which the Prosecution did not read into the record yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. SEIDL: I shall begin on page 76 at line 12.
"In Ravensbrueck there were about twenty-five women who were executed by shooting there at my time. They were all Polish women, who were already prisoners and the verdict on whom in many cases was fonfirmed by the Governor General only after a long time. The company commander was in charge of executions by firing squad and they took place in the presence of the camp commander, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Max Koegel."
The purpose of this excerpt is only to show that the prisoners at Ravensbrueck, as far as they were Polish women, wore members of the resistance movement, which the experimental subjects, who have testified here, admitted; and the experimental subjects, from whom affidavits were submitted, also admitted this.
Mr. President, now I come to some documents, which I need in order to comment on the status of the experimental subjects under International Law. The first document of this type is on page 77 of the document book. It is the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of the 28th of September, 1939. I submit this treaty as Gebhardt Exhibit 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, was not your last exhibit 13?
DR. SEIDL: The last exhibit number was 12. This now document is to be Exhibit Gebhardt 13.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the number of the Schiedlausky affidavit was already submitted by the Prosecution. It was Prosecution Exhibit 224.
THE PRESIDENT: I misunderstood Counsel. I thought Counsel desired to offer that again. Counsel is correct. You may proceed.
MR. MC HANEY: With respect to the document offered as Karl Gebhardt No. 13, the Prosecution should like to be advised as to the purpose of this offer. Off hand it appears to me to be immaterial to the issues here and consists of nothing more or less than a boundary and friendship treaty between the USSR and Germany, particularly concerning the Polish territory.
DR. SEIDL: I may make the following answer to that, Mr. President. The experimental subjects on whom the sulfonamide experiments were conducted wore Polish women. In 1940 or '41 they were arrested because, as they themselves admitted, they were members of a resistance movement.
In the proceedings before the beginning of the trial, the opinion was repeatedly expressed that they were prisoners of war. It will be necessary to investigate under what legislation and under what jurisdiction those Polish women were in 1940 and 1941; and it will also be necessary to examine whether in 1940 and 1941 there was a Polish State under international law.
This border and friendship treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union is the basis for the examination of the question what the status of these Polish citizens was under international law at that time. In particular the question will have to be examined whether Poland as an independent state still existed or not, and what powers had the right to issue laws and regulations for this territory, and whether such laws and regulations were binding on the witnesses who have been examined here. This treaty is the basis for the further documents which I shall submit later.
The important thing is to examine whether the German Government, as Occupying Power, had the authority to issue laws and regulations which were binding on the members of this resistance movement, and also to examine the question whether these experimental subjects were prisoners of war or what their status was under international law.
MR. MC HANEY: I think that the Prosecution must object that the document offered is immaterial. Certainly it sheds no light whatsoever up on the legal status of these women, Polish women, who were experimented upon in Ravensbrueck. The document can in no way tend to prove that Germany had the right to administer laws in a Polish State. It's simply a boundary agreement between Russia and Germany. It certainly does not intend to prove whether the occupation was in any way legal. As a matter of fact, the Polish Invasion has been held by the International Military Tribunal to have been an aggressive war and hence a crime against peace. I think we are getting a bit far afield in this offer. We think it is immaterial.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Seidl, are you contending that as of the period in which, as you say, these women were condemned to death by some sort of a court, that there was at that time an occupation or a complete subjugation of Poland?
DR. DEIDL: I am of the opinion that the fate of Poland after the German-Polish War was a typical example of a so-called de belaccio. I am of the opinion that this is not merely an occupatio bellicca but that through this war and, in particular, through the treaty mentioned here, the Polish State had ceased to exist, and that the entire legislative authority and the entire jurisdiction wore transferred to the two states which occupied the territory of the former State of Poland.
JUDGE SEBRING: The International Military Tribunal didn't quite agree with that view, did they?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, the IMT expressed itself on this question, that some questions in connection with this they did not discuss but avoided. these questions. I do not believe that at the present tiro I could discuss all the points that have arisen in connection with the fate of Poland in 1939; but, on the other hand, I do not believe that it is necessary, because it is decisive what the actual conditions were in 1940 and '41 and not what the subsequent judgment in 1946 by the International Mil itary Tribunal was.
As for the objection of the Prosecutor, it apparently means that he contests the probative value of this evidence. He does not say that the document is not authentic. In my concluding speech I will be forced to comment on all these questions, especially as to whether these experimental subjects were under German jurisdiction; but I do not believe that the objection of the Prosecution is justified, because the relevance of this document is shown only by comparison with the other documents which I intend to submit, and in considering the reasons which I intend to explain later. In my opinion, it would not be necessary at all to submit this document, because the German-Soviet boundary and Friendship Treaty on the 20th of September, 1939, has in the meanwhile become so wellknown that it would be sufficient for me to refer to it and assume that this is a fact which is well-known.
JUDGE SEBRING: Now is it your theory that there occurred a complete subjugation, in effect, then a partition of this territory partly to Germany under such conditions that under international law it became a part of the Reich and that thereafter the municipal courts of Germany and the municipal law of Germany could be brought over into the territory and administered as against those people? Is that the thing for which you contend?
DR. SEIDL: In contrast to the territories which fell to the Soviet Union which were immediately incorporated into the Soviet State, the territories from which the witnesses examined here came were not incorporated into the Reich. It is true that a part of the former State was incorporated into the German Reich, a part of the former Polish State, but the largest part of the area west of the demarcation line was made into a unit called the Government General. This included 18 million people. It was under a Governor General. German law was not applied directly to this territory. The Governor General to maintain order is issued laws and regulations which were in compliance with the Hague Convention of 1907 but I an of the opinion that under the conditions existing at that time, the occupying power was justified in taking the necessary measures to maintain order, and that these laws and regulations were binding on the members of the Government General.
JUDGE SEBRONG: Well, aren't you obliged to contend for occupation rather than subjugation and certain ordinances and laws administered by military courts under the doctrine of military necessity? How which path are you going? What is it that you contend for here?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honors, I have already said that in my opinion this is a typical case of de bellaccio. But I do not believe that wherefore the form of this question is the essential difference, whether one speaks of de bellaccio or only occupatio bellicca. Even in the latter case the occupying powers were quite doubtless justified in issuing the orders and regulations, necessary under conditions prevailing at the time, in order to maintain order in this territory, and which were necessary because this territory of the Government General was the largest military transit area ever seen in the history of warfare. Therefore, I do not believe there is any important difference whether one chooses one alternative or the other; but in addition the question will also have to be examined as to whether the members of this resistance movement were under the protection of the rules of warfare at all. They were not members of the armed forces of a lower. One will have to assume that the members of the resistance movement belonged to the group which is called franctireurs under international law.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will admit the document referred to, with the express understanding that in a final hearing the Tribunal reserve the right to reject the document if it finds them immaterial, and if the theory upon which they are offered be found incorrect as to the questions of both fact and law to be determined. The document at this the will be admitted provisionally.
DR. SEIDL: I submit this document as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 13, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this document.
The next document which I intend to submit is on page 80 of the document book. It is a decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor in the administration of the occupied Polish territory, of the 12th October, 1939. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the contents of this docu ment, and I go one.
This is Gebhardt Exhibit No. 14.
THE PRESIDENT: This document will be admitted in evidence provisionally under the same restrictions mentioned in regard to the preceding exhibit.
DR. SEIDL: Then I go on to page 83 of the document book. This is an ordinance concerning the military jurisdiction for civilians in the General Government of the 26th of January, 1940. I submit this document with the same reservations as the other document as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 15. I originally intended, Mr. President, to submit a different document at this point. This was not possible because the decree, which I referred to, was in the directive for the Governor General which is not to be found in the library at the present time. Therefore, I shall read from page 84 of the document book Article 4. I quote:
"Article 4.
(1) The competence of court martials as established by article 4 of the ordinance of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army regarding possession of weapons dated 12 September 1939 (Official Gazette for the occupied Polish territories, page 8) is discontinued.
(2) The trial of criminal acts as described in Articles 1, 2 of the before-mentioned order will be transferred to court martials, the composition of which is defined by article 11, section 2 of the ordinance to combat acts of violence in the General government, dated 31 October 1937 (Official Gazette for the occupied Polish territories, page 10) and the supplementary ordinance dated 2 December, 1939.
(3) Criminal cases already under review at military court martials will be dealt with under previous regulations."
I have read this paragraph into the record, because, after the presentation of evidence, I shall refer to this ordinance of 31 October, 1939, about combatting acts of violence in the General Government.
Then I go to page 85 of the document book.
JUDGE SEBRING: Will you be prepared during the course of the presentation of your case, or some aspect of it, to bring to the Court the correct translations of the various articles and sections of the laws referred to here?
DR. SEIDL: I shall endeavor to obtain this ordinance of the Governor General which is mentioned here and shall submit it to the Tribunal later.
Volume 39 of the Gazette for the Government General was available here during the trial before the International Military Tribunal. Unfortunately, I cannot find it at the present time, but I shall try to get this decree from a library.
THE PRESIDENT: The offered exhibit will be admitted provisionally under the same condition as the last two preceding exhibitsl
DR. SEIDL: The last document which I want to submit in this document book is on page 85. It is a letter from the defendant, Dr. Gebhardt, to the President of the Swedish Red Cross, Count Bernadette. I shall not read this letter into the record. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of it's contents. I submit this letter as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 16.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be admitted.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, this completes the presentation of evidence for the defendant, Dr. Karl Gebhardt for the present. I ask to reserve the right at a later time to submit a few exhibits which are in a supplementary volume.
THE PRESIDENT: At what time do you propose to offer the supplementary exhibits?
DR. SEIDL: I hope that I will be able to submit the other exhibits in about two weeks. The delay was because various affidavits, particularly those of the witnesses whom I mentioned before, have not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer the exhibits when they arc prepared.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, now I turn to the case of the defendant Dr. Fritz Fischer, and ask the Court to call the defendant Dr. Fritz Fischer to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Dr. Fritz Fischer will take the witness stand.
JUDGE SEBRING: You will raise your hand and he sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will sneak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: Be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, you were born on the 5th of October, 1912, in Berlin. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. The prosecution has already submitted an affidavit in which your career is briefly described. This is Document No. 559, which the prosecution submitted as Exhibit 26. To supplement this affidavit will you please give more information about your examination and your education.
A. I was born in.1912 in Berlin - in a suburb of Berlin. I was brought up in a middle class home. My parents considered themselves quiet people, that is, their desire was mainly to do their duty in life through work. They had no intention and ambition of playing any role in public life. Ay family descended from peasants in Mark Brandenburg. Mark Brandenburg is the area around the city of Berlin, the core of the Prussian state.
The training which I had at heme on the basis of several hundred years corresponds to this background, It gave the individual the duties of industry in daily life and it was limited by the belief in the authorities appointed by God, the authorities of the King, and the Government, and the State. The King, State, and Government were the units which were absolutely united with the concept of law.
This is how my father lived his life. He served under three Kaisers. He was a loyal citizen of the German Republic. He was also a loyal citizen of the Third Reich. He never took any part in politics and he also gave me this advice. Neither before nor after 1933 did he belong to any political party or any political organization. This basic attitude of a. loyal citizen without any political function, who sees more than a duty in loyalty more a virtue - based on the belief in the authority of the State which as an institution has the highest right - this is the spirit in which I was brought up.
Q. Then you went to school in Berlin and high school?
A. Yes. From 1919 to 1931 I attended Real gymnasium.
Q. In 1931 you graduated?
A. In 1931 I graduated and studied at the University of Berlin, Leipzig, Bonn, and Hamburg, I studied medicine. In 1936 in Hamburg I took the medical state examination.
Q. During your studies did you have any special field of interest?
A. During my studies I had great interest and great pleasure in medicine, primarily for the branch which developed next to purely clinics - the step to modern medicine is the border areas between natural sciences and. medicine. At that time without discussing it I had the hope of becoming a university teacher some day in the field of surgery. To get a followed and accurate basis for this work as a student and as a clinician I studied pathological anatomy. And, at least two years of my studies, during vacation I worked in pathological anatomy. After taking my state examination for these considerations, keeping surgery as an aim, I chose pathological anatomy for my training for the next few years. And, for that purpose I went to the Rudolf Virchow Institute in Berlin, the Pathological Institute of the greatest German hospital, where 2500 autopsies were performed annually by eight doctors.
Q. What position did you hold at the outbreak of the war?
A. In 1936, as I said, I took the state examination. In 1939, in in spring, I was first assistant at the Pathological Institute.
During this tine, especially during the summer, in the absence of the Director of the Institute I was in charge of the autopsy work and the microscopic histological work, individually representing the chief.
Q. Now, I should like to interrupt you and consider the question: What rule did politics play in your life before the outbreak of the war?
A. In 1933 I was twenty years old. At the time I belonged to a Student Sport Corporation and. had taken no part in politics whatever.
Q. Did you belong to any party?
A. I did not belong to any party or any political youth movement. My only activity was in sports and since I belonged to the youth group around Stefan George that was quite far removed from the ideals of national socialism. In 1934 I was in the same position as before. The entire intensification of life since, since Hitler had taken over the government, impressed me. A regulation was issued in 1934 that the students at the universities could matriculate only if they belonged to some national socialist organization. I should like to emphasize that I was not an opponent at the time. I considered myself a member of level and tolerant circles but I did not strive for admission to the Party. I submitted to this regulation because in the first place I had the idea the State wanted it, and because I considered the National Socialist organization as a State Youth organization. For these considerations in 1934 in Bonn on the Rhine I joined the General-SS, or rather I joined one of these organizations. I had participated in a riding and driving training and I participated in sports. F r that reason in this I wanted to have the opportunity to continue this activity and since there was the organization in Bonn which had a riding group - it was the General-SS, without considering convenience I joined this organization. That was the General-SS.
Q. The witness Dr. Leibbrant said that the study of medicine in the Third. Reich was shortened, and that students had. to be members of Student League and Hitler Youth. He also said that politically active elements had to visit the Fuehrer school at Altrese.
