Q Dr. Fischer, Dr. Gebhardt testified here on the stand that at Hohenlychen he had the supervision of Frau Himmler and her children; was this Mrs. Himmler at Hohenlychen, or was this Himmler's mistress?
A I am not informed about these relationships, Mr. Prosecutor. I am not informed sufficiently to give any exact statements here.
Q Did Gebhardt care for any other women and children of higher officials at Hohenlychen?
A I know nothing of that.
Q What is your frank opinion about the results, scientifically and practically, of the experiments at Ravensbruck; briefly, Doctor?
A I already expressed this opinion during direct examination. I believe that I clearly expressed that the hope which prevailed among certain circles of physicians, namely that sulfonamides would develop a means which would enable us to care for war wounds and would make a careful surgical treatment superfluous, had become a hope which turned out to be a failure, and that I think was the only practical result achieved. I am also convinced that the second conclusion, which bears a more theoretical character, namely the limitation of the effectiveness of sulfonamides in the case of bacteriological infectuous diseases, according to the strictest morphological point of view had been a very essential recognition.
A I am almost of the opinion that this will become essentially effective in the future. That is shortly summarized the conception which I have about these matters.
Q Thank you. What was the last time, or when was the. last time, in which you saw any of the experimental subjects after the experimental operation, apart from those that you saw in this courtroom?
A That must have been around the middle of December, 1942.
Q For how long after each experimental operation did you have any of these subjects under your observation?
A The regular change cf dressing continued up to three weeks.
Q What was the latest time after the experimental operation at which you saw any of these subjects. Was it merely three weeks?
A No. During these changes of dressings patients, experimental subjects from previous experiments reported for changes of their dressing, so that I could check on the patients for a period up to eight weeks.
Q Were any plans made by you and Gebhardt for regular follow-ups after the experimental operations, that is, until such time as the person experimented on was completely restored to a condition whereby they could have freedom of locomotion, and so forth?
A Mr. Prosecutor, the question is not clear enough for me to answer it. May I ask you to repeat it?
Q Were any plans made for regular follow-ups after the experimental operations?
A I believe that Gebhardt had such a plan or, at least, had such an intention. At that time I left Hohenlychen, and I think that if this was not actually executed, it was not done for two reasons: one, -- and I think that is the specific result of Gebhardt's work at all -- that every rehabilitating operation needs a transition period of at least two years, and that every form of exercise treatment, massage treatment and follow-up treatment where any inflammatory disease had only just is not only useless but extremely dangerous. I believe that the external stopped, circumstances alone, and I mean the slowly appearing catastrophe of 1944 and 1945, prevented Gebhardt from realizing his intention.
Q Now, were there any plans made for restorative operations and for cosmetic improvement of the results after a period of one or two years? I think you can answer that "Yes" or "No", Doctor.
A During that time I was not there, and for that reason I cannot answer that question.
Q Well now, Dr. Gebhardt said on the stand that plastic improvement of the operative residuals could have been attempted two years after the experiments. What was done in regard to this problem in the Summer of 1944, and in case you were not there, do you know of any such plans having been made?
A I wasn't there and I don't know what plans were made.
Q Well now, when you returned to Hohenlychen after your injury and took up work there again in 1944, did you carry out follow-up examinations on the experimental subjects in nearby Ravensbrueck?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't return to Hohenlychen, and I didn't work there any longer. I returned, yes, but I returned as a patient, and before my final cure I left the hospital. In December, 1944 I was again in Berlin.
MR. HARDY: Pardon me, Your Honor. I only have a few questions, and I may run over four-thirty, but I can finish today within a reasonable time, and if Your Honor so sees fit, I would like to finish today.
Q Well now, Doctor, you operated on these girls. You were the operating surgeon. Didn't you feel responsible for them?
A Mr. Prosecutor, at that time I was quite clear about that, and I have to revert to the entire situation once more, that during the war situations arose, and if there will be any more wars in the future situations will arise again, there will be situations where the individual man who acts must limit his own responsibility whenever anything is ordered in this sense. I don't want to take up your patience and I don't want you to have to listen to yet another example where human beings have to act, have to cause suffering, and in the course of their activity have to experience death, who as individuals would also never do that, and who are freed by the State because of the fact that they were acting on the basis of the law which takes that responsibility away from them* Beyond that there is a moral sanctioning -
Q All right, Doctor. We have gone over that several times. I have a few more questions to put to you and you can answer them "Yes" or "No", I believe. If you feel you cannot, you may go into detail.
Now here you returned to Hohenlychen in 1944. You had operated on these girls. You had orders to operate on these girls, you state, but now as a doctor and as a humane person, did you show any interest in the girls when you returned? Did you ask whether they were still alive and how they were getting along?
A I spoke to the Polish technical assistant about that problem. She told me. that the experimental patients were still at Ravensbrueck. At that time I expressed my opinion and my concern.
Q Who is this Polish technical assistant? Where was that assistant stationed? At Hohenlychen?
A Yes, she was in Hohenlychen.
Q Where did she come from?
A From Ravensbrueck.
Q Oh, you had inmates of Ravensbrueck working at Hohenlychen, is that right?
A Yes, that was the case.
Q Did you know that the six girls were executed in spite of the fact that they were submitted to these experiments?
A No, I didn't know that, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Well now, I assume that these girls had an original agreement when they underwent these experiments, according to your testimony and the testimony of Professor Gebhardt, that is, that if they successfully endured these experiments that their sentences would be reduced. Now I ask you, Dr. Fischer, did you make any attempt to find out yourself whether such breaches of the original agreement, assuming that such an agreement did exist, had occurred or had not occurred?
A I turned to Professor Gebhardt with that question about the fate of the experimental subject. I discussed these matters with him because
this was the only channel I had for any such discussion.
Q Well then, Doctor, after these experiments in a place that was twelve kilometers from Hohenlychen, those girls were merely abandoned, young ladies like Miss Kiesmierszak who was here in this courtroom, to the tender mercies of the concentration camp doctor, is that correct?
A Mr. hardy, if you are presenting these matters in that form, you are attributing too wide a limitation to me, my possibilities, and my responsibilities. And not as much to responsibility as to the possibility.
Q All right, Doctor, you have stated that as a human being, a person and a physician, that these experiments, or t the subjection of persons to experiments without their consent, was not permissible and that you wouldn't have done it under ordinary circumstances, is that right?
A I testified that under normal circumstances I would not have performed these experiments.
Q Well, now, you have stated that the only reason why you performed these experiments was because of superior orders from Professor Gebhardt and above, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Suppose you had refused to carry out those experiments, what would Gebhardt have done to you? Would anything have happened to you?
A That is a question which I cannot answer factually, and you cannot expect me to give you an answer whereby I make an assumption or invent something.
In the year of 1942 the basic question was different. It was not a fear of a death sentence or anything like that, but the alternative was either to be obedient or be disobedient during the war, and thereby set an example, an example of disobedience.
Q Now, you the obedient young soldier, Doctor, assume Dr. Gebhardt had ordered you, orders, superior orders from the Gruppenfuehrer, to cut the arm off Dr. Oberhauser because they wanted to use it in an experiment, what would you have done?
A I cannot answer that question.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 12 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 12 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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, will 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 Oberheuser who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent in the hospital on account of illness.
Counsel may proceed.
FRITZ FISCHER - Resumed
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions on cross-examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Fischer):
Q. Witness, assuming that in the year 1942 you had been condemned to death for refusing to obey orders, would you then have given permission that an experiment should be carried out on you, if you were thereby offered the chance to have your sentence commuted?
A. Yes, I would have taken this offer and chance.
Q. The experimental persons, on whom the experiments were carried out, belonged to the Polish resistance movement. They have admitted that all here and also confirmed it in their affidavit. Consequently, they were condemned to death. I ask you now, could you not assume at the beginning of the experiments that these girls also would take advantage of the opportunity and would consent to the experiments, and that they had to arrive at this conclusion, particularly if they made a critical appraisal of their situation?
A. Yes, I assumed that that was so at that time.
Q. The sulfonamide experiments were for the purpose of testing a certain series of preparations, as you described yesterday. Is it correct that one of these preparations was ultraseptil, developed by Dr. Morrell, Hitler's personal physician, and that this was a preparation that had not yet been used by field army physicians?
A. Yes, one of the preparations to be tested was ultraseptil. I did not know about that preparation at that time nor had I heard that it had been us.ed by army physicians.
Q. Did you know that Professor Dr. Gebhardt was ordered by Hitler to treat Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, chief of the RSHA, surgically, after the attempt on his life?
A. Yes, I knew that Gebhardt was absent from Hohenlychen in June and was attending Heydrich on his sickbed.
Q. You yesterday described the contents of the order that Professor Gebhardt gave you at the start of the sulfonamide experiments. Was it clear to you in this matter that the legal aspect of the problem, namely, the question of whether or not the experiments were permissible and who was competent to decide about them, lay not only entirely outside your competence but also outside Gebhardt's competence?
A. Yes, I was clearly told that this was an affair that had been legalized by the state and I had to assume that Professor Gebhardt also was not the person who legally had to decide on it.
MR. HARDY: I submit that we have gone over this same line of question time and time again and I object to this or questions of this sort.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that this matter has been gone into quite thoroughly on examination of counsel. It does not desire to restrict counsel's examination of the witness but repetition should be avoided.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall do my best to avoid repetitions.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. The witness Mazka testified here and admitted that she could see the experimental subjects only superficially and relied largely on what others present, namely, the prisoners or the nurses, told her. It does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that it must have been impossible for Dr. Mazka to achieve really a clear picture of the sickness and its course.
A. Yes, because the precise analysis of a case of illness is very difficult and unless you are in the immediate vicinity of that sickness it is almost impossible.
Q You yesterday described or stated that you felt pity fur the Polish girls on whom the experiments were carried out. Was not the decisive thing for both you and Dr. Gebhardt the effort to save the lives of these persons which, with a few regrettable cases, you were successful in?
A. Yes, I know that Professor Gebhardt wished above all, and told me so frequently, that everything should be done to save the lives of those in danger.
Q According to the allegations of the Prosecution experiments were carried out on 74 Polish girls, of whom according to Prosecutions statement a.t least 61 lived. The Prosecution states subsequently six were shot for reasons that we do not know. Doesn't it follow from this that the responsible office, namely, the RSHA, kept its promises to Dr. Gebhardt?
A Yes, I have always been of the opinion that that was prrof the assurance given Dr. Gebhardt was kept.
Q Is it true that Professor Gebhardt commissioned you to concern yourself only with the experimental subjects in the concentration camp Ravensbrueck and avoid any other contact with the camp?
A Yes, I received that precise and definite order from Dr. Gebhardt.
Q Professor Gebhardt himself went to Ravensbrueck a few times. Did he also observe this basis policy and not concern himself with what went on otherwise in the camp?
A Yes, that is so, so far as I was able to observe him, he only visited the room of the resident physician and the sick bay.
Q Under these circumstances, therefore, it would have been impossible for you to concern yourself for instance with the work which the Polish prisoners did?
A That was quite out of the question.
Q Is it true that in 1943 Dr. Stumpfegger came to Hohenlychen with a special order from Himmler and was to that extent not under the medical supervision of Dr. Gebhardt?
A That was in 1942. Yes, Dr. Stumpfegger came at that time with a special order from Himmler, whose escort physician he was, to Hohenlychen, and informed Gebhardt about that.
Q The Prosecution spoke yesterday of the deliberate misleading on the part of Gebhardt, because he undertook a free transplantation, allegedly because of a case of cancer on a patient. Gebhardt in his direct examination only had a limited opportunity to testify regarding this, but it is true that the whole infection or swelling which had infected the whole arm, could only be treated if the operation was carried out, is that not so?
A I believe Professor Gebhardt stated that in his direct examination that this was a combined operation, which on the one hand was to remove the diseased tissue, supplemented by a second operation aimed at plastic restoration with functional aim, viz the restoration of the remaining joint, namely, for the purpose of saving the arm.
Q Is it correct that from the publications of Professor Lexer, who had in many cases successfully transplanted joints from one person to another, was it not true you could count on success?
A Yes, I know that Lexer in the Munich school had carried out transplantation of joints and parts of joints from one person to another, particularly immediately after the first world war, and that his operations were successful. On the basis of Lexer's opinion, whose pupil Gebhardt was, one could count on success, had to count on success.
Q Do you agree with me when I say that Professor Gebhardt would himself have checked on and published the results of such experiments and operations himself, if you had withdrawn at his requests and that in this case he would not have left it up to Stumpfegger to give a report in the paper published by Veheimrat Sauerbruck about this work.
A So far as I know Gebhardt concerned himself with the work that lay within his own sphere of interest, ho took into his own hands and directed personally, and that if these matters were published, he at least would have written a preface in the case of publication about such work.
Q After the lecture at the Military Medical Academy in May 1943, you returned to the front, to the Tenth SS Panzer Division "Frundsberg". In August 1943 you were in France. Is it true in August 1943 Gebhardt visited you and your division in France?
A Yes, the division expected at that time an Anglo-American invasion by land and air, and at that time August--September, I was called to Paris for a conference on military medical matters and there met Professor Gebhardt.
Q. The experimental persons in the sulfonamide series were subsequently examined by you. When did the checking on them cease and what was the diagnosis on them when you turned them back over to the camp physicians?
A For the most part the acute cases had been arrested and the wounds were healed. A few of them had inflammation of the nature of a boil, and very few had an infection which was of the nature of a camp phlegmone. There was no diagnosis of any case that might have been construed as endangering the life or limbs of the patient at the time that I left the camp and turned the patients over the camp physicians.
Q In the summer, and especially August of 1943, you were in France, and Professor Gebhardt was there also. If now a Polish prisoner, who apparently was operated on in August 1943 in the bunker there by other physicians still suffered a bone marrow infection, I should draw the conclusion that this was nothing that bore any-connection with your sulfonamide experiments?
A I am of the same opinion.
Q The Prosecutor asked you yesterday why cosmetic operations were not carried out on the experimental subjects in order to improve their appearance? When is the earliest date at which such an operation could have been carried out, and were there still possibilities at that time either in Hohenlychen or anywhere in Germany of carrying out such cosmetic operations?
A I have already said that the school at Hohenlychen represented the principle that before a lapse of at least two years after the operation no plastic or cosmetic operation should take place, because otherwise there is always the danger that the inflammation reappears and thus endangers again the individual. On the basis of this, therefore, a plastic or cosmetic operation could not have been carried out before the end of 1944. At this time in Hohenlychen most assuredly no plastic operations were carried out in Hohenlychen because at that time the whole of Germany was aflame, and all clinics, especially our clinic, were overcrowded with patients in need of surgical care. Plastic or cosmetic operations were certainly not carried out at that time.
Q One last question. The Prosecutor asked you yesterday whether you would have obeyed Professor Gebhardt's order, even then if the object of the order was to carry out such an experiment on Dr. Oberhauser, and you then said that you could not answer that question.
Should you not, however, attempt go give some reasonable answer to that question?
A If I make an effort to answer that question, I must point out the essential and decisive differences. In my opinion, the decisive thing, aside from the fact it was an order, was the fact that my motive was that of helping wounded persons, and secondarily, the belief that the persons on whom experiments were to be carried out had been condemned to death. I have already discussed the difficulties embraced in the psychological situation in which one can find oneself, and I can say in addition only that it is asked of soldiers for instance that, let us say, he must shoot at his own home towns, and he carries out this order in the belief of a higher authority on the part of the State and sees in that higher authority his basis and security. Those two factors, the belief in the ethical motive, regarding the helping of wounded persons, secondly, the fact that the State sanctioned this order legally, and, thirdly, that the experiments were to be carried out on persons who had been condemned to death and should now be given a humane chance to save their lives, I believe these three points give an adequate answer to that question.
Q So the decisive difference lies in the fact that Dr. Oberhauser was not at that time condemned to death?
A Yes.
A I have no further questions to the witness.
DR. NELTE FOR HANDLOSER:
Q Dr. Fisher, Mr. Hardy yesterday discussed with you the question whether the Wehrmacht, and this means in this case Chief of the Medical Inspection Handloser, had any connection with the experiments in Ravensbrueck. The Prosecution tried to prove that the Wehrmacht was concerned in these Sulfonamide experiments. You were asked what your opinion of this problem was from a military point of view. And, as I remember it, I don't have the record before me, you answered that you considered this sulfonamide matter an important problem for the Wehrmacht. Is it correct that you said that?
A Dr. Nelte, I cannot remember the exact sentence but that is what I said substantially.
Q The trueness of this statement no one will deny, but if you look at this statement without the context isolated, it could be misunderstood. Therefore, I ask you - was the sulfonamide experiment only a Wehrmacht problem?
A No, Dr. Nelte. It was not. It was a problem that effected medicine as a whole.
Q In other words, the situation was as follows: In the acute state of the bar particular stress was layed on particular aspects of the sulfonamide problem, but that sulfonamide research, as a whole, was a field that embraced both military and civilian life. Now, so far as the acute incentive is concerned that led to the experiments in Ravensbrueck you heard from Dr. Gebhardt when he testified as a witness how this order came to be given and what the motives for it were.
A Yes, I remember that.
Q The situation was that Professor Gebhardt said at one point, perhaps in summarizing, "The purpose of this order was that under no circumstances to suffer any unnecessary losses in the Waffen-SS." Thus, according to what Dr. Gebhardt said, the SS had a particular interest in this and this interest was definitive and decisive.
Is that the case?
A I can only answer that to this extent - that what Dr. Gebhardt said to your question concerns only what Dr. Gebhardt said, is that not so?
Q Yes, that is so but I wanted to make it clear that the general interest in this matter was military and civilian, but the actual incentive for Ravensbrueck experiments was interest on the part of Himmler?
A Yes, according to what Gebhardt said, Himmler was interested on it.
Q Dr. Gebhardt also said in the witness box clearly that the Wehrmacht was not concerned either in the origin of or the execution of these Ravensbrueck experiments. Can you answer that statement?
A In order to answer that I must say I received from no Wehrmacht officer an order to carry out these experiments but only my superior general Gebhardt who was member of the Waffen-SS.
Q Then, no department of the Wehrmacht interfered in your experiments in any way?
A In my field of work no Wehrmacht officer turned up.
Q Your own clarification of this error in your affidavit regarding the order I do not have to tell you. However, I should like to clarify one thing, namely, when was the order for the Ravensbrueck experiments given?
A I cannot tell you the exact date but I can reconstruct the situation and believe it must have been on the 10th of July 1942. In any case 1942.
Q At any rate in July of 1942?
A Yes.
Q Do you know when the office Chief of Medical Inspection was set up?
A No, I do not know that.
Q It was by an order of 23 July 1942. At that time, therefore, the Chief of the Medical Inspection could not have issued orders because he didn't exist at that time.
A Yes, that is so.
Q I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to be propounded to the witness the defendant Fischer is excused as a witness and will resume his place
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the hearing of the defendant concludes my presentation of evidence in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood from counsel yesterday that counsel had another document book containing documents to be admitted in evidence. Is that correct?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is so. The documents in the supplementary volume are a second document book for all three defendants whom I represent. As in the case of the first document book I shall present all of the documents under the heading Gebhardt" but should like to retain the right to refer to these documents in the defense oh my other defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: Will these further documents be offered when counsel presents the defense of the defendant. Oberhauser?
DR. SEIDL: When the defendant, Oberhauser in the course of two weeks can leave the hospital, or when at a later date she takes the stand, I shall at that time submit these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands and the documents may then, of course, be considered in counsel's defense of the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer also.
DR. SEIDL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the defendant Blome ready to present his defense?
DR. SAUTER FOR THE DEFENDANT BLOME:
DR. SAUTER: For the defendant Blome.
THE PRESIDENT: I probably misunderstood the translation. I thought the translator said Nelte for Blome.
DR. SAUTER: Sauter for the defendant Blome. That must have been a mistake. Sauter for Blome.
Mr. President, for the defendant Blome I have submitted a document books some time ago that contains documents number 1 to 8. I then in addition to this document book submitted two supplementary volumes, one number 9 to 14, and the little second containing 15 and 16. In other words, there are in toto only 16 documents. In these 16 documents are also included the affidavits of 9 witnesses. In other words of a large number of witnesses this testimony is relatively brief - so brief that I could content myself with affidavits.
I shall call only two witnesses to the stand in addition to the defendant Blome himself at the conclusion. The first witness whom I wish to call was a certain Perwitschky but I cannot call him today because he has not yet been brought hither. I ask the right to submit an affidavit from this witness Perwitschky or to be permitted to call him to the witness stand as soon as he is brought here and is available. Now, before I begin with my case for the defendant Blome may I perhaps make a general suggestion In the case of the Prosecution certain problems were treated that had previously not been part of Prosecution case. We defense counsel are not cl** in our minds whether these additional problems which the Prosecution treats are to be made part of the Indictment or not. Consequently, we consider it expedient if the Prosecution makes soon a statement on this subject, namely whether and to what extent they are including these further problems in the charge against the defendant. Because, if that is not the case, then we defense counsel do not need to concern ourselves with these further problem in our defense of the defendants. Perhaps it would be well if the Prosecution made a statement on this subject soon. It would also be well if another point were clarified, towit: I believe that on the last day of the opening statement the Prosecution stated that it would at the right time state whether and to what extent a charge against one or another of the defendants would be dropped. I should be glad if this point, too, were soon clarified because if the Prosecution is going to drop one or another charge then we of the defense would not have to concern ourselves with it further and would save ourselves considerable time. In this case also perhaps it would be expedient if the Prosecution made a statement.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Court, in connection with Dr. Sauter's concern about the experiments and various crimes outlined by the prosecution in its case in chief, which were not specifically referred to in the indictment, that has been answered here by Mr. McHaney, and I further called the attention of Dr. Sauter to paragraph 6 of the indictment which states in the last sentence "Such experiments included but were not limited to the following:". The prosecution here has given him a bill of particulars in addition to an indictment, and now he is asking for more and there is no argument, as far as I can see, that we have not included in the indictment everything that has been presented here in the case in chief, and paragraph I believe, covers anything that we have presented. In regard to the dropping of charges on any of the defendants - I conferred with Dr. Sauter yesterday and I told him that I would take it up with Mr. McHaney and have a discussion of dropping charges perhaps against Mr. Blome. I have not yet had an opportunity to see Mr. McHaney, and we may well do so, but, at present, I am include to feel that we will remain in the position that we were in regard, to the defendant Blome and wish that the defense would proceed along those lines.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would suggest that the prosecution, as soon as convenient, determine its position in the matter and advise the Tribunal, but, meanwhile, defendant's counsel may proceed with his defense generally.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I begin the case for the defendant Blome in calling the witness, Dr. Herbert Kosmehl, with the permission of the Court, to the witness stand.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is that Dr. Robert Kosmehl or Dr. Herbert Kosmehl?
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Herbert Kosmehl - H-E-R-B-E-R-T.
DR. HERBERT KOSHEHL: a witness, took the stand and testified as follow.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Hold up your right hand and be sworn, repeating after me the oath. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, please state your full name.
A. Doctor of Law Herbert Knosmehl.
Q. How old are you?
A. Forty-four years old.
Q. You were last resident in Munich?
A. Stockdorf b/Ganding, in the neighborhood of Munich
Q. You are a Doctor of Law, not a medical doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. You know Doctor Blome?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you meet him?
A. In January 1934 I went to Munich to the Reichs Aerzteschaft.
Q. Please wait a little so that the interpreter can keep up with you, witness. Please repeat the last sentence.
A. The German Aerzteschaft consisted, at that time of the AerzteVereins Bund and the so-called Hauptmann Bund. Dr. Blome was, at that time, leader of the Physicians' Chamber in Mecklenburg and Gau Office Leader for the peoples health. Also chief of Gau Gauebmann of the National Socialist Physicians' Union. In this capacity I made his acquaintance when he came to the Aerzteschaft.
Q. Doctor, what were you before you came to the Chamber of Physicians?
A. Previously, I was an assistant Judge and, previously an adviser or the Landesbrandversicherungsanstalt (Country Fire insurance institute.) at GOTHA.
Q. Then, in December 1933 .... Perhaps I may say something also first. You became a Party member?
A. 1933, yes.
Q. You are now automatically under arrest?