I did not think the war necessary just because of the Polish corridor-whoever started this war. I hated the second World War from its very beginning. When our people began to recover from the last 30 years, a new war arises which is going to destroy again. I know the significance of war only too well. I fought in the first World War as a front officer in the first line. I was wounded five times. I say this to convince you that I know what the horrors of war are. Therefore I abhorr war, and I see its necessity only if my own people are attacked. In my book I have not mentioned the second World War with a single word because I did not know and I have no attitude toward this second World War, because I doubred that this war could not have been prevented.
Q Witness, I would like to ask you ono question in connection with the charge of conspiracy. Which of the defendants have you known before, and how? Did you know them well or only superficially?
A Ten of the defendants I did not know at all. The others I knew. During this war I had nothing to do with the following gentlemen: Schroeder, Genzkon, Gebhardt, and Weltz. There remain therefore Karl Brandt, whom I met about six times. Handloser I had to do with three times during this war. I met Rostock three times in conferences, but I had nothing to do with him directly, Rudolph Brandt I saw twice during my visits in Himmler's office, but I had nothing to do with Rudolph Brandt, except that Rudolph Brandt during the war by order of Himmler, wrote one or two letters to me when I complained to Himmler about the lack of organization in the fight against foot and mouth disease generally. I saw Mrugowsky three times. Once just shortly in Grawitz's Office, once he visited me, and once I inspected his institute. I saw Sievers more often, especially within the Reich Research Council. Our meetings were generally very short. Rose I met three times during this war and Brack once.
Q Witness, as you mentioned those people you did not mention Dr. Polorny Did you know him, Pokorny?
A No, Pokorny I did not know. He was one of the ten whom I did not know
Q With which of the defendants whom you know did you discuss experiments on human beings of the kind that are being dealt with in this trial?
A Only with Sievers.
Q You did not discuss it with other defendants, even if you know them?
A No.
Q Also the euthanasia program is charged. You are charged with having talked about this with the defendant Brack. When and where was this, and why? Please be short, because we must deal with this point later.
A I did not speak about the euthanasia program with the defendant Brack. Brack was once at a meeting which was under the leadership of Dr. Conti. I think that must have been 1941, in Munich, and dealt with these questions shortly.
Q What was your own point of view on the question of outhanasia? Please tell us about that quite shortly.
A Immediately after the meeting I went to see Dr. Conti, and I asked him again that we of the Reich Physicians leadership should also deal with these question, but this time Dr. Conti refused such contacts, and he said that we of the Reich Physicians leadership, had nothing to do with such matters.
Q Now I would like to deal with the point of conspiracy. Did you talk to Hitler or Himmler or Bouhler, who was, as we know, responsible mainly for the outhanasia program, and had you any discussions about this theme?
A I did not talk to Hitler during the whole war. I never spoke with Himmler and Bouhler about the euthanasia program. I did not speak to Bouhler during the war, and with Himmler I first came in touch officially in tho late summer of 1943 when the so-called euthanasia, action had already been stopped.
Q Witness, the Prosecution in Document Book 4, Page 11, the document book about malaria experiments, a document No. 065, submitted by the Prosecution under the number 127, has submitted this affidavit of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, who was mainly responsible for the concentration camps. In this affidavit of 23 July 1946 Pokl speaks and replies to a question to the fact who were the consultants to Himmler about these questions; and in an affidavit of 23 July 1946 ho says verbally that Himmler had enough opportunity to discuss matters with gentleman of his staff and his surroundings about medical questions, and I am sure he did that. That is the end of the quotation. And Pokl mentions other consultants such as, for instance, Conti. I ask this because you were the deputy of Conti. Did you belong to these consultants of Himmler and did you hear about these matters or not?
A No, I was not one of these consultants, and I do not believe myself that in general Dr. Conti was one of them, because I know from Himmler personnaly that he did not like Conti. He told me about Conti and made abusive remarks about him which were certified by people like Stumpfegger. I also know that there was one former co-student of Himmler who told me that Himmler made abusive remarks about Conti at a time when Gerhard Wagner was still alive. I also know that Himmler was not in favor of Conti succeeding Gerhard Wagner.
Q Also on the point of conspiracy I present you with the following: In May 1944 the 4th meeting of the Consulting Physician of the Wehrmacht took place in Hohenlychen, which we have heard about a lot hero. The themes which were dealt with on this occasion, and which partly dealt with experiments we have heard about from Dr. Eischer and Dr. Gebhardt. Were you present at this meeting, Witness, and did you hear the speeches and reports about these experiments?
A No, I principally avoided sessions and meetings in which Conti took part
Q Under document No. 619 the Prosecution in Document Book No. 10 about experiments with sulfonamides, a participation and billeting register has been submitted, Document Book of the Prosecution No. 10, Page 97, and in this register under No. 38 is mentioned Conti, SS Gruppenfuehrer, Staatssekretaer, and then the quarter where he was billeted. And under 38-A is a strange not, then only one of its kind, where it says that cooperatior, Staatssekretaer Conti, Kurhetel. The name of this assistant has not been mentioned. There could be the suspicion that perhaps you were this anonymous assistant in this register.
A No, the so-called assistant is not myself. I have already said that I principally did not go to meetings in which Conti was present. I did not do so on principle. Also I was not Conti's assistant without which Conti never traveled. Therefore, it must have been one of the personal referents or adjutants of Professor Conti who participated in this meeting.
Q Dr. Blome you yourself in this registry of the participants of the Hohenlychen meeting are not mentioned at all, but under No. 101 of this register is mentioned one SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, and in reference to this Dr. Gross, the Prosecution has, as you remember, stated on the 2nd of January this Dr. Gross had been the person who had been ordered to support the defendant, Dr. Blome, in his work about biological warfare, and it states further I believe that we will find this work which was to be supported by you also, dealt with the assignment of inmates of concentration camps, Dr. Gross became the assistant of Dr. Blome. This is the end of the quotation.
If this assumption of the Prosecution is correct, then a suspicion is near that Dr. Gross informed you about the results of the meeting in Hohenlychen. What have you to say to this point?
A This must have been a mistake of the Prosecution in the form of a reading mistake because if the Prosecution had read what it says in the context, it could have stated and found out that in this meeting it was an Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, because the man who was my assistant was only a Sturmbannfuehrer. The participant of this meeting, the Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, can only have been the chief doctor of the SS hospital in Riga who had nothing whatever to do with me, whom I do not even know. It would be a good idea to
A No, the so-called assistant is not myself. I have already said that I principally did not go to meetings in which Conti was present. I did not do so on principle. Also I was not Conti's assistant without which Conti never traveled. Therefore, it must have been one of the personal referents or adjutants of Professor Conti who participated in this meeting.
Q Dr. Blome you yourself in this registry of the participants of the Hohenlychen meeting are not mentioned at all, but under No. 101 of this register is mentioned one SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, and in reference to this Dr. Gross, the Prosecution has, as you remember, stated on the 2nd of January this Dr. Gross had been the person who had been ordered to support the defendant, Dr. Blome, in his work about biological warfare, and it states further I believe that we will find this work which was to be supported by you also, dealt with the assignment of inmates of concentration camps, Dr. Gross became the assistant of Dr. Blome. This is the end of the quotation.
If this assumption of the Prosecution is correct, then a suspicion is near that Dr. Gross informed you about the results of the meeting in Hohenlychen. What have you to say to this point?
A This must have been a mistake of the Prosecution in the form of a reading mistake because if the Prosecution had read what it says in the context, it could have stated and found out that in this meeting it was an Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, because the man who was my assistant was only a Sturmbannfuehrer. The participant of this meeting, the Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross, can only have been the chief doctor of the SS hospital in Riga who had nothing whatever to do with me, whom I do not even know. It would be a good idea to interrogate Mrugowsky and Poppendick in their cross examination.
Q Witness with reference to the point of conspiracy, I remind you of the records within their document book No. 3 of the Prosecution about freezing experiments, page 68. This document 401, document of the Prosecution No. 401, Exhibit 93, a record about a scientific discussion of the 27 October 1942, in Nurnberg. This is the famous meeting about freezing experiments. Were you present at this meeting and did you hear about these horrible Dachau freezing experiments which Rascher carried out in Dachau?
A I was neither a participant in this meeting nor did I hear any reports about this meeting.
Q You remember, Dr. Blome, that in connection with this report about the freezing meeting, so to speak, of October 1942, the Prosecution made the point that the Reich Physician Leader, Dr. Conti, was in this meeting, which can be proved, and that the Prosecution said that you had been the deputy, a subordinate of Dr. Conti, and, therefore, you certainly would have been informed by Dr. Conti about this. Do you still say that you have never known anything about these matters?
A Yes, I still say the same. The assumption of the Prosecution can be understood, but the Prosecution ought to know by now how unpleasant the relationship between Conti and myself was, and I would like to explain with reference to this point that in the year 1941 to 1943, I only corresponded with Conti and did not talk to him without a greeting and without a title to the letters, and that in this relationship Conti should have informed me about such secret matters. This can hardly be assummed.
Q Witness, at the same time, in the end of November and at the beginning of December, 1942, there was also a meeting in the military medical Academy in Berlin which took place and before that a discussion in St. Johann in the Tyrol about mountain physiological questions, and these freezing experiments were mentioned and were discussed.
Were you present at these meetings which I have just mentioned, or did you in any way during this war hear about these discussions and know anything about them?
A I neither took part in these meetings, nor did I even know about these meetings and the so-called mountain physiological institute in St. Johann. I only heard about it in Nurnberg. I had not known anything about it's existence before.
Q With reference to the point of conspiracy I would like to know your relationship with Dr. Rascher. How did you get to know him and when?
A I met Dr. Rascher through Mr. Sievers. This was in the late summer of 1943 when Sievers received the order from Himmler to discuss an allegedly new cancer drug in which Dr. Conti and Dr. Luetzelburg had taken part. I invited these gentlemen for a further discussion into my office and in this discussion Professor Holz also took part on my iniative.
Q What impression did you gain from Dr. Rascher as a doctor and as a person?
A Rascher made a favorable impression on me to start with but without question he was a so-called bluffer. He is a man who undertakes to make an impression, a good impression for a short or a long period, to pretend to have good qualities and good knowledge of things without there being any very positive qualities. Later on he got annoyed with a certain tendency for business, Rascher wanted to take part financially in the production of the blood coagulation drug and polygol, and tried to get me to take part, which, of course, I refused, and I told him that it was not the matter of a doctor to make use of medical knowledge in a financial way and in the way of production.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
By DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, we were interrupted in the midst of a particularly important point; namely, the question of Dr. Rascher, and I wanted to ask y u before did you, together with this man Rascher, carry out any war experiments, particularly freezing or polygal or cancer experiments and such experiments on human beings?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. Never.
Q. Did you give any orders to this Dr. Rascher to carry out such experiments on human beings?
A. No.
Q. I shall now show you what you set forth in an affidavit of the 25th of October 1946. This affidavit was submitted by the Prosecution in Prosecution in Prosecution Document Book No. 11, regarding blood coagulation, and carries the number 471, Prosecution Exhibit 238. Under point 8 in this affidavit it is stated, and I chose verbatim - this is your statement: "Dr. Rascher told me that in the Concentration Camp Dachau he had carried out experiments on human beings. One served the purpose of testing the effectiveness of polygal for blood coagulation in the case of war wounds and operational wounds, etc." That is all under point 8 in your affidavit. Then follows point 9, which reads: "It was quite clear to me that experiments on human beings were being carried out in concentration camps. Dr. Rascher informed me of experiments on human beings that had been concluded." I repeat: "that had been concluded". "I remember that he answered my questions with the reply that one fatality had ocurrred." That is the extent of the quotation I wish to put to you. Now, this statement of your on the 25th of October, 1946 in your affidavit - do you still make those same assertions and what do you have to say regarding them?
A. What I said is true, Racher informed me briefly of his concluded experiments on human beings and also about the technical way in which they were carried out. I asked him then whether nothing had happened during these experiments and he thereupon told me that there had been only one fatality.
Q. Witness, I should like to have it stated perfectly clearly - did Dr. Rascher on this occasion or on another occasion tell you about experiments on human beings that were to be carried out in the future, or only about experiments that had already been concluded?
A. He spoke of experiments that had already been concluded. Incidentally, he did mention that he had delivered a lecture on experiments regarding parachute jumps. I understood this mean at that time, -- to be sure, I have subsequently learned in the trial that these were low-pressure experiments -- that actually these were parachute jumps from airplanes. That of course interested me. I should have liked to know what Dampened during such parachute jumps from great altitudes and I therefore asked Rascher but he told me that he was not at liberty to tell no about this; moreover, the experiments were not yet concluded and he needed for these experiments a low pressure chamber but that he had been refused this low pressure chamber by the Luftwaffe. He told me who the gentlemen in question were -- he called them traitors -- and mentioned the names of Hippke, Weltz and Ruff.
Q. You told me before that he spoke only of experiments that had been concluded, namely experiments in the past. But in connection with the testing of a method of combatting cancer, did he not speak of experiments he intended to carry out in the future, and what did you say about that?
A. In the conference in my office that I already mentioned which Himmler arranged for and in which Sievers, Professor Holz, Herr von Wuetzelburg and Rascher took part, there was discussion of experiments. From the very beginning I made clear my point of view, that we should not begin testing a medium before a precise chemical analysis of this medical means had been underwaken. I asked Professor Holz to undertake the analysis of this vegetable extract and to carry out no experiments, including experiments on animals, until that was concluded, because it was scientific nonsense to attempt to find any means to combat cancer without knowing what the effectiveness of the treatment could be traced back to if it were effective.
After I had informed Himmler of this conference he spole to me of experiments. He told me he intended to set up a so-called cancer station for Rascher so that this vegetable extract could be tested there. He had instituted inquiring in all concentrate camps but had been informed that there were none or only one person suffering from cancer in all the concentration camps. I reminded Himmler of the results of that aforementioned conference and told him that it was nonsensical to undertake experiments without the necessary scientific basis.
A. Did you then have the feeling or did it occur to you then that the experiments that Dr. Rascher was carrying out with Dr. Wuetzelburg -- now means against cancer-- were criminal experiments on human beings, or could be criminal because of their dangerousness or because of the pains that were connected with them, or criminal for some other reason?
A. No, there was no question of that at all because after what Dr. von Wuetzelburg had told me I saw that this was a continuation of work on the part of immigrated physicians who had worked on this problem until 1933. If, therefore, patients sick of cancer had been given this vegetable extract to drink, or if it had been used for innoculations, that could never have done them any harm or caused then any particular difficulties. Moreover, it is a well know fact that if a menas of combatting cancer turns up, that seems to have prospects, persons with cancer apply in great numbers for this drug -that it should be tested on them. Every doctor who has had experience in cancer research has had this experience.
Q. From Siever's affidavit we heard and now know that Rascher was to set up an institute for cancer research in Dachau or perhaps even did set it up. This is stated in an affidavit on the part of Sievers on 25 October 1946, in Document Book 11 of the Prosecution. As a cancer researcher did you have anything to do with this institute of Rascher's in Dachau?
A. No, there was no cancer institute under Rascher.
Then it was merely planned?
A. Those were big ideas on the part of Himmler.
Q. Himmler, of whom you have just been speaking, and this is also to be seen from Siever's affidavit, apparently frequently expressed the wish that his favorite, namely Rascher, should collaborate with you, and, if you remember, he wished that Rascher should tell you regularly of his work. I ask you, did such collaboration between you and Rascher take place on the basis of Himmler's wish and did you receive any reports of this sort from Rascher?
A. There was no such thing as regular scientific collaboration between us. Himmler asked my to work together with Rascher in the fields of cancer, of polygal, the blood coagulant, and also in connection with a newly developed canned potato, which was of great interest to us from the point of view of providing food. But I did no work in this field of any sort. The work that was done is to be traced back to the efforts on the part of Herr Falks, who was supported in this by Rascher. There was no regular reporting on Rascher's part about his work or at least I can speak of it only relatively. I did not receive written reports but from time to time Rascher told me that again improvements had been reached in the production of polygal and also in the field of this aforementioned canned potato. I assured myself of how good these potatoes were when I visited Rascher and found them excellent.
Q What I brought up with you just now is to be traced back to an affidavit on the part of co-defendant Sievers on the 25th of October, 1946, Prosecution Document Book 11, Page 7, where he writes: "An order was issued that all concentration camp inmates with cancer in the various concentration camps should be transferred in the future to Rascher's Department. Experiments were to be carried out on such inmates that could serve cancer research, and that you Dr. Blome had visited Rascher several times, had received reports from Rascher and knew all about Rascher's work." Is that assertion correct on the part of Sievers, which he made under oath in an affidavit?
A This is his assertion and it is in part true. As I said Himmler asked me in the fields of cancer, Polygal and these potato matters, to work together with Rascher, and to support him, and actually Rascher did report to me on these matters. What other assignments Rascher may have had from Himmler I do not know. There was no mention of them, and if that was the case at least Rascher did not report to me on them. I cannot conceive that Rascher received from Himmler the order to carry out forbidden experiments, and that Himmler could have wanted him to report to me on them, because my connections with Himmler were not so close as all that. Moreover I must point out that I was not an SS Leader, so that in this respect I was neither subordinate to Himmler nor was Rascher in any way subordinate to me.
Q In this connection, however, the co-defendant Sievers in his affidavit of 25th October 1946, which has already been mentioned several times now, made the assertion to Dr. Blome, "that Dr. Blome had specifically asked Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to put Rascher at your disposal for research at your Institute in Nesselstedt in Posen, and apparently some such thing was agreed upon;" would you care to make a statement on this subject?
A Rascher asked me to use him in my Institute. He told this to Himmler and I also spoke with Himmler about this. All this is true, but Rascher was never actually used by me. First of all I had no opportunity or possibility of using Rascher with me because my Institute in Posen was under construction, none of the necessary equipment was at hand, and even in January 1945, when the Russians reached Posen it was not yet completed.
Q Witness, in Prosecution Document Book 3 regarding cold or freezing experiments, we were shown a few documents in which you are incriminated, namely documents from which it is to be seen that Dr. Rascher on the basis of his Dachau experiments had attempted to be habilitated by a German University in order to become a university professor. It is concluded from this that you were very precisely informed of Rascher's Dachau experiments, and that you nevertheless approved of them; what can you say about this?
A First of all it is not correct to conclude that I approved such experiments, because first of all I did not know that these experiments were being undertaken; secondly, I found out about them only after they had long since been concluded; it is true that Himmler asked me to be of assistance to Rascher at his habilitation in a German University. First of all Rascher would have to be certified as a specialist. Rascher made efforts so to be certified, came to me and said that the Institute office in Munich had refuse to certify him as a specialist. Then I asked him to hand in the necessary documentation and data to the Reich Physicians Chamber in Munich himself. These documents went to the Institute specialist to be worked on and he then reported to me and stated actually the certification as a specialist was in order. The only thing that was missing was a certificate to the effect that Rascher had carried out a certain number of surgical operations of a specific nature himself. He told this to Rascher. Thereupon Rascher went to his Munich teacher, well known surgeon, and also brought the certification to the effect that he had himself carried out the surgical operations in question. I then turned the matter over to my specialist. He again reported to me, saying that the certification of Rascher as a specialist was now in order and I then told my specialist to give Rascher a temporary certification as specialist. No final certifications of that sort were issued during the War. This provided certain of the prerequisites for a habilitation. He then took up the question of this habilitation with Professor Menzel in his capacity as Office Chief in the Science Department of The Ministry of Culture, particularly because the works that Rascher had carried out in his Institute on Himmler's order were considered in general secret.
I proposed that he should not turn to Professor Pfannenstiel in Marburg in the matter of this habilitation. The reason I mentioned this name lies in the fact that in the end of 1942, I had made Professor Pfannenstiel's acquaintance on the trip to Marburg, and had ascertained that he had once been Ordinarius and was moreover an SS Standartenfuehrer, in the Waffen SS which corresponds to a Colonel in the American Army. I then wrote a letter to Professor Pfannenstiel. I received from him a reply in the negative. Thereupon I did nothing further, but told Rascher that he concern himself with this business of a professorship with a professor who could get him this habilitation, he would do best to turn to an SS comrade. I myself, however, knew no likely names.
Q Dr. Blome, this matter interests me mainly from the following point of view; I ask myself whether at that time from the documents that Rascher gave you regarding himself, would you have had to say that these experiments were criminal ones; in other words, whether you thought from these documents that they were experiments in concentration camps, or whether you could conclude from these documents something about the nature of the experimental persons, for instance, whether they were Germans or foreigners, whether political or criminal prisoners, whether they had been condemned to death or not, whether they were to be pardoned, or not; it is only from this point of view I am interested in this whole business of Rascher's habilitation, and so I ask you now to make statements regarding the question, what did you learn from these documents of Rascher's on the points I just mentioned, and if you did tried out something in this way how did you react?
A When in the late summer of 1943, Himmler asked me to support Rascher in his efforts to be habilitated, I spoke with Rascher about this matter. Rascher told me that he wanted to be habilitated in a work that concerned the coagulation of blood. Once when I visited him in Dachau Rascher showed me extensive statistical preparations and charts of his experiments with Polygal, and all of these were perfectly permissible laboratory experiments, and then for a while I heard nothing further about this matter, the question of having Rascher certified as a specialist, namely. And then as I recall, at the end of 1943 I received from Rascher a very extensive paper with the request that I help him become habilitated. I opened up this paper, read through it, paged through it, that is. I remember it was full of charts, but I didn't actually read the paper, which did not interest me, nor was it my job to study this paper, because I was not the Professor who was to carry out Rascher's habilitation. I had only, on Himmler's request, played an intermediary role in this whole matter. I state this now under truth, I did not read this work, because it didn't interest me. In no respect did it follow under a specialized field that touched on my own interests, and moreover I received so many special scientific papers from all over Germany, that I would have had to have several heads and much more time to study all of these natters; consequently I really cannot give you any information about even what the title of this paper was or the contents were; if I knew it I would be only too copy to do it.
Q Witness in Prosecution Document Book 3, No. 432, Exhibit 119 on page 140, there is a letter from Dr. Rascher to Neff of 21 October 1943, which is presented by the Prosecution. Neff is the man who was heard here as a witness. In this letter to Neff, Rascher writes to the effect that the Reich Research Counsel had commissioned him to carry out freezing experiments in open air; they were to be carried out in winter on the Sudelfeld, that is a skiing terain in the Upper Bavarian Alps and this letter of Rascher to Neff on 21 October, 1943, is compared with a card in the card index file of the Reich Research Counsel. Now please make some statement about these experiments in the open air; did you issue the orders for these freezing experiments in open air?
A No, I did not issue such an order and I consider it out of the question that some other department of the Reich Research Counsel should have issued such an order.
JUDGE SEBRING: Before this other point is left; I should like to ask you one or two questions concerning the exhibits which you have referred to. Witness, as I understand your statement, certain experiments that were conducted by Rascher during the period of time you knew him were classified, or were to be classified as secret, or as top secret; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: No, Your, Honor, that is not correct. During the time that I knew Rascher such experiments were not carried out; at the very most it could only have been experiments that were carried out long before I made Rascher's acquaintance.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well now then, of the experiments carried out before you made Rascher's acquaintance; do you know which ones were at the time classified as secret or top secret?
THE WITNESS: So far as I knew, all Rascher's experiments in his institute were called secret; for example also this business of the canned potatoes that I mentioned before.
JUDGE SEBRING: In Prosecution Document Bock No. 3, which has been referred to by your counsel, Document No. 240 is offered in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 112, there appears a letter supposed to have been written by Rascher to Himmler bearing the date of 11 April 1943, which reads as follows:
"Dear Reichsfuehrer! Enclosed I beg to submit a brief report concerning freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.
"Early in May I hope to be in a position, dear Reichsfuehrer, to submit to you my habilitation thesis. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg is prepared to use and accept it as a secret thesis of habilitation."
How, is that, or is that not, the thesis that was presented to Pfannenstiel for the habilitation of Rascher or attempted habilitation of Rascher?
THE WITNESS: Of this habilitation thesis or application to Pfannenstiel which you just mentioned, I knew nothing. Rascher told me nothing about that and it is purely an accident that I also turned to Pfannenstiel, which I did because on this trip at the end of 1942 to Lemberg, I made Pfannenstiel's acquaintance. Because an ordinarious, a full professor was necessary as the person to approve a habilitation thesis. When I discussed with Menzel my suggestion about Pfannenstiel, Menzel also certainly did not know that Rascher had already made efforts to achieve his habilitation through Pfannenstiel, as can be seen from Rascher's letters to Himmler, which were I believe in April of 1943 and this, as you can see, it was long before the time I made Rascher's acquaintance.
JUDGE SEBRING: Why is it that in the event the efforts of Rascher to be habilitated were successful that his appointment as a lecturer was to be a secret appointment; can you tell me that?
THE WITNESS: I only know that during the war such secret habilitations were frequently undertaken. In these cases the habilitation thesis was of great importance for one military reason or another and should be kept secret. For example, the thesis in the field of physics or in the field of the physics of explosives or such fields. May I add one point; the awarding of the title itself Doctor habil was not kept secret, only the thesis was kept secret on the basis in which the person in question was habilitated. So far as I know this secret was kept within the medical department of the University in question and was confined to the three or four specialists who gave their opinion of the value of the habilitation thesis in question.
In other words, this thesis was not presented in any scientific period.
JUDGE SEBRING: The fact, however, that an appointment had been made would be made known; is that true it would not be a secret?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true; it would not have been a secret.