DR. SAUTER: I thank you, Mr. President. My colleague Weissgerber and I inquired repeatedly of the General Secretary's office because on such matter we naturally always go first to the General Secretary's office, but the address of the witness was unknown there; but now I know Mr. Feix is at Dachau and I can get an affidavit from him, and of course I am not responsible for the delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I did not mean to imply the Tribunal can find the address of witnesses but if the defendant's counsel has difficulty in finding them, then the Tribunal would assist in any way possible in ascerting whether or not the witness is available as such and the answer may be and it may be no, but the Tribunal would endeavor to ascertain the necessary information for counsel.
DR. SAUTER: I thank you very much, Mr. President.
Q Witness, in connection with the polygal matter I have a few more questions. The Prosecution has alleged that human experiments were conducted with polygal, and Prosecution has submitted Document 438, Exhibit 240, in Document Book 11, on Blood Coagulation, This document contains a report the so-called Institute for Military Scientific Research. I repeat, Institute for Military Scientific Research. This Institute was Dr. Rascher. In this report the importance of the drug polygal for the fighting troops and in operations is explained. You recall five operations are described in which polygal was used. Do you recall these five operations which are described?
A Yes. They were published in the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift.
Q What does this report show for a specialist doctor? Does the doctor get from this report the impression that these were normal operations, where polygal by chance happened to be used, while in other cases some other blood coagulations drug was used? Or does the expert get the impression that the operations were not necessary as such in the interest of the patient, that they were some sort of operation the only purpose of which was to test polygal.
A In these five cases they were certainly not experiments but each doctor can see from the report that these were normal and necessary operation. Accordingly, I had no misgivings and doubts about them and allowed the rest of them to be published in the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. That thought never occurred to me. The publication, in addition, really had no scientific value. Rascher wanted the results to be made known early so that he would assure himself priority. He feared work was being carried out by other physicians in this field and wanted to anticipate their results.
Q Witness, if one reads this report about the five operations is it true that there were the following five operations: 1) thigh amputation, 2) grow fracture operation, 3) pneumothorax operation, 4) carbuncle operation, 5) dental matter - that is, normal operations that occurred normally. Is that true?
A yes, and in some cases the word operation is an exaggeration.
Q Doctor, do you know that any experiments with concentration can inmates were conducted with polygal, no matter what type of experiments to were or what the consequences were?
A I know that perfectly normal laboratory experiments were made with polygal, and the four or five prisoners made themselves available, as the witness Neff here testified. These were by no means dangerous or forbidden experiments but were normal experiments of the sort that are customary in every laboratory. These so-called experiments were associated with no pain no discomforts or any sort, and, in my opinion, when one could take polygal tablets for months on end without suffering any ill effects whatsoever -main basis of those tablets was pectin.
Q Dr. Blome, you yourself gave an affidavit which I must put to get your affidavit of 25 October 1946, in Document Book 11, Document 471, Exhibit 239. In this affidavit of the 25 October 1946 you tell about things which Dr. Rascher reported to you concerning his experiments. This was under number 8. Number 9 now has the heading "Experiments on Human Beings". Up to number there was not this heading "Experiments on Human Beings", and now under number 9 we suddenly find "Experiments on Human Beings". Some time ago we called fact to your attention. What do you have to say about it?
A I knew that experiments on human beings had been carried out, because Himmler himself had told me so. Ho told me about the typhus vaccine experiments in Buchenwald, and then in connection with Rascher about the so-called freezing experiments in which there was one fatality. Consequently in my affidavit when I was asked about this I had to say that I knew that experiments on human beings had been carried out in concentration camps.
Q You recall that on 12 October 1943 a camp doctor of Dachau by the name of Dr. Kahl made a report, which Prosecution submitted as Document page 27, of Document Book 11. He reports on a thigh amputation on a forty old male patient. This operation is identical with the first of five operation to which document 438 refers. And, in this connection the further fact serves consideration that Obergruppen Fuehrer Pohl of the SS in his letter to Rascher of 10 February 1944, Document Book 11, page 24, Document 615, Exhibit 246, objects to Rascher's publication of his experiences with Polygal.
Can you explain this matter?
A First I must say that this so-called thigh operation mentioned together with Dr. Kahl's name must be absolutely identical with the thigh amputation that is mentioned among those five operations in the publication of the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. So far as Pohl's complaint is concerned, I must say that at that time I was asked and had no misgivings about these matters being published and it was only because I had no misgivings that the matter was published at all.
That Pohl should have objected to this publication I can only explain to myself on the supposition that he know of previous experiments of a forbidden nature in Dachau.
Q Dr. Blome, you have already said that the witness Neff testified here that he and four or five other people volunteered for this polygal and that they used only volunteers. Now, I should like to know the following: If polygal is used it can either have an effect or be without effect. Now, this polygal if it is not effective can it endanger the health or can it bring about the death of the person, or is it true, if I as a layman assume, that then polygal is just without any effect. Perhaps, as a doctor, you can explain this matter to us. What effect does polygal have?
A The only effect that polygal can have is to coagulate blood. Any other effect has never been observed, nor do I believe that any other effect could occur. I have already said that polygal is made of an absolutely undangerous base.
Q Witness, the defendant Sievers in his affidavit of 26 October 1946, Document Book 11, page 6, No. 473, Exhibit 238, said concerning you, "That you, Dr. Blome, to his knowledge, were informed of all work, including Dr. Rascher's experiments. That you must have known of them." I do not know how this affidavit was drawn up. I do not know what the defendant Sievers will have to say about it, but I should like to hear from you what you have to say about it.
A I can say that Sievers' statements in this affidavit are partly true. Rascher had been commissioned by Himmler to work with me in the field of cancer research, blood coagulation, preparation of canned potatoes, and so forth. Consequently, here too Rascher was under obligation to report to me. There was no mention of any other work by Himmler.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Sauter, while the witness is on this question of the number of experiments he had - cancer, blood coagulation, canned potatoes, etc. - will you please have him tell the Tribunal now in detail what experiments he actually worked on, either in collaboration with Rascher, or with Rascher working under him, or with him working under Rascher at Dachau. That is to say, any experiments in which they had any association with each other either at Dachau or elsewhere.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have heard this question connected with my previous question. You are asked whether you worked at Dachau, or in any other concentration camps, or anywhere else carried out experiments of the type under consideration here or under Rascher?
JUDGE SEBRING: Not necessarily this type of experiments, but all experiments of any type that he carried out.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Any kind of experiments together with Rascher, whether together, or as a superior, or as a subordinate, or in any relationship. Please give a clear, frank, honest answer.
A No. Rascher really was not subordinate to me in the true sense of the word. Perhaps legal collaboration between us might have developed in the field of cancer research or in this field of developing vegetable canning or in polygal blood coagulation. In these latter fields I am not an expert at all. These things interested me only from the point of view of health and the business of canning potatoes and vegetables interested me from the nutritional point of view. There was no immediate collaboration between me and Rascher in the sense of this question.
Q You say, Doctor, "direct collaboration." What do you mean by that?
A That means that, for example, I did not have anything to do with his laboratory experiments in coagulation. This was purely a Rascher affair. I saw, to be sure, how the people were working there, namely, these volunteers. Sometime previously to when I saw them these men had swallowed a polygal tablet and now, after a certain lapse of time after the polygal was taken, the degree of blood coagulation was ascertained. This was done in this way. A cubic centimeter of blood was taken from the veins of these people, these blood samples were put in test tubes and they were then stirred, with a glass or steel needle and the length of time was ascertained that it tool for the blood to coagulate. These were the so-called experiments but this again was not my personal affair.
Q Where were these things done?
A In the Camp Dachau. In the so-called Military Scientific Research Institute of Rascher.
Q That was in the concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q These experiments with the five volunteers, which apparently included Neff and he tells about them, did you see them once?
A I saw them once.
Q Frequently?
A Once or twice. It is possible that I saw them twice. I can't say for sure now today.
Q But you did not take any part in the experiments yourself?
A No, indeed.
Q And it seems to me that they were very harmless things. How much blood did these people take?
A They took roughly one cubic centimeter of blood from each other.
Q And how about other experiments together with Rascher - none at all?
A None at all.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Have the witness put his earphones on, will you?
Professor Blome, the Tribunal has before it Prosecution Document 3546 PS, being Prosecution Exhibit 123, which is Silvers' diary for 1944. Under the date 22 February 1944, between 1630 and 1830 hours appears the notation: "Dachau 3, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, supply questions for production of polygal, experiments Professor Blome." Now, was that discussion in regard to or in connection with the polygal situation which you have just been describing? Answer "yes" or "no."
A Is this a talk between Sievers and myself, may I ask?
Q This is the Sievers' Diary which is supposed, as I assume, to contain his diary entries for the matters that he is attending to during each day of his work and purportedly made by him during the course of that time, and this is on 22 February 1944.
Perhaps, Dr. Sauter, if you have the German. I'm going to ask about several of these entries and if you will place them all before him I should like to ask something about them.
DR. SAUTER: I have the document handed to the witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q 22 February 1944. Did you have an interview with Sievers or a discussion with Sievers on 22 February 1944, concerning experiments of some kind?
A If this is here set down in Sievers' Diary as a conference between us then it must have taken place. I have no doubt of that. Here, under No. 3, 1630 hours to 1830 hours. I think I have found the passage you are referring to.
Q Now, what experiments do you understand that that diary entry had reference to?
A He cannot be referring to the production of polygal, but only to the forthcoming cancer experiments and the planning we had there.
Q Very well.
Now then, drop down to 24 February 1944. "1330-1630."
(Dr. Sauter, suppose you give all of them to him if you have them there because I want to ask him......)
Find the entry for 24 February 1944.
A Now, just a minute please. No, I think I must put this in order first. Here is September, February and October in these few pages that I have here. It is all mixed up.
DR. SAUTER: What the Judge just mentioned is outside and the rest.
WITNESS: Here, I have the 24th of February.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Very well. It says: "24 February, 1330-1630, personal staff RFSS to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Faelschlein. RFSS order of 18 February" GRS thoroughly discussed for information SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher and Dr. Blome." Can you tell the Tribunal what that has reference to?
A Yes, as I recall this can refer only to the following order that Himmler issued. About this time Himmler prohibited that loading personages from the Party should appeal in the behalf of so-called "enemies of the people" for pardon or such things. I received his order once from Sievers on commission from Himmler, and according to which, for instance, according to Himmler's attitude about it I could not have appealed on the behalf of Herr Feix.
Namely, I refer to the prohibition of appealing on behalf of so-called "enemies of the people."
Q Very well. Then turn to the item for 25th of February, 900-1520
A Here in this copy of Sievers' Diary the 25th of February is missing, the 23rd of February is here, then the 26th and the 27th. Let me see if the thing is out of order here. No, everything seems to be in order. 22nd, 23rd - in other words, the 25th isn't in here.
DR. SAUTER: Maybe it is outside of the document book.
WITNESS: I'll take a look. I am sorry to say that it is not here. Perhaps I would understand it, however, if it were read to me.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q "25 February -900-1500 - Professor Blome, by telephone, advised of RFSS order concerning his work at Dachau and collaboration with Rascher Can you tell the Tribunal what that refers to?
A I cannot. This cannot be the special order since that order I mentioned about appealing in behalf of enemies of the people was issued just about the day before. This can only concern cancer research in which Himmler, as I said, was interested. How Sievers came to put it down in just these words in his diary - that, of course, I cannot tell you.
Q Very well.
Will you turn to 28 February - 913-1700
A Yes, here it is.
Q It reads: "Reich Research Council; Dr. Graue arranged a discussion with Professor Thiessen, Professor Blome, Dr. Rascher. Commissioning of Dr. Rascher to do research experimentation plan Borchers. Introduction of discussion of L-Research." What does that refer to?
A. This entry refers to a conference which actually did take place. perhaps I can say that this last mentioned "L" Research should perhaps read "B" Research, Biologic Research; perhaps that is typographical error. Dr. Graue was leader of the War Economy in the Reichs Research Council, and he arranged a talk with Dr. Thiessen, one of the leading chemists in Germany a director of a prominent chemical institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaf in Berlin. This discussion was about procuring chemicals which were needed on the one hand to produce polygal, and to produce pectin, respectively polygal, and I believe there was a question of getting supplies of vitamin acid without which an effective polygal preparation could not be manufacture. Then Borcher's name comes up here. Borcher was the owner of a chemical factory and had the order to find a drug to combat insect pests, something which I mentioned previously in my testimony when I said that the raw material situation in Germany was very acute and that I had to see in view of this poor raw materiel situation that chemicals would be found. This was the purpose of Borcher's factory which was to be specially enlarged. It just occurs to me that at this meeting I obtained via Prof. Thyssen from Reichsring 'Chemistry' and from the Reichs Office for Economy Reconstruction a large amount of Pyrigin Base chemical to combat insect pests and for experimenting in the question of combatting the potato beetle via a special office that existed for the combatting of this potato beetle.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 March 1947 at 0930 hours)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 19 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I 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, 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 in the hospital and has been excused on account of illness.
Counsel may proceed.
KURT BLOME - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome):
Q. Please remember that you are still under oath. I have two or three additional short questions, Dr. Blome, then I shall have concluded. Before the conclusion of yesterday's session you were asked about certain entries in Sievers' diary. On the 26th of April 1944 there is an entry - this is still Document 3546, Exhibit 123 - and here is an entry which I should like you to clarify. Under 26 April, 1600 hours to 2000 hours, "1700, Blome (by telephone) Reich Chamber of Doctors, Dr. Blome, continuation of research work with Dr. Rascher, neutrone research." Then another entry, "Professor Blome (by telephone) 1. Neutron experiments, personal resort to Reichsfuehrer-SS requested. 2. Perhaps use of Rascher in Nesselstedt would first of all require three months bacteriological training." Can you tell us briefly what this all means?
A. Yes. First, as regards the so-called neutrons research: 1944 the Reich Postmaster General told me that the cyclotron being constructed in Zeuthen would be out at my disposal so that I could use it in my cancer research.
For this I needed a trained X-ray specialist and radiologist, with an expert. Since I could not have one, at least not through the planning office of the Reich Leader of Health, I turned to Himmler who could not do this either, and because I lacked such a man, and because it took quite a while for this cyclotron to be finished, I never got around to carrying on neutrone research, as regards cancer.
Q. Doctor Blome --
A. Let me say that I haven't yet answered the second part of your question. Around this time Himmler asked me whether I could make any use of Rascher. He had been arrested and could no longer work in Dachau. I then answered that at most Rascher could be used as Dr. Gross' collaborator. Since he was not a bacteriologist, he would first need basic bacteriological training. However, the institute was not yet finished and I should have to ask Dr. Gross whether he agreed to have an assistant. I certainly myself had no opinion about employing Rascher, nor did Dr. Gross have an opinion, and the question was finally settled by the fact that Rascher was again arrested and not released any more.
Q. Dr. Blome, in the session of 2 January the prosecution declared, "Blome considers experiments on humans illegal," and in connection with this statement they referred to your affidavit of the 25th of October 1946, to be found in Prosecution Document Book 11, on Blood Coagulation, on page 8 of the German text, Document Number 471, Exhibit Number 238. It can be seen from your sworn affidavit that you spoke of the fact that you were making efforts to bring about some legal regulation of the question of experiments on human beings for the period subsequent to the war.
What can you say to this, now that you have heard that from this statement of yours the prosecution has believed that it can draw such a conclusion?
A. At the end of 1940 I spoke with Professor Borst in Munich, the well-know cancer research man, on the question of solving the cancer question.
I explained to Borst that in my opinion we would not progress any further in the cancer problem unless we were prepared to carry out experiments on human beings. I justified this in detail and drew up a working hypothesis with which Borst agreed, and he acknowledged it as the only workable plan for the future. He then, however, raised the objection how does that match your professional ethics. I answered Borst, "If I thus succeed in this way in solving the cancer problem only five years earlier, then millions of persons will be spared a painful early death." Geheimrat Borst then said to me, "Dr. Blome, that is also, to be sure, medical ethics." From this conversation I came to the conclusion that after the war I should undertake to have legal regulations passed about experiments on human beings in connection with solving the cancer problem, and I spoke to Himmler on this subject. Himmler then expressed his opinion regarding experiments on human beings during the war, namely, for purposes that were of military importance, such as I have already described. Between the experiments for military purposes and the experiments that I intended to carry out after the war to solve the cancer problem, there is to this extent a very great difference, that these cancer research undertakings have never been of military importance. Consequently, my efforts were to have laws passed after the war, for military law differs in essential particulars from peacetime law, in my opinion.
Q. Dr. Blome, to be sure, you yourself did not carry on any experiments and were not actively participating in the carrying out of experiments, however, during the Hitler period you were deputy leader of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, consequently, you are able to give partly reliable data on the opinions that were held at that time; now tell me, during your time of office, did any laws either in Germany or outside of Germany become known to you; laws passed regarding experiments on human beings?
A. No such questions were over asked of the Reichs Chamber of Physicians either in peace or in war. Laws for this in Germany are not known to me, aside from Himmler's remarks to me in regard to the carrying out of experiments of military importance during the war. Nor do I know anything positive about laws passed on these matters in foreign countries. In conversations with colleagues, I occasionally heard that America had passed some such law, mainly in the southern states, a law providing that experiments on human beings could be carried out on condemned criminals for scientific purposes, but I have no positive assurance that this is so.
In my opinion, on the question of carrying out experiments on human beings for research purposes and particularly since the beginning of this century, such experiments became very numerous, which can be seen from international medical literature. That is to say, this is more or less a matter of the law of custom, if I can so express myself, which in the course of decades has become part of the usual research practice.
Q. Did the Reichs Chamber of Physicians, of which you were the deputy president, either before or during the war, lay down any policy for German physicians, from which the doctors could see what it was permitted for them to undertake on experiments on human beings and what was not permitted; were such policies, or indications of such given to the medical profession?
A. No, I have already said that no such questions were asked of the Reichs Chamber of Physicians.
Q. Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other examination of this witness by any defense counsel?
BY DR. NELTE:
Q. First, I, taking the place of my colleague Dr. Servatius, should like to ask a few questions for the defense counsel of Professor Brandt, the witness; Dr. Kliewe's file note, Document 1309, Exhibit of the Prosecution 326, has been the subject of direct interrogation. In this file note it says that General Field Marshal Keitel approved the construction in Nesselstedt, Posen, and that the Reichsfuehrer of the SS and Professor Brandt had promised him considerable assistance. Did you speak to Professor Brandt regarding the purpose of this institute, such as it is here presented, namely to study and to test biological means of warfare?
A. No, I did not speak on this subject with Professor Brandt. Only once, if I remember rightly, at the end of 1942, I telephoned Professor Brandt and asked him to support my construction work in Nesselstedt, which was a cancer institute; I intended to add to this institute an institute for the production of vaccines in general, therefore, I turned to Professor Brandt, because I had found out that he gave expert opinion to Speer's Ministry whether constructions were necessary, as approval for the construction of buildings depended on Speer's Ministry.
Q. That is correct, in other words you simply telephoned Professor Brandt and asked him to support your wishes with Speer's Ministry to help you in your construction program; but that does not mean that Professor Brandt knew that this was an institute for the study and the testing out of means of biological warfare?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, Dr. Kliewe further says in this file note that you wanted to propose to Goering and Brandt to dissolve the Blitzableiter Committee Did you ever either before or after this talk with Kliewe, speak about this work community, Blitzableiter, with Professor Brandt?
A. No, neither with Brandt, nor with Goering did I speak on this matter, and my research efforts were not receiving the necessary support at that time as I already testified yesterday. It was my intention perhaps to ask Brandt or Goering, but I thought about it later, and believed that there was no point to it and did not do it.
Q. In your present answer, as well as in yesterday's answers, frequently the concept Blitzableiter work community is associated so closely with Posen that it seems expedient to me to have it clarified by the following: Did the work community Blitzableiter have anything to do with your institute in Nesselstedt near Posen?
A. No, nothing whatsoever. The institute in Posen was a cancer institute in the Reichs Research Council, and was on a quite different level from the Blitzableiter committee, which was purely a military matter.
Q. You knew about the Blitzableiter committee since you were a member?
A. Yes.
Q. Then is it correct when I say that the purpose of the Blitzableiter work committee was to discuss measures that might have to be taken as protective measures for the troops and civilian population should bacteriological or biological warfare arise?
A. In part I must answer this question in the affirmative, but I must limit my answer by saying that the Blitzableiter committee was in no position to take protective measures. Protective measures, that might have to be taken were, so far as the troops were concerned, matters that the Army Medical Inspectorate or the Army Veterinary Inspection had to take care of; and for the civilian population, it was the Reich Ministry of the Interior's concern.
Q. And it was for this reason that I said purpose of this work committee was to discuss such measures, to make proposals or examine as to how the troops and the home country could be protected?
A. To that extent you are correct; yes.
Q. In your affidavit of 25 October 1946, Document 471, Prosecution Exhibit 228, you said the following: "In 1941 Hitler forbade further action in the Euthanasia action," and to continue: In wide medical circles this program was regarded as contrary to general usage and morals, and illegal." Now, that is a rather generalized statement that you make there, and I should be thankful, on Professor Brandt's behalf, if you would say more concisely what you mean by this when you said in "wide medical circles"
A. It was known that these doctors who were particularly religious held the view that the Euthanasia program would need as its basis an openly published law, and if I used the word "wide" in connection with the "wide medical circles" that term should certainly not be concerned with my saying the majority of physicians because that was by no means the case. It is hard to give statistics in this matter, and it is for that reason I used the words "wide medical circles."
Q Would it have been more correct to say "in certain medical circles there were basic objections to this program?
A That is indubitably true, and I believe that the formulation that you read to me from the affidavit was drawn up by the Prosecution rather than by myself, although I can not say for sure.
Q In the same affidavit you speak of the conference in munich in 1940-41 at which Mr. Brack reported on the Euthanasia order of Hitler. Dr. Brandt would like to know whether the statement you make in your affidavit, namely, that he, Brandt, had sent Brack as his representative to this conference, is positive knowledge on your part or whether it might not be an error on your part because he himself is of the opinion as far as he remembers that he had not sent Brack.
A Either my memory is faulty or Dr. Conti made an unintentional misstatement having said "Brack" when he meant to say "Bouhler." I, of course, can only report on what I remember. So far as I can judge the matter now on the evidence of documents, I think it must have been an error on my part and that the person should not have been Brack but Bouhler.
Q I should like to ask now a few questions in my capacity as Handloser's counsel. To what sector did the Reich Research Council belong?
A I shall try to answer the question, that is, if I understood your question correctly.
Q I shall be more precise. Did the Reich Research Council belong to the military sector or the civilian sector or to some governmental sector?
A In my opinion, the Reich Research Council was an office that stood between the State and the civilian spheres.
I believe its legal form was that of a corporation, but under no circumstances was the Reich Research Council a Wehrmacht organization.
Q Could State Secretary Conti give you orders regarding research of cancer.
A No. I told you that he tried to once and that I refused to accept them. My plenipotentiary powers in the question of cancer amounted to this: that I could report directly to Goering as President of the Reich Research Council and was immediately subordinate to him, and, consequently, no one else could give me orders.
Q What you just said, is that true also of the other plenipotentiaries of the Reich Research Council in various fields?
A I find from one or two other documents appointing persons to certain offices, I have never seen any of the appointments of the other plenipotentiaries or specialists' leaders, but I assume that I was no exception in this that this was generally valid for all of them. I see no reason for any different assumption.
Q I ask you in consideration of this plenipotentiary power regarding Professor Schreiber who was plenipotentiary for research into epidemics, now you would say that Schreiber's plenipotentiary powers and his function as a member of the Reich Research Council were the same as yours?
A I think that among these appointments to plenipotentiary power that I saw one of them was Schreiber's, because we were given this plenipotentiary power, roughly, at the same time, and I saw this document in the Reich Research Council.
Q At the same time, that is, that you became plenipotentiary for cancer research?
A Yes, that is the way I remember it.
Q And that was roughly, when?
A May 1943.
Q Schreiber's situation was, roughly, similar to yours because he had a double function. On the one hand he was still in the medical Inspectorate of the Army, and on the other hand he was member of the Reich Research Council for the combatting of epidemics, and for that reason I ask you whether you can confirm to us that Schreiber, on the basis of this plenipotentiary power that he had, was informed of the activity or whether he was neither subordinate to Professor Handloser nor reported to Handloser about his activities, and, in fact, perhaps was not even permitted to report to him. Is that the way that this should be stated as Schreiber's position?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now regarding the question of the Blitzableiter Committee in supplementation to the questions regarding Professor Brandt, I wanted to ask you who was the chairman of the Blitzableiter Committee?
A Whether there was an official chairman I can't say for sure, but I can say for sure that the sessions ware presided over by Colonel Hirsch.
Q That is correct, Colonel Hirsch of the Waffenant, the Ordinance Office of the Army, is that correct?
A Yes -- no, I am not sure whether it was an Army matter or an OKW matter.
Q But the abbreviation Wa.-Pruef. A. does mean Ordnance Office. Now I wanted to ask you whether you know that the actual direction of this Committee was a military matter under the competence of the Ordnance Office and not a matter of the medical Inspectorate. Do you know about that or don't you?