A I can say for sure that this was not a medical matter.
DR. NELTE: No further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGRUBER: Weisgruber for Seivers.
Q Dr. Blome, you have known co-Defendant Sievers since about the middle of 1943?
A Yes.
Q You made his acquaintance when Professor Menzel, the leader of the managing committee of the Reich Research Councils introduced you to him as his deputy?
A Yes.
Q When did you find out that Sievers was the managing director of the Ahnenerbe?
A Roughly, about the same time.
Q Did you also know at that time that the office chief and the director of the Scientific Department of the Ahnenerbe was Professor Wuest of the University of Munich?
A Yes.
Q Did you also know that Professor Wuest was the superior of Sievers?
A Yes.
Q Then in the time that followed you came together with Sievers for official reasons one time or another?
A Yes.
Q I shall now put to you Sievers' diary from the year 1944. This is Document uo. 3548, Exhibit No. 123 of the Prosecution which was put in evidence in connection with Document Book No. 3. Certain passages from this diary have been read to you. Please look at the entry of 14 April 1944. Here it roads: "1715 hours-1800 Reich Chamber of Physicians, Professor Dr. Blome, 1st, Presentation of Rascher's Research Work, 2nd, Neutrone Experiments."
This is the passage that was just read to you by your counsel. Please look now at the entry under July 24th.
A July.
Q. There it says "1130 - Professor Blome, telephonically, regarding blood coagulants. Dickerow's opinion is confirmed that not pectin alone but acid is effective." The entry of the 11 August, 1944, please turn to that. It reads: "12 o'clock to 1345, the 'House of Doctors', a conference with Dr. Blome, Dr. May and Dr. Borschers. Discussions of the common working program and of the possibilities of carrying out the necessary completion of the plant at Altherzberg.
1:45 to 2:30, talk with Dr. Blome regarding a report to the Reich Fuehrer SS regarding (a) combating the potato beetle, (b) combating insects harming human beings, and (c) perputane agents, and (d) Doryl." Then on the 12 of September, 1944 there is an entry and on the 11th of October 1944 which I do not intend to read in detail but which also list a number of points that came up during discussion. This diary, which gives the outward impression of an astonishing specialized knowledge, could lead one to the deduction that Sievers had profound scientific knowledge of all the matters that are mentioned in this diary. Now on the basis of what you know of these matters, what can you say regarding whether Sievers really had such a precise knowledge of these things, and further whether Sievers had anything to do with the scientific side of all of this business, or only with the purely administrative aspect of it?
A. It is very true that it is striking with what accuracy this diary is set down. It includes even short brief telephonic conversations. I believe that this diary was one he was obliged to keep for official reasons, which was then shown to a superior at one time or another, but, of course, I can't say whether that is true. I know it is true for some diaries but I can't tell whether it is for this one. The entries in the diary do not give testimony to any particular scientific knowledge, and that can be seen from the fact that relatively frequently the word untersuchung is in use, where it should be the word versuche, the first word meaning examination and the second one meaning experiments, nor was Sievers active in any kind of scientific or research work of any nature, but purely administrative.
Q. Now in this entry of 11 August, under "D" the word 'doryl' appears. Then the question arises whether Sievers knew at this time what doryl was at all?
A. No, he certainly did not know what it was. That word originated with me.
Q. And if this word 'doryl' appears in the diary, it is simply his notation of a very short conversation?
A. Yes, he probably took down the notes and wrote down one word 'doryl', which he then transferred into the diary.
Q. In the autumn of 1943, you, Himmler and Rascher not in the Field Commando office of Himmler. You testified yesterday that Rascher at that time submitted a blood coagulant, namely, polygol. Do you know what part Sievers played in the development of polygol and what his orders were from Himmler?
A. Yes, Sievers was to make the necessary preparations for producing polygol in quantity.
Q. Then participation of any sort in experiments was nothing with which Sievers was concerned at all?
A. No, this was simply an order of Himmler who considered polygol to be enormously important, so that Sievers should do everything to make it possible that polygol could be manufactured in great quantities.
Q. Yesterday, you mentioned five operations in which polygol was tested. Do you know whether Sievers was present at these operations or whether he know anything about them at all?
A. On that, I can say nothing. At least I never heard that Sievers was present at these operations. I can associate Sievers with this only with the publication in the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, and unless I greatly err Sievers was the one who asked me at that time whether I had any misgivings about this publication, and after I had denied that he got in touch with the editorial staff of the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift.
Q. After Sievers detailed to you to find out your opinion whether or not there were any objections to the publication of this matter, did he do so in consideration of the scientific contents or because of general considerations of policy and administrative policy?
A. Administrative policy, no. Sievers told me at that time that every physician or scientist who belonged to the Waffen SS and who intended to publish something of a scientific nature, needed special permission, and for this reason Sievers asked me whether I had any misgivings and since I had none, I told him so.
Q. Then this was exclusively the formal business of getting approval for a publication?
A. Yes, and I believe the same regulations applied to members of the Army, but Professor Handloser could tell you more about that than I can.
Q. Did you once have a talk with Sievers regarding experiments on human beings in general, or with regard to the development of polygol?
A. When I was with Sievers at Himmler's office, Sievers attended only the first part of my conference with Himmler. Then I discussed with Himmler the problems that concerned us alone, but we came back together, Sievers and I and also Rascher was with us on the very long trip back, so that we also talked about experiments on human beings. I told him what Himmler had told me, that only criminals condemned to death could be used and that they would be pardoned, and then as I remember in this connection, I mentioned my talk with Geheimrat Borst, regarding experiments in cancer research, I intended to carry out later such as I described this morning here.
Q. Besides that, did you on other occasions discuss with Sievers details of your assignments and research tasks with Sievers?
A. No, my discussions with Sievers were not of a scientific nature. I had technical or administrative connections with Sievers, and he would have known too little about any purely scientific work to give me any advice.
Q. Do you know whether Sievers was empowered to arrive at independent conclusions in his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerby, except for purely administrative decisions?
466l
A I can tell you nothing about Ahnenerbe. I know too little about it and was not a member. In the Reich Research Council where Sievers represented Menzel I had very little to do with him. Other points of contact were the polygal canning of potatoes and vegetables publications that I have mentioned but I never went to Sievers to get his decision on anything because, in my opinion, he could reach no decision.
Q His position, both in the Reich Research Council and in the Ahnenerbe under the respective leaders Prof. Menzel and Wuest - you considered him to be purely subordinate in capacity?
A Sievers was the subordinate in this case, of course.
Q No further questions.
BY DR. FROESCMANN FOR BRACK:
Q Witness, in the affidavit of 25 October 1946, No. 471, Exhibit 228, you mentioned the fact that the Euthanasia program was to be used in the elimination of persons with nervous diseases. Did you understand that to mean insane persons?
A This terminology originated with the investigating authorities. I believe that I objected to that term at the time but it was told to me that this did mean insane persons.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, each and every time the defense, and other defendants, refer to an affidavit secured by the Prosecution on which their signature appears, if there exists an ambiguity or an irregularity, it is always the fault of Prosecution and I want to impress upon the Tribunal that this particular affidavit was secured from Dr. Blome by myself. I had an interrogation with Dr. Blome, in fact several. As the result thereof I wrote up an affidavit containing important data. I gave it to Dr. Blome and Dr. Blome, being the precise man that he is, found fault with each and every word therein. Therefore, I left him with a stenographer and he dictated to the stenographer an affidavit which was suitable to him and signed same - not in my presence. And, that is Prosecution Exhibit No. 471.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I offer a comment in this connection?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, counsel for Prosecution may himself take the stand in rebuttal and testify any facts which you know.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, at any rate today you want to say that the term "Persons with nervous diseases" meant insane persons?
A Yes, that is what I want to say.
Q Now, the second question I want to ask you is this. From the book you wrote and which your counsel put in evidence, I can deduce that basically you approved of the theory of Euthanasia. Is that so?
A Yes.
Q May I then ask you to tell the Court briefly your reasons why you took an affirmative attitude in the question of Euthanasia?
A I believe that the reasons are given briefly and pithily in my book in the excerpts that were here submitted as a document and read yesterday.
Q Witness, this excerpt is here before me but I should like it if at some greater length I could hear your reasons in justification of your attitude regarding Euthanasia.
A Then I must ask you to ask me specific questions.
Q What do you understand as Euthanasia as such?
A Euthanasia is a word with a Greek root and means literally a good and painless death.
Q Witness, do you regard it permissible from the medical point of view in special cases to grant a sick person such a death?
A From the medical and humane point of view I do regard that as permissible.
Q Is it not true, witness, that there are conditions of illness in which the wish is expressed strenuously not only by the patient and the patient's relatives but by the physician himself that this suffering person should be relieved of his suffering?
AAs regards the sick person and his relatives, yes. A strenuous wish on the part of the physician, in my opinion, would signify an active will on the part of the physician. I see the physician's mission primarily in helping the patient, that is healing him if it is possible. And, in the last analysis, if cure is impossible, if the physician sees that the patient's fate is hopeless, then interference on the part of the physician is permissible, not however as an active volitional expression on his part but rather on the basis of helping the patient by redeeming the patient.
Q If I understand you correctly, witness, then it is your point of view that there are the highest ethical principles that justify this?
A Yes.
Q And these grounds you summarized in the concluding sentences of your book that your defense counsel read here you said: "I had no alternative but to say that according to law this is forbidden to the doctor, and yet there are cases in which the physician for deeply humane reasons is imposed on by a higher law,"
A I included this last sentences into my testimony intentionally because occasionally such acts have been committed by physicians who have a high ethical standing. If I on the other hand repudiate such an action on my part as illegal, then I do so in a purely external point of view. From the point of view of ethics and morality I am only too ready to say that to these doctors of wham I speak in my book, namely doctors who despite law to the contrary put deeply ill persons out of their misery, I can make no moral or ethical objection whatsoever.
Q Witness, you do not object to the fact that they had offended against laws of humanity?
A It is my conviction that the laws of humanity were not offended in any particular way - they have offended against paragraphs in an existing law.
Q I have no further question BY DR. KAUFMANN for Rudolf Brandt:
Q Professor, may I assume that you spoke frequently with Himmler during the last years?
A From late summer of 1943 until September 1944 I saw Himmler five times in toto.
Q Did you ever see Rudolf Brand present at these meetings?
A No.
Q Did you know Rudolf Brandt?
A I believe I saw Rudolf Brandt twice during supper and he was sitting somewhere in a corner.
Q Thank you.
BY DR. NELTE (Representing Dr. Fritz, Defense Counsel for defendant Professor Rose):
Q Witness, did you inform Professor Rose of your plans regarding the Nesselstadt Institute?
A Professor Rose? No, that had nothing to do with Professor Rose.
Q But it could have been. Did you tell Professor Rose that you had been ordered by Himmler to concern yourself with plague vaccines or with testing of poisons?
A I did not say anything about an order regarding plague vaccine, and I could not have said anything about such an order to test poisons because I did not know such an order.
Q Did you talk to Rose about the bacteriological war and did Professor Rose tell you his views regarding this matter?
AAs I remember, once I saw Professor Rose, namely, at a meeting of the Blitzableiter Committee. This was at the time in which reports appeared in the papers that Bubonic Plague had broken out in Algeria. This plague in Algeria was the subject of conversation at this session of the Blitzableiter Committee. Professor Rose made general statements about the danger implicit in the plague and minimized such a danger even in the case that the enemy succeeded in spreading the plague in one of the bombed-out larger cities. Because this theme was generally being discussed in the papers, Professor Rose wrote an article on the subject in the periodical "Das Reich".
Q Did Professor Rose regard bacteriological warfare, from a pursuant technical point of view, as impossible?
A Professor Rose's attitude was, on the whole, negative as regards the success from bacteriological warfare.
Q Not only in opposition to it, but he also considered it criminal, did he not? Criminal towards one's car troops and Nation?
A I can not remember the detail of all this, because my conversation with Dr. Rose was certainly so negligible, and in the Blitzableiter Committee the situation was that before Colonel Hirsch opened a session he pointed out Hitler's veto order regarding offensive biological warfare; namely, that it should not be prepared for.
Q Professor Rose's attitude rejected biological warfare, on the one hand, and the disapproval of bacteriological warfare which he regarded, for the technical point of view as crazy, is that not so?
A Yes, you could state it roughly like that.
DR. NELTE: No further question.
THE PRESIDENT: There is apparently no further examination of this witness by defense counsel. The prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Blome, during the course of this cross-examination I request that you confine your answers to the question I ask and be very brief. In as much as your direct examination has now taken longer than any other defendant. I will make an attempt to finish my cross-examination today. That is, if you will cooperate with me.
A I shall try to do so.
Q When your medical education was interrupted by the last war, you resumed your medical studies in 1919, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In the year 1919, what was your political attitude?
A In 1919, for the first time, a National Assembly was chosen. AReichstag was elected. I voted, at the time, for the German Peoples' Part That I remember very precisely. The right was represented by the former Conservative Party, later the German Nationals. Then there were the socalled Parties of the Center, the German Peoples' Party, the Democratic Party and these had roughly the same political orientation. Then, further to the Left, the Social Democrats, Independent Social Democrats, and Communists.
Q All right, Doctor, when did you first become interested in the program of the NSDAP? What year?
A Let me think about it a minute. I set it down in my book. I recall that I was active in a National Veterans' Organization; that I once deliver a speech at some celebration and that I stated in this speech that we should have to reach the point of becoming, on the one hand, Socialists, and, on other hand, we could only be Socialists if we did so on a nationalistic In connection with this, I think this was 1921, and it was at this time I heard for the first time of the NSDAP.
Q That's right. On Page 137 of your book you state that in the summer of 1922 you saw, for the first time, the program of the NSDAP and that, to you, this program seemed to be an ideal solution. Now, did you ever have any intention of participating in these NSDAP activities?
A Yes, it was my firm intention at that time to take part in them. Then, however, this was interrupted by the fact that the Deutsch-Voelkis Freiheitspartei (German Peoples' Freedom Party) was founded, as I described in my book. I then joined this party and left it then again in 1923. In 1924, I set up an organization, the Voelkische Arbeitsgemeine schaft (German Labor Community) which I entered the Mecklenburg Diet which I then left. All the dates are in my book and are correct. Then, while, I belonged to no party until, on the 1st of July, 1931, I joined to NSDAP.
AAll right, now, Doctor.
If the Tribunal wishes to adjourn at this time I will be starting another subject.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess at this time.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q. Dr. Blome, is the name Graefe familiar to you?
A. I didn't quite get the name.
Q. Is the name Graefe familiar to you; that is spelled G-r-a-e-f-e?
A. Yes, I know that name.
Q. Who was Graefe?
A. The Graefe I am speaking about was called Albrecht von Graefe, the lead of the German People's Liberal Party.
Q. Did you ever cooperate with Graefe?
A. Up to the time when in 1923 I was excluded from the Party on the basis of a certain demand I made to Graefe.
Q. Now, Graefe worked together with Hitler and Ludendorff, did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctor, were you ever involved in any political trials?
A. I was directly mixed up in a political trial when I was once indicted after the fights at upper Silesia. The reason for the indictment was the recruitment for formations of a military character which were prohibited. I was presented before a Court at that time and I was then acquitted. Afterward on the basis of the influence of the Red Mecklenburg Government, an appeal was made against that acquittal and a new date was set for my trial before a higher court. However, this trial did not come about since I had applied to call the Reichs President, Dr. Ebert, and the Finance Minister Dr. Gradenhauer as witnesses. That was not desired for some political reasons, and therefore the proceedings were quashed.
Q. Now, you participated in the so-called Kapp uprising which was aimed at the overthrew of the German Republic, and which did not succeed, didn't you?
A. Yes, I participate in that Kapp-Putsch. I participated as a regular soldier with the Reichswehr. I was a so-called volunteer. A new Government was formed at that time when the Kapp-Putsch arose, and I had no knowledge about their intentions. At that time the Government officially asked for volunteers for entry into the Reichswehr. Subsequently all the students of the University of Rostock reported as volunteers, who had been combat soldiers during the war.
Q. You state you did not know the intentions of this Kapp uprising or what it was for.
On page 105 of your book you describe your participation in the so-called Kapp-Putsch, which you state aimed at the overthrow of the German Republic, which did not succeed. You further state the fact you were able to escape the Police who wanted to arrest you for that crime. Now, Doctor, you were somewhat of an organizer in those days, weren't you?
A. No, I certainly was not. I was a simple soldier. I said before that I had no knowledge beforehand, about this intended Kapp-Putsch. Afterwards I certainly gained knowledge about the motives which lead to this Putsch, and the aims that were pursued, that was clear, and I wrote about that in my book.
Q. Did you ever organize a regiment to be used in illegal warfare against the Poles in upper Silesia?
A. No, we were not concerned with any illegal warfare. I organized a regime which was to be committed in upper Silesia, but at that time we were concerned with regular troops of the German Government under the charge of General Hoefer. They fought in upper Silesia, and the aim was to see that upper Silesia would not fall over to Poland. At that time Partisan fights were occurring between Poles and Germans, and this was done on the Polish side under the change of Corvanti. The German Government called for volunteers at that time, and as it was a case of emergency all former soldiers of the first World War reported for this purpose. The financing and organizing of these troops was done by means of Reich funds which were put at the disposal of Ebert by the Reich Finance Minister Dr. Gradenauer. That is the reason why I applied at that time to have Ebert and Gradenauer as witnesses in my case. After that the proceedings were quashed.
Q. Now, you state on page 120 of your book that you, Dr. Blome, assembled a regiment in the illegal Nationalist organizations, which waged illegal war against the Poles in upper Silesia. Now, Doctor, did your participation in these activities aid you in the medical profession?
A. In that connection I must say something else before answering the question. I don't think that the words are contained in the book that you have just mentioned. May I ask you to show me the book, so I can look at the page or pages, and read the passage that you are referring to?
Q. You may read that aloud, Doctor.
A. Yes.
Q. It is marked on page 120 in lead pencil, and here it is marked with a black lead pencil with an arrow pointing to it.
A. I read it aloud, and I quote: "For foreign political reasons this recruiting could not be done in public. Part of my friends went into the confidence of Lt. Commander Manfred von Killinger under Corvanti, who were already fighting in upper Silesia." This is what is underlined in black pencil. From that it can be seen clearly that this is not a question of any illegal fight against Poland, but that the legal German Reich Government at that time for foreign political reasons did not wish for any public recruitment. The fights which were waged by the Germans which were approved and financed by the Reich Government were legal fights where the polish side, or the Corvanti, as it was stated at that time by the commissioner of the League of Nations, were warfare of illegal Polish Partisans. They went beyond the ventures that were set out in the Versailles Treaty. The Polish liked to take some more German territory and that is the background of these fights.
Q. Now, Doctor, We will proceed to the next question. I will not quibble with you about the legality or the illegality of that warfare going on in Upper Silesia. Now, did you participate in these political activities in order to aid yourself in the medical profession?
A. We, on the contrary I participated in these activities since I considered them to be my duty as an old decent combat soldier. I wanted to see to it that no parts of Germany would be taken away from them contrary to the Versaillos Treaty and through my participation and organization of these fights, I really had professional disadvantages.
Q. Well, Doctor, on page 121 of your book you stated in substance that for this reason your approbation of a Doctor's title was expedited by a professor who had understanding for your position and that your assembling or hiring of a regiment was complete success; wasn't your medical practice and studios incidental to your political and military committments?
A. No, I can explain that to you very clearly. Even no doubt when writing my doctor's paper, I had already been working at the hygienic institute experimentally at the University of Rostock and it was my ambition to write a very good paper. After one year's activity, when having to leave Rostock in order not to be persecuted politically, I at that time went to my professor and asked him to correct my work. Whereupon he said that I would not reach such high results and I said that all I was concerned with was that my doctor's paper was considered to be efficient. Then, on the basis of my doctor's paper, which is quite well known, I was promoted to Doctor in a very scientific and fair manner.
Q. Well, now, can you tell us what the Brigade Erhardt was; you were a member of that organization; what was it?
A. Yes, I can tell you that the Brigade Ehrhardt was a free corps, it was a free corps which was commanded by Captain Erhardt composed of former navy, soldiers and officers. For a long time it was used for the maintenance of order, in order to suppress the threatening Communism. It was committed at that time by the Reichs Defense Minister Nesko, then the Brigade Erhardt participated in the Kapp Putsch. This was a company financed by the Reich and completely regular. I did not belong to this company, which I am speakof, at this time, but I had connections with them.
Q. Were you also a member of the secret organization Consul; what was that organization?
A. Yes, I was a member of the secret organization Consul, the organization Consul was a continuation on a small scale cf the just mentioned Brigade Erhardt. At that time when committing the Brigade Erhardt, in order to protect the government, this free corps, as well as many other free corps, were promised a regard to volunteers for their services and sacrifices by settlement, then this promise for some reason was later not kept; that probably happened in connection with the Kapp Putsch. When the question are so for Captain Erhardt how he could care for his people who felt themselves deceived, he went to Bavaria and tried to find work for his former group. This work mainly consisted of their activities as timber and forest workers. Erhardt at that time founded some kind of a timber firm and for completely external reasons he was spoken to as Mr. Consul and this is the reason for the designation O.C. which means Organization Consul.
But, I want to state vary expressly now, that this Organization Consul contrary to the Old Brigade Erhardt, was an illegal organization and I belonged to that organization.
Q. These organizations were working systematically for the overthrow of the Nationalistic Government; weren't they?
A. You can hardly say it in that form. Before, here you used the expression against the Republic; now you are saying Nationalistic Government and I want to formulate it exactly. These organizations were working for the overthrow of the Government as it existed at that time. For reasons of the general economic collapse which came about because the Weimar constitution did not give us any decent possibility of a democracy, but a merely a distorted picture of a Democracy; consequently thirty or forty parties existed in Germany at that time.
Q. Now, your participation in there organizations which were working for the overthrow of the German Republic, were rather strange activities for an ambitious young medical German man; weren't they?
A. Well, it is not strange at all, not even in the case of an ambitious young medical man; in the first instance I was a decent German and a decent combat soldier of the World war, I could not watch these events in Germany as they prevailed at that time, as it was the case with millions of other Germans and that is the reason why I participated in movements whose aim it was to remove and overthrow these incapable Governments in Germany at that time.
Q Now, Doctor, as I understand it from your book, the first visible sign of progress along the lines of your political leanings was in 1922 upon the foundation of the German Nationalistic party and its cooperation with Adolf Hitler, is that correct?
A I don't know whether you made a mistake or whether there was a mistake in the translation. You were speaking about the German National Party. Do you mean the German People's Liberal Party?
Q It has been translated for me from your book as the German Nationaliistic Party and cooperated with Hitler, and that foundation was in 1922, and you stated that that was the first visible sign of progress along the lines in which you were interested, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct, and that is in accordance with facts as the objective observer sees them. That is how the situation was at that time.
Q You were a native of Mecklenburg, weren't you?
A Yes. I come from Westphalia. I had been living in Mecklenburg for some time, and I consider that as my real home.
Q Now it was the aim to make the electorate Mecklenburg into a nationalistic bastion, wasn't it?
A "Bastion" or "fortress" sounds like something military, something connected with arms and force. Naturally it was the aim to bring about a strong point in Mecklenburg of a national character.
Q Now you were also a publisher of a nationalistic newspaper named "Heimdaal", if my pronunciation is correct. That is spelled H-e-i-m-d-a-a-l, is that right?
A Yes, Heimdaal.
Q You didn't have such time for medical work, did you, Doctor?
A Yes, I had such time for that. I was very industrious.
Q Well, now, did you ever participate as a speaker in nationalistic mass meetings?
A Yes.
Q You also participated as an opposition speaker in Communistic meetings, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Now, as a matter of fact, you were so busy politically that you and your friends organized protection for these meetings consisting of people from the Brigade Erhardt and Rossbach, both of which were secret military organizations, didn't you?
A I din't receive any personal protection from the Free Corps of Rossbach, but I really had nothing directly to do with that organization. Perhaps in order to hit at the core of your question, and what I am going to say now I think is what you really mean, naturally we protected our meetings at that time. If we as old national men and as decent front soldiers who had remained nationalistic opened our mouths during a meeting, and were not at the same time in a position to defend ourselves, we would have been beaten to pieces, by the communist and we certainly had no desire to be beaten to pieces. On the contrary, it was our intention to take up the fight against these people, and we proved that we were able to do that.
Q Now in these early days Hitler's success or failure was of deep concern to you according to your book, is that right?
A Do you mean with that Kapp Putsch of 1923?
Q That's right.
A Yes, I regretted that. I regretted it, and that can be seen in my book. Decent National German policeman and decent German National thinking men had to shoot and sacrifice, as resulted. I regretted that as I have always regretted it even later whenever Germans had to beat one another up.
Q Now, Doctor, after Hitler's unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the Government, you came to the conclusion, didn't you, that Nationalistic ideas were marching and that they could not be stopped? Is that what you state in your book?
A Yes. I stated that in my book, and what I was writing about actually came about in effect. The development as it succeeded later on had to follow in that way from a legal point of view. That is, not according to the written laws of a State Legislation, but according to the unwritten but thousand fold proven historically laws of the development of political events at that time where the intolerances and suppression was the highest principle of a Government system, and that was the case at that time.