Q. The Prosecution in the trials against the Nazi doctors before Tribunal Number I and also in this proceeding here has introduced a document which is entitled "Diary of Department for Typhus and Virus Research Institute of the Waffen SS".
Your Honor, this is Exhibit 219, Document Number 285, which is the second document in Document Book 9 of the Prosecution.
Witness, do you know how the Prosecution got a hold of this document?
A. The Prosecution received that diary through me.
Q. During your examination before Tribunal Number I, this diary was shown to you in the original. In other words, in the same manner in which you turned it over to the Prosecution. I am asking you now, witness, was not the diary which was submitted to you on 6 January 1947, before Tribunal Number 1 written new a few days before the liberation of Buchenwald?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the name Dr. Balachowski?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was Dr. Balachowski?
A. Balachowski was a member of the Institute Pasteur in Paris. He came to Buchenwald, or rather, to Camp Dora in a French transport. We were informed by some of his comrades that he was there and that the possibility existed that he would perish there. I thereupon suggested to Dr. Ding-Schuler, Sturmbannfuehrer Ding-Schuler, to transfer this expert from Dora to Buchenwald in Block Number 5. Dr. Ding-Schuler agreed with my suggestion and, because he needed experts for the production of inoculations, he made an application to the SS, WVHA, and as reason he stated various things. Balachowski was then transferred to Block 5, Buchenwald. From then on he worked together with us until the end of the camp.
On the basis of your statement, I must assume that Dr. Balachowski also knows about the conditions in Block 46 and Block 50.
A. Not so well, not even approximately so well as I do.
Q. Will you stick to your statement about that diary if I tell you that Dr. Balachowski was examined before Tribunal Number 1 and that he there stated under oath that diary which was presented to you was written by you a few days before the arrival of the Americans?
MR. McHANEY: I hardly think that this is a proper question to put on cross examination. Perhaps it might be best if the witness is removed before I state the reasons for my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Just have him take off his earphones.
MR. McHANEY: He understands English, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see -
MR. McHANEY: The reason for my objection runs to the factual basis of the question put. It is a fact that there has been a completely erroneous statement of the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know of any reason to remove the witness while the point is being debated.
DR. SEIDL: The translation of the question did not come through properly.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney is about to make an objection to your question and suggests that before it is argued the witness should be removed from the witness stand and from the court room. Do you see any reason why he should?
DR. SEIDL: I myself do not see any reason why he should be removed.
MR. McHANEY: The objection simply is that Dr. Balachowski as I understand it, has not testified before Case I, at least if he is referring to the Medical Case, and as far as I know has certainly never testified to the effect which he has stated in his question put to this witness. Now, unless it is to be permitted that Defense Counsel state a question which is entirely contrary to the facts, then I must object. I find no factual basis for the question.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I have to correct myself insofar as Mr. McHaney is right, namely, that Dr. Balachowski did not personally testify before Tribunal Number I, but the Prosecution has introduced an affidavit of this witness, to which we, the Defense Counsel, did not object. That affidavit says exactly the same thing I put before this witness now.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are proposing to ask this witness whether a statement made by some one else is true, and that statement is made in writing, you will have to confront this witness with the exact writing and not with your extemporaneous synopsis of it. He is entitled to know exactly what the other witness said before he is asked to affirm it or deny it.
DR. SEIDL: I shall withdraw the question now, as I do not have the affidavit by Balachowski here with me.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, you testified that the concentration camp Buchenwald was liberated on the 12th of April, 1945, by the Allied troops. Where were you at on that day?
A I was in Weimar.
Q In other words, you were not in the camp of Buchenwald itself?
A No.
Q How did you get to Weimar, Witness?
A Mr. Defense Counsel has quoted so many things from my book that I take it he also knows that part of my book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't so please answer the question.
A On the 7th of April, 1945, I was nailed into a special box for inoculants in order to get through to the Allied lines as a representative of the camp and to get help, because the Americans were to arrive at Jena or at that time had been stuck at Jena with their panzer divisions, tank corps, and the entire number of 37,000 men were in danger, either to be sent in death transports or to be exterminated. There was no issue out of the camp for no one, but the medical material we had there from the Hygienic Institute in Block 50 was being removed. I succeeded, in agreement with a few comrades, to develop a plan and to put it into practical effect, namely, that I was to be put on a truck by the SS, accompanied by SS troops, who knew nothing of the entire plan, nailed into a wooden box as if I were innoculants against typhus, and thus I would be transported to Weimar. In Weimar I could then carry out my plan within the next three days. Therefore I would return with the American troops coming from the south to the concentration camp Buchenwald.
Q I shall now come back to these medical experiments at Buchenwald that were carried out there. You testified that Dr. Ding, from 1943 onward was chief of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald, is that correct?
A Yes. The time within '43 must be stated more accurately. I tell you the Department for Typhus and Virus Research was later on decided upon by the Hygienic Institute at Berlin, rather than at the time when Ding-Schuler took over those functions practically.
Q When was the Department for Typhus and Virus Research created?
A The department which received that title later on, according to my recollection, was created in November, 1941, within the framework of the Department for Special Tasks of Dr. Ding-Schuler, and that was only for a clinical station there. The plan for the function of the station for the production of inoculants for typhus started in autumn of 1942. The execution itself ran from the end of January, 1943, to the 15th of August, 1943. The common title, Department for Typhus and Virus Research, at Buchenwald, was, according to my recollection, finally decided upon at the end of 1943, at the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, Berlin.
Q You furthermore stated that immediately after the liberation of the camp, all the material which was still there, you had given it ever to the Allied troops, is that right? What material were you speaking about?
A May I say first of all that according to my recollection I did not state that all the material that had been saved had been turned over to the Allied troops by myself, but according to my own recollection I said that we turned the material, or rather we collected the material, to be exact, through the information office of the inmates. I then used that material for the first documented report to the Allied Headquarters there. This was first of all documentary evidence from the hospital, from the political department, from the office of the report clerk, and from the administration. Furthermore there were the files and copies of reports in the inmate library and in the inmate labor statistics.
Q During the proceedings against the doctors before Tribunal No. 1 you testified that a few days before the liberation of the camp all the documents which were in the camp had been burned by the SS leaders. You furthermore testified that Dr. Ding destroyed all the documents of Blocks 46 and 50 which appeared dangerous. Could you remember that?
A I would like to see the original report of my statement before the medical trial and also the whole connection. Of course, I can remember that I testified to that effect.
Q According to your recollection now, it should be possible for you to tell me now if that assertion is correct or not.
A It is quite clear that between the intention to destroy all the documents and the practical carrying out of the plan there was a lapse of time, and there was the possibility of removing certain documents, preserving them, and furthermore that there was material which the SS could not be interested in during those stormy days. Not everything was burned. Had everything been burned then there wouldn't have been the original diary of Block 46 which I myself saved from burning.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I have the verbatim record of the statement of Dr. Biel Balachowski, and I want to read these figures to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you refer to the page number in the transcript of the proceedings before Tribunal I which you are about to read?
DR. SEIDL: This is Document NO 484. It is a document which was set up by the Prosecution itself during the trials against the doctors before Tribunal No. 1. The Prosecution itself submitted this document. To be exact this is Document Book No. 12. Unfortunately, all I have here is the German translation of that affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient. Can you follow this, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: I think so. I suppose he is about to put statements of Balachowski to the witness. Of course, we have put in nothing from Balachowski in this case, but I have no objection to his proceeding.
Q (By Dr. Seidl): Witness, it says the following thing in this statement. I shall quote now. "The notes which were copied into the block diary shortly before the liberation of the camp gave an exact figure of the culture and the various passages of the condition of the tests." What can you say to this statement by Dr. Biel Balachowski?
A The matter is incredibly simple. Who is it that says that there is no difference between the diaries of 46 and 50? Why are they identical?
Q This witness is not mentioning a diary for Block 50, but he says that the statements were copied into the block diary on the basis of the documents which were there, and according to your testimony one must assume that this is a diary of the Department for Typhus and Virus Research.
A No. 1, as I already mentioned before, the Department for Typhus and Virus Research had two blocks. Which block do you think Professor Balachowski is referring to in his statement?
Q I shall submit something else to you now, witness. The No. 29 which was already submitted to you, it contained a ledger description which is entitled, "Carried Out in Block 46, Typhus Experiments."
MR. McHANEY: I think it is quite proper to get this first question cleared up, and I admit I am in a state of confusion. Dr. Seidl has been referring to statements by Balachowski in this affidavit having reference to a diary kept in Block 50. That certainly has nothing to do with the diary which has been offered in evidence here because it is a diary concerning Block 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness wanted to know that very thing.
MR. McHANEY: Well, I think he is entitled to be informed too.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he is entitled to give an answer to his. The question has been asked the witness, what block, or rather the diary of what block was referred to by Dr. Balachowski. Tell him. Look in the affidavit, what does it say?
DR. SEIDL: The affidavit is divided into several sub-departments. The statements already quoted refer to the diary of Block No. 46 for the reason that part of the explanation is entitled "Diffuse Experiments Carried Out in Block Number 46." Therefore, I think it is absolutely impossible that the statements of Dr. Balachowski can refer to a diary which allegedly was carried out for Block No. 50.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, are you using two portions of the affidavit to question this witness from?
DR. SEIDL: It is one and the same thing. It would simplify matters, Your Honor, if I could submit to the witness the document book itself, and he can just go through the pages.
THE PRESIDENT: An excellent idea; excellent.
MR. MCHANEY: It might help if Dr. Seidl would mention the paragraph number in the affidavit upon which his question was based so that the witness can start at that point.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, indicate to the witness what portion of the affidavit you wish him to inspect and testify about.
DR. SEIDL: The witness, first of all, is to read the title over cipher No. 24. I see he has already found it. And then he is to also read cipher No. 29. He will be able to deduct from that that cipher 29 can only refer to the diary of Block No. 46.
THE WITNESS: I am afraid that I have to start explaining everything from the beginning because the Defense counsel has been speaking all the time. I have to start all over again. I have cipher No. 29. I have read it in this translation of the document. The text is the following. The remarks in those documents which were made shortly before the liberation of the camp -- or, rather, introduced into block diary No. 46 -- or, rather, copied into the diary -- give the exact figure of the cultures of various patients, and the development of the experiments. It is absolutely clear that Prof. Balachowski here refers to his copy which he entered into a block diary. I know that Balachowski, together with Prof. Weichs, who also worked in Block No. 50 during the few days while I was in Weimar; in other words, between the 7th and 11th of April, 1945, dealt with the remaining patients in the experimental station No. 46.
I, furthermore, know from him, from the time during which I was together with him after the Liberation, in Paris, that he made notes -- these notes, together with my experiences, which were much greater -- and he adjusted his experience compared with mine. In other words, if he refers here to file memoranda of block 46, and then speaks of the copy into the block diary -- then he means statements that remain in block 46 from which he drew certain information for a block diary which he compiled in block 50, and he made copies and entries into that diary. The block diary which is referred to here -and there was no such title, officially speaking, and of which, if it did exist I must have had knowledge, is in no way identical with the official diary from block 46 as it is introduced to the Tribunal -- or has been introduced to the Tribunal.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q In other words, you stick to your statement that the diary which you submitted to the Allies was the original diary of Dr. DingSchuler?
A Yes, of course I do.
Q You also stick to it if I tell you that the diary which was turned over by you examined by two experts in handwriting, and that they stated that every page of the diary was written or copied one page after the other; in other words, in sequence.
A I read about it in the German newspapers. I did not read, and never did I hear from anybody else, that it had been copied. I have read and heard that the same typewriter was used, and, with the exception of a few cases, that the same typewriter ribbon was used. I know nothing about the copy in all those things. As far as the rest is concerned, this is not decisive at all for me. The decisive fact for me is that I had this diary in my hands several times and, to be exact, IN block 50;
that I saved it from Block No. 50 from getting burned; that I never gave it to anybody else until the day when I gave it to the American troops; that I did not change a sentence, not a word, not a letter, or not a figure in this diary. And, furthermore, that no one apart from myself during that time in question -- that is, until the camp was surrendered to the American troops -- ever had access to it.
Q You also state during the direct examination that in block 46, apart from the typhus experiments, paratyphus A and B, and other typhus experiments were carried out? I ask you now, witness, in that connection, what do you mean by "medical experiments?"
A If I put two typhus virus in the potato salad of an unsuspecting inmate without the inmate knowing that he is eating this virus in that potato salad, because, after all, it is funny way of putting those things together; in other words, paratyphus A, and to put it in the potato salad -- then I call this an experiment. To be exact, on a human being. And if the intention is interpolated to find out by the effects if the virus had an influence on the human organs; in other words, if it is taken through the mouth -- then I call it a medical experiment. However, under special circumstances.
Q You also spoke of experiments with yellow fever. Do you want to tell me that there was an artificial injection with yellow fever, or was it just a vaccination for an examination of the admissability of the vaccines?
A I shall ask you to repeat the question.
Q You spoke of experiments with yellow fever... Were those experiments in which an artificial injection took place? Or was it just a test to find out the colorability of yellow fever vaccines?
A Yes; well, I did not quite understand the "colorability test" which you asked me. What I thought was that you meant the testing of the vaccine itself. I know that a series of experiments with yellow fever was started in block 46, and it was a full series that had been planned, a full series of experiments. That is, first of all, the giving of a protective vaccine and then to produce, or cause, an infection.
Part of the experimental subjects were being tested in order to say that yellow fever vaccine could also be tolerated by these people. This series of experiments were to be carried out in order to protect German soldiers in North Africa -- or, rather, to find them a sort of a drug against yellow fever. The North African campaign was developed in such a manner that the results were told Dr. Ding-Schuler and, as he told me, they interrupted those experiments.
Q You testified here that on the second part of the yellow fever experiments the camp administration put it through diseased people that they tested - you testified that from early 1942 until 1943 there were more political prisoners among these experimental subjects. Can you tell me now how many people approximately were used for these yellow fever experiments?
A First of all, I never stated that the political prisoners were selected. I didn't say "the" political. I used the word without the article. In other words, any of the political prisoners were used. That is, I was referring to only part of the experimental subjects. That is, I can not say that certain political inmates, or people were interpolated in the ranks of these experimental subjects, who were not liked by the camp administration, or, at least, that is the way they said it. I can not give you an exact figure. There was a choice of 40 or 60 persons amongst which ten or twelve or fifteen, or perhaps only six of them were such people, of all the political prisoners.
Q Did you further testify that the infections during the yellow fever experiments were carried out with a living virus from the Behring Works? I ask you now, how do you know that the Behring factories, or Behring plants, produced that virus.
A I don't remember I referred to this particular point with such self-confidence. All I know is that it was a problem that the virus which was supplied by the Behring Works did not prove virulent enough. In other words, it did not have enough effects or power of effects.
Q You further testified that from the summer of 1942 and on, also transient personnel were injected and I ask you now where did you gain that knowledge?
A I gained that knowledge from Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding-Schuler, afterwards, that is, he was referring back to that time and from the Capo Arthur Dietsch, who was in charge of Station No. 46.
Q If Capo Arthur Dietsch would state in an affidavit that the diary which you refer to of the Department for Yellow Fever and Virus Research of which you were alleged to have turned in to American troops was burned by Dr. Ding before his eyes, then, do you think you will stick to that story?
A Before this Tribunal, yes. Outside of the Tribunal, I could only laugh, because it is impossible to ask me such a question, if Capo Arthur Dietsch would say this and that and if I would still stick to that story. I would stick to that story any way, because it is true, and I saved that diary myself and I kept that diary in my possession a long time and then when I didn't have it, I got it again from Block 46 and I know it is the original and nobody else had it in their hands and when anybody else comes along and tells that it was burned, then I can only answer what I have.
Q In order to calm you, I wish to tell you that the defense is in possession of such an affidavit which was written by Capo Arthur Dietsch and that this affidavit will be submitted to Tribunal No. 1 against Nazi doctors and that you will have great opportunity to make a statement to that effect. I have no further questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, what ever became of Dr. Ding-Schuler? Where is he, alive or dead?
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Ding-Schuler is no longer alive. I would like to submit that the witness answered the question. I am sure that he knows the whole connections.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want the whole connections. I just want to know that fact.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions of the witness, Your Honor.
MR. MC HANEY: I think that the witness wishes to make a further statement with reference to the attack on his credibility by the unsubstantiated statements by Arthur Dietsch prior to this before the Tribunal at Dachau, and with the Tribunal's permission, I think he should be permitted to make a statement, if he chooses. He was holding up his hand at the time Dr. Seidl sat down.
THE PRESIDENT: He is your witness. You lead him into it.
MR. MC HANEY: Is there no further cross-examination?
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Attorney for Defendant Frank and Hans Loerner):
Q Witness, upon questioning by the prosecution, you said this morning; rather his question was "What was the production number of Frankfurter Leaflets", and you said that the figure was 50,000.
A Yes.
Q You said that the people who were reading this was 350,000?
A Yes, I said from 350,000 to 400,000.
Q How do you know that?
A I don't know if I should tell before this Tribunal the methods which a printing department uses in order to find out how many people read their papers.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your estimate of the number of readers. That is a result from passing the paper around for several people to use. That is a guess.
Q. In other words you assume that it is just a guess?
A Yes, it is a justified guess though, quite a justified guess, as a matter of fact.
Q. Witness, you made several statements here concerning various concentration camps. You already mentioned before that this sometimes comes from your own memory and your own experience and that part of them come from reports which you received from other inmates. Now for two years, if I may say so, you have been dealing with that material. Could you still tell the difference today between what you know yourself already at the time and what you heard from co-inmates and what you only learned from documents here today?
A That depends on the subject discussed. If I am given concrete examples, then I will think about it prior to answering the question and I am critical enough myself in order to know if I remember clearly from my own recollection and whether it is all from documents, or if I have received the report from my comrades or some information that I received later on and if I am quite sure, as I have already done here several times - I believe you remember - I say I am sure, that I am almost, but I am not quite sure, and so forth and then I sometimes I say it is absolutely sure.
Q Now, then, with reference to your knowledge about the organizational connections of the WVHA you answered a question by the prosecution, you mentioned the figures of the Amtsgroups without being very exact about it - just sort of on the side. Now, when did you gain the knowledge about the members of the Amtsgroups as far as you stated this morning? Was it already at that time or now?
A Between 1942 and 1945, I only stated four groups and we dealt with everyone of those Amtsgroups. Therefore, I knew them. I do not knew their importance, or, rather, let me put it this way.
I know that there are other Amtsgroups, but I do not know what their importance was. For instance, Amtsgruppe B, that I knew at various short period of time. With the exception of those, namely Department D-III which we dealt with very much and Department W-V in the WVHA, with which we dealt
Q In what position were you at the time when, as you said, you had something to do with it?
A From the Spring of 1943 and on I was in the Department for Pathology and from the summer of 1943 on I was a first clerk in the Chief of the Department for Typhus and Virus Research, who later on became the hygienist for that particular Sperr-Zone B and before the Spring, March, 1943, I was in the tailor shop and in that position I was in connection with the clothing chamber or clothing office and we would deal with them. Further I was in contact with Heinz Baumeister and all political inmates who at that time worked in the construction office and who were prior to that in the Inmate Library. I received insight into quite a chain of events through him and I used them as a basis for various other things.
Q Thank you. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be other cross-examination tomorrow? We won't try to finish these. 9:30 tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 April 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 April, 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2. Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will note the continued absence of the defendant Fanslau for reasons of illness, and the continuance of the Tribunal's order to proceed in his absence. Cross examination of this witness.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant, Oswald Pohl. Your Honor, I would appreciate if you could possibly give me an opportunity to ask a few more questions of this witness. They were questions I could not ask about yesterday because I did not have the necessary evidence with me.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, Artur Dietsch was an inmate in concentration camp Buchenwald, is that correct?
A. Yes sir.
Q. He was Capo in Block 46, which block you called the experimental station for the hygienists, is that correct?
A. Yes. He was capo in Block 46, which was the clinical station of Department - IV, typhus and virus research in Buchenwald.
Q. How long after was he capo in that block?
A. The fact is Dietsch contributed to the formation of the station, that is, the preparation.
That is from November 1941 on. He was capo until April 1945.
Q Witness, I shall put an affidavit before you now. It was written by the former Capo, Arthur Dietsch,-- or rather, signed by him -- a few days ago and refers to the diary of this typhus station, the diary which you said you turned over to the American troops and which was used both in these trials here and in Tribunal Number I and introduced by the Prosecution as evidence. Arthur Dietsch said the following, among other things, and I shall quote now:
"In the last days of March or the first few days of April 1945 Dr. Ding came to Block 46 very excitedly and said that an order had just come through that all documents were to be destroyed. Thereupon I had to burn all the documents of Block 46 in the presence of Dr. Ding, the curve sheets, the sick stories, and all that, the diary, and various other documents. I had to place them on the table, where Dr. Ding himself tore up all these documents, and throw them into the stove, which was lit.
"Amongst the documents there was also the secret diary of Block Number 46. I wanted to put this diary aside secretly in order to preserve it from burning. Ding, however, remembered the diary very well, and upon his specific orders I had to go and get the diary. Then he also put the diary in and burned it with the other things. After the burning, Ding himself made sure that all documents had become mere ashes and that nothing remained. He also looked into the cupboard to make sure that nothing was left there by mistake.
"The statement of the witness, Dr. Kogon, which was submitted to me, i.e. 1199 of the German record of 6 January 1947 of the afternoon, according to which Kogon saved this diary from being destroyed is not correct. It is absolutely impossible that Kogon could have saved this diary without being noticed because both Din and I, prior to the destruction of all the documents, did not leave the room. This statement is untrue, particularly because of the statement that the material to be burned was taken into the crematorium and burned there. I saw the crematorium for the first time after the liberation by the American troops and never prior to that.