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.
I do not see how Dr. Kogon got to write such a statement. It is, therefore, impossible, that Dr. Kogon was able to save the secret diary of Block 46 and turn it over to the American troops after the liberation."
That is the end of the quotation.
Witness, I am asking you now, do you still stick to your statement, after having heard the statement by the witness Dietsch, that after the liberation of the camp of Buchenwald turned this original original diary of Block 46 over to the American troops?
A Yes, of course I do.
Q I shall put something else before you from this affidavit, witness. I shall quote:
"The original secret diary of Block 46 was bound also. The cover, however, was a different one. The cover did not have the inscription 'Diary' as this document which was submitted to me today did, but the inscription 'Secret Diary', and the writing was larger and a little bit thicker than the one that was submitted to me this morning. The left margin of the cover was not provided with a figure and letters. The paper which was used in the diary came from different supplies. Different sorts of papers were therefore used. The original supplies of paper have a special watermark 'Official'. The diary which was submitted to me today does not contain one single sheet of paper that was marked in the same manner, in other words 'Official'. I further remember that we changed typewriters once in Block 46 because the typewriter which we were using theretofore was out of order. The document that was submitted to me shows apparently the same typewriter type. In the block diary no official stamp was used when Dr. Ding signed that book. We did not have any such stamps in Block 46. Dr. Ding never signed with his 'Doctor' title in a diary but only with his name, Ding, the same as this applies to Page Number 24 of the document that was submitted to me."
I ask you again, witness, what do you have to say on this statement that was made by Artur Dietsch?
A I ask you whether I am to refer to the first part which you quoted here or am I to answer on the second part.
Q I have already asked you about the first part, and you said that you, of course, stick to your statement. I therefore forego your answering on the first part, and I am asking you now about the second part, that part of the affidavit which I just quoted.
A It is for me very interesting that Artur Dietsch in his affidavit here mentions a further secret diary, or rather, produces such a diary. I have to admit that I did not have any knowledge of a second diary, in the manner in which Artur Dietsch is stating here and that I have never seen such a diary. I know nothing of its having been set up. I know only of that diary which I myself turned over to the American authorities. That is the only one I know, and I can speak only of that one which was written up in Block 46. Repeatedly, either through Artur Dietsch personally or upon orders of Artur Dietsch or by the First Medical Clerk of Block 46, Artur Gaczinski (?) it was transferred for a short period of time to Block 30 in order for Dr. Ding to use it as a basis when he wrote the report to Berlin, reports that he dictated to me. He was the one that gave the original signatures. The material for the single entries in that diary came from Block 46. The diary was written up in Block 46.
As far as the other diary is concerned, which consists of various kinds of sheets of paper, I know nothing whatsoever.
In this connection, I should like to correct myself, or rather, make a statement concerning the burning of these documents. The burning took place on the second of April 1945. My memory of these things is very good. To be exact, I myself went with Dr. Ding-Schuler upon his orders -- that is, upon his calling me -- to Block Number 46. Artur Dietsch knew nothing of the burning which was to be carried out. Artur Dietsch was standing on the first floor -- second American floor-of the left wing of the next to the last room. He was standing right at the window which went out to the small camp.
On the right of him was Ding-Schuler, and I was to the right of Ding-Schuler, and all three of us were in front of the table.
Dr. Ding ordered that Dr. Dietsch destroy all the documents which were in Block Number 46, or rather, that he bring them right away because he had to sort them in order to burn or to destroy the incriminating documents.
I shall interpolate here that before I had discussed this burning action with Dr. Ding. Dr. Ding took these documents in great big heaps. He took the bound documents, and these which were not bound, and he glanced through them hurriedly. The whole action took approximately an hour and a half. I shall add explicitly that they were great heaps of documents. He sorted them in a great hurry. He threw a few pages to the right and a few pages to the left, and he asked repeatedly of Artur Dietsch, in my presence, if he thought that the thing in question was of importance. With references to many documents, he decided that they were to be destroyed and burned.
The documents which he decided were to be burned were not thrown into the stove. He had Artur Dietsch on the left side of the stove, but they were not thrown into the stove. It was just a plain iron stove, approximately of the size of this stand (indicating) here, and it was about three-quarters as broad as this stand here (indicating). The circumference was approximately 50 to 55 centimeters. All the documents could not have been put in that small stove. I am not even sure that the stove was burning, in other words, that it was lit.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Artur Dietsch had sacks, or rather he had brought along sacks, and he put all the material that was to be burned into those sacks. That he took those sacks to the crematorium later on I did not see myself. Artur Dietsch told me that. He told me that story, namely that he had destroyed these documents in the crematory. If that was actually the case, that is, if he burned them in Block 46, that is officially by and by, one after the other, and if he saved some documents, I don't know. I only base myself on his own words when I testified during the I.M.T., the International Tribunal trials, or rather in Case No. 1 for the medical trial, namely that the documents were burned in the crematory.
The diary which is being discussed here is not the diary which Artur Dietsch told you of, and which, I would like to provide with brackets, was put over on myself by Dr. Ding-Schuler, and to be exact very fast, without discussion, without looking at anything at all, that is, together with other documents. This document which I knew, I immediately put it aside when Dr. Ding-Schuler was speaking to Dr. Dietsch. I was of the opinion that Dr. Ding-Schuler did not put it aside on purpose. To be exact this diary and other documents which I pulled out of the whole heap myself, I put them in Block 50 together with Dr. DingSchuler. That is in order to be very exact about it. I did not agree upon that with Dr. Ding-Schuler, but I went together with him to Block 50, or rather went back to Block 50. There were other urgent matters to be taken care of there. However, I grasped the first opportunity on the same day in order to discuss this diary with Dr. Ding. I told him that I thought it to be a very important evidential document, and as I put it also his saving.
It might be necessary that I add a few things, only a few things because too many things would be too complicated, with reference to the difficult psychology of Dr. Ding-Schuler. He swayed uninterruptedly, or rather he didn't know what to do between what I said and what others told him, that is between the facts of the development itself and the things he was told by the SS leaders. In other words, he couldn't make Court No. II, Case No. IV.
up his mind up to the very last days, and it was possible, as generally speaking and politically, he didn't have a political sense. He didn't have a political knowledge, and it was possible, that was before, to tell him certain things which today, for instance in this Tribunal, could not seem fully logical. In other words, they could not seem fully convincing. I told him like this, I told him after several conversations concerning this diary what was to happen to him, after the end of the concentration camps, what was to happen to him, what his fate would be. I told him by the introduction of this diary he could prove his absolute loyalty in the collaboration with me, and in order to save many lives the experiments which we carried out. I was in some sort of close contact with Dr. Ding-Schuler, that is in the last year and a half, and if I mean close contact, I don't mean it outside, but I mean inside contact.
I never left Dr. Ding-Schuler in doubt that according to my opinion he was to be put before a Tribunal. I myself was of the opinion, and I am not a lawyer, that against murderers there is also some sort of human forgiveness, in other words, a great number of extenuating circumstances. I said it would be possible to regard the fact the man who committed murder, on the one hand, might have saved the lives of many people. That was already at the time when most of the SS leaders thought the fact of the collapse of the National Socialists was not a certainty. In this psychological connection I told Dr. Ding, or rather told him repeatedly that he had to do whatever he could do in order to get a counterweight against the proceedings and trials, etc, and this was very sincere on my part. Under my influence he let many things happen, although up to the very end, or almost up to the very end, although hesitating and sometimes not fully, to the full extent, he carried out the orders of the SS.
On the 2nd of April, 1945, I said to him, "This diary, please give it to me. I will introduce it in court, and you know, Sturmbannfuehrer, I shall make true statements should there be a trial."
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
I have to interpolate here again. After the saving of Allied paratroopers, whom I saved in cooperation with Dr. Ding-Schuler and Dr. Dietsch, that is when he knew nothing of my action from the beginning when he carried out this action. In this action Dr. Ding-Schuler was also given a certificate by the French and the English.
Q Excuse me, Witness, I do not want to interrupt you, but I believe that your statements deviate from the question I asked or put to you.
A I shall come back to your question right away. I consider it of utmost importance for the answering of this question, of the one you just put to me, that the psychology of Dr. Ding-Schuler at least be considered in broad outline in these decisive days. I will be through in a minute.
He had a certificate from these rescued ones. To be exact this was a childish and fantastic idea of his, namely that the G-2, the British intelligence or the Allied intelligence, would be in a position to take him immediately, without a trial, abroad some place, in some colony, him, together with his family, and that he could have a new house there. I do not wish to discuss the SS psychology here which considers it absolutely possible as to various imaginings. He also wanted to be secure from the other possibility, and that did not actually happen. Indeed, there was considerable muddle at this particular time, and he told me, "Well, do whatever you think is right, but I shall rely on you, Kogon." From that moment on I kept that diary. I hid it in Block No. 50 very well. Heinz Baumeister, that is my closest comrade who is still alive, can testify to that fact. He knew that diary. He already knew that diary from before. He knows that I hid it and he knows that I saved it. Artur Dietsch does not know anything at all about the saving of this diary. I myself had no reason to tell Artur Dietsch anything at all about it later on, because Artur Dietsch, it has been established, has been incriminated in such a manner as will be quite disagreeable to him. At that time I was in good relation with Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Artur Dietsch. I had no reason whatsoever to have decided to incriminate Dr. Dietsch in that respect. As far as that is concerned, Dr. Dietsch wouldn't have got into trouble. That is all I have to say to this point.
Q Witness, I have to put before you now, before I go on, that the witness, Artur Dietsch, in his affidavit does not speak of two secret diaries as you do, but of the official secret diary of Block No. 46, and the assertion that two diaries existed comes from you and no one else, Witness.
A Of course it comes from me. I did not testify to the effect that Dr. Dietsch said something in his affidavit there were two diaries. I say there are two diaries. Artur Dietsch is speaking of a different diary apparently than this one here, and myself and the other members knew nothing of that diary which you speak of there. Artur Gaczinsky, who was the medical clerk of Block 46, is still alive, and I know he knows very well if there was a diary, which was sort of funny, as the one described by Dr. Dietsch.
Q Witness, you testified a few minutes ago that you informed Dr. Ding on the same day of the fact that you did not burn the diary. Did I understand you correctly?
A With Dr. Ding in the course of the day, which was the 2nd of April, I repeatedly discussed this matter. That was not the last time that I mentioned it. Dr. Ding, up until the 5th of April, was in contact with me. On the 4th of April, on that evening, he worried me of the execution that was to take place. On the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of April Dr. Ding and myself repeatedly discussed the fact. I have to interpolate something. I only mentioned the 2nd of April.
Q When did you tell him you didn't burn the diary?
AAccording to my recollection on the 2nd of April. I know what you are driving at.
Q On the 2nd of April? It was the day when the diary was apparently or allegedly received by you, is that correct?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
A I rather question it.
Q In other words, on the same day?
AAccording to my recollection, yes, on the 2nd of April, on the same day.
Q You say that Dr. Dietsch will probably be incriminated by this diary?
A I say that I was of that opinion, and I am still of that opinion.
Q Does the name "Dietsch" appear in the diary?
AAccording to my recollection no.
Q However, you are of the opinion that this diary will be incriminating material against Dr. Dietsch?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
A The contents of that diary could, if Dr. Ding-Schuler would still be alive, and before a trial, never be incriminating. The first famous page could be incriminating where he refers--or could refer--to orders. That, of course, we don't want to discuss here...the orders, the problems that are connected with orders. I just point out that the fact of the saving of the diary-- In other words, an act of loyalty, clarity, psychological-
Q Witness, I want to put the following thing before you. Do you want to deny that Dr. Ding is the most incriminating document that there is, and that Dr. Ding was the least interested in this? Or rather that this diary has not been destroyed?
A One can see how important it was that it was carried out. Namely, when I pointed out the psychology of Dr. Ding-Schuler, and of the SS leaders. Defense counsel never had the opportunity--and he may be very lucky and happy about it--to be in close contact with the SS. And I mean as a victim and as a citizen who has the same rights...and to be in a concentration camp. He would have more understanding for that which I just pointed out here. However, if any Tribunal should ask me to do so, I would be ready to testify in all intensity and broad outlines all the details I know--not only about Ding-Schuler but of all other SS, of the same kind or of a similar kind--and to explain what their psychology was like and how they reacted in every respect, and how they could react in every respect. And that their intellectual development, on broad outlines, according to my opinion, was rather infantile or childish.
Q Witness, I am of the opinion that one does not have too much sense to understand the contents of this diary. Would, if not the death sentence, they would at least be very incriminating for Dr. Ding.
I shall now pass over to another point. In the affidavit of Artur Dietsch it says the following thing, and I shall quote verbatim. "The title on page one says, "Block Diary"--not "Diary of the Department for Typhus and Virus Research." But the entries were made without any title Court No. II, Case No. IV.
whatsoever. The institute in Buchenwald did not know that name at that time. It was called "Isolated Station of Sick Bay," at that time."
What do you say to this assertion of Dietsch's?
A I am very happy that this statement of Dr. Dietsch's finally is introduced now. A few things will be decided upon later on in the Medical trial concerning this diary. I know that on the diary pages are entries made both Block 46 and Block 50 which are not identical with the official diary which is here. I do not say that these sheets are identical with those that Dr. Dietsch mentioned in his affidavit which he calls that diary, but there were such pages and ever since the beginning there entries had been made in them. And Artur Dietsch took good care of them, and they were one of the bases of the sources from which the official diary was made daily. The regular entries were made on that basis. That is correct. Now, I already testified to that effect in a long debate with the Defense Counsel in the Medical case that there were such documents--to be exact, several of them--and it is quite possible that this first, old title of the time when the clinical station was formed might have been based on that. The fact is that towards the end of 1943 Dr. Ding-Schuler changed the first page of the official diary. I already said that during the Doctors' trial since the beginning because the title had finally been agreed upon. The text remained absolutely unchanged. However, the title was inserted, and from that moment on, it said "Department for Typhus and Virus Research". Prior to that this had not been the case. And that is how it can be explained. Namely, that this first page of the official diary--I don't see any contradiction between that diary and those sheets on which there was the title--or could leave been the title; or, to be exact, there probably was a title, as Dr. Dietsch mentions. To tell the truth, I believe that the two statements add up to one another in connection with the Medical trials.
Q Witness, what you just said now particularly points out that Dr. Dietsch means the diary which was burned in the presence of Dr. Ding, Court No. II, Case No. IV.