And I think that in about fifteen minutes we can perhaps clear this matter up to some extent at least. You have been confronted with certain statements by Artur Dietsch. Is it correct that Dietsch was the Carpo in Block 46?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that Dietsch personally participated in the experiments in Block 46 which led to the deaths of several hundreds of inmates?
A. Yes.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal what the reputation of Dietsch was in in the concentration camp of Buchenwald?
A The Capo Artur Dietsch in the concentration camp of Buchenwald with reference to its inmates who knew him, was hatred. He was also feared. He was a hard man who knew no mercy. The few members of the Camp Illegal Administration worked together with Dietsch partly in order to save comrades who were endangered through the SS, to save them through Block 46. In other words, to take them away from the hands of the SS party, I mean the camp administration. As they worked together with him they had certain considerations, general with reference to Artur Dietsch. They put them entirely aside. I do not know one single friend of Artur Dietsch from that whole period of time which I was in the concentration camp.
Q Doctor, Defense Counsel has read from an affidavit they have obtained Artur Dietsch. Where is Dietsch now, incidentally?
AArthur Dietsch at the present moment is amongst these indicted in the Buchenwald trial in Dachau.
Q Do you know for what reason he was indicted?
A I have already appeared before the court in his case. He has been acused of murder.
Q Murder? Because of his participation in the typhus experiments?
A He has been indicted under murder on participation in those experiments on human beings in Block 46 in Buchenwald.
Q Is the Ding Diary being used against him in that case?
A Yes.
Q Now the prosecution also has an affidavit from Artur Dietsch and it has been introduced in evidence before Tribunal No. 1 in Case No. 1. If there is a slight difference between the affidavit given to the prosecution and the one given to the defense and for your information the big difference is that he wasn't indicted at the time he gave the prosecution an affidavit. This is Document NO-1314, which was Prosecution Exhibit 433 in the medical case, and, Doctor, I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from this affidavit and then ask you if the statements agree with your understanding of certain happenings in Block 46 and then I will also ask you if you find any contradiction in this earlier affidavit of Dietsch and the one which he has given defense.
In paragraph 5 of the affidavit given to the prosecution, he says, "In January, 1942, typhus stations were established in Blocks 44 and 49 in the Buchenwald concentration camp. In January, a preliminary experiment was performed on about five persons. At the beginning of February, the first of March, experiments took place which involved about 150 persons. These persons were divided into five groups. Four groups received protective vaccines which were administered by the nurses of the stations. One received Weigl, one group Behring 1, and one group the Behring 2 vaccine. I cannot recall the name of the vaccine used for the fourth group. The fifth group received no protective vaccines and served merely as a control group. At that time a medical commission came to Buchenwald which inspected also the typhus station headed by Dr. Ding. As far as I recall this commission consisted of three to four people, (which is characteristic.) I asked Dr. Ding for the names of these gentlemen. Of those names I still remember the following: Professor Gildemeister, President of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, and Professor Rose, Medical advisor to the Registery in Berlin. Since at that time Dr. Ding was not sufficiently familiar with typhus infection Professor Gildemeister carried it out himself. The infections made for the above described experiments came from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and consisted of Rikettsia cultures cultivated in an egg yolk. In these first experiments Jews were used almost exclusively." Is that a reasonably accurate description of the first experiment in January, February, 1942?
A Yes, it is.
Q The second experiment you find described in this original of the Ding Diary which I hand you and the Tribunal will find the Ding Diary in Document Book No. 9, page 7.
A Yes, it is identical with the experimental sera that has been described in the Diary, Typhus Vaccine Experimental Theory I.
Q I don't think I need to read all of this affidavit, but he goes on to state that he read certain entries in the secret files of Dr. Ding and he describes a matter of a commission in November 1941 in which Professor Handloser, Schreiber, Gildemeister, Mrugowsky, Rose and Ding took part and where it was decided to perform vaccine experiments on human beings. Is that the first entry you find in the Ding Diary before you, Dr. Kogon?
A Yes.
Q December 1941, instead of November?
A The date just mentioned here by Artur Dietsch on which the conversation took place reads 29 December 1941.
Q The Tribunal will find that on Page 7 of the Document Book No. 9 in English, and Dietsch states in paragraph 8, "altogether about 1000 persons were used for the experiments. About 100 of them died. These figures include all the experiments carried out at the typhus station. To these experiments belong to typhus, typhoid fever, phosphorus burns, test of a combined inoculation for small pox, typhus, typhoid fever, jaundice, diphtheria, and various other vaccines." Does that conform pretty well to what you have testified here, except the lists of the death is a little lower in Dietsch's statement, which I think we can all understand.
A Yes, with the exception of the figure of the death rate, all the other statements made by Artur Dietsch are correct. They are identical with my own statements.
Q Now, this second affidavit of Dietsch taken after he was indicted apparently is that you forged that diary at some time after April 1945. We haven't been given a copy of the affidavit, but that is the connection. I want you pick up the affidavit and look through it and look at the color of the typewritten print on each page.
A I cannot understand the end of the question.
Q I want you to look at the color of the type on each page and see if you don't find a variation in the color of the type.
A Yes, I can see changes of the color where the typewriter ribbon, and to be exact on pages 1, is lighter that is compared with all the other pages, page 13 is lighter than the other pages. Then page 17, 18, 19 again are the same, but they are not the same as the other pages. Page 20 is different, 21 is the same, 22 is different again, 23 is a different colors; 24 again is the same as 23, and 25 as the page before, 26 the same, 27 is darker, in other words, a frequent change.
Q I will ask the clerk to pass the document up to the Tribunal and I will also call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that this man in Case No. 1 produced an affidavit of two experts as he classed them who went through this diary with a fine toothed comb and came up with several exciting discoveries about this diary, but one finding was that it was all typed on the same machine. They drew attention to the fact that the pages 1 and 13 were in a lighter color than the type of pages 2 to 12 and from 14 on to about 16, 17 and put it that page 13 was written at a different time than pages 2 to 12 and 14 on. In other words, 13 was written at a latter date. Now, Doctor, I ask that if you falsified this document, it must have been done between the 2d of April and when was it the camp was captured by the Americans?
A On the 12th of April 1945.
Q Between the 2d and 12th of April, 1945. Now it is all done on the same typewriter. What was the reason that you wanted to change the ribbon as you wrote along when you falsified this document. Can you suggest a reason for that?
A Well, I could have forged the diary later on too, because, after all, I didn't turn it over to the American authorities on the 12th of April, but a little bit later. It isn't very easy for me, although I am a writer, to see all the criminal reasons behind this, as it were, criminal book mystery story which would enduce me to use different typewriter ribbon in order to carry out such a falsification, because I really didn't even have one in the whole thing.
That is why at the present moment, I can't find a motive for me, why I must have changed the typewriter ribbon.
Q Let's test the accuracy of this so-called forged document against other separate documents which we have on some of this typhus experiments and I pass you now the Prosecution Document Book No. 9 in German and I will ask you to turn to the Ding Diary, which is the second document in it and for the Tribunal Prosecution Exhibit 218 is the first document in this book. It is a work report for the year 1943 of the Typhus and Virus Institute at Buchenwald.
THE PRESIDENT: What book?
MR. MC HANEY: Document Book No. 9.
Now, this work report covers just the year 1943. The diary, of course, covers from the year 1942 to 1945. I'm going to read out certain notes at random from the work report for 1943 and ask the witness if the corresponding entry does not appear in the Ding diary for the corresponding date. These two documents are, of course, entirely separate. I suppose that defense counsel don't exclude the possibility that the witness also falsified the work report; but for present purposes the prosecution is going to assume that they didn't do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Who made the work report?
MR. McHANEY: The work report, your Honor, is a captured document. It is unsigned, as I recall, but obviously was prepared by Ding. It has at the end of it "SS Sturmbannfurhere". It has a pencil note on the top of the first page, "To Mrugowsky."
BY MR. McHANEY:
Now, Witness, in the Ding Diary can you find an entry dated 10 January to 20 February concerning experiments with spotted fever therapeutics, acridine, and methylen, carried out on forty-seven experimental persons? I ask you turn to Page 12. I think you'll find it there in the Ding diary.
MR. McHANEY : Now, if the Tribunal please, it is on Page 11 of the English Document Book, Number 9.
Q. Do you find it?
A. Yes, namely the entry, the 10th of January 1943. Are there two tests with acridine and methylen blue? Is that what you mean?
Q. Yes, they run to 20 February.
A. On the 20th of February 1943 this also refers to acridine and methylen blue.
Q. Was it carried out on forty-seven subjects?
A. Yes, on forty-seven human beings.
Q. Let's just take one more. Defense counsel can devote a little more time to it if they want to. Take 24 April to 1 June, experiments with spotted fever therapeutics, acridine, granulate, and rutenol, carried out on forty experimental persons.
Turn to Page 19 of your document book.
MR. McHANEY: If your Honor please, it is on Page 15 of your document book.
Q. Do you find that?
A. Yes. You mean the experimental series Number 9, that is, the experimental series on typhus, experiments from July 1944? I didn't hear the month. Was it July or June? What was it?
Q. 24 April, Page 19.
A. And the year?
Q. 1943.
A. 1943, I see. Yes, there is an entry here of 11 April 1943. To be exact there are two entries. On the 13th of April there is a preliminary test; on the 13th and 14th of April the special entry about Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuler in Frankfurt.
Q. On 24 April?
A. On 24 April 1943, therapeutical experiments. How long did it continue?
Q. 1 June.
A. On the 1st of June 1943 there is a further entry here which refers to the same experimental series. There is the remark on the experimental series being completed.
MR. McHANEY: Now, if the Tribunal please, I want to check the accuracy of this "forgery" with another document. This one was put in by the defendant Mrugowsky in Case Number 1. Document Number 10 for him. It is a letter dated 5 May 1942. Its subject is testing typhus vaccines. It is directed to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken, Gildemeister, Eyer of the OKH, and a Dr. Demnitz of the Behring Works.
In this letter which Mrugowsky so kindly put into the record, he says that the following experiments for typhus vaccines were made on human subjects. He said, "The following have been tested."
Here I ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 8 of the document book, and at the top of the page I will ask you to analyze the document which I am about to read as against the entries in Research Series Number 1. Do you find that?
THE PRESIDENT: What date is that?
MR. McHANEY: It is on Page 8 of the document book. The date is at the bottom of Page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: I am using the original German book here, and the paging is different. Can you please give me the date of the experiment?
Mr. McHANEY: It's on 6 January 1942 to 1 February 1942. It must be on the first of second page, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. McHANEY: Now, in this document which Mrugowsky puts in, he says, first they tested typhus vaccines from Weigl; second, typhus vaccine according to a process Cox-Gildemeister-Haagen; third, a typhus vaccine known as Behring normal; fourth, vaccine known as Behring strong. Then he goes on in this document, this letter, to describe what happened; and I read from the document: "In the case of sick persons during a typhus epidemic who have not been vaccinated, the average duration of fever has been calculated to be seventeen days. The metabolism and the nervous system were considerably affected. The mortality was around thirty per cent." Does the Tribunal find the number of control persons used in this first series of experiments?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. McHANEY: Ten persons for control. It is the fifth entry on Page 8 of the English Document Book. If you will now drop down to the entry on the same page for 19 April 1942, you will find the entry of five deaths, three under control, and three is thirty per cent of ten. It goes on in this document to point out that none of the persons who had been protectively vaccinated with Weigl died; none died who had been protected with Gildemeister-Haagen vaccine; and it stakes that one each died who had been vaccinated with Behring strong and Behring normal, all of which checks perfectly with the entries in the Ding diary.
Q. Witness, did you ever see this letter which Mrugowsky wrote for these gentlemen? Did you have it available when you "forged" this Ding diary?
A. I never had any knowledge of and I never saw this document which has just been read or used, no.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of it, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: The date of this letter is 5 May 1942; and incidentally if you will look at the English translation, the entry for 19 April 1942 reads: "Final report on the first spotted fever vaccine research series."
Q. Now, Witness, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to call your attention to another document which makes you a very able "forger."
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, I have the distress sign from the translator; and it is recess time.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal Number II is again in session.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. Now, witness, in the Ding diary will you find the entry on page 19 of the Document Book which you have in your hand, Document Book Number 9, the entry concerning the experiments to test Akridin and Ruthenol. 24 April it is, page 19 in your German Document book there.
THE PRESIDENT: 24 April of what year?
MR. McHaNEY: 1943. Page 15 of the English document book.
A. On page 13?
Q. No, I think not. 24 April 1943.
A. Yes.
Q. And then 1 June 1943.
A. Yes, quite.
Q. All right, you have that. Does the Tribunal have it on page 15 of the English Document Book?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q. I am now going to read a few sentences from Document NO 582, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 286 in the Medical Trial, and this Exhibit 286 consists of a letter from Mrugowsky to Schuler, dated 17 November 1944, returning to him a paper which had been written by Schuler, or Ding, for publication, and this paper which Ding-Schuler wrote concerned itself with the effect of the drug Ruthenol and Akridene on typhus.
Now, of course, it is not to be expected in this paper, which was to be published that Ding-Schuler was going to tell them that they artificially infected concentration camp inmates at Buchenwald.
As we can see from the entry on page 15, in the course of the experiment there were twenty-one deaths. But I want to take certain statements out of this report and ask the witness, and exhibit to the Tribunal, that the basic facts on the number of persons used, the date when the experiment was carried out, and to some extent the number of people who died corresponds precisely to the entries in the Ding diary. Now, this little excerpt from the report written by DingSchuler says from April to May, 1943, thirty-nine persons whose spotted fever had been ascertained seriologically and clinically, came to the clinic section attached to the department for spotted fever and virus research in the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS for treatment. What was the date that this experiment was carried out with acridin derivates according to the Ding Diary, Witness?
A They began on 24 April 1943 and ended on the 1st of June 1943.
Q How many persons were involved in the experiment?
A Thirty persons, fifteen for acridin and nine of the control persons.
Q Well, that is fifteen each for accidin and rutenol, that is thirty plus nine for control. That is thirty-nine, is that right?
A Yes.
Q That is the same number that I have read out of this report by Ding-Schuler which was to be published, isn't it, thirty-nine persons?
A Yes.
Q He says, and I just read one sentence, "Accordingly, there was also a mortal exodus in over fifty percent of the cases." In other words, he is stating in this report that more than fifty percent of the thirty-nine died. How many died according to the Ding diary in the experiments with acridin and rutenol?
A It says in the Ding diary under the entry of 1 June 1943, "The experimental series has come to an end. Twenty-one fatalities, eight with acridin gramulate, eight with rutenol, and five among the control.
Signed Dr. Ding, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer."
Q How many for the acridin?
A Eight fatalities, and fifteen experimental persons had been used.
MR. MC HANEY: Now, I would like to pass up this document and have it exhibited to the Tribunal. In part of this report from which I have been reading are included charts giving the case histories of those treated with rutenol, those treated with acridin, and control persons. If the Tribunal will look at the result opposite "Deceased" in the table for rutenol, you will find that eight persons died. The same with acridin, and five persons in the control died, making twenty-one. I will just have the boy-
THE PRESIDENT: You need not pass it up, Mr. McHaney. If that is what it says why counsel can inspect it and verify your word. We will take it.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q Now, Witness, when you looked at the original of the Ding diary did you observe that the signature of Ding appeared on most of the pages in the diary?
A Yes.
Q And did you also know that the name "Schuler" appeared in the latter pages of the diary when he changed his name?
A Yes.
Q Are you familiar enough with Ding's signature and with his signature when he signed "Schuler" to tell this tribunal that those are the signature of Ding and Schuler?
A I know Dr. Ding's signature, and I also know the signature of Dr. Ding when he called himself Schuler. I saw it on hundreds of letters and other documents time and again, and he signed his name hundreds of times when I was present. Ding-Schuler's signature in the diary block 46 are as I know them, genuine.
MR. MC HANEY: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, is there anywhere in any of the captured documents a genuine signature of Dr. Ding in connection with experiments?
MR. MC HANEY: Absolutely, your Honor, and they are in exhibit in the medical case and have been available to defense counsel for many months. As to the present date they have brought in he export opinion that the signatures are not genuine, and as a matter of fact, and I think that defense counsel will bear me out, Mrugowsky, when he was on the stand, admitted that was the genuine signature of Ding-Schuler as it appears in that book. If just before the end of the trial, they don't come forward with some expert contradicting these signatures, perhaps the Prosecution will put on an expert on rebuttal in the medical case.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the Tribunal is sufficiently conversant with the field of disputed documents to act as their own experts.
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, should we regard the attack on the Ding diary here as serious enough, why we shall certainly do so. If the Tribunal requests me I will only be too glad to submit documents signed both with the signature "Ding" and another document signed with the signature "Schuler" which are in no way connected with this diary, and then the Tribunal can see for itself the similarity in the signatures.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to inspect admittedly genuine signatures of Dr. Ding as such as Dr. Schuler.
MR. MC HANEY: I will be very happy to furnish them, you Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross-examination?
DR. SEIDL: (For defendant Oswald Pohl): I have two questions to this witness, may it please the Court.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, I would like to put to you a statement which you made on 7 January, 1947, to Tribunal No. 1. I am quoting from page 1254 of the record. "I know the history of this diary from the description of the Capo Arthur Dietsch, also of the medical clerk in Block 46, a certain Gaczinsky, on the basis of the evidence available in Block 46 and on the basis of personal notes by Dr. Schuler in his private diary.
After the beginning of 1942 he gave the diary to Dietsch. Up to that moment he dictated the diary to Dietsch in one go. From that time onwards, one month from the beginning of 1942, obviously from then onwards the diary was kept regularly from experiment to experiment and from event to event were important for the diary." Now, I would like to ask you, Witness, are you still of the opinion today that from the beginning of 1942 onwards, the diary and its entries were done in the way you described at that time?
A Yes.
Q You maintain that opinion if I now put to you that there has been an expert opinion expounded by two criminal officials who stated that in 1943 and 1944 the diary was written in one go, and one need not be a handwriting expert to find out that a large number of pages in this diary quite obviously were written on a typewriter in one go as it were. If it helps you in answering that question you can look, of course, at the photostatic copy of the diary if you wish to.
AAgain I say that Dr. Ding-Schuler, on the basis of the documents, did from case to case, that is, from experiment to experiment, which in some cases lasted for months on end, dictate the entry, but he did not dictate it into the typewriter, he merely dictated it to the clerk, Gaczinsky, who took stenographic notes, and from those notes, the notes were concerned with several cases at a distance of three or four months. That does not change the fact that Ding-Schuler from case to case, that is to say at a few weeks or a months' distance, gave the dictation for that diary. I myself was never present when he dictated. I did not see myself how it was written down in Block 46. I merely took over the diary in the same way as it was, and I did not change it.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
BY DR. GAWLIK: (For Defendants Bobermin and Volk):
Q Doctor, you told us in your redirect examination that a manager in the WVHA would hear about conditions quite automatically. I assume that you wish to make a modification, that he would hear about these things from his submanager or that he would hear about the things from another office?
A I do not wish to say that he would be informed on the overall conditions, or even part of the conditions very thoroughly, but first of all on the basis of the evidence available in to WVHA he had the possibility of obtaining information, and secondly, time and again he would perhaps through an incident or any other way, he would gain automatic insight into the connections and conditions in the concentration camp. I do not claim that the information was particularly thorough.
Q. Doctor, do you know how, for instance, he would hear of cases of deceases, of fatalities of inmates? How were these reports done? What were the channels of command - by prisoners, I mean, who are in a factory?
A. The channel was from that factory to the camp commandant of the camp concerned and from there to the inmates' hospital in the concentration camp, then to the labor assignment leader, and then, from there, the report would go to the SS-WVHA, Department D, in duplicate; one to Department D-III, to the hospital, that is to say the camp doctor, and the other went from the labor assignment leader to the department concerned with labor. But that need not become known to every member of that department - known to all members of all departments and groups.
Q. Now, if one of those factory managers did not report, did not live at the place where the office group was situated, then, surely, you agree with me that he had not the possibility to become informed --
A. Then he would hear nothing at all on the way I just described.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you very much. No further questions.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for the defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, in your redirect examination you answered to a hypothetical question from Mr. Mc Haney that a member of the WVHA must have been sufficiently informed on atrocities in concentration camps. Supposing he visited Hoess or Glubotschnick, even if that visit did not concern itself with the protective custody camp? I would like to ask you how it was that you have formed that personal opinion?
A. I must confess that when Mr. McHaney asked me this I did not actually hear the part which the defense counsel referred to now. Perhaps it was the fault of the translation. Even if the visit was outside the protective custody camp, I did not hear that part, but I can talk about that now.
Q. Please do.
A. A member of the WVHA, whatever department he may have come from, who visited an SS leader, such as Glubotschnick, or the commandant of Auschwitz, knew the position of that man.
I do not mean by this that any member of the WVHA in a leading position could have assisted who did not know, who was their partners, how they talked to so and speak and perhaps from that fact alone, and from the general knowledge at the disposal of the WVHA, he had to - depending of course on what sort of subjects they would discuss - he simply had to realize what the matter was. And that a concentration camp was not only a matter of file indexes,but of human beings, and special conditions. That, I think, was beyond any doubt.
Q. Witness, you did not answer my question in the way I put it to you. You answered to Mr. McHaney's question that any member of the WVHA - even if he did not belong to the Group D - must have known about the atrocities - and I emphasize "atrocities" - of concentration camps on the basis of a visit to Hoess or Globotschnick.
I would like to ask you: In how far did you think that the man concerned must have been informed about the atrocities on the basis of a visit?
A. I did not understand Mr. McHaney to ask me this: that a general visit to a concentration camp by a member of a WVHA at Hoess, somewhere. I understood him to say that there was an official relation going on between the WVHA and Police Leader of the type of Globotschnick, or camp commandant of the type of Hoess of Auschwitz. And for that reason, in other words, I did not think the visit was a mutual one. For that reason I gave my answer. I cannot imagine what other subjects these gentlemen would discuss otherwise.
Q. Witness, you answered my question to the effect that a visitor who the person of, say, Hoess, or the Higher SS and Police Leader Globotschnick, must have been made familiar on the basis of his visit. But the answer to my question has still not come because you did not tell me yet how the visitors - just how this visitor could have been informed about atrocities committed in concentration camps. I would like to ask you why do you assume that anybody who calls on Hoess must perforce know about conditions in concentration camps on the basis of that visit?
A. I do not assume that anybody who calls on Hoess or Globotschnick must have known after his visit about the atrocities. All I said was that members of the WVHA or managers of factories who were working there knew about these things, naturally more detailed than before. Those people came not without any information and in total ignorance about the fact that concentration camps existed. It would go a bit far to say that members of the WVHA had no idea that such a thing as concentration camps existed in Germany. And, secondly, that such concentration camps - if they knew anything about it - would have been nursing homes. They had additional knowledge by their contacts, by their business relations in a matter with a man like Hoess or Globotschnick.
Q. Witness, you still evade answering my question. I want, finally, to put this hypothetical question to you. Do you believe --
MR. MC HANEY: I think the witness has answered the question. He certainly has attempted to. Now, the whole procedure of putting these hypothetical questions was begun by defense counsel and I think they should be bound by the answers they receive. If you ask a man on the basis of his being an expert, he gives his opinion. And now (defense counsel) proceeds to attack him and ask him how. I think the whole subject is speculative, in any event.
THE PRESIDENT: You are getting pretty far afield. We will try one more. If you don't get the answer this time, we will all quit.
BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for the defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, following up Mr. McHaney's hypothetical question, I wish to put this hypothetical question to you. Do you think that a visitor, that a member of the WVHA, if he does not belong to Office Group D, and now calls on Hoess or Globotschnick, and if on this occasion he does not visit the protective custody camp - would he, on the basis of that visit, have to be informed on atrocities in concentration camps?
A. Well, that depends on the kind of a visit the subject discussed.
It depends on the business relations. I was not present at the real conversation, let alone the hypothetical one.
Q. All I asked you: Since you answered Mr. McHaney's hypothetical question in the affirmative --
A. Yes, I affirmed that question, but not quite so strictly as you put it in your question. Whether somebody from the WVHA hospital obviously regarded here as a sort of orphan calls on Hoess or Globotschnick in a matter in which I have no idea about, and then should have reason to know about atrocities in concentration camps. Mr. McHaney's question was a different one. You narrow it down and --- You generalize it.
THE PRESIDENT: May I answer your Question? If a visitor goes in to see Globotschnick and they talk about atrocities,then the visitor learns about atrocities. If they talk about anything else, then he doesn't learn about atrocities.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, do you know under what conditions somebody was in a position to visit a concentration camp at all?
A. That is a rather large question. Somebody? Who do you mean by somebody? It depends on who wants to visit a concentration camp. An unknow man or woman who just came along and suddenly came across a concentration camp would be unable to visit it.
Q. Witness, perhaps I will ask you a little more precisely. Do you know under what conditions a member of the WVHA could visit a concentration camp? I would like to add to my question here and ask you also; Was it necessary to have a written permission by some authority or other?
A. Yes, unless it was the inspector of concentration camps, or the highest doctor of concentration camps. Then he could just go into a concentration camp and visit it. He had to be a higher officer than the camp commandant. For instance, a member of the Office Group C was not above the camp commandant of Buchenwald.
DR. HEIM: Thank you very much. No further questions.