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.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Attorney for Frank and Hans Loerner):
Q. You made a statement just now that you yourself were never present at a visit by a member of the WVHA at Globocnik's and that, of course, is correct, isn't it? From what fact do you deduce your opinion which you gave us here? Is it correct that you base your opinion as in other cases of your statements from your knowledge of evidence available about concentration camps. That is to say, in the same manner as a prosecutor or a defense counsel on a trial forms an opinion from the evidence submitted?
A. Not in the same manner. As far as my special answer just now concerned, during such a visit, I assume, unless it was an isolated example or unless the topic was not of the same nature as the court described just now, I assume that the visits there were the the same thing. That is my opinion, after all evidence here or any other statements.
Q. So, it is equally possible that anybody else who goes into this--
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered your question and there is no use to pursue it further. He says that he tells you what he knows or what he heard and I don't think you are accomplishing anything by pursuing any further.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Mr. President, I have no other questions to the witness. I simply want to state where he gets his opinions from.
BY DR. BELZER: (Attorney for the Defendant Sommer):
Q. Witness, do you make any observations that the camp commandant of Buchenwald, provided, of course, that the camp commandant knew who was about to visit him made arrangements for hiding what was going on in torturing prisoners?
A. Yes. That happened on repeated occasions, particularly when strangers would call; police officers, for instance, but also in other cases, orders were given to remove certain instruments of torture, in particular, not to display them openly.
DR. BELZER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination? This witness may be excused.
MR. ROBBINS: I ask that Josef Ackermann be called as a witness for the prosecution.
DR. SEIDL (Attorney for the Defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the court, before the next witness is called in, I would appreciate if I had the opportunity to make a request which is concerned with the proceedings here, for the reason that the prosecution will finish its case in a few days and then the question will have to be cleared up whether and how long before we can adjourn this proceedings in order to enable the defense counsel to prepare their case. I would be grateful if you could tell me if I could make that request now, because the translation of the request, which I handed in in a letter, will always take a few days, and it might be possible that the court's ruling will be given at a later date and therefore it is possible that the defense counsel will have difficulty and the whole matter will merely take five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: You want the prosecution to estimate when the case will be concluded?
DR. SEIDL: No, the position is this. The prosecution has told us that the presentation of their case will come to an end in a few days. It is not so important how soon this will occur, but in this connection, I wish to make application that after the prosecution has presented their case, the proceedings will be adjourned for two weeks in order to make it possible for the defense to have the extensive material investigated, to prepare their defense, and after their preparation to be able to make their opining statement and I would therefore suggest, Mr. President, that I would be allowed to make this application here and now. I am basing myself on five points so that Mr. McHaney can answer to my application immediately, if he should think it necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope some start has been made on the preparation of the defense and that you are not putting off preparing your defense until the prosecution's case is in.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the court, of course, of course, we have begun to prepare the work of the defense; on the other hand, the fact exists that preparation is rendered more difficult by the indictment itself. It has only been substantiated up to a point and now we have only seen from the documents of the prosecution what actual charges are being made against the various defendants. The prosecution are submitting twenty document books which amount in German to about 3,000 typewritten pages. Up to this time we have only a part of those document books at our disposal and, of course, it is necessary that the defendants themselves and their counsel should study this case and work on it, which is necessary for the reason that without previous knowledge of that case and without having worked on it for some time, no defense will be possible and here I should like to add also that in the case of the Defendant Pohl, the defense will consist of an interrogation and examination of the Defendant Pohl and I shall have to examine Defendant Pohl on a large number of documents on the witness stand. The preparation work was impossible before, because some of the document books have not been given us yet. Moreover, the difference between this trial and other trials is that the prosecution have confined themselves to offering the documents and making only a few remarks but in the IMT, for instance, and other courts, most of the documents were read into record, or, always at least considerable extracts were read into the record. This particular proceeding means saving time on the part of the proceeding, as such. Only the prosecution can put its case on as it wishes, but on the other hand, the consequence is the preparation of the defense is rendered more difficult by this and they need therefore more time to prepare their defense. Also, up to this moment, we have received the records only in a very limited extent. Up to two days ago, we had the transcription for only one day and more recently, we had the transcription for two or three days. We relied of course that here as in the other cases, we would have been given the transcription, immediately.
As a result of this we have desisted from taking down notes while witnesses were being examined. These are a few of the reasons which I wish to quote here in order to show the differences which face us in this case and which in my opinion make it necessary for an adjournment between the end of the prosecution's case and between the opining statement of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, anticipated that the defense would need some time after the close of the prosecution and before the opining of the defense. We are a little startled at your request for two weeks.
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, several colleagues made the suggestion to have three weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: That is even more -- three weeks.
DR. SEIDL: In my own case, I regarded it as sufficient to apply for two weeks, because I based myself on the fact that two weeks would be a minimum, and I would like to add here that the evidence submitted so far is very extensive and as far as the documents submitted are concerned, it will be necessary to discuss the documents with the defendants. I wish to refer to another point also on this case and I would be grateful for the court's support in this instance. A number of witnesses have been permitted to me by the court. So far I have not been able with one sole exception, which was a mistake made by the prison authorities, to talk to these witnesses, because the administration took the attitude that witnesses approved by the court can be seen by me only in the presence of a commissioner. A commissioner is available up to 4:30, in the evening, Now, because we sit here until 4:30 I will be quite unable to see these witnesses and talk to them.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is necessary, commissioners can be made available at any time. The court realizes that you can't interview witnesses while you are here in court and the commissioners who are appointed by the court will be made available after court or in the evening whenever it is possible to interview the witness, so don't let that concern you too much.
I wish to refer to another point also on this occasion and I would be grateful for the Court's support in this instance. A number of witnesses have been committed to me by the Court. So far I have not been able, with one single exception, which was a mistake made by the prison authorities, to talk to these witnesses because the administration took the attitude that witnesses approved by the Court can be seen by me only in the presence of a commissioner. A commissioner is available as a rule up to 4:30 in the evening. Now, because we sit here until 4:30, I will be quite unable to see these witnesses at all.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is necessary, the commissioners can be made available at any time, The Court realizes that you can't interview witnesses while you are here in court, and the commissioners who are appointed by the Court will be made available to you after court in the evening or whenever it is possible to interview the witnesses. So don't let that concern you too much.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps I could suggest to the Court here that in those cases when the Court has approved a witness for the defense no commissioner should be called here at all and only in those cases will the commissioner be called when our position is to talk to the witness in an informative manner, and on the basis of that conversation base one's opinion of whether one wishes to apply for this witness at all.
THE PRESIDENT: We have tried to solve this problem of the commissioners and there are more exceptions to the proposed plan than there are instances in which it is followed. A rule has been formulated and a rule of Court has been published and it will be followed. There will be no exceptions to it. But we shall make the interviewing of witnesses as convenient and expeditious as possible. However, we shall adhere to the rule which requires the presence of the commissioner. Now, if you'll excuse me just a minute while I consult with my colleagues.
Mr. McHaney, may we hear from you on this question in the interval?
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, it seems to the prosecution that two weeks is excessive. We don't wish to be too stringent in the matter but, of course, we wish to get through with the case as rapidly as possible and reasonably, both from our own point of view and that of the defense.
I think it should be pointed out, however, that the indictment was served, it seems to me, in January. A large number of the documents which have been used in this case or at least a substantial number were in arguments used before the IMT. All of the medical documents, with a few exceptions, were used before the Tribunal trying the medical case. After all, it is to be expected that these defendants have considered their careers in the WVHA in the light of the charges in the indictment and that they are informed as to the matters which are being brought into issue in this trial.
So I don't think it is necessary to have a long adjournment. Now, at the most I should think that, whether or not we finish by Friday, which we hope to do, the Tribunal might adjourn from Monday through Wednesday of next week, require opening statements to be made by the defense counsel on Thursday and Friday, and then begin the defense on Monday a week. After all, we have eighteen defendants in this dock and, if they can do nothing more, they can at least take the stand and testify. It is ridiculous to say that we have to adjourn two weeks so that eighteen defense counsel can prepare eighteen cases which don't go in simultaneously. Their cases won't be closed at any fixed time. They can continue to obtain affidavits and to search for witnesses after their defendant has testified and they can bring that material in later.
We have estimated a trial here of two to three months for the defense, so there is going to be considerable time, I think, for all of them. The first defendant may find it a little more difficult, but after his defendant has testified he then has seventeen more defendants to extend his time to get additional evidence. So I would suggest that the opening statements be made the last part of next week and the defense then start the following week.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court is not unmindful of the fact that counsel in this case have appeared in other cases and are familiar with the docu ments and with the whole background and setting here.
We are also impressed with the fact that while eighteen opening statements are being made, if that must happen, those who are not busy making an opening statement will have a considerable period of time to do something more worthwhile. I mean you don't all have to stand by and listen to each other make opening statements. That time can be available to you for inspection of the documents and reviewing the transcript. I think you are magnifying the demands which will be made upon your time somewhat. I will hear you, counsel.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution said, among other things, that the indictment was served on 13 January. As far as the defendants Frank and Hans Loerner are concerned, as early as January I made the application that the prosecution should be made to substantiate the indictment, and at that time I pointed out that the indictment alone does not enable defendants Frank and Hans Loerner to see what crimes they are charged with, apart from the general charge of conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: We are familiar with your application for a bill of particulars, and it is probably true that you could not really prepare your defense or start to until you began to get the documents, and you cannot fully prepare it until you get all the documents. We realize that. Put to terminate this, at the conclusion of the prosecution, the Tribunal will fix the time of the adjournment. We have your requests in mind.
Do you want to start tonight on this man?
MR. ROBBINS: I think we might save some time by starting now.
JOSEF ACKERMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Raise your hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, your name is Josef Ackermann?
A. Josef Ackermann, yes.
Q. Where and when were you born?
A. I was born on 31 January 1896 in Munich.
Q. You are presently a German citizen?
A. Yes, I am a German citizen.
Q. You are a journalist by profession?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you followed that profession?
A. I have been a journalist and editor for thirty years.
Q. You are a student of political economy and history?
A. Yes.
Q. When were you first arrested?
A. I was arrested in 1933, at the beginning of September 1933, together with the British journalist Mr. Panther of the Daily Telegraph in Munich.
Q. On what charges?
A. I was charged with having committed treason and high treason, committed by publications in British papers about National Socialism.
Q. What did those statements consist of, generally?
A. The accusations were generally concerned with the fact that the National Socialist regime was aiming at starting a new world conflagration, a new war.
Q. Were you sent to a concentration camp at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Where were you sent?
A. After having spent some time in prison, I was sent to Dachau.
Q. How long were you in Dachau?
A. I was in Dachau from April to September, 1934.
Q. You were then released?
A. I was released in September, 1934.
Q. Were you again arrested in September, 1939?
A. From 1935 to 1938 I was arrested four times. I was for a time in the Wittelsbach-Palais in Munich, which was the Gestapo prison.
Q. What were the charges?
A. There were no real charges. It was purely a continuation of the first case.
Q. Then again in September 1939 you were taken into custody?
A. I was again taken into custody and after a few days in prison I was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp.
Q. How long did you remain in Buchenwald?
A. I remained in Buchenwald up to 4 January 1944 when I was transferred to Dora, near Nordhausen, where I remained until the end of the war.
Q. Is Dora a branch camp of Buchenwald?
A. Dora up to the summer of 1944 was an outside camp of Buchenwald concentration camp and only in the summer of 1944 was it an independent camp.
Q. Do you know whether or not this was under Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA - Dora, that is?
A. All our letters which were sent to the medical department at Berlin were sent to the Group Office D-III to Oberstandartenfuehrer Lolling.
Q. How long did you stay in concentration camp Dora, Nordhausen?
A. In Dora, Nordhausen, I stayed from 4 January 1944 up to the Beginning of April of 1945 when the camp was evacuated Because the Americans approached.
Q. What kind of work were you assigned to do in Buchenwald when you were sent there in September 1939?
A. For some months I worked in the diggers company, and at the end of 1939 I was employed in the pathological department as a medical clerk and at Buchenwald I did this until 5 January 1944.