Q Just a moment, witness. I now want to ask you some brief questions concerning what you have just told us. You state that you went to Dachau to work. Did you consider going to Dachau to be good fortune?
A Yes; a friend of mine, a gypsy, had already been to Dachau, and he told me that the situation was much better and that we would get better food. But that was not the case.
Q Well, did you understand what you were to do when you went to Dachau, what type of work was it, bomb disposal or removal?
A Yes, we went there to work.
Q Did you understand that you were going to Dachau to volunteer for seawater experiments?
A No, never.
Q Now, upon arrival in Dachau you then went to the quarantine block, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You stayed there for a day or two and were given physical examinations?
A Yes.
Q Did you also get an X-ray examination?
A Yes.
Q And then you were transferred to the experimental block?
A Yes.
Q And there you met a professor, or a doctor?
A Yes.
Q Do you think you would be able to recognize that doctor if you saw him today?
A Immediately, yes. Yes, I would immediately recognize him.
Q Would you kindly stand up from your witness chair, take your earphones off, and proceed over to tho defendants' dock, and see if you can recognize the professor that you met at Dachau?
(Witness leaves the stand.)
Q Walk right over, please.
(Witness attempts assault on the defendant Beiglboeck.)
MR. HARDY: The prosecution apologizes for the conduct of the witness, Your Honors. Due to tho manner of this examination, the prosecution will have no further questions, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will keep the witness guarded before the Tribunal.
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I have no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal bring tho witness before the bar of this Court? Will an interpreter come up here who can translate to the witness?
Witness, you were summoned before this Tribunal as a witness to give evidence.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a court of justice.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And by your conduct in attempting to assault the defendant Beiglboeck in the dock, you have committed a contempt of this Court.
THE WITNESS: Your Honors, please excuse my conduct. I am very excited.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the witness if he has anything else to say in extenuation of his conduct.
THE WITNESS: I am very excited and that man is a murderer. He ruined me for my entire life.
THE PRESIDENT: Your statements afford no extenuation of your conduct. You have committed a contempt in the presence of the Court, and it is the judgment of this Tribunal that you be confined in the Nuernberg prison for the period of 90 days as punishment for the contempt which you have exhibited before this Tribunal.
THE WITNESS: Would the Tribunal please forgive me. I am married and I have a little son. And this man is a murderer. He gave me salt water and he performed a liver puncture on me. Please do not confine me to prison.
THE PRESIDENT: That is no extenuation. The contempt before this Court must be punished. People must understand that a Court is not to be treated in that manner. Will the Marshal call a guard and remove the prisoner to serve the sentence which this Court has inflicted for contempt? It is understood that the defendant is not to be confined at labor. He is simply to be confined in the prison, having committed a contempt in open court by attempting to assault one of the defendants in the dock.
MR. HARDY: At this time, Your Honor, the Prosecution will request a brief recess, if Your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for a moment.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I desire to inquire whether or not stenographers have made a record of the recent occurrence, in the course of which the Tribunal found it necessary to sentence the witness Karl Hoellenrainer for contempt?
MR. HARDY: The court reporter for that time has left the courtroom. We will check if the President desires it to be in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to make the record clear, I will state for the record that the witness Karl Hoellenrainer, having been called to the stand and duly sworn, and a few preliminary questions propounded to him, was requested by counsel for the prosecution to identify the defendant Beigleboeck. In order to do so the witness advanced toward the dock and at approximately 1125 hours on this morning of Friday, 27 June 1947, as he approached the dock, suddenly sprang over the rail of the dock and attempted to assault the defendant Beiglboeck. The witness was promptly placed under restraint, and the Tribunal directed that he be brought before the Tribunal to be punished for a contempt of court committed in open court by his attempted assault upon the defendant Beiglboeck. The witness was asked if he had anything to say in extenuation and simply pleaded his excitement and the strain he was under and that he yielded to the impulse of the moment upon identifying the defendant Beiglboeck in the dock. The Tribunal thereupon sentenced the witness to confinement to the Nurnberg Prison for a period of ninety days for a contempt committed in open court, the defendant to be confined but not put to labor.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution has no further testimony to offer at this time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Counsel for the defendant Handloser ready to proceed?
DR. NELTE: (for the defendant Handloser): Mr. President, gentlemen of the Tribunal, the submission of evidence in the case of the defendant Dr. Handloser was broken off on the 20th of February 1947 by the submission of the document HA 30, Exhibit 51.
The Tribunal has temporarily admitted into evidence a number of documents for the defense. It has accepted them subject to the submission of the proper oath in the prescribed form. In that correction I have to mention document HA 42, which has the temporary Exhibit No. 19, and also document HA 3 which has the temporary Exhibit No. 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, there has been handed to the Tribunal one file of these documents. Are there no other files available for the members of the Tribunal?
DR. NELTE: I asked the Secretary General to submit these documents to the Tribunal by handing him that file yesterday. I asked him to see to it that the Tribunal would have today available the translated and mimeographed document. I had believed that would be possible by this morning. All the documents have been translated and mimeographed. They have been made available in sufficient numbers for the benefit of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Anticipating further difficulties in the presentation of the defense counsel's supplementary documents, I would suggest that if possible the defense counsel could start out and make an index that the Tribunal can use and that the prosecution can use, such index containing Exhibit No. 1 through to the final exhibit which they wish to introduce. I have before me now about eight or nine document books or supplemental sheets for the defendant Handloser; I feel certain that Dr. Nelte has no intention of introducing each and every document in those eight or nine supplementary editions that I have. However, in order to follow him and in order to follow the future presentation of documents, if we were provided with these indexes, then we could follow the presentation more readily and discard the documents which they do not intend to introduce, and then we could properly assemble the exhibits in one folder or two folders as the case may be, completely disregarding the superfluous documents. I think that would be the only way I could work it out.
I have several documents, and each time Dr. Nelte reads off a number it will take me a considerable number of minutes to find the document involved. We shall go on now and see if we can follow. But in the future if the defense would follow that it would be most helpful.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion of the prosecution appears to the Tribunal to be excellent. If that plan can be followed by defense counsel it will make matters easier for the Tribunal and opposing counsel. My question in the first place was directed to the fact that the Tribunal has on the bench only one file of these affidavits. There must be more available. I would ask Mr. Hardy -- the secretary is absent for the moment -- if during the noon recess he could see if these documents are not available in the office of the Secretary-General so that each member of the Tribunal could be provided with a file.
MR. HARDY: I must say that Dr. Nelte has been most helpful in that he has given me a folder containing the documents which he wishes to introduce as supplements, but I am unable to ascertain what he left off and if he is going to use some of the others, and if these indexes can be provided at a later date, we can proceed with this group of documents which he will offer as supplements and introduce formally now. I presume the Tribunal has one set put in one folder as I have.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has one set.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, this file is the one which I personally submitted yesterday, when distributing the documents; however, a number of copies are provided for the Tribunal as well as for the prosecution, and I assumed that these documents would already be in front of the Tribunal at the time I started my submission.
THE PRESIDENT: Evidently the Secretary-General has just arrived.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Nelte does have before him Your Honor, a rather detailed index starting with Exhibit No. 1 and going through Exhibit No. 77 as I see it here, which is just what I was referring to. If he could have that mimeographed, even in the German language as it is now, without translating it, it would be decidedly helpful, and then we could take our document books and supplements and weed them out and have what he has presented to the court.
THE PRESIDENT: During the noon recess you can endeavor, Counsel to assist Dr. Nelte in seeing that the mimeographing process moves along as rapidly as possible.
DR. NELTE: I have just explained that I submitted a number of affidavits during the case of Handloser which received only temporary exhibit number. Before starting the further submission of evidence, I should like to submit these three affidavits again in the proper form, as desired by the Tribunal. This is the affidavit by Shaefer, document HA 42, Exhibit No. 19. Shaefer has now submitted the affidavit in the form as prescribed by the Tribunal, and the same holds true of the affidavit of Professor Rodenwald, which is Document HA 3, Exhibit No. 21, and finally the affidavit of Professor Frey, which is Document HA 52, Exhibit No. 31. I submit these three formal affidavits to the Secretary-General, and I now ask the High Tribunal to convert the provisional admission of these documents into a final admission.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution examined these documents? Is counsel satisfied that the proper jurat is attached? The secretary will hand him the original documents.
MR. HARDY: This merely a formality. At the time that the documents wore introduced, we objected to them because of lack of jurat. The three supplementary pages contain jurats duly notarized or signatures sworn to, so the prosecution withdraws any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: It appearing to the Tribunal that Handloser Documents HA 42, HA 3, and HA 52, Exhibits respectively 19, 21, and 31, are now in order, those three exhibits are received in evidence on behalf of the defendant Handloser.
MR. HARDY: I might add, Your Honor, that you will find the affidavits in Handloser English Document Book No. 2; wherein you will find Handloser Document No. 3, which is Exhibit 21, Handloser Document 42, which is Exhibit 19; and in Handloser Document Book No. 3 you will find Handloser Document 52 which is Exhibit 31.
THE PRESIDENT: I will return these three pages to the Secretary, who will see that they are properly attached to the exhibits.
DR. NELTE: I should now like to ask the High Tribunal to give me a decision regarding the admission of a letter written by the prelate, Kreuz. This is Document HA 39, which has been provisionally admitted as Exhibit 41. This can be found on page 3262 of the German record. After the Prosecution had raised an objection to this document, the President rules as follows: "It appears from the evidence offered that it is an answer to a letter by Dr. Nelte, dated the 4th of January. If Dr. Nelte would submit a copy cf the letter written to Dr. Kreuz, the Tribunal would save something before it in order to make a decision. Document HA 39, as it is before the Tribunal, now is clearly not admissible, as it is merely a letter. If Dr. Nelte can submit a copy of the letter to which this is the answer, the Tribunal, will then be able to make a decision regarding the admissibility of Document HA 39 later." I have reied to have Prelate Dr. Kreuz add to his letter the jurat as prescribed by the Tribunal. On 19 March, 1947, I informed Military Tribunal No. 1 that the Prelate Dr. Kreuz because of basic principles has refused to give an affidavit in lieu of an oath, and I asked the Tribunal to admit the letter without the jurat, since it is of particular value to me with reference to Dr. Handloser's character, and I referred to article III, Ordinance VII.
In my letter of 3 March 1947 I also applied to the High Tribunal, in case the Tribunal should not want to admit this letter in spite of its importance, to approve the Prelate Dr. Kreuz as a witness, and ask him to come to Nurnberg. I have no decision of the High Tribunal in answer to this application, and I am asking you now to tell me whether I may assume that this letter of the prelate Dr. Kreuz, Document HA 39, is finally admitted as Exhibit 41 or whether the Tribunal desires to make any other decision in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that the matter rests before the Tribunal in exactly the same situation as it was when first presented; is that correct, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: I have ccnformed with the wish of the Tribunal and submitted my letter to the Prelate Dr. Kreuz, on 19 March 1947.
The Tribunal desired to see my letter to him in order to be able to decide whether the answer of the Prelate Kreuz can be admitted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the Prosecution any comment?
MR. HARDY: I have no comment to make, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon the record before the Tribunal, the letter from Dr. Kreuz, if I understand his name correctly, is not admissible, and the Tribunal is not disposed to summon Kreuz as a witness.
MR. HARDY: Inasmuch as the letter is a character reference of Dr. Handloser, the Prosecution withdraws its objection without prejudice, even though it doesn't meet with the requirements of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement of the Prosecution, the letter by Dr. Kreuz to Dr. Handloser will be admitted in evidence, attached to a copy of Dr. Handloser's letter to Dr. Kreuz, which Dr. Nelte would certify to be a copy of the letter which he wrote to Dr. Kreuz. That may be admitted in evidence under these circumstances as Handloser Exhibit 41.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have a problem to take up here. Dr. Nelte has, as Handloser Document 52, in Document Book 3, as Handloser Exhibit 31, just submitted a jurat. This Document 52 has a jurat already, but Document Handloser 10 from the same affiant does not have a jurat, and I assume that this jurat from the same affiant should be attached to Handloser Document No. 10 and not Handloser Document 52. I offhand do not know the exhibit number of Handloser Document 10. That is to straighten that one out.
I also might call to Dr. Nelte's attention that he has given us a jurat for Handloser Document 42, which is Exhibit 19, and that document already has a jurat on it. Perhaps this jurat also should be attached to another document. Maybe he could clear that up at recess, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will pass that now until the noon recess, which will occur in a few moments, and then it can be cleared up and the matter clearly stated to the Tribunal when we reconvene.
DR. NELTE: It has a jurat, but not in the form which was prescribed by the Tribunal during the latter part of the proceedings. The original formula was in compliance with the general idea of submission of an affidavit, but does not contain any reference to punishment.
MR. HARDY: Does that also apply to Handloser Document 10?
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that those matters be discussed between counsel during the noon recess, and report made to the Tribunal when we reconvene.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE: I now submit an affidavit by Professor Dr. Wirth, who was the head of the Pharmacological Institute of the Military Medical Academy. This is HA 56. I ask you to accept it as Exhibit 52.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you just gave us the number of Exhibit 56, I understood. Oh, Exhibit 52, I see.
DR. NELTE: Exhibit No. 52.
JUDGE SEBRING: What document book, please?
DR. NELTE: It is in no document book, but can be found in the book I today submitted to the Tribunal. You will find it to be the fourth document, coming after the three affidavits which I have just submitted. Point one of this affidavit refers to prosecution Document No 154. It refers to a report which was submitted by the Prosecution. I asked Professor Wirth to state in this affidavit his position with reference to page 3 of this report, where it says: "A third series of experiments was carried out with a representative of the Lost group, with nitrogen Lost, according to the suggestion which was made by Oberstansarzt Professor Dr. Wirth on the occasion of a conference with the Reich Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt on 4 December 1944." As it can be seen from the report, this series of experiments was carried out in the concentration camp of Neuengamme.
Since the Prosecution mentioned this suggestion by Professor Wirth in order to incriminate Professor Handloser, by alleging that he was the superior of Professor Wirth, I considered it proper to hear Professor Wirth's attitude with reference to this accusation. In this affidavit, which I shall not read in its entirety, he states that he actually did participate in the conference of December 1944, but that from a material point of view it is entirely impossible that he actually made any such suggestion. In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this conference took place on 4 December 1944. On 1 September 1944, Professor Handloser was released from his position as Army Medical Inspector. If there had been any connection at all between professor Wirth and Professor Handloser during the time Professor Handloser was Medical Inspector. Roman numeral II of the affidavit deals with the purpose and significance of the meeting of Consulting Physicians, and further whether these meetings could induce the Prosecution to allege that the participants in these meetings were planning war crimes and crimes against humanity. I merely refer to the answer to the question contained in Roman numeral II and Roman numeral III.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal will receive the document in evidence. I will ask that during the noon recess the secretary, Dr. Nelte and counsel for the prosecution as far as possible will endeavor to assemble a set of those documents in English which Dr. Nelte is attempting to offer. I find that those before me show some in German and some in English. If each member of the tribunal could have a copy in English it would help a great deal.
The Tribunal will recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon at 1230 the Tribunal recessed until 1330)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 27 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. TIPP: (Counsel for Defendants Schroeder and BeckerFreyseng.) Mr. President, the supplemental documents for Professor Schroeder, which I wanted to put in today, have not yet been translated. I do not went to take the Tribunal's time twice and consequently ask permission to put them in at the same time as I put in the supplemental documents for Dr. Becker-Freyseng. I hope that both of these groups of documents will be translated by tomorrow or Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel, you may follow that procedure. The Tribunal desires to suggest to defense counsel..... Dr. Tipp, just a moment. The Tribunal desires to suggest to defense counsel that in order to expedite procedure they assemble the supplemental documents which they desire to enter and have them prepared in sequence as Dr. Servatius did yesterday and then submit them to the Tribunal at the earliest possible date.
If any of those supplemental documents can be submitted to the Tribunal tomorrow, the Tribunal would appreciate it. There are not many defense counsel here present, but if those who arc present will advise the other defense counsel of what I have said, the Tribunal will be obliged.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I offer three copies of a list of the documents for Professor Handloser. Numbers 1 to 51 have already been put in, and Documents numbers 52 to 72 I intend to put in. This list is in triplicate, and for the bench I have a list only of the documents that have not yet been put in. I hope this will suffice for the future pursuit of my case for the defendant Handloser.
The prosecution also has such an index, and during the noon recess we attempted to put the documents in order according to this index.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, as for this list of documents, how many of them did you say had already boon admitted in evidence; up to what number, up to 51?
DR. NELTE: Numbers 1 to 51 and this morning Document No. 56, which is Exhibit No. 52. If the Tribunal will permit, I shall begin with Exhibit No. 53, which is Document H A 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.
DR. NELTE: Document H A 32 is a certificate by the Prior of the Abbey Maria Laach. This is on page 46 of Document Book 2. The putting in of this document was previously postponed until an affidavit could be drawn up in this form. I now put this evidence in. This will be Exhibit 53.
Please then associate this affidavit with the statement on page 46 of the Document Book 2. I wish to read only a part of it.
The undersigned herewith "Benedictine Abbey Maria Laach." states that Professor Handloser, former generalsoberstabsarzt and Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, during his activity as Armeearzt in the Eifel district from November 1939 until May 1940 was frequently a guest at our abbey. It was important to him that the army hospital that was accommodated in our house give every consideration possible and that the persons in the cloister should receive all possible medical care. When the army left, Dr. Handloser, instructed the replacement unit, particularly the doctor of the Defense District 12, Wiesbaden, to see to it that a hospital unit should always be accommodated in Maria Laach. He hoped that he would in this way protect the monastery from being closed up, which was a threat to all monasteries at that time.
Since Prof. Handloser had in the meantime been promoted to Army Medical Inspector, we felt the effects of his friendship in all our subsequent dealings with the army Medical Authorities. The intention was realized and the Abbey Maria Laach did remain in the possession of the Benedictines."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel without endeavoring to control your action to any extent, even the slightest extent, to the prejudice of your client, I would suggest that you read from these documents now only matters of greatest importance to your client. These documents when they are received in evidence will be available to the Tribunal, and in your brief, which we will study carefully in writing the judgment, you can then either quote from these documents or call attention to those portions of the documents which you particularly desire to call to the attention of the Tribunal. That is really a more effective method of bringing these matters to the attention of the Tribunal, than it is simply to read a considerable portion of these documents into the record now, because you may rest assured that the Tribunal will give your brief, when they come to study the case, the most careful consideration.
DR. HELTE: I will restrict myself to the absolute minimum, Your Honor. May I ask you first to state that Document HA 32 is new accepted as Exhibit 53?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct.
DR. NELTE: Now I offer Document HA 57. This is an affidavit by the director of the University Skin Clinic in Berlin, Prof. Dr. Loche. This is a statement about the conferences of the Consulting Specialists. Since the Tribunal has already heard about the purpose of the conference of the Consulting Specialists, I ask permission to put this document in as Exhibit 54, but will not go into any details about it.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, is that the certificate or the affidavit from Professor Dr. E. Loehe?
DR. NELTE: That is right, yes, Professor Dr. Loehe.
I come now to a series of affidavits that I shall put in without entering upon them in detail. They are being put in evidence because they were sent to me spontaneously, without my having requested them and without Professor Handloser or any one of his relatives having requested then.
Such affidavits - most of them are letters - serve to make Professor Handloser's character clear, and, as Mr. Hardly said this morning, a recognition of Handloser's true personality is of great importance in this trial. I ask therefore that these documents he admitted in evidence Document HA 58 is an affidavit from one Dr. Stoecklein, which will be Exhibit 55. Then there is an affidavit from Dr. Ludwig Blum. This is HA 59, and will be Exhibit 56. Likewise the affidavit by Dr. Hirt, HA 61. This will be Exhibit 57. Document HA 62 is an affidavit by Generalarct Dr. Wolfgang Schmidt-Brudeckner. The Tribunal approved this Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner as a witness in the case for Handloser. He was the chief of Staff in the Army Medical Inspectorate from 1 January 1941 to 31 August 1944. After months of efforts on the part of the Secretary General it was ascertained that Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner had been released from the prisoner-of-war camp after his case had been reviewed by the English military authorities. Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner immediately declared his readiness to appear as a witness, but had an unfortunate accident that made it difficult for him to travel.
THE PRESIDENT: What is this document number, Counsel?
DR. NELTE: That is Document HA 62, Exhibit 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
DR. NELTE: Consequently, I asked Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner to make his testimony in the form of an affidavit. I informed the Prosecution of this fact, and when I received the affidavit, I showed it to the Prosecution for their information. In the letter of 20 May 1947, the Prosecution stated that they would forego cross examination of this witness. This affidavit is of the utmost importance in the case of Handloser, because this is a man who was most intimately informed about Handloser's activities. Generalarzt Schuerfler, the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Service, has been heard here, and this affidavit from the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate is the supplementation to that testimony. These two Chiefs of Staff were Handloser's representatives or deputies during his absence. They were his eyes and ears and and right hand.
Everything that was addressed to Handloser or was answered by Handloser went through them. For the purpose of simplification both Schuerfler on the stand and Schmidt-Brueckner in this affidavit were shown Handloser's statements in his affidavit regarding the organization of the Medical Inspectorate of the Wehrmacht. This is HA 29, Exhibit 4. Both chiefs of staff certified to the correctness of this affidavit of Handloser's. I wish to read brief excerpts from this affidavit of Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner, which, as I said, is of particular importance, because it appears to me important to put them into the record. On page 2, paragraph 2, Brueckner says as follows:
"I should like to make it quite clear that in my position as Professor Dr. Handloser's Chief of Staff I was bound to have full knowledge of any fundamental question or Happenings which were considered important in the sphere of the Army Medical Inspectorate. Generally I can say that during my term of office I had no knowledge of anything concerning tests and experiments in concentration camps or in the domain of the SS, such as are the subject of the indictment in this trial. If I had known of these inadmissible experiments, which are contrary to all recognized medical principles, I should certainly have submitted a letter reporting them to Professor Handloser. In the same way, I am convinced that if such a case had occurred, Professor Handloser would have done everything which was within his official power to draw the attention of the responsible authorities to the matter. This conviction is based upon my long years of close collaboration with Prof. Handloser and the knowledge I have thus gained of his personality."
I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal, however, to the affidavit as a whole, Document HA 62, which with the permission of the Tribunal will be Exhibit 58.
The next document is an affidavit by Professor Eyer, Professor Eyer was the director of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research in Cracow. Prof. Eyer camp doctor in the camp Becklinghausen, but he fell ill. In view of the importance of this witness, I informed the Prosecution when I went to the Becklinghausen camp, and I took the following affidavit from Professor Eyer, from which I shall read only the most important passages here, namely, the passage referring to the well-known Eyer-Schmidt in February, 1943, and the passage referring to the shipments of lice.
"I was head of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH in Cracow. It is correct that early in February 1943, I was in the concentration camp Buchenwald with Dr. Bernhard Schmidt. It happened thus: We had produced yellow fever vaccine by order of the Army Medical Inspectorate, and to my knowledge had already delivered it at this time to the Military Medical Academy, Hygiene Section. I had constructed a new storage container, and one day received the order to demonstrate this storage container to a unit of the SS. Dr. Schmidt and I went to Weimar and were picked up there. We drove to Buchenwald. In a barracks there I showed Dr. Ding and several other persons in white coats the use of the new container and how to dissolve the dry vaccine. Several persons were also vaccinated. After this we were shown the kitchen, supply rooms and hygienic equipment.
"At this time the camp was not occupied. Apparently the people were at work. We were in the camp one to two hours. I emphasize particularly that we were told by nobody at all that typhus and other experiments were being carried out on the concentration camp inmates there. I knew nothing of this. That was the first and the last time that I saw a concentration camp.
"We went back to Berlin and I immediately went on to Cracow. I spoke to no one from the Army Medical Inspectorate. Where the camp Buchenwald got the yellow fever vaccine which it later used for innoculation, I do not know. We left only the opened demonstration ampules there. No vaccine of any kind was ever delivered from Cracow to Buchewald. We delivered to the main medical supply depot or when so directed, to other units but never to SS units of any sort. Neither did we ever send infected lice to Buchenwald from either Cracow or Lemberg.
"I know Dr. Hass. He was the head of the Behring Institute in Lemberg. This was a branch of the Behring Works in Marburg and had nothing to do with the Wehrmacht or in particular with our institute."