Witness, I ask you to look at these documents very exactly and give us very precise information on these documents. I want you to understand clearly that these documents are the only basis for the assertion of the Prosecution that you, witness, were a participant in anyway in the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher, and that you also participated in the poison gas experiments of Dr. Hirth in Strasbourg. This meaning of these two documents was interpreted in this manner by the Prosecution at the session of the 13 December page 4l6 of the German minutes with special emphasis and the Prosecution states that from that it can be seen that you participated in these horrible experiments. Now, if you look at these documents the first thing is card index page for Blome, document No. 690, then you will see that under the current No. 0328 there is an entry, and I am speaking about your card index page: "Rascher-Munich". The title of this assignment is as follows and I quote: "Re-Warming, after the general cooling of the human body, cured by part freezing, cold adjustment of the human body." On the right it says: There is a further number there 1879-15. Well what have you got to say about this entry on your card index page?
AAt first it cannot be seen from this title at all that we are concerned with any experiments which are not permissible. As I look at the figure at the right of the title, namely 1879-15 I can say that 15 refers to my sphere of work in the Reich Research Council. Whereas, the sphere of work of Geheimrat Sauerbruch bore the figure 10. Under this assignment for Rascher the order is mentioned which allegedly was given to Hirt, namely" "Change of Living Organism by Using Chemical Warfare Agents". On the page of Geheimrat Sauerbruch it says, I quote, "With reference to Professor Hirt Strassbourg", and the subject is, "The Reaction of Lost (L-O-S-T)in the living Organism". That is to say, in effect we are concerned with the same subject in the case of Sauerbruch and in my case. With reference to this assignment Hirt I have to say that he didn't belong to my sphere of work, in the same way as the so-called cold assignment to Rascher didn't belong. Both of these assignments belonged in to the jurisdiction of general medicine for which Professor Sauerbruch is competent. Furthermore, I would like to point out that even in the title of the order given to Hirt, namely, "Changes of Living Organism" it cannot be seen in any way that we are here concerned with experiments on human beings and you can finally see that this concerned any experiments which are not permissible. Both of these assignments were not given by me. Furthermore, I say looking at my card index page and I ask you to look at the figures on the left hand side and follow them up with me. At first it says 0453 black 0496.
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, Mr. President, have you this document in front of you? I have a photostat of this document with me if you would like to see it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you pass the photostats to the Tribunal?
DR. SAUTER: One is the photostate for Blome and the other for Sauerbruch. It will be much easier for you to follow the statements of the defendant.
JUDGE SEBRING: I am unable to find document 691.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I would like to call to your attention that Document 691 was never introduced by Prosecution. We merely introduced 690.
JUDGE SEBRING: I find Document 690 but I could not find Document 691.
DR. SAUTER: The Document 691 is naturally needed in order to judge Document 690 correctly. The Document 691 contains the assignment Sauerbruch and the document 690 contains the assignments of Blome. Now, as Blome wants to show you that an assignment which was contained in his card index page is also contained in the card index page of Sauerbruch, with which he is incriminated erroneously, then of course one has to look at Document 691, too. This Document 691 we received in the Document Room and it was attached to 690. In addition there was attached the document 699 to which I shall refer later and also the document 788. These were four documents which belonged together.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Sauter, I would suggest that if it is true that the Prosecution has not offered any of these documents but document 690 that in order to keep your record straight that you yourself have these documents identified. That is to say, 691 and any other companion documents and offer them as part of your evidence.
MR. HARDY: And in addition thereto Prosecution would be pleased if we could receive a translation of 691. That has never been presented for trans lation by Prosecution in as much as we never intended to use the same.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel for defendant Blome cares to offer in evidence document 691 it would be admitted at once and the translation can be furnished in due time. Evidently document 691 has never been offered or received in evidence in the case.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter is as follows: You cannot understand the defense of Dr. Blome -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that perfectly and if you offer in evidence as part of your case document 691 it will be admitted in evidence as part of your case.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but Mr. President, I must now, even if this document has not yet been admitted formally, refer to that document. Otherwise, you could not understand what Blome wishes to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer the document in evidence now and it will be received in evidence now.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. At a later date I shall submit translations and I am now offering document 691 as Exhibit Blome 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
DR. SAUTER: In addition I offer the document which belongs to it. name 679, as Exhibit Blome 4, and also the document which belongs to it, document 788, as Exhibit Blome 5.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is it not true that the statement of Professor Bergmann is now in evidence as Blome Exhibit 3?
DR. SAUTER: Bergmann that so far as not been admitted. It was not admitted by you. Consequently this Exhibit #3 has so far not been used.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, the Tribunal now has the photostat copiesof these two car index pages in front of them. I already said that those card index pages naturally belonged together and they were accordingly all attached when the defense received the photostat copies. Perhaps you can very shortly define your attitude toward these two card index pages. I want you to state these points of view which, according to your opinion, it must be concluded that the assignment hirt and the preceding assignment Rascher were erroneously entered on your card index page?
A May I ask the Tribunal to compare the following things. On the card index page Blome it says under no. 329 that there is an order given to Hirt at Strasbourg titled "Changes of Living Organism under the Influence of Poison Gases". On the card index page of Sauerbruch an assignment to Hir Strasbourg can be seen titled "The Attitude of "Gelbkreuz" (Lost) in the Living Organism." We are obviously concerned with the same subject which was given as a research assignment by Professor Sauerbruch and which in addition was supposed to have been given by me, too. From these two subject it cannot be seen that one in any way is concerned with experiments which are not permissible. No mention is made of experiments on human beings. One is only concerned with experiments in the living organism.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Blome, in that connection, will you please explain then why in Document No. 690, heretofore admitted as a Prosecution Exhibit there appears tho serial number SS No. 0329 and Registry No. 1881-15, while in Document No. 691, Blome Exhibt 3, tho SS number is 0323 and the Registry Number is 548-10? Wouldn't that seem to indicate that there were two separate subjects altogether?
WITNESS: I beg your pardon, I haven't found the so-called SS number. Do you mean the number on the left hand side?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, above the numbers there is a notation "SS number".
WITNESS: The difference in these two figures, according to my opinion doesn't mean anything. It is obvious that this assignment was entered by tho Personnel Office on my card index system and, at another time, on Sauerbruch's card index system. If it says in the assignment which was allegedly given by me "under tho influence of poison gasses", then this is expressed in a more particular manner in Hirth's assignment where it says "attitude of 'Gelbkreuz" (Lost)'." When looking at tho SS numbers I see something else which rather surprises me. If you compare these SS numbers in Document 690 one another, that is, going from the top towards the bottom, you will find a considerable difference. The figures begin on the left hand side on tho top, and I cite the following figures: 453, an order to Dr. Schwarz; 496, an order to Dr. Siehl; then 328, an order to Raschor, 329, an order to Hirth; and then again, and this is the surprising thing, 415, an order to Colonel Von Borstel. This sequence I can only explain by the fact that the personnel dealing with and the registration of these assignments was not exact, or, at least, not reliable. Otherwise it couldn't be explained that there could be the sequence 453, 496, 328, 329, and then again 415.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Yet you have the same situation in 691, do you not? The Sauerbruch card index. Do you have the same explanation for that? it goes 0273, 0274, 0323, 0325, 0326, 0327, 0419, 0420, 0279. So..... You seem to have the same situation there.
A May I reply to that? That is obviously something different. My card index page says something completely different. On this Document No. 691, we start with the low figures 273, and we stop with the high figures 491, and we have some orderly sequence, 273, 274, 323, 325, 326, 327, 419, 420, 424, 279, 481, 491. That is to say, according to the figures, it is correct as to its sequence, whereas on my card index page you find that the first figure is 453 and the last one is 415 and in between what you see figures 328 and 329. That is, you have no proper sequence.
Q What do those numbers indicate, Dr. Blome? What is the purpose for the numbers?
A Every research assignment received a number, and among these numbers there were various priorities. One priority was, as it can be seen at the top on the left hand side in the case of both documents, the Priority SS. Now, if a research worker wanted to order certain equipment at various firms; for instance, instruments, then he always referred to the priority number which was given to him by tho Reich Rosearch Council when referring to that order. In that case tho firms always knew in what sequence, or rather what priority any such business order had and how they had to deal with it.
Q What do the numbers on the right indicate. In other words, the 548-10? I understand you to say that the number 10 indicates that particular problem is within tho sphere of Dr. Sauerbruch's activity. What then does the number preceding it - 548 - indicate?
A That I cannot tell you with certainty. Now for the very first time I looked at such card index pages while in prison. Perhaps they are some registration figures, but I couldn't tell you with certainty.
Q Can you tell by locking at the card index system reflected in the Prosecution Exhibit, Document 690, and Blome Exhibit 3, Document 691, when the cards were prepared? That is to say, the day and the date?
A I can't find the date here. I can't tell you that. There is no date there and, as I said before, I saw these card indexes for the first time while in prison.
Q Do you know what agency prepared or kept these cards?
A In my opinion, they could have only be done in the Reich Research Council. In the Reich Research Council there were various offices. I, personally, had no office in the Reich Research Council.
Q Do you know whether or not the Reich Research Council kept several series of numbers to indicate the importance of the various projects they had before them?
A. That, in my opinion, can only be seen by looking at the SS number. That is how it was. The so-called SS number, which has nothing to do with the party formation, had various degrees of urgency. I knew that. In addition to the SS number there was a so-called S number, that is, one single S. This S, in my opinion or according to my memory, showed less importance then the priority where the double SS was mentioned. Then, beyond this priority SS, there was a yet higher priority; that was DE, I repeat, DE, but I do not see it mentioned here. The explanation for DE means, in effect, "urgent development" and that meant a higher priority. Beyond that there was yet a higher priority but I cannot tell you exactly how t is designated.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will see to it that these documents which have been admitted in evidence on behalf of defendant Blome are translated and included in Blome's supplemental documents, Appendix 2. We have Appendix 1. We have Document Book 1, then we have appendix 1. These should be included and furnished under cover Appendix 2.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, certainly. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I may perhaps be able to answer one question of the Tribunal by examining the witness.
Q. Witness, before me I have a document which I received from the Prosecutor at that time. I do not know whether I received it by oversight. I really must assume that I received it by oversight. This is the document 788, if I read it correctly, and I have it the Exhibit Number Blome No. 5. I shall present this document to the Tribunal very soon. This is an index entitled, and I quote the title: "Registration Number in the Registration Office of the Expert Office of the R.F.R." which is the Reich Research Council. That is the title. Then it has "1. Research on Forestry and Weed Research."
Then it says "Science" etc. and it goes on up to No. 10. Under No. 10 it says "General Medicine." That is No. 10, General Medicine. Under No. 15 it says "Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research."
On the whole it contains 27 such departments. This is document No. 788, Blome Exhibit No. 5; it is supplemented by a further document which perhaps was also given to me by oversight, which is document No. 699, which I previously gave Blome Exhibit No. 4. I shall present this document, too, with the photostat copies, to the Tribunal very soon. Here there is no title and no signature but it says: "1. Branch, Professor Beyerlin." Then it gees on, 2, 3, etc. I ship that and then it says "1?". Branch, Sauerbruch." Then I skip another few numbers to where it says "15. Professor Blome." I submit these two documents, which are Blome Exhibits No. 4 and No. 5, in their photostat copies and I shall, at a future date, submit translations of these documents and add them to the Document Book Blome, for the approval of the Tribunal.
"witness, after haviny heard of these two documents can you, under oath, tell us whether it is correct to say that from these two documents it can be concluded that No. 10 was the number of Goheimrat Sauerbruch, for this field of work, namely, "General Medicine" and whether the number 15 was your own number for your field of work "Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research"? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you would again look at these two documents, witness, which are in front of you in tho photostat copies, that is document 690 and document 691, and if you again look at the numbers which can be found at the right hand side of any assignment, then you will, for instance, find in document 691, Card Index Page Sauerbruch, on the right hand side of the assignment, "Hirt-Strasbeurg" the number 548-10.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that this number means that this order 548 belongs to the field of work No. 10 Branch Sauerbuch, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. If you then look at Document 690 you will, for instance, find at tho side of the order to "Hirt, Strasbourg" on your card index page, the number at the right hand side, 1881-15. would you think it is correct to say on the basis of your knowledge that this is meant as Order No. 1881 of Branch No. 15, which was under your charge?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Witness, on the left hand side of the Document 691, that is Sauerbruch's card index page, with reference to order "Hirt Strasbourg" you find there the number at left hand 0323. On your own card index pago, that is Document 690, you find on the left hand side a number which is almost the same, namely , 0329. Can one conclude from the fact that these two numbers are almost synonymous, according to your knowledge of the situation, that these two alleged assignments to Hirt ware given approximately at the same period of time because they bear almost the same number, or would you consider that it is possible that the number 0329 is in error and that on the other hand another figure should be substituted, 0323, as it can be found in the card index page of Sauerbruch?
A. Both of these possibilities may exist; I cannot tell you that here with certainty, but judging from the slight difference in 0323 and 0329, it is obvious that these so-called separate assignments must have been given at the same time.
Q. Witness, we know now, on tho basis of the documents submitted, that you were entrusted in the Reich Research Council with the Department Cancer Research and we also knew that Geheimrat Dr. Sauerbruh had the Department General Medicine or, as it says in other documents, "Classical Medicine."
I ask you to once more look at these assignments, namely at the Assignment "Rascher-Munich" under the left number 0328 and I ask you to look at the assignment "Hirt" number 0329. One assignment reads "Rewarming, etc." The other assignment reads, or refers to changes in the living organism under the influencc of poison gasses. Now I am asking you, do these two assignments belong to the sphere of cancer research with you were entrusted within the Reich Research Council, or do they belong to the sphere of general or classical medicine with which Geheimrat Sauerbruch was entrusted as the departmental head? I ask you to answer this question very clearly because from that the conclusion may be drawn whether an error was made in the entries.
A These assignments quite equivocally belong in the sphere of work of Geheimrat Sauerbruck, which is the sphere of general (classical) medicine.
Q Witness, looking at the documents once more, and now for the last time, you will find in the Document No. 690 mentioned of, and I quote, "Cancer Research Worked on By Professor Dr. Blome." Underneath that you find the word, "Deputy Dr. Breuer," and his address is given; now, and looking at Document No. 691, which is the card index page of Sauerbruch; you will find a similar notation worked on by Staatsrat Professor Dr. Sauerbruch; underneath that the words, and I quote, "Deputy Dr. Breur," and then the words, to which I attach particular value, "General (Classical) Medicine, " -- "General" and parenthesis Classical, end of parenthesis, and "Medicine." On another occasion the Prosecution attached value to the evaluation that Professor Breuer was your representative, your deputy; now, will you please tell us whether it is not correct on the basis of these documents, and whether it can not be concerned by you that Dr. Breuer was also your deputy, but also the deputy of Dr. Sauerbruch?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Was he a physician?
A He was a physician.
Q Was he an employee of the Reich Research Council?
A He was an employee of the Reich Research Council. And the address it is given under Dr. Sauerbruch's name, Berlin-Steglitz, Grunewald Strasse No. 35. That is the address of the Reich Research Council.
Q And then I ask you to once more look at Document No. 690, which is your card index page, and give us your opinion about the question whether your name is only written by typewriter, or whether it was put on by your hand?
A My name by hand?
Q Yes.
A well, it is there three times, but there is just a stamp there.
Q Yes, but there is no handwriting?
A No, I said before I saw these card index pages for the very first time since my imprisonment.
Q Now, I would again be interested to know when exactly this order "Rascher" was given or when you gained knowledge of it, and I mean the order under No. 0328 on your card index page entitled "Rewarming after General Freezing of the Human Body;" When was this assignment given?
A I can conclude from another document, and I believe that is the letter by Rascher to Neff, where it says that Rascher received a research assignment from the Reich Research Council about similar subjects. If in the letter from Rascher to Neff it says that Rascher had already received the assignment, then in my opinion this assignment must have been given in October.
Q When?
A Yes, October, 1943.
Q October 1943?
A Yes, it would have been given at that time. Naturally, I can't say with certainty whether the assertions made by Rascher in his letter to Neff were correct, or whether Rascher was only counting on receiving that assignment at that time, and in spite of that already wrote to Neff that he receive an order already. That, of course, I can't know, and I can't judge it. If I consider that question and if I think when I received it, about the fact that I was supposed to have given that order, then I estimate that it was appro ximately in the beginning of 1944.
I said before I think that the Plenipotentiary, the departmental heads, from time to time received excerpts of the entries of their research assignments, and I think that occurred once every quarter, once every three months.
Q Witness, with reference to that date, I attach particular value to that date, and I shall tell you why; but before that I want to remind you about Siever's file notation, that is the file notation of the Ahnenerbe dated 8th of May, 1944 -- I mentioned it before -- this is an index of the research assignments which Rascher received from the Reich Research Council and it says under Figure I, it says that Rascher had received the order for the rewarming of human beings on 4th October, 1943. I repeat the date, 4th October 1945. Now, if you recollect this file notation, would you believe today that this date can be correct, approximately?
A Yes, I think it should be correct.
Q Rascher at that time received the assignment; can you tell us whether Rascher, in effect, execute this assignment; that would have been in the period October 1943 up to the spring of 1945; what do you know about that?
A No, the order, the assignment, was not executed now in the winter of 1943-1944, and certainly not in the winter of 1944 to 1945. In the winter of 1944 and 1945 Rascher had been arrested for sometime. Perhaps he wasn't living anymore at that time. In the winter of 1943-1944 it was not executed either. That can also be seen from Siever's Diary. It can be seen from an entry made on the 22nd of March 1944, whereupon everything was to be prepared for such experiments in the winter of 1944-1945. This is in accordance with what Rascher had told me. According to it there were differences of opinion between Himmler and Reichsartz Grawitz about whether the experiments were to be conducted at the front or in mountain territory, as demanded by Himmler, and I already said that Rascher had told me that the winter of 1943-1944 had progressed to far timely in order to even think of such experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will be in recess at this time.
(a recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, I have only one brief final question on the subject which we have just been discussing. You said that these two entries for Rascher and Hirth were put on your card index by accident. For this reason I would be interested in knowing was the Reich Research Council an old agency with trained reliable personnel, or was it a new institution which was created only during the War which had a great scarcity of personnel and which frequently had to work with personnel which was not experienced and was changed a great deal during the War? What can you tell us on this point, but please be brief.
A. In 1942 a new Reich Research Council was created by law. The tasks of this Reich Research Council were much more extensive than those of the old Reich Research Council. This reorganization was primarily carried out in 1943. With the many additional tasks, the need for personnel, of course, became greater. On the other hand, the old experts, the male personnel, that is, were drafted into the army. The gaps had to be filled up, but there was no trained personnel available.
In many cases only people were available who could work half a day, for example, women who had families who had formerly been secretaries and who were now called upon to work half days under the total war effort. I estimate that the total personnel was about one hundred people. In addition, the business of the Reich Research Council was interfered with by the fact that the building was hit at least twice in air raids, partly destroyed, and this, of course, brought considerable disorder.
Q. Now I come to another point, witness. The witness, Olga Eyer, in the session of the 15th of January here stated that the Reich Research Council had given her chief, Professor Haagon in Strassbourg, assignments for typhus or yellow fever research. Did you have anything to do with these assignments which Professor Haagon was given by the Reich Research Council?
A. No, I had nothing to do with them. Such assignments were in the sphere of work of Professor Schreiber.
He was in charge of epidemic research.
Q. Did you have any contact with professor Haagen in Strassbourg about this assignment for typhus or yellow fever experiments, or did you have any contact with Professor Hirth in Strassbourg on the assignment concerning chemical warfare agents? Did you have any oral conversation with them? Did you give them any instructions? Did you get any information from them?
A. I did not know either Professor Hirth personally. I did not have anything to do with them officially either.
Q. Did you from this Professor Hirth, for example, who doubtless had a research assignments for chemical warfare agents, get regular reports which he made out about the work done on his assignment?
A. No. I did not receive any reports either from Professor Haagen or from Professor Hirth. In my opinion, such reports could have been sent only to Professor Schreiber.
Q. Professor Schreiber who has been mentioned here repeatedly?
A. Yes, that is the man.
Q. Professor, Blome, your name has been mentioned in connection with malaria experiments, too. Did you have anything to do with them?
A. No.
Q. When did you first hear of such experiments?
A. I heard of these experiments for the first time when I was a prisoner in the prison information at Oberursel.
Q. When was that for the first time?
A. That was about the end of '45 or the beginning of '46.
Q. But you were in Dachau several time, weren't you, when you were Deputy Reich Physicians Leader? In these visits at Dachau, or as Deputy of the Reich Physicians Leader, Conti, did you never hear anything about these experiments?
A. No, I did not hear anything about them. I don't know Professor Schilling. I never saw this institute or station of professor Schilling's. I never received any reports not even indirectly through Dr. Conti.
Q As Deputy Reich Physician Leader, or in any other capacity, did you have anything to do directly with tho SS officers, especially in the concentration camps, or did you have anything to do with the Health Service of the Concentration camps?
A No.
Q Nothing at all?
A No, nothing at all. For tho SS doctors in concentration camps, for the doctors of tho Waffen SS, for all tho doctors of the Wehrmacht, and for all tho official government doctors, the Reich Chamber of Physicians was not tho supervisory authority. They were not under the disciplinary authority of the Reich Chamber of physicians and they were not under any authority.
Q Now, Dr. Blome, I should like to show you something which your co-defendant, Rudolf Brandt asserted at one time, on the 24th of October 1946, he made two affidavits. One of them has the exhibit number 329, document 444. This affidavit deals with the experiments in the concentration camps. In this affidavit, the co-defendant, Karl Brandt, mentions various persons who he says knew all about these experiments. This is Rudolf Brandt. He mentions Karl Brandt, Grawitz, Genhardt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick and Sievers, and finally says, and this is the point I am showing to you: "Kurt Blome in his capacity as Deputy of Conti must have been informed, just as well as the latter himself." What do you have to say about this statement of your co-defendant, Rudolf Brandt?
A This statement has no basis in fact. Therefore, I ask you to examine the defendant, Rudolf Brandt, how he came to make such a statement.
Q Then how do you explain the fact that Rudolf Brandt makes such a statement?
A One could find various explanations.
Q You know nothing definite?
A No.
Q Then we will ask him himself after wards. Now I go on to another subject in connection with which your name has also been mentioned, 'lost gas.'
Did you have any part in tho lost gas experiments, for example, as they were carried out in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler?
A No.
Q When did you hear for the first time of these experiments?
A Here in Nurnberg.
Q Here in Nurnberg?
A Yes.
Q And how do you explain the fact that in spite of your various positions you did not hear about these earlier, that is, before 1945?
A That had nothing to do with my work either in The Reich Chamber of Physicians or in the office of Public Health or in the Reich Research Council.
Q Then it was completely outside of your competence?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever visit this concentration camp Sachsenhausen or Natzweiller where 'lost gas' experiments were carried out? Did you ever talk to the doctors there about such matters?
A No, I did not visit these concentration camps, consequently I din not talk to the doctors there. I know only the concentration camp Dachau. I was there two or three times, certainly twice I visited Dr. Rascher and a third time before the war I was with the late Reich Physician Leader Wagner to inspect the concentration camp Dachau. I know no other, concentration camp.
Q Professor Blome, a while ago I showed you an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt where he charges you with the malaria experiments. Now I have here another affidavit of this Rudolf Brandt. In document book 13 of the Prosecution, page 1, No. 372, Prosecution Exhibit 252, here Rudolf Brandt says at the end, similar to the other affidavit: "Professor Dr. Kurt Blome, also, Deputy Reich Health Leader, and Deputy Reich Physicians Leader was certainly" - he says "certainly" - "informed about these experiments." That was what Rudolf Brandt says: What do you have to say about that?
A This is also an unfounded statement, just as well as the one about malaria.
Q Did you have any part in the sulfonamide experiments?
A No.
Q Were you ever in a concentration camp Ravensbrueck where they were carried out?
A No.
Q Did you talk to the defendants specifically responsible for this about it?
A No.
Q Did you discuss it with other doctors who worked in that camp?
A No.
Q Professor Blome were you at a meeting, a conference of consulting physicians at which these sulfenamide experiments were reported on?
A I did not participate in such a meeting.
Q No such meeting?
A No, not any of my associates.
Q Not this Dr. Gross whom we talked about a few days ago?
A No, not Dr. Gross either. I have already pointed out that this was an error on the part of the Prosecution apparently.
Q Now I come to typhus vaccines, Dr. Blome. In a session of 18 February a document, 1323, Prosecution a letter of Dr. Handloser to the Reich Health Leader, Dr. Conti. In this letter, Dr. Handloser referred to the increasing need for typhus vaccine and suggested that the production of typhus vaccine should be put in the hands of tho pharmaceutical industry. Did you, as Deputy Reich Physician Loader, learn of this letter?
A No, I did not Know about it, and this letter was probably not sent to the Reich Physicians Leader, Dr. Conti, but to the State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, and I was not a deputy in that capacity.
Q Then that referred only to the competency of Dr. Conti as State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior for the State Health System?
A Yes.