Then these patients understand and I so do their relatives, what their fate is, and now in order to avoid the feeling of hopelessness and having to die.
I suggested that this plan should be decided on, then these people should have to be given the necessary Polish nurses and the necessary doctors; then I said in conclusion to this problem the only right solution, the best solution seemed to me the establishment of a big settlement or a reservation, such as is well known in German and foreign literature and for which we had examples in Germany, England and I believe Holland.
Q. Be that as it may, Doctor; from reading this letter which you wrote Greiser, don't you think there is a point that Himmler upon reading this let would have reason to believe from your language and your approach that you were completely in favor of the extermination of the Poles, if it could have been kept a secret and the Fuehrer had approved it; now Himmler's attitude, after reading the letter that you wrote?
A. I do not believe so, you must consider in order to judge a question one has to read the whole letter. For everyone who knows condition in German at that time, it is quite obvious that I could not take any other tactics if I wanted to have success. I know such examples from the military side, fi*** you say yes and then you try to do what is really the right thing in order t avoid opposition and then let the simplest and decentest views prevail. As for this point of secrecy, I should like to point out that I have a different attitude than that, for example, the deputy gauleiter of Niederdonau in his letter to Heinrich Himmler of 24 August, 1942; this letter is about steril** of gypsies, and this letter shows clearly that the Gauleiter was not opposed to this plan, and for that reason he docs not write, concerning secrecy, and that secrecy is impossible, but he writes and I quote, it is a very brief sentence, "We realize quite well that such matters must be treated as a state secret of most extreme dangerousness. You say that is something entirely different; now since you are citing an example for the reason of clarity, I may also give an example, let us assume that we two knew each other at that time and you shared my point of view and you rejected such a thing, I would have told you about the plan and I would have written you a letter to the following effect:
"Dear Mr. Hardy: Himmler has the following plan that is nonsense, that is madness and a crime and I have thought the matter ever, because I know and am acquainted with the conditions of the authorities in Germany and with consideration of the mentality of those in power I have now written the letter to Heinrich Himmler and I hope I will have the necessary success with it."
I believe if we were not opposing each other here as prosecutor and defendant, if we were to discuss the case, then, after you had gained such great knowledge of the nature and the thinking process of the leading personalities in Germany at that time, that you would then hold the same view as I You would say, "Blome, I say today it was the only way to prevent such a crime That is my opinion, Sir:
Q. Then you offer as your defense for the extermination of the tubercular Poles, that the reason for you writing this latter was to prevent any such program being carried out; and you state in substance to me that the reason why you expressed yourself in the manner you did, was because you felt that it made a greater impression on Himmler than if you expressed out-right opposition to the program; is that right?
A. Yes, you have expressed my point of view correctly. If I had taken a different point of view this murder of Polish tubercular patients could not have been prevented.
Q. Of course, Rudolf Brandt says it was not prevented. We'll go on to biological warfare, Doctor, Reich Marshal Goering.....
A. You don't think it is necessary for me to answer the last question?
Q. You may answer; I said question: Rudolf Brandt has testified that the Poles were exterminated; you have no knowledge of that?
A. I should like to state that the testimony of Rudolf Brandt is not true. It is not up to me to tear apart the testimony Y Mr. Brandt; and I intentionally did not have an affidavit taken from Rudolf Brandt to present it to the Tribunal. It is not necessary in this case, for in the course of the trial i will be proven beyond any doubt that the testimony of Rudolf Brandt is not true at all.
Q. Doctor, that is up to the Tribunal to decide.
A. Very well.
Q. Reich Marshall Goering in his capacity as the president of the Reich Research Council made you plenipotentiary of biological warfare; is that right?
A. I will formulate it carefully. He appointed me plenipotentiary for cancer research and with this assignment there was connected, as a secret assignment, the research on counter measures on biological warfare; that is the correct way.
Q. Am I correct in assuming that when you carried on experiments and research of biological warfare; you did it in the name and title of plenipotentiary for cancer research?
A. I did not quite understand that.
Q. Are you stating that Goering gave you the position of plenipotentiary for cancer research and attached thereto was the secret order of research for biological warfare; now whenever you transpired any business in your research for biological warfare; you did it under the name of plenipotentiary for cancer research; what I am getting at is that cancer research is a camofl*** title for biological warfare activities?
A. Yes and no; all cancer research was under me. I, myself, had worked before that on cancer research and I believe I can express it most clearly. Under the form plenipotentiary for cancer research there was at the same time cancer research going on as well as biological warfare research. I had only one letterhead, which said plenipotentiary for cancer research and I used this letterhead for all cancer research which was under me, as well as for biological research. I did not have any special letterhead for biological research; perhaps that explains the matter most clearly.
Q. Now for this purpose; that is the dual purpose of cancer research and biological warfare you set up an institution in Nesselstedt; is that right?
A. It was under construction; it was not finished in Nesselstedt near Posen.
Q. In Nesselstedt near Posen?
A. Yes, Nesselstedt is a village or a suburb of Posen; it belongs to the district of Posen.
Q. Did Schreiber work with you there?
A. No, no work was done there.
Q. You never did any work there at all?
A. No work at all, it was impossible. If I tell you that when the Russian marched into Posen there were three hundred laborers still working on the building and not a single room was ready to be used, that is the best proof that no work was done in Posen.
Q. Did you set yourself up there in Posen; did you have any office or maintain an office there yourself?
A. In Nesselstedt near Posen you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. I did not have an office there, I had something in Posen itself as there was a sort of biological small institute there dealing with the combatting of insect pests, which was trying to find new chemicals to combat insect pests and then in the Polish - former Polish University of Posen, I had some rooms for my statistical assistants, who evaluated the well known cancer research. I had no office in Nessilstedt aside from administration let us say of an agriculture nature, because to a certain extent it had nothing to do with research.
Q. You state that you did not start any experiments or biological warfare in your institute near Posen?
A. Yes.
Q. Don't you recall in your own Document book on page 22, which is the testimony of Walter Schreiber before the I.M.T., he states in answer to the question:
"How do you explain that the German High Command did not carry out the plans?"
Schreiber answers as follows:
"The High Command probably did not carry out the plans for the following reason: In March 1945..."
That is your first Document book, Doctor; do you have it?
A. Yes, what page?
Q. It is page 22 of the English. It is No. 7, Document No. 7 in the book.
A. Yes, I found the Document.
Q. It is page four of the original which you have, it states:
"The High Command probably did not carry out the plans f or the following reason: In March 1945 Professor Blome visited me at my office in the Military Camp.
He came from Posen, was very excited and asked me to lodge him an his people in the laboratories in Sachsenburg, so that they could continue their work there. He told me that he had been forced to leave his institute at Posen by the advance of the Red Army, that he had been compelled to flee from the institute, and that he had not even been able to blow it up. He said he was quite worried that the arrangement for human experiments which were in that institute and which were recognizable as such, might be recognized by the Russians very easily. He said he had tried to have the institute destroyed by a Stuka bomb, but that this had not been possible and now he asked me to see to it that he might be able to continue to work with his plague, cultures which he had saved, at the Sachsenburg. Upon this I told Mr. Blome that the Sachsenburg had f or some time not been under my command, that I could not, therefore, give him that permission, and referred him to the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser."
Now, Doctor, Schreiber states that you were excited when you left Posen and that you could not continue your work there and you were quite worried about the arrangements you had made for human experiments and you thought it might be recognized by the Russians; why were you worried about such a thing as this, Doctor?
A. I can only repeat what I said in my direct examination, I would suggest to you, if you do not believe that no work was actually done there, that you inquire of the Polish Government, as then you would receive confirmation that it was an institute, which was unfinished, that no work was ever done there, that would be the simplest and easiest confirmation of my testimony.
Q. Now, you had attempted to experiment on human beings at Posen had you not, according to Schreiber's testimony?
A. What Schreiber says is not decisive for me; in Schreiber's testimony I have already pointed out several inaccuracies. No work was done at Posen; how Mr. Schreiber figured out this testimony of his, I cannot tell you and I have tried to find an explanation for it and feel that this explanation is unbelievable. I said the following in my direct examination with some other comments, I believe when my defense counsel asked me about a conversation with Himmler, I said; "Himmler had asked me to produce a plague vaccine and an order to get such plague vaccine."
I was to make and conduct experiments on human beings. I said that at first it was my intention, after getting this order from Himmler to do so, but then later I had misgivings and then consequently no such experiments were undertaken.
Q Now, didn't you state in direct examination that if you were going to conduct human experiments that it would have been necessary to obtain the approval of Schreiber?
A No, that was not what was said. I said that if Germany had wanted to make an offensive preparation for biological warfare, this could not have been done without calling upon Schreiber as the man in charge of epidemic control. Schreiber was the man in Germany in whose hands all the threads of epidemic control ran together. That is what I said, and then I went on to say that neither Schreiber or any other epidemic research man ever received such a research assignment from me.
Q Well, now, Doctor, you have stated in your direct examination that all of your activities or the activities of the Blitzableiter in connection with this biological warfare business was allegedly of a defensive nature; that is, tie purpose of your research was to prepare a defense in event that the enemy resorted to biological warfare. Now what would be the difference between defensive research and offensive research in biological warfare?
A The difference is an essential one. You may be sure if I had the assignment or rather the intention of a biological offensive, I would have undertaken quite different things, and as is generally known and has been shown by the evidence so far, there would not have been such negligence in the treatment of the whole problem. There would have been a great deal more energy behind the research, the same importance which was given to rocket research or other big war problems.
Q Well, now, Doctor, in Document No. NO-1308 which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 325, you recall that is what Dr. Sauter refers to as the file note of Kliewe. In the second paragraph it states: I quote:
"Especially America would have to be attacked simultaneously with different human and animal disease agents as well as with plant parasites."
Now in that connection that doesn't indicate anything of a defensive measure, does it, on the German side? Don't you agree with me there?
A It certainly looks peculiar, but you must consider I had no knowledge of this session. I did not participate in this session.
This session and the statement of Professor Schumann I learned about only here, and I have expressed my opinion on the personality of Professor Schumann. I said that he was not to be taken seriously, that he was notorious for not oven believing himself what he said, and besides, the document which was found in the possession of Professor Kliewe shows clearly that only defensive research was carried on.
Q Well now, where it states here in this document 1308 that "Professor Blome suggests experiments on human beings," do you deny that you ever made such a suggestion?
A No, and that is not forbidden either.
Q Well, were these suggested experiments on your part to be made on Russian prisoners of war?
A No.
Q Well, do you know that the -
A The document very clearly says that I suggested that these experiments should be conducted in the Military Medical Academy. The Military Medical Academy was in Berlin, not in any prisoner-or-war camp or concentration camp.
Q Well now, do you know when you were fully aware of the fact that the International Military Tribunal found in its judgment that experiments were actually carried cut that they were carried cut on Russian prisoners of war and they very often proved fatal? Now do you want this Tribunal to believe that you in your capacity as plenipotentiary for biological warfare, having received this commission from Goering, really did not know that these experiments were carried cut and did not take part in them?
A I do not want to make the Court believe anything, and I do not want to make any false statement. First, I learned of such things which are supposed to have happened only here in the prison when I read the judgment of the Nurnberg trial. Second, I consider it quite impossible that such experiments actually took place. That is what I can answer clearly and truthfully, but perhaps I may point out in this connection that I believe in the Nurnberg judgment there is some mention of August, '43. Perhaps you might lock that up for me. I don't have the judgment here.
Q All right, Doctor.
AAnd the first opportunity for cooperation with the Wehrmacht, with the Blitzableiter Committee, was given my by an authorization from Keitel on behalf of Goering, and that can be proved that that was in August, 1943. That is at the same time when these things are supposed to have happened. For that reason alone I could not have had any share in them, and if in the documents which are doubtless among my files in your hands -- if you will look through them, you will find this order from Goering to Keitel, and you will find a notation as to when it was sent on to me.
I owe my knowledge about this matter to my interrogator in July, 1945, In Heidelberg. I was in Heidelberg for two weeks, and I talked to the English and the American gentlemen and about all questions of biological warfare all day long and sometimes into the night. I was asked about developments, and I told about this order from Goering to Keitel which Keitel passed on to the persons concerned, and I was told:
"We will show you an order; perhaps it is the one."
And I recognized the order and, therefore, I remember the date exactly. I think it took two months. It was dated June, and it took it until August before it got into my hands.
I think that I have proved well enough that I could have had nothing to do with such things as are stated in the Nurnberg judgment.
Q Well, now, do you assume that the activities which took place as are listed in the Nurnberg judgment happened during the time when you were plenipotentiary for biological warfare? Do you answer for your responsibility for them?
A I assume all responsibility for things which happened on my orders or under my supervision, but if a man from my office, for example, without my knowledge should commit a murder, then it wouldn't be quite right if I took over tie responsibility for that.
Q Well now, did you ever report to Conti that you intended to experiment on human beings in your institute near Posen?
A I hardly talked to Mr. Conti. The relationship between Mr. Conti and me as can be proved was so poor that we hardly saw each other.
Q Now, in order to see if I can refresh your memory as to whether or not you ever had a discussion with Dr. Conti about your intention to experiment on human beings at Posen, I am going to introduce Document No. NO-3061 which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 464. This, if the Tribunal please, is a penciled note made by Dr. Conti in his cell here in Nurnberg prior to his suicide last November, the suicide note that he left to the interrogator.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I object to the use of this document at this time. In December I made application to use the so-called testament of the former Reich Physicians' Leader Conti. Then I received a decision of the Court on the 8th of January, 1947, which says that the Prosecution intends to submit this document himself. In paragraph 2 it says that in this case the document must be submitted twenty-four hours before it is produced in court. I must rely on this ruling of the Court, and I, therefore, ask the Court to rule that this document if it is to be submitted by the Prosecution be submitted only after twenty-four hours, that it can be made the subject of an examination only after twenty-four hours.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Court, I won't discuss the admissibility of this document at this time inasmuch as I am only marking it for identification and not offering it formally as an exhibit. I trust that I will offer it formally as an exhibit to come three or four weeks from now, and Dr. Sauter is receiving a copy now and that will be sufficient time to comply with the twenty-four-hour ruling of the Court.
Furthermore, Your Honors, the Prosecution selected to retain this document for cross-examination purposes, and as I understand, the rules of evidence do not compel us to supply the Defense Counsel with a copy of a document we are going to use for cross-examination purposes twentyfour hours before such time as we use same.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, now Mr. Hardy, you are asking that this be marked for identification only. Of course, by merely marking it for identification only it does not in any sense become an exhibit in the trial and never could become an exhibit in the trial until it was formally received in evidence and given an exhibit number. You understand, that, of course?
MR. HARDY: That is right.
JUDGE SEBRING: Now what is the purpose at this time for having it identified?
MR. HARDY: That was the procedure we established when we started when the defense started their case at the suggestion of the Tribunal.
JUDGE SEBRING: I understand, but you are now asking the witness about certain aspects of it and it was not quite clear to me what your purpose was. I seem to have missed that.
MR. HARDY: I asked the witness if he had discussed any intention to experiment on human beings in his institute at Posen with Conti and he said he never talked to Conti in that regard and in this dying declaration of Conti he has stated that he talked to Blome about experiments to be performed at Posen.
JUDGE SEBRING: This is not a dying declaration in the sense that a dying declaration is recognized in the rules of evidence. The point I am making is there that he states, assuming this to be Conti's statement and assuming it to be true, he says:
"Blome always told me of his intention to experiment on human beings, and that the discussion I had planned did not materialize because Blome was constantly traveling and because the war became so awful, was surely not a serious omission. He must have known what he was doing. Furthermore, I never learned whether he started the experiments."
MR. HARDY: That is the section about which I want to put a question to the defendant. May I pass the original exhibit up for your Honors to look at?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, as far as I can see from the copy which I have been given, it seems to be only an excerpt or a heart of another document, to which the author refers.
I do not see any evidence of the authenticity of the signature. It is quite obvious that there was no official who could certify to the signature, and there is no certificate, and, therefore, in my opinion, no use can be made of this document. I object to the use of this document for this reason as well. He starts the document with the sentence: "I part from life because I made a false statement under oath." That is the Conti on whom the Prosecution wants to base their evidence, but I do not believe that this document can be used since Conti is dead, and in this document, as I can prove, he is again not telling the truth in the face of death, and if the Prosecution wants proof of that matter they need only look at the Dachau records and they will see what part Dr. Conti had in the Dachau experiments about which the defendant knew nothing at all. That was another lie and I don't think we need to go into that. I am of the opinion that this document is inadmissible.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honors, that consistent with the ruling of the Tribunal yesterday to an objection that this is not the time to object to this document and that no objection could be made thereon until such time as the Prosecution formally introduced it as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution has offered no identification of this document whatever. The original which has been exhibited to the Tribunal indicates nothing except there is a document, and what that document is.
MR. HARDY: Didn't the original have a certificate?
This matter can be easily handled, your Honors. A certificate can be had. However, in answer to Dr. banter's objection about not having a notary, it is simply impossible for a man writing a suicide note to commit suicide with a notary present. I don't know how that is possible when you are in solitary confinement.
JUDGE SEBRING: Before this document may be used even to frame a question the document should be established before the Tribunal in some manner.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Doctor,Blome, you have stated that the testimony of the witness Walter Schreiber before the International military Tribunal was incorrect. That you never told Schreiber that you had any plans or had made arrangements for human experiments in the Institute at Posen. You also stated you had never chatted with Conti about these matters. You had no intention of experimenting on human beings in your institute at Posen. Now, in view of this testimony of Schreiber and Conti, and the documents that have been offered here in evidence, do you still state you did not experiment on human beings in your institute in Nesselstedt near Posen?
A I give the following answer to that: I did not say that I discussed never such a thing with Conti. I said I considered it impossible that I discussed such a thing with Conti because of the poor relationship between us. That as far as your statement about Dr. Conti goes, as for the value of the statements of Professor Schreiber, I have gone into that in detail. In the direct examination I disproved frofessor Schreiber's statement and I believe credibly. Now you ask me at last quite exactly whether I deny having carried out human experiments in Posen. I say once more definitely no scientific work was done in Posen and certainly no permissible or inadmissible human experiments were conducted there. There quickest confirmation is the accuracy of my statement. As I said before you can get it by inquiring of the Polish Government by telegraph.
Q Now after you fled from Posen and took the plague cultures with you, according to the testimony of Schreiber which you deny, did you experiment on human beings in any other place, for example Sachsenburg?
A I can tell you the following: First I did not flee iron Posen. On the way to Sachsenburg in case another fauleiter had already left Posen, I went to the East of Posen and was in my so-called Institute for twenty-four hours, and there very calmly after the last German had left and as it was proper I left the Institute. There was no question of flee ing.
I was never at Sachsenburg. I do not even know it and my associate Dr. Cross did not work at Sachsenburg. I asked that rooms be made available at Sachsenburg but for reasons which I shall explain I did not make any use of them, as neither I nor my associate, Dr. Gross, was at Sachseburg. This indicates that no human experiments, nor experiments at all, not even animal experiments, were conducted on my behalf at Sachsenburg, and I state once more very emphatically, in the entire field of biological war research to my knowledge, with my support, on my orders, or with my knowledge, not a single human experiment was conducted, whether admissible or inadmissible.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution having finished its cross examination of the witness Blome counsel for Blome may proceed with redirect examination.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, because of the nature of the charge against Dr. Blome it has come about that the direct examination of this defendant lasted a long time. And, the cross examination on the part of the Prosecution likewise lasted a long time. In consideration of this and of the fact that the cross examination did not bring to light anything acre or importance I can dispense with a redirect examination. This concludes my examination of the defendant Dr. Blome and I have only new a few documents to submit in addition.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
These documents which counsel will offer, will they require any explanation by the defendant Blame or may the defendant Blome new leave the witness stand?
DR. SAUTER: The witness can leave the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Blome, a witness in his own behalf is excused and may take his place.
DR. SAUTER: Before I turn to the documents that still remain I could perhaps be of assistance in one matter to the Prosecution. The Prosecution mentioned yesterday in connection with various entries in Siever's diary the abbreviation R.G.V. and explained this, saying that in its opinion they thought it meant R.G.F. were the initials for Reichs GesundheitsFuehrer. Let me tell the Prosecution that the interpretation of these initials is wrong. What it really means is "Reichs ' Guschaefts Fuehrer", in other words, Reich Business Leader. That was the title that the Defendant Sievers hold in tho Ahnenerbe. In other words, this abbreviation had nothing to do with the Reichs Gosundheits-Fuehrer, (Reich Health Leader) Dr. Conti, nor with the Defendant Dr. Blome.
I wanted to say this so that tho Prosecution would have an easier job cf translating these initials.
Then I must correct a type graphical error that distorts the meaning, namely, in Dr. Blome's Document Book, Document 7, pages 19 to 26. Perhaps I could dictate this dictation of the typographical error into the record. On 21, at the top, it reads: "A few lays later --" as the witness Schroiber stated, Page 21 of the German Document Book, Blome Exhibit II, Document No. 7. It reads there, as I was saying: "A few days later I learned from the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate Generalarzt Schmidtbruecken who was no direct superior." That is an error. It should not be "no direct superior " but "my direct superior". It should rend then: "Generalarzt Schmidtbruecken was my direct superior." I make this correction so that it would not be overlooked later and later it will be set down in Blome Supplementary document Book, but I preferred to straighten it cut right now because the defendant of Handloser would have been injured had the error been allowed to remain.
Mr. President, the rest of the documents in the Blome Document Book I appraised to a large extent in the direct examination. There remains only the appraisal of tho following documents in Blome Document Book: Document No. 8, which has Exhibit No. 14; then Document 10 receives Exhibit No. 15. That is in tho first supplementary volume and two documents in tho supplementary volume No. 2, documents 15, which gets exhibit no. 15, and document --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you please begin again the description cf the documents in Blome's Supplementary Book?
DR. SAUTER: I shall repeat. In Blome Document Book 1, the last document is document No. 8, which becomes exhibit no. 14 an affidavit in the port of one Wittmann.
That is Exhibit No. 14. Then in the Supplementary Volume 1 for Blome, document No. 10 - an affidavit on the part of one Dr. Dingeldey, receives Exhibit No. 15. Then in the second Supplementary Volume, which contains only two documents --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel the Tribunal does not have that Second Supplementary document Book.
DR. SAUTER: You should have had it a long time ago but I can submit it to you later because later on I must introduce a few more documents. Let me say then that these are documents 15 and 16 in this Second Supplementary Volume and I will show them to you at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel, the offer of these exhibits maybe postponed until that time. Will the Secretary General investigate the Second Supplement of Blome's Document Book and see that it is furnished the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. I return now to Document No. 8, Exhibit No. 14, an affidavit on the part of Adolf Wittmann. This affidavit has been sworn to and the signature certified. This Wittmann was an executive expert in the Reich Chamber of Physicians and he had the same position in the Reich Office for Health of the NSDAP. That is the same office of which Blome was the Deput Leader. In No. 4 of this affidavit the witness concerns himself with the command relationships. His testimony agrees with that of the defendant. And now I should like to read No. 5 because it is of interest as records relation between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome:
"5) From my long years of collaboration with Dr. Blome it is known to me that the relationship between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome was very bad and loft much to be desired. They were complete contrasts as far as personality goes: I have learned to know Dr. Blome through the years as an open, honest and decent character, while Dr. Conti gave the impression of being a coldly calculating, mysterious individual, extremely ambitious and terrifically suspicious of everyone, including Dr. Blome.
"The collaboration between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome suffered very much from these contrasts. In the course of years I learned again and again that Dr. Conti withheld from Dr. Blome a number of important events, although they were things, which, in my opinion, Dr. Blome, as deputy of Dr. Conti, should have known about. I also heard again and again from different medical consultants of the Reich Chamber of Physicians when they talked to me about official matters, that they were surprised at the ignorance of Dr. Blome as far as certain happenings were concerned which they themselves, as consultant had been assigned to work on by Dr. Conti, but of which Dr. Blome had receive no knowledge through Dr. Conti. Also, about 1949, I read a note by Dr. Conti to Dr. Blome, the meaning of which was that he, Dr. Conti, reserved the right to sign all important matters himself, or it might have read, reach the decision himself. Dr. Blome was only authorized to sign in other, less important matters. This notice of Dr. Conti's struck me at that time, since, according to my judgment, this did not do justice to Dr. Blome's position as Deputy Reich Physicians' Leader.
"Generally, both gentlemen, Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome, were not present at Munich together; if one of them was there, the other was not there as a rule, and returned only when the other was not there any more.
"6) The conditions were the same at the Main Office for Public Health of the NSDAP which shared joint personnel with the Reich Chamber of Physicians. This Main Office and the Reich Chamber of Physicians were established in the same building, partly in the same rooms. The task of this Main Office was to make suggestions for the regulation of the health policy and for the tasks of health vocations, whereas the execution of such suggestions was partly the task of the state health authorities, partly of the vocational societies (for physicians, dentists, veterinaries, etc.)
"7) In both offices, the Reich Chamber of Physicians as well as the Main Office, the medical consultants continually complained about the fundamental contrasts between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome; they complained that they often did not know which point of view they were to represent in the detailed questions of their sphere of activity; the consultants often said that their technical work was thereby made very difficult.
"8) I know from conversation with Dr. Blome that he repeatedly and energetically expressed his opposing point of view to Lr. Conti and that the often tried to ask the party Chancery for help or assistance when he did not succeed in persuading Conti do not know anything about the success of such efforts.
"9) The following circumstance seems especially characteristic of the relations between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome: When Dr. Blome came to live in Munich in the autumn of 1941, approximately at the same time two confidential agents of Dr. Conti (2 physicians) from the office in Berlin came one after the other to settle down in Munich. Very soon I was under the impression, from my own observations, that these two men had the task of watching over the activity of Dr. Blome and perhaps also of the other experts of the Munich office. Quite by accident I found out later that for some time mail had been coming regularly in large envelopes from Dr. Conti in Berlin to one of the two men (a certain Dr. Roehrs.) The name of the addressee, Dr. Roehr was printed on these envelopes sent by Dr. Conti. I therefore came to the conclusion that such letters crom Dr. Conti to Dr. Roehrs were sent often.