"By order of SS-Brigadefuehrer Dr. Grawitz I enclose herewith the list of physicians who are prepared to perform the treatment of sterility as requested by Reichsfuehrer-SS.
Heil Hitler!"
and your signature. That is your signature, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Well, now, then you maintain that this list we do not have was attached hereto and had no connections whatsoever with the program for experimentation?
A Yes, I maintain that. Yes. These are the four physicians who were supposed to treat sterile women.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, if I may interrupt, it is an error that we haven't got this list of physicians. The Prosecution itself submitted this list as Document NO-214, on page 48 of Document Book No. 6. The list is available. However, it was not submitted in connection with these documents since these two matters do not fit together. Page 48 of the Document Book 6. That is the German Document Book.
MR. HARDY: Page 51, Document Book No. 6, Your Honor.
Q. Dr. Poppendick, referring again to the letter which you have before you which bears your signature and is dated 4 June 1941 which states that you enclose herewith a list of physicians who are prepared to perform the treatment of sterility as requested by the Reichs Fuehrer SS; now, is the list of physicians you enclose thereto Document NO 214which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 168 found in Document Book 6, signed by Grawitz?
A. No.
Q. That is not the same list you enclosed or attached?
A. They are the same physicians, but it is not the annex to that document. I note it bears the designation "secret" or "top secret." I know nothing about that. It cannot possibly be the annex to that letter, but I am sure they are the same physicians. It says here "Treatment of Sterility", not the bringing about of sterility, but the treatment of people already sterile. It could only have been these four physicians, because I as the head physician must have known exactly who it was.
Q. Now, when you enclosed the list what list did you enclose with this cover letter, a list you had composed or a list Grawitz composed?
A. The list comes from Grawitz.
Q. And you say the physicians named thereon are the same four physicians as named in Document NO-214?
A. I don't know the document.
Q. Don't you have Prosecution Document No. 6 before you?
A. Yes, these are the physicians.
Q. Then you exclude the possibility that when Grawitz ordered you, Doctor, to send a list of the physicians who are prepared to perform the treatment of sterility to Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt, that the attachment thereto was Document NO-214, you exclude that possibility?
A. Yes, the dates are entirely different. It is already on the 30th of May that Grawitz reported these physicians to Himmler. I think that somehow this list got lost. He may have asked me once more to send the list to Brandt, because here there is mention made of a telephone conversation with Grawitz on the 4th of June. I don't know exactly what the situation was.
Q. Suppose this document NO-214 did not contain therein as a reference the report to Reich Fuehrer SS on 27 May 1941; would you then be inclined to think that this was the list attached to the Document No. NO 1639-A?
A. If we are merely concerned with the names of the physicians then I would be of the opinion that it belonged to the first document, but I know nothing about any report to the Reich Fuehrer SS. This must have been a personal matter of Grawitz, and I don't know why this list is designated "top secret" because here we are only concerned with the treatment of sterility.
Q. Of course in the original the "top secret" is handwritten, not typewritten; it obviously may have been put on there some other date. Now, Doctor, did the list you submitted with your cover letter contain the same four names as contained in Document NO-215, is that right?
A. Well, I only know these names in that connection. I don't know other names.
Q. Now, the date of Document NO-214 is 30 May 1941, and the date of your cover letter is 4 June 1941; they are rather coincidental, aren't they?
A. I already said that I assume that this letter of Grawitz dated the 30 May was either still enroute, which is quite probable considering the short difference of time, or that this letter had been lost. At any rate I must assume that this letter was not available and the Reich Fuehrer wanted these names; thereupon Grawitz telephoned me in the Main Settlement Office to send the list of these physicians once more to Brandt. He probably said that Brandt had gotten in contact with him, and the Reich Fuehrer wanted the names of these physicians who could advise the SS families and treat them.
Q. Alright, Doctor, will you return those documents please?
JUDGE SEBRING: Just a moment, Mr. Hardy.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Witness, in the letter, Prosecution Exhibit 475 for identification only, which you have identified as your letter, there appears in the upper left hand corner the letters and figures "AZ IV", then the figures "10241;" what significance do those numbers have, can you say?
A. According to my knowledge this probably was the entry in the socalled letter diary where the outgoing letters were entered daily. On the basis of the documents which I have seen here I have concluded that the roman numeral refers to the volume of that letter diary, because the letters dated 1941 bear a lower number than those of the years 1943 and 1944. The second number is probably the current number contained in that volume, and the third figure obviously means the year.
A. You are of the opinion then that is a symbol or office code number of some kind used in your office to indicate outgoing mail, is that correct?
A. It obviously does not refer to any particular field of work. These figures refer to the mail diaries where every letter was entered. That was done by the secretary, and quite irrespective of what field the letters concerned.
Q. That was done by the secretary in your office?
A. Yes.
Q. You are quite sure of that?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you please refer to Document No 214 as it appears in the English Document Book No. 6, at page 51, and I believe it appears in the German document book at page 48, and you will note in the upper left hand corner of this letter, which is signed by Grawitz, and which you say you did not send with the cover letter NO-1639A; and there appears there the symbols Roman IV, and then a dash and Arabic 102-41, which is precisely the same code number as is on your cover letter NO. 1639A; according to your previous statement then that code designation would indicate that this was a letter that came from your office also, is that true?
A. Both letters were written by Grawitz's secretary and were entered by her in the daily diary. I conclude from that it must have been as I described it before, the first letter of Grawitz must have been lost, and that a telephone conversation followed and that list had to be gotten once more.
The names were the same and I probably compiled these names once more, and the secretary entered this list under the same figures, because she must have assumed that the first letter hadn't arrived and had gotten lost. That is the only explanation. At any rate both letters went to the secretary of Grawitz office. I only know of one letter though.
Q. Well, Witness, did you dictate the letter NO. 1639-A, Prosecution identification 475, which you signed?
A. I have only Document No NO-1693.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is that the letter that you signed 1639-A?
I can no longer say that. It's quite possible that this letter was written by the secretary personally as Grawitz had instructed her to get a list from me. Had I dictated the letter myself I probably would have dictated it all at once. Therefore, the physicians would already appear in the text of the letter.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, you had a secretary, did you not, witness?
A No, no, that was Grawitz secretary.
JUDGE SEBRING: You had no secretary to whom you could dictate a letter if you wanted to?
A In Grawitz's office I had a clerk at my disposal, a male clerk, who was really working with the chief dentist. Grawitz secretary generally rejected to work for me. I had difficulties with her because she always even after 1943 stated that she was only at Grawitz personal disposal and that she was not going to write any letters for me. Occasionally, however, I had to write some letters concerning SS physicians and I always had difficulties and I always had to look around for a typist for a hour who could write those letters.
JUDGE SEBRING: In this daily diary, as you call it, or list of the letters that we were sent out.- were letters which you dictated contained in the same diary as letters dictated by Grawitz were listed?
A Yes, all of the letters went through that diary -- all of the letters that went out of Grawitz' office, the medical quatermaster and the Chief Dentist had their own diary.
JUDGE SEBRING: I note that on document 1639, Prosecution Identification 474, these letters read IV (Roman Numeral 55) 98-41.
MR. HARDY Obviously a typographical error, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I didn't quite understand, Mr. President.
JUDGE SEBRING: In Prosecution identification 474, Document No. 1639, I notice that the diary index read LV instead of IV. The Prosecutor subjects that might be a typographical error for IV.
THE WITNESS: That is obviously a mistake, to mean IV-98-41.
JUDGE SEBRING: Very well. Resume.
MR. HARDY: While we are on this, doctor, documents you now have in your hands-- what's the file index number? Would you read it off, please?
A IV-98-41.
Q Now, would you read the file index number on the letter that you signed?
A IV-102-41.
Q Well, now would it be that this letter dated 29 May 1941 bearing the number 98 and then the letter on 4 June 1941 bearing the number 102, would it be there was only four other letters written in the meantime?
A Yes, that's possible. I already said there was very little correspondence in Grawitz's office.
Q Then the letter being 102 would be the 102nd communication coming out of Grawitz's office?
A No, the 102nd letter from the 4th volume. Every volume started a new count.
Q Well, then witness, that's rather unusual to number the letter of 30 May 1941 Number 102 and then number a letter of 4 June Number 102, if each number designates a letter?
A I didn't quite understand that.
Q I will it very clear. I will ask you once again; was this letter which is Document Number 214, Prosecution Exhibit 168, the inclosure that you mentioned in the letter signed by you on June 4th?
A There is no reference made in that letter to any other letter.
Q There is another letter too, isn't there, doctor?
A Yes, but that's only a matter that concerned the secretary. I cannot say in detail how it came about that she entered the same mail number on my letter. I can explain it by saying that a telephone conversation must have occurred where she was instructed to send the list once more because it had come lost or some such other technical reason. I can say that the first letter, bearing the same number, dated the 30 May, which was signed by Grawitz is not know to me.
It isn't clear at all to me what the reference, namely, Report to Reichsfuehrer SS" should mean. Furthermore, I don't know why this letter is designated with "top secret" All I know are the four physicians who were named for the treatment of female sterility and who openly did work for the SS women.
Q Now, will you return the document please,?
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Poppendick, I notice that in both documents No-1639 and No-1639-A there appears at the top the rubber stamp file number "Secret, 332-13". Can you explain the significance of both communications bearing the same secret file number?
A I can see no designation on these documents to read "secret"
JUDGE SEBRING: In the English translations before the Tribunal both documents NO-1639 and NO-1639-A appear to be marked "secret".
MR. HARDY: I may have to clarify that for you. That's a rubber stamp on the original document, and it's the personal stamp of the Reichsfuehrer SS; file number 'secret' refers to Rudolf's office and a rubber stamp put on by Rudolf Brandt's office and a rubber stamp put on by Rudolf Brandt's office when they received those communications.
JUDGE SEBRING: I assume that but I am asking the witness if he knows why this is marked with a rubber stamp "secret 33213?"
A. I really don't know how these letters were treated at the Reichsfuehrer's office regarding secrecy. This matter really need not have been kept secret. Very often it was up to the secretary whether any letter was classified "secret" or not if she didn't know whether there was any such directive regarding secrecy. At any rate, the letter which I assigned did not go out as secret. There was no reason at all to do that.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Poppendick, regarding the sulfanilamide experiments, I wish to submit to you now document -- the original of Document NO-582 which has been previously introduced into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 288. This is the report that Dr. Ding submitted to Dr. Mrugowsky for publication. The second page of this report bears the stamp thereon and a penciled signature. Is that your signature?
A. Yes, that's my signature.
Q. Will you return the document, please? Now, during the course of your direct examination you made the point rather emphatically that the testimony of Dr. Kogon was inconsistent regarding the reports which were sent to Poppendick.
You said on page 1266 "Kogon stated that the reports did not go to Poppendick", on page 1266 of the record. Isn't it possible that Kogon stated that the reports did not go directly to poppendick?
A No. It was asked whether I received a report. To assume a detour via a copy was wrong. Kogon did not know about my position with Grawitz. Probably he concluded from the fact that I signed a publication of Ding's with the designation of Reichsaerztefuehrer-SS which was later sent back to Ding. Kogon most likely thought that I would have something to do with the typhus experiments or that I would have to know about them. In any case he really had no insight into the position I held in the Staff of Grawitz.
Q We will let the record of Kogon's testimony speak for itself, doctor. Doctor, did you at any time ever act as go-between for Dr. Von Kennel in order for him to have some of his work tested at Buchenwald?
A I cannot say that. I know that I approached Ding with reference to Von Kennel. I said already yesterday that I vaguely remembered that I tried to transmit Grawitz' desire for experiments with animals to Von Kennel. In addition there was something in connection with a secretary for Von Kennel perhaps. Ding perhaps performed animals experiments for Von Kennel, I cannot tell you in detail.
Q Well, you never went to Ding or Mrugowsky, for instance, and said "Von Kennel wants some work done. Will you do it for him?" Did you ever act as go-between?
A I can't remember.
Q Well, now in your own Document Book, which was your Poppendick Exhibit 6, on page 25 - this is an affidavit of Von Kennel - he stated that his department in Leipzig never had anything to do with the hormone experiments of Dr. Vaernet, with typhus, or with experiments concerning burns. Now, do you think it is possible that Dr. Von Kennel is not being truthful in that affidavit?
A I really can't overlook that in detail.
Q Well, did you ever hear of the drug diaminodiphonylsulphone which for the benefit of the court reporter is spelled as follows:
d-i-a-m-i-n-o-d-i-p-h-o-n-y-l-s-u-l-p-h-o-n-e. Did you ever hear of that drug, doctor?
A I cannot recall having heard that complicated name. I am not an expert in this field. It is quite possible that this is the chemical designation of sulfanilamide preparations.
Q You think if you ever heard it you would forget it?
A That is possible.
Q Well, let's see - Document NO-1184. This will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 476.
Is that your signature on the bottom of that document, Doctor?
A Yes, that is my signature.
Q This is dated 13 June 1944 - secret stamp - it is addressed to Reich Physician SS and Police.
"To the Office III in the building "A communication from SS-Stubaf.
Professor Dr. VonKennel was transmitted on June 1, 1944 the last paragraph of which reads as follows:
"We have already made experiments with Sulfonamide in Typhus cases, however, without success. Kimmig, however, has synthecised a substance of diaminodiphonylsulphone which in a mouse carrying Streptococci, is to such an extent superior to all sulfonamides that it nearly reaches a penicillin. The inoculation of human beings however still creates very unpleasant secondary manifestations, acute cyznosis. Nevertheless it is worth considering whether or not some orientation tests should be made on persons suffering from typhus in order to continue the efforts to detoxicate this remedy. Could you act as a mediator in our efforts to cooperate with some clinic?"
Now there, VonKennel has asked you to act as go-between for him, has he not in the VonKennel letter?
A That is possible.
Q Now we continue - "According to your communication of June 2, 1944, Diary No. 370/44, the Chief Hygienist agreed to the fact that the Typhus Research Dept.
Buchenwald should experiment with the "Diaminodiphonylsulphone" according to VonKennel and Kimmig on typhus cases in order to determine its effectiveness and computability. There are enclosed more detailed data are the above remedy and it is requested that they be further transmitted to SS-Stubaf. Dr. Ding, SS-Stubaf. Professor Dr. VonKennel furthermore advises that a certain quantity of the above remedy will arrive here during the next few days. Upon arrival this remedy will likewise be forwarded there.
"Professor Dr. Von Kennel considers it very advisable that Dr. Ding should call on him in his clinic in Leipzig for the purpose of discussing this rather different therapy. The necessity for absolute secrecy is stressed to all institutions concerned.
Signed Poppendick" Now, when Dr. VonKennel asked you to act as go-between for him how did you happen to go directly to Mrugowsky and not directly to Dr. Ding?
A I don't know whether VonKennel personally asked me to be a go-between. I don't know to whom he wrote. He probably wrote to Grawitz. As regards Ding's activities I don't know in detail what his position of subordination was, what his activity was, and so on. I merely know he was a hygienist.
Q Well, then you assumed that Dr. Mrugowsky was chief of the Institute of Buchenwald, didn't you? Ding's superior when you wrote this letter?
A I knew that he was a hygienist, that he had come from Mrugowsky's institute and I, therefore, assumed that Ding belonged to that institute. What Ding's work was in particular I didn't know at that time.
Q Well, now it states in this third paragraph or the second paragraph I believe it is, "that a certain quantity of the above remedy will arrive here during the next few days. Upon arrival this remedy will likewise be forwarded there." That is, the drug will be forwarded to Buchenwald. Well, who was to forward this drug to Buchenwald? You?
A No. I really cannot tell you that.
Q Did you ever receive the drug yourself from Von Kennel to send to Buchenwald?
A I can't remember that.
Q Well, we will refresh your memory, doctor in Document NO-1182which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 477 for identification.
Now this letter is dated 15 June 1944. That is the same date as the letter that you addressed to Mrugowsky. This letter is from Von Kennel to SS-Standartenfuehrer Dr. Poppendick regarding your letter dated June 5, 1944 wherein it states as follows:
"Standartenfuehrer, "I enclose the first sample of the experimental preparation diaminodiphonylsulphone which, for purposes of simplication I have called "VK25."
"I point out again that I proposed for the first testing experiments tablet twice, at the most three times, a day; that, quite probably, cyanosis will occur, which may be averted by intravenous injections of 10-20 ccm of 1 percent methyl - blue solution.
Heil Hitler!
Signed Von Kennel" Now, then you did receive this, doctor, didn't you?
A I can't tell you. I really can't remember. I don't remember having received it, at any rate the letter is addressed to me.
Q Ding finally got it, too, didn't he?
A I can't tell you that, either.
Q Look at the top of the letter. See the stamp. In the stamp is "Received 21 June 1944 - then the number 144/44 with the initial D in the corner." Would you say that would be Dr. Ding's receipt?
A I can't say that. It is possible.
Q Eight days later?
I am going into another document on the same subject. It would take two or three minutes to introduce these.
JUDGE SEBRING: Did you identify this document by a number?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Prosecution Exhibit 477 for identification.
A May I say something else about that document?
Q Certainly.
A It becomes evident from both letters that this is a question of a drug which has certain effects, for instance, cyanosis. I must point out that we physicians know that all sulfonamide drugs create cyanosis which can be averted by methyl-blue solution. In spite of that sulfanilamide is used today to a large extent. One, therefore, cannot draw the conclusion that these are experiments which can in any way be considered to be dangerous. In addition, on that letter NO-1184 it is necessary to inform all agencies to keep this matter secret. Now, the conclusion can be drawn for that - and no other conclusion can be drawn that any dangerous experiments were carried out the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Von Kennel wanted to keep the developments of this on preparations secret because he was maintaining a certain competition with the firms involved. For that reason he tagged his research laboratory "V".
Q I am not interested doctor in the purpose of the experiments of the outcome of the experiments, I am merely asking you that you did act as mediary or go-between of Von Kennel and Dr. Ding. Didn't you according to this document wherein your signature appears?
A Yes, I already said that if it refers to experimental animals and from this letter I concluded that I obviously sent one or two other letters to Von Kennel.
Q Now, witness, in addition, you had knowledge that Dr. Mrugowsky, Chief Hygienist of the Waffen-SS, could make available facilities for experimentation of any nature at the typhus research station in Buchenwald according to this letter?
A I know that Mrugowsky Institute sent out secret papers regarding new experiences gained with typhus illnesses, numbers of these people were sent to SS hospitals, where in detail it happened I cannot say. In my opinion this was a clinical test. It was possibly done on sick SS men in some SS hospitals.
Q To actually show that Dr. Ding actually received the drug I wish to introduce another document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 9 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HELMUT POPPENDICK - Resumed
DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, the prosecution submitted this morning various documents in which the defendant Mrugowsky is mentioned. In my opinion the prosecution so far as the material is concerned which it is using against one specific defendant, this material must be submitted when the defendant is in the stand, otherwise the counsel for the defendant has no opportunity to defend himself against this material. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal either to order that the material now submitted against the defendant Mrugowsky should not be used against the defendant Mrugowsky or that the defendant Mrugowsky later be again called to the stand so that he can make statements regarding this material. The same objection I raise also on behalf of Kaufmann for defendant Rudolf Brandt who was also mentioned this morning in one of the documents.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I am afraid that the defense counsel isn't aware of the concept of rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents to which defense counsel refers have merely been marked for identification; they have not yet been even offered in evidence. When they are offered in evidence, counsel for any defendant may be heard to interpose any objection to the admission into evidence which he thinks may be well taken. The Tribunal will then rule upon the admissibility of the documents. Of course, if these documents are offered in evidence at this time or when they are offered, any defendant would have an opportunity to take the stand and explain anything in connection with those documents that might refer to him.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
A. Just before the recess we were discussing document NO 1182which was addressed to the defendant Poppendick concerning the drug VK 25.
This letter is addressed to you, Dr. Poppendick, and I ask you again did you receive this first sample of the experimental preparation VK 25, as outlined in this letter from Vonkennel?
A. To speak honestly, I cannot say one way or the other now.
Q. Well, assume that you did receive it, would you have then passed it on to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS for delivery to Ding yourself?
A. I can't say that either.
MR. HARDY: Well, now, Document NO-1185. We offer this at this time for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 478. This document is dated 21 June 1944, addressed to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Scharlau, Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, and Herr Ding acknowledges receipt of one small bottle of Diamindodiphonylsulfon tablets as testing quantity for the clinical station of Department for Typhus and Virus Research. The tablets originate from Prof. Dr. Vonkennel, Leipzig, then in parenthesis, see our letter of June 15, 1944, signed Doctor Erwin Ding.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, at the top of this letter you will notice underneath the word "subject" the words "Re: Your letter dated June 19, 1944". Now, taking this letter into consideration and looking back at the letter addressed to you of 15 June 1944, would you state that these samples were sent to you by Vonkennel and were in turn delivered to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS who in turn on June 19, 1944, sent them on to Dr. Ding? Is that a reasonable explanation of the manner in which Dr. Ding received this drug at Buchenwald?
A. I am not in a position to make statements about what route those drugs took. I cannot remember that I received it. It is quite possible that it went on its way without my personal participation at all.
Q. Now, doctor, the prosecution has introduced Document Number NO 1500 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 289 which was admitted into evidence on 7 January 1947. This is a document concerning the hormone research of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Vaernet. Will you kindly look at the bottom of that document and tell me whether or not that is your signature, doctor?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
MR. HARDY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BOEHM (For defendant Poppendick):
Q. Witness, this morning you were shown a photo copy, which I unfortunately have not yet received, but I believe you will be able to recall it; it was initialed by you, "A certified true copy, Poppendick." This concerned itself with gas gangrene, and was addressed to the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. Did you compare this copy with the copy drawn up by the secretary before you certified the correctness of the copy?
A. No, in no case, because the secretary was Grawitz's confidant, settled all sorts of matters for Grawitz, but did not sign such matters, particularly not matters directed to the Reichsfuehrer himself. That had to be signed by an officer, and it happened several times that I was asked by her for a signature, and she told me that she had made a copy of such and such a document, that it was a correct copy, and that I should please put my signature to it as a certification; and since this secretary had Grawitz's complete confidence I always assumed everything was in order. I knew nothing about the experiments in Ravensbruck except want I heard when it was reported.
Q. This is an interim report on the clinical experiments in Ravensbruck. Were you the technical manager or the treater of this thing?
A. No.
Q. Did you read it before you signed it?
A. I think that is most improbable.
Q. The document seems to indicate that you would know the contents of the document if you certified its correctness.
A. Under other circumstances that might be so, but in Grawitz's office where, as I said, the secretary took care of these matters with Grawitz's complete confidence, that was not customary. I could accept the secretary's word as a guarantee.
Q. In other words, you certified that the contents were correct without having read it?