Q What was your rank in August 1942?
A In August 1942 I believe I was Obersturmbannfuehrer.
Q Obersturmbannfuehrer, is that right? Well, I will show you the report, doctor, the preliminary report or such. I want you to identify the original. I just received it from Berlin this morning. I haven't had an opportunity to prepare it. I would like to present this to the witness for identification of his signature. Defense counsel may look at it. I will offer it formally at a later date.
Is that your signature, Dr. Poppendick?
A Yes.
Q Turn to the second page of that document - just the second page. What is the subject, just the subject - the heading at the top the subject of the report?
A "Interim Report on the Clinical Experiments at Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp by orders of the Reichsfuehrer-SS". On the 20th of 7 - 42 --
Q That is enough. Would you kindly give that document to the defense counsel, please?
A Now, doctor, in your position as Chief, or as what you call Managing Physician in the Main Race and Settlement Office --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, do you desire this document marked with an identification number, having been introduced?
MR. HARDY: I was going to wait until such a time as defense counsel finished perusing the document, your Honor.
EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. HARDY:
Q Can you tell the Tribunal what the negative racial policy was?
A The negative racial population policy concerned all extermination measures in contradistinction to the positive racial population to the positive racial population policy which was to be promoted by Dr. Lenz.
Q Well, now what was this negative racial policy - what was the theory behind it?
A Lenz, for instance, called sterilization which became law in the Third Reich as negative population policy and he believed that no final conclusive result could be achieved.
Q In other words, negative racial policy was that policy wherein anyone who did not meet requirements as pure Aryans would be exterminated?
A These matters were completely outside my sphere. At any rate negative population policy at the high school was not something that had to do with extermination at least not the way we studied it in college. It was a matter that concerned the relation between the identity of the German race and other people. In other words, specific groups or people having off springs or having one child less than another group of persons, then this would decrease the birth rate.
Q Well, was this negative racial policy and positive racial policy of concern to the Race and Settlement Office? That was one of your problems, was it not?
A No.
Q It wasn't?
A Well, yes, so far as the positive population policy played a role because it was important to the SS members to have more children than other people but actually that didn't work out that way and the SS didn't make any distinction.
Q Well, if it wasn't of interest to the Main Race and Settlement Office why did you concern yourself with sterilization?
A Me?
Q Yes, you.
A I never knew I concerned myself with that. I did not belong to any hereditary health court and that was the department that was concerned with sterilization.
Q Assume in 1941 - let's assume this for a moment - that you did concern yourself with sterilization in 1941. Now, would you have concerned yourself with sterilization in your capacity as physician in the Main Race and Settlement Office or in your capacity as the man who took care of special assignments of odd jobs for Dr. Grawitz. Suppose the situation ever arose wherein you would have to concern yourself with sterilization, would it arise out of your job as physician in the Main Race and Settlement Office or as position of subordinate to Grawitz - in which capacity?
A Questions of this sort might have represented me through ---
Q Now, you testified in direct examination that you only know about legal sterilization, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Well, now let's look at Document Book NO VI, document NO 214, Exhibit 68, found on page 51 of the English, your Honor. If defense counsel has the German copy I would appreciate it if he would submit that to the witness for the purpose of this examination. That is NO-214 under Klauberg's Section, Sterilization Section, Document Book VI.
Now, the date of this letter?
A 20 May 1941.
Q That's right. Well, now, doctor, it says here - Reference Report to Reichsfuehrer-SS 27 May 1941." Do you know anything about that report that was made to Reichsfuehrer-SS 27 May 1941?
A I know that female sterilization was to be treated according to this Klauberg method and I also know the name but I do not know this letter. I know nothing of the report to the Reichsfuehrer. If I know anything it is only concerned with the treatment of female sterilization.
Q Well, now did you concern yourself with the treatment of female sterilization at this time here 1941, in May, June, or July?
A Me? No. I was interested in this as a doctor in the Sippen-amt".
Q Then you wouldn't have any knowledge that they were preparing to perform treatments, upon women, to perform experiments on women in connection with Klauberg's method?
A I knew nothing about sterilization.
Q Nothing about it doctor? Let's see if we can refresh your memory a little. It might be a good time to break, your Honor. We can introduce this document after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: At this time, Your Honor, I should like to mark for identification the Document on which the defendant Poppendick recognized his signature. This is a Document, which contains a cover letter, signed by the Reichsarzt SS Dr. Grawitz, addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS. Himmler, referring to an enclosed copy of a report by Gebhardt on experiments at Ravensbruck, and then the copy of the preliminary report by Gebhardt on experiments at Ravensbruck is attached thereto. This is Document SS 2788 and will be marked for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 473. This is the only copy we have of the Document, Your Honor and when it is duly processed we will then submit it formally.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this Document No. 1639.
MR. HARDY: That is the next one, I am coming to, Your Honor, This is the one that was submitted to the defendant for identification of his signature, of which the court does not have a copy.
Now, we will turn to Document NO-1639, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 474, which....
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I object to the submission of this Document NO-1639, because it obviously cannot be what it should be according to the contents of the first page, namely a list of physicians. In addition to that the annex bears an earlier date than the letter itself, addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS; the letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS bears that date of 4 June 1941, whereas the so-called annex, which does not belong to it, because of its contents, bears the date of 29 May 1941; therefore, the list of the physicians who are to perform the treatment regarding sterilization must have been lost; however, in no way can the letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, which is attached as an annex, be in any way connected with the first letter, which was signed by Poppendick.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the two documents that I mention here are given the same document number, obviously because in the Berlin Document Center they were found together; however, it is true that one is dated 29 May 1941 and the other is dated 4 June 1941; however, I do not propose to offer the English and the German copies as the first document, I will take up each one of them separately. One is joined to the other because they received the same document number in Berlin, they are dealing with the same subject and I submit them to Your Honor for perusal because they are original German Documents. I don't think there is any cause for objection or any cause for further comment on my part.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you do not content that these two documents, both bearing the number NO-1639, are attached documents?
MR. HARDY: No, they are not attached Documents.
THE PRESIDENT: They are separate documents you contend.
HR. HARDY: They are separate documents obviously, found in the same file folder in Himmler's office.
THE PRESIDENT: But then of course the duplication of the NO-1639 is in fact an error.
MR. HARDY: We don't claim it was an error, Your Honor, we contend these documents are dealing with the same subject, and they are together as one document, and they will be fully explained when presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, they are of course being merely marked for identification?
MR. HARDY: That is right, Your Honor.
DR. BOEHM: And then in that case, I should like to ask that the original of the second Document be submitted in order to ascertain who signed it as the first Document was signed by Poppendick and in the case of the second document there is no signature.
MR. HARDY: The signature is Dr. Grawitz on the original, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents should bear different identification numbers; I see no connection between them.
MR. HARDY: Then I will have to give them different NO numbers also, Your Honor. The Prosecution wishes to put them in as one Document.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not connected, they are not one document.
DR. BOEHM: It is my opinion that this is not permissible, these two documents have nothing at all to do with one another, they are completely separate.
MR. HARDY: Then I will give one Document the NO-1639 and the other Document NO-1639-A. Document 1639 will bear prosecution exhibit 474 for identification purposes, and Document NO-1639-A, Prosecution Exhibit 475 for identification.
I now wish to take up the Document NO-1639, and if Your Honor has looked at the original document, I should like to submit it to the witness.
Now, Dr. Poppendick, we will note that the letter on page 51 of Document Book 6, which is dated 30 May 1941, which was Document NO-214, referred to a report to the Reichsfuehrer SS on 27 May 1941; now this Document NO-1639 which is being offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 474 is dated 29 May 1941 and the reference is.....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, your Document NO-1639 is dated 4 June.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I now offer Document NO-1639, which is the first document, it is dated 29 May 1941, the other is dated 4 June 1941 and I marked that NO-1639-A.
THE PRESIDENT: June 4th is 1639-A?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 475 for identification. Now, this letter dated 29 May 1941, the reference is 'Oral Report to Reichsfuehrer SS on 27 May 1941':"Reichsfuehrer:
At a conference on 27th May 1941 in the presence of Herr Professor Clauberg, concerning his new method of sterilization of inferior women without an operation, a regretable misunderstanding has occurred:
"For developing this method Prof. Clauberg requires the women furnished for this purpose to be in his own hospital in Koenigshuette or in the vicinity, as the method is still being worked out, as Prof. Clauberg needs his own clinical apparatus, just procured for the purpose, on the spot, and as he must be there, personally, for operations in case of incidents.
"The matter has again been discussed in all details with Prof. Clauberg and it resulted that, under the prevailing circumstances, the carrying out of the experimental work in Ravensbrueck is out of question.
"Taking into account the exorbitant significance which such a method would have for a negative population policy and it results therefrom to be of importance to support the establishment of a flawless method with all means; therefore, I beg to submit the proposal, Reichsfuehrer, to furnish Prof. Clauberg with a proper research institute in or around Koenigshuette and to attach it to a women concentration camp for about 10 persons.
"Provided that you consent I beg to authorize me to discuss the matter further in your name with SS-Gruppenfuehrer Pohl and SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks."
The signature appears there on: "Grawitz."
Q Now, Doctor, do you know anything about these matters?
A I could only conclude therefrom that we are here concerned with two entirely different fields Clauberg dealt with, one of the fields regarding creation of sterility itself, and one regarding the treatment of sterility. I only know something of the treatment of women already sterile.
Q Well, then, as a result of this research work of Clauberg, he established a method wherein other doctors performed sterilizations. Is that a clear understanding of the situation?
A If I see correctly, the data and the physicians that are to perform the treatment and the beginning of the experiments do not tally. Even if this was correct, the result of these experiments had yet to be expected, but already at that time in the Spring of 1943 the physicians Wolf, Schultz and another two had been mentioned to me regarding their treatment of sterile SS women. These must be two distinctly separate matters.
Q Well, now it states here in the fourth paragraph of the letter:
"Taking into account the exorbitant significance which such a method would have for a negative population policy and it results therefrom," and so forth. Now, then, do you understand that to mean that the purpose of this experimentation was in order to apply a sterilization method to complete and follow up the negative population policy?
A I don't know what this expression "negative population policy" is supposed to mean.
Q It is very simple, isn't it, Doctor, that if they have persons that they consider to be in the class that is set forth in the negative racial policy or negative population policy that they could well sterilize those people and thereby use them as slave laborers or use them for work of any description and have no fear that other persons fitting into the category would be born to said persons? Isn't that very simple? Isn't that one of the purposes of the negative racial or population policy?
That is, sterilization?
A No. After reading that letter I would have only considered it as a sterilization program for these people who according to the law would have to be sterilized in any case.
Q Then the only knowledge you have of this is the legal phase of sterilization? That is, all these criminal acts were known all around you, yet Poppendick only heard of the legal phase of the sterilization, is that it?
A Whether all this went on around me I don't know. At any rate, as a physician of the Race and Settlement Main Office, I was concerned with the treatment of sterile SS women using Clauberg's as well as other physicians' methods who had a good reputation in the Reich.
Q And you never heard that Clauberg was using concentration camp inmates to experiment so as to find a better method for sterilization?
A No, and if I heard that; even if he had worked in a concentration camp, I could only have assumed that we are here concerned with similar matters, namely, the treatment of women who were already sterile.
Q Well, now, did you ever talk to Grawitz about any of these matters of feminine sterility?
A Yes, I probably spoke about female sterility to him. It is quite possible that we discussed the treatment of female sterility.
Q Well, then, during the course of the discussion of the treatment of female sterility, did you ever discuss the possibility of experimenting along those lines in order to find a more efficient and effective way to gain your goal?
AAn effective way? Do you mean for the treatment of sterility?
Q The treatment, yes.
A I can't remember.
Q Well, now, we have this document NO-1639-A which is offered for identification. Now this is a letter from you to SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt dated 4 June 1941. Now this is Document NO-1639-A which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 475:"Dear Comrad Brandt:
"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.
