Therefore, regular members were only those who had something in particular to do with it in their official capacity or with regard to their skill.
Q. Now, let us refer again to the experiments at Ravensbruck. It has been determined that you did not have anything to do with the beginning and the execution of these experiments of Prof. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer. With regard to those experiments which were carried out at Ravensbruck, were there any lectures held by Prof. Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer on the invitation of the conference in May 1943 at the military Medical Academy? Did. you attend the speeches by Prof. Gebhardt?
A. I assume yes.
Q. You say you are making an assumption. Don't you know that for certain?
A. Yes. I really cannot remember the speech any more. However, it is actually impossible that I should not have been there because in the course of that conference the first day I made an official and rather long address. I oponed the conference and then built the framework of the specialist group for surgery; and then the working session of the surgery groups commenced.
In this conference about six or seven lectures were given on sulfanilimide experiments; and I assume for certain that I attended. It cannot remember the address; I cannot remember any details. It may be that after I came from my opening speech then I occupied myself with all the other questions. I can only say one thing. It did not have an effect on me to the extent that I was especially impressed or that he should have given me any cause to reach some conclusions.
Q. Then I cannot actually address any further question to you with an objective content. Therefore, I can only ask you questions after you have received knowledge here of what has been said there. How do you explain the fact that this lecture did not cause any particular re-action of yourself. Is there any plausible explanation for that?
A. Yes, there is only one explanation, that the lecture according to it's formation and after the description of the course of the medical measures caused the impression that they had been done in accordance with the rules of the medical profession.
Q. If after the conclusion of every lecture a discussion took place, were you present at the discussions?
A. Yes, I am quite certain of that.
Q. Did anybody make objections then with reference to the lectures by Gebhardt and Fischer?
A. As I gather from the report of Dr. Schweiss, speaking on the subject immediately afterwards, and at the conclusion of the sulfanalimide lectures, there were about six or seven, to which those of Gebhardt and Fischer also belonged, about six or seven people spoke in the course of the discussion.
Q. Did not any cumplaint reach you subsequently through official channels or any voice of opposition?
A. Neither after the lecture, not in the recess which was called, nor during the lunch which was also taken in the Academy or in the course of the day or the following day or any other time nobody approached me in any way, who expressed that he had the impression that something unjust was being done here which would call for opposition.
Q. Had the lecture by Gebhardt and Fischer been submitted to you before the conference?
A. No, that would have been somewhat difficult because in the first half of the month of May, 1943, I carried out inspections in Italy, Greece and Crete, and then I returned to Berlin and I stayed there for a very short period of time and then I went by plane to the headquarters, and I only returned to Berlin a very short time before the conference, but even in the course of my very brief stay in Berlin, where I certainly asked the working staff of the conference if everything was going in order, because it was rather difficult to organize something of this kind, and if there were any special questions, nothing was brought to my attention, any complaint about the lectures and about the course of the coming conference.
Q. May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this complex, I request to present the following document, first of all affidavit by Professor Dr. Frey, Document HA-10, Document Book 2, page 16, which I offer as Exhibit No, 30, Professor Frey's answer to the question:
"As far as the field of sulfonamide experiments and experiments with bone, muscle and nerve regeneration, as well as bone transplantation, is concerned, can you say from your own knowledge whether Prof. Dr. Handloser, in his capacity as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Army Medical Inspector, ordered experiments in contradiction to all recognized medical and scientific methods?"
The answer reads as follows:
"I know Prof. Dr. Handloser in his capacity as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Army Medical Inspector. I do not know and have never heard, that he or any of his offices carried out or ordered any experiments in contradiction to recognize medical and scientific methods. According to my knowledge of the character of Prof. Dr. Handloser I cannot imagine that he ordered or even approved of such experiments."
I now request that this affidavit be admitted as Exhibit No. 30, and a further affidavit of the same Professor, in which Dr. Frey deals with the impressions during the lecture by Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fisher, and states here:
"In the lectures of Gebhardt and Fischer, which is mentioned in this letter of 27 of January, 1943 is contained a report about the result of a series of experiments which was carried out simultaneously on human beings. This series was concluded and after the series had been completed a repetition of the series was out of the question. In the lecture in question we discussed people who had been condemned to death and that experiments on concentration camp inmates were carried out against their will was not expressed. So far as I know I personally maintain the point of view that such experiments on healthy people with the intention to cause symptoms of diseases on them on them and to test their therapeutic influence would he prohibited by the ethical rules, and that theory must be disapproved."
I want to point out expressly that the next sentence is an objective subsequent opinion by Professor Frey, and he does not state any fact.
MR. McHANEY: This document which has just been read is not in the document book and I must object to it's being offered until I have an opportunity to look at it and see what it is.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask counsel if the document can be found in the document book.
DR. NELTE: It is contained in document book No. 3, which has not become available as yet. The same applies to the document HA 43, which I have just offered, and it is an affidavit by Dr. Professor Randeralf and I request that both documents be admitted with the reservation that the documents will later on be presented to you and the Prosecution and that they can then object to them.
MR. McHANEY: The Prosecution has no objection to his reserving an exhibit number in sequence and no particular objection to his now reading the affidavit However, I would like to have it clearly understood that it is incumbent upon Dr. Nelte to re-offer these documents at a later stage when we have the translations before us, because otherwise the burden is on the Prosecution to keep a check on these documents provisionally admitted and are going to lose track of them.
The PRESIDENT: I was going to suggest if counsel has the documents he could offer new in his document book, they should be offered first and these documents reserved until the document is prepared and given to the Prosecution, and the Tribunal, Is counsel advised as to when this Document Book No. 3 will probably be prepared?
DR. NELTE: I was told it would be ready by this morning but I guess it was not completed. In the document book there are only four documents. It contain an additional four documents, and perhaps it would be appropriate to admit them, because otherwise the complex of the question would be impaired.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer them provisionally if he desires and reserve the number, but it must be read again when the documents are again offered as exhibits.
DR. NELTE: Yes, Your Honor.
Professor Randeralf states at the third working session of the consulting specialist physicians from the 24th to the 26 of May, 1943, in connection with the lectures by Fischer and Gebhardt, I have not participated in the discussion, out after hearing the lecture with regard to injuries sustained by bullet wounds, this lecture did not have anything to do with lectures by Gebhardt and Fischer, who are completely unknown to me.
My lecture was completely in dependent from the report by Gebhardt and Fischer. It was supported by experiences which I myself had gained by dissecting the corpses of German soldiers who had died in battle, and which were supported by studying world literature. I have not made any remarks in the discussions to Gebhardt and Fischer.
"I can't remember in detail any more the lectures by Gebhardt and Fischer but as far as I remember it could not be seen by reports from Gebhardt and Fischer that experiments on concentration camp prisoners had been carried out. The consulting specialists physicians have discussed the medical experiences at this conference, in all combats, and in all hospitals at home in order to gain new methods of treating wounded and sick soldiers. As a result of this conference of the consulting physicians the new medical experiences were changed by the Army Medical Inspectorate to directives and through these medical directives it was possible to bring these experiences to the young physicians who were used in the hospitals at the front and were unable to attend these conferences.
DR. NELTE: I request to provisionally admit this document as Exhibit 32.
I now come to the Document Book about the Sea Water Experiments. That is Document Book V and the affidavit by Dr. Becker-Freyseng, NO-448, which is not contained in this Document Book. The exhibit number of the Becker-Freyseng affidavit cannot be determined as yet. The exhibit number of NO-449, that is the affidavit by Professor Schroeder, and this will be exhibit 130. This will be exhibit 31. This book I am handing to you does not contain any documents with the exception of Document NO-449 which mentions your name directly. In the affidavit of Professor Schroeder, N0-449, which is exhibit 130 by Professor Becker-Freyseng certain statements are contained which might give cause to the conclusion as if you had been in some way connected with the sea water experiments or in the very least that you had knowledge of them. Will you please make a statement with regard to the assumption that has been expressed by the two other defendants?
A. In connection with this I can only say that I have heard of the sea water experiments here in Nurnberg. Before they were completely unknown to me.
DR. NELTE: May it please the Tribunal, I therefore request that the affidavit by Professor Schroeder, Document Book II, page 30, document HA-22, be admitted as Exhibit 33. Professor Schroeder states here under paragraph 2 "Under No. 8 I said that Professor Dr. Handloser knew about the medical research experiments carried out by the Luftwaffe.
I have to add the following in that connection:
"a) My testimony refers only to the time of my tour of duty as Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service from 1 January 1944 on. About the procedures before that time I am in no position to make any statements.
"b) Luftwaffe research was not subordinated to the Chief of the Vehrmacht Medical Service; it was not among the "common" tasks of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. That is why a report to the Chief if the Wehrmacht Medical Service was not considered.
"c) When the Luftwaffe handed out research assignments about strictly aviation medicine fields, the consent of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was not necessary. The Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service could on his own responsibility carry out research in his aviation medical research institute without informing the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
The information concerning research assignments given to third persons was connected with the assignment given to Professor Dr. Brandt in 1943, to guide the whole research work in order to avoid duplication of work. After that time all proposed research assignments had to be reported to the office of the Reich Commissioner, Office for Science and Research. This was done in the following manner: Copies of the letter sent to the men assigned the research job were sent to the Office for Science and Research (Professor Restock); and additional copy went to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service for his information. These reports contained no information about place, methods of execution of such research, assignments, nor were any possibly contemplated experiments on human beings mentioned in them.
"d) As far as the sea water experiments (No. 5 of my affidavit of 15 October 1946), it becomes evident from Document No. 177 that no representative of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service or the Army Medical Inspectorate participated in the preliminary conference in 19 May 1944; it further becomes evident from the distribution list that this record was not submitted to the Chief of the Wechmarcht Medical Service.
Not was a copy of the letter which was sent to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, bearing my signature, forwarded to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. No research assignment was issued in this matter."
I request that this document be admitted as exhibit #33. Dr. Becker-Freysen status in Document HA-23---
THE PRESIDENT: Before entering upon any further documents the Tribunal will recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 13 February 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 13 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent with a continuation of her recent illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants save the Defendant Oberheuser, the Defendant Oberheuser being absent on account of illness according to a doctor's certificate which I will hand to the Secretary-General.
(Certificate handed to Secretary.)
DR. KURT KAUFMANN (For the Defendant Rudolf Brandt): Mr. President, I request permission to make a request before the defense continues to present its case.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. KAUFMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I want to make a request that the Defendant Rudolf Brandt be permitted to be absent from the courtroom after the recess this morning for such a period of time until it has been determined by a medical examination by the prison physician that he is able to participate in the courtroom sessions. In my opinion Rudolf Brandt is sick and, according to the symptoms which I have the opportunity to observe, he is in my opinion severely ill. He only weighs 50 kilograms and he is barely able to even follow the proceedings. His mental capacity is deteriorating from day to day, so that it becomes questionable to me if the defense can even be concluded in a professional manner.
I, therefore, request, and I would be grateful, that an examination by the prison physician be ordered so that I will obtain full clarity as to whether the Defendant Rudolf Brandt is still able to attend the courtroom sessions.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel should make his application in writing so that the matter will become a matter of record. Counsel will prepare an application and hand it to the Tribunal at any time prior to the morning recess. The matter will then be considered.
DR. KAUFMANN: Thank you very much.
DR. NELTE: May it please the Tribunal, at the end of yesterday afternoon's session I had started to read the affidavit of Dr. BeckerFreyseng with regard, to the complex of questions regarding sea-water experiments. The affidavit which I presented before of Professor Schroeder, as you will recall, refers to the time of 1 July 1944 until January 1945 when Professor Schroeder became Medical Officer Inspector of the Luftwaffe. Dr. Freyseng previously belonged to the medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe in a position which enabled him, and enables him today, to give a judgment about the relationship between the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. Dr. Becker-Freyseng had given to the prosecution affidavit Number NO 448 which is Exhibit 81 and in this affidavit the following is stated under No. 6:
"Handloser, as Inspector of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, had to be fully acquainted with the research work done by Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe. We had orders to report to these gentlemen on all research assignments of the scientists working for us, so that duplication of work might be avoided."
In connection with this, Dr. Becker-Freyseng has given the following affidavit which I shall offer and present as Document HA. 23. It is contained on page 32 of Document Book II. It will have Exhibit No. 34. In his affidavit, Dr. Becker-Freyseng states the following:
"The interpretation which the Prosecution gave this part of my affidavit prompts me, in order to avoid misunderstanding and wrong conclusions, upon request of the Defense Counsel of Professor Handloser, to make the following explanation:
"1. The contents of No. 6 of the affidavit were never the subject of the questioning in the previous interrogations. When the interrogator, in the presence of Mr. McHaney, gave me an English copy of the affidavit to sign, which was supposed to be a summary of the interrogations and which had been formulated by the Prosecution, I told him especially in respect to Nos. 5 and 6, that because of the general formulation of these sections I had to make explanations. Mr. McHaney told me that I could make explanations later. Thereupon I signed. I was not given any opportunity later to explain No. 6 cf the affidavit.
"On the question of Professor Dr. Handloser's jurisdiction as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service concerning the research work done by the Luftwaffe, I state:
"a) Research performed by the Luftwaffe was not subordinate to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service; it was not among the "joint" tasks of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. Therefore no report was made to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
"b) No. 6 deals only with the period after the Office for Science and Research had been established under Professor Karl Brandt. At this period we must distinguish between the research done in the Luftwaffe's own institutes. Only concerning the latter report was made to Professor Rostock, consisting of sending a copy of the research assignments to Professor Rostock and to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. This research assignment, however, did not contain any information about the methods to be applied.
"c) The sea water experiments were not the result of a research assignment. Therefore the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service did not receive any copy.
"2. The words:
'Handloser, as Inspector of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, had to be fully acquainted with the research work done by Any, Navy, and Luftwaffe,' in this general form are incorrect.
They refer to the following sentence and are meant to express what I have said above under No. 1.
"3. Moreover, when I spoke of Handloser, I did not mean Prof. Dr. Handloser personally but his office, which, according to the contents of the copies of research assignments sent it from the end of 1943 on, would hardly have had any reason to submit such things to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service himself, but only to the section chief in charge."
I request to admit this affidavit as Exhibit 34.
SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER - (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Cont'd.)BY DR. NELTE:
Q May it please the Tribunal, I have only a brief question with regard to the bone and muscle regeneration and bone transplantations. The Document Book does not mention the name of Handloser and his office so that I only want to ask if he knows anything about the experiments which were carried out at the Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp or if he received any reports about them?
A. No.
Q On the occasion Of the conference cf the Consulting Physicians, did you hear any lecture on this subject?
A No. This subject was not discussed at any conference.
Q The question of the experiments within the framework of hepatitus research must be considered as concluded by the interrogation of Prof. Dr. Gutzeit and your testimony, as far as it might contribute to the general clarification in this case. May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I only want to refer to Document NO-371. This is again an affidavit of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt, which states the following:
"Handloser and Schroeder also must have been informed about the fact that Haagen and Dohmen were physicians in the Army Medical Service and the Robert Koch Institute." This affidavit is Exhibit 186 of the Prosecution. In connection with this I submit an affidavit by the Defendant Rudolf Brandt, Document HA-11. It is on page 17 of Document Book No. 2, and Brandt states the following:
"In my affidavit of 14 October 1946 I mentioned a Dr. Dohmen and described his as 'A doctor of the Army Medical Service and of the Robert Koch institute.'
"In this connection I declare that I, myself, did not use this formulation but that it was suggested to me by the Prosecution. I did not know Dr. Domen personally and I do not recollect having known where he worked, what his functions were, and to whom he was subordinated.
"If I said in this affidavit: 'Handloser must have been informed about that,' it was a mere assumption. I cannot cite any facts which prove or suggest that Prof. Dr. Handloser knew of such things."
I request that this affidavit be admitted as Exhibit 35.
I now come to a point of the indictment which was not contained in the original indictment. Within its presentation the Prosecution has presented Document Book 11 all about the Polygal Experiments. In this Document Book the name of the Defendant Handloser or one of his offices is not mentioned either. However, in the course of his presentation the prosecutor has claimed that the Defendant Handloser was connected with the pectin research. In the session of 2 January 1947, the prosecutor stated the following with reference to Sievers' Diary, "The Ahnenerbre." That was Document No. 3346-PS and I quote:
"2 SS Hauptsturmfuchrer Dr. Floetner."
In connection with this, according to the record, the Prosecution made the following remark, and I quote: "The Research Institute was subordinated to the Defendant Handloser"--to which fact he had already referred, previously in the course of the trial. I am now asking you, was an institute with the name of Institute for German Eastern Research at Krakow--was this institute subordinated to you?
A It was never subordinated to me.
Q Do you know this institute?
A No.
Q Since the Prosecution apparently wanted to prove a connection of Prof. Handloser here with the Ahnenerbe Institute, a part of the SS, I have asked the Defendant Sievers to determine here if, and in what place in this Diary the name of the Defendant Handloser appears and if he had any contact with the Ahnenerbe and with this Institute for Eastern Research. I are now offering Document HA-15 on page 23 of Document Book No. 2. I request that it be admitted as Exhibit 36.
Dr. Wolfram Sievers states the following:
"The Prosecution submitted my diary 'Ahnenerbe' (Document 3546-PS) in evidence.
"Concerning the co-defendant Prof. Dr. Handloser, I state categorically that there was no connection or collaboration between him and me, or the offices to which I belonged, either officially or privately; I did not know Pro.f. Handloser personally prior to this trial.
"Since the name Prorf. Dr. Handloser appears in two different places in my diary, I consider it my duty to state that no connection or collaboration with Prof. Dr. Handloser resulted in either case.
"1) Entry: 2 February 1944:
Conference with Professor Hirt in Strasbourg:
Influenza vaccination by Prof. Haagen. Influenza vaccination, successfully carried out in municipal hospital by Prof. Haagen was rejected by Prof. Handloser for use in the Wehrmacht. Report requested for submission to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Notation by Dr. Sievers:
Prof. Hirt told me this with the remark that he considered this matter very significant and, contrary to Prof. Handloser, he was of the opinion that this vaccination should be introduced at least in the SS. That is why he asked for a report from Prof. Haagen for the purpose of submission to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
"2) Entry: 3 February 1944.
Conference in Strasbourg with Prof. Weber, Wehrmacht biologist; our support of their institute requested. Weber recommended, therefore letter to Commissioner General Prof. Dr. Brandt through me. Weber is to be informed how similar letter is to be sent to Prof. Handloser.
Notation by Dr. Sievers:
Prof. Weber, head of the Reich League for Biology and Chief of the Department of Biology in the 'Ahnenerbe' He mentioned especially in regard to questions concerning replacements, that no was very much interested in Wehrmacht biologists which were discussed at that time. As responsible leader of the biologists he should like to get in touch with men who show understand ing and are likely to help his plans.
He considered especially suited the aforementioned names and was of the opinion that it might be advantageous.
if at the time Professor Meyer, the head of the Department of Biology in the Reich Research Council, should also approach them. It was decided that he address a letter to Professor Brandt through me in order to enable us that the like letter by Professor Meyer may be added.
"Professor Handloser was so completely unknown to me that I was unable to give any information about him; that is the reason why Professor Weber asked me to inquire at Professor Meyer. As far as I remember, no such letter however, was ever written.
"On 2 January the prosecution cited, when reading the document book about hemostat "Polygal", from my diary (Ahnenerbe) one quotation of the 26th and 31st May 1944, regarding a conference with Dr. Grauer of the Reich Research Council and with Dr. Ploetner:
"Poctine research at the institute for German East Research in Cracow.
"The Prosecutor described this quotation as very interesting, because this Institute was under the defendant Handloser. This entry therefore prove that he was familiar with the 'Polygal' matter.
"The institute for German East Research in Cracow was connected with the Reich Research Council and with Professor Theisen, the Chief of the Depart ment for Inorganic Chemistry and Electroclamistry of the Reich Research Council. Its manager and, at the same time, Thiessen's and the Reich Research Council's deputy, was Dr. Pietsch.
"Professor Handloser definitely had nothing to do with this Institute, nor did I ever hear his name in connection with it. This Institute was not under the OKW either.
"It is quite apparent that this is one of the many confusions or constructed artofacts of the prosecution trying to establish a connection of people and facts where actually none existed."
I now request that the affidavit be admitted as Exhibit No. 36.
And, finally, the prosecution in excess of the indictment has offered Documents No. 1308 and No. 1309 about the question of bacteriological warfar These documents are not contained in any document books and I shall in a few minutes give you the exhibit numbers.
These documents also do not mention Dr. Handloser's name, however, a medical officer is mentioned here as Stabsarzt Dr. Klieve, who had several functions and among other things he had the work of the Army Medical Inspectorate with the Military Medical Academy with the Weapons and Armament Office No. 9. The Documents are Prosecution Exhibits No 325 and No. 326. In connection with this I should like to ask you the following questions who was or who is Professor Klieve?
A When in January, 1941 I stated in my office as Army Medical Inspector I met among the medical officers of the Army Inspectorate, Professor Dr. Klieve. He was personally known to me from the year 1922 when I was studying at the Military Medical Clinic at Giessen when I was assigned there as Stabsarzt. At that time, he was a medical practitioner at the same clinic to which I belonged. Since the year of 1922 I did not see him again until the year 1941. At the outbreak of the war, he had been called into the Army Medical Inspectorate by my predecessor, Dr. Waldmann and there he was to deal with the medical aspects of bacteriological warfare.
Q To whom was Professor Klieve subordinate?
A In his medical activities and as medical officer, he was subordinate to me as the Army Medical Inspector and in his activities as medical consultant and advisor and specialist, he was subordinate to the Armament Office to the Department Wa Pruf 9 where he also received his assignments.
Q Was the head of this office in the Wau Pruf, Colonel Hirsch?
A Yes.
Q What were the assignments which Professor Klieve had to carry out in this position?
A First of all, Professor Klieve had all the publications and Professio al literature of the foreign countries and he had to evaluate them and use them in order to find out, as far as this was at all possible, what work as being done in this field by the foreign powers and what point of view they maintained in each case, what intentions and conclusions could be drawn from it and what preventive measures could be taken against such potential meaaure In this case, it was a question of protecting the people against some potential bacteriological warfare.
Q What was the status of this work in 1941 when you entered your office as Army Medical Inspector?
AAs far as I can remember, this work was in a very early stage and they had to work on a new basis, which had been discovered in France in the course of the French campaign and which furthermore gave us a good insight into the work which was done by the foreign countries in this field; for example also in the United States.
Q Did you officially participate in this work?
AAs Army Medical Inspector, I had neither a decisive position nor a decisive influence and I was informed by Professor Klieve about the progress of the work only insofar that I received reports at very large intervals of time and without these reports dealing with any details. Through the Department Wa Pruf 9 and with Colonel Hirsch I did not have any contact and I have never belonged to any working group at any time. I did not belong to the working group Bleitzalbleiter, which has repeatedly been mentioned here.
Q Now, without any doubt, the question of bacteriological warfare and preventive measures must have at one time been discussed within your field of competence and you, as Army Medical Inspector and Chief of the Army Medical Service, must have at one time or another have voiced your personal viewpoint in this question; will you please toll us your personal opinion?
AAs to the intention to engage in an active bacteriological warfare on the part of the German Wehrmacht, no information has ever been available to me, either officially or through other channels, however, since throughout the war it could be seen from the literature of foreign countries that this question played a part in all countries and that on some occasions considerable work was being done in this field, it of course was my natural duty to occupy myself with all possible measures in order to prevent this warfare from being carried out.
There were preventive measures and they were primarily for the Wehrmacht itself and secondarily, they were also intended for the civilian population.