EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SEBRING)
Q. Witness, are you familiar with this excerpt from the German translation of the book "Adventures in R. spiration by Yandell Herdcerson?
A. Yes, I know the book.
Q. Can you say for the benefit of the Tribunal when you fir st road this book or became familiar with its contents?
A. The book was published in 1941 in the German translation if I remember correctly. That is at the beginning of the cam paign in Russia, approximately. I learned to know parts of it at that time. Now, here I war reminded of this excerpt when working on the trial; and I have road this passage which I had read previously.
Q. But prior to your preparation for this trial, which I assume began in the year 1946, had you over road this partic ular excerpt which is now being offered by your counsel in evidence?
A. Yes, I had read that previously. I merely reread it again ....
Q. Can you state the approximate date upon which you first read this excerpt?
That night have been a bout 1942. It was shortly after tho German translation was published, certainly before this attack, this execution.
DR. FLEMMING: Hr. President, may I point out that the prosecutor said that this quotation which I want to submit refers to the American Civil War. That is not correct. It was worked on by Honderson in the First World War, 1914-18. After American had entered the First World Tar, Rendorsen did this work. Also, I see that tho heading says'' Herdersen." His name is really "Henderson" with an "n"; and I ask that the document be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: the counsel for the Prosecution familiar with this book?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has never seen the book before, your Honor, and has not seen it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: His counsel for the prosecution ever heard of this publication?
MR. HARDY: Not until I saw the extract in the document book, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When did counsel notice this alleged extract from the book in Mrugowsky's document book?
MR. HARDY: Pardon, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I say, when did counsel first observe this Mrugowsky document Number 31, which is now the subject of this argument?
MR. HARDY: I believe I observed it this morning before I c mo to court when I was chocking ever the documents in tho book. Another point that I might bring out in connection with this document, your Honor. There is no concern here about medical experimentation on human beings. In this extract it doesn't tell whether or not they proposed experimentation on human beings or on animals or what they intended to do with any results of poisonous work on behalf of the War Department.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, the document does not refer to experiments but its contents helped in making it necessary when Russian ammunition was found to take up the question incase this was one of tho reasons for assuming that possibility. What time will be available to try to save the wounded persons by those antidotes? To that ox tent this document is in direct connection with the experiments conducted on human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled and tho document will be admitted in evidence. The book should bo furnished to counsel for tho prosecution so that counsel for tho prosecution may examine the book to which counsel has referred from which this is an excerpt.
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, I shall see to that. Mr, President, then I should like to submit document Mrugowsky 32 on Page 184 of the document book; Document 52, Page 18 4, which I offer as Exhibit Mrugowsky 48. This is an affidavit of Prof. Flury at Wuerzburg, Mrugowsky 32, Page 184, Exhibit 48. I should like to read morely Number 4, one sentence in Number 5, and Number 6.
Prof. Flury says in Number 4: "Aconitin is effective both when administered throught the mouth (peroral administration) and when introduced in such a way that it does not pass throught tho alimentary tract (parenteral administration), for example, injections."
From Number 5 I shall road only tho last sentence: "With poisons like acunitin, which, are easily and quickly absorbed, death occurs after parenteral introduction in a shorter time than after peroral introduction.
"Number 6. The following maybe stated with regard to the shortest period within which death may occur. Our experience with regard to human beings is confined almost entirely to poisoning throught the stomach. This proves process is slower than injection, regarding Mich only limited and uncertain information is available regarding human beings. Death may occur some minutes after aconitine has been administered, especially if this is done perenterally, in which, case the poison enters the blood vessels. Individuals are said to have died in less than seven minutes.
In experiments with animals, which allow certain conclusions to be drawn with regard to human beings, even shorter periods have been observed, as in tie case of and experiment by Robert, in which a horse died three minutes after three milograms of acomite had boon injected under skin (subcutaneous injection)."
Q Did the Reich Criminal Police Office with this acunitin execution and the court, did it consider the question settled?
A I assume so, yes, because after sending up the report I heard no more about it.
Q Now I come to the so-called special experiment of Dr. Ding, which he mentioned in his diary on 26 October 1944, which was conducted on six persons. The examination of the witness Kogon revealed that that Dr. Ding tried out a mysterious experiment in Buchenwald on six persons, according to instructions from Dr. Mrugowsky under the Reich Criminal Police Office. What assignment had you given for this special experiment?
A I don't know of this special experiment. I learned of it only from the diary. I gave no instructions and I don't know that Dr. Ding ever received such instruction from the Reich Criminal Police Office. The incorrectness of this statement is indicated by testimony of Kogon, who said that since 1943 Ding had tried to rely only on written orders, and that he was not satisfied with oral orders, but this experiment took place only a year later. Kogon also said that Ding was rather excited, perhaps, and that the thing was every disagreeable that the matter was very disagreeable to him. He said that Ding told him everything at the time, private matters as well as official ones.
Q This remark of Kogon is in the English transcript on page 1195, in the German's on page 1216.
A Therefore, I am convinced that had Ding received a written order from me, he would have, no doubt, had shown it to Kogon, but he did not do so.
Q And if he had not received a written order from you, what do you think he would have done then?
A I don't understand the question.
Q If Ding had not received an written order from you for this experiment, although he had asked for it, what do you think he would have done then? 5219
A Then he would doubtless have expressed his opinion to Kogon.
Q Then it is your opinion that the fact he neither showed Kogon a written order, nor expressed his opinion to your refusal to give a written order is proof he had no assignment?
A Yes, and I did not give him any assignment.
Q Why in your opinion did he discuss this experiment with Kogon?
A He knew, of course, that everything that happened in camp became known rather quickly, especially things which happened in the crematorium. Therefore, he had to have some explanation for his intentions. I assume that he used this excuse which is that he gave Kogon, excuses for the killing of people on his own initiative.
Q Do you know that the witness Kogon testified that Dr. Ding had shown him a formula for a poison, and that he had given it to him to seal, and that after the experiment this sealed formula was burned. Did you ever give Dr. Ding any poison for the formula?
A No, I never gave Ding any such formula.
Q Did you ever gave him any poison to test?
A I myself never worked with poison. I was never particularly interested in poison. This was not my field of work. Consequently I would not give Ding any such assignment, and I did not give him any poison to test.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I should like to submit now the affidavit of the co-defendant Sievers, Document Mrugowsky 33, page 187 of the Document Book, which I offer as Exhibit Mrugowsky 49, Document Mrugowsky 33, page 177, Exhibit 49. Sievers said, after the customary introduction, "After the collapse I was interned in the Military Police prison in Bamberg. There were about 100 inmates PW's and internees - in the building. One day a fellow-prisoner introduced him self to me in the lavatory as Dr. Schuler.
He asked me if I did not know him I answered in the negative and he then asked me if I knew him by the name of Ding. When I answered that question also in the negative, he told me that he was the Dr. Ding who made the typhus experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Ding was very much astonished when I told him that I never heard of anything like that before. He added that after his capture he was interrogated several times about these typhus experiments, and that he wished he had his prussic acid capsules from Buchenwald with him now. When I asked what he meant by that, he said that he had prepared about 80 capsules of prussic acid in Buchenwald at the end of 1933, but had unfortunately not kept one for himself so as to be able to commit suicide.
Because I did not know Dr. Ding, and did not care very much for the conversations, I broke off the conversation. The accidental meeting could only have lasted for a short time, because the stay in the lavatory was limited to a few minutes only. I was not told the purpose for which Dr. Ding prepared the prussic acid capsules, or what happened to the 80 capsules I did not speak to Dr. Ding again."
BY DR. FLEMMlNG:
Q. If Dr. Ding had had prussic acid in this special experiment, would he have explained the effect which Dr. Schiedlowsky described in his affidavit, which has been submitted by the Prosecution?
A. Of course I don't know what prussic acid Dr. Ding used. The customary prussic acid preparation is of potassium cyanide, and for use of the same effect, you use prussic acid, and the preparations are similar; the potassium cyanide, of course, is very well known, and they would explain the symptoms which Dr. Schiedlowsky described, and would be also of a quick death.
Q. Did Dr. Ding later report to you about this poison experiment?
A. No, he did not.
Q. The witness Kogon on page 1185 of the English Document Book, page 1216 of the German's, testified that before this experiment that Ding was excited. Can you imagine for what reason this was?
A. I myself would have no explanation for it, if I had not read the book by waiter Poller, which he wrote as a medical clerk at Buchenwald. He described Dr. Ding very carefully, from the period of 1938 to 1940, and he asserts that as official he repeatedly killed inmates by injection, and each time before such killing he was very much excited. Then he said this changed when observed soon established in my memory was to me so typical that later I had only to note this change in him in order to know that he intended to commit a murder, or a crime. I should think that this characteristic should explain Ding's conduct in this case.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in this connection I come back to Document Mrugowsky's ho. 29, on page 177, in Document Book Exhibit Mrugowsk's Exhibit No. 36, Document 29, page 177. Exhibit No. 36. I should like to read the last paragraph on Page 181.
"While making my investigations, I also discovered that there was a hole, 40 cm deep, in the floor beneath the office desk of the shelter marshal (Bunkermeister), in which a strong box containing poison had been kept. However, even prior to Koehler's death the poison had been thrown into the lavatory and flushed away by order of the shelter marshal, so that its type could not be determined anymore. The origin of the poison remained unknown. Dr. Morgen."
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the Defendant Oberheuser) Mr. President, I ask permission to make an application on the part of Defendant Oberheuser regarding the trial. Earlier in the trial the Court ruled that Oberheuser's case, because of its connections with tho others, should be treated at the same time with those of Gebhardt and Fischer. This was not poss ible because in tho meantime Oberheuser fell ill. I ask you now to permit Oberheuser's case, or at least her interrogation, to take place after the case of Defendant Mrugowsky is concluded. Let me add that the Prosecution has agreed to this suggestion.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution has no objection to this procedure, Your honor, and we think it night expedite matters for Dr. Seidl if defendant Oberheuser comes on after Defendant Mrugowsky.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this procedure on the part of any defense counsel? There being none, the case of the Defendant Oborheuser will be taken up following the case of Defendant Mrugowsky.
DR. SEIDL: Thank you, Mr. President.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. Before the recess I read Dy. Morgen's affidavit saying that there was a hole in tho floor to hold poisons. Would you make a statement on ti is subject?
A. This testimony on tho part of the competent investigating physician proved that the camp itself had considerable supplied of poison. Even if the contents of these boxes were destroyed, there is at least reasons to assume that later another supply of poison was collected, from which supply Ding might have got his poison.
Q. You know tho affidavit by Schiedlowsky, the camp doctor at Buchenwald, Document NO-508, Prosecution Exhibit 224, in document book No. 10. Dr. Schiedlowsky stated therein that Ring asked him to come to the bunker to attend an experiment with poison. According to his affidavit, he reached the bunker only after the experimental subject had been given poison; he did not know in what form that took place or what the poison was. Please tell us whether the symptoms that Schiedlowsky observed in his brief presence there correspond to the symptoms that you observed in the case of Acenitin.
A. The semptoms that Schiedlowsky observed were apparently different. Let me mention that the symptoms involving the stomach, such as vomiting and diarrhea occur in cases of most strong poisons, From this symptom alone you cannot conclude that the two Poisons are identical; but Schiedlowsky says that the effects occurred relatively rapidly,in other words more rapidly than in Sachsonhausen, where two tours elapsed before death. In this case death occurred rather rapidly. Also Schiedlowsky says that one, person became unconscious, Aconitin poisoning docs not load to unconsciousness.
A. In other words, you conclude from this that the poison that ding used was not Aconitin?
A. In my opinion he must have used different poison.
Q. The prosecution has accused a number of the defendants of participating and responsibility in poison experiments; were any of the defendants involved in this aconitine poison?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever speak with any of the co-defendants before their arrest on the subject of experiment with poison or effects of poisoning?
A. No.
Q. How, I come to Dr. Kogen who frequently spoke of an experiment by Dr. Ding with a phosphorus caoutchove incendiary bomb, and he said that you ordered these experiments?
A. I did not k ow who ordered this experiment; I found out about it only from the report which I had drawn up after the experiment had been terminated. This report has been put in evidence here as a document from which it can be seen that animal experiments were also carried out. I assume that this did not happen in block 46, but in block 50, which was under my supervision. I went with the report to Grawitz and asked him if he knew any more about this matter. I asked him if I was correct in my assumption that some of the experiments took place in block 50 and to tell. Dr. Ding to confine himself to his block 46 in 7 such matters in the futures which was directly under Grawitz. Grawitz answered there upon that did not make any difference one way or the other and I should not be so fussy. " also know that after a few weeks Ding called me up and asked mo for the report, which was in my hands. I did not have it any longer at that time as I had given it to Grawitz and it was in his files where it belonged.
Q. It was also testified that the experimental subjects had serious pains and had wounds from 2 to 2½ cms. deep, which led to the formation of scars; I show you now the Prosecution document NO-579, Prosecution Exhibit No. 288, and ask you to make a statement regarding this document and regarding Dr. Kogon's testimony?
(The Document is handed to the witness)
A. The first part of this Document deals with a discussion of the rabbit experiments.
In the second, however, there are pictures of experiments on human beings. These pictures show the place on the forearm where the experiment was made. Kogen said that this burning was done in such a way that tho mass of phosphorus was during for quite a while. The document, however, proves exactly the contrary and that the length of time during which the matter was burning was not long, but the period between the time when the mixture was applied and the time it was lighted was long; that is possibly tho reason for this misunderstanding. Moreover in the description of tho individual cases, it can be seen that evening on the 29th of December, in other words four days after the experiments, the burn was almost healed, or had greatly reduced in size, and in one case there was still an open wound of one half square centimeter but there is no mention of any deeper wounds, but only mention of purely superficial epidermal wounds. There is constant mention of tho fact that tho wounds healed over nicely and in some cases the wound was completely healed four days after the experiments. Wounds 2½ cm. deep, or large scars could not have been the case, and that testimony of Kogen is false. In this case let mo point out that he was not sneaking from his own knowledge, because he says regarding the first explanation of these burning experiments that he had seen these experimental subjects, and then in that same interrogation he later says that was not the case. In ether words, he is reporting what he has heard and not what he knows at first hand.
Q. I am submitting to the Tribunal Mrugowsky Document NO 56 of the Document book 189, and it will be Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 50. I should like to road number two on page 190:
"Treatment of Phosphorus Burns with 'R 17 '.
The dropping of phosphorus incendiary bombs, made it necessary to find an adequate method of treatment. As the copper-sulphate solution hitherto in use did not give satisfactory results, the firm of Dr. Madaus in Drosden, looked for a different solvent and produced a liquid Carbon Tetrachloride which was called 'R 17'. The efficacy of R 17 had been proved by means of experiments on rabbits carried out by the firm of Dr. Madaus.
After the completion of these rabbit tests, Dr. Madaus asked Hoeherer SS and Polizoifuehrer von Weyrach, Dresden, to come and see the tests. As my branch office was in the building of Gruppenfuehrer von Weyrach, he asked me to accompany him to the firm of Madaus in my capacity as a doctor and to watch these tests. That was in the autumn of 1943. At the request of tho Gruppenfuehrer von Weyrach and the firm of Madaus, I reported to Reichsarzt SS and polizei the results achieved by the firm of Madaus in tho treatment of phosphorous burns and suggested that the drug R 17 he introduced into tho air-raid precaution dispensaries. Grawitz promised to have another test made.
Some time afterwards he sent Dr. Ding to Dresden for this purpose in his capacity as health expert, and instructed me to sake arrangements for Ding to see the results achieved there by the firm of Madaus with R 17. I arranged this. Ding came to Dresden and saw the above mentioned tests in my presence, on the premises of tho Madaus firm. After that he declared that, on the orders of the Reichsarzt SS in Buchenwald, he would test the efficacy of the drug on rabbits. He requested the firm of Madaus to put the drug R 17 at his disposal. immediately after inspecting the firm of Madaus no left Dresden.
I also knew that Dr. Ding asked the office of the Hoeherer SS und Polizeifierer to procure for him the filling of an English incendiary bomb, which as far as I know was done through the police president of Leipzig. Dr. Ding had the drug R 17 and the incendiary bomb collected.
I also know that Ding made a report on his experiments. I know this because Or Ding asked the office in Dresden severed times, in writing and by telephone, if they had this report, as he could not find it. It was supposed to be a report with pictures. I do not know if tho report wont through my office, as I was in Dresden only one day a week. At the time when Ding was looking for tho report it was not in my office. I assume, therefore, that he sent it direct to tho firm of Madaus, as they were interested in tho results of the test.
When, after a considerable time, I had still not hoard from the Reichsarzt if the drug R 17 was to be introduced into the air-raid precaution dispensaries, I asked the Reichsarzt about it at a meeting. He then declared that the drug would not be introduced, as it only possessed phosphorus-dissolving properties, but did not directly contribute to the healing of the burns. However, a drug was in preparation elsewhere that combined both qualities and this would be introduced."
I submit further the last paragraph of Dr, Morgen's affidavit, Document 23, Page 162, Mrugowsky No 23, Exhibit 26. Dr. Morgen says here:
"While I made my observations in the Block 46 I paid repeated surprise visits to Block 46, in order to inspect the running of the Block. Once, when I paid a surprise visit to Block 46 examinations of treatment of wounds caused by phosphor incendiaries were carried out.
"The moment I arrived, a big strong prisoner came laughingly into the room. On each of his two upper arms there were applied on a space, which was about 1 cm wide and 5 cm long some parts of the contents of a phosphor incendiary. This spot on both upper arms was treated with various ointments. during the conference with Dr. Ding I was informed that the experimental persons volunteered for the experiment. They received the diet for sick persons, a box of cigarettes and one month they did not have to work. In the case of the prisoner whose treatment I witnessed by chance, I had the same impression that he was a volunteer."
It was often said then experiments were carried out in Buchenwald by a Danish doctor. Dr. Werman with antificial glands; Dr. Kogen's testimony proves clearly that those experiments were not done in Blocks 4-6 01 50 but in the camp hospital by the camp physician and Dr. Wernot and not by Dr, Ding. That is Page 1224 of the German record which states there wore two fatalities, but KOgon stated it was his opinion that they died for other reasons, what can you say to this?
A. I never received such an order, nor do 1 know that Ding received one. On the other hand, Ding told me once that in the carp hospital in Buchenwald a new harmon gland preparation had been used by Dr. Wernot or was to be used, and that Dr. Wernet had Himmler's personal protection.
Q. Did you receive any reports on this matter or any written records?
A. No
Q. Were you told before by any other office of the intention of carrying out any experiments with hormones on homosexuals?
A. No, nor was there any reason that I should be, because the camp hospital was part of the concentration camp and was not under my supervision.
Q. Did you ever concern yourself with the effect of hormones on human beings?
A. No.
Q. I now come to the question of bacteriological warfare. You know the Prosecution Exhibit 324, Document NO-114, a letter that the prosecution put in from Grawitz to Himmler. How did you happen to compose a report on this matter?
A. This letter was drawn up on a request from Dr. Blome. I drew up the report and submitted it to my chief, Grawitz, who passed it on to Himmler with the accompanying letter which we have here. It concerns itself with defends against bacteriological warfare and with various organizational matters involving research. The reasons for this were the following. Even in the first World War the suspicion had been stated that individual acts of sabotage against the civilian population and soldiers had been undertaken with the help of bacteria. This assertion was looked into by various persons without any proof being produced. If something of this nature occurs during war, or when anything of this sort happened, the suspicion is easily expressed that it is artificially created. I heard about this possibility for the first time in 1942. At Christmas of 1941 there was a severe typhoid epidemic in a Parisian soldiers' home with about eight hundred cases, and the source of this was not clarified. This led us to the suspicion that it was sabotage with bacteria cultures.
Q. Did Dr. Ding examine captured bacteriological matter?
A. That was the second case. Russian parachutists were found to have an unknown material on them which was supposed to be some sort of bacteria. However, this turned out to be not bacteria but a means of combatting dysentery.
Then in 1942 or 1943 many acts of sabotage were carried out against German officials in Posen and Lublin with the help of living bacteria cultures by the Polish resistance movement. Waiters in German restaurants received syringes with a fluid bacteria culture and they addid it to the noon meal or to the beer of their guests. Several persons so infected died.
This led to a criminal investigation and a trial. This matter was cleared up very well indeed. There were confessions on the part of the defendants and there was then the necessary verdict by the court. I myself found out about this matter by seeing a box in which there were a number of bottles. These bottles were called "furniture polish" but they contained fluid bacteria cultures. I could ascertain that these cultures were typhoid cultures, among others, and cholera. These ascertainments on my part were corroborated by others. I found out by another case in the spring of 1944.
Q. I think that will be enough. What was your attitude toward the possibility of biological warfare?
A. As a bacteriologist, of course, I concerned myself at the beginning of the war with this question also, particularly since for years previous to that I had concerned myself with the advent and disappearance of epidemics. I tested these experiences of mine once again in my own mind and came to the conclusion that the laws determining epidemics were not so well-known that we could bring about epidemics artificially. Moreover, if bacteria is used in the war, there is always the great danger that this weapon will turn its effects against your own troops because, as we know, bacteria do not draw any distinction between friend and foe. Consequently. I am not of the opinion that active bacteriological warfare could be carried on.
Q. If this was your point of view, why didn't you draw up a report regarding the defensive measures against bacteriological warfare?
A. I knew that in foreign countries, particularly in France, this matter was being discussed very actively and that there were many publi cations on the subject.
There was the possibility that my point of view would, be proved later in practice to be wrong and although I maintained my point of view I believed that I should see to it that if events took a different turn the civilian population would not be taken by surprise. Therefore, I made suggestions for defending against such a case.
Q. Did you ever have anything to do theoretically or in experiments with the active waging of a aggressive bacteriological warfare?
A. No.
Q. I come now to Point Four of the indictment. You are charged with being a member of the SS, which is a criminal organization. When did you become a member of the Party?
A. 1930.
Q. Why?
A. At the beginning I described or said that I myself was pretty badly off economically at that time, and according to the Party program of the Nazi Party I believed and hoped that this party would be able to free Germany from its economic distress of that period.
Q. Did you carry on any political activity?
A. In the Party itself I was not active politically. However, in the year 1930 for one semester as a student I was leader of a Nazi student organization in the University of Halle.
Q. When did you become a member of the SS?
A. 1931.
Q. Why?
A. It is very difficult to say today after the SS has been declared to be a criminal organization and we have found out about all these dreadful things that took place and which led to the verdict on the part of the IMT. It is, I say, hard to make clear that other reasons must have motivated us to enter the SS at that time. In 1931 the basic principle behind the SS was that this organization was to form a sort of new guard, and some of the main virtues of the SS men were defined as honor, fidelity, reliability, and truthfulness. The later enmity toward the church did not exist at that time, and several years later it did not exist either because in the year 1934 I was married in a church in SS uniform, and there were many of my comrades present in the church at that time.
You cannot compare the SS of that time with the SS that we have found out about subsequently. I entered the SS at that time because I believed that I could best serve my people in this organization in the economic reconstruction and particularly in my capacity as a doctor.
Q. Please describe your SS activities briefly.
A. In 1934 I was Untersturmfuehrer. In 1937 I entered the Waffen SS Verfuegungstruppe as Sturmbannfuehrer. That corresponds to the rank of medical major. I had this rank for five years. Then gradually I rose in rank and finally was Oberfuehrer, which corresponds to the rank of a colonel in the medical service of the army.
Q. You were a member of the Sicherheitsdienst. Why?
A. In 1934 to 1936 I was a member of the Sicherheitsdienst, the Security Service, for the following reason. After our accession to power we expected that the goals that the Party had stated were its goals were to be carried out, but it soon turned out that between What had been promised and what actually now existed there was a rather considerable difference. This called forth unrest in the population. At that time we had acted in good faith and believed that the competent government agencies knew nothing of this unrest. We considered it our duty at that time to clarify this matter and to inform the competent offices of the way things really were.
For this reason I inserted myself into the intelligence Service along with several of my comrades.
Q What was your activity in the Security Service (SO) at that time?
AAt that time the Sieherheitsdienst was not part of the police. Its activities were limited to drawing up general reports regarding the attitude and moods of the population, of cultural and economic matters, and so forth. Observing of any individual evidence - in other words, any police spying - was not part of the activity of the Sicherheitsdienst.
Q Why did you leave the Security Service?
A In June of 1936 Himmler became chief of the German Police. Thus the German Police, and particularly the political police, and the Security Service, received great mutual assistance; they exchanged personnel, and many tasks were united. I was afraid that pretty soon I would be altogether involved in the police. That was not part of my original intention, nor my wishes, nor my predisposition. Therefore, I made efforts from that moment on to leave the Security Service and to follow my chosen profession.
Q When you left the Sickerheitsdienst, you, however, remained in tho SS; why?
A I know the custom of Himmler and the chief of the Sieherheitsdienst too well to believe that I could simply stop all SS activity right away. The only chance I saw to pursue lay career as bacteriologist and hugienist was to do so within the SS and it was a happy accident that just at that time such personnel was being sought in the newly organized Waffen-SS. Consequently, I remained in the SS and transferred to the Waffen-SS because I saw this as my only opportunity to dissolve my relations with the Security Service. That was in 1936.
Q What did you do when you left the Sicherheitsdienst?
A I became active medical officer in tho Waffen-SS/
Q You left the church?
A No.