Q You said during your interrogation yesterday that in May 1944, you had heard for the first time of a research institute in Dachau. Did you know that an institute for military scientific research had existed in Dachau?
A That isn't expressed correctly. When, at that time, the question of experiments was discussed the necessity of procuring laboratories where the investigations could be carried on played a predominant part. There would have been a possibility of conducting experiments at the Academy, or at the hospital at Braunschweig, and my question was whether that would also be possible in Dachau, since there weren't any laboratories, and I was then told that laboratories were available there, and I think then the institute was meant.
Q After you had spoken to SS physician Grawitz at that time were there any more discussions between you or any SS agencies, or were you still in contact with the SS in questions of sea water?
A No. I already said yesterday that this entire complex included two points as far as I was concerned; namely, at first the introduction, my talk to Grawitz and my letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior, and then the execution of the experiments in Dachau. Whatever lay between I don't know because it wasn't within my sphere of competency.
Q Now, we again come back to the report regarding Seenot and Winternet, sea emergency and winter emergency. You said that according to your recollection this report had been submitted to you in the spring of 1943. At that time how was the situation at your agency as air fleet physician? Wasn't it clear at that time already that there was a defeat in Africa and weren't there any shadows, so to speak, to be seen at that time with regard to the entire situation?
A The assumption that this report was received in spring 1943 was merely reconstructed by me; namely, because I thought that since this report had to be printed and its completion took as few months, I guessed that it was spring 1943, and at that time there was great military unrest. At that time, around Christmas, Tripoli had been lost. Then there were defeats at Tunis, and we continually had worries regarding that territory, I am quite sure of that.
It was a time of extreme tension.
Q And I now come to -
DR. MARX: Mr. President, my attention is being drawn to the fact that a mistake was made which would disturb greatly. The witness Schroeder was saying Rasche Wiedererwae*mung. However, the translation was Rascher's Wiedererwaermung; namely the rewarming of Dr. Rascher.
THE WITNESS: Yes, the technical word was quick rewarming, and not Rascher rewarming.
DR. MARX: I beg you to excuse this interruption.
Q Professor, you were saying that you had never read or heard of the names of Rascher and Finke. Rascher and Finke were only small persons of the reserve with the Luftwaffe?
A Yes, they were two of the ??no thousand. I had altogether nine thousand medical officers, and there were about six or seven thousand staff officers among them.
Q These names did not mean anything to you?
A. No.
Q This Dr. Rascher would never have come into appearance as staff officer of the reserve if he hadn't established any connections with the SS?
A Yes, probably that would be the case.
Q I come now to a question with reference to Professor Kalk. Professor Kalk was consulting expert an internal medicine with you?
A Yes.
Q Did Professor-Kalk ever approach you with a request or inform-ation that experiments on human beings were to be conducted with regard to hepatitis?
A. No, he merely approached me in order to maintain a possibility of having a sick station with hepatitis patients under his supervision. I put a hospital at his disposal where he could continue to observe hepatitis patients. We were merely concerned with observation of sick soldiers.
Q Then a few more questions in order to clarify some points. You said before that your consulting surgeon, Professor Buerkle de la Camp, and participated in the meeting of consulting physicians where sulfonamide wan discussed?
A Yes.
Q Would you please try to refresh your memory and say whether that is correct or whether you might be mistaken?
A I don't think I was mistaken because I attached great value to it that Buerkle took part in those conferences.
Q Will you please repeat, when did it take place?
A Yes, in the year of 1943.
Q Was it in May?
A Yes, I think it was May, 1943. Yes, yes, now I remember he could not have taken part at that time.
Q Why not?
A Because that was the time the Africa front had collapsed. Yes, now I remember, he was intended to take part and I think it was thought that he would hold a lecture, but then of course the events took place in Africa and there was a transport to the rear of six or seven thousand wounded from there, and at the last moment I had to stop. Yes, I am quite sure now, it is quite out of the question that he took part in that meeting. I am sure he took part in 1942 though.
Q Was he in Italy with you at that time?
A Yes, he was always with me as long as I was air fleet physician.
Q Professor, what does it mean when a military letter was signed with i.a. - by order? Does that mean that this letter is based on a special order or was this always done in accordance with a general order as it referred to any agency? Could such a signature be made in accordance with a general authority or was a special order necessary in every case?
A In Germany after the first world war a new custom crystallized among various agencies. I think we could use the example of a ministry, that the letterhead was always the Reich Minister of Aviation or Ministry of Aviation, or during the war the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force.
Now, whenever anyone signed that letter it could really only be the person who was the Reich Minister for Aviation. Since, of course, that was impossible everyone who was authorized, for instance, chief of transport system, communications, medical chiefs or whatever it was, had to sign this letter, by order - i.a., so that all ministerial correspondence had the very same form - Reich Minister So and So, and underneath i. a. by order, Chief of Communication Service, Chief of Transportation Service or whatever agency it may have been, and within the agencies at had been established who actually had authority to sign any letter.
Q. The prosecutor put a question to you, what knowledge you had of concentration camps and you stated two names, Oranienburg and Dachau?
A Yes.
Q. I'm now asking you -- did you ever listen to foreign news station the basis of which you could have gained some more experiences?
A. No; that was prohibited, and I, in my position, adhered to this prohibition very strictly. Only very few people in the Luftwaffe were authorized to listen to foreign stations. I didn't belong to these people, and I adhered to that regulation very strictly.
Q. Do you know that inmates of concentration camps, before they were released had been obliged to the strictest secrecy under threat of death, ? at least re-transportation into the concentration camps?
A I didn't know that, mainly because I had no opportunity to speak to anyone who had come from concentration camps. That is why I have no experiences on the subject.
Q. Was it not true that there was a certain tension between the office of the Luftwaffe and officers in the SS?
A I had no contact at all with SS agencies, either during the war or later, or even during the time when I was medical chief. I didn't have su?? a connection nor did I seek it.
Q. In the country there was a general opinion that particularly the Luftwaffe tried to keep away from the SS?
A Yes, there were certain tensions. Yes.
DR. MARX: I have no further questions.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you spoke about a typhus central station, and, in that connection, you mentioned Karl Brandt, Rostock and Handloser. What did this central station for typhus deal with?
AAs far as I know it was merely concerned with the just distributed of typhus vaccine. Unfortunately we were not in a position to produce efficient typhus vaccine.
Q. You don't have to explain it once more. Well, this office merely dealt with the distribution of vaccines?
A. Yes.
Q. Had the central station anything to do with research?
A. No.
Q. What was Karl Brandt's connection to this central office, as you spoke of it?
A. In my opinion he was informed since this lay within his sphere of Commissioner General and had to be informed about the important questions of the medical service, and the question, what the distribution of typhus vaccines was, and to what extent it was available was, after all, a very important factor in the leadership of health.
Q. Who informed him about that?
A. That would have been a task of the armed forces Chief of the Medical Services, who, according to official regulations, was to keep him informed about all important questions.
Q. And to whom -- now, he was to be informed, would one inform him personally or would one turn to Rostock or to the Department of Planning and Economy, or Economy and Research?
A. I think that one would have taken a memo sheet and would have written down something, some short notice to that effect.
Q. In other words, you don't know it.
A. No.
Q. Well, your statement that Brandt was informed by the typhus cent** station is an assumption on your part.
A. Yes; I only spoke of it generally.
Q. In your affidavit, which is Document NO-449, in Document Book 5, you said that Karl Brandt, among others, knew about the experiments of the Luftwaffe. Who informed him about it.
A. That is not quite correct in that form.
Q. Why not?
A. A list was submitted here as a new document.
Q. Witness, please answer my question. I was asking you who informed him. Did you inform him?
A. No.
Q. Well, who did?
A. No. This list was committed to the agency of Rostock.
Q. Who made this list?
A. We made the list; yes. This list was given to the agency of Rostock in the way of a copy, and it was Rostock's task to see how far he wanted to inform Brandt.
Q. You say that the agency of Science and Research was informed by this letter?
A. Yes; they were informed by this letter.
Q. Was an information given beyond that?
A. No.
Q. Was any report being made about the individual experiments?
A. No; just as it was stated in that letter -- that is all.
Q. Generally you said that Karl Brandt knew about the experiments of the Air Force?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, is that correct in this general form?
A. No; it is not correct in that general formulation. This again i*** formulation which doesn't constitute my own words but which can only be seen by the affidavit.
Q. So then this statement is wrong?
A. Yes; in that form it is.
Q. Did Karl Brandt knew anything about high altitude experiments?
A. I cannot tell you that.
Q. You don't know it? Does this, in any way, refer to cold experiments?
A. This statement can only refer to the time I was in charge of the office; that is, the beginning of the year of 1944.
Q. Now, we could still discuss the sea water experiments.
A. Sea water experiments were not mentioned in that list.
Q. At any rate, Brandt was not informed, was he?
A. No.
Q. How about typhus?
A. That was before my time and I can't tell you anything about it.
Q. Witness, then what is left of experiments which in any way could have been reported to Brandt first for information if you excluded these f**
A. Well, there are a number of other things which are listed in that list that was permitted. I think about 80 such things were mentioned.
Q. Would you perhaps give us some such examples? -- Up to this point, no such things were discussed here.
A. Well, these things are not subjects of discussions here, but they are contained in that list. I only looked at that list and I looked at the points which were submitted to me for my special attention.
Q. Now, if you said that Brandt was informed and approved, as you s** in one such affidavit, this at any rate cannot refer to the four points which are the subject of the indictment here. Well, what do they refer to?
A. I really don't know.
Q. Did you want to correct your affidavit in that point?
A. The statement was made by me at that time, having in point of view that such a list -- the list that was submitted here today was also submitted to the office of Brandt. How they worked on it there later, who took notice of it wasn't really my task, and I hadn't to deal with it.
Q. Now, your statements are merely based on the fact that this list was sent on?
A. Yes; that's correct.
Q. Witness, you further stated that Rostock was Karl Brandt's adviser.
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know the official position of Rostock, as it compared Karl Brandt?
A. I know that because of conversations which I held with Rostock in his office.
Q. When were you there? Well, were you there frequently, or only once?
A. Well, it may have been twice or three times. I went there when I started in my office in order to have his acquaintance.
Q. And what was this advisory capacity intended for?
A. That was with reference to Rostock's task in his office -- science research, academies, various tasks which he was dealing with.
Q. Was it not merely an executive activity within the framework of his subordinate position?
A. Yes; within the framework of the orders as he received them from Brandt.
Q. Witness, do you know the organization in the higher levels of medical administration? What I mean is, Rostock's position toward you, toward Handloser, etc.
A. Well, I think that, essentially, I know it.
Q. Do you know the changes that took place during the various period of time?
A. Yes; approximately, I do.
Q. I once more submit to you the charts which you have signed as affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the counsel submits these documents to the witness, the Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, counsel for the defendant Oberhauser, I would like to see you, Dr. Seidl, in my office at four-thirty o'clock, after the recess, Dr. Seidl, counsel for the defendant Oberhauser, Counsel will proceed.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, I have had given to you two charts, NO-418 and NO-41 that is Exhibits No. 12 and Exhibit No. 13. These are two charts which signed as an affidavit. Witness, these two charts were drawn up at different times, the first one was November 1941 to December 1943, and, the second chart was effective 1 January 1944 until 1 April 1944. Witness, what is the reason for these differences in time?
AA change of organization in the Aviation Ministry.
Q Yes. Docs this distinction refer to the office of Karl Brandt which is at right of the top of both charts?
A No.
Q That must be excepted?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then the plan is incorrect to that extent?
A (Looks at charts)
Q Now you made a difference in the drawing of the office of Karl Brandt on the two charts. To what planned difference does the different* which you made apply?
A I may say that this drawing was only partly done by me. Other people had prepared it, and I had to put in parts of the Aviation Ministry.
Q Witness, then the plan does not affect the provisions in the office of Karl Brandt, is that true?
A No, that was only about the secondary purpose of this chart.
Q Witness, now one more point about these charts. If you look through the explanation there are various signs which are used, straight lines, dotted lines, and lines of periods, and hyphens, and line of X's, there are three marks: first, organizational on the list of subordination organization orders and technical; second one is technical only, and the third one is technical.
Will you explain the distinction that is made between technical specialized and merely technical. These are all signs which occur in Brandt's office?
A I can speak of the organization of this plan. The principal u*** of the sums of the lines -----
Q Witness, I don't need this explanation. You are only asked whether you can explain the difference in this distinction by means of chart?
A Yes, that is what I am trying to explain. The investigators in these offices were subordinate for the benefit of order, and I had to explain that was not so, simply; in the course of the conversation we set up this distinction, and these same plans are all in jointly and are correct, and that plain line across the ring, and so on, is to distinguish it, which I affixed to the strict subordination, and which was a rather loose relationship. That is what was pointed out. I said at the time that does not give the right impression, and would be correctly submitted only if one made an explanation of the said plan, otherwise, there would be misunderstanding, such as we are explaining right now.
Q Then, the chart in itself is not clear?
A Yes, it is not clear; that is what I said at the time.
Q Hew about the distinction between technical and merely technical subordinates?
A No, that was the lack of clarity at the time, to give a true picture.
Q Then, it is not clear?
A Yes.
Q Now, will you please go to chart No. 419. Does the lack of clarity apply to that chart also?
A Yes, here again there is a solid line from Brandt to Handloser, from Handloser to Schroeder. When the interrogator interpreted that, Brandt gave orders to Handloser, and Handloser gave orders to Schroeder, that Handloser could dismiss Schroeder, and that Handloser gave orders to the technical office. That has to be cleared up in some way.
Q Now, witness, it was certainly clear that he was your superior?
A Yes, to me, but not to the interrogator.
Q You, as Generaloberartz, did you have a Generalarzt as your superior? Was that customary in the Wehrmacht, for a Generaloberarzt to be under a Generalarzt?
A Yes, you are speaking of the old rank, are you not?
Q Generaloberstabsarzt and Generalarzt?
A Yes, the Generalarzt was the lower rank, the higher one was the Generaloberarzt.
Q Then, it is not possible the other way around?
A No.
Q Please look at your chart, at the top there is a solid line. Look at the chart and you will see that the superior you have, Generalarzt Rostock; isn't that right according to the chart?
A That was something that was crossed out; that was one of the mistakes that was put there.
Q But, that is on the chart here, Witness; that must be correct then?
A Yes, that was one of the things that had to be explained.
Q Then, as far as Karl Brandt's office was concerned these two courts are valueless?
A Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. KRAUSS (for the defendant Rostock):
Q Professor I refer to No. 8 of your affidavit of 25 October 1946, that is document No. 449, Exhibit 130. This paragraph refers to your statement about a knowledge of Karl Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock on various things. You have already testified that this statement is not in exact reproduction of what you said, and in particular what you intended to say. In view of this fact, you made a correction in the affidavit of 27 January 1947; that is, Rostock's document No. 11, Exhibit 10. I shall show you this affidavit and I shall ask you briefly to confirm whether it is correct.
(The affidavit was handed to the witness.)
A Yes, that is right.
Q I thank you.
DR. KRAUSS: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. TIPP (for the defendant Becker-Freysing):
Q Professor, I have a few questions to put to you. During the direct examination we have discussed the position of Becker-Freyseng on your staff. At that time you described the position as a technical expert, and you answered my question by saying that Becker-Freyseng was not your advisor in questions of general research. In the examination by the Prosecution, this question came up again, and your answer confused the clear state of affairs somewhat. Therefore, I want to ask you: Was Becker-Freyseng as referent, as technical expert, your advisor? I emphasize your only advisor on the questions of high altitude research and cold research; that- is, on the Luftwaffe research in general?
A No, as I had already said.
Q Was Becker-Freyseng your advisor or your only advisor in other colds of research?
A No.
Q Very well, thank you. Then, I should like to ask you some questions about the problem which was discussed last by the Prosecution, that is, sea-water experiments. First, the question which is very important: What persons were to be used as experimental subjects? You said that you were thinking of soldiers who had been sent to a concentration camp, and once very briefly you mentioned a soldier unworthy of bearing arms. Can you tell us, if not, please answer the question in the negative, how does a soldier lose his worthyness to bear arms?
A Through the judgment of a court.
Q Only through the judgment of a court?
A Yes, not by any other way.
Q Then, if you spoke of soldiers unworthy of bearing arms, you could only think of soldiers who had been regularly condemned by a courts martial; who had lost their qualifications for bearing arms and had been sent to a concentration camp?
A Yes.
Q That was the kind of soldier you were thinking of?
A Yes.
Q Now, very well, another question about the sea-water problem, which is connected with what the Prosecution said today. You have already said why the sea-water experiments were necessary. This question was not brought out as clearly as I should like to have it brought out for my defendant Becker-Freyseng; therefore, can you briefly, in two sentences, say why, to clear up this question, experiments were necessary at the time. The question was: Can the Berka process be introduced or must we use the Schaefer method of procedure: Why were these experiments necessary?
A The experiments were necessary because amongst scientists there was no agreement on the two procedures, and no agreement could be reached by discussions, so that the application of the Berka procedure was carried out. Eppingger and that problem cleared up by experiments; that the intro duction of the Berka procedure, at least, for a matter of days, in case of a distress at sea would be possible, in order thus to save the raw materials which the Schaefer procedure would use in large quantities.
Q Then, the Berka procedure had technical advances which made its introduction desirable and your office, however, had objections or misgivings from a medical reason, and that leading specialists were of the opinion that your misgivings might not be justified?
A Yes.
Q Then, the experiments were definitely necessary?
A Yes.
Q Now, one little question which came up in the examination of the Prosecution today: This was on your orders, your instructions, who decided when the experiments with the Berka water were to be stopped and had to be stopped. Was this decision up to the experimental subjects or the person, that is, the doctor in charge of the experiments?
A The subjects.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. FLEMING (for the defendant Mrugowsky):
Q Professor, in the cross examination you were told of an interrogation in which you said the position of Mrugowsky in the Waffen-SS was the same as that of Rose, and with me. In another place in your interrogation, you said that you did not know Mrugowsky. Is the latter true?
A That is true.
Q You also said that you had no inside information as to the organization of the Waffen-SS; is that true?
A That is true.
Q Then, you had no exact knowledge of the position and activities of Mrugowsky?
A I knew it only from regulations which said at the bottom, the distribution, which also had the Hygienist of the Waffen-SS.
Q But, the activities of Mrugowsky in the Hygienic Institute, you did not know any of the details?
A No, from the typo of chief hygienist I deduced that was more or less the same as the consulting hygienist with us.
Q Then I may understand your statement to mean that what you said in your interrogation meant that you did not know Mrugowsky's position in detail, only on the basis of the information given in distribution lists, and you assumed that his position was the same as that of Rose with you and that answer in the interrogation was given on the basis of this assumption?
A Yes.
DR. FLEMMING: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (for defendant Wilhelm Beiglboeck)
Q Witness, you have said that my client Beiglbock reported to you before the experiments began. Was this interview very long or very short?
A Very short.
Q Did you not wish him luck and tell him he would get directives from Oberstabsarzt Dr. Merz or Becker-Freyseng?
A Yes.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY DR. HEINZ FRITZ (for defendant Gerhard Rose)
Q Professor, yesterday or the day before I asked you a few questions concerning the position of your consulting hygienist Prof. Rose with reference to other consulting hygienists in the German Wehrmacht, and I had referred to your affidavit Number 449; and you had agreed with your co-defendants Handloser and Rostock. Then in cross examination Mr. McHaney discussed the same questions once more, and I have the impression that this matter is not quite clear yet. Therefore, I should like to ask you one question on the subject. I believe that you can answer it on the basis of your knowledge of the facts with yes or no. Did Prof. Rose, in his capacity as your consulting hygienist and tropical hygienist, have the right and the duty of supervision over Prof.
Haagen in his capacity as consulting hygienist of Air Fleet Reich and as the person in charge of certain research assignments for the Luftwaffe?
A You mean he had to interfere?
Q Whether he had the right or the duty of supervision over Prof. Haagen.
A. No.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring):
Q General Schroeder, can you tell the Tribunal briefly if you knew by what military process or other military or governmental procedure Jehovah Witnesses, Mennonitos, Quakers, or other persons in Germany who had been called or drafted for military service and who were conscientious objectors on religious grounds were placed in jails, prisons, or concentration camps because of refusal to bear arms?
A I can say nothing except what Pastor Jentsch said yesterday. At the beginning of their service if they refused to bear arms they were turned over to the court martial as far as they were in the Wehrmacht.
Q And then in the Wehrmacht charges were preferred against them because of refusal to carry out orders of military superiors?
A Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, assuming a group of human beings anywhere from one hundred to three hundred in number who were selected as experimental subjects for experiments such as we've heard of here, say typhus experiments, for instance; and if you saw a list of those experimental subjects divided into groups and one of the groups was indicated as the control group, what would that phrase mean to you?
A In the form as you have just stated it, Mr. President, it would be control persons who were not subjected to any protective measures, such as the others were. The assumption probably was that the others were protected in some way by vaccination or something like that. The control group would be unprotected.
Q I understood you to say yesterday when you saw that phrase in some paper that came to you during the year 1944 that the phrase "control group" had not suggested anything to your mind. Possibly I misunderstood you.
A I do not know at the moment in what connection that could have been said.
Q The matter is clear to me now. I would also ask you, Witness, did I understand you to say this morning that if a person would drink seawater and nothing but seawater for a period of six days at least that that person would suffer no permanent harm.
A Yes, that is true. I gave an example of what I experienced in the Mediterranean. The man was adrift six days and seven nights.
Q During that time did he drink seawater?
A Yes. By accident the entire emergency equipment had been lost so that he could drink only what his environment brought him. That was seawater and a little dew which collected on the raft during the night.
Q Have you any information as to the quantity of seawater that this man drank per day or during the period?
AAs a standard he took the cartridge case of a flare. They are of a rather large caliber; perhaps they would hold forty cubic centimeters. In the course of the day he drank from that from time to time. He tried to drink as little as possible. That's what he told me when I saw him two days later. But he drank several such cartridge cases full; two or three hundred cubic centimeters, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness? Then the witness may be excused.
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal I now call the witness Dr. Augustinick to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will summon the witness Augustinick.
Dr. Herbert Augustinick, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Please repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q. Witness, your name is Dr. Herbert Augustinick?
A. Yes.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. On the 7th of April 1909 in Karlsruhe.
Q Where do you live at the present time.
A. In Tauberhischofsheim.
Q. What is your profession now and what was it formerly?
A Now I am an official physician with the Health office. Formerly I was a Wehrmacht officer.
Q. Were you an active officer?
A. An active Wehrmacht medical officer.
Q. You studied medicine and are a doctor of medicine?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you study?
A. 1929 to 1934.
Q. Now, will you please give the Tribunal a brief sketch of your career?
A. After the State examination in 1934 I was assistant for clinics in Dortmund and Karlsruhe until 1937. In 1937 I took maneuvers with the Wehrmacht.
On the first of October 1937 I became assistant arzt of the reserves On the first of January 1938 I became an active officer in the Wehrmacht.
Q. Now, how were you employed in the Wehrmacht?
A. Until the beginning of the War I had various positions as troop physician.
Q. Were you always with the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when did you come to the office of Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder?
A. On the 26th of September 1940.
Q. And in what capacity?
A. As adjutant.
Q. How long did you remain in this position?
A. Until 30 April 1945.
Q. Now, will you please briefly describe to the Tribunal the position and duties of an adjutant?
A. Yes. The adjutant of the Fleet physician is a close co-worker of Fleet Physician. He must look over the incoming rail and present it to the Fleet Physician. Everything directly connected with the office has to be taken care of by the adjutant.
He must prepare his official trips. In short, everything that happens in the office -- he must work on.
Q. Were you usually present at discussions which Professor Schroeder hold?
A. Not usually, but frequently.
Q. Now what else did you do?
A. I remained adjutant in the various theaters of War.
Q. Did you not accompany Professor Schroeder on his official trips?
A. Yes.
Q. Now was anything changed in your duties when you went with Professor Schroeder to the Medical Inspectorate in Berlin?