A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, to go into the details. First of all this letter mentions the name of Professor Hoehn. Who was Professor Hoehn? How did you come to mention him? What does he have to do with this letter?
A. I came upon him by accident. I treated the nobility of our district too and I was personally acquainted with some families. I had a villa at Rothenhaus. I heard that there was a guest at the castle who was a friend of Himmler. I imagined that a friend of Himmler who was a guest of a prince would be an influential person, who would be suitable for taking information to Himmler and exerting influence on Himmler and I determined to take advantage of this opportunity. I went up to the castle and I had someone whom I knew take my name in. I could not learn the name of the gentleman in question. There was remarkable secrecy about it. When he received me, I asked him whether he would take a letter to Himmler and I told him in broad outline the contents of the letter, but I referred to the high losses of the Russian soldiers and I motivated the contradiction in these losses with the effect that we needed workers for reconstruction. I repeated this idea very urgently and asked him to tell this to Himmler. I imagined that this suggestion I was making was to counter-balance Himmler's intentions. He promised to do so and I asked, "What shall I do with the letter?" He said, "Send the letter to Professor Hoehn in Berlin," and he gave me the address, but I have forgotten the address in the meantime. I don't know whether that was really Professor Hoehn or not but I think so. After a few days I dictated the letter; it was sent by mail. The important thing was that I had to give Hoehn the impression of credibility so that he would influence Himmler to that effect.
Q. In your letter you say, "Led by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but destroyed." Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you get this expression from?
A. I either heard this somewhere or read it or got it from the radio, but whether it was told me that it was something Himmler had said I don't remember.
In any case I considered these words suitable, considering Himmler's character, to get his attention.
Q. Why do you write that you are "writing to Himmler as the Reich Deputy for the Consolidation of German Folkdom"?
A. It is a mistake. I learned about that here by accident. The title is incorrect; it shouldn't be Deputy but Commissar. I knew so little about titles in Berlin that I made this mistake. I selected this title because I wanted to get Himmler's attention concentrated on the East.
Q. Witness, why did you enclose the articles of Madaus and Koch in the Magazine for Experimental Medicine, and also the article of Madaus in the "Umschau"?
A. The article in the Magazine for Experimental Medicine and even more the article in the Umschau, which is a semi-scientific work, had enormous suggestive effect by the inclusion of various quotations, so that I believed I should take advantage of this suggestive effect on Himmler. Himmler's inclination toward biologic homeopathy and other mystical ideas was perhaps not generally known but had long been known to me. These ideas were at any rate discussed among doctors, because these experiments, such as for example those in - I believe it was the Gustav Wagner Hospital in Dresden, the magazine Hippocrates, the newly published book by Brauchle - all referred to the new direction of thought. These sentences which had a particularly suggestive effect are underlined in red to bring them out.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that these preliminary discussions are unduly protracted. Can you not expedite the witness with that part of the story which deals indirectly on the charges upon which he is being tried before this Tribunal.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I believe that the explanation which the witness is giving of the various terms used in this letter is important in judging the matter. Of course, I shall submit to the wishes of the Tribunal and bring this down to a minimum.
THE PRESIDENT: Just condense the matter as much as you can, counsel.
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Witness, in the first paragraph of your letter you used a number of expressions: "If it were possible to obtain a drug which after a relatively brief time night produce unnoticed sterilization in human beings, we would have a new effective weapon." Then you write of three million prisoners of war, using the term "Bolshevists". Will you please tell us why you used such terms?
A. These few sentences include all the demands Himmler would make of such a drug, the short time, the imperceptible effect, and the effective weapon; that was the demand of the time, a new effective weapon. My own plan was built up on delay, to be achieved through the necessary preliminary experiments and so forth.
Q. I want to ask you about the second part of your letter, where you say Dr. Madaus was not allowed to make any further publications of this nature, where you speak of the growing of the plant which can be easily grown in hot houses, and you say that immediate research of human beings, criminals, should be carried out. You suggested that the chemical structure of the effective chemical substance be determined. Will you please explain how you came to say this?
A. I believe the most important thing is this picture of three million prisoners of war. This was to have a suggestive effect on Himmler; unfortunately it has had the same effect on the prosecution and on the press. As I say, I learned of the whole thing in connection with the settlement in the East, and I was thinking of the high losses of the Russian prisoners of war in the East and therefore I coordinated these various concepts. I need not have used the words "prisoners of war" at all; I could have said Russian civilian population, or gypsies, or Jews, or something else. The word "Bolshevists" I need not have used either but I think I chose it because I think I assumed that Himmler used it and the number of three million - that was chosen to make my suggestion as noticeable as possible. All these expressions were aimed at one goal, that is, to make the suggestion as plausible as possible.
I thought the whole thing over for three or four weeks. The suggestions which I made are absolutely impossible for execution from the scientific as well as the practical point of view. The whole idea was based on their being impossible in practice. To take individual sentences out of a context of course distorts the picture. One must remember that the plan originated by my asking myself: how can I make the idea plausible.
You ask why Madaus was not publishing any more articles. That was probably a reflection on a remark of Vogt's who was astonished that such important scientific information was published. "The enemy listens" was a political slogan at the time which was posted on every street corner and printed in all the newspapers. The politic al tendency of the letter consists of one slogan after another. That was just about all I knew positively about National Socialism.
Q Witness, do you agree with me that this letter, if it had been seriously meant and had had practical success, would have brought misfortune on many people?
A I was convinced that all the suggestions were absolutely impossible of execution but that they were so camouflaged that one would have to fall for them because they seemed to contain an enormous advantage. I was convinced that even on a small scale nothing could be done with the idea. There was a certain risk, of course, but in view of the expected effect one would have had to take that chance.
Q Witness, is it true that your explanation of this letter had been distrusted? Did you not have another reason for writing this letter?
A There are several possible reasons for writing such a letter. For example, a declaration of loyalty which is understandable since I was in a rather unpleasant situation politically. But I have already said that in 1940 my political persecution, or inconvenience is a better word, had stopped and I had no cause whatever for a declaration of loyalty, for if I had followed National Socialist ideology, then, after 1938, in view of what I have described, I would certainly have been cured.
There were no financial reasons either. My practice was so big at the time that I would have been glad to give up half of it. Besides I had my income from agriculture and real estate. Another possible reason would be that I was ambitious, that I wanted position - as the press said, misdirected ambition - but I believe that is refuted by the fact that I gave up my university career.
I never wanted outward honors. I had no more fears about being drafted. I had obtained the news that I was to be taken as pn Oberarzt Lieutenant. Second, because of a heart defect after typhus I was not qualified for military service.
As another reason I should like to point out that there was no possibility of attempting to prevent Himmler's intention; all one could do was try to get him on a false trail. In a democratic system one can go to the press, or I am sure there are other ways. In an authoritarian state we had no other way than the one I took.
Q Now, witness, what did you think would happen?
A Because of the violence of the letter and the apparent specialized knowledge and reliability apparently expressed by this letter, I thought that Himmler would take up the idea, but I did not hear any more about it and I thought that it had been realized how impossible the idea was of execution.
Q Did you hear anything later on?
A Yes, in the spring of '42 - I can't say exactly when - I received an inquiry from a Berlin office, I think it was an SS office, inquiring who produced the drug. I remembered that because I noticed that they were inquiring about a drug, and I had not said anything about a drug but about an experiment. That there actually was a drug, caladium D-1, I did not know. I do not have the letter either.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I request that the defendant repeat that last paragraph as some of it didn't come through very clearly to me, when he was referring to the drug.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the defendant repeat the last sentence of his testimony?
THE WITNESS: I said that I had not mentioned a drug but an experiment; that there actually was a drug, caladium D-1, a homeopathic preparation, in existence at that time I did not know.
That is mentioned in the yearbook of the Madaus Company for 1940 which I did not know. I shall speak of this drug later.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Then you received an inquiry, witness?
A Yes, and I answered it.
Q Why did you answer and what did your answer say?
AAt first I did not intend to answer, or at least I let a long time pass. I knew that the idea had taken hold, so to speak. I thought, as it were, as a beginning of the sabotage, to postpone this answer as long as possible.
Q And how did you come to answer?
A I met Voigt quite by accident at the railroad station in Weiberg between trains, and the repetition of his story and the plans and his opinions in an even stronger form made me think that it was time to make the drug known or rather the firm. Otherwise my whole plan would have been pointless.
Q Witness, you wrote this letter. Can you remember what this second letter said?
A It is difficult to say. Because of the length of time, I had forgotten the details of the letter and the article. Only after seeing the letter and the article again was I able to reconstruct. Besides it is hardly possible for me to distinguish what I wrote or thought or said at the time or read or what Voigt said.
Q Then you can not tell us anything accurate about the second letter?
A No, but I know that I told them the name of the firm.
Q Now, witness, aside from writing these two letters did you give any caladium; did you perform any experiments; did you do anything else; or was your activity limited to these two letters?
A I never owned any caladium. I did not have a hothouse on my farm. I never had any experimental animals. I never performed any such experiments on human beings or animals.
I wrote only these two letters on the basis of my reflections at my desk.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I should like to show the defendant a document, but perhaps this would be a good time to recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
ADOLF POKORNY - resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - continued BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q. Your Honors, I said already before the recess that I shall submit a document to the witness, Dr. Pokorny - one of the Prosecution documents. It is document NO-039 in Document Book 6 on page 16. It is the letter which the Deputy Gauleiter wrote to Himmler in the caladium matter. Witness, do you have this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, from that letter you see that a Party office expressed the same views which you expressed in your letter. Now, I would like to ask you were there any connections between you and this gauleiter of the lower Danube?
A. No.
Q. What was the distance between Komotau and Vienna?
A. About 700 Kilometers.
Q. During the years 1941 and 1942 were you ever in Vienna?
A. No.
Q. What was said of the gauleiter of the N.S.D.A.P. in charge of the Sudetenland?
A. Reichenberg?
Q. Witness, can you explain even if it is only a supposition how this letter may have come about?
A. Since there were no connections whasoever between me and the gauleiter i can only make hypothetical constructions. Gerland was deputy gauleiter and if I have been informed correctly he had a very high position in the SS.
Q. When did you find out about this?
A. I heard that here. Therefore, I suppose that it is possible on the basis of his position he had some relations to Himmler or to his office and therefore he found out about my letter.
Q. Witness, continue.
A. There are some points which would justify this conclusion for he refers to the Madaus Journal of 1940 even though it is apparent from the letter that he knew the two other papers, too. Then he quotes the scientific part of my letter in such a similar and close form that the suspicion is at hand here that he knew my letter and the most obvious thing is the same word that I thought about for a long time the word perspectives. That is also used in his letter. Moreover, it is apparent from his letter that he was also subject to the subjective influence of this letter because he believes in the homopathic effect of this drug. Also he writes that large numbers of experiments wore carried out on rats, guinea pigs, and dogs. And, there is no record in the paper of experiments on rabbits and dogs, only a hint which is not proved. He also writes the old culture of the Priest's profession which have to be followed up or the sentence that through the feeding of Schweigrohr, that is caladium synonymous to what the natives tried to bring the enemies to extinction. This is evidence that he was subject to the influence of this paper. Thus, I am of the opinion that this letter is plagiarism and Garland due to that became an aide by inadvertently reporting this matter to such a high office.
Q. Witness, can you still tell the Tribunal today for what reason you as a physician, after having seen the papers of Madaus and Koch which you included in your letter, came to the conclusion that an experiment with caladium would have no practical success?
Just answer this question with yes or no.
I was convinced that nothing would happen with caladium. That it is impossible to sterilize a human that way and even in small amounts that is, in small experimental series, it is almost impossible to work with caladium.
Q. May it please the Tribunal, before I continue to question the witness I first want to introduce a number of documents from my Document Book II. First Document Pokorny 16.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I don't have Document Book No. II. I went through all my document books this morning and I am unable to find Document Book II.
DR. HOFFMANN: I only have it in German.
MR. HARDY: I can't follow in German very well, your Honor.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I submitted my Document Books as it should be done and I regret very much that the Prosecution did not got one but I shall be able to change the situation by having an English book fetched.
MR. HARDY: He can proceed with his documents, your Honor and I can render any objections later if I desire to do so. I can follow him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, with that understanding counsel may proceed.
DR. HOFFMAN: I now submit document #16, Document Book 2, page 31. There are four photostats of photographs ...
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number you assigned to this document, counsel?
DR. HOFFMAN: #15, Your Honor.
They are photographs from the Manual of Biological Remedies of the division by Dr. Gerhard Madaus from the year 1938. Photographs have been taken out of the book and have been certified by a notary.
The next document I introduce is Document #17, page 34. This is the monograph by G. Madaus and Fr. E. Koch, "Studies of Animal Experiments Pertaining to Sterilization by Medication." This is the monograph which is the basis of the article in the "Umschau" and which was also inclosed in the letter by Dr. Pokerny.
The next document I would like to submit is Document Pokerny #18, Exhibit 17, page 49. This is a monograph " 'Magic Plants' in the Light of Experimental Research" in "Die Umshhau". This is the document which was also inclosed in Dr. Pokerny's letter.
As Document 21 I submit excerpts from Clinical Endocrinology, a test book for physicians and students, by Arthur Jores, page 58. This will be Exhibit #20.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what has become of exhibits numbers 18 and 19? Are you skipping...
DR. HOFFMAN: 18 and 19? - we have exhibits numbers 17 and 18. No, excuse me, Your Honor, I have not submitted 19 as yet. I submitted Documents 18 and 21.
THE PRESIDENT: And you assigned to Document 21 Exhibit #20, as I understand you. It should be Exhibit #18, should it not?
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes, your Honor.
I then submit Document Pokerny 22, page 59. It is an excerpt from the text book of General Pathology and the Pathological Anatomy of H. Ribbert, and by Dr. Karl Sternberg. This is Exhibit 21.
THE PRESIDENT: That should be Exhibit 19, Counsel.
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q: Yes, I beg your pardon.
Then I submit Document 23. This is Exhibit 20, page 60.
Witness, before, you were already speaking about the application of caladium in large and small doses. Would the administration in small doses have anything to do with homeopathic application and what was your attitude toward homeopathic medicine in 1941?
A: After modern medicine had put its knowledge on an absolutely safe basis, on the basis of experimental research, to that modern medicine today can be compared to mathematics. I, therefore, never accepted the theory of the doctrine of homeopathic medicine which does not have an experimental basis. That certain successes were achieved by homeopathic medicine I attribute to the fact that the low concentration of medicine - let us say D-i and D-2 -- are the same as those in medical theory and, in some cases, they are even large. The next concentrations, D-3 and D-4, are in accordance with the smallest amounts used in pharmacology and the rest of the concentrations, up to D-100, are not based on any experimental basis. This is only a broad statement. A great deal could be said about it.
Q: Witness, in 1941, did you know the firm of Madaus and Koch in Dresden-Radebeul? Did you know its name or did you have any relations with this firm?
A: I knew only the name of the firm through the advertisements which were sent to me and because I examined the drugs on the basis of these advertisements and was not satisfied with the results.
Q: Witness, in 1941, when you wrote this letter, did you see from the papers of Madaus and Koch which dealt with caladium - did you see in that an attempt on the part of the firm to open up a new field for homeopathic medicine for themselves?
A: From the report, it is clearly visible that the firm had the intention in regard to inner secretionary diseases to treat them with plant drugs and now wanted to bring out a number of medicines for this field.
Perhaps it would take up too much time if I would quote the appropriate places from the paper, but perhaps, in order to clarify the matter once, I may quote in the paper on experimental medicine, page 83, it says that vegetable materials - hormones .....
Q: (Interrupting) Witness, please state the page where it is written.
A: Page 83.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, is the quotation which you propose to read very long? If it is, I would suggest that it be prepared and put in as a document.
WITNESS: Mr. President, I wrote down, what I thought at the time thoughts passed very quickly. Of course, this description is somewhat involved. If it is desired, I can submit a scientific document as a sample. However, I would like to ask that I may refer to the main points.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document he is referring to - the translation is in our document books. If we could get the page number we should have the exact translation of what he is reading.
THE PRESIDENT: All, counsel, the Tribunal has had the document books and has examined them and will examine them again. Why is it advisable or helpful for the witness to epeat what is already before the Tribunal and in the document book? He can call attention to certain matters if he considers them important, but I see no object in reading what we already have before us in the case.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I agree with you entirely. Only, it seems correct to me that the witness should explain what his thoughts were at the time when he supposed that these drugs would be unsuccessful.
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely proper, counsel, but I see no object in re-reading That we already have before us. If he will give us the page of the document book where this is found, we can follow his explanations from the document book.
DR. HOFFMAN: Dr. Pokerny, thus, as you have heard, it is not expedient to read that part from the document. Instead I would like to repeat ny question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, first give us the page and volume of the document book where we can find this document to which his reference is made.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I cannot give you that figure. I would like to have the witness state the page number.
Q From what page did you quote?
A This is somewhat complicated. Of course, I could not refer to the English Document Book, but I referred to the original pages, and since the first paper is the basis of experimental medicine, I regard it as Description I, and the paper in "Unschau" as Edition II. Therefore, I cited the page numbers of these original documents of the quotations I wanted to read, which are included in my German Document Book. The page numbers in the English edition I cannot state.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I hear the page numbers in the English Document Book are the same as in the German.
Q Witness, give the number of the pages in the German Document Book, the number of the pages?
A In the paper on experimental medicine it is Document 14 in the Document Book, and that is on page 83.
DR. HARDY: 46-A, your honor's book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness may proceed with the explanation.
THE WITNESS: Shall I quote the paragraph?
Q Would you please return to my question? I asked you in the experiments which forms the basis of the papers could you draw any conclusions?
A I could draw the conclusions that the firm prepared drugs from the treatment of inner secretion disorders. Part of these are venereal disease preparations, that is drugs for the sexual sphere. This is also apparent from the paper, that the rirm was inclined to introduce Caladium as a sexual drug. I already stated that in regard to the drug Caladium D-1, which had already been introduced at that time, it was not known to me.
Q Thus from the very beginning for those economic reasons was the scientific value cf the work doubtful for you?
(no response).
A The scientific value or the value of the drug Caladium D-1 I doubted later on altogether, for the simple reason that the authors state that they carry out experiments with mice which brought about sterilization in 10 mice, but those results, however, could not be produced legally. At that tine the experiments with the rats and had not yet been carried out, and it was considered somewhat during that on the basis of this scientific basis to introduce a drug to increase potency under the name of Caladium D-1.
Q Witness, is a homeopathic basic principle applied in these papers and from your point of view of classical medicine what is your attitude?
A Before answering this question I would like to say since I did not know Caladium D-1 I considered the entire paper as an advertisement, so to say, that is a preparation for the introduction of a drug. The homeopathic principle, the reversal, that a drug in enlarged dosages is destructive and in homeopathic dosages is productive, is cited by the authors, and I am under the impression that due to the allegedly destructive effect of Caladium, just because of this homeopathic principle of "the "reversal" effect, the pharmacological effectiveness of Caladium D-1 is supposed to be proven.
Q Witness, what doubts did you have in detail as to the scientific basis of the work?
AAfter the second paper in the "Umschau", that is a semiscientific lay journal, which is based on the same principles as the scientific paper in the journal for experimental medicine, certain contradictions became obvious in both papers. I therefore doubted the value of the work. This assertion I would like to support by two quotations. The question to what extent the male sperm can be damaged by a poison so that the progeny would also be damaged is a concept in medicine which used to be called germ spasmatic damage. This was a question of conflict in hereditary syphillis and T.B. and with opponents of nicotine and alcohol, and for all students of eugenics.
Now, in the experimental medicine this first paper, page 75 of the original, I quote:
"Whether the progeny of a male for only a short time with Caladium animal, which had been treated, will be damaged. Since it is outside of our paper we cannot decide with certainty. We only want to state that one female normal rabbit in spite of good care in the stable and good food produced living animals for one day.
MR. HARDY: He is quoting new from the document book and I haven't been able to catch up with him and find the quotation. I would like to use this in the course of cross-examination and follow this pamphlet, so if you will hesitate while we find this page I will appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the witness refer to the number of the page in the German document book?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I stated page 75 of the original article.
DR. HOFFMANN: Page 42 of the Document Book II - correction, it is page 41-A,
THE PRESIDENT: You say it is page 41-A?
THE WITNESS: Oh, Yes, Your Honor, it is page 41-A to page 42. Shall I repeat?
Q No, please continue.
A This is on page 42, page 41-A, the second sentence: "It can only be mentioned that a normal female rabbit gave birth to young which lived only one day despite the best of care after having been mated with a male, which had not been treated with Caladium a sufficiently long time."
I would like to add here as an explanation that young animals which live for one day are a daily occurrence with rabbits, and this second version -
Q What page?
A Page 632, at the bottom of the original document.
Q Page 632? That cannot be correct.
A Yes, it is.
Q What page?
A 632.
Q You must be mistaken, witness?
A Oh, excuse me. Page 602.
DR. HOFFMANN: It is page 52 of the document book, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, witness.
THE WITNESS: I quote: "It could not be finally determined whether any ill-effect is produced in these young ones, which descend from a male, which has been treated with caladium only for a short period of time, however, it seems probable on the basis of the results obtained to date."
Such an important conclusion, which is treated in such a superficial manner and categorically stated hardly seemed to be correct, to me.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q: Witness, the question of sterility seems to me to be one of the most important factors in these animal experiments. From the treatment of this question by the authors of these papers; did you gather anything from your negative attitude?
A: I do not want to quote the sentences which refer to this in order not to take up too much time here, but I only want to refer to the charts which are on pages 71 and 75, as Chart No. i and Chart No. 4-A of the original, that is on page 75.
MR. HARDY: It might help matters somewhat if the defendant will refer to the document numbers, as he refers to the various pages and charts. He has jumped from one document to the other. That has confused us considerably and the record will not show he is referring to Exhibit 16 as one exhibit is opposed to the other. This refers to Exhibit 17, which is one part of the testimony and refers to Exhibit 16 in the other part. This refers to page 71, which is the pamphlet, which I believe is Exhibit Number ..... I confuse myself. If he will refer to the exhibit numbers, it will help me a bit.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal does not want to prejudice the defendant's case, nor interfere with the orderly procedure, but the manner in which you are proceeding is certainly confusing. Would it not be possible for the witness to state his conclusions and later on you can write a schedule as to the page and number on which he bases the conclusion.