THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel -- Karl Brandt Document 118 will not be received in evidence by the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I put in Document 124. I put it in to prove that in Germany, as counter distinction to what happened in other countries, not much was done in the field of bacteriological warfare. This is an article from the New York Times Overseas Weekly, Sunday, 6 October 1946, and it says here: "United States continues work in field in which Japanese made many experiments." It says here: "The Japanese are known to have experimented considerably with biological warfare but the Germans had done little." This is the reason why I am putting it in.
MR. HARDY: If the Tribunal please, I also object to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 124 will not be received in evidence.
MR. HARDY: While I am on my feet, your Honor, I object to the next one, Karl Brandt Document 125.
DR. SERVATIUS: I also put in Document 154 for the same reason. It also deals with the question of bacteriological warfare and shows the official attitude concerning the question of the admissibility of such warfare. On page 2 it says: "Some authorities view germ warfare as a horrible and inhumane thing, which this country should use only in self-defense. Major General Alden H. Waitt, Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, is spokesman for another school of thought."
MR. HARDY: Before Dr. Servatius continues to read this document, this is Document 125, not 154, your Honor. I wish to again render my objection before he reads the document.
THE PRESIDENT: We are considering Karl Brandt Document 125.
DR. SERVATIUS: Let me say something about this, Nr. President. This states official policy, to be sure, in a popular periodical but whoever wants to wage such war must also carry out the necessary experiments and that can be seen....
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand this document, counsel, it is a condensation by "Reader's Digest" from an article in "Collier's Weekly", is that correct?
DR. SERVATIUS: That is so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will not be received in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should then like to put in evidence KB-113. That's an article from the newspaper, "Stars and Stripes" which has already been discussed before this Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the other day, during the close of one of the cross examinations by Dr. Servatius -- I believe it was the examination of Dr. Ivy -- the Tribunal ruled that this document had no materiality and would be inadmissible. This is the one written by the Sergeant published in the "Stars and Stripes".
THE PRESIDENT: Letter to "B Bag" from a Sergeant. The Tribunal has already ruled that this document is inadmissible, and the Tribunal adheres to that ruling.
DR. SERVATIUS: I then come to document KB-114. This is an excerpt from "The People" London, of 3 March 1946. This document also concerns itself in part with the experiments on prisoners. It was in part put to a witness here and I should now like to put it in evidence. It is entitled "Nurnberg, Just One More Allied Trick" by Richard Llewellyn.
One particular point -- one passage interests me here which already has been a matter of discussion in this trial; namely, the question of the idea of atonement, and, it can be seen that experiments are not approved only for volunteers but for all sorts of people.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in the opinion of the Tribunal, this document has absolutely no probative value and it is rejected.
DR. SERVATIUS: I now come to a series of documents that concern euthanasia, KB-24, as Exhibit 81. This is an affidavit by Anneliese Schmundt. The affiant makes statements regarding a case of euthanasia which was undertaken after the affiant had spoken with Professor Brandt.
It was undertaken against a relative of hers and she says that she hardly knew Professor Brandt at that time, and that the idea of euthanasia was alien to her. "In order to get information, "she says, "I asked Dr. Karl Brandt who was very little known to me at that time. His explanations were completely clear and comprehensible, and after careful consideration we had to agree to them, since this meant deliverance of the patient from his sufferings, and deliverance of my 80-year old stepfather, who bestowed infinite pains and money on the support of this boy who never had anything to expect from life."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document will be received in evidence as Karl Brandt Exhibit -- what is the number please?
DR. SERVATIUS: 81, your Honor. The affiant continues that the most striking thing about Professor Brandt was his attitude which was full of sympathy and aroused great confidence and showed his sense of responsibility.
The next document is KB-25 which will be Exhibit 82. This is an affidavit by the Provincial Bishop Wurm.
MR. HARDY: May I call the attention of the Tribunal -- excuse me, your Honor, the original has a jurat thereon. No objection.
DR. SERVATIUS: Provincial Bishop Wurm states here that the Reich Health Leader Conti informed him that there was law or at least, legal basis for euthanasia which was, however, not made public for purely political reasons. This concerns the question of the legal permissibility of euthanasia.
The next document, KB-26, I ask to put in as Exhibit 83. This is an affidavit by Count von Schwerin Krosigk. He is personally acquainted with Pastor Bodelschwingh, director of the Bethel Hospital where insane, epileptic and deformed people, as well as other patients, were kept. He says that at that time Pastor Bodelschwingh told him about conversations he had with Professor Brandt and he says -
THE PRESIDENT: Several of these documents in the document book which I have are now printed in German and not in English.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then Document KB-26 is missing in English, if I understand you correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Document 40 also. I now have a copy of 26 in English.
MR. HARDY: I have both of them in my document book, your Honor.
DR. SERVATIUS: I ask your pardon that this omission occurred. This document, first of all, shows Pastor Bodelschwingh's attitude. He told Schwerin Krosigk at that time: "He could understand that, from a medical and political point of view, it might be argued that the painful life of individuals who vegetate like animals should be shortened. He further states that a committee had visited Bodelschwingh at that time, and Bodelschwingh expressed his opinion....
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Secretary another copy of supplemental documents Karl Brandt 26 and so forth in English?
Proceed, counsel.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the end of this affidavit the affiant testifies regarding Pastor Bodelschwingh's attitude toward Professor Brandt and also about Professor Brandt's attitude toward euthanasia. He says: "He had all the more reason to appreciate the attitude of Professor Dr. Brandt. Dr. Brandt had defended his point of view in a way which really called for respect and Professor Dr. Brandt had also shown complete understanding for Pastor Bodelschwingh's opposite opinion."
This will go to prove what Professor Brandt's real attitude actually was concerning the alleged "extermination of useless eaters."
The next document is KB-40. This is a part of Document 1696-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 26 is admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit 83.
DR. SERVATIUS: The next one is KB-40, Exhibit 84. This is a letter from the Reich Committee for Scientific Study of Heredity directed to the Director of the State Health Office in Tuttlingen, dated 9 January 1943. It is very brief and reads:
"Thank you very much for your letter of 22 December 1942 with appendix. Since on principle I never send children to the Reich Committee Stations against the wishes of their parents or guardians, I would ask you to consider this matter closed."
A copy went to Dr. Falthauser for information. I think this is a very material point...
THE PRESIDENT: Who signed this letter, counsel? The signature is missing from this document.
DR. SERVATIUS: I don't have the original here. I shall inform the Tribunal of that hereafter. I also am not even sure whether there is a signature on the original or the copy I have of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Without a signature the document will have no value.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, but it has the same value as all the documents captured by the Allies. It is part of the whole document bundle, 1696, which the prosecution put in. I shall try to have the original again in order to decipher the signature.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Servatius, that is correct, this is a captured document which was in the hands of the prosecution and when we turned over documents on December 4 or 5 to the defense counsel, this happened to be one of them, I believe.
DR. SERVATIUS: The next document is KB 81 and I offer it as Exhibit 85. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Engel, Waffen Adjutant for the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler. He testifies regarding Karl Brandt's position, that he was accompanying physician and had to stay at the Fuehrer's headquarters. He was closely tied to the Fuehrer's headquarters. He produces this to prove that Karl Brandt did not concern himself with the details of organization or carry out the program of euthanasia. That wasn't his task. He further states that Karl Brandt never participated in discussions on the general situation in which current questions were discussed. This is of some significance with respect to Halder's diary, where it says that the euthanasia program had been discussed in a discussion on the general situation at Nowgorod in Russia. The affiant states here that Karl Brandt never took part in such discussions. Finally, concerning the question of membership in the SS, the Waffen Adjutant states here. "I know that Karl Brandt and Himmler lived on considerably bad terms."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, apparently a copy of that document in the book before me. KB Ducument 81, is not complete because it does not seem to contain the statements you read.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall check on it. Perhaps the translation is faulty. That is admitted in evidence as an exhibit for the time then? I ask because of the number.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it may be admitted in evidence as Karl Brandt Exhibit 85.
DR. SERVATIUS: The next document is KB 92, the affidavit of the Minister Hans Lammers and concerns only the authenticity of Bouhler's signature which appeared in Document NO-156. That was Brandt Exhibit 4-a and 4-b. It was unclear at that time whose signature was appended to that document.
Now comes KB 84. I offer it as Exhibit 87. This is an affidavit by Dr. Steinbrecher which concerns the mental institute Dueren which as the Allied troops approached was evacuated. The witness says that Brandt turned up there and stated verbatim:
"Professor Brandt showed great understanding in our situation and offered to participate in our fate." I want to stress that, contrary to the other Party bosses, he did not express a single derogatory word on the insane. I put this in to prove that Brandt's attitude as a whole was a medical one and was not primarily one of extermination of these mentally ill persons.
The next document, KB-86, I put in as Exhibit 88. This is a statement by Grabe.
THE PRESIDENT: The next document on your index is Karl Brandt 90.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to insert one document here - KB 86. It must be in the document book in that order. That would then be Exhibit 88.
This concerns a whole series of questions. First of all, the term "Action Brandt" is mentioned here, and it says that a construction program was to be carried out. It shows here that the term "Action Brandt" is very often used and is used to cover a multitude of things. Then it mentions the attitude of Brandt toward half-Jewish doctors, his attitude toward foreigners, and ordered them to be treated like Germans in his hospital. He also states his opinion on the hospital action and the question of transferring patients in view of air raids. It says that the "Brandt Action" had nothing to do with extermination but was done as a precaution against air raids. He says he doesn't know of any cases in which patients were collected and transferred to extermination camps. This refers to special hospitals that Brandt had set up.
The next document is KB 90; I offer it as Exhibit 89. This is an affidavit by Hans Kehrl. He makes statements regarding the question of protection against chemical warfare. It says Karl Brandt concerned himself with the manufacture of protective installations against chemical warfare.
The next document will be KB 100; I offer it as Exhibit 90. I wish the Tribunal to consider especially whether it is admissible. I sent out a circular letter to all 16 hospitals of this "hospital Brandt action" and asked them all whether they knew anything about a directive regarding transfer of patients to euthanasia institutions.
I collected these actions. I have them in my room but I haven't given them in for translation yet because there are too many of them. However, I shall do so if the Tribunal wishes. This is a copy of the letter which I sent to these offices. I had my assistant certify the most important part of its contents. The unanimous answer was that the "Brandt Action" - that they knew of no "Brandt action" according to which patients unfit for work were taken from the hospital and sent to euthanasia institutions regardless of nationalities.
THE PRESIDENT: These cannot be considered until the answers are placed at the disposal of the prosecution and the Tribunal. We can tell nothing about the letters which counsel had sent to the hospitals.
MR. HARDY: I suppose all the answers were given under oath.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, such a thing of such volume as this could hardly have been done by way of affidavit. It would take too much time. This could only be done in somewhat of a certificate form in order to spare the Tribunal the necessity of making all these translations. Perhaps one of the judges might be appointed as a commissioner who could go through these answers. The IMT proceeded in a similar manner in order to handle their extensive material. I can't put in a thousand letters in evidence here - that would be too great a burden to put on the translation department.
MR. HARDY: If these letters have jurats on them, Your Honor, they can merely be admissible. However, if there are no jurats I don't see the point.
JUDGE SEBRING: If made in accordance with the form adopted by the Tribunal for statements in lieu of oath, would they not also be admissible?
MR. HARDY: When I say a jurat, I also include that regulation of the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: What I did was have my assistant swear an affidavit to the effect that he had received these answers and he testified to their contents.
I did this purely for reason of expediency and could have the same thing done by affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: This document will be examined by a member of the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: This document is then admissible as an exhibit, is it not?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this document may be admitted in evidence.
MR. HARDY: This document is merely a statement by the secretary that he has read all the letters that came in.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that will be subject to prosecution's objecting to it.
DR. SERVATIUS: The next document is KB-115. I put it in as Exhibit 91. This is an affidavit by Phillipp Prinz von Hessen. He expresses himself briefly about euthanasia and says the following:
"During both my altercations - already known and brought down to record - with Hitler and Bouhler regarding the carrying out of so-called euthanasia in my province Professor Brandt was not only not asked to be present, although he could have been reached immediately, but his name was not even mentioned at all. This for me was proof of the fact that Brandt stood outside of the problems pertaining to the carrying out of euthanasia. Also later I never realized or heard that Brandt might have stood as the leading factor behind the idea of euthanasia.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 91, Brand Document 115.
DR. SEHVATDJS: The next is Document 116. This is an affidavit by major General Franz Haider, retired. We brought in the question of euthanasia in the Russian occupied territories. He was shown Doc. No. 1758 with a few notes appended to it, and he says regarding it:
"These notes no not really constitute a diary, but are merely pencilled daily shorthand notes, which were to serve as reminders. Regarding the notes concerning asylums I recall that Quartermaster General Wagner told me that the possible evacuation of Asylums in the occupied Russian territory was being discussed outside the Wehrmacht and that it was said this might necessitate the killing of mental patients.
"The manner in which Quartermaster General Wagner discussed this showed that he was in strong opposition to this idea and I took the same view. I Imagine that I would remember if the name of Prof. Karl Brandt had been mentioned in these discussions, as the official mention of the name of Brandt in my sphere of activities would have been quite unusual as all official contact was lacking."
The next document is KB 123. This will be Exhibit 93. This is a chart, a graph, covering the period 1910 to 1945. This is from Document 1696 PS from the Prosecution Document book, page 74.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire whether or not this chart is attached to 1696PS, a captured document?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes; it is in the document book. Only it was smaller and was very difficult to read, consequently I had it redrawn. If I had it photostated again it would have been almost illegible. I had it reproduced and enlarged.
MR. HARDY: Is it part of a captured German Document 1696 PS, is that right?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document, counsel?
DR. SERVATIUS: This is from the files of the mental institution Kaufbeuren, and refers to the mortality of the children in this institution from 1910 on. This document is of great interest for it shows that in the first World War the mortality rate of the children reached almost 12 percent, and now if we take the time when Professor Karl Brandt was active in the Reich Committee we see that during the war the curve also rises and rises even as high as 13 percent, but then it drops a bit. It shows that the actual increase in mortality of children goes as high as 26 percent only in years 1943 and 1944 after Karl Brandt had already left. I think this is good proof that Professor Karl Brandt was not carrying out annihilation here, but that there was some new action; from someone also that caused this. When Karl Brandt was there you find that breakin the curve where it drops from 14 to 11 percent, and it rises after he left. The graph also shows in the last war children died in much the same way as they died in this one.
The next document is KB 85, which I put in as Exhibit 94.
MR. HARDY: I object to the admission of this document in evidence. It is merely a treatise justifying the according of mercy deaths. I don't think that is an issue here. I don't think it would be relevant; I object to it.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is true this is a literature document showing the various opinions toward euthanasia, but it is of great importance for the general attitude that Karl Brandt found prevailed in Germany, and it also shows the connection between the idea of medical euthanasia and the consequence of an economic nature. It doesn't, however, touch the most essential problems of medical approval of euthanasia.
Above all, I submit it because Professor Maltzer, the author, who was himself the director of a medical institution sent out a questionnaire to 200 patients, asking them what their attitude towards the mercy killings of children was.
This book study was published in 1925, much earlier than Karl Brandt's time. There were 162 replies altogether - 119 answered "yes", and 43 answered "no". The main point for the reasons why the parents agree or approve or disapprove is above all they emphasize the fact that they don't even want to be asked the question of euthanasia to come up in connection with their children, and Professor Meltzer says most of them say "yes", even those that say "no" don't want to be confronted with with this question of conscience, but are agreeable to the acts being carried out without their being asked. Now, just that is a critical point in the charges against Karl Brandt. They are always asking him why parents weren't asked, or weren't informed, in connection with the death of their children. This is a penetration into the psychology really concerned in this matter. This gives us an insight into the thinking of those actually involved and their motives. For that reason I consider it particularly material.
THE PRESIDENT: This document will be admitted,* Karl Brandt Document 85 will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 94.
DR. SERVATIUS: In conclusion there are a few documents concerning the question of Brandt's membership in the SS, first an affidavit by a soldier by the name of Bonatz, who worked near Karl Brandt for a few months. I think that the attitude toward foreigners is important here. He says: "Above all I would like to stress that he treated the foreigners who were compelled to work there pleasantly and fairly. They said that they had no reason to complain and praised Professor Brandt as a pleasant and kindly man whom they had all reason to esteem."
THE PRESIDENT: What number are you giving it, counsel?
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit 95. The next document is KB 78, which I offer as Exhibit 96. This is an affidavit by Luise von Oertzon, chief official in the Red Cross during the war. She says that Professor Brandt's orientation was primarily medical, and he told her at that time he had been violently attacked by Conti and Bormann, because he was predominately a doctor and not a politician.
The next document KB 79 is Exhibit 97. That is an affidavit by Gottlieb Berger, Chief of the SS Main Office, regarding Brandt's position and his functions, in the SS. He says:
"As Chief of the SS Main Office, I only know that Professor Karl Brandt belonged to the SS only as an Ehrenfuehrer. I know of no single case in which Professor Karl Brandt exercised any function whatsoever or took over any task in the SS. He certainly never held any office.
"I consider it impossible that Professor Karl Brandt was one of Himmler's consulting physicians; Himmler had his own doctors."
Now comes KB 80, Exhibit 98. This is an affidavit by Julius Schaub, Hitler's personal adjutant. It makes statements about Brandt's close attachment to the Fuehrer headquarters. It says that Professor Brandt was Hitler's escort physician from 1934, and as such had to be available when called upon. Further, it says Himmler was inimicable toward Brandt; and he describes a case where there was bitter altercation about the status of the medical officer, where Himmler maintains the point of view, first he is primarily a soldier and politician, and only secondly a doctor, and this lead to a considerable altercation. It also says "several times Karl Brandt found the opportunity of interceding with Adolf Hitler, particularly on behalf of the interest of Catholic nurses."
The next is a document KB 83, which will be exhibit 99. This is an affidavit by Josef Brunissen from the French, Alsacia, and he says the following:
"I am a member of the Alsatian clergy and since 1925 have been spiritual director of the abbey on Mount Odile monastery on Mount Odile in France. During the German occupation, the Mount Odile monastery was to be converted into an SS school. The Commissioner General for Health and Medical Hatters, Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt willingly intervened in the matter in accordance with my wishes, and succeeded in preventing the conversion of the Mount Odile monastery into an SS school. We are indebted to Prof. Dr. Brandt for the preservation of our monastery and venerable place of pilarimage."
Now, comes KB 95, as exhibit 100. This deals with Brandt's connection with Professor Guasebart, and says that Brandt gave him assistance in many difficult situations and then everything he got for the civilian population.
And the last document KB 96, I put in as exhibit 101. This is an affidavit by Dr. Wille Gutermuth, Chief physician in the Clinic in Frandjurt on the Main. He makes statements regarding Karl Brandt's medical views and says he was sharply opposed by Conti and the Labor Front. He says also that Karl Brandt's offices did no political work and were not politically oriented.
That concludes my presentation of documents.
Now, Your Honor, I still have two witnesses, Huber and Wessel, I have agreed with the prosecution that I shall produce affidavits from both of them, and I ask permission to do so within a few days. The witnesses have been approved for examination by the Tribunal, but I wanted to put in instead the affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Were the witnesses procured by you, counsel?
DR. SERVATIUS: THEY are here in person, but in order not to take up the Tribunal's time, I simply didn't want to put them on the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: You may prepare the affidavits and submit them. For five or six minutes the Tribunal will meet with the committee of counsel, if they are ready to call on the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(Thereupon at 1705 the Tribunal recessed)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 27 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the Court with the exception of the defendant Oberhauser, who is absent due to illness. The medical certificate will be presented shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court, save the defendant Oberhauser, who is absent on account of illness. The forthcoming medical certificate will be filed when it is received.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, due to some transportation difficulties the witnesses Laubinger and Hoellenrainer were not able to arrive at the Palace of Justice. It is assumed they will arrive in a matter of minutes or perhaps one half to one hour. In the meantime, the Prosecution suggests that Dr. Nelte proceed with the introduction of the supplemental document books in the Handloser case.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for the defendant Handloser ready to proceed with documents on his case, if so, he may proceed.
THE INTERPRETER: The witnesses are here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Interpreters have just informed the Tribunal that the witnesses have arrived. If they have, we will proceed to hear the testimony of the witnesses.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the witnesses have arrived. At this time, the Prosecution would like to call the witness Josef Laubinger to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness Josef Laubinger.
(JOSEF LAUBINGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Please raise your right hand and be sworn:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Witness, your full name is Josef Laubinger?
A Yes.
Q Your last name is spelled L-A-U-B-I-N-G-E-R?
A Yes.
Q Witness, have you ever appeared before a Tribunal as a witness before?
A No, this is the first time.
Q I want to instruct you, witness, that in the course of this examination, kindly answer the questions that I put to you and make an attempt to be brief, also make an attempt to fully answer the question. If you have anything you wish to tell the Tribunal, you may do so and inasmuch as this examination is conducted through interpreters, you must pause a moment after you have heard my question before you begin to answer; do you understand me?
A Yes.
Q When and where were you born, witness?
A On 15 June, 1921, in Mitthaupten.
Q Where did you receive your education; if any?
A In Minden in Westphalia.
Q When were you first arrested by the Gestapo?
A In 1943.
Q Had you ever been in the custody of the police prior to March of 1943?
A No.
Q For what reasons were you arrested by the Gestapo in March of 1943?
A I was arrested for racial reasons.
Q That is because you were a Gypsy?
A Yes.
Q After your arrest in March 1943, were you placed in prison?
A Yes.
Q Where?
A In Heilbronn.
Q And were you later transferred from Heilbronn to another prison?
A To Stuttgart.
Q And then where did you go?
A I was taken from Stuttgart on a transport to Auschwitz.
Q At any time during the course of your incarceration did you go to trial; that is were you tried by the Gestapo?
A I don't understand your question.
Q Were you placed before a Court and given an opportunity to be heard prior to the time you were placed in a concentration camp?
A No.
Q After you arrived at Auschwitz, how long did you stay there?
A Not quite a year.
Q Then you apparently arrived in Auschwitz in the spring of 1943?
A Yes.
Q And you stayed there until the spring of 1944?
A Yes.
Q And then you were transferred to another concentration camp?
A Yes, Buchenwald.
Q And how long did you remain in Buchenwald?
A Not very long, a few weeks.
Q And what was your reason for leaving Buchenwald?
AA transport was made up of 44 men; we were told that these men would do clearing up work in Dachau, and we applied for this voluntarily.
Q What did you understand this clearing up work to be?
A I thought damaged houses were to be put in order, etc.
Q Was it commonly known among the inmates that Dachau would be a better place to be than Buchenwald?
A Yes.
Q Was that another reason why you volunteered for the work at Dachau?
A That is why we volunteered, because things were said to be better there than in Buchenwald.
Q Now, after your arrival in Dachau, would you kindly tell the Tribunal what happened to you?
A We spent our first night in the reception block. The next morning we went to the hospital. There we were given a physical examination.
Q Did you, also receive an X-ray?
A Yes.
Q And then what happened?
A Then we were weighed and our height was measured.
Q And after your physical examinations, X-rays, etc., were completed, did you leave the hospital?
A No, we were taken to the room in which we had to stay throughout the experiment.
Q When did you first learn that you were to be subjected to an experiment?
A Not very long thereafter, Dr. Beiglboeck turned up and told us that we had to participate in the sea-water experiment. We thereupon answered that we had not come to Dachau in order to participate in any experiment, but to do clearing up work. He responded that the experiment was not bad, no one would die, but we were still very much perturbed because we knew that we could not believe anybody in a concentration camp.