A.- He had to whether he wanted to or not, because Dr. Hoven certainly wasn't a good surgeon.
Q.- Was Dr. Hoven studying under Dr. Horn?
A.- Well, I always felt as if Horn was the man who was having to teach Hoven even the smallest type of operation.
Q.- I see. Did you know Piek?
A.- Do you mean the Dutch painter, Piek?
Q.-Yes.
A.- I know him very well, indeed.
Q.- What was Piek's profession?
A.- Piek was a painter by profession.
Q.- Did he ever paint any portraits for Hoven?
A.- I think not only for Hoven but for every SS leader in the camp. I know for certain, for instance, that he painted Dr. Ding as Wallenstein with a flying cloak.
Q.- Did he paint portraits of Hoven's children?
A.- That I couldn't possibly tell you here with certainty.
Q.- Now, you say in block 46 Hoven only went to visit the tailor and shoemaker because he had set them up in business there where they would be free from bother by the SS. How often did he visit the shoemaker and tailor? Did he go over there two, three, four times a week; or how often?
A Yes, you can say that Dr. Hoven visited the work shop generally frequently.
Q How often would that be?
A Every second day, quite frequently.
Q When did they set up this tailor shop and shoe shop in Block 46, was it installed and equipped at the beginning or during the middle of 1941?
A Well, I think the block hadn't been in existence for four weeks when the work shops had also been equipped. The situation at the beginning was that Block 46 could not be entered by anybody not a member of the SS, even with permission, and I believe Dr. Hoven was also affected by the prohibition, consequently the work shop would only have been constructed four to six weeks, or 6 weeks later.
Q How long did the shoemaker and tailor stay in the shop in Block 46, for two years 1942 and 1943, or for how long were they there?
QQuite decidedly until Hoven's arrest, because I don't remember that the matter was best opened in any other way previously.
A And Dr. Hoven only went to Block 46 to visit the tailor and shoemaker in the workshops, he didn't go there for the purposes of the experiments?
A Mr. Prosecutor, if Dr. Hoven left Block 46 with a parcel under his arm or a pair of boots or a uniform jacket, I can't possibly and really imagine he got those from the sick ward. He probably got those from the work shop.
Q I see. He went over there about every other day?
A Every second day.
Q Did Dr. Hoven nave about 500 suits and 300 pairs of shoes he went there every other day for over two years?
A Yes, that would be so, if Dr. Hoven hadn't been passing on these other things to other people, for instance Gust, Schobert and Biester, they all walked about with shoes soled in Block 46.
Q In other words, Dr. Hoven, a man who was a concentration camp doctor where you had some 15,000 inmates and you had about 260 dying each month had time to go see the shoe man and tailor every other day?
A Mr. Prosecutor, the facts are that the medical work, in fact that the doctors' work in Buchenwald was in the hands of prison doctors in a very considerable extent, for instance you only have to think of the systematic training of nurses. We had an evening school for two or three hours every evening given by Dr. Matuschek and Dr. Horn.
Q Do you know who wrote Dr. Hoven's thesis, did he write it himself or was his thesis to become a doctor written by Dr. Wegerer of Vienna?
A Mr. Prosecutor, all I can tell you is what I happened to read a few days ago in a book. It says there that Dr. Hoven's thesis had been written by a certain Dr. Wegerer from Vienna. This man is supposed to be a doctor or professor of chemistry. I read that a few days ago. I can't give you any certain information on that subject.
Q In the hospital barracks how often did you see Hoven, did you see him continually each day?
A I saw him daily.
Q You saw him also administer injections to five persons, that is all?
A That killing I observed.
Q And you state that Dr. Hoven is correct in his figure of 60 killings either by inmates or by himself?
A I can't answer that.
Q And these inmates, according to Dr. Hoven's affidavit, 60 persons were killed and others were beaten; of those 60 persons he states that some of them were killed by inmates, is that right?
(No response.)
Do you have a copy of Dr. Hoven's affidavit, please?
This is paragraph 12, Document Book 12, Document NO 429 on page 5 of the German, paragraph 12; will you kindly read that, Mr. Dorn, an affidavit by the defendant Waldemar Hoven?
Q "The total number of killed traitors was approximately 150, 60 of which were killed by phenol injections either by myself or under my direction, and the rest were killed by various methods such as beatings by the inmates."
Q Well now, he states that there were killings either by himself or under his direction, is that right?
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President I wish to object to the submission of this affidavit. The affidavit hasn't yet been admitted in evidence. It is an affidavit that has not yet been admitted. Its admission has been retarded until defendant Hoven is put on the stand.
MR. HARDY: I was not aware of that, your Honor. It bears an exhibit number. It isn't a fact that it is not admitted in evidence. This is something new today. We have been using it throughout our cross-examination continually. It certainly has been admitted into evidence. If it hasn't been admitted which is something I can't imagine, then it has been overlooked by the Prosecution in the presentation of its case in chief, and we submit it at this time. The document is in order, it contains a jurat, is sworn to and signed by the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The first question is to determine whether the document has been admitted in evidence. I will ask the Secretary General to produce the original document and determine how it is marked.
HR. HARDY: Do you have the prosecution exhibit number? Your Honor, I don't know the exhibit number off-hand.
THE PRESIDENT: It is document No. NO 4200.
MR. HARDY: Do you have the Prosecution exhibit number marked in your document book, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I cannot tell from this book. There is a symbol after that, but what it is I --
HR. HARDY: Mr. Travis will have it in his file of the prosec ution numbers.
If he will call my office phone, 61212 and ask for Dr. Hochwald to give him the prosecution exhibit number of that document, he will be able to secure it.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I had placed an objection to the admissibility of this document, it has once been submitted and then its submission was put back until Dr. Hoven has been examined. I haven't got the record of that before me. I will have to wait until tomorrow, but I could submit the record of it.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I submit if that is true then all the other documents admitted in evidence were admitted incorrectly by this Tribunal. This document here is no different from any other affidavit we have submitted. I am sure it was admitted and there is prosecution exhibit number, and I would like to finish up my examination and I only have three or four more questions and clear them from his affidavit.
DR. GAWLIK: I have given detailed reasons for my objection. The document was submitted to Dr. Hoven at that time in the English language and not in German, and Dr. Hoven has not sufficient control of the English language for the knowledge of examining on it. No interpreter was present at that time. That was the cause of the objection and the Tribunal decided that admission would be put back until after the examination of Dr. Hoven. For that reason, I will object to today's use of the document.
MR. HARDY: I proceed to another question or two, Your Honor, while we are waiting for the document.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Mr. Dorn, do you know for what reason Dr. Hoven was arrested by the SS?
A I can only repeat my explanation which I gave this morning. As far as I an informed Dr. Hoven was arrested because the suspicion existed against him he was cooperating with prisoners, cooperating with them extremely closely and as time progressed the suspicion increased.
Professor, Dr. Hoven is supposed to have been arrested because of the case with Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler. Just how this affair developed is something I am not informed about. I only know that it was 12 September 1943 Hoven was arrested on leaving the camp.
Q Do you know whether or not any other officers of the camp were arrested at the same time?
A I know that the commandant Koch was arrested, but I can't tell you with certainty today whether Koch was arrested earlier or later than Hoven, and I know at that time Oberscharfuehrer Sommer was arrested. I don't know what connections there were.
Q You don't know whether Koch was also arrested for collaboration with the inmates?
A Koch? I think he was the biggest devil we prisoners ever clamped eyes upon.
Q Do you know whether or not Hoven was indicted after being arrested?
A That I do not know, because on the 20th of September 1943 I left Buchenwald and then never again established contact with Buchenwald.
Q Do you know whether or not the camp commandant Koch and Hoven were indicted in the same indictment?
A No, I don't know.
Q Do you know that Camp Commandant Koch and Dr. Hoven were charged with fraudulent conversion of Reichs' funds, of frauds on concentration camp inmates for their own benefits, and condoning and festering corruption in the camps.
A Mr. Prosecutor, I know that Koch and his brother-in-law, Hauptscharfuehrer Michael were arrested for corrupt actions in the camp.
Q You know that Hoven was arrested in the same case along with Koch?
A No. My information is to the effect that it was because of the case of Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler that Koch was arrested.
Q Who? Hauptscharfuehrer who?
A Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler.
Q Was he a witness against Koch?
A I can't tell you that. If I had remained in Buchenwald then I would certainly have had the exact details the fortnight after Hoven was arrested.
Q. Well, what was the reason why the Hauptscharfuehrer was connected with the arrest of Hoven?
A. Well, the Hauptscharfuehrer Kuehler was imprisoned by the commandant's office at the time.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this affidavit of Hoven has been admitted into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 281.
THE PRESIDENT: Submit the document to the Tribunal. Submit the document to the defense counsel. Apparently it has been in evidence as a prosecution exhibit.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, this exhibit, the affidavit, as far as I remember, was given the number when it was submitted and I raised the objection. Following that, the Tribunal's decision was made to my recollection. I can only now recall from memory but I will submit the statement to the Tribunal when I can read the record and all of the defense counsel are willing to concur in the fact that the admission of the document was put back.
MR. HARDY: Then your honor, I submit this document has been admitted into evidence, if it had not been admitted into evidence it would not now be in the hands of the Secretary General but it would still be in the hands of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, if appears that the document has been admitted in evidence, it has been assigned a number. It is almost time for a recess until tomorrow morning and after the Tribunal recesses this evening, the entire matter can be studied, the record can be read and the testimony at the time can be examined.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have only one or two questions on this document. If it is necessary I will offer it now and give it another exhibit number. It is in good order, it has a jurat on it, it is signed by the affiant and dated. It is perfectly admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be saving no time and it would probably take longer than until the recess time.
I well remember in connection with at least one of these affidavits by one of the defendants, either by this one -- although I believe it was another defendant that a question was raised as to an affidavit and the Tribunal admitted the affidavit but ruled that when the defendant took the witness stand he could be asked concerning the circumstances under which the affidavit was made and at that time its probative value before the Tribunal would be considered, but the mere fact that an affidavit has been admitted in evidence does not establish its probative value as the Tribunal may consider it because circumstances may be shown when the affiant takes the witness stand that would defy the affidavit and if so more or less weight might or might not be the case.
Are there any other questions you can propound to the witness without using the affidavit now?
MR. HARDY: After looking it over, Your Honor, I can propound the same questions without using the affidavit.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Was Dr. Hoven assisted by inmates when he performed these killings in the hospital barracks of the Buchenwald concentration camp?
A. I did not understand your question correctly, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. Was Dr. Hoven assisted by inmates when he performed these killings in the Buchenwald concentration camp?
A. Yes, there were two prisoners who were present.
Q. Did other inmates ever kill the so-called traitor inmates in the concentration camp?
A. Did other prisoners kill the so-called traitors in the concentration camp; was that your question?
Q. Yes, were other traitor prisoners killed in the concentration camp by inmates.
A. Very often.
Q. Was that done under the supervision of Dr. Hoven?
A. No.
Q. Did he know about it?
A. He could not know because death reports always were made to appear that it was a normal death.
Q. What did the inmates kill the so-called traitor inmates with; did they kill them by injections?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have already told you once before what the scene looked like in thepenal company, they were thrown out of the second floor window and it really happened that prisoners used the socalled injection syringe, but these were few and far between.
Q. How many inmate assistants did Dr. Hoven have in his capacity as camp doctor?
A. Do you mean those who worked with Dr. Hoven all the time?
Q. Yes.
A. It was generally Dr. Horn and Dr. Matuschek in OP 1 -Internal Operations in the Medical wing. OP 2 there was a certain Hellmuth Diemann and another man and I can no longer remember his name, I do know that the man came from Upper Silesia and I can see him with my own eyes but I cannot remember the name. He had a Polish name which it is difficult for me to pronounce.
Q. How many nurses did he have; men in your capacity?
A. Altogether possibly 90 men, possible more than that.
Q. Now, realizing you are under oath, can you tell this Tribunal how many men you assisted in the killing of with Dr. Hoven?
A. To that I can answer with a calm conscience that I did not assist with a single killing, nor assist in any manner, nor was I present at any time.
Q. How many men did you kill when Dr. Hoven was not present?
A. I have never killed a human being.
Q. You had access to the drugs, didn't you?
A. No, but to the phenol drugs no one had access.
Q. Then you know they used phenol in killings in Buchenwald?
A. I think everybody who ever worked in the sick bay knew that.
Q. I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how much time will your re-examination of this witness consume?
DR. GAWLIK: I just hoard that my colleague, Dr. Nelte, has a few questions and I would say about fifteen to twenty minutes for myself.
THE PRESIDENT: I would desire that the investigation be made now before tomorrow morning to ascertain the status of this affidavit of the defendant Hoven. The Tribunal would like to knew whether it was formally admitted in evidence or whether it was not because the record indicates it was and if the record is incorrect. The Tribunal would like to be advised.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 o'clock, 6 June 1947.)
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 6 June 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
The witness is reminded he is still under oath.
Counsel may proceed with the examination.
PAUL DORN - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. NELTE (for defendant Handloser):
Q. Witness, during your examination and cross examination you have spoken of the consignments of typhus carrying lice to Buchenwald. And, if my notes I took are correct then you said in that connection it was generally talked about in the camp that this officer from Cracow came from an institute of the Wehrmacht. Is this note of mine correct?
A. Yes, your note you took is correct.
Q. You cannot tell anything, therefore, from your own personal knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that Dr. Hoven knew from where this dispatch of lice came?
A. I assume yes.
Q. Well, now if you were to assume that Dr. Hoven knew that this consignment of lice did not come from Cracow and not from an Institute of the Armed Forces and if Dr. Hover were to testify this under oath, would you then believe that the rumor circulating the camp which reached you too, was false?
A. Yes.
Q. I have no further questions, I should merely like to draw the attention of this Tribunal to Dr. Hoven's affidavit, Document Ha-13, Exhibit 9 which states "the consignment of lice which are mentioned in Ding's Diary and in the testimony of Kogon and Kirchheimer came from Dr. Haas from Lemberg. The reason why I know this to be accurate is, that I told Dr. Haas the lice were destroyed. I can therefore say from my own personal knowledge that the statements oi Kogon and Kirchheimer-(Dr. Kogon was not yet with Dr. Ding at that time) -were erroneous, namely, that assignments of lice came from Cracow."
Thank you very much.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, to begin with, I should like to speak about the affidavit which came up for discussion yesterday and I would like to say that the decision of this Tribunal is in the record of 3 January 1947, on page 1118 of the German record; and this ruling of the Tribunal states that the Tribunal has ruled that to begin with the affidavit can be admitted subject to a later objection by the defendant Hoven and that the defense is not showing whether the defendant Hoven has answered any questions at all. Should he have been interrogated without having been properly warned, he can say so on the witness stand at a letter date. If he did not understand the English language and if the affidavit was not translated to him, he will be able to clear that up, too; but it was admitted provisionally without prejudice to the right of defense counsel to later object to its admissibility. If the Tribunal should then assume that this affidavit is not to be admitted in evidence then it will be struck from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. That is the ruling of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, to note for the record, the contention of prosecution of this matter during yesterday's session is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: The record will be made to show exactly what happened and will speak for itself.
BY DR. GAWLI:
Q. Witness, the nurses in Block 46 -- did they act independently to a considerable extent?
A. I wouldn't so much say the nurses as the prisoner kapo, Aurthur Dietzsch.
Q. If Dr. Ding was absent, was it necessary at all in suck cases that an SS Doctor took his place?
A. No, all the work and every action was carried right out by Dietzsch, Dietzsch independently.
Q. Did defendant, Dr. Hoven, have the essential knowledge in order to give orders to Dietzsch and the other nurses who were working in Block 46?
A. I have already said before that I never thought that Hoven was a good doctor and I hardly think that he took as much interest in the typhus experiments as was necessary for him to give instructions.
Q. Is it true that you met the nurses working in 46 repeatedly?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also talk about during such meetings that King's experiments were carried out by the Kapo Dietzsch?
A. But, of course -- we, the prisoners, interested ourselves considerably in these matters and we had it confirmed repeatedly that Dietzsch and Ding carried them out alone in Block 46.
Q. It would be correct to say then that amongst the nurses of Block 46 and the nurses in the sick bay the general assumption was that these experiments were carried out by Ding and Dietzsch but not the defendant Hoven?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. The figures relating to deaths were discussed yesterday, the Buchenwald death figures, that is, and you said that you had read various publications about Buchenwald which showed that the death rate never exceeded 2%.
A. Quite correct.
Q. But this wouldn't exclude the possibility, would it, that the death rate in Buchenwald was considerably lower temporarily.
That is correct, too, isn't it?
A. (No response)
Q. In order to refresh your memory, I haw submit to you, not as an exhibit but merely for this purpose, a document which has been submitted to Tribunal II in Case IV and I would like you to read please -- read aloud, the death rate in the concentration camp of Buchenwald from it.
MR. HARDY: Is it proposed to offer this document in evidence here?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I don't want to submit it in evidence, as I have already told you. I am merely using it to refresh the memory of this witness. That is the purpose and also to question him on it, of course.
A. The death rate ---
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Did this witness testify before Tribunal II?
DR. GAWLIK: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you asked him to read this affidavit into the record. That is not refreshing his recollection. He is not testifying from his own recollection when he answers your question. He is simply reading this exhibit. If he knows he may glance at that to refresh his recollection then he could testify from his own knowledge bat if he is simply reading a record he is not testifying from his own recollection at all.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall put a few questions subsequently with reference to it but, if you like, I will read it.
MR. HARDY: Inasmuch as that is the case, Your Honor, I suggest that the defense counsel process the document in due form and offer it as an exhibit.
DR. GAWLIK: No, I don't want to submit it as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may present to the Tribunal a certified copy of this exhibit which would be admitted in evidence or if the witness has his own recollection, he can testify from his own knowledge as he pleases. He could also be asked whether or not he agrees with the statement in the document.
DR. GAWLIK: I now propose to read this figure and then ask the witness whether the figures are correct and I beg to have your decision whether this is permissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Of course, you understand, Counsel, that the document will not become evidence unless it is introduced before the court.
DR. GAWLIK: No I don't want to submit it in evidence. I am merely using it in order to give a basis to my question.
This is a letter from Pohl dated 30 September 1943 and addressed to Himmler. Attached to it is a table of death figures for the month of August, 1943, in concentration camps. It mentions Buchenwald and there the strength was 17,600 detainees and the number of deaths was 118, equaling a percentage of 0.67%.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, there was that many deaths in what period of time?
DR. GAWLIK: August 1943, Your Honor, the month of August 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: For one month, and that was the record.
DR. GAWLIK: The average for all concentration camps in August 1943 was 2.09%.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Is it correct that it was owed to defendant, Dr. Hoven, that the death rate for the concentration camp of Buchenwald was considerably lower than the overall average?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. It was later mentioned during the cross examination whether you knew anything about the death of Jupp Collinet?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you describe this case in detail?
A. I knew the prisoner Jupp Collinet during approxrimately two years. I know that Jupp Collinet came from Aid-la-Chapelle and that he owned, several houses there. The special commissioner of the political section of Buchenwald had been a criminal commissioner in Aschen earlier and he had a row with Jupp Collinet in the course of which Collinet fired a shot at Leclair. Later on Leclair went to the political department of Buchenwald as a special commissioner and amongst the prisoners there he recognized Collinet. Following efforts made with the camp Kommandant, he succeeded in getting an order for Collinet's liquidation. I know for certain that Collinet was not killed by Dr. Hoven. On that day, on the day when Collinet had been beaten half to death and was brought to the sick bay, Hoven wasn't present in the camp. The killing was carried out in the presence of the first and second camp leader, Max Schober, and Untersturmfuehrer Gust. I cannot give you any more detail about this affair.
Q. Is it correct that the political section was under the secret state police?
A. Yes.
Q. You were speaking about gypsies yesterday and the grouping of gypsies. Do you have anything to add to that part of your testimony?
A. I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the Gypsies who were not declared as social elements were removed from Dachau to the labor house in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution have any more questions to be propounded to the witness?
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:Q.- What is the extent of your education?
A.- Initially I was a waiter at the Grand Hotel in Nurnberg. For conditions in my family I had to give up this profession and I was re-trained as a motor mechanic. As a very young man I went to Africa and I was a soldier in the French army for several years. In 1938 I returned to Germany and went into business on my own. After the German capitulation I started afresh, starting as a taxi owner.
Q.- Are you a graduate of any University?
A.- No.
Q.- Can you tell us whether or not from your knowledge Dr. Hoven was considered to be a so-called ladies' man?
A.- I don't quite understand, a so-called what?
Q.- Ladies' man.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I object to that question. First of all this is an utterly irrelevant question, and secondly, I believe that now in the re-cross examination only such questions can be put which are due to my re-direct examination. I do not believe that a cross examination can be started all over again after the Prosecution had completed cross examination yesterday.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honors, this is a question concerning the character of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel states the rule correctly but the practice of this Tribunal allows very liberal direct examination and cross examination, and counsel for defense, of course, may re-examine the witness in connection with any matters which are new. The objection will be overruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q.- To your knowledge, did Dr. Hoven have mistresses, that is lady friends other than his wife?