Q I want to put another little coincidence to you, General, which appears in this letter as compared to the minutes of the meeting on 19 and 20 May, and that concerns this twelve-day experiment provision. You remember you said, "As the experiments on human beings could thus far on be carried out for a period of four days and as practical demands required a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to twelve days, appropriate experiments are necessary." Now do I understand you to interpret that to mean that twelve days or less, whenever the experimental subject say they can't go on?
A Yes. It was intended to establish what would enable us to go to that limit, and the experiment showed clearly that with the Schaefer means, an unlimited continuation of that matter was possible. Whether, on the other hand, the drug did not have that result and the experiment could not be continued beyond three or four days, that exactly was the question which had to be decided by that experiment. It was not intended that by forcible means the Berka drug should be established.
Q But, General, I dare say that if you were to rewriting this letter today, you would probably phrase that paragraph just a bit differently, wouldn't you, to make you statements now appear a bit more clearly.
A I would have to see it in front of me in order to say something about it. I couldn't possibly state anything from my memory.
Q We will pass that, General. Do you still contend that the experimental subjects were volunteers?
A Yes.
Q Let's look at Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit 135. This is the letter of 28 June 1944 from Grawitz to Himmler including commanding by Gebhardt, Blucks and Nobe on who the experimental subjects should be and I want to call your attention to paragraph two where Grawitz represent the attitude of Glucks, and Glucks said: "Referring to the above letter we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments reports by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station Rascher in the concentration camp Dachau. If possible, Jews or prisoner sheld in quarantine are to be used."
Does that sound like a very good expression of volunteer subjects to you -- "Jews and prisoners held, in quarantine"?
A This is an inter-office correspondence of the SS which is not known to me and which I never received. As it can be seen from the list button list, there are two copies, one which is available here and then there is another draft which probably remained with the office.
Q Now, General, let's understand the point. I am not contending the prosecution isn't contending you received a copy of this letter, b* are now asserting after all the evidence is in at qreat length that the experimental subjects were volunteers, and we are now interested in thr** ing some light on that question, and I am sure the Tribunal is interest in your understanding of the implications of this letter because it deal with those persons who were, in fact, selected to undergo these experiment you sponsored; so let's forgot whether or not you received it and just devote our attention to the letter itself and what it points out, and I will ask you if Glucks' comment doesn't raise a little suspicion in your mind since he suggests the use of Jews or prisoners held in quarantined maybe they weren't going to be volunteers, and maybe they weren't, in for volunteers?
A It doesn't say here that they weren't volunteers. This point being mentioned here at all. Even if I was to real it today, I would ask myself why couldn't there by any volunteers among these people if any improvement of nourishment is offered, and if the men in charge of the experiment would tell them that this experiment will have no harmful effects regarding their life and health -- as it was expressed in my directive -- so I really couldn't draw the same conclusion that you drew in any way.
Q In other words, you want to testify that if you had seen a ** of this letter at the end of June, 1944, you would leave still gone ahead with the experiments, is that right?
A These are only conclusions which are constructed hypothetically and I can make no comment on them. Probably I wouldn't have one that. I would have approached Grawitz and asked him what the matter was.
Q Let's look at comment three by Nebe. He said, "I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in or to evolve the method, for making sea water potable, I propose taking for purpose the asocial Gypsy halfbreeds. There are people among them who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards labor commitment. Regarding these Gypsies, I shall shortly make a special proposal to the Reichsfuehrer, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should the Reichsfuehrer agree to thi*** I shall list by name the persons to be used."
Now, General, do you think that Mr. Nebe was gifted with such power that he could sit in Berlin and list forty Gypsies whom he knew were going to volunteer by name?
A I have no idea who Mr. Nebe is, what functions he held. I said before that this was an inter-office letter of the SS, and I can make no comment on it whatsoever.
Q Doesn't that observation by Nobe indicate to you that maybe in Gypsies weren't volunteers?
A I really cannot conclude it. That is merely an assumption. Not is said about it.
Q And as I understood your testimony, you paid credit for this comment by Grawitz in this letter where he says to the proposal of the SS-Gruppenfuehrer Nebe to use Gypsies for the experiments: "I beg to raise an objection to wit: that the Gypsies being of somewhat different racial composition might possibly provide experimental results which might not apply entirely to our men. It would, therefore, be desirable if such prisoners could be used for these experiments as are racially comparable European peoples."
You take credit for that racial objection of Grawitz, do you, General?
A Well, this is merely my assumption from which I can conclude to he recalled that I spoke about soldiers. This letter was sent off about fourweeks later, 28th June; that is probably four weeks after I had visit him. Perhaps he didn't remember the events exactly at that time. But that is an inter-office letter in the SS about which I really cannot comment. This is really outside my authority completely.
Q When did you learn that Gypsies were used in the experiments?
A I learned that when Beiglboeck sent the final report about the experiments to Berlin.
Q Would you have confirmed the experiments if you had known that before?
AAfter what I heard, these were people who spoke German who were included within the framework of the German population, and really no objection could be made. I can only repeat that the thought that foreigner were in the camps didn't come up at all. I only started to take these considarations into account here after knowing about the situation in concentration camps, but at that time I couldn't possibly have taken things into consideration of which I hadn't known anything.
Q Did you see Beiglboeck before the experiments?
A Before? Do you mean before the experiments? I spoke to him very shortly before the experiments, and I gave him my directives within few words. Details were then settled between him and Becker-Freyseng.
Q Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?
A No. We only spoke about the matter as such. I am not quite sure whether the question "concentration camp" at that time was already established. Please, why don't you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don't know. If he was before or after the 1 of June.
Q You didn't say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that German volunteers were used in the experiments?
A That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about it. was no subject of discussion. There wasn't anything to be discussed at
Q Well, you didn't tell him that then?
A I don't know. I can't tell you that under oath. I know that I ** that there were volunteer people, and I certainly did not say that they ** to be Germans because I didn't take any other possibility into consideration at all and couldn't have said it. These are all reconstructions which c*** up later, but at that time weren't subjects of discussion at all.
Q Do you know whether Gypsies were recognized as Germans under the racial laws of the Reich?
AAs far as they lived in Germany, I thought that that was the case. I never had any thoughts about it.
Q General, do you think that Gypsies were recognized as good German Nordic citizens? Is that right?
AAt any rate, we in the Wehrmacht had people who were Gypsies, read a decree about it. I still remember that. There was something about Gypsies in one of the regulations that were issued that I remember that name, in one of the regulations that were issued during the War.
Q Then you are quite sure that Beiglboeck's instructions were the these subjects were to be given Berka water only until such time as they themselves said they couldn't take anymore?
A Yes.
Q The judgment about whether or not they could continue to tolerate Berka water was left up to the experimental subjects, is that right?
A The judgment in the first line lay with the Doctor. He was the one who had to determine whether there were any injuries. That was his responsibility.
Q Well, doesn't that change the thing just a little bit, if Beiglboeck concluded that the experimental subject could continue for six to seven days, after he had said I can't stand it anymore, why Beiglboeck could go ahead under your instructions. Isn't that right?
A Will you repeat please? I didn't quite get it.
Q I recently understood you to say that the judgment about how far the experiments should be continued was up to the doctor, that is, Boeglboeck; you had previously stated chat your instructions were that the experiments were to go on only long as the men themselves agreed to take the water. I am trying to get it straight. If in Beiglboeck's judgment the men could continue to take water for another two days, did your instructions permit Beiglboeck to go on?
A The thing was intended in the following way: Beiglboeck was to speak to the people and ask then whether they could continue for another day and if after a personal conversation with them the people were interested in keeping up for a little longer then they could. That's how you understood it. But the responsibility whether any harm came about always rested with the physician. Any harm or injury had to be avoided under all circumstances. That was a directive.
Q As I understand it you can't supply us with any of the details of how these experiments were carried out, that is, how long they continued, now how much they gave them, how much Berka Water, how much Schaeffer water, how much sea-water, etc.?
A No. After this basic outline for the experiments had been given by me I had to leave the execution of the experiments to those who were responsible for it. For that reason Beiglboeck had been selected by suggestion of Eppinger in order to have a reliable experienced physician to carry out that work and a man who would assume the responsibility. That is, as I said yesterday, a superior has the duty to select a man for any work, whatever it may be, even in experiments, a man, who in accordance with his pre-education and other qualities can really assume responsibilities for any such work. I couldn't possibly do that from Berlin.
I couldn't possibly assume responsibility for that work.
Q Now, you got a report on these experiments, a verbal report, in a bunker in Berlin in the Fall of 1944, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Who gave that verbal report?
A It was a report about the experiments but the entire experiment of Beiglboeck, that was after he concluded his series of experiments -after he concluded all of the laboratory work which was then carried out. As the end of the conference Beiglbeock made a summary report and gave is report in the shelter -- in the bunker near the zoo and I have now -I think it was somewhere about October. Previously I thought it was earlier. I have a vague picture when this discussion took place but I couldn't define the date.
Q I said "verbal report," general, not Berka.
A Verbal report, yes. A verbal report about the entire experiment Schaeffer, Berka and all of the others.
Q And did Beiglboeck also make a written report?
A Yes, I heard that but I don't know about it. It was probably quite the same as the verbal report.
Q Now, who heard this report in the bunker in October 1944 besides yourself and, of course, Beiglboeck?
A Huebner was there, Becker-Freyseng, Schaeffer, I think was there and then there were these gentlemen the are recorded on the record and who belonged to the technical department. I don't know their names and I don't know the gentlemen personally but same of them were present. Altogether, I think 15 persons were there.
Q Didn't this report by Beiglboeck tell about the experimental objects suffering drainage, diarrhea, convulsions and hallucinations?
A I really cannot tell you that. I don't know it. I didn't read or hear the report in its entirety. I merely took note of the conclusion in which I was particularly interested, namely, that the Berka procedure was not in compliance with what we had expected and that, on the other hand, the Schaeffer procedure had to be successful.
That is all I really heard--that very short statement. I think that I asked him who these experimental subjects were and then for the very first time I learned that they were Gypsies. That is how it came about and my participation was really very superficial.
Q I understood your testimony that you were only at this report meeting for a very short time. Is that right?
A Yes, only for a very short time. This meeting took place at the Bunker Hospital near the zoo and I was supposed to attend an operation which was to take place at the same time. Therefore, I was very busy and went over to the operational theater in order to inform myself about something. I don't recall what it was.
Q You weim just there long enough to ascertain that the subjects were volunteers and that nobody had been injured. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q General, did you regard as criminal and inadmissible a medical experiment carried out upon a non-voluntary subject?
A This point has repeatedly been discussed. I don't think it is correct to use non-voluntary subjects with reference to sea-water experiments. I only explained yesterday or the day before that I stressed the necessity of the voluntary nature in that case, since the experimental subjects had to co-operate in the completion of the experiment, as I explained.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. MARX:
Q Professor, following the cross examination of the prosecutor I should like to put a few questions to you. When you were first questioned. that is, the end of September 1946, did you know already that you were and indictment?
A You mean the 19th of September?
Q Yes. I mean the interrogation conducted by the prosecution.
A No, at that time I had been here for three days. I was a prisoner of war in the Camp at Dachau. From there I was sent to the Heidelberg Medical Center in order to do some work there. From there I was taken away and the reason was given that I was to be taken to another place for 8 or 10 days in order to testify about something on aviation medical research. That was the only think I know before I came here.
Q When, for the first time, did you learn that you were actually under indictment?
A I think that was the middle of November when the indictment was served. I think it was either on the 9th or 10th of November.
Q How were your interrogations conducted? Were the statements that you made put down on record or was the record only made up later?
A Both of these procedures were taken. At first shorthand notes were taken, the record was later given to me for my signature and then on the basis of these records affidavits originated.
Q How did these affidavits originated?
A They were drafted by the prosecution and formulated as excerpts the various interrogations. They really didn't constitute our own words, and therefore were not always in accordance with our usage of the language. As can be seen here now the usage of the language is not used as we used it in dealing with authorities, whenever we objected to that procedure we were told that later we would have sufficient opportunity to state our opinion about it verbally, so under these conditions we always signed our name. Now, of course, the situation is somewhat different.
Q Were you interrogated in the German language?
A Yes.
Q Or did you think that you knew English so well that you didn't have to speak German?
A No, I know very little English at all.
Q When asked, and I think you will remember that you were asked whether you didn't state that the Rascher rewarming system was a scientific result, and I am asking you now, was that the only scientific result scientific achievement which you stated, or did you state any more than that?
A Yes, but now you are not talking about the interrogation here. That was in England. That was an interrogation --I must say that I was a prisoner of war in England twice,once in June 1945 and then again in the fall. I remember that in June 1945, and I referred to that yesterday I was questioned by a commission of higher medical American officers, and among a number of detailed questions there was this question too; namely, what medical scientific results did I think were the most important, that is, scientific results as gained by the war.
I think that was the formulation, and I then listed a number of details from surgery, internal medicine, et cetera -- I think there were about five, six or eight results. I remember exactly that I listed the DDT preparations on top which were of great importance, then a number of others, and among other things was the Rascher rewarming process. I think this was among a number of points.
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.