Q. Now, regarding the epidemic jaundice experiments you said that you knew nothing about those experiments as presented here, is that right?
A. I learned of these experiments only through the trial.
Q. You never heard of any proposals or never talked with anybody about experimentation in the field of hepatitis epidemica, is that right?
A. No. I never talked to anyone, the things which are the subject of the trial, that is. Of course, I have discussed the disease itself, but never the question of what is the cause, and I never did anything in that connection. I never talked about the experimentation.
Q. You have talked to Gutzeit about hepatitis, I suppose?
A. I don't believe so. I know Gutzeit only visually, and aside from general medical meetings where there were many hundred people I met him only once at a small meeting. That was the second time when I talked to Professor Handloser. There was a question of whether the cholera danger no longer existed. Something quite different. We did not discuss jaundice.
Q. Now, did you ever talk to Schreiber about hepatitis?
A. Certainly not, never.
Q. Any work along the lines of hepatitis was of interest to you as a hygienist, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, wasn't Schreiber, as I recall, plenipotentiary for research in epidemics, in the Reich Research Council for research on epidemics, in the Reich Research Council?
A. Yes, he was, but all the time since ho had held that position, I believe that was since 1945, I had hardly anything to do with Schrieber, because our points of contact were actually in the field of troop hygiene. When we mot each other we always discussed now we could protect our soldiers. That is purely business. But it was no longer necessary later because he had a successor in this office as troop hygienist, and these conversations were carried on with that man. During that time I saw Schreiber perhaps twice, but we never said a word about any experiments or about matters concerning the Research Council.
Q. Did Schreiber ever show any interest in experiments on human beings concerning hepatitis?
A. I don't know. I can't say anything about that. He didn't say anything to me about it. I can't remember ever discussing the specific topic of jaundice with him. We discussed typhus a great deal, typhoid fever, malaria, but not jaundice. That was not a subject for the hygienist but for the internist.
Q. Then he never expressed any desire to experiment on human beings to you, Shreiber?
A. No, not to me.
Q. Did he ever frankly request you to supply him with subjects to be used in experiments?
A. No.
Q. They you know nothing about any plans concerning experimentation on human beings in the field of hepatitis?
A. No, I have no idea about that.
Q. Doctor, I want to give you on opportunity to think a moment and to realize you are under oath here, and I want to give you another opportunity to save yourself from perjury. Do you still state that you know nothing about any plans or enterprise concerning experiments on human beings in the field of hepatitis?
A. I can only repeat that I knew nothing about any plans concerned with the things which are the subject of your trial.
MR. HARDY: I now want to introduce Document No. 1305, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 467 for identification. Do the interpreters have a copy? This is a letter on the letterhead of Reichphysician SS and Police, Chief Hygienist, dated 29 January 1945, regarding consent for a series of experiments, addressed to Reich physician SS and Police, Berlin.
"Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Dresel, Director of the Hygienic Institute of the University of Leipzig has cultivated a Virus from persons suffering from Hepatitis and succeeded in transplanting it on animals. "It is necessary to make experiments on human beings in order to determine the fact that this Virus is indeed the effective Virus Hepatitis epidemica. The plenipotentiary for research Council therefore addressed himself to mo with the request to carry out the above experiments.
"I am asking you to obtain authorization from the Reichsfuhrer SS to carry out the necessary experiments on 20 suitable prisoners who have neither to never suffered from Hepatitis Epidemica, at the typhus-experimental station of the concentration camp Buchenwald." Signed Mrugowsky.
Q. Now, Doctor, is that your signature?
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I object to the submission of this document. It has no date, and it has no journal number. I should like to see the original.
MR HARDY: The original has a date on it, Your Honor.
(To Page) Will you kindly get the original from the defendant?
This document is an official German document, Your Honor, certified in the same manner as all others that have been introduced in evidence. Obviously, the German mimeograph doesn't have the date on it.
DR. FLEMMING: The original has a date. Yes, it was just not copied.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date?
MR. HARDY: 27 January 1945, Your Honor.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, Dr. Mrugowsky, is that your signature on that document?
A. It is my signature and I can tell you the following about the document.
Q. Just a moment, Doctor. I asked you is that your signature? Yes?
A. Yes, it is my signature.
Q. Now, the Plenipotentiary for Research in Epidemics in the Reich Research Council was Schreiber, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. He addressed himself to you with the request to carry out the above experiments, did he not, according to this letter?
A. He did not talk to me about the matter. He sent me a letter, and the contents are more or less copied here. I may point out that this letter was written on the 29th of January, 1945. This indicates that it has nothing to do with the experiments which are the subject of discussion here. They took place earlier. It has nothing to do with the Haagen case or the Dohmen case. In this case, twenty prisoners were to be used. Dohmen used eight. It was at the time when there were quite definite directives from the Reich Fuehrer on the assignment of prisoners. You know that only the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin could make such assignments, and this office was in charge only of professional criminals. It is true that I wrote this letter and suggested this assignment, but in January 1945 nothing was done about it. This letter has no connection with any of the experiments which are the subject of this trial. Above the address it says "Re: Consent for a series of experiments". There is no reference to any previous correspondence. If that had been the case it would say "Reference" and then the number of an earlier letter or something.
Q. Let's us go on now, Doctor, to another subject.
Were you in charge of the rationing of Zyklon B gas to concentration camps?
A. No. It was issued by the Central Medical Depot of the Waffen-SS.
Q. Now, do you know that in Germany the use of Zyklon B for the purpose of combating dangerous animals and plants was generally prohibited as set forth in the Reichsgesetzblatt dated 8 February 1919?
A. Yes, that is true and because there was this governmental ruling we, in our disinfection school, had special courses for the use of highly poisonous gasses for delousing clothing. There was a course for disinfectors and, in addition, these people had to take an examination to obtain the state certificate for poison. Prussic acid could be used for disinfection use only by state approved disinfectors who had special permission from the state to work with this Zyklon, and the disinfectors who had this poison certificate had the permission and had had previous training so that they knew how to use the preparation. In all the larger camps and at troop maneuvers places we had arrangements for prussic acid decontamination as well its in the big prisoner of war camps of the army. That was the most customary procedure in Germany.
Q. Now, of course, there was a German regulation existing which prescribed in extraordinary cases when the use of Zyklon and similar materials were permitted that these poisons were always to be mixed with an irritant in order to warm human beings and to avoid danger. Was that right?
A. If you mean the following: Prussic acid has no odor or, at least, very little, and a special substance was introduced into the prussic acid compounds so that it could be smelled. In this form it was used, and in this technical form it is not called prussic acid. - that is a chemical - but it is called Zyklon B.
Q. Now, that special substance mixed with it, is that "Reizstoff" or "Warnstoff". Is that right? W A R N S T O F F ? Is that the word you used?
A. Warnstoff, yes.
Q. That can be translated as an irritant?
A. It is to warn human beings to watch out. "This is poison". Otherwise, one would simply breathe it in without smelling it.
Q. Well now, this Zyklon 3 that you used in your delousing program, did that have this irritant mixed in it?
A. Yes; only the official tin containers of a certain size were used. They were delivered by the competent Reich committee; and it always contained this Warnstoff without which work would have been very dangerous, in spite of gas masks.
Q. Now, was it necessary to carefully label the can of gas so that it would be obvious that this gas contained such an irritant?
A. It was not like a water or a gasoling can, but it was a very special kind of tin can which had a label from the firm which had produced it with a colored sign. I never saw any other cans without this sign. Only the original cans from the firm were used, as far as I know.
Q. Well now, do you know whether or not the containers in which the Zyklon B was in .... In other words, do you know whether the containers with Zyklon B which were sent to the concentration camps for extermination in gas chambers contained the Zyklon B mixed with an irritant? Do you know that?
A. No, I cannot tell you anything about that. Until I was arrested I had heard nothing of this type of use of prussic acid, but here I have seen a document from the investigating judge of the SS - Dr. Morgen, who investigated these things in the concentration camps and he testifies that for Auschwitz, prussic acid came from a certain firm in Hamburg Stolzenberg and Company, a chemical firm. I didn't know that this firm had anything to do with the production of prussic acid. I know only three firms which did not include Stolzenberg and he describes a case - and this is why I remember it - a case where a certain prisoner sent the empty cans back to the firm and he also sent back a full one or a half full one which had not been used. That was, of course, very dangerous and that is why I remember the matter. Whether they contained an irritant or whether it was the preparation Zyklon B, I don't know, and this preparation was not issued by the Central Medical Depot.
Q. Well now, this gas that Dr. Morgen mentions coming from Stolzenberg and Company, he mentions that as being the gas that was used in the extermination chambers, is that right?
A. Yes, so he told me.
Q. Well now, the gas that you used in delousing was obtained from Tescha, Stabenow, Degesch and another firm, is that right?
A. The procedure was as follows: In the Old Reich, that is not including Austria and the Sudetenland and the Protectorate, there were only two firms of this kind. The Hamburg Company, Tench and Stabenow, and Herd and Linder in Frankfurt. The Elbe divided the Reich into the districts under each of these firms, and later there was another firm in Bohemia and there was a firm in Kolin. From a special company these received their instructions, as far as I know. That was the Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Schaedlingsbekaemptung, which came from the German company for combating pests and was abbreviated as "Degesch". This Degesch was competent for building Zyklon chambers for delousing clothing and a special procedure had been developed in Germany. We received the permission from this company and I negotiated with the head of the company, Dr. Peters. In the later course of the war, the air war eliminated the producing companies gradually and production suffered and it became necessary to coordinate the need and the materials available. For this purpose, a special committee was formed in the Reich ministry for Armament and War Production where other such committees also existed. The chairman of this committee was Dr. Peters and this committee now rationed the prussic acid to the individual consumers.
Q. Well, let's get to the things at issue. Now, in connection with the gas that was used we'll say in the Auschwitz concentration camp this Zyklon B that you used in delousing was mixed with an irritant. Now, do you accede the possibility that Zyklon produced by Stabenow and Degesch was used in the extermination chambers in Auschwitz?
A. I do not believe so for the following reason: Auschwitz was a very largo camp which had twelve such decontamination chambers. They had a volume of twelve cubic meters. They were used about fourteen hours a day for that decontamination.
One needs a large amount of prussic acid for such constant use, summer and winter. Near Auschwitz I had a hygiene institute, and I know from the head of this institute whom I have applied for as a witness, who is not here yet but he will probably come and be able to testify about this - I learned that these chambers were really in operation every day, but I know that the need for Zyklon was considerably larger than the amount available. Even the entire amount assigned to the SS would not have been sufficient to cover the need of Auschwitz alone, but there were other consumers also. Therefore, I consider it quite impossible that these quantities which were male available by the Central Medical Depot for decontamination purposes could have been misused for other purposes. And there is another reason why I think it impossible. That is because the Central Medical Depot sent them through the post doctor - that is, through medical channels, while the doctor had nothing to do with these extermination matters. I have learned later here that this extermination camp of Auschwitz was not at Auschwitz proper and hence had nothing to do with the medical service of Auschwitz. It was near Auschwitz and had a special name but I don't know the name.
Q. Was the name Kanada?
A. No that was something else, it was a Polich name, and as far as I know now from the various interrogations and material I have seen from the previous conferences the commandant of Auschwitz Hoess was simultaneously with the commandant of the extermination camp; but I know that only from the files which I have seen; I do not know it from my own knowledge.
Q. You did not supply Hoess with any gas?
A. No, definitely not.
Q. I want to introduce Document No. NI-034, which will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 468 for identification. Now this is an affidavit by Rudolf Hoess and he states in number 2 and paragraph 2 therein:
"I was commandant of Auschwitz until 1 December 1943 and I estimate to that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there in gas chambers and crematories. At least a further half million people died from hunger and sickness, which adds up to a total amount of about 3,000,000 deaths."
Now if you will turn to the next page in paragraph 5, he states:
"Mass executions in gas chambers began during summer 1941 and lasted until the fall of 1944. I supervised personally the executions in Auschwitz until 1 December 1943. After I had constructed the extermination building in Auschwitz, I used Zyclon B, a crystallized prussic acid, which was thrown into the death chambers through a small opening. The older extermination camps Belsen, Treblinka and Wolzek had used monoxide gas. To exterminate 1,500 people between 5 and 7 cans of one kile each of Zyclon B were required. The amount of cans depended upon the size of the gas chamber and upon the weather conditions, that is: 2 to 3 additional cans were required in cold and humid weather.
"A considerable amount of Zyclon B was still available in Camp Auschwitz when the gassing of human brings began. The gas had been used for the extermination of vermin in the buildings and barracks, which were there from the original Polish artillery camp.
The gas came from the firm Tesch & Stablnow, International Insecticide Company, Ltd., Hamburg. Two technical representatives of this company were present at the camp to carry out the disinfection of the buildings, whereby they applied most carefully all measures of security in order to prevent accidents.
"Zyclon B in cans for the gassing of human beings in Auschwitz was also later procured continuously and exclusively from Tesch & Stablnow. The cans bore labels which were identical with the upper one shown to me in document No. NI-032.
"In 1942 and 1943 it happened that Tesch & Stablnow could not make deliveries of poison gas because of difficulties in railroad transportation. For that reason we sent our own trucks to Dessau to fetch the gas ourselves. We had been informed that the prison gas was produced by the firm Tesch & Stablnow in plants near Dessau. Our trucks were manned by SS people. The trucks had an SS number and a tactical sign consisting of a triangle pointing upwards in which the initial, of the respective concentration camp, in this case the letter "A" was set. I believe that only insiders could have known that the sign identified concentration camps. Until the end of 1941 or beginning of 1942 the camp management had ordered the gas directly from Tesch & Stablnow. From that time on Dr. Mrugowsky, the deputy for Hygiene for the Reichsfuehrer SS ordered gas for all SS organizations and installations. He was also responsible for supplying the quotas. In this way it was Dr. Mrugowsky who ordered delivery of the quota needed by the annihilation camp Birkenau from Tesch and Stablnow."
Did Dr. Hoess order his gas from you Dr. Mrugowsky?
A. No, Mr Hoess says here something that is not true. This thing was shown to me in July in an interrogation and I denied this at the time and since that time I have tried to prove my point of view. I have shown some Documents and we have a few in reserve, which will probably be shown in the next few days, they show quite clearly with whom we negotiated on the prussic acid question and for what purpose and what amounts we received.
The competent people have testified here that such a connection with prussic acid and with the extermination of human brings did not exist. On rationed material only those amounts were alloted and approved by committees which could be justified. The need was calculated primarily according to the number of (Zyklon installations), that is decontamination chambers, especially for clothing which existed in the camps. From observation and from information from other people I knew that wherever such chambers existed they were constantly in operation for the usual purposes. If the local people in any case took these small alloted amounts for other purposes, I cannot say and that is something for which I am not responsible. In any case I can say quite definitely, first, that I did not discuss this matter with Hoess and I did not correspond with him on the subject or any deputy of his. Secondly, neither I or any member of my agency had any such official connection. Third, that I myself learned, of these extermination camps only after the collapse. I was utterly astonished about this.
As I told you during the interrogation, I was at Auschwitz once or twice in the earlier years and I had never seen any such installations or anything which might give rise to suspicion. I can explain that now because I was only in the camp itself, but not in the extermination camp, which was at a different location and which was not shown to me. This way I had no knowledge whatsoever of these matters.
Q. Let us now go back to the typhus experiments; if I understand, you correctly from your defense counsel, it is your contention that the Ding Diary is a fake and a fraud; is that right?
A. The Ding Diary is not a diary, but for some purpose which I cannot understand it was written by someone else; that is my conviction.
Q. Just a moment, we will call it a note book; is it still your contention that it is a fraud, and a fake?
A. I contend that this book has no value as a record, it was not kept regularly and secondly that it was written subsequently for some purpose in this present form.
Q. Just a moment, Doctor. You stated in your opening statement that the Ding Diary was a fraud; is that your contention?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me who you think perpetrated this alleged fraud?
A. It is my opinion that this fraud was committed in the camp at Buchenwald.
Q. You don't deny that Ding's signature appears on the pages of the diary; do you?
A. Ding's signature is on it.
Q Just what portions of the diary or notebook or whatever you wish to call it do you consider to be manufactured evidence? For instance, your defense counsel end yourself contest page Number 1, Page Number 12. Just what portions of that diary do you consider to be a fraud?
A I would say that first of all according to the opinion of the two writing experts Page I was inserted later Second, I believe it is Page 13, which was also inserted later and has no connection with the handwriting or the signature of the proceeding and following pages. The whole diary up to about June 1943 was written all at one time; nearly two years were written down all at one; and, of course, one cannot call that a diary.
Q Now then, you do admit for the most part that the diary is correct and accurate, don't you?
A I can't say anything definite about that, for I don't know the material; but I think that tomorrow we will have definite information about that.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SEBRING): Where is the Ding Diary in the English Document Book? I have forgotten just at the moment.
MR. HARDY: It starts on Page 38 of English Document Book Number 12, which is Exhibit Number 12. Which is Exhibit Number 287.
Q Now, let us have a matching contests, here, Doctor MR, HARDY, I request Dr. Flemming to supply Dr. Mruggowski with Document Book Number 1 of Mrugoswki.
Your Honor, if I may at this time ask you Honors to bear with me and turn to Page Number 39 of Document Book Number 12, the English.
That's prosecution Document Book Number 12, And I also ask you to turn to Page 86 in the Mrugowski Document Book Number 1, Page 86.
Q Now Doctor, you have the German Document Book. Would you kindly turn to the entry which is included under 6 January 1942 to 1 February 1942, which is entitled "That is the Diary. Now, in the diary we have therein the following;
"Execution of vaccination for immunization for spotted fever, using the following vaccines:
"1. Thirty one persons with Weigel vaccine from the intestines of lice of the Institute for Spotted Fever and Virus Research at the Supreme Command of the Army OKH, Cracow.
"2. Thirty five persons with vaccine made by the process Cox, Gildemeister, and Haagen.
"3. Thirty-five persons with vaccine Behring-normal, one egg bloated to 450 c.c. vaccine, mixture of 70 percent Rickettsia Mooseri and 30 per cent Rickettsia Prowazeki.
"4. Thirty - four persons with Behring-normal, Behring-strong (stark), one egg bloated to 250 c.c."
Now, if you will turn to you Document Book Number 1, which is on Page 86 of the English and is your Exhibit Number 20, Mrugowski Document Number 10, This is the report which was sent by you which was introduced here in evidence by you, dated 5 May 1942. Now, these entries in the diary concern research Series Number 1; and they were completed on 19 April 1942; and the date of the report signed by you is 5 May 1942. Now, those dates coincide, don't they? Yes or no.
A The report of the 5th of May is the one about the typhus series 1, yes.
Q That's right. Now in that report the text starts out, "The tests of four typhus vaccine made by us on human subjects at the instigation of Reich Health Leader Dr. Conti had the following results." The your list four vaccines. The following have been tested; A, B,C, and D, which are identical to the four vaccines explained in the Ding diary; are they not, under the research series Number 1, identical language as well as identical vaccines?
A Yes.
Q Now, in addition in states in the Ding Diary Number 5, ten persons for control. Do you see that, Doctor?
A Yes.
Q Now, it states under the entry 19 April 1942, still under research series Number 1, in the Ding diary, "Five deaths, three under control, out of ten, according to the Ding diary, Is that right?
A Yes.
Q That's thirty per cent, isn't it, three out of ten?
A No, five deaths from 145 people.
Q No, pardon me, there were ten persons for a central group; out of the control group three of them died. That's thirty per cent of the control group who died, is that right according to the Ding diary?
A I misunderstood you, yes.
Q Now, will you turn again to the exhibit which you offered here in evidence as Mrugowsky Exhibit Number 20, which is on Page 87 of the English under Section II, Results of the Experiments, (b) Preventive effect of the vaccines.
"In the case of sick persons during a typhus epidemic who have not been vaccinated, the average duration of fever has been calculated to be 17 days. The metabolism and the nervous system were considerably affected. The mortality was around 30 per cent."
That coincides with the Ding Diary, doesn't it?
A. Yes, certainly. This is a report on Ding's Series 1, that's what I always said. Of course they would agree.
Q. In the report it also says on Page 88 of the Section 3 that one person died from Behring-normal and one person died from Behring-strong; and it also states in the diary that one person died from Behringnormal and one person died from Behring-strong, doesn't it?
A. Yes, that's right. The some figures have to occur, of course. It is the report on the series of experiments.
Q. That's right. Now, it's obvious that your report contains the information in precisely the same manner as it is contained in the Ding Diary; isn't that right?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Four vaccines, two deaths; thirty percent of the control group died?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as regards this report that you wrote, which was your Exhibit Number 20, you state that Ding reported directly to Grawitz, and Grawitz assigned you the task of rewriting this report.
A. Yes.
Q. In a manner that would be presentable. Isn't that a little fantastic, Doctor, in view of the fact that your secretary states that all reports wont through you before they got to Grawitz, and as is shown earlier in this cross examination, all reports which were in evidence here, that were submitted by Ding were addressed to Mrugowsky?
Now, I call your attention to the fact that on your distribution lists on Page 86 of the English in this report dated 5 May 1942, it is addressed to one Reich Leader, Dr. Conti, Berlin, Tiergartenstrasse. How did you happen to send it to Conti?
A. Conti caused it as the document shows.
Q. Well, then you don't exclude the possibility now that Mr. Conti was at the 29 December 1942 conference outlined by Ding, do you? You are reporting on the first experimental series conducted by Ding.
A. That Conti was present at this conference on the 29th of December is not true. He have three documents about this discussion, and not one of them says that Conti was there. It always lists the same people but never Conti. Only Bieber says -- and it was doubtless so -- that this discussion was held at the instigation of Conti; and from this document we see -- and that is the reason why my defense counsel submitted this document -- that I did not instigate it.
Q. Just a moment. I'm talking about the conference that you had in Schreiber's office as outlined by Ding and admitted by you as having been there with Schreiber and Gildemeister, Ding, and yourself in an interrogation, and now limiting it here in a cross examination to be only Schreiber, Gildemeister, and yourself.
Now, why did you send this report to Conti, inasmuch as it was the first experimental series of Ding? He was not Conti's subordinate? Why was Conti interested in this?
A. Because Conti instigated this series of experiments. Look at the first sentence of the document. It says on suggestion of the Reich Health Leader Dr. Conti, that he is the man responsible.
Q. And Ding states that Conti was at a meeting wherein it had been established that the need existed to test the efficacy of and the resistance of the human body to the spotted fever serum extracted from egg yolks; since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out.
Addressing this report to Conti fits pretty well into the Ding Diary, doesn't it? As a matter of fact, it coincides, doesn't it, Doctor?
A. If Ding talks about the conference on the 29th of December 1941 we know today from the evidence that his statement is untrue and that Conti definitely was not there; but if Ding is talking about some other conference, then, of course, it may be. I don't know what conferences Conti held. I have no idea. I had no official relations with him. At least on the 29th of December Conti was definitely not there; and Ding made a false entry, probably on the basis of misinformation. I don't know where he got the information.
Q. Well, now, going back to this report of yours, the second person that it is addressed to is the Reich Physician SS and Police Grawitz, Berlin, and Grawitz according to you assigned you the task of writing then. Why did you address him as a subsidiary addressee?
A. Yes, that is the distribution list, and every single letter that was sent out had a notation for the information of other people to received the letter and to have the information of all who had received it, since this letter concerning Grawitz primarily, of course, he had to get a carbon copy, and I already told you that it is my opinion that those experiences - these costly experiments - had to be given to the people who had official connections with the subject, and that is why there is such a long list of six persons to whom the letter was sent.
Q. Doctor, this is from the report of one Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky. Why did you prepare it for the signature of Grawitz if he assigned you the task of re-writing Ding's report so he could present it to other people in a more presentable manner? Why did you write it over your name and then address it to Grawitz, when you could have sent it to Grawitz for his signature, and had him address it to the original addresses? Is that a fact of an experience you could lose sight of, doctor?
A. That would have been quite possible.
Q. I think so.
A. That I had agreed with Grawitz with the work, that was not so. Grawitz had his associates sign all the letters with Reich Physician SS and Police, and it was signed "AB" which means "by order" (auf Befehl), or else the office of the SS-Fuehrer is mentioned, as in this case, and then it was written SS Chief Hygienist, and that is only signed at one end, the/name without the notation "by order", and then one had to send a copy to the Chief Hygienist for his private files.
Q. I won't labor on this point any further, doctor. You will notice on page 89 this signature on the page, and on this document there is no word there that states "by order". It is just signed "SS Obersturmbannfuehrer", is that right?