That is the general answer. As for the specific question - in Dachau I can say the following; That I had any legal duty or right to interfere by force I cannot imagine. In any case I could not got this idea from the situation. I had special permission -- I was so to speak a guest in the Dachau camp - and I had had to sign a paper saying I was under orders of the camp administration and SS courts, I had to submit to all orders and rulings dealing with the administration of the camp. I could not give orders to any one in the camp, either Rascher or a prisoner. I did not have any right to criticize any orders of the Camp Commandant or to change them or to object to them. I had no supervision over Rascher nor over the prisoners. But Rascher did have supervision over me within the concentration camp. Only in the course of performing our experiments for rescue from high altitude did I have a right to make suggestions and to give advice to Rascher and to our experiments, because of the two men, I had the more experience in this specific field and in that sense I could make suggestions to Rascher or give him advice as is customary among two scientists working together in the same field. And so I was able to arrange for our experimental subjects that I considered necessary and the ordinary performance of the experiments and insist how often they came or that their food should be good, etc. Now, if Rascher in experiments which he was ordered personally to perform for Himmler brought his own experimental subjects to the station, those were men who had been condemned to death or volunteers. If Rascher performed experiments with these men I could watch. I could even advise him to stop. I could point out a danger but I had no right to prevent him even if I had seen that he clearly intended to kill the experimental subjects.
If I had attempted to attack Rascher personally, or knocking him down, since he was a Luftwaffe officer be always carried a pistol he probably would have shot me or he could have had me arrested. In any case I could never have gotten out of the camp. I did not carry any weapons. As a civilian I didn't own one. I could never attack him personally.
The whole idea of an attack on Rascher seems to me too grotesque if I imagine, for instance, that a civilian comes into a research institute in the Luftwaffe, such as a low pressure chamber experiment with fatal results -- Ruff mentioned such experiments here yesterday, for example -- and then simply shoots at the man who has performed the experiment, and besides I should like to say that the whole problem now, looking back on it, looks quite different. The facts were that Rascher was performing experiments which had been ordered. He had the authorization from a competent man in the government. The subjects were volunteers; they had been promised that they would be pardoned. One can, with right, demand that a person object to the execution of a criminal order or to the execution of an order which he does not think is right, although the matter becomes difficult here because not every one is capable of judging every order, but one can hardly demand that a person attack some one else in order to prevent him from carrying out such an order, risking both his own life and the life of the other person. That personal cowardice played no role in my case, I should like to state expressly.
Q. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop Rascher's experiments and did you assume any danger and, if so, what?
A. What I did against Himmler's orders and against my signed promise to keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who passed the information on, was dangerous. One probably understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher's experiments. He confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the debates between Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the prisoners. The low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau, earlier than intended, at our instigation. Against Rascher's and Himmler's wishes it was never returned to Dachau. How great the efforts of the SS were in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with Wolf's telegram to Milch, the 12th of May, which is mentioned in Milch's letter of the 20th of May, Document 343A PS, Exhibit 62, which is denied in that letter.
In answer to further efforts from Himmler, Milch answers that the chamber is to remain two months longer in Dachau. Document 261, Exhibit 63. At this time, we had already removed the chamber. On the 5th of June, Rascher again writes to Himmler about the low pressure chamber. Document 284, Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of the 5th of June. The letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt, says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. There, there is a certain pause in Rascher's and Himmler's efforts, because Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. Rascher does not forget when the film is shown in Berlin in the Aviation Ministry to tell Milch again of his wishes in regard to the low pressure chamber, but hardly has the first phase of the cold experiments -- the series with Holzloehner -- been finished, and he writes on the 9th of October, Document 161 OPS, Exhibit 73 -- writes to Himmler again. He asks Himmler to get him the low pressure chamber so he can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. The letter of the 21st of October, 1942, Document 226, Exhibit 73, Sievers writes to Brandt about the continuation of the high altitude experiments which Himmler wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons, he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in order actually to get the chamber. This happens on the 27th of November, 1942, Document 269, Exhibit 78 -- a letter from Wolf to Milch, on behalf of Himmler. The request for the low pressure chamber, which is expressed in this letter, mentions the opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors and is given definite emphasis. I learned from a telephone call from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a low pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well that Rascher certainly didn't want to have this made public in any way.
Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of this call -- this whole matter-and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here yesterday. In an official letter to various SS Agencies, dated 13 December 1942, Document 1612 PS, Exhibit 79, Rascher is given the assignment to carry out high altitude experiments, by Himmler personally. On the 14th of March, 1943, Document No. 270, Exhibit 110, Rascher tells of his discussions with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low pressure chamber experiments, together with me, and finally, on the 18th of November, 1943, Document No. 1057, Exhibit 463, he tries, through the Reich Research Council, in agreement with Himmler, again to get a mobile low pressure chamber in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher's and Himmler's efforts and, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low pressure chamber at his disposal for experiments.
Q. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements?
A. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher's and Himmler's efforts were. That my conduct under these circumstances was not only cowardly, that it was much cleverer and much more successful. Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I had made the criminative attempt and the attempt which had no prospect of success to prevent him from carrying out these experiments, I would have been killed or locked up and Rascher would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without any restriction.
Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in what did you see such possibility?
A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, for a person who was able, immigration. Second, open resistance which meant concentration camp or death penalty, and to my knowledge, never had any success. Third, passive resistance, the apparent givingin, delaying orders, criticism among one's friends -- what the writers are now calling "inner immigration". But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.
As far as the direction question of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot imagine that, for example, an assistance of a scientist research worker who is performing infections with a fatal disease -- for example, leprosy -- on a prisoner, that the assistant should, by force, prevent the scientist from carrying out this infection. Perhaps, if ho didn't do that, the man might die in knocking the hypodermic syringe out of his hand. I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that, if there should be a trial against this doctor, it should be demanded that an assistant prevent the scientist from doing this.
Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible?
A. Yes.
Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or with the public prosecutor, against Rascher?
A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said: "Rascher has carried out experiments ordered by Himmler -by the Chief of the German Police and what else was he, Reichsfuehrer SS, State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior," they would probably have said: "Well, we can't do anything about it. If he has orders, then we can't do anything about it."
Q. Was Rascher under the jurisdiction of the civilian authorities?
A. No, he wasn't. As a Luftwaffe officer, he was, of course, under the Luftwaffe.
Q. Then you would have had to report him to his superior in the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, and I really did so through my private channels. I went to Ruff and told him about it and Ruff went to Hippke who was Chief of the Medical Service and, in a sense, the supreme superior of the Medical Officer Rascher.
Q. Mr. President, this might be a suitable time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, cam you advise the Tribunal as to how long you expect it will require to present your direct case in defense, concluding with this witness and any other witnesses you may have, and the documents you may desire to present?
DR. VORWERK: For the direct examination I will need about half an hour. There will be no other witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 2 May 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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 2 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges, of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshall, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary-general will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness, according to a note filed by the prison physician. The Secretary-General will file the note.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. HANS ROMBERG - Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the Defendant Romberg):
Q Mr. Romberg, yesterday you answered to my last question, why it was impossible for you by using force to oppose Rascher's experiments and to prove that there would have been no purpose in denouncing him to the Reich authorities. I would now like to ask you, assuming the case you would find yourself in a similar position today, would you take the same attitude as you did then?
A That is, of course, extremely difficult because the conditions are different now. I know Rascher--I know the whole situation. I have of course, often thought about that point. If, my present knowledge, I were again put in the same situation, I am certain that I would act differently.
I would probably go to Berlin after the death and report it, and then I would go home, get a medical certificate saying that I was sick, and write to Dachau and say that I could not come back. What Rascher did then and how the experiments turned out the main thing would be I would be out of it, then I would probably save myself the one and half years in prison and the trial.
Q Is that your true opinion?
A If I think over what I said one of course often imagines that, but I really don't believe I would do that because one can't act against one's inner convictions. I would probably not take this cold calculating point of view and let everything take its course. I would probably go back just the way I did and carry out the experiments, see to it that the chamber could be take away. I would probably do everything just the way I did it then.
MR. HARDY: Your honor, I don't believe the Tribunal is particularly interested in what the Defendant Romberg thought he would have done under the same circumstances if they arose again. This is purely speculative.
THE PRESIDENT: Objections by counsel for the prosecution appears to be well taken. What have you to say counsel?
DR. VORWERK: The defendant has been asked what attitude he would take if he were faced with the same situation which he faced at the time. The Defendant has answered that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to pursue this line any further?
DR. VORWERK: No, he has answered the question.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Proceed.
BY DR. VORWERK (Continuing):
Q Witness, in this court mention has been made that in the course of the high-altitude experiments several visits were paid by some SS officers; were you present in Dachau when these visits occurred?
A The visits in Dachau that I remember are the visits of Grawitz the Reichsartz of the Police, and the visits of Sievers which Sievers has already mentioned here.
And I also know that Himmler was there, that was on Sunday and I was not there that day but later, of course, I was told all about it.
Q Was that the only visit you can recall?
A The only visit of Himmler's, or do you mean the only visit-
Q The only visit by higher SS officers.
A I do not remember any other visits.
Q Your co-defendant Sievers testified here that while he was there he noticed that an experimental subject during the experiments pointed to his ear in order to indicate that the experimental subject suffered from pains in the ear, thereupon, you produced a different altitude. Do you recall that incident, and what have you to say about that?
A It was a sign which we had agreed upon, that they should point to the ear there if they had earache, perhaps during the descent, and that was probably what happened during this visits of Sievers. We always made the descent slower or went up a little again in order to do away with the complaint.
Q Why do you particularly remember that incident while Sievers was there?
A Rascher wanted the descent to be rapid and I stopped it on purpose, and he told me liter, when visitors are there that has to be done quickly and I said, "Whether we have visitors there, or Sievers or somebody else, that makes no difference, the experiments has to be carried out in the same way."
Q At that time when this incident happened did Rascher reproach you for bad conduct or something like that?
A He possibly held the point of view that when we had visitors I had to make the experiments faster so to say considering the fact that we had visitors at the experiments, but I refused to do so.
Q What did he mean by you should do in taking the visitors into considerations?
A The experiment was to be carried out as quickly as possible, while I held the point of view that the experiment is the main thing and the visitor has to look at the experiment and watch it in the form in which it is always carried out. After all, these were not demonstrations.
Q Another subject now, what attitude did you take after the Dachau experiments, what was your position with the DVL after the Dachau experiments?
AAt first I was a scientific co-worker just as I had been before. Our department for aviation medicine was expanded gradually and became an institute, and in 1943 I became section chief in the section for high altitude.
Q Today, do you still think that the experiments were at that time important?
A Yes absolutely. Recently, I accidently obtained proof that this opinion is still correct today. I read an article about a new aviation experiment of a plane with a rocket propeller.
Q May it please the Court, at this point I would like to offer Romberg Document 5, Romberg Exhibit No. 5, an article from "Life" magazine under the heading, "Scientists Prepare to Fly Faster Than Sound." This is the issue of Life Magazine of 20 January 1947. This should serve as evidence for the fact that in aviation under post-war conditions similar problems are regarded as important, just as were the problems for which these experiments to rescue people from high altitude.
MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, it is my understanding that the evidence of this nature will be offered at a later date and will be acted on at that time by the Tribunal.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, may it please the court, in this case this is not an experiment made abroad and about which the court has already ruled. This is not an experiment at all; this is merely to show the fact that a certain problem exists.
MR. HARDY: That being the case, Your Honor, I strenuously object to the statements of the defense counsel and this Document as being absolutely immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of common knowledge of which the court will take judicial notice that the experiments in connection with planes to attain speed and velocity by machines heavier than air is being pursued by scientists everywhere. That is a matter of common knowledge of which the court will take judicial notice. Counsel may offer this exhibit, it will be received, but the court will take judicial notice of this, as it is common knowledge that everyone knows. The document offered will be submitted, but the exhibit should not be read, it should merely be an exhibit and placed in the record.
DR. VORWERK: I did not intend at all, sir, to read the Document.
Dr. Romberg, what do you have to say about the fact of the importance of your experiments connected with this article in "Life?"
A There is a similarity between this described new plane and the Me 163, which was the main occasion for our experiments, since it is also a plan with a rocket drive and thus independent of altitude. It is characteristic that in these new planes, just as at that time with our Me 163 great hopes are set in the beginning for future accomplishments. The speed of up to 1,700 miles is mentioned and the pressure cabin, which is equiped and is built for an altitude of 80,000 feet too. The possibility to reach this altitude is already given and depends only on the supply of fuel. The American Aviation medicine has now reached the same point, which we reached at that time. The Me 163 for us was out of the experimental stage and the American experts on aviation medicine, if they have not already done so, will no doubt be studying the possibility of rescue from high altitude and high speed.
The necessity of rescue from high speed is mentioned specifically in this article and the difficulty involved.
Q Dr. Romberg, the necessity to carry out such experiments, is that not shown also by the Prosecution Document No. 289, Exhibit 72?
THE PRESIDENT: What Document book is it?
DR. VORWERK: Prosecution Document bock 2.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page?
DR. VORWERK: It is on page 106 of the English version, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: This is the letter, which Hippke wrote to Himmler after the experiments were completed, in which he discusses the result. He emphasizes that the experiments were valuable and important in their results. He says, it is true, that cold was net considered in this matter, which involves an increased burden. We ourselves undertook these cold experiments later and further one of the most important results of our report was that in rescue from these high altitude one should prefer rescue with a closed parachute and for the same reason, it is suggested, or rather demanded, that the parachute be equiped with a blocking equipment for high altitude, so that it cannot be opened accidentally or intentionally after leaving the plane. In the second place, it is demanded in the case the parachutor becomes unconscious and does not regain consciousness in time, there will be an automatic device steered barometrically to open the parachute at an altitude between 4,000 and 6,000 meters. The matter of cold does not play any great role in this because the time speed in these high altitudes, where the temperature is very low, is very slow, 10 seconds per 1,000 meters. Aside for possible local freezing of the face, for example, no serious damage from the cold can be expected.
BY DR. VORWERK:
Q Witness, a few questions on your reporting to Himmler during that conference.
Was there any reference made to those experiments which Rascher made on his own in Dachau?
A No, at least not in my presence.
Q Did Rascher have any other conferences with Himmler apart from the one where you were present?
A Yes, on the next morning, Rascher talked to him again. I was not present.
Q Do you know what problems or orders Rascher wanted Himmler to give him in the field of high altitude research?
A When we visited the Headquarters, Himmler had spoken of the continuation of the high altitude experiments. What was intended and the details. One can no doubt see most clearly from this Document Exhibit 79, Document Bock 2, Document 1612-PS. That is the official assignment, which Himmler gave to Rascher to carry out a certain series of experiments.
It says among other things and I quote:
"SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher is being assigned by me to carry through the following experiments:
"(1) Low pressure chamber experiments, to be carried out under conditions corresponding to those actually prevailing under normal operating conditions, for rescue from high and extremely high altitudes. Determination of changes in chemical equilibrium, as well as gas equilibrium of human body. Experiments are to be repeated until a scientifically incontestable basis for findings is established. Testing or pressure-proof protection garments for the highest altitudes to be carried out with the assistance of manufacturers of such protective suits."
This shows that Rascher performed very extensive assignments and Rascher no doubt intended to carry out the experiments. He, of course, did not know the details.
Q. Did Rascher ever tell you in what fields he was working? I mean as far as high altitude experiments were concerned.
A. While we were at Dachau?
Q. While you worked at Dachau on your experiments to rescue people from high altitudes.
A. No, he never said anything definite. He did say that in the case of Benz he wanted to clear up with KG but, of course, he did not give me any details about his answer.
Q. Witness, whom among your co-defendants did you know in 1945, at the beginning of 1945?
A. By name, Professor Brandt, Professor Handloser, Professor Rostock. Professor Schroeder I knew because he had visited us at the DVL once or twice. I did not know Dr. Genzken; Professor Gebhardt, Professor Blome by name; Dr. Mrugowsky a little; Poppendick not at all; Professor Rose by name, I met him at meetings. Dr. Ruff was my chief. I did not know Mr. Brack. Dr. Becker-Freyseng I knew from aviation medicine work which he did with Professor Strughold, and Professor Weltz I knew.
Of the other four and. Dr. Oberheuser I knew no one.
Q. With whom did you have official relations?
A. I had official relations in aviation medicine with Dr. Ruff, of course; at times with Becker-Freyseng, also in the way of conversations. I didn't have direct official relations with Dr. Schroeder but he was on official business when he visited our institute, and I met Professor Weltz in 1942.
Q. Which of the experiments discussed here were known to you when you were arrested?
A. When I was arrested the high altitude experiments, of course, and the cold experiments.
Q. When you say the "cold experiments", do you mean to say that the fact that cold experiments were carried out was known to you, or do you want to say it was known to you to what extent and in what manner they were carried out?
A. As to the extent and exact manner I knew nothing. My knowledge is based on the conference in Nuernberg and on the fact that I had heard that cold experiments were to be carried out.
Q. So you took part in the Nuernberg conference, did you?
A. Yes, I spoke about that yesterday already.
Q. Did you take part in any other meetings in Berlin, St. Johann, Hohenlychen, or anywhere else?
A. No, I did not attend any meetings of consulting physicians or any meetings which have been discussed here. The other meetings were internal meetings of the Luftwaffe doctors which took Place from tine to time.
Q. Now, a final question. Why did you sign a report together with a man like Rascher?
A. I have been asked the very same question by Professor Alexander why I signed a report together with a criminal like Rascher. I may say several things on that. The picture of Rascher as a criminal is clear today. For me at the time Rascher's personality and his position, how ever, were not so clear from the legal and from a moral point of view.
We repudiated Rascher's experiments inwardly. What we did not like was the fact that he undertook human experiments on questions which in our opinion were not of the highest importance and not of decisive practical importance, and also in these experiments he did not proceed with the necessary care and caution, so that death occurred. Therefore, we not only repudiated the experiments inwardly, but we also repudiated them externally, that is, we refused to cooperate with Rascher any further. But this was merely our personal opinion and was also the basis of our private attitude toward him. According to knowledge of literature about experiments on human beings in all countries, I today have the personal opinion that in a number of cases the experiments were sometimes unnecessary and that some cases of death could have been avoided; that many a piece of work was not well enough prepared and was not limited to what was absolutely necessary. But from this subjective attitude to advance to the objective verdict that a certain scientist was a criminal, that was a great and decisive step, and so I signed the report together with Rascher. Ruff did not have any misgivings either against countersigning this scientifically correct report and making the results available for further developments. Today I am actually glad I did so for it is the clearest proof of the separation of the Rascher experiments from ours. It is very difficult if one has only the prosecution documents and prosecution witnesses with which to conduct one's defense, and if this report were not available one of the most important proofs against the serious charges would be missing.
Q. For the time being I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by defense counsel?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for the defendants Schroeder and BeckerFreyseng.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, in this trial you gave an affidavit which was submitted by the prosecution as evidence. It is contained in Document Book No. 2 on page 1 of the text. It is Document No. 476, Exhibit 40. Do you have the document at your disposal?
A. Yes.
Q. I would now ask you to look at figure 8 in this document. There you said:
"After the low pressure experiments were completed, Dr. Rascher and I made a report which was approved by Ruff and signed by the three of us. This was circulated to all interested offices in the Luftwaffe. In my opinion, Dr. Anthony of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe must also have received a copy of this report. I do not remember if Becker-Freyseng was with the Medical Inspectorate at that time but if he was he certainly knew that these experiments were being conducted."
Now, of course, we know, witness, that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was in the Medical Inspectorate from 1941 on as an assistant expert. Therefore, it might be possible that from that affidavit the prosecution might draw the conclusion that Dr. Becker knew of these experiments and reports. Therefore, I would like to ask you, witness, do you have any factual proof and real knowledge of the fact that Dr. Becker-Freyseng in fact knew of these experiments and above all of this particular report?
A. No, I have no positive knowledge to that effect. In the interrogation I was asked whether the report - whether a copy of the report was sent to the Medical Inspectorate and I was convinced of this fact--
Q. May I interrupt you a moment, witness. You say you were "convinced" of that fact that this report was sent to the Medical Inspectorate, but did you actually positively know it?
A. No, I did not see the distribution list itself when it was finally approved by the Aviation Ministry and I want to say that if the report was sent to the Aviation Ministry then it was certainly sent to the Department for Aviation Medicine and the expert of this depart ment would certainly have learned about it.
I said especially that Dr. Anthony probably received it. I do not remember whether Becker-Freyseng was in the Medical Inspectorate at that time. I did not remember at that time that Becker-Freyseng was working with Anthony, was Anthony's assistant in the Medical Inspectorate at one time. I thought that if this Anthony had been an expert he would have learned of it, but if Becker-Freyseng had been an expert he would have learned of it, but I knew that at that time he was an assistant expert while I had assumed that Dr. Anthony was not there at all.
Q. Therefore, you were saying, witness, that you merely assumed this fact here?
A. Yes.
Q. Then may I ask you in the same document and in tho same paragraph under Figure 8; please look at tho last sentence. There you say, Dr. Oskar Schroeder in 1942 was tho second-highest ranking officer in the medical service of the Luftwaffe, and probably he also know of these experiments, although I personally never talked to him about them.
I should say from this very formulation you have no positive knowledge of the fact whether or not Prof. Schroeder knew anything about this business. Is that correct?
A. Yes, what I meant to say by this formulation which I worked out after considerable discussion in the interrogation, I adopted this formulation on purpose. "He probably know about these experiments" but in order to say that I had no positive personal knowledge-- I said that I personally never talked to him about the matter, that I knew nothing positive.
Q. Thank you very much.
DR. TIPP: May it please the Court, the Defense Counsel for Weltz is not present today. He asked me to put the questions on behalf of his client, and I would like to obtain your permission for this.
THE PRESIDENT: The permission is granted.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, on behalf of defendant Weltz I still would like to go into your affidavit. I would now like you to go back to the first page of your affidavit. I am interested here in Figure 2. There you speak first of all about the time when the experiments were conducted in Dachau, and what was their purpose.