I do not deny that some of the documents submitted here by the prosecution went through my hands, but I do deny - and I pray the Tribunal may believe me - that I knew the contents of the documents, particularly the reports and therefore the essential core of the human experiments.
I know that appearances are against me. Only these external appearances led the prosecution to indict me in this trial and to pass their comment on me during their closing speech, without penetrating to the bottom of matters. This way they arrived at a completely wrong appraisal which does not correspond to the facts and overrates my position and my activities.
These appearances which speak against me will be dispelled as soon as my real position will be considered in which I found myself as so-called personal referent of Himmler for many years. On the witness stand I testified to the truth, which has been confirmed by witnesses who knew the real facts from their own experience.
It does not run counter experience that among thousands of incoming and outgoing items of mail - that is, hundreds of thousands during the course of the years - there should be an insignificantly small number of documents which a personal referent passes on to third persons without knowing their contents more closely. The more so if they concern matters which have nothing to do with the normal duties of the personal referent.
I believe that an American tribunal will know how to appraise the foregoing, though I am rather afraid that the situation as it existed in Germany during the years before the collapse and prevailed in high government agencies will never really be brought home to American judges.
Therefore, I deny to myself to discuss again my position at that time and the ignorance of criminal experiments on human beings which was the consequence thereof. In this respect I agree with my defense counsel. Neither need I fear Professor Ivy's statement who declared that even a layman must be outraged by reading the reports of Rascher, because the fact that the layman has read the passages of the reports where from the obvious violation of human dignity is evident was, as a matter of fact, the natural prerequisite for Professor Ivy's opinion, and that prerequisite did not exist in my case.
In accordance with the truth I repeat what I have said in the witness stand, that I had a general knowledge of experiments on human beings. I can no longer say when and on what particular opportunity I gained that knowledge. But this fact alone does not deserve death, because I never had the feeling that I had participated in such crimes by my activity in the Personal Referat.
Such a knowing participation demands that the personal referent knows the contents and the import of Himmler's letters, orders, etc. and passes them on in spite of his knowledge of the contents and their import. I just said that appearances are against me, but I believe I did prove that I did not possess that knowledge. I pray the Tribunal to follow the line of this evidence and, I think, this is not asking too much since the experience of everyday life speaks in my favor.
The various affidavits which I have submitted and which were the subject of excited argument have found their explanation. In some points I have learned and I have tried to correct my mistakes. I did not want to speak an untruth knowingly which might be detrimental or favorable to a third person. I ask the Tribunal not to forget that I was in a very low general condition when I signed these affidavits. Only a few months previously I weighed only forty-four kilograms; consequently my mental power was reduced to a minimum.
During my activities which stretched over many years I exclusively acted on the express orders of Himmler without ever making a decision on my own initiative. I may take it that this fact has fully been proved.
The question what attitude I should have assumed had I known the details of inhuman experiments I can only answer in a hypothetical way. Had I had only a rough knowledge, as I have it today, I would have resisted to pass on such an order by virtue of my general view on questions of humanity.
Since, however, I did not have that knowledge it could not come to any resistance on my part. I asked to take into consideration that during all those years, I regarded matters which were in my field from my own point of view, and tried to live up to my own ideals. I saw my duty in carrying out my task faithfully and in the conduct of a clean, personal life.
I also intended to make sure that I would not cause any damage to any human being, but to try to understand the situation of a person in need of help, and then to help in a manner as I would have wished to be helped or treated if I was in his position.
I would remind you of the statement of the witness Meiner, on page 4919 of the German translation of the 21 March 1947, about the fact that my signatures are on the documents which have been submitted by the prosecution. That fact has moved me deeply because my entire view of humanity and the principles of humanity is quite opposed to that. What I understand by humanity, also applies and begins to apply to the details of life.
In spite of my good intentions, and that I say in answer to a question put in the beginning - in spite of my good intentions I was drawn into a guilt - I see it as a guilt, into which human beings can be involved by tragic circumstances without any intention on their part, but to recognize this guilt was sufficient to upset me deeply.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Poppendick.
DEFENDANT POPPENDICK: I joined the SS at a time not to commit crimes, but the reason was that a number of individuals whom I knew to be idealists among my friends were members of the SS. Their membership caused me to join. That I thereby became a member of a criminal organization was unimaginable for me at that time, just as it is incomprehensible for me today. My activity in the Rasse und Siedlungs Amt (race and resettlement office) was devoted to the problem of the family, an activity which in view of the destructive tendencies during the period of the first World War seemed important to me.
If my expectations as a physician were disappointed in more than one point, at least I considered myself justified to hope that in the end this activity would have positive results. The intentions were always toward a constructive policy for the good of the family. Never did I have anything to do with negative population policies, not even outside of policies of a legal nature, as the sterilization program of the State.
The assertion of the prosecution that positive and negative population policies belong in the same chapter, just as the two different sides and possibilities of one program, is erroneous. Then there were purely organizational reasons which brought about my direct subordination under the office of that man whose name today has such an inhuman sound - I mean Grawitz.
The impression which the prosecution ha.s rendered of my activity and position in Grawitz' office is not in accordance with the facts, in spite of some features which seem to support the assertion made by the prosecution .
As for medical experiments on inmates - experiments on human beings were nothing surprising to me, nor anything new. I knew that experiments were carried on in clinics. I knew that the modern achievements of medical science had not been brought about without sacrifices.
However, I do not recall that the fact of voluntary experimental subjects had to be an absolute requirement, as it seems to be considered as a matter of fact, according to the discussions in this trial. I knew furthermore, that some scientific problems can only be solved by experiments in series with conditions remaining constant, and that therefore soldiers and particularly soldiers in camps are used for experiments in all countries.
Under these circumstances it did not appear surprising to me that during the war scientists also Carried out experiments in series in concentration camps. I did not have the least Cause to assume that these scientists in the camps would go beyond the scope of that which otherwise everywhere in the world of science was customary.
What I knew about medical experiments in the SS was, in my opinion not at all connected with criminal matters, not any more than those experiments about which I knew from my clinical experience before 1933.
In March of this year a young doctor, Dr. Mitchelich, in a very one-sided way, published a book containing the indictment, "The Dictates of Contempt for Human Life". The problem found in this book, is the basis for an opinion, of course, and the basis for a verdict seemed to be quite clearly offered.
During the very last days, however, the Chief of Dr. Mitchelich, a well-known Professor from Heidelberg, Weizaeker, published a study on the principle questions belonging to the subject under the title "Euthanasia and Experiments on Human Beings", which he had submitted to the defendants. But here now we find an entirely different language. The problem itself becomes obvious. If one reads this booklet then the extent of that entire problem can be seen, and its complicated features.
The oath of Hypocrates, according to Weizaecker, has nothing to do with the problem. Weizaecker applies entirely different ethical norms. Rightly the spirit of medicine of Germany, or of Germany under Hitler. It is found, therefore, that experts who consider themselves competent even today, are right in the middle of their endeavor to clarify the problems at the basis, that being the first requirement for their solution.
Before this trial all of these matters were no problems for me. I did not know of any transgressions. Moreover, I was always convinced that anything which came to my knowledge about experiments on human beings in clinics of the state before 1933, and within the scope of the SS in later years, were conscientious efforts of serious scientists to the good of mankind.
The ethical foundation of these matters also seemed to be there until this trial. Therefore, after sincere examination of my conscience, I cannot find any feeling of guilt and expect with a clear conscience, the verdict of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Sievers.
DR. SIEVERS: Your Honors, in his opening plea, my defense counsel already stated quite openly and frankly that all events were going to be presented with which I was in any way connected, and in this hour which is so important to me, I can state to the best of my conscience that when I furnished my defense counsel with information, and during my own examination on the witness stand, I always spoke the full truth. I have, in fact, had the satisfaction to see that my testimony was confirmed by a witness for the prosecution. During my examination as a witness on the stand, I said quite truthfully that the experimental subjects to whom I had talked in connection with the last experiment in Natzweiler had confirmed to me that they were voluntary subjects.
Witness Nalles, witness for the prosecution, confirmed my testimony during his examination on the 30th of June in this courtroom, record page 10593.
With regard to the charge of participation in the malaria experiments, I have stated that I had nothing to do with malaria experiments.
Witness Vieweg called by the prosecution, confirmed this testimony of mine. Likewise witness Stoehr, pages 495 and 638 of the record.
I testified that the two experimented subjects whom I met in connection with the altitude experiments, in reply to a question of me, confirmed specifically that they had volunteered.
Witness Neff of the prosecution confirms this voluntary status of the witnesses, page 657 of the record. Likewise Dr. Romberg during his direct examination stated on the strength of his owm knowledge that my testimony was correct.
The only experimental subject whom I met in connection with the typhus experiments answered my definite question regarding the voluntary act of the witness that this was so. The testimony of myself was confirmed through the affidavit of a former prisoner, a witness Grunzenhuber contained in my second document book.
The prosecution says that they charged me with having placed myself at the disposal of IMT on the behalf of the SS. This was rather a peculiar statement considering my own defense in this trial. I said when I was on the stand that without my own initiative, in fact against my own will the defense counsel for the SS called me in order to use me as a witness.
Attorney Pelckmann, then defense counsel of the SS has confirmed the correctness of the statements of mine in an affidavit. According to that, I immediately informed Pelckmann at the time in writing regarding my former membership of the resistance movement against the national socialist regime and told him I was not a suitable witness. At the same time I had also a copy of my letter, in which I placed myself at the disposal of the International Military Tribunal through ISD as early as the 20th of December, 1945, as the record shows. IMT shows on page 14929.
I have stated my regrets on this same witness stand that my preparedness to aid justice and to help in prosecuting past crimes was not accepted and that considerable evidence was thus destroyed.
As early as August last year, I furnished the prosecution with a report about my activities in the resistance movement, indicating again my willingness. This was passed over, however, when I stated that I was not prepared to sign affidavits which were not completely true.
I openly and frankly stated at that point that I lacked the understanding for this action. I had to do this, and I could do it because I had been looking for truth and right at the risk of my life, undaunted, and even during the time of tyranny. Was one now to be a collaborator in methods which I thought had passed with the National Socialist Regime? And which, as remains my firm conviction, would never lead to a true pacification of this world such as we all desire. I am mentioning this with regret and only because I have always claimed that I myself, and my statements, during responsible times, deserve to be believed. The Prosecution did not only feel in a position to doubt my credibility, but they even consented to call me a liar during their argument, against their better knowledge and their better conscience. Consequently, I had to draw your attention to the testimony of various witnesses which confirmed, in full, my testimony on the stand in such complicated matters. I can truly be satisfied that it was not up to me, but to the Prosecution witnesses, to contradict the incorrect statements made against me. History will honor such action, and judge the persistent attempt to stick to pre-conceived ideas. There is no blessing connected with it. I'm only sorry for those who are misguided by false ideas. My firm conviction that this high Tribunal will fully believe my testimony during my examination is based on these facts. In this connection, with reference to the experiences which I have just described, I am forced to say that on the other hand it was quite inspiring confidence to see which wisdom and patience inspired my judges. This Tribunal stood above matters and disclosed a conduct of trial in which one could feel sheltered; all my friends, who fought in the secret resistance movement with me and attended this trial repeatedly in the audience, share with me the sentiments. I have explained to you, Your Honors, for what reasons I was in immediate, direct contact with the NSDAP and the SS. I have told you how I always tried to prevent the application of medical research to the Ahnenerbe. This attempt failed, due to the ambitious attitude of Himmler.
Only on the strength of my own feelings had I to find an attitude with regard to this new question of experiments on human beings. I did not approve of them, and I attempted to take the consequence, which could only be that I immediately resigned from my post as the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe. I think the testimony of the Witness Hilscher, in this stand, and the affidavits from Witness Deutelmoser, Witness Dellmann, Witness Schmitz, and others prove beyond doubt that I had the true intention of resigning from the Ahnenerbe. And these witnesses have also clearly testified why I didn't do so, not because of personal ambition, not for reasons of comfort, or for what other low reasons might be attributed to me in this point. It was due to the persistent urging on the part of my political friends that I remained, in order to serve the task I have fought for. It had taken me to the NSDAP and the SS, but I refused to be a follower of the NSDAP and the policies which they represented. On the outside I had to live up to the name of a National Socialist, if I was to hold up the political ideal to which I had devoted myself since 1929 and not to endanger it. In his affidavit, and it is in my appendix to my document No. 1, Witness Niebhausen, who was the most important member in the circle of the secret German resistance, and who has acted on behalf of Dr. Kempner too, and who is obviously a personality beyond reproach, says that his illegal activity which continued for five years would have been quite impossible without my assistance. I do, in deed, not know what the Prosecution is prepared to recognize as being the fight against the Nazi Regime. Even such activities as these cannot be eliminated as a fact. It is not necessary to read all the details which have been testified to in this Courtroom. That in true recognition of the consequences which might be daily expected for myself and my family I devoted myself to resistance, continued in it undaunted, and never abandoned it, is now the only reason why I find myself in this dock. For that reason, I look forward to the judgment of this Tribunal with confidence, due to my conviction that I have lived for a good cause and acted on it, on behalf of something which at the time, as a matter of fact today, filled me with true belief.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Rose.
DEFENDANT ROSE: Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the scientists who are among the defendants in this trial are confronted with a principal difficulty, the fact that purely scientific questions have been made political, ideological questions by the Prosecution. In the opening speech by the Chief of Counsel, General Taylor, the political and ideological nature of the indictment has been expressed as clearly as possible. Subject of the personal charges against myself is my attitude toward experiments on human beings ordered by the State and carried out by other German scientists in the field of typhus and malaria. Works of that nature have nothing to do with politics or with ideology, but they serve the good of humanity, and the same necessities can be seen independently of any political ideology everywhere where the same dangers of epidemics have to be combated. Just as in the case of malaria experiments malaria research has to make experiments with human beings, in the same way malaria scientists of various nations had to carry out experiments on human beings. Just as Klaus Schilling, with his own initiative, but with the approval of competent authorities of the State, was compelled to undertake human experiments, before and after him malaria researchers of various nationalities were compelled to make human experiments. Just as Haagen, out of his own initiative and with the approval of the competent State authorities, tested the value of a new, living typhus vaccine, before him that was done in the course of fighting plague by this great co-patriot, Richard B. Strong, when he experimented on natives of the Philippines, who were not American citizens, and when he did so with the approval of your Government. Just as Dr. Ding, on the instruction of the highest and decisive authorities of the German civilian health administration, tested the value of the typhus vaccine on humans in times of greatest typhus danger.
Others have done so before him in less pressing emergencies, in part upon the instruction of their governments. From the witness stand I testified about the actual role which I played in regard to the charges of human experiments with malaria and typhus. And I have explained from the witness stand the legal evaluation of my actions, and they have been submitted to you by my Defense Counsel Dr. Fritz. I need not add anything to it. But my attitude towards the experiments on human beings in medical research, as a matter of principle, I stated probably not only in this Courtroom, but also when the National Socialist German Government was at the height of its limitless power. At that time I was cut short by a man, Professor Schreiber, who about a year ago in this very Courtroom, claimed to be a defender of medical ethics. The fact is undoubted that human experiments, which were exactly the same as those, the participation in which I am unjustly charged with, have been carried out in other countries, above all, in the United States which has indicted me. That has led the Prosecution to place to proper point of its charges upon the outside conditions of the persons put at the disposal for experiments. In that connection the question of fact whether they were voluntary was put in the foreground. I shall not discuss the question as to what extent the doctor who is charged with the experiments is responsible for these external, formal questions, at least a doctor who was so far removed from the experiments themselves as I was. But in connection with the principal question of subjects' being volunteers, I have to make a few statements. A trial of this kind presents probably the most unsuitable atmosphere to discuss questions of medical ethics. But since these questions have been raised here, they have to be answered. Everyone who, as a scientist, has an insight into the history of the dangerous medical experiments, knows with certainty the following fact. Aside from the self-experiments of doctors, which represent a very small minority of such experiments, the extent to which subjects are volunteers is often deceptive. At the very best they amount to self-deceit on the part of the physician who conducts the experiment, but very frequently to a mis-leading of the public.
In the majority of such cases, if we ethically examine facts, we find an exploitation of the ignorance, of the economic distress or another emergency on the part of experimental subjects. I may only refer to the example which was presented to the Tribunal by Mr. Ivy when he presented the forms for American malaria experiments.
You yourselves, gentlemen of the Tribunal, are in a position to examine whether, on the basis of the information contained in these forms, individuals of an average education of an inmate of a prison can form a sufficiently clear opinion of the risks of an experiment made with pernicious malaria. These facts will be confirmed by any sincere and decent scientist in a personal conversation, though he would not like to make such a statement in public. That I myself am, on principle, an opponent of the idea of dangerous experiments on human beings is known to you gentlemen of the Tribunal and proved by others than myself.
The state, however, or any human community which, in the interest of the well being of the entire community, did not want to forego the experiments on human beings, does only base itself on ethical principles as long as it assumes the full responsibility which arises therefrom. And if it imposes sacrifices on enemies of society to stone for their crimes and does not cover behind the method of a make believe principle of voluntary submission which imposes the risk of the experiment on the experimental subjects who are not in a position to foresee the consequences.
The prosecutor in his plea criticized the submission of affidavits during the presentation of evidence on the part of the defense. The difficulties which exist for a defendant in prison in Germany of today to acquire other documents are almost prohibitive. In order to give an example, when the malaria experiments of Schilling's were discussed, the prosecution, among other material, submitted to the Tribunal an excerpt from the well known Dachau sentence; concerning the facts stated -- the statements contained therein about the number of victims in these experiments, I have stated here in the witness box that I rather sit there as a defendant than to put my signature on the opinion which would confirm these statements. How right I was in making that statement can be seen from a letter by Professor Allenby of the University of London which unfortunately, has been received only now by my defense counsel, in which he termed the statement that 300 experimental subjects had died, a grotesque untruth.
My defense counsel in his final plea has quoted the passage of that letter. The prosecution at that time when the excerpt of the Dachau sentence was submitted, promised that the entire files of the Dachau trial would be put at our disposal. Unfortunately, all my efforts to gain an insight in these files until this moment have been in vain.
When Under-Secretary Conti during the war was toying with the idea to commission Professor Schilling, who was at that time in Italy, with malaria research in German, I, at that time, Chief of the Tropical Medical Institute, Department of the Robert Koch Institute, was assigned by the Reich Ministry of the Interior at first to give an opinion. In this opinion, for reasons which I have explained in the witness box, I rejected Schilling's plan. Had one followed my advice, the experiments by Schilling in Dachau would never have taken place. In the course of these proceedings I made all efforts to come into the possession of that opinion but in this case also I was unsuccessful, although that opinion in two copies is in the hands of the military Government, possibly even in this building.
Also, in vain, I attempted to get the file note, so important for my defense, which I dictated to the witness Brock about my conferences with Under-Secretary Conti and President Gildemeister, after I had gained knowledge about the conduct of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald, what little correspondence I had with Professor Haagen is apparently entirely in the hands of the prosecution. In spite of that, it has been submitted only in part to you. That fact offered an opportunity to the prosecution to interpret passages taken out of the context incorrectly. Unfortunately, I have no opportunity to force anyone to submit the missing documents which would clarify matters in my favor.
To evaluate the work of Haagen, and my defense counsel has pointed that out already, the statement of an unbiased expert would have been of decisive importance.
Therefore, I can only regret that the interrogation of the Frenchman Georges Blanc, which I suggested and who has the best knowledge in this field, did not take place, although he had volunteered to appear before this Tribunal as an expert.
Professor Lecrout, Director of the Institute Pastor in Paris, during this trial was frequently in Nurnberg. After an interview, the prosecution refrained from calling him as an expert witness to clarify some difficult questions resulting from the work of Haagen. I ask the High Tribunal to draw its conclusions from these facts and to assure that the lack of those pieces of evidence, which I cannot effect, should not result in a damage to my interests.
Prosecutor McHaney has explained in his plea that one still had to find that doctor among the defendants who would have subjected himself to such experiments as are covered by the indictment here. I do not feel that that concerns me, not only from the statement which I have made here before you but also from my case history which was available to the authorities of the prison before I was submitted to that indictment.
It can be seen that not only as an experimental subject I put myself at the disposal of experiments to evaluate vaccines but that frequently I gave myself infectious injections with cholera, typhus, malaria and hepatitis epidemica and that, in part, I am still suffering from the consequences.
Finally, the Prosecutor McHaney has asserted in his plea that all of those indicted here are guilty of murder, and that includes me too. If the Tribunal was to look at the problem at hand from this point of view, I would regret to have said a single word in my defense. However, if you believe me that in all actions of mine which have been discussed here, I was only moved by sincere devotion to duty, then I put my fate with confidence into your hands.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ruff.
DR. RUFF: As far as the written and oral statements of my defense counsel are concerned which real with the points of indictment and as far as my activities as a doctor and scientist is concerned, I have nothing or hardly anything to add.
I can only repeat today what I said at the end of my examination when I was on the stand. After detailed inquiry into my conscience, I still today hold the belief that I never sinned against my duty as a man and as a doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Brock.
DR. BROCK: Your Honor, in 1929, I joined the NSDAP when more than six million German voters were already backing Hitler. His later successes during the years of peaceful reconstruction consolidated my conviction that he had forever liberated Germany from the misery in which it seemed to have fallen. For all those years, therefore, I had no reason to have any misgivings with regard to Hitler's personality and thus I also believed in the legality of the euthanasia decree as emanated directly from the head of the state. The state officials and doctors, competent for mo at that time, told me that the euthanasia had always been an endeavor of mankind and was morally as well as medically justified. Therefore, I never doubted the legal character of the euthanasia decree.....
In this connection, however, I was assigned duties, the extent and importance of which I could not foresee. Neither my training nor my qualifications sufficed for this task. Nobody can deny, however my good faith in its justification, I frankly admitted what I did in the framework of the euthanasia measures and tried to prove that my collaboration was merely of a subordinate nature and exclusively directed by human aspects. I cannot be made responsible for later actions carried out by other officers and without my knowledge. These were the measures which I deeply regretted and when the prohibition of the inclusion of foreign nationals and Jews were infringed.
Through my activity in the Fuehrer Chancellery, I early became acquainted with the Gestapo atrocities. The testimonies of my witnesses proves how I fought against them and the concentration camp system without having had any direct knowledge of concentration camps.
I did so because I felt that I was obliged to help those concerned who suffered from the arbitrariness of the Gestapo. I did not do it because I recognized even at that time symptoms of a leadership that always and only knew arbitrariness and oppression.
But this is particularly tho reason why I was so shocked about the misuse of some of the euthanasia institutions, for the action 14f13 affected particularly those persons whoso detention I considered unjust and combatted. It was only in this court room however, that I learned of this action.
That I did not hate the Jews has been proved by numerous documents, but without the hatred of the Jews, the participation in tho extermination of Jews is hardly tenable. The measures of suppression to which the Jews were subjected forced me to give them the same assistance within my competence as I accorded to tho politically pursued persons. I thus helped by my activity hundreds of thousands of persons during the course of the years. But thus only could the sterilization suggestions come into existence. They were nothing but an attempt to prevent tho extermination of innumerable Jews.
In spite of all the efforts of my defense counsel, it was impossible to procure the witnesses who could testify to this effect. They preferred to evade their responsibility of serving the truth. I am utterly alone. I must leave it to this High Tribunal to ascertain on the basis of the presented expert scientific opinions that all my proposals were actually so formulated as to show my convictions of their harmlessness, and the impossibility of realizing them.
I must also leave it to the Tribunal to judge whether a man wo intended the extermination of the Jews would apply for service with the Army, just at the moment when tho aim which he alleges that he pursued was achieved and the extermination measures had started. Or docs it not appear paradoxical to assume that one and the same man should give his approval of the extermination of the Jews and in fact aided such a program, and, at the same time, save Jews he has never known, such as Georgi, Passow, Meyer, Warburg, and others, from such measures.
I can only emphasize that particularly these sterilization suggestions to Himmler appeared to me to be the Last possibility to take any action to save Jewery. Had I been indifferent to the Jewish fate, I would not be accused today. But I also tried in this respect, as was my habit, to give assistance and I am still convinced, that it had at least delaying, if not preventative effect. Certainly, the realization that such proposals should never have been made by me on the strength of my medical knowledge or my pos-ition at the time, even to the best of my intention, is something I could not reach until this trial was in progress My good intention which was the basis of these proposals and my good will to help by means of them cannot be denied by anybody, and can in no event be understood as my conscientious cooperation in the extermination of the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Romberg.
DEFENDANT ROMBERG: In the course of this trial, I have had full opportunity to speak in my defense. With special gratitude wo realize the fact offered to us and we took advantage of it, which was given by the possibility to question individually Professor Ivy in this trial. I have seen how the Tribunal itself, by a precise questioning, clarified the facts, and to the statements made by my defense counsel I have nothing to add, because they are the truth.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Becker-Freyseng.