A Yes.
Q Well, then, what did Dr. Ruff tell you at that tine regarding his attitude toward experiments on human beings, in particular with reference to the experiments which were carried out with your pressure chamber ?
A What chamber ?
Q- The pressure chamber, which you had there.
AAt that time in France there were not experiments of the type conducted in Dachau. There was no question of such experiments.
Q There was not question of it ?
A No.
Q Then you did make experiments ?
A They were not even scientific experiments, they were only investigations and examinations of flowers.
Q Surely that adds up to the same thing ?
A No, but if you say so yes. Flowers were tested for their suitability and after some time we gathered certain experiences.
Q Do you know that at that time, when you were together with Dr. Ruff in France, Dr. Ruff himself was also making experiments, that is to say experiments in the chamber on his own person ?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q Did he on these experiments on himself make the same demands on his own body, which later on he male on the experimental persons - that is to say the pilots which were picked up ?
A On the tests with the pilots, doctors were in the chamber with the pilot during the tests.
QQuite. Now, these experiments which Dr. Ruff made on himself were perfectly in order and orderly and these tests on the pilots, they were supposed to be pretty tough ?
A Yes, certainly.
Q For instance, it is supposed to have happened that during one of these experiments, the defendant, Dr. Ruff suffered paralysis of one arm ?
A Yes, that is right.
Q So that he himself, if I understand your answer correctly, was not exactly taking it easy ?
A No, he did not.
Q Did you also discuss political circumstances with Dr. Ruff ? I mean to say, if I may suppliment my question somewhat, did you talk about political conditions to such an extent or so much that you managed to gather a fair impression of the political attitude of Dr. Ruff ? For instance, with regard to the National Socialist Party and particularly the SS ?
A I had the impression that Dr. Ruff was a very unpolitical person.
Q Then, how did he express himself in regard to the SS ? Doctor, I am putting that question you know because Dr. Ruff told me that in particular about the SS and that he had talked to you on the occasion of that stay in Franco quite frequently. That is why I want to know from you just how Dr. Ruff did talk about the SS at that time ?
A I an sorry, but I seem to have forgotten all about it. I am really sorry I cannot remember it.
Q What did he say about the party ? For instance, about Hitler, etc.?
A The only thing that I can say is that I did not consider him a fanatical Nazi, but I cannot remember any specific details.
Q During the four weeks - and this is something I want to ask at the end - during the three or four weeks, which you spent with Dr. Ruff in France what did you learn about his views about medical ethics ? The conception he had of his profession, what impression did you gather about that ? Would you say that he would be capable of committing crimes or was your impression different ?
A I beg your pardon. I had an absolute correct impression of Dr. Ruff and I never thought anything unfavorable of him.
Q Thank you very much. In that case, Mr. president, I have no further questions. Thank you.
DR. MARX FOR THE DEFENDANT BECHER FREYSENG.
BY DR. MARX :
Q Witness, a little earlier the subject of a conversation came up which you had with Dr. Becker Freyseng at Sibling ?
A Yes.
Q And on that occasion, Dr. Becker Freyseng had told you that the medical inspectorate had frequently been by-passed; that for instance Field Marshall Milch had negotiated directly with the SS, or the command of the SS, with reference to questions which really concerned aviation matters ?
A yes.
Q Do you recollect that ?
A Yes, I do.
Q Then, he complained. Then Dr. Becker also told you something on that occasion about a film showing which went wrong, a film showing which Dr. Docker Freyseng was going to make for Milch, which dealt with the study made at Dachau. Do you remember that occasion ? It was to happen in September of 1941 when Rascher in Berlin and the Ministry were supposed to show the film to Field Marshall Milch personally and Milch did not show up. Becker Freyseng had not known anything about this and had not been informed until the film was already in preparation; in fact until the showing was to start ? Do you know anything about that ?
A Yes, I can't remember, but it seems quite plausible.
Q Then, you can't remember ? Well, then I have another question. There was a meeting in Nurnberg when some eighty advisory medical men, consulting medical men of high medical reputation were present, who were holding high positions. Do you remember ?
A I cannot give, any exact information, but that can doubtless be found out.
Q Of course we have the record.
A You can doubtless find out. I am sure there were many people of the medical profession present.
Q Yes, the matter, of course, was planned under the heading of Sea and Winter Distress. Then Weltz and Professor Holzloehner were on the list, weren't they ?
A Yes.
Q What did Professor Holzloehner say regarding the question of cooling of the freezing experiments, because the way it is put in this record, you see, is indicating that he expressed himself very, very carefully ?
A Yes.
Q So that one could not draw the conclusion that he was getting out these experiments particularly in the concentration camps ?
A That's true. As for Holzloehner's statement one could not gather from then that they were experiments in concentration camps. Holzloehner apparently, in order to disguise the natter, had spoken of rescued persons, persons who were rescued, from distress at sea.
Q Do you mean rescued from the water ? That's what it says in the record, doesn't it ?
A Yes, that's how it was.
Q Yes. Now, from Professor Holzloehner's statement one could net draw the conclusion, therefore, that we were concerned with experiments in Dachau or any other concentration camps ?
A. No.
Q I see. And you stated, previously that Rascher stammered, didn'd you A Yes.
Q So that his speech wasn't very convincing, was it, because if someone stammers and stutters, then you say that he isn't very effective surely or that he might even make himself ridiculous ?
A Yes, yes.
Q Yes, I see. So that you want to say, don't you, that Dr. Rascher's statement could have been regarded more as a matter of wanting to make himself look important ?
A That might be, but the subject is a little ticklish
Q It wasn't it possible to gather the impression that he wanted to show off his connections to Himmler ?
A Yes, one always had that impression with him, yes, certainly.
Q Of course you see, I would like to point out to you that Rascher, shortly before this meeting, had written to Himmler and in that letter he expressly printed out that he wanted permission to deal with this matter as top secret; in other words, that he lid not wish to communicate to the assembly what he was really concerned with. Surely one could not intend that any other way; top secret was the word ?
A Yes, certainly.
DR. MARX : Yes, I see. In that case I have no further questions to put to this witness.
DR. SERVATIUS : Attorney Servatius for the absent colleague, Dr. Nelte on behalf of Defendant Handloser.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DA.
SERVATIUS :
Q I only want to put a very brief question. Witness, as I remember, upon a question put by the Prosecutor, whether after this meeting in Nurnberg, you had talked to some officers regarding experiments on animals which were supposed to be transferred to human beings, that you had answered , " Yes, I had spoken to an officer." Now, my question, was that an officer from the medical Inspectorate or some other officer ?
A I cannot say.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have not further questions.
DR. VORWERK : Attorney Vorwerk for Dr. Romberg.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. VORWERK :
Q Witness, you had mentioned that you knew Defendant Dr. Romberg. Do you see him in this courtroom ?
A Yes.
Q Where is he ?
A (Indicating )
Q In which row ?
A The fourth from the left in the back row.
Q Did you consider that those altitude experiments, seen from the point of view of the Air Force, were really essential ?
A I was of the opinion that the experiments pave general insight into certain questions, that they could give insight.
Q Night I remind you that at that time the type of aircraft at the disposal of the German Air Force went out of date and at that time the Air Force particularly were trying to develop new types, and let no then repeat the question. Is it your conviction that at that tine these experiments were essential seen from the Air Forces's point of view ?
A I believe that the experiments were important.
Q But you do not adopt the view that they were absolutely essential, I take it ?
A Well, I can't -- that is a question that goes beyond my competence here .
Q When did you see Remberg for the first time ?
AAs far as I can recall, together with Ruff when we were in France.
Q When was that, what year ?
A '41
Q How long were you together with Romberg at that time ?
AA few weeks; about three weeks.
Q What were you doing at the time during that journey through France ?
A We were conducting tests on fliers, about their resistance to altitudes.
Q With a pressure chamber too, I take it ?
A Yes.
Q Who was in charge of these tests?
A I believe the responsibility was divided into military and medical responsibility. The latter belonged to Ruff.
Q Did you over experience it that Romberg, during these tests, was proceeding, or acting recklessly ?
A No, not at all.
Q Did you meet with any experiences with his political attitude ? Did you discuss that with him ?
A I got to know Romberg quite well. I believe the same is true of him as of Ruff. He was in no way, let me say, a pronounced National Socialist.
Q What I want to know is was he a Mazi at all; not pronounced, was he a Nazi ?
A I did not have that impression.
Q You didn't have the impression ?
A That he was a National Socialist.
Q Did you have an impression to the contrary about him?
A I believe that I can answer that question with yes.
Q Would you be surprised if you were to read in the press today that Romberg was a prominent Nazi ?
A Yes, that would not be true.
Q If I understood you correctly then you said that both Professor Weltz, as well as you yourself, shared the view that Rascher was neither, according to character or knowledge, in any position to carry out those altitude experiments on his own. Briefly put, therefore, he was a charlatan in your eyes, wasn't he; is that approximately the truth ?
A Yes, that's true.
Q When did Romberg first see Rascher at that time; do you know that ?
A I do not know.
Q Then I will tell you. He saw Rascher for the first tine in the office of the Research Institute of Weltz shortly after you, as you say -
MR.McHANEY: If the Court please, I think that if the attorney for the Defendant Romberg wishes to testify, that he should take the stand.
DR. VORWERK : This last hint which I was giving.
THE PRESIDENT : Objection of counsel for the prosecution is sustained to that question.
CROSS EXAMINATION ( Continued) BY DR. VORWERK:
Q If you held the view then that Rascher was a charlatan, would it not have been your duty or Weltz's duty to draw Romberg's attention to that fact before he began his experiments ?
A That is hard to say.
Q Did you ever state to Romberg at any time that you too had been asked to carry out these experiments, but that you had refused ?
A No, I don't know.
Q But you were very well acquainted with Romberg, weren't you ? Wouldn't it have been the duty of a comrade, since you were both serving in the Airforce, wouldn't it have been the duty of a colleague amongst doctors to discuss that subject ?
A Well, it was a subject which neither of us liked to talk about.
Q What you want to say was that in your opinion Romberg too wasn't happy taking on this job, if I understand you rights that's what you want to say ?
A I am convinced of that.
Q Well, why do you believe that he took it on at all ?
A I don't believe I can answer that question, but -
Q It isn't known to you that Rascher was described as an excellent scientist to Romberg ? Romberg made inquiries, you know, and that's what he was told. Did you know about that ?
A No.
Q You know it the first time you saw him then ?
A That's quite possible.
Q But at that time it was your and Weltz's view that Rascher was a charlatan, wasn't it ?
A If ether that was our opinion at that time, I can't say. I saw Rascher only once at that time. The opinion that he -- from the first moment on he made a very poor impression on me, but that he was such a complete zero I learned only in the course of time.
Q Why did you believe that in connection with these experiments people only were to be used who had been sentenced to death previously ?
A It was discussed in that form.
Q By whom ?
A Well, that was the general opinion.
Q You say general opinion, so that, if I understand you correctly it was the opinion at the time when you, for the first time, were approached in the matter ?
A Yes.
Q Do you also know whether Romberg was of the same opinion ?
A I am sure.
Q But then this expression " general opinion " was then extended beyond the circle cf the people who were immediately concerned ? In other words, was that the opinion of all the medical officers of the German Air Forces ?
A They know nothing about it, but it was doubtless the opinion of all in informed circles; that is, of anyone who knew anything about it.
Q Rascher too ?
A Rascher was doubtless the evil spirit in this matter. I don't knew what he thought.
Q But you are firmly convinced that Romberg shared that view, are you ?
A Yes.
Q Was the view also attached to that opinion at the time, connected with it, that the experimental persons weren't only going to be criminals sentenced to death but than they would also have to volunteer ?
A Yes, I believe so. Of course, I did not, but of course, that really is included.
Q Well, if I understand you correctly then, you were convinced at the time that the victims of the experiments were only going to be people sentenced to death because they had committed crimes; and secondly, people who would volunteer in order to change their death sentence to prison sentence ?
A Yes, that was my opinion.
Q And furthermore, you are convinced that Dr. Romberg shared that view, are you ?
A Yes DR. VORWERK : Thank you.THE PRESIDENT : At this time the Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please, The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished with the cross examination of the witness BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring):
Q Dr. Lutz, the Tribunal-understood you to say on direct examination, in substance, that you attended a conference in Nurnberg on October 26 and 27, 1942, at which the general subject, "the effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects", was discussed, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How long were you in attendance at that conference?
A. As far as I remember, from the beginning until the end.
Q. Do you recollect at this time the names of any members of the medical profession who attended that conference?
A. No. There is a list in existence, I think.
Q. Do you intend to say that you attended that conference for two days and do not recollect any of the members of the medical profession who were there?
A. Certainly I should be able to remember, but apart from those that actually spoke, it is very hard for me to name anyone.
Q. Can you say whether or not any persons who are now seated in the defen ants' dock were present at that conference?
A. Yes, Weltz was there; otherwise, I cannot see anyone else.
Q. Do you know all of the names of the defendants who now sit in the defe ants' dock?
A. No.
Q. Let me read them to you. Karl Brandt, did he attend that conference?
A. No, I don't know him. .
Q. Siegfried Handloser?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Paul Rostack?
A. I don't know.
Q. Oskar Schoeder.
A. I only know him by his name.
Q. And can you recollect whether or not he attended that meeting?
A. No, I don't think he did. It is not known to me.
Q. Well, Karl Genzken?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Karl Gebhard?
A. I don't know him either.
Q. Kurt Glome?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Rudolf Brandt?
A. He is unknown to me.
Q. Joachim Mrugowski?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Helmut Poppendick?
A. I don't know him either.
Q. Wolfram Sievers?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Welfram Sievers?
A. No.
Q. Rose?
A. I know him by his name.
Q. Do you recollect whether or not he attended that meeting?
A. No.
Q. Siegfried Ruff, did he attend?
A. I know him, but I cannot say whether he attended that conference.
Q. Did Romberg attend?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. Brack?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Hermann Becker-Freyseng?
A. I know him, but I don't know whether he was present or not.
Q. You say Dr. Weltz did attend?
A. Yes, certainly, he was there with me.
Q. Konrad Schaefer?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Waldemar Hoven?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Wilhelm Beiglbock?
A. I know Beiglbock, but I don't think he was there.
Q. Adolf Pokorny?
A. I don't know him.
Q.Herta Oberhauser?
A. She is unknown to me.
Q. Fritz Fischer?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Then most of the defendants who now sit in the dock were unknown to you at that time, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal, please -- pardon me.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I would ask the witness, he referred to the thought that any of these experiments were to be performed upon men classed as criminals. I would ask what he meant by "criminals".
A. Under the word "criminal", I understood that a man who was condemned by an ordinary court in the Third Reich, that is, a criminal who was condemned by a court before the Third Reich. What I mean is, it isn't absolutely necessary for a court to have set before the Third Reich came into power, but it is a man who was condemned to death by an ordinary court; a man who actually committed something which, according to general opinion, can be considered a crime.
Q Do you mean another military court, or a German civil court ?
A I was speaking of a civil court.
DY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Would you include within the term "court" the People's Court ?
A I know very little about the People's Court.
Q What was that ?
A I know very little about the People's Court.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I have a number of questions I would like to put to this witness. However, before I do so, I would like the record to show that the witness properly identified the defendant Romberg when he was called upon to point out his position in the defendant's dock,
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that statement, please ?
MR. McHAHEY: The counsel for the defendant Romberg asked this witness to identify him in the defendant's deck. I want the record to show that he did properly identify Romberg, Of course, that does not now appear in the record. He just said "He is the fourth man from the left", and that doesn't show any proper identification. He is, in fact, the fourth man from the left, and I would like the record to so show.
JUDGE SEBRING; Mr. Secretary-General, let the record show that the defendant Romberg is sitting in the prisoner's dock at the place designated by the witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Witness, the Tribunal has asked you what you meant by using the word "criminal". Do I understand your answer to mean that you do not include as criminals those inmates in a concentration camp who were put there purely for political reasons ?
A Yes, you understood me correctly.
Q Now, witness, you were asked a number of questions by counsel for the defendants about the political beliefs of various of the defendants such as Ruff, Romberg, and Becker-Preyseng. Do you remember that ?
A Yes.
Q As I recall, they asked you whether they were anti-Nazis; is that correct ?
A Yes
Q Your answer was that they were not ardent Nazis.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You would not go so gar as to say that they were conspirators in the 20th of July plot against Hitler, would you ?
A Not in that sense, but it would be possible that these very same people could have taken part in the plot on the 20th of July.
Q You consider that a possibility. Now, the name of Kottenhof was mentioned in connection with the attaching of Dr. Rascher to Weltz's Institute in Munich. Do you remember Dr. Kottenhof ?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember when Dr. Kottenhof left Munich ?
A I cannot say that exactly, but it was approximately at the time with which we are concerned.
Q Dr. Kottenhof went to Roumania, did ho not, before these experiments were carried out--the high altitude experiments ?
A Yes; yes, he was transferred.
Q And the defendant Weltz was then the commanding officer over Rascher in his Institute, was he not ?
A That I don't know; I don't know anything about the relations between Weltz and Rascher.
Q Well, at least Kottenhof was no longer in the picture, was he ?
A No, Kottenhof was not there at all.
Q And if Rascher was a subordinate of Weltz's, Weltz could have had him transferred out of his Institute, could he not ?
A I am not quite clear about your question.
Q You have stated that you do not know the relationship between Rascher and Weltz.
A Yes.
Q I ask you to assume that Rascher was attached to Weltz's Institute. If Rascher was attached to Weltz's Institute, then Holtz could have had him transferred to some other place, could he not ?
A If Rascher was subordinate to Weltz then of course, certainly, Weltz had the possibility of having Rascher transferred if the superior office -which was superior to Weltz--was in agreement with him.
Q Now, do you remember when the low-pressure chamber was brought from Berlin to Weltz's Institute in Munich in the early part of 1942?
A No, I don't remember about any such pressure chamber being brought there.
Q All right, then isn't it also true that you cannot tell this Tribunal that Weltz did not himself make trips to Dachau while these experiments were in progress?
A I said that I could not recollect whether Weltz was in Dachau personally or not. However, if he was active extensively there, I must have gained knowledge about it.
Q I didn't put the question to you whether or not he had been there extensively. Rascher was not regarded as on expert in high altitude research, was he?
A No.
Q Therefore, if these high altitude experiments were to be carried out in Dachau, it was necessary that some experts work with Rascher, was it not?
A Yes; it was desirable, at least.
Q And that was the reason that Weltz asked you and Wendt to collaborate with Rascher, was it not?
A Certainly, I would have taken over the part of the experts.
Q Now you stated, as I recall, on cross-examination, that it seemed to you perhaps that Weltz expected you to turn this job down. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And isn't the reason you say that because you knew that Weltz considered you to be too soft for this job?
A No; that would morn that Weltz desired a specially brutal procedure to be adopted there, and I don't think that was the case.
Q I am sorry, will you repeat that? I didn't get the answer.
A I did not quite get your question in translation. Would you repeat your question?
Q I was dealing with the incident when you were asked by Weltz to collaborate with Rascher in Dachau, He did ask you and Wendt to collaborate with Rascher in Dachau, did he not?
A Yes
Q And you refused, did you not?
A Yes.
Q And Wendt refused, didn't he?
A Wendt? Yes.
Q And haven't you already told this Tribunal that the reason you refused was because you were not ruthless enough?
A Yes, because I believed that was not robust enough to carry out experiments on human beings.
Q I would like the interpreter to translate the word "robust". I would like to ask the witness: What do you mean by the word "robust"?
A What I mean is this. It is even difficult to experiment upon a dog which looks at you and which seems to have some kind of a soul: it is even difficult to do that with a dog.
Q That is what I understood you to mean. And Weltz know that was your attitude, didn't he?
A He knew that Wendt and I rejected this procedure.
Q And after you rejected it he went to Ruff and Romberg, didn't he?
A I must assure that, I don't know it.
Q And, as I recall, you told one of the counsel for defense that you, as a member of Weltz's Institute were told about all of the experiments that were carried out under the auspices of Weltz's Institute.
A Yes.
Q And you did not participate in the conference between Weltz and Ruff and Romberg in the latter part of 1941, did you?
A No, I did not take part in it.
Q Now, several of the defense counsel have asked you questions about pilot examinations carried out in low-pressure experiments. Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you in any sense of the word compare a pilot's examination and a low-pressure experiment in a low-pressure chamber with the experiments carried out in Dachau?
A. Human experiments, as I have to assume were carried out in Dachau, were also carried out by scientists on their own persons.
Q. I am not suggesting to you that certain scientists in Germany, including Ruff and Romberg themselves, did not from time to time get into a low-pressure chamber themselves. I am asking you whether a pilot's examination as carried out in the German Air Force in a low-pressure chamber could in any sense of the word be compared with the altitude experiments carried out at Dachau.
A. No doubt there were certain differences.
Q. And those differences wore that they took the men in Dachau to a much higher altitude, isn't it?
A. About the results of the experiments in Dachau I know nothing.
Q. I will ask you if a pilot's examination in a lowpressure chamber is over carried as high as twenty-one thousand meters.
A. No, not a pilot's examination. I don't think so.
Q. Now, witness, let's go back a minute to the conference held in Nurnberg in October, 1942. I ask you again was it not clear after tho statements, after the paper had boon read by Holzloehner, that deaths had occurred during the course of his experiments.
A. Excuse me. Do yon mean whether it became clear at the conference that during the course of these experiments the death of the experimental subject had occurred?
Q. Yes.
A. In the report of Holzloehner it stated thay heart failure, that is, death, was observed in many cases, but before Rascher spoke, it could be assumed that it was in tho subsequent death of persons which were rescued from tho sea.
Q. But after Rascher spoke, it was clear to you and to the rest cf tho persons at the meeging that the experiments had not, in fact, been conducted on people rescued from the sea but upon persons furnished by tho Reichsfuehrer SS, isn't that true, witness?
A. Yes, it clear to me.
Q. And wasn't there some consternation at this meeting on tho part of some of tho scientists present after Holzloehner and Rascher had spoken?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Holzloehner at any time after the occasion of this mooting in Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. What impression did you go t cf Holzloehner on tho occasion of that meeting, that is to say, the meeting after the one in Nurnberg?
A That was not a conference. I met Holzloehner in Munich. He approached mo and said, '' I can well imagine what you think of no now, but I can assure you I was ordered to carry out this order for the only reason in order to avoid unnecessary victims.
Q. He was ordered by the Luftwaffe to carry out those experiments, was he not?
A. Yes, it must be so. I am not sure about that.
Q. Didn't you got the very distinct impression that Holzloehner was very much disturbed about what ho had done in Dachau?
A. No. I had the impression that he believed to have acted correctly but that he feared to be misunderstood.
Q. You mean to say that he feared that his reputation was damaged because he had help to carry out tho experiments in Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that Holzloehner subsequently committed suicide?
A. I heard it here.
Q. Now you have told this Tribunal that you thought it was generally understood by tho scientists who know about the low-pressure experiments that they wore going to be conducted on criminals, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not the experiments were, in fact, performed upon criminals, as you define the word "criminals"?
A. The way it was obviously done I only found cut after the end of the war.
Q. Then you cannot say that, in fact, the experiments were carried out on criminals, is that right?
A. No. I, naturally, cannot confirm that because I had no possibility to check it.
Q. And you also cannot say that tho experiments were carried cut on volunteers, can you?
A. I cannot say that.
Q. Now, witness, is it or is it not the duty of a true and moral scientist to determine for himself what tho conditions of tho experiments are which ho carries out and whether or not the persons upon whom he is experimenting are volunteers?
A. Under normal circumstances it had to be expected, certainly, but I, naturally, an not acquainted with the milieu which was in tho concentration camp of Dachau at tho time.