experiments be carried out by Rascher?
A. I cannot imagine how he could have done that. Rascher was an absolute autocrat. He relied on his personal relations with Himmler and he made ruthless use of this position.
Q. As far as you know what was Dr. Romberg's opinion of Dr. Rascher?
A. As I said I saw Romberg only a few times. I always had the impression that Romberg had definite reservations in regard to Rascher. I was given this impression at the first visit in Dachau. Rascher did not want Romberg to take any consideration of the pain of the experimental subjects, and at later meetings when we saw each other two or three times in Berlin, when Rascher was present, I also had the Repression that Romberg tried to restrain Rascher when something was not going fast enough for Rascher. And, Rascher said to me that Romberg was sometimes a brake on him and hampered him in his work. I can tell you nothing else. I didn't get more information about this matter.
Q. Do you know that Dr. Romberg saved the life of the tailor as testified here?
A. I heard the testimony but I knew nothing about it before.
Q. Didn't Dr. Rascher tell you about this when you visited Dachau?
A. No there was no mention of it.
Q. Do you believe that if this incident had occurred before your visit Rascher would have told you about it?
A. I assume so - on the basis of the tension I later discovered between Rascher and Romberg.
Q. Then it is your opinion that this occurred only after your visit?
A. I would assume so - yes.
Q. When were you interrogated for t he first time about these high altitude experiments, witness?
A. Shortly after I was taken prisoner in May 1945.
Q. Were you examined on this subject while you were under arrest in England?
A. Yes, I was taken to London for that purpose.
Q. And what was the point of view of the interrogation?
A. I was the only non-scientist there in a special camp for scientists and finally I was asked about scientific matters.
Q. What do you believe that the interrogator was interested in proving to you?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, these interrogations the witness was subjected, to in England are completely irrelevant here. I object to this line of questioning as irrelevant and immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
Q. Under whose jurisdiction was Romberg after he went to the concentration camp?
A. On the basis of the waiver which everyone had to sign he was under the SS and Police Courts.
Q. How do you explain the great interest which Himmler had in these experiments on high altitude research so that he tried to obtain a low pressure chamber. Was that on behalf of Raschsr or were they merely altruistic measures on behalf of the Luftwaffe?
A. All of Himmler's reasons and motives in pursuing his intentions I cannot say. But, certainly he was following up his own interest in that case and had a definite goal in mind.
Q. What goal do you believe Himmler had in mind in this case?
A. It is well known that Himmler had ambitions to set up a Luftwaffe for the SS. While I was serving with the troops in 1941 I saw that during a roll call a decree from Himmler was read calling on men to join the Luftwaffe and it said specifically that only the bravest, most courageous people should volunteer. And, the superior officers spoke of an SS Air Force. I noticed that particularly at the time because otherwise the SS tried to get men from other branches of the Wehrmacht into the SS rather than to give them up.
Q. Do you know that Himmler had strong ambitions to set up an SS Air Force. You just answered this question. Did that go any farther or was that the only indication you had?
A The only evidence I had was my experience with the troops. What other talk there was I got only from hearsay.
Q What do you know personally about Himmler's efforts in regard to high altitude experiments in addition to evidence which had been submitted here before the High Tribunal?
A In the fall of 1942 Himmler gave me an assignment to buy a low pressure chamber for the SS.
Q And what did you do? Where did you buy it?
A I did not try to find it immediately - on the contrary. Rascher had said often enough that the Medical Inspectorate was making difficulties and that the DVL was obstructing his efforts. Therefore, he was quite enthusiastic when Himmler gave me the assignment to buy a low pressure chamber of our own in case the Luftwaffe refused to send their low pressure chamber to Dachau. Rascher said this would be the best thing and then Reichsfuehrer wouldn't have to let the Luftwaffe lead him around by the nose. When I had this assignment I called up Dr. Romberg in the DVL. I did not know his attitude exactly but I knew it well enough from Rascher's statements. I assumed, that he would react in the way that I expected him to.
Q. What do you mean by the way you expected him to act? What reaction did you expect from Romberg?
A. The letter which was shown to me a while ago, the letter from Himmler to Rascher, was already accessible at that time, and any opposition would be considered as high treason. In order to achieve anything we had to proceed very carefully. I asked Romberg whether he intended starting a now series of experiments with Rascher because I had an assignment from Himmler to buy a low pressure chamber. Roberg said he knew nothing about it and he had no definite intentions of collaborating with Mr. Rascher in a new series of experiments and I asked him not to talk about the matter any further because I was sure Rascher would not like it, and I said I assume you could have informed me of the details and I assumed that because the reluctance was palpable that something would be done.
Q. And do you know what happened after that?
A. Of course, I don't know what Romberg did, but shortly thereafter I approached the SS raw materials office which was in charge of obtaining machines and supplies. The raw materials office said that the firm could deliver a low pressure chamber only after several months and that it would require the highest priority, but to obtain this highest priority one needed the approval of the Luftwaffe because the SS could not prove any urgency or a great need for a low pressure chamber and then the contract was not given, could not be given, because the priority was blocked. One year later, in the fall of 1943, Himmler again issued an order for me to obtain a low pressure chamber with the head of the Reich Research Council. This can also be seen from one of the last documents submitted, a letter from Rascher to Pfannenstial I had, referring to an opinion of the head of the Research of the Luftwaffe, which I pretended I had obtained; that from the point of view of the people involved in the work of research in the Luftwaffe, it was not necessary to continue research on high altitude and no low pressure chamber could be made available because it was urgently needed for testing pilots, so Rascher could do nothing against this explanation of mine, because Rascher was known by the medical inspectorate but not by the people in charge of the research at the Luftwaffe.
Q Witness, did you ever talk to your superior, Professor Wuest about Dr. Romberg, and in what connection?
A. Wuest told me of a conference which took place in Himmerl's field command which was in the presence of Romberg and Rascher, and on this occasion he said that the young man of Rascher, had appealed to him very much. He did not remember Romberg's name any more. Romberg had not only opposed Himmler but also had given him no explanations which had lead those present to fall into an embarrassed silence.
Q. Did he also tell him in what points he opposed him and for what reasons?
A. The question at that time was one of a report on the high altitude experiments already concluded, and on this occasion there was discussion for the first time of carrying on further experiments, namely, the freezing experiments.
Q. From this statement of Wuest, would you say that Romberg refused to carry on further experiments with Rascher or just what impression did you have?
A. Wuest was prejudiced against Romberg without any real cause. It was not in his nature to contradict Himmler.
Q. Witness, you frequently had occasion to talk with Himmler. This morning you stated that you wanted to take it upon yourself to do away with Himmler, and consequently I must assume that you were perfectly clear as to Himmler's personality. Now in my opinion it is material for this trial, at least to the extent that Himmler was directly connected with the experiments, to know something about Himmler's personality. Therefore, as my last question, I ask you to present to the Tribunal a picture of Himmler's personality, in particular his wishes with respect to medical and human experiments?
A. Pictures of Himmler have already been presented here. If I am to answer your question, I cannot do so in just a few words. I should have to ask for a certain length of time to do so because this appears necessary to mo in order to contradict the picture that must have arisen from the presentation of Rudolf Brandt.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President. Mr. President I consider this witness both as regards his personality and as regards the opportunity he had to come in contact with Himmler, as I say I hold this witness perfectly competent to present a character sketch of Himmler which is of importance in this proceeding, particularly since Himmler, as for instance we have seen from his correspondence with Rascher, was not only interested in carrying out these experiments but took an active part in them. I, therefore, ask permission, that the witness be given permission to make these statements.
(Mr. Hardy rises to make objection)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the character of Himmler has already been sufficiently described to the Tribunal and the objection will be sustained.
DR. VORKERK: In that case I have no further questions.
BY DR. FLEMING (For Dr. Kaufmann who is Rudolf Brandt's counsel.)
Q. Witness in the course of your activities in the Ahnenerbe; did you know Rudolf Brandt?
A. As I have already said, I have known Rudolf Brandt since 1935.
Q. Did you notice a difference in Rudolf Brandt's attitude and the attitude on the part of other men in Himmler's immediate vicinity?
A. Yes, because during the years I was in a position to observe not only Rudolf Brandt, but also the other men in Himmler's immediate neighborhood. Most of them were very careful to extract for themselves every possible advantage from their position and to lead a more or less depraved life. I must say, in order to be true, that Rudolf Brandt on the other hand only was devoted to his work and lived only for his work. In this respect he differed most considerably from his colleagues in Himmler's staff, particularly in that one could rely on his word and one knew that he would not, like some of the others, stab you in the back.
Q. What did you know about the amount of work he had to do?
A. The amount of work that he had to do increased from year to year to such an extent that he was not able to get through all his work toward the end. During the last years there was no point in telephoning to Rudolf Brandt to have him try to settle something, because the stereotype answer was: "I shall have to look the matter up, please call up later." Therefore, as I said yesterday, I always went to him with my concerns when a decision on the part of Himmler was necessary. He was most reliable and those cases to be sure were purely mechanical. I saw Rudolf Brandt around 1940, when he was very over worked and physically weak, consequently I did not go into the official matters very deeply, particularly because I know his cultural and other limitations. I had the impression that his asceticism in his work had more or less addled his brain, so to speak.
Q. No further questions.
BY DR. MARX (Counsel for Becker-Freysung.)
Q. How long were you in your office in Berlin; from when until when?
A. From 1935 to 1943.
Q. 1943?
A. Yes.
Q. How about the month?
A. My office, the Reichs Business Office and from there I was transferred in the month of August to Weissenfels.
Q. When was the first time that you saw or spoke to the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng or even heard of him?
A. Here in this trial.
Q. Did you or one of your subordinates have any negotiations with any of the representatives of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and with whom? Please disregard the discussion with Professor Beiglboeck back in 1944 as that has already been reported. Now the question; did you or one of your subordinates have any negotiations wnth any representative of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and if so with whom?
A. No negotiations were carried on.
Q. When a further question. In the session of 18 December of this trial, the witness Neff testified that reports on Rascher's experiments were sent to the Reichsfuehrer SS, to you and to the Luftgar Medical Office 7; not I ask you do you know to what office in the Luftgau Medical Office 7 that Rascher sent such reports; do you know anything about that at all?
A. I know nothing about Rascher sending any reports to anyone other than Himmler.
Q. Then I may assume that you do not consider Neff's testimony correct; in other words you want to say that these reports of Rascher were sent only to the Reichsfuehrer SS, namely Himmler?
A. On the basis of my own knowledge, I must regard Neff's testimony in this point as incorrect.
Q. Did you ever see the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftgar listed among the persons to whom Rascher's reports were distributed; that is to say the entire list of people to whom reports were sent?
A. No, I never saw any such things
Q. In other words, your answer to the previous question already answers this one; in other words you think Rascher never sent any reports to the Medical Inspectorate?
A. Yes, Rascher sent his reports to Himmler and I never saw a distribution.
Q. Did you ever find out that these reports were sent to other officers or were they kept secret perhaps?
A. Rascher was such a monument for secrecy in these matters that the negotiations took place only between him and Himmler.
Q. No further questions.
BY DR. DOERR (Counsel for the defendant Poppendick):
Q. Witness, I should like to refer to a discussion between Rascher and Grawitz, which took place in January 1943. This is set down in minutes by Dr. Rascher. Those minutes are part of Document NO 320, prosecution Exhibit 103, on page 115 of the English Document Book 3. According to this alleged set of minutes, the following remark is said to have been made: "Yes, I asked Sievers to come to me several times to give me information;" what do you have to say about that?
A. I must say that Poppendick never asked me to come and see him; I made his acquaintance only in 1944.
Q. In other words, you never consulted Poppendick about this matter nor did he ever call on you?
A. No.
Q. No further questions.
BY DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Beiglboeck.)
Q. Mr Sievers, do you recall that you are accused in the indictment with conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conspiracy with Beiglboeck.
A. No, as I said yesterday, I only had a total of twenty minutes talk with him.
Q. Exactly, that is just what I wanted to hear. Now on page 200 of your diary of 20th of July, there is something that I would like to draw your attention: "1:15 P.M. Arrived in Dachau". "10:30-12:05 Conference with various persons, which was interrupted by an air attack." Now comes the main point: "1315-1400 Hours. Dr. Beiglboeck discussion of carrying out the sea-water experiments in the entomological institute, which meant Glickner." Let us take a look at the amount of time involved; here you put it down as 45 minutes, but I remember that yesterday you said 20 minutes; now which one is right?
A That is right; to go from the entomological institute to Ploetner's department you needed a good 20 minutes.
Q. Splendid, now is it further true that during these 20 minutes, in view of the air attack that had just taken place, you had a couple of telephone conversations?
A. That also is true.
Q. So that your talk with Beiglboeck was considerably less than 20 minutes?
A. Yes, that is so, of course I was interrupted.
Q You were a member of the Reich Research Council or at any rate had something to do with it, but do you know anything about sea water?
A I know that you can swim in it.
Q Don't you believe that your entry in the diary, discussion of carrying out sea water experiments, carrying out seems a bit far, is somewhat of an overstatement; you said yesterday that your entries in the diary were often made days after the actual events and I am asking you now, isn't it possible that you were exaggerating a bit when you made this entry in a discussion of carrying cut sea water experiments? This, let me tell you, is very important. We have to go into this very deeply. Please don't feel any hesitation in giving me a straight out answer. Was that carrying out of experiments discussed? Yes or no.
A No, nothing.
Q That is sufficient for me. Then I can sum up your thought in this matter by saying that you, so to speak, were officer on guard?
AAs to what was going to be done here, all I can say here is that I heard something was going to be done with sea water and I put that down in my diary.
Q In ether words, your entry in the diary does not correspond to facts?
A That is quite so, and as I said yesterday in my direct examination.
Q Thank you. We have in the trial Exhibit No. 92, that is a letter from Himmler to Rascher, Exhibit 238, the testimony on the part of Blome. I could also quote you Mr. Pohl, but I don't like the guy, so I won't. Now, in these two documents it is said that Himmler regarded everyone as a traitor who didn't consent to carrying out human being experiments? Do you remember that?
A Yes, we were talking about that before.
Q Now, in your direct examination you twice said that Dr. Ploetner was against sea water experiments, and nevertheless they had Himmler's approval. Mr. Hardy could mean that my client is in the same situation.
Now, I would like you to say that Ploetner was an exception?
A The whole situation here played an essential part in this. You must bear in mind that Rascher was imprisoned and that therefore all the files which were taken to Himmler in general new became very clear, frighteningly clear, that by exploiting this impression Himmler told Ploetner that he did not have to carry out any experiments. He thought he could do it himself.
Q Well, now Ploetner was otherwise described by others as a decent sort of fellow. Now, would you not also corroborate the fact that this is purely theoretical? Remember the Polish clergyman who testified here, and who had seen Ploetner with Schilling?
A Ploetner came in a very tragic manner to Schilling as I mentioned yesterday.
Q Never mind. We don't want to bother the Tribunal with this. We simply want to say Ploetner, despite his disapproval of human being experiments, took part in them?
A Yes, that is so, he was with Schilling.
Q Now, I have a question for Defendant Schaeffer; in your diary a certain Dr. Schaeffer is mentioned. I should like to ask you whether the defendant Schaeffer is the same as the Schaeffer mentioned in your diary?
A This Dr. Schaeffer in the diary was an entomologist who worked a short time in the Entomological Institute, and was not identical with the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions of this witness on the part of defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
Just a moment, counsel, the Tribunal has some questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Do you remember the names of the two experimental human subjects whom you saw at Dachau?
A No, I cannot tell you the names.
Q How did you happen to ask these two experimental subjects whether or not they had volunteered for the experiments?
A I said that both from Himmler and from Rascher I had been told that those were volunteers. I wanted to make sure of this for myself, first of all because I personally because of my general attitude did not believe that these men were really volunteers, and it seemed rather curious to me that in those cases and also later in Natzweiler when I asked, people on this question I was assured that they had volunteered. This statement on their part precluded, my investigating the matter any further.
Q Well, now what difference would, it have made whether they were or were not volunteers, if as you say the experiments wore practically harmless and were being carried out in accordance with sound medical methods?
A I can only testify to this on the basis of any own knowledge with regard, to the high altitude experiment that I saw, and the ten or so experimental persons of Natzweiler who were treated with Lest. The treating experiments were by no means so harmless. I also said, that the man who was brought for the experimentation was a criminal condemned to death, and this experiment also had fatal consequences. But I did not take part in either experiment, and consequently can say nothing further about the nature of the experiments.
Q But you did see the high altitude experiment conducted at Dachau on two experimental subjects, and the experiment was as you saw entirely harmless, and was being carried out in accordance with sound medical methods on men whom you had ascertained by direct conversation were volunteers, is that correct?
A That is true, absolutely true with regard to the experiments that I myself saw.
Q Then why was it that when you returned to Berlin you complained to Himmler about these experiments?
A No matter how actually necessary these experiments might be nevertheless, because of the emphasis that they received in the SS I re pudiated them, because from many of my friends there existed the assurance and conviction that the laws of humanity were being trampled under foot here and that no prisoner, no volunteer, because he had no free will, and that there was nothing more abominable, in our opinion, than to make such use of human beings in this fashion, whether or not the use was dangerous or harmless, and the entire manner and scope of these things appeared to us as an expression not of someone's personal decision, but of what one might call a bureauocratized infamy, and I had the feeling precisely because I knew the difference in the case of these high altitude experiments, since I knew Romberg was a very circumspect and punctilious person, and on the other hand I heard Rascher express himself brutally, saying the persons in question were completely unimportant, and it was for this reason I said to myself there could be consequences after such things got under way that could not be foreseen, and as a matter of fact under Herr Rascher these consequences really did occur.
Q Was that the reason when you returned to Berlin you sought to prevent the return of the low pressure Chamber to Dachau for the second time for additional experiments?
A My objection to Himmler was a general objection against human being experiments, and his connecting him with the Ahnenerbe. This was in the Easter of 1942. The low pressure chamber disappeared as I recall, in May from Dachau and only in the autumn when Himmler respectively and Rascher wished to continue the low pressure experiments solely through Rascher, and I was ordered to provide a low pressure chamber, only then did I try to prevent this precisely because from the statements and remarks it could be seen that both the Luftwaffe and the DVL disapproved of Rascher's further work in this field, but there is a lapse of six months between these two.
Q You were able, however, to prevent another low pressure chamber being sent to Dachau for additional experiments, is that true?
A That was possible in the autumn through the various circumstances that I have here tried to describe so that after the low pressure chamber in May of 1942 was taken away from Dachau there never again appeared another low pressure chamber at Dachau.
Q Now, getting back to this question of the volunteer subjects who participated in the low pressure experiments that you witnessed at Dachau, what nationality were these experimental subjects?
A One man - and I know this from his dialect - was an Austrian. The other man was a German.
Q How do you knew this fact?
A I know it only from my talk with him. One of them told me that he came from Vienna, I believe, and I asked the other where his home was and I believe that he said a locality in the Rhineland although I don't remember the precise town.
Q Now, had your assassination plans to exterminate Himmler been successful,What plans did your resistance movement party have to take over the government?
A The taking over of the government was planned by the leaders of the individual groups. Precise information on this will be most assuredly provided to you by Dr. Hielscher when he testifies as a witness here. The entire structure and plan of the individual groups was aimed at a federated union of the various German provinces, the creation of a free German government which would rest on a basis that would permit an understanding to be reached with the Allies.
Q Do you know of any occasion when non-German nationals were used as experimental subjects, either with or without their consent?
A No, I know no such case because the people whom I myself saw in Natzweiler in the case of the Lost experiments were all Germans so far as I got the impression.
In my talks with these people I could ascertain nothing to the contrary, and in the freezing experiments the experimental subjects were torn in Berlin as could be seen from the verdict which I myself saw. I saw no other experiments. Consequently, I did not speak with the experimental subjects.
Q Then, as I understand the situation, based upon your knowledge, all of these experiments, as least so far as you witnessed them or knew anything about them, were conducted upon German nationals who had volunteered for the experiments with promises of leniency, and you objected to these experiments solely because of the fact that you were of the ethical view that a man who was a prisoner could not freely volunteer for such experimentation. Is that correct?
A Yes, I repudiated any manner of such experimentation on human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 0930 HOURS, 14 April 1947) Official Transcript of the American military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Any further examination of the witness on the part of any defense counsel?
WOLFRAM SIEVERS - Resumed BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome):
Q. Witness, I should like to question you on two points; one of them concerns your diary entry of 18 August 1944. In your diary there is a note reading "Professor Blome asks a date from the Reichsfuehrer-SS in order to report to him after 25 August." Points under discussion refer to: "1. Insects" - doesn't interest us; "2. Potato beetles" - doesn't interest us either; "3. 'Poison experiments in connection with Reichsfuehrer SS". Number 7 reads: "Professor Blome is being pressed anew to test the poison now." You were already asked about this entry during your direct examination, Dr. Sievers, and if I understood you correctly you testified that this entry referring to poison has some connection or other, or could have some connection, with the attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944. But I am not quite sure that I understood you correctly. Therefore, I should like you to state again briefly just what/the significance of this entry is so far as Dr. Blome is concerned - this entry concerning poison.
A. You are asking me to call on my recollection to an extent that far surpasses human nature. Just let me check on this once more. I said in my direct examination that I wrote into the diary what Dr. Blome told me. It reads, "Poison experiments in connection with Reichsfuehrer-SS with requests for report on 21 July," That is to say, Blome said to me that Himmler had said something to him on the 21st of July about this matter. That does not mean that Dr. Blome, so far as I recall, said anything to the effect that this poison was connected with the attempt on Hitler, but what Dr. Blome said to Himmler on 21 July, in other words, one day after the attempt. That, of course, he didn't tell me.
Q. I am asking you this, Dr. Sievers, only because you in your direct examination seemed to connect this entry strangely with the events of the 20th of July, and I am not sure whether you expressed yourself correctly or whether we understood you correctly. Perhaps you remember that Dr. Blome, when he was interrogated on the stand, said that this referred to Doryl, that is to say, to that other poison which was found during partisan fighting in the hast and which was almost unknown in Germany. Therefore, witness, I should ask you Please to exert your memory a bit and say whether or not it is possible, as far as you recall, that this talk in connection with that teletype message, which I think was also the 21st of July, referred to Doryl.
A. Yes, that I remember. Dr. Blome did mention Doryl, but then in my direct examination I didn't express myself clearly for I meant that Dr. Blome had already talked about this with Himmler on the 21st of July. But Dr. Blome said nothing about a connection with the events of 20 July.
Q. Then I have another question, witness, You recall that when Dr. Blome was interrogated on the stand we discussed at some length the card index file which was kept at the Reich Research Council for Dr. Blome and Sauerbruch. You were present at this discussion. This concerns two documents, one is Document 690 concerning Blome and the other is 691, Sauerbruch's card index file. These documents, and a few others that are connected with this matter, are in a supplementary volume.
They have been turned in for Blome document book to be translated and will subsequently be submitted to the Tribunal. Now, you remember that in this card index file for Dr. Blome there are two assignments mentioned of which Dr. Blome asserts that they have nothing to do with him, that through an oversight on the part of the personnel staff they were entered on his card index file, but really should have been put on Dr. Sauerbruch's file card. That is the assignment 0328 of Rascher, "Re-warming after cooling of entire human body; healing, with cases of partial freezing, and adjustment of the human body to cold". And then the next assignment is 0329, Hirsch-Strassbourg, which reads, "Alteration in the living organism after use of chemical warfare agents". You remember these documents?
A. Yes.
Q. Now it would interest me to know - now I should like to hear from you something on this subject since you are well informed about the Reich Research Council. Do you know who gave this assignment Rascher, 0328, "Rewarming after general cooling"? Who gave that assignment? Do you know anything about that assignment at all and, if so, just what do you know?
A. The Rascher assignment is, so far as the contents are concerned, the same as the assignment that Himmler formulated and which was submitted here as a document. When on my initiative these assignments were joined with the Reich Research Council, the rules of the Reich Research Council demanded that the researcher himself, that is to say, both Rascher and Hirt, had to make their application to the Reich Research Council. Thus it is altogether possible that this is a false entry because it is true that at the time the organization of the Reich Research Council was suffering from lack of personnel, but on the other hand I consider it quite possible that, for example, Rascher, when he turned in his application for research work, referred to the fact that he ha.d connections with Dr. Blome, which as you know is true in connection with cancer research and with Polygal, and that thereupon the entry was made on both card index files in order to inform both Dr. Sauerbruch and Dr. Blome of the matter.
But both assignments were assigned through Dr. Sauerbruch who alone was competent for that. But with regard to the Hirt assignment I can tell you something of material importance. In addition to this card index there are copies of the original research assignments; in the card index cards, for reasons of space, there is only a very brief notation of the title of the research assignment. Both the card index and the copies of the originals were in the camp at Kranzberg, the interrogation camp where I myself saw them in 1945. The Hirt assignment reads; "Flourescent microscopic examinations on the behavior of Lost gas in living organisms." If this complete formulation were present here, then this matter would not need be discussed before this Tribunal because this research in living organisms in liver, pancreas and so on, then, as the expert for the prosecution, namely, Dr. Alexander, said, these experiments could only be carried out on animals. Therefore, in these Hirt experiments they could only have been animal experiments.