did any one of the participants in this meeting protest publically against Holzloehner's lecture either before, during or after the lecture?
A No, I nay say in that connection at that time I would not at all have understood any such protest had it been made. According to the document, which is available here, 55 members of the Luftwaffe were present during that meeting, 12 representatives of the Army, 4 representatives of the Navy, 4 of the Waffen SS and Police, and 19 civilians, i.o. university professors and other gentlemen.
Q If I may summarize briefly, witness, you are saying that you would have considered any protest as beinq senseless because you made no observations whatsoever that even could have hinted at crimes. None of the leading experts of Germany, who no doubt were present, made any such observations because no one in effect protested, is that true?
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q I will leave that meeting and I will go to another document, which was submitted by the prosecution. One preliminary question: would you please tell the Tribunal who Professor Buechner was as he was mentioned as a lecturer during the Nurnberq meeting?
A Professor Buechner was and still is today the ordinariat for pathology and the director of the Pathological Institute of the University at Freiburg. During the war he was consulting pathologist with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and head of tho Institute for aviation Pathology at Freiburg. He is now tho Pro-Rector of the University of Freiburg.
Q Would you please tell us, witness, what Professor Buechner had discussed in Nurnberg?
A Professor Buechner reported about the pathology in reference to cooling on the basis of the literature and on the basis of autopsy findings.
Q On what corpses did Professor Buechner pain his experience of which you were speaking?
A These experiences were pained by autopsies of corpses of soldiers of the Luftwaffe and the Navy, who had died as a result of sea distress.
Q In what way did Professor Buechner obtain that material?
A I already said that Buechner was a consulting pathologist and all the autopsy certificates of the Luftwaffe were sent to him.
Q In that case, if I understand you correctly, Professor Buechner was the member of the Luftwaffe who had pained the most experience about death cases in connection with sea distress. At any rate as far as it concerned his special field of pathology?
A Yes you arc right, with that modification.
Q Now, the Prosecution in its submission of evidence has presented a document, which I should like to discuss with you in that connection: Document No. 922. This was submitted as Exhibit No. 435, it is an excerpt from a report of the meeting of the consulting physicians in the year of 1912. Toll mo, witness, were you present during that meeting?
A No.
Q Did you hear about the lectures given during that meeting before this Trial?
A Well, I know that there was to be a meeting, but I heard nothing more about it.
Q According to the documents submitted by the Prosecution, Professor Holzloehner on that day also held a lecture. This is obviously a summary of his lecture which he held at Nurnberg. As it can be seen from the document, Mr. Buechner also spoke during that meeting and the prosecution quoted that discussion and lecture as follows:
"Buechner: We have studied the morphology of the adjustment to cold and the pathology of general severe chilling in 20 eases of death c used solely by severe chilling and in numerous experiments carried out on animals, and have determined the following:" It was not explained just what was deduced from the document. At any rate, we arc here concerned with the autopsies in cases of death, cases which were concerned with the Holzloehner lecture. For the purpose of clarification, witness, can you once more tell us on what the examinations by Buechner were based?
A In my opinion this statement is clearly based upon the knowledge which ho gained after working on these autopsies and records; at any rate, I know of nothing else.
Q If it pleases tho Tribunal in this connection, I now offer tho Becker-Freyseng document No. 30-A and later the Becker-Freseng document 30-B. This will be Exhibit 17-A and 17-B. Both of these documents can be found in Document Book 2. The first on page 124 and the second on page 127. I may confirm the testimony by the witness by quoting from Document 30-A on Page 124 of the Document Book. From 30-A page 124, Dr. Buechner at first describes his position as professor of pathology and director of tho Pathological Institute of the University and his political attitude; I quote:
"l) An institute for aviation medical pathology under my direction was attached to my university institute in Freiburg during the war. This institute received, among other things, all autopsy reports of tho Luftwaffe pathologists working in the various home districts and occupied territories."
I shall skip the next few sentences and I shall continue to quote from the same page, second paragraph:
"3) The increasing losses of the Luftwaffe from fatal undercooling of aviators after being shot down into the Channel or the Atlantic make it necessary to work systematic ally on cases of death, due to undercooling. At my instigation and by order of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, autopsies on aviators and marines who had died through undercooling while in distress at sea, were systematically performed by some Luftwaffe pathologists..."
The next sentence deals with the treating physicians. Then later:
"The evaluation of the records and particularly the microscopic examination of the organs of these bodies were carried out at my Freiburg institute...." and a few names are again mentioned, namely the physicians who were conducting these examinations. There is also mention made of the work which was attached to these examinations. It is Exhibit 30-B.
Mr. Buechner continues:
"3) For each of the 28 cases investigated in my opening report at the Luftwaffe meeting, I spoke in detail about these twenty cases and the thorough experimental tests on animals. The report 'The Pathology of Undercooling' was published in the Clinical Weekly. This I also enclose." That is also Exhibit 30-B.
Buechner continues:
"4) With reference to this report, I made the following short remark at the Consultants' Conference: 'We have examined the morphology of the adaptability to cold and the pathology of general undercooling, with 20 straightforward cases of death due to undercooling and numerous animal experiments....
"5) I did not carry out or cause to be carried out any autopsies or microscopical tests in any case of death from an experiment on a human being, particularly not in the undercooling experiments on humans which were carried out by Professor Holzloehner and Dr. Rascher."
There follows the signature and the certificate of a Notary. I shall not quote the enclosures, but I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of them.
Now, the last question on cold. Witness, you know that the Prosecution asserts that these experiments were entirely senseless, were unskillful, and did not produce anything now for medical science; could you please define your attitude toward that with a few words?
A. Upon the basis of my knowledge of Holzloehner's personality may I first say that it is my firm conviction that the experiments which were carried out by Holzloehner were absolutely necessary, had sense, and were admissible experiments. I was confirmed in this conviction of mine by what the prosecution witness Neff said here in this courtroom, making a very clear distinction between the cold experiments in the period of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, and the period when Rascher was working alone. That such experiments, such as quick rewarming, for example, cannot be performed on animals is quite clear, and also becomes evident from a number of foreign papers on that subject. In order to recognize the significance of the results, one need not be an expert on cold. I think that a winter during which, according to official reports in the English House of Commons, 534 persons died from cold in the British occupational zone of Germany alone, and 175 people died in Berlin, when 778 persons had been admitted to hospitals in the British zone as a result of freezing, and during which in Berlin 15,615 people were in "very urgent danger of freezing to death", one would at least have to recognize the significance of the problem as it existed for us after the first winter in Russia. After all, thousands of frozen persons were treated wrongly, and finally the right solution is found and is immediately confirmed.
The decisive answer to your question I should like to give you on the basis of a work which I read recently where quick re-warming is called a, revolutionary thing in medical science. The author, who is an American, writes: "Before our war against Japan ended, this method of quick re-warming had been accepted a,s the recognized treatment by all American sea rescue services, and is today generally accepted by medical circles." This statement originates from Major Alexander.
DR. TIPP: I may say that the document shows that this is the Professor Alexander who is the medical expert of the prosecution in this trial. In this connection, Mr. President, may I offer Becker Freyseng Document No. 31, which is to be found in Document Volume II, page 140.
This will receive the exhibit number 18. It is an excerpt from a publication "Harpers Magazine" entitled "Secrets by the Thousands", by Lester Walker. I should like to quote only a few passages which seem to me to be particularly important on that point. I quote from the first page, page 140 of Becker-Freyseng Document Book II. These are the last few lines of the first page of the document:
"With reference to the medical secrets in this collection, one army surgeon has remarked, 'Some of them will save American medicine years of research. Many of these secrets are revolutionary, as, for instance, the German technique of treatment after prolonged and usually fatal exposure to cold.'
"This discovery, which was revealed to us by the aforementioned report of Major Alexander, revolutionizes all medical knowledge on that subject."
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. This, witness, concludes the Holzloehner, Rascher, Finke complex and there are only two more questions of a very general nature. We know, witness, that Dr. Rascher carried out other cold work long after the Luftwaffe experiments had been concluded. May I ask you, did you at any time hear of this further work by Rascher?
A. I have to answer that question in the affirmative, but not during the war.
Q. When did you first hear about these experiments?
A. I heard that for the first time during my activity in the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg, but I heard nothing very specific then. Only here was I thoroughly informed.
Q. This testimony, witness, seems to be contradicted by Prosecution Document NO-238, which is in Document Book III, on page 130 of the German and 118 of the English version. This is a file note signed by Mr. Sievers, dated 4 February 1943, and it concerns itself with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. Mention is made in this docu ment that Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke allegedly said on the telephone that one could no longer tolerate Dr. Rascher's experiments, and a suggestion was made to transfer him very quickly to the East.
The conclusion could be drawn, witness, that you, as a member of the Referat for Aviation Medicine, did know these experiments. At any rate, perhaps the prosecution could arrive at such a conclusion. Please comment briefly on this document.
A. First, if Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke actually did know anything, this in no way means that I knew about it. Professor Hippke, after all, was my supreme superior and I was an assistant Referent. But it does became clearly apparent from this letter that not even Professor Hippke knew anything because had he known anything he wouldn't have had to instruct Oberfeldarzt Daniels to report to him or to instruct Rascher through Daniels to report to him what he was doing. Then, it can also be clearly seen from this letter that this work of Rascher's was assigned to him by the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Daniels, as the local Luftwaffe superior officer, merely gave Rascher the opportunity to carry out this order by Himmler.
Q. In conclusion, witness, I may state with reference to the complex of cold questions that you heard about the plans for the experiments during the Professor Hippke-Rascher conversation in June, 1942, and that on this occasion you heard about experiments which were to be carried out on voluntary subjects with the approval of the head of the state, Hitler, and the Reich Ministry of the Interior, without learning any details about the matter, and furthermore that you heard about the result of these experiments on the occasion of the Nuernberg cold meeting without it becoming apparent to you that any crimes were committed during the execution of such experiments, and finally that you knew nothing of Rascher's further work in that connection besides what he was doing with Finke and Holzloehner, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, this brings me to the conclusion of the cold complex and I think it would be advisable to adjourn at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until one-thirty o' clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 21 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again session.
BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. TIPP:
Q Dr. Becker, this morning we concluded the question of the freezing experiments, and now we come to a further charge against you. The indictment charges you to have participated in criminal experiments between June of 1942 to January 1945 in the concentration camps of Natzweiler and Sachsenhausen. I ask you now, witness... When did you first hear of the facts which the prosecution has here brought forward, namely, these alleged experiments?
A I heard about them for the first time here in Nuernberg when I was arraigned.
Q When did you hear the name, for the first time, of the man who had most to do with these experiments - to wit, Dr. Haagen, the Director of tine Hygiene Institute of the University of Strasbourg, and also Consulting Hygienist with an Air Fleet after a certain date. I do not know on what, precisely, the prosecution bases its charge that you participated in a hepatitis experiment. It can only be that your responsibility is based on your activities as Referent, or Assistant Referent. Since Haagen was a medical research officer in the Luftwaffe I must assume that your connection with these experiments, and your activities, were with Haagen. Therefore, witness, I put to you, on the question of the hepatitis experiment, the document from Document Book VIII, page 6, Document NO-137, which was put in by the prosecution as Exhibit 189. This is Haagen's letter of 7 October 1943, to the Director of the University of Strasbourg. It concerns itself with the recognition of this Hygienic Institute of the University as a Military Institute. Look at No. 3 of this document. Here there is mention of a commission regarding hepatitis epidemica. Did you know anything of this research commission?
A This commission was given by the Reich Research Council. It is number 5 in the Document. It is also a top secret research assignment. Thus, Haagen had not only no reason to tell us about this, but since it was a top secret matter he was forbidden to do so.
Q Now, we know of the dual position which Haagen occupied, and which played a large role in this trial. He was Director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strassbourg, and, at the same time - from a certain date on - he was a Consultant Hygienist in the Air Fleet Reich. To which aspect of Haagen's dual activities does this letter refer?
A Of course, it refers to his activities as Director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strassbourg....because it is directed to the Rector of the University of Strassbourg. It concerns itself with the fact that the Hygienic Institute is to be recognized as a so-called Military Institute, and it is signed by Prof. Dr. Haagen, and not STABSARZT Haagen, and there is nothing in this letter concerning hepatitis.
Q Now, one more question. Haagen was a medical officer in the Reserve Corps of the Luftwaffe. Did he not, as such, have an obligation to report on all work and all research commissions that he received from any office whatsoever?
A If all medical officers had had to report on all the work that they did, we should have had to open up another Medical Inspectorate .
Q In other words, there was no such obligation on their part?
A No; there was never any mention of that, either.
Q In the same context, witness, please look in the same Document Book, Number VIII, NO-299, Exhibit 190. It is on page 8. This is again a letter from Haagen to Dr. Schreiber at the Military Academy in Berlin, and it is addressed, "Honored Generalarzt." There is no signature, consequently we do not know in what capacity Haagen signed it. At any rate, from the heading, "Honored Generalarzt," it can be assumed that this is a military matter here, an affair which, perhaps, had some contact with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe even though that may have been circuitously.
What can you say about it?
A First of all, it can be seen from this letter that it did not come through channels. It went through the Medical Inspectorate. Moreover, there were no military relationships between Haagen and Schreiber. On the contrary, it is the University Professor Haagen who is writing to the University Professor Schreiber in Berlin, in this letter. By accident, one is Generalarzt, and the other, by accident, is Oberstabsarzt, of the Luftwaffe. It is purely fortuity - and plays no rule in this letter.
Q Just to make it clear... who was this Professor Schreiber?
A He was a research worker for the Reich Research Council on the question of epidemics.
Q Now, what was his relationship in such work on epidemics and his research work, that is here under consideration.
A What his relationship was -- I should not like to say anything under oath about this. He was a deputy of the Reich Research Council, as I said, but since Haagen received commissions regarding typhus and hepatitis from the Reich Research Council, one must assume that he received them from Schreiber.
Q. You mean that Professor Schreiber, in the Reich Research Council, was working on this hepatitis question on a research commission?
A That can be deduced from what Gutzeit said here, as Handloser's witness, but I know nothing about it myself.
Q. We know that the prosecution is putting in all these documents in order to prove the existence of certain experiments on human beings. Now, let me refer to another document in which the name Dohmen appears. Mr. Dohmen is mentioned here. In the first paragraph of this document there is mentioned of an invitation that Mr. Dohmen discussed this matter with you ... or rather, with Haagen. Did you know anything of this planned work, involving Dohmen and Haagen?
A. No, I know nothing about that.
Q. furthermore, in this document, witness, in the next paragraph, it is aid that Haagen is approaching Schroiber for his assistance in procuring mice. This is the second paragraph -- let mo quote it-NO-299... Mr. Haagen writes:
"At the same time I should like to approach the subject of your negotiations for mice. My supplies, and particularly my cultures, are so deploted that they absolutely must bo rejuvenated and refilled. You told mo in Hohenlychen that it is possible for you to secure mice, even in large numbers. May I ask you to endeavor to secure for mo several thousand mice of both sexes, preferably only young animals."
Witness, to me as a lay-man this means nothing, and I can't imagine what this might have to do with experiments on human beings. How you a o no expert in tho field of hepatitis but you are a doctor and perhaps you can just tell us what the connection is?
A. I can only say that I can find in this letter not tho least intimation that there is any question here of experiments on human beings.
Q. Now, the last paragraph, which is of particular importance for you ... Haagen writes in this paragraph:
"Thirdly, I would like to ask whether the Hepatitis research will bo carried on in future out of funds of tho Reich Research Council.
My funds are this branch arc now exhausted and I am faced with the question whether to apply for further funds to my Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe, or to you. I would be grateful to you to be informed about this shortly."
Now, docs this show any connection between the Inspector of the Luftwaffe and the Referat which handles research assignments on the one hand, and hepatitis experiments of Haagen, on the other hand?
A. In agreement with the Document NO 137, Exhibit 189 ... it can bo seen from this letter that the research for hepatitis was assigned by the Reich Research Council, and also financed by them. At least, until 12 Juno 1944 the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe had nothing at all to do with Haagen's hepatitis research.
Q. Did Haagen later turn to the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe for a research assignment in hepatitis .. which is, after all, a possibility?
A. I know of no such application on his part.
Q. In this document, witness, there is talk of collaboration concerning the hepatitis question between Buechner, Kalk, Haagen, and other research men. All these physicians, as we know from other documents, are members of the Reserve Corps of the Luftwaffe. These are research matters .... and so I may ask you whether you know anything of this collaboration.
A. No.
Q. Witness -- just to clarify this whole business - one interim question .. These special fields that are here under discussion: Hepatitis, Yellow Fever, Typhus -- and so forth .. In other words -all these fields ... were you, in these fields, a specialist?
A. No.
Q. You know of no such collaboration .. Well, now on the question of hepatitis. Did you know anything about hepatitis work in Breslau, which played a considerable role here?
A. I heard of this hepatitis conference in Breslau for tho first time here, and I nay recall that even Professor Rose as consultant hygienist of the medical chief of tho Luftwaffe heard of this conference only after it was all over.
DR. TIPP: Your Honors, let me bring to your attention in this connection that regarding this collaboration with regard to Haagen, Buochner and Kalk, what was said in the case before by Dr. Schroeder, to wit, an affidavit of 9 January 1947 from Buechner, which was put in evidence and is in Schroeder's Document Book on page 58, Schroeder Document No. 18. It was given Exhibit Number Schroeder 17. Buechner, in this affidavit, explains just what the nature of that collaboration was to be.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Another hepatitis question, witness, based on Document NO-126, Exhibit 185, Document Book VIII, page 14. This is a letter from Oberstabarzt Haagen, of 27 June 1944, to -- and I quote: "Oberstarzt Prof, Dr. Kalk, with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services." This letter, then, according to what I just quoted, went to a member of your office, at least one can assume that. Did you know anything about this correspondence?
A. Np; and I may say that this letter is addressed to Professor Kalk personally, and that the address, quote: "With the Chief of tho Luftwaffe Micdical Services Saalow" -- unquote, is simply to inform tho postal authorities where tho letter was to be sent. At the end of June 1944 lots of inhabitants of Berlin had been bombed out, including Kalk; and to be sure that this letter reached Kalk it was addressed by Haagen's office with tho hope that it would bo forwarded. It was, however, personal, as can bo soon from tho heading -- "Dear Herr Kalk."
Q. In the second part of the same letter Haagen says that experiments on human beings were to be carried out. And he says... I may quote the last sentence: "Could you in yo r official position take the necessary steps to obtain the required experimental subjects?
I don't know what sort of subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal -whether they arc soldiers or other people." Now, that is a question whether Kalk, in his official capacity, through the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical service could take steps to get experimental subjects for intended experiments on human beings. Did you ever know that such experiments were planned, or did you know that your office was taking any steps in this direction?
A. I have no direct personal knowledge of that. I have no idea whether Kalk did anything about this request. I can refer briefly to various testimony on the part of witnesses here ... first, what Prof. Gutzeit said here; but, above, all, what the prosecution witness, Fraulein Edith Schmidt said here on the 9th of January 1947, page 3181 of the German record, on page 1378 of the English record. And this prosecution witness Edith Schmidt said, perfectly clearly, that no human being experiments were carried out regarding the experiments of hepatitis.
Q. Let me point out, in addition, that Professor Kalk has also given an affidavit that has some bearing on this. It is Schroeder Exhibit 15. A further question, witness. The prosecution on the 10th of December 1946 made the statement that Dr. Haagen was active at the institute in Strassbourg and that Haagen had received his orders from the defendant Becker-Freyseng. What can you say about ***** this Institute, and regarding the fact that you arc alleged to have given him orders in hepatitis research?
A First of all, I knew of no Institute for Medical Research in Strassbourg. From Fraulein Edith Schmidt or Olga Eyer, I did hear in this court that there was in effect some such institute and that it was part of the medical department of the University of Strassbourg. However, since I was not dean of the Medical Department of the University of Strassbourg, I was not in a position to issue any order to this institute. Secondly, Haagen was director of the Hygiene Institute of Strassbourg and was not a member of this Medical Research Institute. Then, moreover, I couldn't and didn't give Haagen any orders.
Q In this connection, Your Honors, let me draw your attention to an affidavit by Zuckschwerdt of 21 January 1947, which is in Schroeder Document Book 19, Page 61, Schroeder Exhibit No. 18. For the convenience of the Court, I have included this document in the Becker-Freyseng Document Book. I don't want to put it into evidence again nor give it an Exhibit number, but it is in the document book on page 142, in Document Book No. 2. Let me point out that Dr. Zuckschwerdt, in his affidavit, declared:
"The Institute for Medical Research in Strassbourg, as an integral part of the University, came under the Dean of the Medical Faculty. The head of the Luftwaffe Medical Service had nothing to do with it."
In connection with the hepatitis research, Mr. President, I have also to put in evidence Becker-Freyseng Document No. 33 on page 143 of the Document Book No. 2. This is something to supplement Dr. Kalk's affidavit. It is the report on the journey made by Professor Kalk on 10 March 1945 in his capacity as consulting interne, which was submitted to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service and which tells what was done by the Luftwaffe in the field of hepatitis. This will be Exhibit 19. I do not wish to quote anything from the document, but should like to draw it to the attention of the Tribunal. This concludes my treatment of the hepatitis question.
Summing up, witness, I may say that this entire subject was unknown to you at the time, and you have pointed out that the prosecution witness, Edith Schmidt, has stated that there were no human being experiments in hepatitis research.
Have I summed you up correctly?
A Yes.
Q I turn now to another subject, the subject of typhus. You are charge, witness, with special responsibility for and participation in typhus experiments from December '41 to February '45, in Buchenwald and in Natzweiler concentration camps. You have heard the prosecution's case in this matter, witness, and consequently you know that the experiments were carried out in Buchenwald by Dr. Ding-Schuler, and according to the prosecution, by your co-defendant Dr. Hoven. The experiments in Natzweiler, on the other hand, are connected with the name of Professor Dr. Haagen and his associates. The prosecution kept these two subjects apart. I shall follow their example and ask you what connections exist between you and your referat in the Medical Inspectorate and the experiments in Buchenwald.
A None.
Q Did you know anything about these experiments?
A Nothing about the experiments, nor about Buchenwald, nor about Ding-Schuler or Hoven.
Q You have heard how Professor Rose, who was also charged with this matter, spoke of the Buchenwald question and his participation in it. Therefore. I need only ask you regarding this matter; during your activity in the Medical Inspectorate, did you know anything of this aspect of Dr. Rose's activities?
A No. Let me remind you that Professor Rose stated here on the stand that everything that he had done or written in this connection was done in his capacity as a member of the Robert Koch Institute.
Q I now turn to the experiments which Haagen is alleged, by the prosecution, to have carried out in Natzweiler. Haagen was an Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, and from the end of '43 on he was consulting hygienist in the air fleet "Middle." What did you know about Haagen and his work during the war?
A Of his work, I knew nothing. When I took over the referat in May 1944, I found out that Professor Haagen had a research assignment on the production of typhus vaccine.
Theretofore, I had nothing to do with these research assignments, and Professor Rose was kind enough to corroborate this for me in the prosecution document NO-306, Exhibit No. 296. Page 47 of the English Document Book.
Q Witness, you have already said that all research assignments had the file note 55, and that for the sake of keeping things straightened out in the files, they were all worked on by the referat for Aviation Medicine; but actually only research assignments that really concerned aviation were worked on by your referat, the other ones were turned over to the referents who were concerned in the fields which were involved in the specific research assignments, is that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, in point of fact, which Referat competent to handle research assignments involving typhus research? Who was the competent fellow?
A That was the referent for vaccines, namely, the referent for hygiene.
Q Then you Aid have a separate referat for hygiene in the Medical Inspectorate?
A Yes.
Q Now, witness, since this file note number plays such a large role in this trial, what was the file number for the referat for hygiene?
A 49, with a few numbers after it.
Q That is the same file number that you talked about in the cage of the freezing research?
A Yes.
Q You said previously that as assistant referent, you had nothing at all to do with working on research assignments and that you came in touch with the formal aspect of research assignments only when you took over the referat as referent, namely in May 1944. So from that time on, you did work on the formal aspect or research assignment didn't you?