This gave the Luftwaffe the opportunity to clarify urgent medical problems -- quick rewarming -- through experiment -- not experiments -on human beings. I don't know how you can draw the conclusion from that that I knew about all the experiments.
Q Were you aware of the fact that Haagen got inmates from the SS?
A No. Of that I knew nothing. I believe this question will be thoroughly clarified here.
Q Well, now this second sentence, the one which the interpreters say is rather ambiguous. However, they do state that the Prosecution's translation is more likely. This sentence as it stand in the copy presentend by the prosecution, or the translation presentend by the prosecution, on page 18 of Document Book 5#, states as follows:
A Document #5, not 15.
Q I believe I said 5.
"Today I again stand before a decision, which after numerous experiments on animals and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final resolution."
Now, as that stands here now, isn't it apparent that you had worked as far as possible on voluntary human subjects and that you were looking for inmates other than volunteers?
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, perhaps this would be the appropriate moment for a brief remark, namely the following: Mr. Hardy has just stated that the interpreters said that the prosecution's version was more likely. I ask permission to put two questions to the interpreters to clear up this difficulty once and for all, then I believe we shall see this matter perfectly clear. The first question.....
MR. HARDY: Just a moment, Your Honor, I have already filed with the Tribunal a memorandum. Defense counsel has that opportunity to do the same. The Prosecution has filed their memorandum, a copy has been sent to defense counsel, a matter of three months ago, with the opinion of the Chief of the translation Section, and the Chief of the translation Section, who is more an authority on this matter academically than the interpreters in this court room, has stated in that memorandum both to the Tribunal and to Defense Counsel, that the translation as presented by Defense Counsel is absolutely incorrect. Therefore I think I can continue my examination, presuming that the Prosecution's contention is right, without interruption.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as I know, no member of the Tribunal has seen the certificates which were filed concerning these different trans lations.
I understood that the interpreters, who reported to the Tribunal in open Court, would file a written statement of what they had reported. If Counsel desires to cross-examine the witness upon the assumption that the Prosecution's translation is correct, the Prosecution may do so.
MR. HARDY: Pardon me, Your Honor, may I cross-examine the witness following the contention that the translation is correct and not assuming it to be correct?
DR. TIPP: May I reply briefly, Mr. President? Mr. Hardy stated that a memorandum from the Chief of the translation Department was put in three months ago, stating that the Defense Counsel translation is incorrect. Let me mention two points in this connection. First neither I nor my two colleagues concerned in the sea water matter, Dr. Pelckmann and Dr. Steinbauer, ever saw such a memorandum from the Chief of the language Division. Secondly, the sentence which Mr. Hardy says the Defense is translating incorrectly is apparently the one which was put to Becker-Freyseng four days ago, by Mr. Marx, in direct examination. Now what Mr. Hardy says cannot be entirely correct. I do not believe Mr. President, that it is permissible, before it has been cleared up without any doubt which of the two interpretations of this sentence does justice to the spirit and the letter of the German that crossexamination be carried out on the basis of the translation submitted by the Prosecution and contested by the Defense. If this cross-examination is to have any point, it can be carried on only on the basis of a new translation which is accepted as correct by both the Defense and the Prosecution, and such a translation we do not have.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Defense Counsel desire to have his own experts make another translation of this, with their reasons for the translation which they contend is correct?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President, This memorandum is in a state of preparation but is not yet finished. I believe we can dispense with a written memorandum however if the interpreters would not answer two questions - which I should like to put to them if Mr. Hardy will let me.
The first one is .......
MR. HARDY (interrupting), I submit, Your Honor,....
THE PRESIDENT: (interrupting), Allow counsel to finish his statement.
MR. HARDY: He was about to ask questions of the interpreters.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that. Counsel will not ask the questions without the permission of the Tribunal, but counsel was making some further statement.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I should like to put to the interpreters only two questions, the first of which is.....
THE PRESIDENT(Interrupting) Just a moment before propounding those questions. What have you to say concerning that procedure, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: I say concerning that procedure, Your Honor, that it isn't proper to ask the court interpreters this questions. This is a academic one. The Office for Chief of Counsel for War Crimes has four Abteilungs in the language Division, one of which is the translation Section. In the translation Section are people that have different qualifications in many respects from the interpreters here, and in such a matter as this they confer with one another and sit in a round-table conference. Just that has been done. To ask these interpreters here to simultaneously answer questions concerning these points which arc so ambiguous, and to do it in a period of a half hour, is unfair, and I submit that if Defense Counsel requests to put questions concerning translations, that they should be directed to the Chief of the Translation Branch of the Office of Chief of Counsel for Bar Crimes, and the Chief of that Branch will answer his questions.
DR. TIPP: I regret that Mr. Hardy is accusing me of unfairness. I believe that I have not deserved such an accusation in the course of my presentation so far. However, if I have so been reproached, Mr. President, I feel that it is just as fair that the Translation Department, according to Mr. Hardy, turned a memorandum three months ago about this decisive document in the seawater case, which defense counsel had never ever heard, until now, much less seen a copy of.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal finds no occasion for any reproach to Defense Counsel. During the noon recess, which is about to take place Counsel for Defense may procure - the Secretary General may deliver to Counsel for Defense a copy of translation which the Prosecution says was filed with the Defense Counsel some time ago. Defense Counsel may then prepare the questions which they desire to propound to translators and submit those questions to the Tribunal when it reconvenes at 1:30 o'clock. Copies of all these papers should be prepared so that each member of the Tribunal may have a copy.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in connection with this topic, I understand that this situation arose some months ago - was brought up by Defense Counsel. At that time, Mr. McHaney - of course, I am busy with many other problems. I didn't handle this problem. Mr. McHaney handled it. Mr. McHaney at that time requested the Translation Division to exhaustively study the documents, and he filed a memorandum, written by Translation Division, with the Secretary General for distribution. It may well be that it has not been distributed to date, but that was, as I understood it, and it was in answer to an objection previously raised, by Dr. Marx, not Dr. Tipp.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Mr. Hardy, if that has been done, shouldn't it be a very easy thing for you to procure copies and deliver them to such Counsel the Defense as are interested and perhaps deliver them to this Court. This Court have never seen them.
MR. HARDY: All copies were delivered. No copies were saved, Your Honor. I have been unable to find the other copies and I am preparing a new one to submit during rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: You say the Secretary General has now no original copy on file?
MR. HARDY: Well I didn't check with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be the Office - that would be the place where certainly an original should be. Counsel for the Prosecution and Defense will ascertain, during the noon recess, whether the Secretary General still has an original copy of that translation as it was reported and filed with the Secretary General and delivered to Counsel as stated now by Counsel for the Prosecution, although he was not personally connected with the preparation of that translation. A copy of that translation should be ready to present to the Tribunal at 1:30 o'clock. By that time Defense Counsel may prepare the questions concerning this disputed translation which they desire to submit to adequate interpreters, whether our own in court or others or a combination of both The Tribunal will then determine how the matter will be handled and a final report will be made to the Tribunal. The ultimate decision will, of course, rest the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I'm afraid I won't be able to secure those copies of the translation. I would have to explore around to find these copies, and I could not make them available at 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT: It occurred to me that the original would be on file with the Secretary General, it hadn't occurred that the disputed translation would be very long. I suppose it would take five minutes to make copies on typewriter. I may be wrong.
MR. HARDY: Then, could I request the clerk here to procedure that from the Secretary Generals Office?
THE PRESIDENT: The Court is about to go into recess. I would suggest that Counsel for the Defense and the Prosecution and the Clerk of this Court proceed together to the Office of the Secretary General and ascertain if that record is available there and can be found. If it cannot, and no other copies are available that would be an impasse as far as this translation is concerned, and we would have to start over again. Is there anything further the Tribunal can state prior to taking a recess?
DR. TIPP: Perhaps, Mr. President, I could ask that the noon recess be until 2:00 o'clock.
In the period of one hour I doubt whether I or Mr. Hardy will be able to make these necessary ascertainments.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I think the best solution to this problem is, I think the objection has been raised to a question put by me in the course of cross-examination. The problem is that defense counsel has submitted a translation which creates a doubt as to the authencity of a translation submitted by the prosecution. That is argument I think that if we can put this off to a future date - perhaps during the time of rebuttal and clothing when both sides can ably prepare a brief on the subject and submit them on that date, then the people involved can be called before this Tribunal as witnesses and testify, if necessary. I think the problem is far too acute to try to settle it today and will continue my cross-examination by merely referring that my copy is true, as an assumption, as I did in the case of the defense counsel's copy. I have done that in one instance and I should like to do it in another instance.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel will base his questions upon the assumption that the translation submitted by the prosecution is correct than the examination may proceed. It would be impossible otherwise because the witness does not admit that that translation is correct. I think the week-end, is approaching and the Tribunal will recess tomorrownoon - until Monday morning which will allow a little bit longer time. During that time, some progress might be made in settling this translation, but if Counsel for Defense desires to prepare the questions which they wish to submit to a group of interpreters they may present those questions to the prosecution and to the Tribunal as soon as they are prepared.
Is there anything further that can be added?
DR. TIPP: On this occasion, Mr. President, unfortunately, I have another question to bring up that concerns the translations. Many days ago I gave a document to the Translation Division which is of decisive importance in clarifying this sea water problem. It was an affidavit by the same Mr. Christensen who drew up this report we have recently discussed here.
Despite my efforts every day, I have not succeeded in receiving this translation within a period of ten days although this is a document of only four or five pages, and, in my opinion, should take a maximum of two hours to translate. I wish to make no charges here. I do not know what the reason for this is. I do not know why this decisive document has not yet been given back to me and perhaps the Tribunal can help me in obtaining this translation in time to use it in the case of Becker-Freyseng.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been advised that the Translation Department is very heavily loaded with work and has been unable to produce the translations as rapidly as possible. If Counsel for Defense will call at my office, I will endeavor to call the Office of the Secretary and see of this Translation can be expedited. That is just immediately upon the recess now. Counsel will come to my office and I will telephone and see if I can ascertain the reasons for the delay in the translation At this time will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 28 May, 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG (Resumed) CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, first of all I must humbly apologize to the Tribunal for stating this document was filed three months ago. I was informed at noon time the memorandum was dated 15 May. I must admit I am thoroughly embarrassed that I said it was filed three months ago.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring, counsel, to this translation?
MR. HARDY: That is right, Your Honor. I have here a copy of the memorandum written to Mr. James M. McHaney, Chief, SS Division, by Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch, attached thereto a carrier note to the Secretary of Military Tribunals, subject: Translation of Document NO185, also a copy of the memorandum to The Secretary General, Military Tribunal:
"(1) The attached memorandum, subject 'Translation of Document NO185', presents accurately and without omission the view of the Language Division on the translation of the sentence in question." (Signed) Thomas K. Hodges, Director, Language Division.
In order to clarify this point, Your Honor, I suggest at this time that this memorandum be given to the court interpreter and ask her to read it into the record. It is only one and one half pages. If clarifies the point to agreement, I think, of defense counsel. After it is read in the record, I think defense counsel will make a statement on it and then we can clear up the matter here and now. After having been read by the interpreter, it is suggested that the copy be turned over to the court reporters so that they will place it in the record without errors and omissions and then returned to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Each member of the Tribunal desires a copy of that memorandum.
MR. HARDY: I would like to have it read into the record and turned over to the court reporters and then returned to me and I will have a sufficient number of copies made for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has defense counsel any objection to that proceeding of that being read into the record by the interpreter? That will in no way be binding on defense counsel; they can still make any arguments they desire as to whether this is correct or incorrect.
Very well, that procedure may be followed and the interpreter may read it into the record. I will say for the record that the defense counsel signified no objection to this procedure. I would suggest that the interpreters first read the sentence in German and then read the document which has been given to them.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the memorandum is so written that it has the entire passage in German in the memorandum.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that is all included in the memorandum.
THE INTERPRETER: "15 May 1947.
"TO: Mr. James M. McHaney, Chief, SS Division "FROM:
Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch "SUBJECT:
Translation of Document No. 185 "Dr. Hans Marx, counsel for defendants Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, objects to the translation of a sentence in Document NO-185.
The disputed sentence reads in German:
"'Ich stehe heute wieder vor einer Entscheidung, die nach zahlreichen Tier- und auch Menschenversuchen an freiwilligen Versuchspersonen eine endgueltige Loesung verlangt.'
"The translation of the document in question was certified by Miss Gertrude Levinger and the sentence reads as follows:
"'Today I again stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final resolution.'
"Dr. Marx claims that a correct literal translation, according to the sense, would be:
"'Today again I am standing before a decision which after numerous experiments on animals and also on human beings demands a final solution on voluntary experimental subjects.'
"'Resolution' is, of course, wrong; it should be 'solution'. The German sentence is very awkwardly worded. You do not find a solution for a decision. But I cannot accept Dr. Marx's translation, however awkward the sentence may be put together in German. He asks for a correct literal translation, and the one he gives is supposed to have these qualifications. However, it will be seen that in this translation 'eine endgueltige Loesung' does not appear in the correct sequence. Dr. Marx makes an arbitrary transportation. A correct literal translation, without commas, just like the German original, is as follows:
'"Today again I stand before a decision which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution.'
"If the German meant what Dr. Marx claims it to mean, then the same sequence of words used in this English translation would also exist in the German version.
"The German sentence unequivocally states that up to now animal and human volunteers have been experimented upon and a final solution is now demanded.
"It is correct that part of the last sentence of the first paragraph is missing, namely the words 'nach unseren heutigen Kenntnissen' (according to our present knowledge)."
(Signed) Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I submit that the new literal translation intended by this memorandum reads as follows:
"Today again I stand before a decision, which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution."
I could ask if defense counsel is willing to accept that translation for the passage of the German document, in other words, this is different than the other two that have been offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may ask that question if they desire, but if they desire more time to study the matter they will not be required to answer that question now.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I do speak some English, but on this important point I should not like yet to say that the translation is completely correct. As far as I can tell, the translation last suggested agrees with the German words, but as I said I should like to have an expert in the field examine it.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may consider this matter over the weekend or sooner, if possible, and report to the Court as to the translation which they believe is literally, grammatically correct.
Meanwhile, in cross examining the witness, counsel for the prosecution could either ask the witness, upon the assumption that the translation is correct, or avoid that subject to be cross examined, if desired.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in this document, that is, the letter written to the Reichsfuehrer, signed by Schroder, was it your intention to ask for voluntary experimental subjects?
A. Yes, that was my intention. If you permit, I shall briefly give a few reasons which today too, prove it from this sentence. Perhaps that is a matter for later argumentation. I am not informed on that.
Q. I think we shall wait a bit on that, Doctor. After you had sent this letter, requesting that voluntary human subjects were to be used, did you after that time follow up the sequence of events and determine whether or not the persons used actually were volunteers?
A. In the course of further events I twice concerned myself with the question of whether these persons were volunteers. The first time before the experiments and the second time, after the experiments. Before the experiments, I talked to Professor Beiglboeck this question, as I have already testified on direct examination, not for legal reasons did not interest us at the time, but for medical reasons.
After the experiment, I talked to Professor Beiglboeck about the question of volunteers when I asked him what kind of prisoners ha had obtained and how these prisoners were actually put at his disposal at Dachau and were turned over to him for these experiments.
Q. Let us turn now to the next document, Doctor, which is Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit No. 135found on Page 20 of Document Book No. 5.
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. This is a letter of 28 June 1944 from Grawitz to Himmler including comments by Gebhardt, Gluecks and Nebe on who the experimental subjects should be, and in this I want to call your attention to Paragraph 2 where Grawitz reports the attitude of Gluecks, and therein Gluecks stated: "Referring to the above letter, we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station RASCHER in the concentration camp Dachau. If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to bo used."
Does that sound like a good expression of volunteer subjects to you, that is, "Jews or prisoners held in quarantine"?
A. I may say that I saw this letter here during the trial for the first time, that I am not accustomed to the wording of SS agencies and I don't know what this sentence is intended to imply. At any rate, it does not say that people are to be forced to submit to the experiments. Why prisoners were to be taken from quarantine I have no idea at the moment. I do not know I had nothing to do with the matter.
Q. Well now, if it is fully understood that you did not sec this letter-- the prosecution does not contend that you received a copy of the letter -- but I am now asserting, after all, the evidence is in at length that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that is, the evidence on the part of your defense, and we are now interested in shedding some light on the subject. I am sure that the Tribunal is interested in getting your understanding of the implications of this letter because it deals with those persons who were, in fact, selected to undergo these experiments you sponsored.
So let us forget whether or not you received this letter and just devote your attention to the letter itself and what it points out; and I will ask you if Gluecks' comment doesn't raise a little suspicion in your mind since he suggest the use of Jews or prisoners held in quarantine". Maybe they weren't going to be volunteers and maybe they were.
A. I thank your for admitting the theoretical possibility that it could have been volunteers, but unfortunately I am unable to answer your question because I do not know why SS-Gruppen-Fuehrer Gluecks suggests taking prisoners from quarantine. I had too little contact with conditions in concentration camps to know. Perhaps he meant people who have been through quarantine, so that one could know definitely that they are healthy, but, I don't know that is merely an assumption. I was not consulted and I was given no opportunity to make suggestions.
If Gluecks thought people should be taken who had just been through quarantine, - perhaps - who came from an epidemic district who had been in quarantine, and of whom it was definitely known that they would not become sick in the near future, then this was quite a sensible suggestion from the medical point of view.
It must have been clear to SS-Gruppen-Fuehrer Gluecks that for this experiment, which was to last four weeks, we needed healthy people.
But I am unable to say what Gluecks had in mind because I never talked to Gluecks in my life.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I am entirely unfamiliar with the German language. Is there any other word in German which might be translated as "quarantine" and also give some other translation?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I know of no such second meaning for the word quarantine.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. In other words, Doctor, if you had received a copy of this letter at the end of June, 1944 -- say you had seen a copy of this in June, 1944 -- would you have still gone ahead with the experiments?
A. May I ask for a moment to look at the letter first? I have not studied it as carefully as some of the other documents, since it did not refer to me.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Against at least two of the facts given here I would have objected. The first is in the statement of SS-Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks that the experiments be carried out at the Experimental Station Rascher. There was never any question of that. After the Nurnberg meeting, I never had anything more to do with Mr. Rascher. Neither I nor anyone else thought of bringing the sea water experiments into any connection with Mr. Rascher, not even the slightest connection.
The second would be that I would have suggested that it bo written to Reichsartz Dr. Grawitz concerning his view; that gypsies, since they are of a different race, might give unreliable results. This is a very childish statement from the physiological point of view; that would not to be expected at all.
If Prof. Schroeder had seen this letter he would probably have called up the Reichsarzt SS and reminded him that he had promised him to find the experimental subjects under the soldiers unworthy of bearing arms who were sent to concentration camps.
Those are the points which I can pick out immediately glance as things which I would have dealt with if I had got this letter; but, I did not get it. But I can say one thin: For me, in 1944, it would not have been clear, any more than today, that our prerequisites for the experiments, that volunteers be used, was in any way doubtful.
Q. Doesn't the third section of this letter, a comment Nebe, create some sort suspicion also, wherein he states, and I quote; "I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in order to evolve a method for making seawater potable. I propose taking for this purpose the as ocial gipsy halfbreeds. There are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards labor committment. Regarding these gipsies, I shall shortly make a special proposal to the Reichsfuehrer, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects.
Should the Reichsfuehrer agree to this, I shall list by name the persons to be used."
Now, in fact gipsies were used in the seawater experiments and Nebe says that he still sit up in Berlin and list by name the persons to be used. Now, wouldn't that indicate that there would not be any volunteering here on the part of the subjects?
A. That is a conclusion on your part with which I cannot agree to. Mr. Nebe merely says that he will name the required experimental subjects to the Reichsfuehrer SS. He does not say how he will do that. At the time I would have assumed, quite naturally, that he would have gone to the Camp Auschwitz, which I actually heard of for the first time in 1945; that he would have had forty gipsies volunteer and would have sent this information on to the Reichsfuehrer. According to what we know today it is very easy to find a different interpretation, but at the time it would certainly not have occurred to me.
Q. Well now when did you learn gipsies were used in the experiments?
A. I learned that when Beiglboeck came back from Dachau after the experiments. In my direct examination, I said that I granted tho possibility that I might have learned it during the course of the experiments when I agreed to meet Beiglboeck near Vrutstein. And unfortunately came two days too late because of an air raid on a train on which I was traveling. I found a short note from Professor Beiglboeck when I got there and it is possible it said something about gypsies but in any case I remember only that Professor Beiglboeck said something about gipsies only after the experiments were finished and he came back to Berlin.
Q. Well would you have confirmed the experiments if you had known that before, that gipsies would be used?
A. First of all that is again a hypothetical question so that I can give a hypothetical answer; since I did not know before hand. Why should not gipsies volunteer? I don't know what I would have done at the time. I can't say.
Q. Did you see Beiglboeck before the experiments?
A. Whether I saw Beiglboeck before the experiments- yes, of course.
Q. Well did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?
A. I already said that for purely medical reasons I talked to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects and I told him I expected to got volunteers and would not have any difficulty from the subjects in carrying out the experiments. I should like to emphasize I had no anticipated legal reasons to say anything about these volunteers but a purely medical cause of the experiments for medical reasons.
Q. Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that tho experimental subjects who were volunteering for the experiments must be of German nationality?
A. I am sure I did not say that because I never doubted that. I never thought of any other possibility for I don't know how any other possibility could have occurred to me.
Q. Do you know whether or not gipsies were recognized as Germans under the racial law of the Reich?
A. I know that the racial laws of the Reich and the so called Nurnberg racial laws specifically left the question of gipsies open because just the racial affiliation gipsies is a question on which scientists are not quite agreed, but I know that certain gipsies were definitely recognized as full German citizens. I don't know how it was in general.
Q. Do you think that the gipsies were recognized as good Germans Nordic citizens?
A. Nordic Germans, I wouldn't want to reject that. The idea is held that the gipsies come from India and since there is a great many inter-Germanic racial families I consider it quite possible that some people hold the point of view that gipsies are Nordics but I don't know. I am no expert on racial problems.
Q. Of course, if they were good Germanic Nordic citizens they wouldn't have been in a concentration camp, would they?
A. I would not know for certain. I was never in a concentration camp but I have heard since and. I have seen the witness Kogon who looks definitely like a Nordic type, and I wouldn't consider it impossible for Nordic gypsies to be in a concentration camp.
Q. Now you have outlined just what you instructed Dr. Beiglboeck to do when he arrived at the concentration camp to commence his experiments?
A. Let me point out I did not say that. I talked to Professor Beiglboeck about it but I didn't give him any orders.
Q. Well you said that Dr. Beiglboeck--I will read it to you here in a minute.