Your Honors, I should now like to call our attention to the sketch attached to this affidavit. I have had an English translation prepared by the General Secretary's office so that you will be able to follow. If you will be kind enough to take this sketch you will find at the bottom a broad camp road, then at the right the entrance to the hospital, and then in the middle the main corridor of the hospital, and perpendicularly the block street. The third square in the middle is the experimental station. You see "wash room", "toilet", "sea water experimental station", "medical students room", and museum". Next to that there is the outer court yard of the block street. Now, if you go further to the right you will see the name "Vieweg". That is the point where the witness Vieweg was. It says there "Malaria Station". It is certain that Vieweg must have been there because he said he worked for Schilling in the malaria station. Now, you will be interested in knowing where the second witness Tschofenig was. He was way in back in the last category. There is one small subdivision and that says "X-ray station". That is where the witness Tschofenig was stationed who took all the x-ray pictures for the whole hospital. It is impossible for Tschofenig to see from there what happened in the sea water experimental station.
Now, let's follow the path taken by the corpses that Mr. Vieweg saw. Behind the barracks shown here, there are many other barracks. Now, if you follow the corridor of the hospital and the block read, you will find, at the top, TK. That is the morgue. That was the hospital morgue. Then, moving on to a door. Here there is written "moor express". I asked him what he meant by that. He said that was a joke in the camp. There was no railroad in the camp of Dachau, of course, but the prisoners themselves had to remove the bodies from the morgue and take them to the crematorium in a hand cart. They were taken past the sea water station, through the block read, and they were covered. Those are the corpses that Mr. Vieweg saw.
Now, I shall submit an affidavit from Document Book I. Document #15 on page 48. This document will be Exhibit #22. This affidavit is by a Catholic prior of a big cloister in Austria from the same district as Beiglboeck. I shall not read all of it, only two paragraphs.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal. May I inquire of counsel whether or not he intends to continue his direct examination of the defendant Beiglboeck this morning, or whether he is going to read his affidavits now. It seems to me that he could continue his direct examination and introduce his affidavits after the time that Beiglboeck has left the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem, counsel, that it might be a better procedure to finish the direct examination of the witness and then introduce the documents unless you desire to question the witness concerning these documents. I understood that your direct examination of the defendant Beiglboeck was almost concluded. You stated that you expected to conclude it last evening.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, this is the last document. Only the documents where there were possibilities of question I wanted to read while the witness was on the stand. Then there are some other documents I shall read later.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q I shall read from this document of the prior only two paragraphs. On page 50, at the top:
"He remarked that, if he had to carry out such work, he would prefer to do so in his hospital at Pleskau."
That is a term we haven't heard yet and I wanted to ask the witness why it says Pleskau here instead of Dachau. That seems to be a mistake. Witness. One sentence will be enough, witness.
A I believe that is a confusion. I visited him twice once from Pleskau and once while I was in Vienna during this job, and apparently he confused the two places because he didn't keep these two visits entirely separate.
Q And what was Pleskau? Only in order to clear the location -
A Pleskau is a Russian town where I was in the hospital while I was in Russia.
Q Thank you.
I shall continue:
"Since he added: 'If I do have to conduct these experiments I can't help it, because I am an officer' - I gathered that he was absolutely opposed to these experiments and that he entertained the idea of refusing his cooperation, if possible, but that he had inner doubts as to the possibility of such a refusal being successful.
"According to his whole behavior, he obviously was under strong pressure at that time."
And the last paragraph on the bottom of this page:
"Significant for our relations and for the trust I placed in Professor Dr. Beiglboeck is the fact that upon receipt of his note stating that he was in Dachau, I asked him to look after a member of our convent, Father Richard Wolf, who was held as a prisoner there.
"I naturally would never have done this if I had not placed full reliance in Dr. Beiglboeck's attitude.
"In reply, I received a letter from a Luftwaffe hospital From this hospital it appeared that he had left Dachau.
In this letter he emphasized how happy he was to have got away from Dachau and to be back at his former medical work."
And now I am finished with my documents?
Your Honors, in the beginning of my case I said that I wanted to build my case up like a cable car. There would be a leading cable and a safety cable and the safety cable would be the scientific basis. I don't believe that I shall have to use this. I don't want to argue now, I just want to call your attention to the following circumstances. The prosecution has submitted documents by Tschofenig, whom I have characterized, and Vieweg, whom I have characterized, and a Mr. Bauer, whom I shall speak of later. It is noteworthy that the prosecution, who are such advocates of humanity, did not do the most natural thing, that is, to bring the experimental subjects, the victims as witnesses. When I came to my office today I was surrounded by my colleagues and secretaries and I was told that at eight and eleven last night, on the radio, there was an appeal to all victims of the sea water experiments to report and they were promised that they would be given quarters and good food. I was very happy because I saw that the examination of the defendant as a witness was so effective that the prosecution was obliged to send out an SOS. I now make application your Honors, for permission to call a witness, before the cross examina tion begins, who was one of these experimental subjects. This is Mr. Mettbach, whom I announced as a witness on Saturday, according to the rules. As defense counsel, it is my duty to see to it that this witness appears before you without prejudice and makes his statements here. Otherwise, I would have submitted an affidavit, but I thought that the Tribunal would like to see this witness and that Mr. Hardy would certainly like to have an opportunity to cross examine this man. Therefore, I ask for permission to call this witness now, so that he can be quite unprejudiced. I can't give him anything to eat. I have no food cards. I must send him back. He is a poor Gypsy and I don't want to keep him here too long.
Therefore, I make application that the witness be called now.
MR. HARDY: Of course, I object to that application. I wish to start my cross examination of the defendant so that the continuity will not be interrupted and so that my preparation will not be interrupted. Furthermore, the remarks regarding the prosecution's requesting that these Gypsies report to Nurnberg is rather uncalled for inasmuch as the prosecution hasn't been in a position to send out such a call before inasmuch as the names of the Gypsies were never made available to us. I wish to cross examine the defendant Beiglboeck today. The prosecution strenuously objects to calling the witness prior to the cross examination of Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume, Mr. Hardy, in view of your statement, I assume that the authorities will be prepared to furnish food for the witness until he is called.
MR. HARDY: If he is a defense witness, there are regulations set up for that. They have a Defense Information Center and Mr. Wartena takes care of those problems.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may refer the matter to the Defense Information Center which will take care of food and lodging of the witness until he is called.
MR. HARDY: Furthermore, Your Honor, I request that due notice be given to the prosecution as to the witness' name and all particulars concerning his background.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand from counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck that he had furnished that information. If he has not done so, it should be done immediately.
MR. HARDY: I have not received it, Your Honor, and I wouldn't be in a position to cross examine the witness until such time as I am able to study his case also.
DR. STEINBAUER: Your Honors, we are dealing with very primitive people. The prosecution has quite different resources than I do.
They could have issued an appeal some time ago, but did not do so. I tried to find these people. With great effort, I was unable to do so. I could not undertake any large scale actions, of course, and I am happy that I was able to find at least one which will complete the chain. You have heard the doctors, the nurses, the defendant, and there is only one thing missing now. I had no obligation to say anything. I could have been silent. I could have said "It's up to you to prove it." I submitted scientific material and gave it to the prosecution as my client said he had nothing to be afraid of. The prosecution has the temperature charts from which any doctor can see when the experiment began, when it was finished, what the course of the experiment was - the whole history is in the possession of the prosecution. I have not asked for it back. I wanted the prosecution to have an opportunity to study it. I know that Professor Ivy is here. He will certainly study the matter. We have nothing to be afraid of. That is my point of view.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I don't understand this plea and I request a ruling as to whether or not I can cross examine the defendant Beiglboeck now or whether I have to wait until after the witness is called.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will make that ruling in a moment. Defense counsel will immediately furnish to the prosecution the name of the witness and other information concerning this witness.
DR. STEINBAUER: Your Honors, it was done quite formally on Saturday through the General Secretary's office.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel to make that statement. Counsel for the prosecution has stated he has not received it. That is, of course, not the fault of counsel for the defendant.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, it seems to me that this procedure would be most unusual. This witness is now on the stand undergoing direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the direct examination - the examina tion of this witness will proceed, but we are discussing the status of this witness who will not be called until after the defendant Beiglboeck is excused.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of the witness?
DR. STEINBAUER: The witness' name is........
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): The Tribunal regards this witness whom you have named and mentioned as an important witness, but the Tribunal desires to see that the witness is fed and housed as it is done - the usual manner as other witnesses. If any question arises concerning that, and the Defense Information Center is not prepared to hake care of the witness, if you will report it at once to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will take the witness under its own protective custody in order that he will be fed and housed until such time as he is called to the stand. I cannot imagine shy the Defense Information Center, if you have requested them, has not seen that this witness has been fed and housed as other witnesses are.
DR. STEINBAUER: May I announce the name of the witness? The name is Ernst Mettbach.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please spell the name?
DR. STEINBAUER: E-r-n-s-t M-e-t-t-b-a-c-h. He lives in Eschenau 10, Fuerth, Bavaria. So that there is no confusion, I am on friendly terms with the Secretary General's office. I merely wanted to say that through this radio appeal, in view of the food situation in Germany, hundreds will report and say, "I will be given food and I will go to Nuernberg and tell them something."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel need not concern himself with that problem.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I assure you the prosecution isn't running a bread line. The prosecution merely sent out an appeal.
THE PRESIDENT: That matter has been settled, Mr. Hardy. There is no use taking further time.
DR. STEINBAUER: I am finished with the direct examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel have any questions to propound to this witness?
BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for defendant Sievers):
Q. When did you meet Wolfram Sievers?
A. I saw Mr. Sievers for the first time and only time in my life, before this trial I mean, of course, on 20 July 1944 in the discussion in Dachau which has been mentioned here.
Q. Had you been informed before that you would see Sievers on the 20th of July in Dachau at this conference?
A. No, I was not informed of that, or at least only immediately before the conference.
Q. Then your superior agency did not tell you that you had to negotiate with Sievers?
A. No.
Q. What kind of an impression did you have from this meeting with Sievers? Was that just an accident?
A. Mr. Ploetner, with whom I had negotiated "before hand concerning these laboratory questions, said to me one day, "A man has arrived from Berlin. He can decide this question. Come with me. We will take to him."
Q. And what did you discuss with Sievers?
A. I told him that this small laboratory in Ploetner's institute was not adequate for my investigations and asked him to give us a second bigger laboratory in the entiomological institute, and he promised to do so, and we did get this room.
Q. Was anything said on this occasion, about the execution of the sea water experiments? Was anything said beyond the supplying of the laboratory room?
A. No, not a word. The conversation was exclusively about this room.
Q. Then you did not talk to Sievers about the supplying of experimental subjects?
A. No, the experimental subjects were no doubt supplied on orders from Berlin and through the camp commandant's office. As far as I know, Sievers had nothing whatever to do with it.
Q. And this original opinion of yours did not change in the course of the experiments?
A. I didn't see Sievers any more; I didn't have anything more to do with him after the end of this conference, which as I said was about the laboratory. I never saw him again. I never heard of him again until I came to Nuernberg and heard he was one of my co-defendants here.
Q. And after this discussion you never saw or heard anything of Sievers which night have indicated that he had nothing more to do with this matter?
A. No, I never heard anything more.
Q. Did you in any form, orally or in writing, give a report to the Ahnenerbe or the Reichsfuehrer SS, or any other agency, aside from your own branch of the Wehrmacht, concerning your experiments?
A. I reported on these experiments only to my superior agency, the Luftwaffe Medical Inspector, and no one else.
Q. Now, you heard in the course of earlier examination that the Ahnenerbe had an institute for military scientific research. Did this institute have any connection with your experiments in any way?
A. I knew the name, knew that Ploetner was working at that institute, but aside from these very vague connections, which were limited entirely to laboratory questions, I had nothing to do with this institute and the institute had nothing to do with me, that is, my experiments in no way were carried out or promoted or influenced by the Institute for Scientific Research.
Q. Now, for my final question. The fundamental question is the sea water experiments as far as I am informed were the 20th of May 1944?
A. The 20th of July.
Q. Yes, the 20th of July. Pardon me.
Subsequently did you learn whether Sievers or any other representative of the Ahnenerbe was present at this discussion?
A. I did not understand you; that was on 20 July?
Q. No, at the fundamental discussion about the execution of seawater experiments?
A. Oh, you mean in Berlin?
Q. Yes, in Berlin.
A. From my own knowledge, I cannot tell you anything about this discussion. I was not present myself. What I know about it, I learned the details from this trial here. I heard from Becker-Freyseng at the time that some men from the Navy, some men from the technical office and some University professors, including Eppinger and Heubner had held a meeting and arranged for the experiments. I never was told that the Aheneerbe or any SS agency participated in this discussion.
Q. Thank you, no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions by defense counsel?
DR. FLEMMING: (For the defendant Mrugowsky.)
Q. Professor, the Prosecution has charged Mrugowsky with responsibility for and participation in the sea-water experiments; did you know Mrugowsky before the beginning of this trial?
A. No.
Q. Did you know his name; had you heard his name in any connection with these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear anything else which might indicate that he was in any way connected with the sea-water experiments?
A. I never heard of any other agency or any persons inconnection with the sear-water experiments, except the members of the Luftwaffener were the advisors called in by them, neither Mrugowsky or Schaefer or anyone else in the SS. I knew only that Himmler had given approval for the use of the experimental subjects and for the execution of the ex periments in concentration camps.
Q. Do you know the committee for Drinking Water Equipment in the Reichs Ministry Speer?
A. I learned of the existance of this committee here.
Q. Then as far as you know this committee had nothing to do with the sea-water experiments?
A. Certainly not. Making sea-water drinkable was not done by a committee but by the discovery of Dr. Schaefer.
Q. Do you know Dr. Zikowsky from Vienna?
A. Yes, he is the leading expert in Vienna for infectious diseases and the head of the big infectious hospital in Vienna.
Q. What was his attitude toward National Socialism?
A. I cannot give you any detailed information about that, but as far as I know he was not a party member. I believe that he had certain political difficulties, but I cannot give you any detailed information, only what I can more or less remember.
Q. Thank you no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions by any other defense counsel? If not, the Prosecution may cross examine the witness. Before proceeding with the cross-examination, the Tribunal will be in recess.
( A recess w-as taken. )
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Beiglboeck, when did you join the NationalSozialistische Partei?
JUDGE SEBRING: Are you now proceeding to examine?
MR. HARDY: Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: May we ask a question or two?
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Witness, will you please turn to your Exhibit No. 32 in Beiglboeck Document Book 2, the document having been admitted in evidence this day as Beiglboeck's Exhibit No. 21. I refer in particular to the chart which has been made by Fritz Pillwein. Do you have it before you?
A Yes.
Q Can you say whether this chart is a correct representation of the wards, blocks and streets shown and whether or not it is correctly draw to scale?
A I can not say anything exactly about the scale from memory. These were big barracks. Where is says, "Entrance to Hospital," that was where one came into the hospital. That was between two long barracks as are shown here.
Q How wide would you say that sick bay entry was?
A I estimate that it was about seven meters from the camp road until this line which Pillwein put in here at the end of his remark, "Entrance to Hospital. I estimate that was about seven meters.
Q How wide would you estimate the main corridor shown on the chart?
A How long you mean?
Q The width, not the length.
A Your Honor, you mean this main corridor that goes through the hospital? It was about three and a half or four meters wide.
Q The space that is indicated on this chart as being the "Block street" through which bodies were wheeled to the morgue and finally to the crematory, was how wide in your estimation?
A It was the same width as the main corridor of the hospital. As far as I remember, it was the same width.
Q Was it covered over as a part of a building or was it an open street?
A It was between two barracks. This was a covered hall and between the barracks.
Q Is that also true of the passageway which is designated on this chart in English as the "Main corridor?" Was it also covered?
A Yes. Between the next two barracks there were open courtyards which also are called "Streets" here. This next street, the middle I can't say. I was never there, between the last two barracks where it says "Outer Court of the Experimental Station of Rascher - that was at that time Ploetner - that was an open courtyard.
Q Would you estimate that these "Block Streets" or "Courtyard" between the barracks were about the same width as the barracks themselves?
AAt least.
Q The barrack building or room in which you conducted your experiments, what would you say was the overall width of that barrack room or building?
A I estimate that it was eight meters wide and at least ten meters long.
Q Then from the nearest point of the outside wall of your sea water experimental station to the outside wall of the station where Vieweg was stationed would be, in your opinion, about what distance?
A That was also a courtyard. It was before the Ploetner station, about five meters wide.
Q. Would it be your best judgement then that all of these barracks shown here are about 8 meters in width, and that the yards or streets between them were about 5 meters in width; is that correct?
A. Approximately, I can't give you definite figures, of course, but I remember that the distance was approximately the same as the width of the barracks themselves -- it could be one meter or more or less, I do not know, I cannot remember so exactly.
Q. Then, from the place where your Sea Water Experiments were carried on, you were approximately 5 to 7 meters from the Malaria Station in which Vieweg was stationed, and you wore about the same distance in the opposite direction from the Malaria Station which is shown on the chart as Block 3?
A. That this was the Malaria Station I did not know at the time. I thought it was part of the hospital at the time. Where it says "Vieweg," that was a laboratory, I know that, a laboratory for blood tests. I was never in either of these places. I can only testify as to what I saw through the window of my station. I saw that over there, where it says "Vieweg" there were microscopes and laboratory tests were carried out. Between my experimental station and where it says Malaria Station, Block 3, there were sometimes prisoners in the court yard. I considered that they were hospital patients.
Q. Now, then, the area, this is an area marked on the chart as "Court yard for Dr. Rascher's experimental station," where, in relation to that court yeard, was Dr. Rascher's experimental station?
A. Dr. Rascher was not there any more when I was in Dachau. As far as I can judge from what has been said here, he must have been dead already.
I knew this as the "Ploetner Station". And, in this laboratory which is at the end of the chart, I had a small room as a laboratory. Next to this room there was a big laboratory in which Ploetner worked. And, those laboratory rooms were shut off by a solid wall from the rooms where it says, "Personnel Rooms of the Experimental Station." I believe that the prisoners who worked for Ploetner also came from this direction, apparently they lived there.
Q. One more question. I understood you to say that as one of the rewards for volunteering for your experiments, the experimental subjects were to be given an additional or supplemental ration which was the same in quality and quantity as the SS food ration; was that inducement held out to them? Not the SS food ration but the Luftwaffe food ration?
A. Before and after the experiments, they were to get the Luftwaffe rations. The policy which I asked for them after the experiments was that they should not be put back to work, yet, and that they would be given additional food from the hospital for, sick people, and for persons who did extraheavy work, there were additional rations, and I demanded these additional rations for my experimental subjects, and the Chief Physician promised them to me.
Q. Can you state in what particulars the additional food rations which were to be given to your experimental subjects differed from the regular Wehrmacht food rations given to the soldiers in the field?
A. I cannot say, exactly. The patients in the hospital, I know this only from hearsay, I did not see this for myself, I only know the food that my nurses got. The hospital patients got milk, butter and bread and, in addition, as far as I remember, they got half a loaf of Wehrmacht bread in the morning, the same kind of bread that was issued in the Wehrmacht; then for breakfast they had either margarine or marmalade and ersatz coffee; for lunch they had a one dish; and for supper, they had some kind of soup and bread, or on several days I saw that they got sausage and cheese and margarine and bread, one of these things each time.
I would estimate that this food of the medical students was about 2000 calories; that is a rough estimate.
Q. I believe you said at the beginning of your direct examination that you made some effort to have these experiments carried out in your own laboratory or institute; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you of the opinion that you could have found enough volunteers outside a concentration camp to have carried out your experiments in your own laboratory or institute?
A. I am convinced that if one had gone to an unit of the German Wehrmacht and had said we need so and so many people for an experiment, who wants to volunteer, that I would have got enough soldiers. Certainly it was not that nobody would have volunteered; it was just that because of the existing orders, no one would be released for such a thing. But, under peace time conditions or less stringent orders, I am sure I would have got enough soldiers.
Q. What did you tell your experimental subjects by way of preliminary explanation concerning the details of the experiments they were about to undergo?
A. I told them about the following: It was to be decided whether sea water could be made drinkable or not; and, how one should conduct oneself if in distress at sea;
then I described to them, more or less, what the conditions at sea distress are; that the flyer crashes at sea with his life boat drifting along, and has to go along without water or drink sea water. I told them that there were two processes which would make sea water drinkable; I told them that we had two processes which were to be tested. I also told them that drinking sea water or salt water is very unpleasant. And, that I could guarantee only the one group which got some water that they would not be thirsty, and all the other groups would be thirsty. And, then I told them that during this time they would have very little food or perhaps none at all; that they would be hungry, too. I told them that their thirst would be very unpleasant. I made that very clear to them, and then I asked them whether they would be willing to do this, and saying that this was an experiment in the interest of rescuing people; that by taking this unpleasantness on themselves they might help many other people. And, I told them that if they cooperate and the experiment went off well, they would get cigarettes from me according to a system of premiums. And, furthermore, that I would try to get alleviations of their sentences for them. What I had in mind was what had been promised to me by the SS. I had been explicitly told that these people would not have to go through the experiments for nothing; that they would get certain considerations. Two people told me that explicitly.
Q. Who were these people who told you that?
A. One was the adjutant of the camp commandant. The other was Dr. Ploetner.
Q. Did they explain in detail what concessions were to be given these concentration camp volunteers?
A. They told me there was light work in the camp. For instance many prisoners as far as I saw were just keeping the rooms in order-the billets of the SS guards and the officers had to ne straightened up in the morning, etc. This work was very coveted. It was much easier than work in the factories, for instance, or construction work. They were to be assigned to such light work for a considerable period And, then I know that many of them wanted certain alterations for their relatives. I remember that one of my gypsies wanted his father or some relative who was also a prisoner to be released. I passed this request on. Then, as I said, part of the gypsies were former members of the Wehrmacht and they told me there were certain prospects for members of the Wehrmacht to be released more easily. And, I reported their names and had their cases reviewed.
Q. Now, then, what wise did you tell your experimental subjects about the experiments? I am talking about prior to the time that you actually began the experiments.
A. I told them that I would divide them into various groups. That one group would receive water that had been processed and the others would go without food or drink and others would get sea water. I told them one group would get one-half as much as the other. One would get one-half liter and the other one liter a day. I also pointed out the group that got nothing and the group that got sea water would have the most thirst, that they would have the most to put up with. And, I made the distribution in this way by picking out the strongest people for these groups. And then I told them at the beginning that we had to make a number of tests, that urine had to be collected and that blood would be taken from them for examination.
That is roughly the explanation that I gave them.
Q. Is that all you told them?
A. Then I asked them whether they were willing under these circumstances, emphasizing the fact that they would suffer from thirstwhether they wanted to participate in the experiments. They had a chance to think it over and they came back and said, "Yes, we want to participate." And I said, "If you are willing now then you have to keep the conditions of the experiments later."
Q. Did you tell them anything else?
A. I can't remember anything else at the moment.
Q. You have introduced in evidence Beiglboeck Document No.32 in Beiglboeck Document Book II, which has been received in evidence by the Tribunal as Beiglboeck Exhibit No. 21. It is an affidavit or a statement made by one Fritz Pillwein, I believe. You introduce that exhibit as part of your evidence in the case and as a part of your defense, do you?
A. Yes.
Q. On page 2 of the original exhibit which appears on page 118 of the English text is the answer directed to the affiant as follows: "What do you know about the citizenship of the experimental subjects?" And as a part of the answer of the affiant appears this statement:
"The experimental subjects in most cases spoke the gypsy dialect. Many of them were obviously of S lavic origin." Is that correct?
A. Yes. Among the gypsies there were some who came from Hungary or the Hungarian border. I don't know how many, three or four perhaps. Then there was a larger group which came from near Bratislava. I don't know exactly where but they often spoke Slovakian. There were many of them who did not have any definite residence. I talked to the gypsies quite a bit during the course of the experiments. I know part were German, part of them from Austria, one was, I believe, from Roumania.