I would like to ask you, did Gluecks tell you anything about the contents of this letter?
A. No, I cannot remember that Gluecks talked to me about this. I am sure I would remember if he had, because Dr. Fahrenkamp is known to me and surely he would have made remarks to me about this, and therefore, I do not believe that Dr. Fahrenkamp was taken into these experiments at all, but this letter once again shows how Himmler did not have any plans in all these things. Once he writes Glueck and then he would write to me and I saw from one document he brought Schnitzler, his Adjutant in Munich and the camp commandant together. As far as the persons participating in all these things is concerned there is no straight line. He could write to this person or to that person as he felt, because that letter he just as easily could have written to me. Why should he write to Gluecks? Just as I said, Himmler did one thing one day and another the next.
Q. The next document submitted by the prosecution concern the Institute of Ahnenerbe. These are Exhibits 201 to 204. I would like to ask you, Witness, what were the tasks of that Institute and what were its relationships to the WVHA?
A. The Ahnenerbe was a scientific enterprise and stood under the leadership of Professor Wuest in Munich. Its tasks were mainly research into German prehistoric times. This Ahnenerbe also wanted to do its bit in the war effort and the only way it could find was to open an Institute for Military Science, a task which had nothing to do with the Institute's original task, but it would appear to have been the ambition of its leaders to obtain a few decorations. This Institute for Military Research suffered from the same lack of funds as did the Ahnenerbe; to finance the Ahnenerbe was a difficult proposition in itself.
It was done mainly by begging for funds from all sorts of agencies which becomes clear from Exhibit 201, "Whereas I or Gruppenfuehrer Berger have to beg from the Reich Treasury for money" and this was also the case with the Institute of Military Research, bat as that Institute had tasks in the interest of the armed forces and in particular on behalf of the Waffen-SS, Himmler concurred that the financing of this Institute must be done from funds of the Waffen-SS and this also happened. In the remark in Exhibit 204, it says, "From which part of the budget expenditure for that Institute that should be accounted as both the Ahnenerbe and the Institute for Military Research were under Himmler's personal staff," which is the reason why this communication, on the auditing of the money needed, is addressed to the Personal Staff-SS Himmler.
Q. I shall now come to the freezing experiments; and I should like to ask you, what did you know about these experiments, and when did you hear of them for the first time? In this connection I should like you to refer to Paragraph 12 of Rudolf Brandt's affidavit which is Prosecution Exhibit 205, and also Paragraph 17 of that affidavit. This is Document NO-242; and it is on Page 38 of the English text, 42 of the German. Will you also refer, please, to Exhibit 208 when you answer my question, which is Document NO-1619-PS?
A. I heard something about the freezing experiments because they needed women from the Ravensbruck concentration camp. In Paragraph 12 it says: "Himmler wrote to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Oswald Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, regarding his (that is, Himmler's) visit to Dachau in November 1942, during which he had observed the freezing experiments. He (that is to say, Himmler) observed the freezing experiments. He informed Pohl that he (that is, Himmler) had ordered that suitable women be set aside for the purpose of warming up the experimental subjects."
First of all, I think I should clarify this point because if you read this paragraph, one might assume that I in November 1942 had been to Dachau; that I had given certain orders. Apart from the high altitude experiments, to which I was taken without my knowledge or intention, I saw no other experiments, now am I informed on the manner in which they were carried out because at that time I did not see the reports which are now contained in all these document books. They were not submitted to me; they were not part of my work. About these women -- oh! -- Paragraph 17 of the same affidavit, apparently deals with freezing experiments in Auschwitz and Lublin; and it is alleged that I received a copy of the letter in order to order the carrying out of these experiments at Lublin and Auschwitz.
It is possible that I received such a letter; but judging from later documents, experiments of this kind were not carried out in Lublin nor Auschwitz because Rascher carried them out himself in Dachau.
Therefore, no order of any sort could ever have been carried out; and Exhibit 208, addressed to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, concerns the setting aside of four women from Ravensbruck.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. Before you proceed to the next exhibit, I think we should like to know what you have to say about the paragraph which you read and which you did not in any way explain, namely, whether you did or did not furnish the women that Himmler had requested you to furnish in connection with the freezing experiments. That is Paragraph 12. You read the paragraph and then merely passed it on. What was the use of reading it if you weren't going to tell us something about it?
A. I do not remember any more how the setting aside of these women and their transfer from Ravensbruck to Dachau was done. All I can say is that I myself was not in Ravensbruck nor did I select the women. I see from Exhibit 208 that this was later on dealt with by Gluecks and that Gluecks ordered the setting aside of these women.
Q. Well, but you were practically instructed by Himmler to set aside the women. Now, you didn't merely ignore a request of Himmler's, did you?
A. That is Brandt's allegation in his affidavit, that I had been given an order; but I can no longer recall that I ever received such an order; and it is rather unlikely because otherwise Gluecks would not have been ordered to do this.
Q. Well, if that is your explanation, very well.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. If I understand you correctly, Witness, you wanted to say that Exhibit 208 shows that it is a letter from Meine to Gluecks of 8 October 1942 when this matter was taken care of by Himmler's staff. Who was Obersturmfuehrer Meine? Where did he work?
A. Obersturmfuehrer Meine was a collaborator of Rudolf Brandt, of Himmler's secretary, and the same Brandt who says in Paragraph 12 that I had been given the order to set aside the women.
In Exhibit 208 his own, -- Brandt's -- collaborator Meine orders Gluecks to take care of this matter. Surely one order must have been sufficient. If I had been given an order, Gluecks needn't have received an order afterwards.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. Wasn't Gluecks one of your men?
A. Gluecks was the Inspector of Concentration Camps and Chief of Amtsgruppe "D".
Q. Therefore, under your control?
A. Yes, indeed.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):
Q. I understood you to say before you read this document that you remembered something about the freezing experiments because you recalled something about a request for women. From where did you get that information?
A. I knew at the time or I heard, which becomes clear from documents which reached me, that four women had been sat aside because in another document Rascher complains to Himmler that these women had not been suitable.
Q. I am not asking you about the documents. I am asking you what you testified to before you read the document. When your counsel asked you what you knew about the freezing experiments, you said, "I remember something about it because of four women being asked for in these experiments," or words to that effect. Now, from where did you get that information, regardless of the documents?
A. I received that information from Himmler's letters.
Q. All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Following up the Court's question, I should like you to comment on Document 1583-PS, which is Prosecution Exhibit 211. It is on Page 102 of the English Book and on page 96 of the German.
When you answered his Honor's question, did you think of that letter of Himmler's?
A. No, not of that letter. That letter is concerned with something entirely different and it has no connection with the medical experiments at all. The text of this letter says in Paragraph 2, "Rascher suggested to Reichsfuehrer SS to distribute the warming bags in both pockets of the overcoat and put another bag between the trousers and the body, and when it is very cold ---"
Q. Excuse me, Witness, you are talking about the wrong document. I asked you in connection with Document 1583-PS, on Page 96 of the German Document.
A. That document is missing in my book.
Q. This is the document which the prosecution has submitted as Exhibit 211. It is on Page 102 of the English text. I should like to ask you, when you answered the Judge's question, did you think of that letter?
A. Yes, that is correct. I had that letter in mind. That letter is addressed to me personally; and it discusses the setting aside of four women from Ravensbruck, in the interests of these freezing experiments. That is how I learned that freezing experiments were carried out in Dachau.
Q. Do you know, Witness, whether in Dachau following up this letter, that is to say, after 15 November 1942, freezing experiments were carried out?
A. I do not know how long these freezing experiments took and so forth. I do not know. I never saw anything of it.
Q. I shall now come to Document NO-428, which is Prosecution Exhibit 209 in Document Book No VII, on page 51 of the German and page 50 of the English. This is the final report on freezing experiments on human beings, signed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher. I should like to ask you, are the contents of this report know to you? When did you see this report for the first time?
A. No, I never received any report on medical experiments because my office was not a medical office; and therefore, there was no reason to submit scientific reports on medical experiments to me.
Q. I shall now come to Document -
THE PRESIDENT: Save it till after lunch, Dr. Seidl. We shall now recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 20 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, I now come to document NO-538, which was submitted as Exhibit No. 216. It is an excerpt out of Sievers diary in Document Book 7, on page 111 of the German text, and on page 116 of English text. It is stated on 28 January 1943 where we have the following entry, and I quote: "In Dachau discussions with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. A: Transfer of building site for the Entymological Institute." Now I will ask you, witness, did the Entymological Institute have anything to do with medical experiments?
A No, the Entymological Institute was a research place in order to combat vermin.
Q And in this diary on 26 March 1943, the following entry was made: "Established contact with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl because of the production of serum." Now I would like to ask you what was involved in this matter?
A Sievers at that time requested me to assist the Military Research Institute in establishing a production place for a serum, which at the time, I think, was called "Polygal", and which had already been developed. He came to me because of the German Drug GMBH of being under my supervision, and where this serum might have been produced. He did not like the idea, and thus so far as I am informed he later on established his own production place.
Q I now come to Document 1580-PS, which was submitted as Exhibit 215, and is a letter from Himmler to Rascher. It is dated 26 February 1943, and a copy of this letter was apparently sent to you. It is in the Document Book V on page 116 of the German, and it is on page 121 in the English version. It is a letter on re-warming experiments at Auschwitz and Lublin, and I now ask you, witness, were such Court No. II, Case No. 4.experiments carried out at Auschwitz and Lublin?
A No, Rascher himself has stated in another document that the execution would still have been possible at Dachau.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What, if anything, did you do when you received this letter from Himmler?
A So far as I can remember, I did not take any further action in this matter.
Q You just ignored an order from Himmler?
A Well, because the experiments had already been carried out at Dachau, the cold experiments, because Rascher himself stated that, I believe, in December...
Q I just want to know what you did, if anything, in regard to this letter, not what Rascher did, but what did you do when you received this order from Himmler. What did you do, if anything?
A It is possible that I made inquiries of Rascher if he wanted to carry out this experiment. I only received this letter in February, 1943, and it is possible that afterwards I inquired from him if he intended to carry out the experiments at Auschwitz, or at Lublin.
Q I don't care what is possible. I want to know what you did, if anything. If you remember saying anything, tell us, and if you don't remember doing anything, tell us that. That is what I want to know?
A I can not remember exactly.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, I now ask you to turn your attention to the next document which was submitted by the Prosecution. It is Document NO 292. It is a letter of Rascher, and it is addressed to Rudolf Brandt. It is stated in the second paragraph and I quote:
"The question of a saving of people frozen in the open air has in the meantime been cleared up. Thank goodness that there was once again a period of heavy frost weather at Dachau." Unquote.
You have previously spoken of the document which shows that the experiments themselves could still be carried out at Dachau and that for this reason further experiments at Auschwitz and Lublin did not become necessary. Did you in this case consider the letter from Rascher to Brandt?
A Yes, of course, I was thinking of this letter.
Q I now come to the so-called malaria experiments. In its presentation of evidence regarding the malaria experiments, the Prosecution has presented Exhibit 253. That is an excerpt of the trial held before the Military Tribunal at Dachau. It is Document NO 856, Document Book 8, Page 1 in both the English and German books. I now ask you if you knew anything about the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling, how did you obtain knowledge of them, and if you ever ordered that prisoners were to be furnished for these purposes.
A I knew of the malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling. When I inspected a certain building, without knowing that Schilling was working there, I accidentally was in his department and I made his personal acquaintance on that occasion. He then showed me around his institution. At the time I was unable to recognize just in what form these experiments were carried out, and therefore I am not informed as to the manner in which these experiments were performed. Then I heard nothing further about the experiments until the fall of 1943, when it was pointed out to me by Lolling that Schilling was still carrying out certain experiments and that he was again and again putting in requests for Court No. II, Case No. 4.prisoners.
I then wrote a letter to Himmler, which I have already described this morning. I pointed out in this letter that the furnishing of prisoners for these experiments was not considered as being correct by me.
Q I now come to the so-called food experiments. This is, first of all, Document NO 003. It is in Document Book 8, Page 15 of the German text and Page 10 of the English. The Prosecution has submitted this document as Exhibit 260. It is a letter which you wrote on 9 September 1942 to the Reichsfuehrer SS and which deals with the reform and settlement of food for the troops. I now ask you, witness, can you still remember the letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 12 August 1942, to which your letter represents the answer, and what food did these letters deal with, which are being discussed here?
A The letter which Himmler wrote to me and which I have answered in this letter I can no longer remember. However, I can see its contents from the reply which I gave, which refers to certain points which Himmler mentions or must have mentioned in his letter to me. In the entire letter, as is shown also by the reference, the letter deals with the reform and regulation of the food for the troops. At one time, Himmler sent me a booklet for me to study and which Professor Dr. Schenk, our expert, was also to look over. It was a booklet which came from reform circles and which was entitled "Poison in the Food". In the case of that booklet, we had a description on the false method of conserving food, which was being attacked by the reformers, and these reformers wished the preservation, and they wanted this to be within the legal limits. They claimed that certain assets such as salisylic acids which had arisen within the conservation for anything of time would not be fatal and would not damage the health but in any case that they would have a disadvantageous influence on the person who was eating this food for a lengthy period of time.
Himmler, who was also very much interested in this idea, now tried to make a certain experiment in this direction. These experiments, Court No. II, Case No. 4.in my opinion at that time, did not have very much sense because conserved food is being eaten in all countries by all people, and no physical harm ever results from it.
Since, however, he urged that the correctness of this plan should be examined, I told him that this could easily be done on prisoners because they would not incur any physical injuries, and, according to medical circles, there was no danger at all. However, nothing was done after this letter, and no experiments were made. They were postponed until after the war.
Furthermore, the letter also contains phrases in which only the reformist thoughts of the contents become evident. He talks about various reforms and other measures of improving food and so on.
Q I now come to Document NO 1422. It is in Document Book 8, Page 20. It is on Page 15 of the English Document Book. It is a letter which you yourself wrote on 20 March 1943 to the Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Service, Professor Dr. Karl Brandt. It is Exhibit 261 of the Prosecution. What reasons caused you to write this letter, and in what connection is this letter with the letter which we have just discussed to the Reichsfuehrer SS of 9 September 1942?
A This letter to Brandt has nothing to do with the letter which we just discussed. It must have been an answer which I gave Professor Brandt in reply to a letter which he had addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff. I can see from my answer, which is based on documents from the Inspector of Food, I can see there that Brandt was apparently interested in questions of the food supplies of the troops. I can not remember in detail just what matters were concerned. However, I have told him here that in carrying out experiments on prisoners, nothing new could be discovered, and no further steps were taken as far as I can remember. I can not remember that this matter was followed up any closer. However, again questions of the food supply of the troops were involved.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Just a moment, Dr. Seidl. You say this in the letter, at Page No. 16 of the English Document Book:
"Nevertheless, in other connections and with other aims in view, I am having nutrition experiments conducted in a concentration camp and shall be glad to work out there any special problems, if you have any such problems."
Now, if you did not carry out any experiments in furtherance of this letter, why did you say that in your letter back to him?
A That will have to be discussed in connection with another document, but we did carry out two food experiments at Mauthausen.
Q I just understood you to say that you did not carry out any, that nothing further was done about it.
A Nothing further was done about it in this connection. No experiments were carried out. In this matter in question which Brandt is discussing in this letter.
Q I am talking about your letter, the letter that you wrote back to Brandt, himself.
A No experiments were carried out in this case either.
Q What do you mean when you say this in your letter?
A With that I meant the two food experiments which we actually had carried out at Mauthausen. However, they were not in connection with the experiments which were being discussed here in this letter.
Q Why were you writing to Brandt then if they had no connection with it?
A Well, I don't understand that, Your Honor.
Q I don't either.
AAre you now referring to a letter of Brandt?
Q Yes. I am not referring to any other letter.
A. In both letters -- in my letter to Himmler and also in my reply to Brandt -- in both cases these matters were not followed up at all through experiments. The experiments which I have mentioned refer to the two food experiments which were carried out at Mauthausen which, however, did not have anything to do with these two letters.
Q. Well, why did you write Brandt about something that you weren't discussing at all, then?
A. I would have to look and see what I wrote to Brandt.
Q. The documents will speak for themselves. That is all.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Go ahead with your examination.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I want to see what I wrote to Brandt. I have not as yet found the place which you have quoted.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I was quoting from your letter to Brandt dated the 20th of March 1943, the third paragraph from the last in your letter, in which you put in brackets the quotation that I gave.
THE WITNESS: I have found it now; yes, that is absolutely correct. I state here in the paragraph:
"I therefore wish to say that we are able to determine exactly and in every respect what the forces need." The letter continues that nevertheless, that is without reference to what has been previously said in other connections, and that is what I have pointed out in my reply, that "with other aims in view, I am having nutrition experiments conducted in a concentration camp", and so on. These are the two experiments at Mauthausen, which I have already mentioned. Therefore, they did not have any connection at all with what is discussed here. These are the only two food experiments which were carried out with my knowledge. However, they do not have anything to do with this. That can be seen exactly from the text; they had another connection, and they had a different purpose.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that I should tell you that the misunderstanding was caused by the fact that the interpreter did not have the German text before him but gave a free translation from the English, and the defendant was not able to find this particular spot immediately in the document book.
In the German it was a little different, and that is the reason why he was unable to find it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is all straightened out now.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. I now come to document NO-1610, which was submitted by the Prosecution as Exhibit 262. It is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to you of the 2nd of August 1943. It is on page 23 of the German document book, and on page 18 of the English text.
What reasons were decisive for this letter, and did you, on your own initiative, order or approve any medical experiments before or afterwards?
A. The reason for this letter of Brandt's to me must have been in the letter of the Reich Physician SS. I replied to this letter that without the approval of Himmler I was unable to carry out experiments on my own and that at the time, by order of Himmler, two food experiments were under way. These are the two experiments which I have just mentioned.
These food experiments cannot be considered medical experiments. They were not aimed at testing food according to its medical aspects, but they were carried out in order to determine if the food was appropriate for the purpose for which it had been intended, as supplementary ration, that is to say, if the expenses which had been incurred would actually result in a deficiency with regard to food. Therefore, in my reply to Himmler, I mentioned once more the two experiments which he ordered carried out. Above all, this is the feeding of the egg yolk sausage, or as it says here, the diosine vegetable sausage.
This was a product of the albumen plant, which was contained in the fiber works and which, through a chemical treatment, was then changed and made useful for human consumption. It is the same product which the Friggs Works had developed, which even today is still known as Friggs Yeast and is still being sold for commercial use.
We hit upon this food during our search for additional food for the prisoners. It is within the field of my tasks to in some way improve the food of the prisoners. I myself, together with the inspector for food and with Staatsrat Schieber, to whom these works were subordinated, went right to the spot and I personally inquired as to the production and the conditions of sale. I also saw how this food was turned into the sausage. It was sold there to all the employees, and we were unable to obtain anything there. That is why, later, on, we went to another plant which was located on the Ruhr -- I can't remember its name any more. Schieber and Schenk again accompanied me. There we finally succeeded in obtaining the production for ourselves.
First of all, this food was tested on one hundred prisoners, only in order to see if this food was actually any good. That is why we carried out these food experiments. I frequently inquired with Schenk, and I received only favorable reports. I was therefore very much surprised, and I must say rather shocked to read in one of the documents here -- I believe it is an affidavit of Dr. Schiedlausky -that in the course of these food experiments prisoners are alleged to have died. I can't even imagine that today, because this substance was always used in food afterwards. I don't know what brought about these deaths; I personally tasted the sausage at the time. I never heard that any cases of death had occurred.
I cannot remember the second food experiment, which must have been in a similar direction, although I have tried to recall the circum stances.
However, It must have been something of a similar nature. In any case, these experiments had completely different aims, they had definitely positive aims, and they cannot be at all compared with the medical experiments.
Q. In any case, you say you never heard anything about the fact, in connection with these experiments, that any of the experimental subjects sustained injuries to health, and that you consider this completely impossible?
A. Yes. I never heard anything about it; I heard of it for the first time in this document. I am very much surprised. I personally --together with all the experts -- was of the opinion that this really was excellent food, and I still know it today as Friggs Yeast.
Q. I now come to document NO-177. This belongs to the documents which were presented in the course of the presentation of evidence of the sea-water experiments. It is on page 26 of the German document book, and in the English on page 21. It was offered as Exhibit 263. It is a record of a discussion which was carried out in the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe on the 23rd of May 1944.
I now ask you, witness: What did you know about this matter, and did the WVHA participate in this in any way?
A. I knew nothing at all about this matter. Neither I nor any representative of the WVHA participated in this.
Q. As Exhibit 264, the Prosecution, in this connection, offered a letter from the Reichs-Physician SS - Grawitz to Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, of the 28th of June 1944. It is document NO-179, and it is in document book VIII. It is at page 30 in the German book, and at page 28 in the English text.
I now ask you, witness; What does this letter show with regard to the participation of the WVHA, or you, in these experiments, and what reasons caused the Reichsfuehrer SS not to consult you on this question, but Gluecks and Nebe?
A. Well, I now see that Gluecks was involved in this matter; I do not know for what reasons. As I see, the Reich Physician SS approached the Reichsfuehrer SS on this subject. However, I did not find out anything about that at the time. I don't know what Nebe had to do with this; probably only the procurement of prisoners. However, I personally had nothing to do with this matter.
Q. I believe that the connection can be explained very easily if you will take document book VII and look at Exhibit 188. It is document NO-919, as it is an order from Himmler, which I have already referred to this morning, where it is stated leterally at the end: "The Reich Physician SS and Police will submit the application to me along with the critical opinion of the Chief Surgeon concerning the technical aspects and the opinion of SS-Gruppenfuehrer Nebe and SS-Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks."
Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I now come to Document NO-103. It is in Document Book VIII, page 32 in the German, page 30 in the English text. It was Exhibit No. 265. The Document also refers to the question of rendering sea water drinkable. I now ask you, witness... Did the Reichsfuehrer-SS previously discuss this matter with you, and do you know of the contents of this letter?
A. I can not recall that I had heard anything about the matter at the time. The entire organization of the experiments always were channeled over Grawitz and Nebe, ever since the order of May, and I was not included in any way.
Q. I now come to Document No-371. It is an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, which was presented as Prosecution Exhibit 267. The place which I have marked is on page 36 of the German Document Book and on page 34 of the English version. Under paragraph 4 it is stated, literally, and I quote: "Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Domen had his permission to conduct experiments at Sachsenhausen, and for that purpose he had Oswald Pohl of the WVHA to allocate a number of prisoners to be used as experimental subjects. I know that these experiments were carried out and that some of the prisoners died as a result." Unquote.
Now I ask you witness... Is this claim correct? Did you know anything about these experiments which were connected with research for causes of epidemic jaundice?
A. The allegation of Rudolf Brandt that I had selected a number of prisoners is in contrast with the order of Himmler which was issued - in Exhibit 269. Here Himmler personally wrote the number of prisoners to be used. That is, this letter to the Reich Physician-SS Dr. Grawitz. I received an information copy of this letter, and I did not have to take any action in this matter, because Himmler himself took the action.
Q. Are you referring to Document NO-011?
A. Yes.
Q. It is stated there, under paragraph 1 - "I approve that eight prisoners who were condemned to death at Auschwitz should be used for these experiments." Within the presentation of evidence in the sulfanomide experiments the prosecution has submitted several other affidavits and excerpts from the records of Military Tribunal One, about the testimony of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. These Prosecution Exhibits 270, 271, and 273, are on page 39 of the English Document Book, and the subsequent pages... I now ask you witness... Did you have anything to do with the sulfonomide experiments which were carried out in the concentration camp Ravensbruck?... when did you gain knowledge for the first time of these experiments?
A. I had nothing to do with these experiments. I can't remember that I heard of them at the time. Now I only have I gained knowledge of them; through these documents.
Q. As Exhibit 275 the Prosecution submitted a letter of 16 February 1944, which you yourself addressed to Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, which refers to the publication of Dr. Rascher, "the Polygal", in the Munich Medical Weekly Gazette. It is Document NO-615, Document Book 8, of page 65 of the German text, and on page 7C of the English text. I now ask you, witness,.. Did you write this letter to Rascher on your own initiative, or by order of Himmler?
A. I personally did not read any medical journals and weeklies, and therefore some agency must have given me the order to write this letter. I do not know if it was Himmler or Schenk, but I think it was Himmler.