A. I made an explanation yesterday of how I arrived at these figures.
Q. No, never mind the figures for the moment. Answer the other question -- whether you mean to maintain, on your oath, that this drive against tubercular Poles was actually carried out?
A. No, I can't do that because I don't know about that.
Q. Well, witness, that was a statement which was made by YOU. The interrogator did not make it. You were the confidant on the staff of Himmler. That was not suggested by somebody else. You said that, yourself, and on your oath.
A. I gave the explanation yesterday.
Q. That was no explanation, witness, at least not for this statement. Witness, do you know today that this plan of Greiser's was not carried out at all? Do you know that from the documents which have been read here?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that now
A. Yes.
Q. And do you realize that these documents also show that you knew exactly that the plan was not carried out? Witness, I will make my question more detailed. A letter was read one time which Himmler had written to Greiser, where he referred to an order from Adolf Hitler and said that this Polish drive had to be stopped for the reason which Dr. Blome had given. Do you remember this letter by Himmler?
A. Yes, but I was not shown this letter in the interrogation.
Q. But, witness, in 1942 this letter went through your hands.
A. It was one of a hundred thousand letters which went through my hands that time.
Q. But, witness, at that time you knew that 25,000 or 30,000 sick people wore to be killed.
A. If I have read the letter as carefully at that time as I have Court I 25 Mar 4 -M - 11-3 - LJG - Lesser - (Int.
von Schoen) now, perhaps.
Q. You don't have to read the letter carefully. If you read it at all, if you just glanced at it, one should think that it could not have escaped your memory. Do you want to admit today, witness, under oath, that Greisier's plan for the liquidation of the Poles, was given up completely, and that the documents clearly show this? Do you admit that?
A. The documents indicate it.
Q. Do you remember something else?
A. I do not remember this case at all, only with the aid of the documents which have been submitted.
Q. Witness, I must ask you something. You were on Himmler's staff. You had a responsible position. Did you sign everything blindly, without reading it?
A. I gave the explanation yesterday. I said that because of the volume of work it was simply not possible to read everything.
Q. Witness, it was not just once in 1942 that you learned of Dr. Blome's point of view that he was against the Polish drive, but twice, and in both cases, as can be proved, the letters went through your hands. One time was Greiser's letter to Himmler with the opinion of Dr. Blome which was for the establishment of a reservation and against liquidation. And the second time, the answer, Himmler's decision that this plan was not to be carried out. In other words, you dealt with the matter twice. You learned twice that Dr. Blome rejected it and you never mentioned that. You said quite to the contrary under oath.
witness, I have a question now on another subject, Lost experiments. You have again given an affidavit here, one without date, which is in Document Book 13, No. 372. You state various persons in this affidavit who carried out the Lost experiments or who were connected in some other way with the Lost experiments. You mentioned first, Professor Hirt, then Oberarzt Dr. Wimmer, and your three co-defendants, Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Handloser and Dr. Rostock, and at the end you say, and I quote: "Dr. Blome was also no doubt informed about these experiments." End of quotation. Do you want to maintain this statement today, Dr. Brandt?
A. No.
Q. You don't. Today, under oath, you say that that is not true?
A. It was only an assumption on my part, which was put on record.
Q. An assumption on your part. Did you have any factual evidence to support this assumption, which would make it seem probable that Dr. Blome actually was connected with these Lost experiments?
A. No.
Q. No. And then, Dr. Brandt, a last question, of a similar nature but I must ask it because you mention other experiments and you try to incriminate Dr. Blome in connection with these other experiments too. In your affidavit of 24 October 1946, document 444, Exhibit 329, you mention low-pressure experiments, freezing experiments, sea-water experiments, typhus experiments sterilization experiments, Lost experiments, and gas experiments, all of them conducted on concentration camp inmates. Then you mention a number of your co-defendants who, you say, were connected with these experiments, and at the end you say, and I quote: "Kurt Blome, in his capacity as Conti's deputy, must have been informed, just as well as Conti himself. " You, signed that under oath, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to maintain this statement today?
A. Just as little as at that time.
Q. Dr. Brandt, you are a lawyer. You have experience. On the 24th of October 1946 did you know what function the defendant Dr. Blome had as deputy of Conti?
A. No.
Q. You did not know that?
A. No.
Q. And, never-the-less, you signed an affidavit saying that Dr. Blome, as deputy of Conti, must have been informed just as well as Conti himself.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness. I thank you.
BY DR. WEISSGERBER (for the Defendant "Wolfgang Sievers):
Q Dr. Brandt, yesterday in answering the second from my last question, as your defense counsel, you described some of the traits or characteristics of Himmler, which made a special impression on you. In the course of your examination you said several times that you acted on orders; now I would like to ask you a few questions on this subject in order to show to the Tribunal briefly the atmosphere which prevailed in the office of the Reichs Fuehrer SS. You were in the immediate entourage of Himmler for ten years and you no doubt gained lasting impressions there, so that you are still in a position today to answer my questions. Was an order from Hitler, a so-called Fuehrer order, was it sacrosanct for Himmler himself?
A Yes, one might say that.
Q Then as far as your knowledge goes, Himmler himself always abided by these Fuehrer orders?
AAs far as I can judge, yes.
Q Now, how did Himmler issue orders, and how did he insist on the strict execution of these orders?
A He issued his orders and took it for granted that they would be carried out.
Q Was there any objection possible?
A Perhaps one person or another could have said something, but he would not have had any success.
Q What would have happened if someone had violated the Fuehrer's orders or orders of Himmler himself?
A He would have had to take the consequences.
Q Do you know anything from the collection of the decisions of the Higher SS and Police- Court as to the consequences of failure to obey such orders?
AAt the moment I cannot give any example but I assume that--
Q I will go on to another question. The Ahnenerbe was known to you; its organization?
A In general, yes.
Q What was the organization of the Ahnenerbe; who was Sievers superior?
A Professor Wuest was the immediate superior.
Q Professor Wuest; that was the curator from 1937 on?
A Yes.
Q And who was above the curator?
A Himmler himself.
Q Himmler himself; do you know whether Himmler repeatedly had discussions with Professor Wuest?
A Yes.
Q The organization of the Ahnenerbe was such that specialized departments existed, a number of them, and at the head of each department was the chief of that department, a section chief, is that so?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that Himmler himself got in touch directly with these section chiefs without Wuest or Sievers knowing anything about it?
A Yes, that happened.
Q Did it happen that Himmler went to see the men personally; some of them were not in Berlin at all?
A Yes, on official trips he paid such visits.
Q Do you know that Himmler in connection with his research assignments, which he took under his own protection, was especially interested in them and watched over them jealously so that no third person could interfere in them?
A Yes.
Q And so you know anything about instructions from Himmler that without his knowledge a third person was not to be allowed to learn anything about the execution of such research assignments?
A I believe there is even an order to that effect.
Q What do you have to say about this order?
A I don't remember it, unfortunately.
Q Sievers was frequently in your office?
A Yes.
Q From a certain period of time on; did Sievers complain to you that the Ahnenerbe was being burdened with assignments which were completely alien to its structure?
A He often mentioned that.
Q What did he say about it; what was his point of view, did he consider this addition to the research assignments a burden or was he willing to support it?
A No, he considered it a burden especially because of the amount of his work which was already almost too much for him.
Q Do you know that Sievers went to Himmler himself and tried to have the assignment of fields of work alien to the Ahnenerbe removed?
A Yes.
Q Did Sievers talk to you about the work of Dr. Rascher in this connection?
A I assume so; but I do not remember it.
Q You knew Dr. Rascher; a number of the documents here have said that Sievers wanted Rascher to be taken over by the Waffen SS; did Sievers do that on his own initiative or was there an order or a wish from Himmler?
A There was an order from Himmler and also the wish of Rascher himself.
Q Now, I shall have Document Book No. 2 shown to you, from which I shall refer to Document 1581-PS, Exhibit 49, on page 60 of the German Document Book, I shall read it and I quote:
"To the Reichs Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe SS, Obersturmbann-fuehrer Sievers, Dear Comrade Sievers: I refer to your inquiry of 9 March 1942 concerning Dr. Rascher. Reference is made to the low pressure experiments carried out in the Dachau camp on concentration camp inmates by the Luftwaffe, the Reichsfuehrer SS has approved these experiments under the condition that SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, who is anyhow a medical 1st Lieutenant Oberarzt of the airforce takes part in them."
This inquiry of 9 March 1942 is missing from the document book, consequently I have to learn from you what the contents of this inquiry from Sievers of 9 March 1942 were; can you remember that?
A No.
Q Re can't remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding further, the Tribunal will be recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(a recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment Counsel, The Tribunal having received the certificate signed by the prison surgeon certifying that Defendant Oberheuser should be excused from this afternoon's session, the Secretary General will file the certificate.
Yesterday afternoon, three members of the Tribunal, having been designated as commissioners to observe and hear the film "I accuse", accomplished their mission and saw and heard the film. They reported that the translations were entirely effective and the the film with the accompanying sound track was both heard as well as seen. The commissioners have unanimously reported to the Tribunal that in their opinion the film is of no probative value whatever in this case. The Tribunal having considered their report, it is unanimously of the same opinion. The Tribunal, therefore orders that the film will not be shown to the Tribunal as evidence, being entirely lacking in materiality or probative value.
Counsel may proceed.
RUDOLG BRANDT - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q Dr. Brandt, before the recess I asked you whether Himmler attach value to the maintenance of greatest secrecy Regarding his research assign ment. You affirmed that question and you furthermore stated that according to your knowledge there was in existence a special order for the maintenance of secrecy. When speaking about this special order were you speaking about the basic order Number 1 regarding the maintenance of secrecy, namely, the order of Hitler, or was there yet another special secrecy order issued by Himmler which just concerned his research assignments?
AAt the moment I cannot remember that, I would assume that another order was especially issued for that purpose; but I can't tell you that now for sure.
Q In that case you cannot remember the year in which this order was issued?
A No.
Q I shall now have the document Volume 3 shown to you. I am referring to the affidavit which you made on the 6th of September 1946 and which was submitted by the prosecution as Document NO-242, Exhibit 80. On page 4. I will refer to a paragraph which starts with "Sievers was annoyed", and I am going to show you this document book so that you can define your attitude towards it.
(Document book handed to witness.)
Q (Continuing) This passage can be found at the end of the page. It starts with "Sievers was annoyed". "Sievers became annoyed at the intervention of Dr. Grawitz and immediately raised objections against his gaining control of the experiments. Sievers was also annoyed with a report of a conference between Grawitz, Rascher and Obersturmbahnfuehrer Poppendick, in which Rascher quoted Grawitz as having said that it was an untenable state of affairs, that one who was not a physician such as Sievers should have jurisdiction over medical matters."
Would you please turn to page 126 of the German translation in the very same document volume. We are concerned with the document NO-320, exhibit of the prosecution 103.
This is a letter sent to you by Sievers on the 28th of January, 1943. Would you please read through that letter and then answer the following questions? First, was this letter submitted to you during your interrogation? Were the contents of this letter transferred to your affidavit of 6 September 1946 that you subsequently made?
A. I assume that this letter was submitted to me, but really what I then said in my affidavit would be contradiction to the contents of the letter.
Q. Where do you see that contradiction?
A. Nothing about "being annoyed" can be derived from that letter.
Q. I attach importance to whether you can remember that this letter was submitted to you during your interrogation of the 6th of September, 1946. Can you still remember that?
A. I believe it was submitted to me.
Q. If you look at the letter, the Document No. 320, Exhibit 103, are you then still of the opinion that Sievers sent this letter to you on your own initiative, and that he personally was annoyed about the behavior of Dr. Grawitz, or is this letter kept along the general line which of necessity was a consequence of the directives of Himmler?
A. The latter is true.
Q. Then you are of the opinion that Sievers personally had no special interest in the development of the situation between Grawitz and Rascher, but that he had to write this letter in order to carry out the directives of Himmler who wanted the collaboration of Rascher with Ahnenerbe?
A. Yes.
Q. You know Sievers' diary, don't you? Do you know Sievers' diary?
A. Yes, I have seen it here.
Q. You didn't know it before?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Were such diaries dept in all of the agencies of the Reichsfuehrung-SS?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the result of an order by Himmler?
A. Yes.
Q. From Sievers' diary it can be seen that he repeatedly had conferences with you.
How did that come about, and what generally was the subject of such conferences?
A. Himmler originally wanted to receive Wuest and Wievers personally in order to discuss their affairs with them since he was personally very interested in the work of Ahnenerbe. However, it was not possible for him from the point of view of time to carry on these intended conferences. In this manner the only way out was that Wuest and Sievers approached him by way of writing, that is, writing to him personally or sending their letters to me. In order to avoid an extensive correspondence, Sievers and I arranged that he would visit me from time to time; I could then note down whatever he had to say and then read my notes to Himmler, and then inform Sievers about his decision either orally or by telephone, that was his order.
Q. That always concerned very concrete cases?
A. Yes, very concrete cases. There were various points of discussion which had accumulated through the week.
Q. And then Sievers turned to you: you shortly noted the contents of the points of discussion and then submitted them to Himmler who made his decision
A. Yes.
Q. I have yet another three questions which concern a different chapter. Do you still remember the case of Professor Seip who was the rector of the university at Osle? Seip since the middle of 1942 was a prisoner of the Gestapo in the concentration camp of Sachsenhausen. Do you remember this cas
A. Yes, Sievers reported this to me.
Q. In what manner? Did he tell you that Professor Seip, the rector of the University of Osle, was in Sachsenhausen?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you know about the further development of this case of Professor Seip. Did Sievers make an application to Himmler in the Fall of 1942 which had as a result that Professor Seip was released from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen Christmas of that year?
A. Yes, that is in accordance with what happened?
Q. Therefore, it was because of Sievers' intervention that Seip was released?
A. Yes.
Q. And now my last question: do you know the case of the several hundred Norwegian students who in the beginning of 1944 were interned in the concentration camp of Buchenwald?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal anything about upon whose intervention these Norwegian students were released?
A. Sievers here again was active.
Q. Do you know the reason which moved Sievers?
A. Well, I don't know them in detail, but I think that he interfereed because he was not in agreement with their imprisonment, and that he immediately wanted a change.
Q. Do you know when this change in effect occurred?
A. I don't know that, but I assume that it was done immediately.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, counsel for the Defendant Beiglboeck.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. Witness, I have a very short question to put to you: were political considerations of importance regarding the assignments of physicians for certain experiments such as sea water experiments?
A. I don't remember that any such question ever arose.
Q. In that case you say that this was not the case.
A. Yes, I cannot remember it.
DR. HOFFMANN: Counsel Hoffmann for Dr. Pokorny.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q. Witness, I am going to submit to you Document Volume No. 6. In this Volume No. 6 you made an affidavit regarding sterilization experiments. Would you please look at page 2? There under paragraph 5 you write:
"As a result of Pokorny's suggestion, experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates in order to test the effectiveness of the drug."
On what is your knowledge based, and is what you say there correct?
A. I have no knowledge, and in this case, too, this is an assumption on the basis of the document material submitted to me and the subsequent discussion with the interrogation officer.
Q. Witness, what documents were submitted to you on that occasion? Can you remember? I assume that these were your own documents. Just turn to page 19 of the same volume; there you write to the Deputy Gauleiter in Lower Danube regarding this matter. Do you remember that letter?
A. Yes, after it was submitted to me I remembered it.
Q. And there in the second paragraph you say:
"The growing in hot houses is a very tedious process and the yield does not seem sufficient to carry out the planned experiments on a larger scale."
You couldn't derive from this document that experiments were actually carried out, could you?
A. No, I couldn't.
Q. Then you had some further correspondence in that matter, and this brings us to the last document also in volume 6 which you find on page 25, and there you say in the last paragraph:
"I have sent a copy of your letter to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl with the request for further action. I am sure that you will receive a reply from his agency within the next few days.
This letter originates from you and is also sent to the Gauleiter of Lower Danube by the name of Gerland. I assume from this letter that you gave the entire matter over to Pohl after the 25th of October, 1942, or did you do anything more in that matter? Did you continue to deal with it?
A. I don't remember having worked on that further.
Q. Then it is really true to say that you neither know that experiments were carried out nor that they were not carried out?
A. I can't tell you whether nay experiments were carried out.
Q. On page 19 I have submitted to you your letter of the 29th of August 1942, now let me turn back to page 13 of the same volume. Here you will find a file notation you, and on the one but last paragraph it is said: "The Reichsfuehrer SS also requests further that with the possibly existing ingredients of this plant on hand, sterilization experiments should now in any case be carried out in the concentration camps." Then the next paragraph, which is: "Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl agreed to take the necessary steps at once." This file notation dates from the 22nd of June 1942. On the 29th of August 1942 you are still speaking about planning. Therefore, it is not true that any experiments were carried out on the basis of that file notation is that right?
A. I don't know what was done as a result and I don't know what actually happened.
Q. But I am sure you wouldn't have written on the 29th of August 1942, that is about two months later, that these matters were still in a planning stage. Just look at the letter once more?
A. The letter addressed to Gerland is based on a directive by Himmler. I couldn't have written anything like that of my own knowledge.
Q. Very well, but you wouldn't have written experiments were planned, if any experiments had already been carried out, on the basis of the previous file notation from June.
A. Yes, that is to be assumed.
DR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness by defense counsel?
DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the defendant, Mrugowsky) BY DR. FLEMING:
Q. Witness, how often did you personally see Mrugowsky?
A. I saw him once at Himmler's headquarters.
Q. Did you see him for any length of time?
A. I only saw him when he was introduced, that is on the occasion of lunch or dinner.
Q. What do you know about Mrugowsky's activities?
A. I have no conception at all what activities he really exercised.
Q. I shall have the Prosecution Exhibit 170 submitted to you. It can be found in document book No. 6, on page 58 of the German copy. Would you please read the last paragraph? It is page 54. Witness this is a file notation regarding a discussion about sterilization. Would you please read the last paragraph: "The Reichsfuehrer SS emphasized to us all participating gentlemen that we are here concerned with top secret matters which can only be discussed internally, whereby those who are asked to attend visits or conferences had to keep secrecy." Do you remember this file notation?
A. I only remember it because it was submitted to me.
Q. Now would you please look at document No. 440 in the document book Exhibit 141, which can be found on page 1. This is an affidavit made by you. Did you find it? This is an affidavit made by you which also concerns sterilization experiments. In the last paragraph, No. 8, you say: "Karl Brandt, Reichs Physician SS Dr. Grawitz, and Dr. Gebhardt certainly were familiar with this sterilization matter. Blumenreuter, Poppendick and Mrugowsky probably had knowledge of it also". Taking, into consideration the file notation which you just read wherein is contained the express order by Himmler to keep all matters secret, pertaining to sterilization, how do you base your assumption that Mrugowsky knew about sterilization?
A. I can no longer maintain that assumption.
Q. Did your statement at that time base itself on any facts, facts known to you that would indicate the participation of Mrugowsky in any sterilization matter?
A. No.
Q. I shall now have shown to you the document No. 444, Prosecution Exhibit 329. This document can not be found in any document volume. It was singly submitted by the Prosecution.
It is an affidavit made by you dated the 24th of October, 1946. Won't you please turn to paragraph 5 on the second page? It says there, approximately the middle of the paragraph 5; "Mrugowsky and Poppendick, both members of Griwitz' office, as well as Sieves, must have had knowledge about the experiments just as I did on the basis of the orders given me." We are there concerned with the section of the prisoners used for these experiments. You were just saying, witness, that you had no conception of Mrugowsky's activities. How then can you justify this statement that Mrugowsky must have known just as much about these experiments as you on the basis of orders given to you?
A. I cannot maintain that statement either.
DR. FLEMING: Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness by the defense counsel?
There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine him.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Brandt, for the past two days the witness Meine appeared in this court room to testify in your behalf. Now regarding the witness Meine, was he your subordinate?
A. Yes.
Q. When I questioned Meine concerning his knowledge of medical experimentation upon human beings in concentration camps, he answered that he had no knowledge thereof, do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. In addition when I put the document signed by Meine concerning the transfer of one, Dr. Wimmer, to the Waffen SS for the purpose of collaborating with Professor Dr. Hirth, Meine stated he had no knowledge whatsoever as to the specific experiments referred to in the document. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, to your knowledge, did Meine have knowledge as to whether or not Professor Hirth was working on LOST?
A. If he said that there is no contradiction there because of the fact because he was my subordinate. His place of work was Berlin. I was at the headquarters.
Q. Well, now, of course, you do not deny that you knew about Professor Hirth's work with lost gas?
A. Not any more than can be seen from the documents. That is fact itself.
Q. That is sufficient.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, unfortunately I just uncovered this document which I could not put to the witness. (Meine got off the stand before I have found the document.) It has not been translated. I didn't intend to put it in as an exhibit but it is a document signed by Brandt, and I want him to read it for identification and ask him a few questions thereon. It is very short. I don't think we will have too much of a translation problem with it. This is Document NO-1368.
Q. Is that your signature, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you kindly read that letter slowly so that the interpreter may follow you?
A. "Dear Comrade Sievers ----"
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, may I interrupt for a minute. I believe that it is the rule of the Tribunal that the defense counsel may know about the document which is being submitted to the witness for the first time during cross examination and I should like, therefore, to ask for copies of that document.
MR. HARDY: I submit again, your Honor, that we do not have copies of this document. I just secured the document. The defendant is now on the stand. It would be unreasonable to expect me to recall the witness at another time to put this document to him. It's a document signed by the defendant.
I am requesting him to identify it. The defendant will read it. Defense counsel should have due notice thereby.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the rules of the procedure, counsel is entitled at this time to have the witness identify the document. It may be marked as identification but the document should not be read until copies have been furnished to defense counsel. The witness may be recalled at some later date in order to consider the document.
MR. HARDY: Well, your Honor, may I at this time submit the copy to defense counsel for perusal? I will continue my examination. Later on in the afternoon I will revert back to this particular document.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand you have copies of the document?
MR. HARDY: No. I say, would it be possible for me to let defense counsel peruse this copy that I have, a single copy. I will proceed to another subject of my examination and before I complete my examination I can return.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that will be permissible.
The document should be marked as an identification.
MR. HARDY: The document is document NO-1368. It will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 464 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will, of course, at the same time copies of this document are delivered to the defense counsel, copies will also be delivered to the Tribunal.
MR HARDY: Yes, your Honor, I intend to have it translated and due copies made.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Brandt, if I understood you correctly, during a direct examination you stated regarding condemned prisoners being experimented upon, that such would be permissible if the risks were at a minimum. Therefore, may I assume that you are fully in accord with experimentation on human beings who have been condemned to death. Is that your feeling?
A. Yes. These weren't my considerations at that time but these are formulations which I make retrospectively.
Q. Well, at that particular time did you think it permissible to experiment on human beings who had been condemned to death?
A. It wasn't up to me to decide on that.
Q. Now, these particular individuals that were supposedly condemned to death but subjected to experiments, were they volunteers?
A. I cannot say that. I cannot say whether the people concerned had the opportunity to decide themselves or whether they were assigned in every case for that purpose.
Q. Well, now you can recall the document which was introduced here by Prosecution wherein Himmler stated, in substance, that a man may be pardoned after being subjected to severe experimentation, and he used the following language. This is Document 1971B PS which is on page 64 of Document Book 2, and it is Prosecution Exhibit 51. This document was forwarded by you to the Chief of Security Police in the SD and also to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks. Paragraph 3 of the document states: "Considering the long continued action of the heart the experiment should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death, shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life." Now, that is what Himmler meant when he said a person experimented upon could be pardoned. In other words, did he mean, they kill a man and if he survives, if you can recall him by respiration or what have you, then he may be pardoned. Is that what he meant?
A. He didn't speak to me about that, and I can say nothing further than what the document shows.
Q. Well, now, then you state that it is your opinion that it is permissible to experiment on persons condemned to death. What about these Poles and Russians that were used at Dachau wherein you sent instructions to Rascher stating that this pardon or amnesty did not apply to Poles and Russians?
A. I transmitted this directive, according to my orders, to Munich Agencies. That is not my own decision.
Q. You transmitted this to the Munich Agencies over your signature didn't you?
A. Yes. But that is a directive by Himmler.
Q. You know I notice throughout these documents whenever you were authorized to do something by Himmler you always started off your letters, or cables, or telegrams, or whatever it may be, with language similar to the following: "By order of Reichsfuehrer-SS" or "The Reichsfuehrer-SS requests this" or "the Reichsfuehrer-SS requests that". Here in this cable you didn't refer to any request or order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. You state in this document, which is Document 1971EPS, which is Prosecution Exhibit 53, page 6 of Document Book 2 "Teletype to SS-Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler - Munich. Please inform SS-Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher with regard to his teletype inquiry an instruction given some time ago by the Reichsfuehrer-SS concerning amnesty of test persons does not apply to Poles and Russians." Now, you were sending along to Rascher instructions that the Reichsfuehrer issued several months or weeks ago. Did you consult with the Reichsfuehrer at this time before sending this cablegram?
A. May I again see the text of the teletype?
Q. Do you have Document Book No. 3, the German copy? Pardon me, No. 2.
MR. RAMLER: It is Document Book No. 2, Mr. Hardy.
A. What page is it?
Q. Page 66 of the English. Document No. 1971EPS.
A. I cannot find it in this book.
Q. Well, we will go on and disregard that question, doctor.
A. But I can answer the question. We are not concerned with directives that were given weeks ago. This teletype was submitted to Himmler by me. I am sure that I didn't refer to any directive which had been given weeks ago in that character.