AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will file for the record the certificate of the prison physician as to Defendant Oberheuser's illness.
Counsel may proceed.
HELMUT SIEVERS - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISBRUBER:
Q. Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath, and I now want to put to you a few entries in your diary in connection with this skeleton collection. I shall have your diaries submitted to your covering the years 1943 and '44. Your diary of 1943 contains, under the date of the 10th of February, the following entry, which is to be found on page 45 of the German diary, and on page 163 of Document Volume No. 3 of the English translation. This diary contains an entry to which the prosecution has already referred. It concerns itself with Dr. Bega. Have you found this passage?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. For what reason did you concern yourself with this Bega affair?
A. As I already testified this morning, Dr. Bega was an old acquaintance of Professor Hirt. On this very day, on the 10th of February, he notified the departmental chief Wuest that he had been drafted into the army and that he, therefore, could not carry out the directives given him by Hirt if he had to obey this order for joining the army. Professor Wuest thereupon ordered me to effect a delaying action regarding this draft; that, in effect, happened.
Q. Under the date of the 16th of June 1943, which is to be found on page 166 of the English document book No. 3, there is a report of Dr. Bega about anthropological measurements at Auschwitz. Did you gain knowledge of this report?
A. Yes, Bega returned from Auschwitz and informed us that he had interrupted the work there, since an epidemic had "broken out at Auschwitz. He said that he would have to report about this matter to the RSHA.
Q. How is it that you or the Ahnenerbe concerned itself with that matter?
A. Because, by order of Himmler, the Ahnenerbe was commissioned to take care of this administrative work. Himmler, in Hirt's special case, issued express directives to support Hirt in this administrative work.
Q. Now, under the date of the 23rd of June 1943, the execution of X-ray skull photographs are being mentioned. What was your connection with these photographs.
A. Hirt either had or wanted an X-ray apparatus, or perhaps some thing was wrong with the current. I don't quite know now what the affair concerned itself with at that time. At any rate, it was purely technical.
Q. We shall now proceed to the diary of 1944. Would you turn to the entry of the 2nd of February, which is to be found on page 169 of the English Document Book No. 3. Under the date of the 2nd of February, 1944, a conference with Hirt at Strassbourg is mentioned. Obviously, you were at that time at Strassbourg with Hirt?
A. Yes.
Q Did Hirt on this occasion show you his skeleton work?
A. No, I didn't see his skeletons and we didn't discuss that matter. This collection, which after all was a matter for the anatomical institute at Strassbourg, was only discussed with Hirt once, that is, at the early stages, when this work was being developed. On that occasion I expressed my personal disgust about this matter. He, however, ridiculed me and tried to instruct me about this affair by telling me something about anatomy.
He made a few statements regarding anatomy which I didn't know of up to that period of time. In that connection, he stated how anatomical research workers received their corpses, and I was quite surprised at the amount of corpses such an anatomical institution needs. He led me to the big workroom where corpses were prepared and where the students were working. However, I didn't stay there very long. Hirt at the time maintained the point of view that he, as an anatomical worker, would have to attack problems wherever they had cropped up. He said that these persons who had been condemned to death would give them such opportunity, and that to him it appeared to be ridiculous to merely execute them or burn them instead of handing them over to his anatomical institution as it would ordinarily be done with people who had been sentenced to death. I was strongly under the impression of my inspection in this anatomical room and I asked him not to discuss this matter with me in future. He didn't actually discuss it any longer. On this conference, dated the 2nd of February 1944, Hirt only asked me to instruct Dr. Bega to send him the necessary material.
Q Didn't Dr. Bega collaborate with Hirt at Strassburg?
A. No. Hirt was not in Strassburg himself. He was working in Munich. Bega was formerly active at the Race Office and he knew Hirt from the time of his studies.
Q. Thank you, that is sufficient. Now looking at your entry of the 4th of April, 1944, I put to you that the prosecution concludes from this entry that anthropological measurements were carried out in prisoner of war camps. What do you have to say about that?
A. Anthropological measurements were carried out in this world war just as in the last world war. For instance, I heard about such work in connection with the research of the race research worker, Klaus. He did some research work on members of the eastern population who had been drafted into the Waffen SS.
Q. Concluding this complex of questions, I ask you whether you did anything in that connection which went beyond the orders which were issued to you by Himmler?
A. No, in no way at all.
Q. You are further charged in the Count concerned with epidemic jaundice. When did you get into contact with the experiments with epidemic jaundice? These were experiments carried out at Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.
A. I only found out here at this present trial in Nuernberg that such experiments were carried out.
Q. Weren't you and the Ahnenerbe or Reich Research Council in contact with Dr. Dohmen? This name has been mentioned here several times.
A. The name of Dr. Dohmen was entirely unknown to me up to the time of this trial.
Q. Didn't the Ahnenerbe or the Institute for Military Medical Research give a research assignment in that connection?
A. No.
Q. Did the Reich Research Council issue any such order?
A. I don't know about that. If such an order was issued by the Reich Research Council, this was only a matter for the plenipotentiary for the control of epidemics who was the Generalarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber.
Q. Now, if you look at page 65 of your diary of 1944 and page 170 of the English Document Book No. 3, and if you refer to the date of the 3rd of March 1944, you will find the following entry, and I quote:
"Generalarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber was telephoned on hepatitis research." End of quotation. The prosecution takes this entry as evidence that you were connected with hepatitis research.
A. Professor Schreiber at that time telephoned the Reich Research Council because he wanted a conference arranged with Himmler, who at the same time was a member of the presidual council of the Reich Research Council.
Q. In that case Generalarzt Schreiber told you at that time that he wanted a conference with Himmler regarding hepatitis research work?
A. Yes, that is how it was. He wanted to confer with Himmler and the reason he stated was that hepatitis research work was to be the subject of that conference. At that time I entered that I didn't even know what hepatitis meant.
Q. Did Dr. Schreiber at that time discuss anything with you regarding his research?
A. No. He said nothing else. There was no reason for him to do that because he really wanted to speak to Himmler.
Q. During these proceedings the name of Professor Haagen was repeatedly mentioned. Haagen was a hygiene professor at Strassburg. Did you know anything about Professor Haagen's connection with hepatitis experiments?
A. No, I knew nothing about that. Professor Haagen never approached me in this connection at all.
Q. I shall have the document Volume No. 8 shown to you. Would you please turn to page 14 where you will find the Document NO-125, Exhibit 194 of the prosecution. Experiments on human beings are being discussed there.
Did you ever gain knowledge about these experiments up to the time of this trial?
A. No. Nothing became known to me and the names mentioned in this letter I heard here for the first time, names such as Gutzeit and Kalk.
Q. With reference to epidemic jaundice, you are testifying that you had nothing whatsoever to do with this entire research work, and when on the 3rd of March, 1944, you made an entry in your diary, "Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber telephoned regarding hepatitis research," this can be very simply explained by the fact that Dr. Schreiber asked you to arrange a conference with Himmler?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, in connection with the complex of questions referring to Dr. Rascher, Polygal experiments were repeatedly mentioned during this trial. I shall have the Document Book 11 shown to you. Would you turn to page 22? This is Document NO-614 - I beg your pardon - NO-616, Exhibit 242. It can be found on page 21 of the document volume in its German form. It becomes evident from this document that Rascher received your approval for the publication of an essay in the Munich Weekly Medical Periodical, During the course of your testimony you have stated that you had nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific part of the experiments. Isn't this document contradictory to your statement?
A. No. We are here concerned with a question of publication. Regarding this essay in question, I telephoned my departmental chief, Wuest, who gave his approval for publication. I, in turn, informed Rascher about that, and I, therefore, did not give such approval on my own initiative and under my own jurisdiction.
Q. There appeared a number of entries in your diary of 1944 in connection with the production of Polygal. Could you state quite generally what you had to do with the production of Polygal?
A. As it was already clarified by Dr. Blome's examination, I had received the order by Himmler in the Fall of 1943 to take steps in order to start the production of this coagulating drug. A number of confer ences were necessary for that purpose regarding operation rooms, preparations, equipment, and whatever was necessary for any such production.
All this becomes apparent from these numerous entries in the diary of 1944. In this connection I want to point to my statement of earlier this morning where I said how these entries originated.
Q. Were you concerned in any form with the development of this coagulating drug?
A. No, I was only included in that work after the development stage had already been completed and when the productive method was to be considered.
Q Where was production of polygal started?
A. That was at Schlachters near Lindau on the Bodensee.
Q. Who was the head of the production?
A. That was Dr. Ploetner.
Q. And was the Ahnenerbe or the Institute of Military Medical Research competent in regards to that Production.
A. At the beginning, yes, and later this was to be transferred to a German Heilmittel G.M.B.H.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was December, 1944.
Q. You will probably remember that the witness Neff stated on the witness stand that you had caused the transfer of a number of inmates from Dachau to Schlachters. Is that correct?
A. Yes that is correct.
Q. Now; I'd like to point out a contradiction which can be found when comparing it to your statement that you really had nothing to do with the furnishing of inmates and now you are stating that you caused the transfer of twenty-five inmates to Schlachters.
A. These approximately twenty-five inmates had already been placed at the disposal of the Department Ploetner at Dachau where this coagulating, drug was produced in the laboratory stage. When production was started a little later I asked that these inmates be also transferred in order to assure them a more tolerable life outside the concentration camp of Dachau.
Q. In view of the general war situation and the advance of the Allied Armies did you consider such a transfer to be expedient?
A. I asked for this transfer and I thought it was expedient in the interest of the inmates. From the point of view of production this transfer was completely senseless considering the situation at that time.
Q. So you want to say that this transfer was only expedient in the interests of the inmates?
A. Not much fantasy is required to Imagine what the inmates would have to experience during the pending collapse and what their conditions in the concentration camp would be. I wanted to save these people from that horrible fate something in which I succeeded.
Q. Did these inmates remain alive?
A. I received reports that they all survived the end of the war under very favorable circumstances.
Q. The prosecution has submitted a document singly, NO. 1424, Exhibit 462. This is an affidavit of Dr. Fritz Friedrich Rascher, who is an uncle of Dr. Rascher. It becomes evident from this document that Rascher, in connection with the production of polygal, or rather the development of polygal, was carrying out fatal experiments on human beings. Did you, at any time, know about that?
A. No, I heard nothing about it. After Rascher's arrest, however, in the year of 1944, the Police President of Munich, von Eberstein, gave me a rather excited description of this criminal Rascher. In that connection he said that Rascher had even shot at a human being in order to test his coagulating drug. A confirmation of this statement could not be obtained at that time. I, at first, didn't believe it because so many rumors were flying around about him and his wife after his arrest among them that he removed his collaborator Muschler by murdering her.
Rascher, incidentally, succeeded in clearing himself of this suspicion of murder. After everything had become known through this trial - everything that Rascher has on his conscience, I am rather inclined to believe it. It becomes also evident from uncle Rascher's statements how secret Rascher kept his misdeeds. Only by interfering with his nephew's desk Uncle Rascher gained knowledge of whatever he is testifying here. He, at the same time, confirms in his statement that his nephew was raging with anger when finding out about his interference.
Q. Concluding these questions, I put to you Pohl's affidavit which is Document No. 065, Exhibit 221, to be found in Document Book 11 on page 2. I quote - (this is on top of Page 3): "Sievers told me the following: Ahnenerbe, who manager Sivers was, was developing a drug in Dachau, by order of Himmler, which had as its result the quick coagulation of blood. He said that it was very important for fighting units because it prevents their bleeding to death. The experiments in Dachau, during which one inmate was shot at, have proven these results." Did you tell Pohl anything, to that effect?
A. MR. HARDY: Your Honor, This Document No. 065 merely pertains to Oswald Pohl's testimony concerning Sivers. I am not aware that the original or the English contains the words "on orders of Himmler" in connection with these experiments to find a coagulant for blood.
DR. WEISBERBER: This is a document which can be found in Document Volume #11 which was submitted by the prosecution. There can hardly be any doubt that this statement of Pohl refers to the experiment of Rascher in connection with polygal.
For that reason I think that this is quite necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understood correctly, counsel for the prosecution was suggesting that there was a mistranslation in the English document book. At least, certain words were read from the German that counsel said were not in the English book. Did counsel for the prosecution make some comparison between the English document book and the German?
DR. WEISGERBER: The passage I quoted comes word for word from the German text.
MR. HARDY: In paragraph 4, he stated as follows: "The Ahnenerbe, whos manager Sivers was, had developed in Dachau, by order of Himmler, a medicine......" That isn't in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The words"by order of Himmler" are lacking from the English translation. Did counsel for the prosecution examine the German document?
MR. HARDY: I can see the name "Himmler" here, Your Honor, but I could not make out the other German words. Obviously, the defense counsel is correct in his translation from what I see here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the prosecution see that the English translation is corrected in accordance with the German? I don't mean right now, but at some later time so it will be correct.
MR. HARDY: I will check the German, Your Honor, and report to you.
Q Did you tell Pohl anything to that effect, that an inmate was shot at in connection with polygal?
A I told Pohl exactly what I had found out from Eberstein. As I already said the development stage of polygal was already concluded when he received Himmler's order to take care of the production. If Rascher shot at an inmate in connection with polygal research then this, at any rate, occurred at a period of time when he had nothing to do with that matter. I only gained knowledge of this alleged shooting after Rascher's arrest, as I already testified earlier.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document Sievers No. 10 as Exhibit Sievers No. 8. I beg your pardon, Exhibit No. 9. This is an affidavit of Oswald Pohl on page 21 of Document Book Sievers I. I read the essential points to be found on page one of this document, and I quote:
"1. My affidavit of 23 July 1946 concerning medical experiments was submitted to me with reference to my statements in paragraph 4 Sievers (Ahnenerbe).
"2. Sievers' diary of 1944 (Doc. No. 3546-PS) was submitted to me with reference to the entry of 15 June 1944, 9 o'clock, (page 167):
"SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
"1. Production of polygal and settlement Felix."
The paragraphs two to six are not interesting here and I shall skip them. I quote again:
"After having read this entry in the diary, I can remember Sievers' visit very well and I can state according to the best of my knowledge and conscience:
"When all relevant points concerning the possibility of producing (installation for manufacture) the blood-stanching remedy "polygal" as well as concerning the other items had been discussed, Sievers told me a few things concerning the Rascher case before I called in the SSStandartenfuehrer Maurer to discuss the employment of scientist prisoners in mathematical calculating problems.
He informed me that Rascher and his wife had been arrested for jointly committing child substitution and abduction. Through Rascher's arrest several unbelievable things had apparently come to light which were now being investigated. So it was also maintained that Rascher was supposed to have fired at a prisoner in order to test the "polygal". Sievers therefore express an assumption which he himself had only heard, but not a fact which corresponded to his own knowledge."
And then follows the certification.
Q Witness, I come to the next count of the Indictment which refers to the Lost experiments. I shall have Document Book XIII shown to you. Would you turn to Document NO-793; Exhibit 258 of the Prosecution, page 16. This is a letter dated the 9th of April 1942 which you sent to Professor Dr. Hirt. In this letter you are writing about special secret experiments at Dachau. To what experiments did you refer in that entry?
A It referred to the high altitude experiments which were carried out by Rascher at Dachau.
Q The letter is dated 9 April 1942 which is a short time after you yourself had attended a high altitude experiment of Dr. Rascher at Dachau and reported to Himmler 5 April about it.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now, looking at this letter of 9 April 1942, I have to ask you whether this letter constitutes your own opinion as to how these Lost experiments were to be carried through?
A This morning I already stated in detail what the subject of my conference with Himmler at East 1942 was. Four days after this I transmitted the directives to Hirt as I received them from Himmler.
Q Did you yourself consider the Lost experiments as being dangerous?
A That Lost experiment must entail a certain amount of danger I said to myself as a layman. However, I did not consider this danger to be particularly extensive since Hirt had told me by way of conversation that he was carrying out such experiments on NCOs at Military Medical Academy.
Q In this Document Volume XI there appears as a Document NO-098, Exhibit 263, on page 26, a notation which you transmitted to Dr. Rudolf Brandt for his acknowledgment. On the 5th of April 1942, Himmler told you orally, and later in the form of an order, that you were to support Dr. Hirt's task to a full extent. Why didn't you personally deal with this notation which contains a few wishes a Hirt?
A I was only in a position to transmit Dr. Hirt's wishes. In spite of Himmler's basic order I could neither deal with the people's nourishment nor with the question of the second camp physician nor with the question of payment of certain inmates on my own initiative. I had no jurisdiction whatever in concentration camps.
Q Now, would you turn to page 30 of this Document Book which is Document NO--193, Prosecution Exhibit 264. What was the reason for this letter of Ahnenerbe which was signed by you addressed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt?
A The reason for this letter was the report made by Dr. Wimmer on the same date about his being drafted and about the report by Hirt where it is stated that these experiments could not be conducted without the assistance of Wimmer.
Q Did you at that time discuss these experiments with Dr. Wimmer, particularly experiments on human beings?
A The experiments were not discussed with Dr. Wimmer that time. Apart from this affair we only discussed questions of a current nature which were necessary.
Q You knew, however, what these experiments were, didn't you? It becomes evident from your diary that on the 25 June 1943 you were in Natzweiler.
A Yes, on the occasion of this visit Dr. Wimmer showed me a few persons with their lower arms bandaged.
Q What was your impression of the general state of health of these experimental subjects?
A There were about ten of them. They made quite a lively impression. I saw one man whose dressing was just being changed and I saw that the place on the treated arm was covered with scurf.
Q Did Dr. Wimmer tell you of any deaths?
A No.
Q In your visit to Natzweiler did you learn anything about volunteering of experimental subjects?
A Yes. I asked several of the persons who were introduced to me by Wimmer. I was told that after a lecture which was given by Prof. Dr. Hirt they had volunteered for this experiment, and I had already learned that from Prof. Hirt. After the conclusion of the experiments he also told me that he had given the commandant a report about the good conduct cf the prisoners and had recommended that they be released.
Q Now, we will go on a few pages in Document Beck 11; we will find on page 33 the Document NO-195, Prosecution Exhibit 266. This is a letter from Brandt to Ministerialrat Dr. Geernert. It says, "More details about the experiment could be given to you by SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers." Then at least in the opinion of the person who wrote this letter - that is, Dr. Rudolf Brandt - you were informed cf these experiments in Natzweiler?
A I was informed insofar as I knew of the order from Himmler to Hirt. Beyond that I was informed to the extent that I had been able to observe the work when I visited Natzweiler. I must point out that what I saw and heard at Natzweiler did not give me the impression of any special danger. And besides, since I was not a doctor I was not able to gain any definite impression of any method of investigation. Moreover, as far as the medical side cf the experiments was concerned, that didn't concern me at all.
Q Now, when did you learn that in connection with Lost experiments experimental subjects had died?
A In March 1943 I asked Hirt whether experimental subjects had suffered any harm. He mentioned that two cf the experimental subjects had died but that the cause of death had nothing to do with the Lost experiments in both cases.
Q After this visit in March 1943 did you visit Hirt in either Strasbourg or Natzweiler again?
A I was not in Natzweiler after January 1943; I visited Hirt in Strasbourg once in February 1944.
Q Do you know whether, and in what form, Hirt conducted Lost experiments on himself?
A Yes, in 1941 Hirt told me that he was conducting experiments on himself, when he became seriously ill because of this in 1942 I had to tell him on behalf of Himmler that he was to stop these experiments on himself, but Hirt answered that he couldn't do that, ho would conduct any experiments on himself that he considered necessary.
Q What was your personal impression of Hirt? Was he serious in his research work?
A I had the best impression of Hirt. I considered him a very serious research worker whose life was completely devoted to science.
Q In your diary 1944 there appears on the 8th of March a report of Hirt to Himmler in Salzburg. Were you present?
A Yes, I was present. Also my office chief Wuest.
Q Was the course of human experiments and any deaths which had occurred discussed?
A There was no mention of death in this report. Hirt demanded animal experiments to continue the research, but Himmler ordered human experiments. Hirt said that he could obtain further results only through animal experiments.
Q This morning in connection with the Hirt report, at the beginning of 1942, we mentioned intravital microscopy. I should like to ask you only one question to clarify whether this method is applied to human beings or only to experimental animals?
AAs I heard at this discussion, and as I know otherwise, these intravital microscopic tests could be conducted only on animals, and this was the reason why Hirt, whose studies were along this lino, wanted larger numbers of animals for experiments.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document SI-No. 9, as Sievers Exhibit 10. This is a letter of the firm Carl Zeiss concerning these types of microscopes. I believe I can dispense with reading this document.
MR. HARDY: Defense counsel said he would dispense with reading this document. However, I object to admission of this into evidence as it lacks the required jurat. It does not comply with the regulations set forth by the Tribunal.
DR. WEISGERBER: It is true that this document has no certificate; that is,the signature of the Zeiss firm is not certified. The Zeiss firm is in Jena, in the Soviet occupation zone, and up to now it has not been possible to obtain a certified copy of this letter from this company. The court has the possibility to admit such document even if the necessary certificate is lacking, if the difficulties of obtaining a certified signature are very great, and that is the case here. Independently of this I have already endeavored to obtain this document with a certification.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal well accept this Document provisionally. If counsel is at some later time able to obtain a proper jurat it will be admitted; if counsel is unable at any time to procure that jurat, counsel may again present the question to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will then rule on it independently. It will now be marked Exhibit 10, provisionally.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have already tried to obtain a copy in the prescribed form.
Q In your diary for 1943, witness, you record on 28 January 1943 a conference with Curator Wuest and SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, concerning continuation of the "L" experiments; why was Pohl called to this conference and what was discussed?
A The reason for this discussion was the assignment of a building site for the entomological institute. I had just come from Strassbourg, and I reported to my office chief about the talks I had there with Professor Hirt, the main subject of which was the expansion of the animal brooding at Natzweiler. As I said before, experimental animals were needed in large numbers for Hirt's experiments, and Pohl's approval was necessary to expand the breeding of animals at Natzweiler.
Q In your diary on the 22 May 1943, there is the following entry: "Conference with SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt about gas experiments, according to letter 14 May 1943"; this diary entry is not contained in the English translation; what wore those gas experiments?
A These gas experiments have nothing whatever to do with the Lost experiments; but at this opportunity I can give information about it because the letter mentioned in this diary entry was shown to the witness Meine here during cross-examination.
Q Is that Document No. 1368-*, Exhibit 464, which I shall now have shown to you; please look at it?
(The Document is shown to the witness.)
A Yes, it was this letter which was sent to me. According to request, I wont to see Maine and I received from him a sealed envelope on which was written "Return Sealed" after taken notice of contents. The witness Meine therefore could not testify anything about this matter. Then, Dr. Gerlow, who is mentioned in that letter, was at that time the head of the SS and Police Technical academy.
By order of Himmler he was to develop a gas bullet with which it would be possible to make a criminal, who was being pursued, incapable of fighting or acting for a short time, so that he could be seized, but which would not harm him in any way or kill him. The experiments which were made were without success.
Now Himmler, who always had the most remarkable ideas, demanded that Professor Hirt should name a substance which would achieve the desired effect. Hirt, as could be expected, said he was not competent to do so. He said that such a question could be answered only by an export and then I told Brandt about this for Himmler's information, and later I told Dr. Gerlow, and that settled the matter as I heard no more about it.
Q In any case these gas experiments had nothing to do with Lost or any other poison gas?
A No, nothing.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I would like to offer another Document, which however is also in Document Book No. 2. Upon my investigation this noon, I have discovered that Document Book No. 2 will be finished this evening and I shall submit this Document later.
Witness, the Prosecution has charged you with experiments with the so-called N-substance; in your diary under the date of 23 October 1944, there was recorded a discussion at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for physical chemistry; the notation reads: "Discussion concerning special substance, discussion of use and biological tests." Please in a very few sentences explain this matter.
AAt a discussion shortly before this, Dr. Ploetner had told me that on orders from Grawitz he was to be called upon for tests with special substances.