A. Yes, in that context the number sixty is correct. However, I did not stay on Friday that Rascher told me so.
Q. You didn't say that Rascher told me; I said that.
A. I said that on Friday, I had spoken with the experimental persons because I was interested to know how many had volunteered for these experiments; that is, how many volunteers they had from which to make a choice, and it was on that occasion the number sixty was mentioned to me.
Q. The people were just clamoring to get into the pressure chamber, weren't they?
A. According to what one of the prosecution witnesses said, one really did have the impression that a not inconsiderable number of people wished vigorously to partake in these experiments.
Q. When did the chamber leave Dachau?
A. End of May.
Q. 1942?
A. Yes. 1942.
Q. Do you remember that report that Dr. Bergold showed you the other day? -- In German?
A. From the report Dr. Bergold read something to me on Friday and queried me about it.
Q. This report was made to whom; do you recall?
A. This report was drawn up by Romberg and Rascher, and was sent t o Himmler, Milch, Hippke and individual offices of research and industry which were involved in the planning and construction of security implements; and with, construction of planes that were to climb to very high altitudes.
Q. You signed this report, didn't you?
A. I did, yes.
Q. When you signed it, you knew it was going to be the Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler?
A. When I signed it, I knew that also a copy would of course certainly go to Himmler.
Q. Isn't it addressed to Reich Fuehrer SS? Himmler?
A. Yes, Not the address of the report, but as I remember two or three.
copies of the report were so addressed.
MR DENNEY: Could I have the number of that exhibit?
DR BERGOLD: No. 114
MR DENNEY: If your Honors please, we are discussing Exhibit No. 114, which is the report signed by the defendant, among others, to Himmler concerning high altitude experiments; Prosecution Exhibit No. 114.
Q. That report was made to the SS, wasn't it?
A. No, from this accompanying letter that you just showed me it can be seen that the copy number two, three and four of the report were sent to the Reich Fuehrer SS; that can be seen from the accompanying letter, but it cannot be seen from this letter that the report was made to the SS.
Q. Who is the letter addressed to?
A. The address of such is not addressed at all; there is an accompanying letter with it to the Reich Fuehrer SS.
Q. who got the first copy of the report?
A. I can't say any more, I don't remember.
Q. You had something to do with the forwarding of it, didn't you?
A. I can't recall all the details about where it was sent; I remember that the copy two, three and four were sent to the Reich Fuehrer SS; or rather, I no longer remember that fact, but only through now seeing the document does it become clear that these copies were sent to the Reich Fuehrer SS. I assume that all other copies were sent by the Department in the DVL which printed the report, and which, in general always forwarded or sent out all reports. Why in this particular case we sent the report ourselves, I can no longer say today; I don't know.
Q. When did you write that report; when did you send it forward?
A. 22 September 1942 is the date on the accompanying letter, the report itself is dated 28 July, 1942.
Q. Did you in the report say anything in there about deaths having taken place?
A. No.
Q. Didn't it occur to you to include that information?
A. The fatality that Rascher had, you think they should have been mentioned in the report: Did I understand you correctly?
Q. I am asking you whether it occurred to you -- it doesn't make any difference what I think.
A. No, that idea did not occur to me because those experiments lay outside; these experiments you cannot report on experiments as regard a certain sector included in that report, reports on fatalities or occurrences in an entirely different set of experiments.
Q. What method did they set up in Dachau to determine which of these two sets of experiments that you maintain existed were being worked on? How did any one who was down there know when a man stepped into the chamber, whether or not he was going to be in one of yours or in one of Rascher's
A. How did Romberg know? Is that what you mean?
Q. How did any one know it?
A. Anybody couldn't have known it; the only people who could know were those men who were entrusted with the experiments.
Q. Did they have signs on these experimental subjects; one would come in with a big SS on his chest, and the next one would come with Luftwaffe written on his chest?
A. No, I never heard about it.
Q. Well, I guess the only way anybody knew somebody was just about to die, that this must be one of those SS Experiments outside the scope.
A The director of the experiments knew very well what sort of experimental methodology to be used; in other words, what sort of the low pressure experiments they were treating there, handling their problems. For instance, I cannot carry out any experiments: to clarify the question, what happens to a parachutist when he bails out at high altitude; if in the experiment that is in the low pressure chamber, I keep the experimental person for half an hour at the same altitude, 13 to 15 kilometers; these two things have nothing in common.
Q Would you say then when Romberg was present at the experiment, experiments were certainly being conducted as part of your plan?
A No. When you interrogated me on this subject what Romberg had told me, when he come and told me of the first fatality, I said at that time that Romberg explicitly informed me that Rascher was carrying out experiments outside the framework of our experimental program, allegedly on Himmler's orders. The fact that Romberg was down there has nothing to do rich those experiments of Rascher's.
Q After you told, him to send Rascher away, to stop him, two more people were killed, weren't they?
A. Yes
Q What did you do about that?
A I did not have to do anything at all about that because at the tine I found out about this chamber that it had already been returned from Dachau; the Rascher experiments had already been stopped.
Q The other day when you were questioned about some experiments I believe you mentioned the King of England, George I; is that right?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, when you were interrogated on the 22nd of October, at the conclusion of your interrogation you were asked this question by Captain Copp. The freezing experiments were Rascher's monopoly, and I assume that Milch and Hippke were kept informed about them. Do you recall that?
A That question was probably asked.
Q You stated, yes Hippke certainly, but I cannot say that to you positively; to judge front the whole nature of the organization, Hippke must have known about it.
A Yes, that could be.
Q Then you were asked, so Hippke knew about it, and with him logically also Milch because ho reported to him directly.
Q You answered yes, that is so.
A Yes.
Q And then you were asked, so you are convinced that Milch was kept informed about the progress of the results of the freezing experiments; do you remember that?
A In detail no, but there was some interrogation in that general direction and probably that question was asked.
Q And you answered, yes, I am convinced of it?
A Yes, that could be.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:Witness, on Friday, I asked you regarding your affidavit in reference to which you were questioned by Mr. Denney, in regard to your statement that there was no doubt that Marshal Milch was informed of these Rascher experience you asked if you had any basis for that statement and you said you had none, that that was only a conjecture; is that correct?
A. Yes, of course, I was asked just now by the prosecution whether these questions were put to me in the interrogation at that time, and whether I at that time gave those answers, and I said that in my answers to those questions I assumed from the entire connection, that Hippke was informed and that he informed Milch also.
Q. But you have no positive basis for this statement?
A. No. From the rest of the context of the Interrogation, I pointed out at the time of the Interrogation that I had no positive basis for my answers.
Q. Witness, you said that after you had heard of the first fatality, you informed Hippke and informed him also as to the measures you had taken to interrupt the high altitude experiments and to bring them to an end and to return the chamber.
A. Yes.
Q. Did Hippke agree to your measures?
A. Yes, very much so. There was a telegram in this discussion from the SS, I do not know from which office, but it was from the SS.
Q. Witness, you stated previously that you discussed the dangers or non-dangers of the experiments you made on yourself at the end of 1941, or the beginning of 1942. What was your opinion as regards the danger of these experiments?
A. I was of the opinion that these experiments were certainly not quite simple and easy experiments. However, on several occasions I stressed that, to the best of human knowledge, death cases would be out of question in those experiments and accordingly I gave a reason for my opinion.
Q. Witness, you further stated before that according to the statement of a prosecution witness, the persons at Dachau were ardently desiring to be experimented upon. Of which witness and of which prosecution do you spear
A. Of the prosecution in this trial and of the witness Mewe who testified that Rascher had been addressed by persons -- while the experiments were being carried out -- asking him to be allowed to take a part in the experiments.
Q. Witness, you s rated before you could not remember clearly why the first, second and third copy of your report had been forwarded to Himmler? In this connection I must ask you: Did you know that Himmler had ordered secrecy with respect to those experiments?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. And was that the reason that the copies were sent to Himmler?
A. There were a number of copies sent to other officers, which seemed to contradict that assumption.
Q. You said that you reported to Milch; did you report directly to Milch or did you think that it went to Milch via Himmler?
A. As far as I remember it went through that channel. BY DR. BERGOLD: You have answered my questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you state that Himmler sent a copy of this report to Hippke?
A. No, I was misunderstood. I said that copies of this report were received by Milch and by Hippke. I know only that we personally sent these three copies of the report to Himmler. I also told the Prosecutor that the other copies, if I remember correctly, were not sent cut by us, nor by me, nor by my institute, but that the department of the D.V.L. did the printing and the sending cut of the copies of the report.
THE PRESIDENT: So far as you or the institute were concerned, you sent all of the copies of this report to Himmler?
1119 a
A. Your Honor, I know only that three of these copies of this report were sent by me or my institute to Himmler.
Q. And these are the only copies which you, yourself, sent out?
A. As far as I recall, yes.
Q. If Hippke and Milch received any copies, it was not directly through you?
A. No. In the case of Milch and Hippke, I know that they did each receive one of the three copies of this report which was sent to Himmler; attached copy of this report to Hippke and to Milch and one to Himmler, because later I discussed it with Hippke and we both thought it was a rather unusual and strange path for a report on experiments to take, experiments which were really Luftwaffe experiments, designed to reach those in the Luftwaffe competent for those experiments. But this was demanded by the SS, or Himmler, I assume for that reason to tell Hippke later, "You see, he helped you so much with your problems, your experiments, etc."
Q. But it was the SS or Himmler that ordered that this path be taken?
A. Yes, they did so, so that they would be able to say: "Look how helpful we are being."
Q. You said that you later talked to Hippke about the report and that he told you that ho had received a copy of it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever talk to Milch and ask him if he had received a copy?
A. No. Neither before nor after did I ever say one word on this matter to him.
Q. You assumed that if Hippke got a copy of the report, that he shewed it to Milch?
A. Yes.
Q. But you do not know that?
A. No, that I do not know.
Q. Did Hippke tell you that he had sent a copy of this report to Milch?
A. No, he didn't tell me that. On the contrary, he told me that he had received his report via Milch.
Q. Hippke told you that he had received the report of these experiments from Milch?
A. Yes, from Milch.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Witness, did you say that you know that two copies went forth, one to Hippke, and one to Milch? Did I understand you so to say?
A. I can't say for sure, but it is quite possible that one and the same copies went first to Milch and then from Milch's office was forwarded to Hippke.
Q. I had understood you to say that individual or separate copies went one to Hippke and one to Milch? That is the way I understood your testimony originally.
A. That, I personally from my knowledge, cannot say. I can assume that, but direct knowledge of the facts, I cannot make that statement.
BY DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, perhaps I might be permitted to remind you that this matter was covered by Hippke's letter of 25 August, and went to Milch on the Himmler matter and to Milch's office. But this report reached Milch's office on the 31 August, with a request for acknowledgment of receipt.
Q I come now to the experiments themselves. There were a series of experiments, to say, one for the Luftwaffe to ascertain, namely, what happened to parachutists when they bail out at high altitude, and there was a second series in the Rascher series with a goal which was not clear?
A Yes.
Q In the trial against you were there an indication that these two series had nothing to do with each other?
A No, that is not to be said. All those things had been clarified upstairs.
Q Witness, I come now to the question in the meantime which I have found out, something that involves the question that criminals were allowed to be used for dangerous experiments. Is it not true that relatively recent on the occasion of the plague experiments, prisoners were used? Where and when were those carried out?
A The plague experiments were carried out on prisoners shortly prior to the first World War, 1910--1912, in Manila by Professor Strong, now a professor at Harvard University. Professor Strong laid the foundation for all of these experiments for a receptive vaccination against the plague.
MR. BERGOLD: No further questions. No further questions, Your Honor.
MR. DENNEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove this witness, please.
(Witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Before the next witness is called we will take the customary recess.
THE MARSHAL: All persons please rise. This Tribunal is now in recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal Number 2 is again in session.
DR. BERGOLD: I will ask to call the Witness Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: In this connection, the witness has stated to the Marshal, who has repeated the fact to the Court, that he will not voluntarily appear before this Court because of his physical condition. I think the following facts should be put on the record.
The Witness is a defendant before Tribunal 1. On February 13, through his Counsel, he made this statement to Tribunal 1.
"The accused, Rudolf Brandt, is according to my observation no longer fully capable of being tried. I consider him as being seriously ill. He has a dangerous cough that has deeper causes. His body weight amounts to 50 kilograms, Brandt feels bodily and physically weak and incapable of being present at the sessions. His mental elasticity has also considerably diminished. I feel the defense can hardly be appropriately carried out if a considerable improvement in his condition does not ensue.
"I, therefore, request that he be released from the sessions until a betterment of Ms condition sets in. I assume that the Tribunal doctor will immediately undertake a thorough examination."
That is signed by Dr. Kaufmann. Pursuant to that communication, Tribunal 1 directed that the Witness-Defendant be examined by the prison physician. This was done on the same day, and a report from the prison physician, Captain Charles Roska, was submitted to the Tribunal. That report is as follows:
"Physical examination of Rudolf Brandt done on this date reveals no organic diseases. The Defendant is underweight, but this is not due to any organic cause. At present he is weak and somewhat confused. This is ascribed to Ms depression and deep concern over Ms ultimate fate. It is planned to supplement Ms daily food ration and treat Ms depression. There is no contra-indication to Ms standing trial at the present."
This is signed by Charles J. Roska, Captain, Prison Physician."
On the basis of that report, Tribunal 1, entered an order, which after reciting the facts, determined as follows:
"The Defendant, Rudolf Brandt, will be present for all further sessions of the trial before this Tribunal, unless he be hereafter excused by the Tribunal from attendance at the trial. This order is dated 14 February. This order is entered without prejudice to the right of the Defendant, Rudolf Brandt, to again request the Tribunal to excuse him from attendance at the trial if in his opinion and that of his counsel, his physical condition becomes such that his attendance in Court would seriously endanger his health."
This is signed by the Presiding Judge of Tribunal 1. These are recent facts, Dr. Bergold, and I think your decisions as to whether you wish to call this witness should be made with these facts in mind.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court: I talked to the witness at his request and he tells me that he is feeling very ill. He does not think he is strong enough to stand up to a real interrogation. I would be prepared in view of this state of affairs, not to call him today, if the Court will give me permission, in about a week's time when he feels better to obtain from him an affidavit. I am only interested in a cross-examination of his statement in which he stated he knew Milch had been well-informed on everything. He told me through his own counsel that he had no very precise basis for that statement at the time, as in the case of other witnesses.
I am prepared to take into consideration his state of health and call him in a few days' time and hear him before a Commissioner to obtain an affidavit, if the Court approves that decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Mr. Denney, if you wish to take the alternative of conceding that he had no personal knowledge of the facts explained; with other words if you are content to accept the affidavit literally, it might not be necessary to call the witness at all. That is for you to determine, however.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I am not in a position to make that concession. I submit that there is no difference between taking testimony before one member of the Court by way of an interrogatory and having the man come into court to testily. If he wants to get another affidavit from him, that is up to Dr. Bergold. I am not in a position to object to affidavits after the number we have submitted. But I think that he should either testify or prepare an affidavit for Dr. Bergold. I certainly object to his testifying more or less ex ca the final before a commission.
THE PRESIDENT: After all, this is a defense witness. I presume the defense has some choice as how the manner in which his proof will be presented.
MR. DENNEY: Certainly. They adjourned the first case so these men can come down here. They have a certificate from the doctor which I certainly think is proper that the man is all right. Now he says, "No. I do not want to come in and testily."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold has decided he will not call the witness in person at this time. What subsequent form his proof shall take it is to be determined by Dr. Bergold.
DR. BERGOLD: I would suggest that I would be satisfied with an affidavit before a Commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You may adopt that procedure.
MR. DENNEY: I assume the Prosecution will have the same right to call the witness to cross-examine him about this affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, if ho can summon the necessary physical strength to appear before, as Hr. Denney well said, before one member of the Tribunal or if he submits his affidavit, I do not understand why he could not come into court unless there is some mental element involved.
DR. BERGOLD: I believe in view of his poor health, he is afraid to appear in a big court which might confuse him.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: This is not a very big court.
DR. BERGOLD: Quite so, Your Honor. I can only pass on what he told me.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I would like to add this, c have to hold a brief meeting anyway with a Special Commissioner for the witnesses Neurath and Raeder. This hearing will be fairly brief. On that occasion perhaps one could hear Brandt. You could do all this in one day. Would that be better? That would 1 ok after Mr. Denney's right completely.
MR. DENNEY: I have no objection to that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Wednesday would be a very convenient day for that.
MR. DENNEY: I wonder if at that time, we might have the Witness Speer brought up, too. I have one or two questions I would like to ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: Any witnesses you wish.
MR. DENNEY: I did not ask him any questions the time before.
THE PRESIDENT: Any witness you wish to examine can be examined at that one session. That applies to either side.
DR. BERGOLD: The witness may be taken away now.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be taken back, Marshal.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, I shall now read from Document Book 2, the reading of which was interrupted on Thursday night, I stopped when Karl Wolff s statement was read. Exhibit No. 35. I stopped at page 5 of the original. I can shorten this considerably because I have heard that Wolff has arrived as a witness and Mr. Denney's wish to examine him himself is now possible. I can therefore concentrate on the essential points of that document and I will leave out everything else. This is page 7 of the original.
"5. I do not remember anything of the negotiations between Milch and Himmler in May-June 1942, on the strength of which the previous decision to discontinue the experiments was reversed."
Then I come to a figure 7: "I do not know who was the first in the Luftwaffe to grant the permission for the high altitude and freezing experiments.
"8. I have no direct knowledge why the Reichsfuehrer-SS directed, according to document No. 1607, that all information should go to Milch, for Himmler has not talked to me about it. I can only presume that he wanted to do a favor to the hard fighting Luftwaffe and to collect thanks and acknowledgment for it from Goering.
"9. Unless I could see the service diary, Himmler's and my own, in which the conference, or better , the meeting at the dinner or coffee table must be marked, I cannot, to the best of my knowledge, answer the question whether I had attended, during the indicated period, a conference between Himmler and Milch.
"10. As far as I recall, I had a short talk with Milch on the low pressure experiments when we happened to meet in the summer of 1942 in the Fuehrer's headquarters. No matters except these mentioned in my above statement (see also my answer to question 4) were dealt with, concerning the concentration camp experiments, on that occasion.
"11. Who took the initiative of presenting the films at Milch's office, I do not know.
"13. I do not know from my own experience what Hippke's position towards the experiments was, for as far as I know I have never talked to Hippke personally, I have already dealt with Milch's position under questions 4 and 1.
"15. I do not know, nor do I believe, that Milch knew Dr. Rascher personally.
"Signed: Karl Wolf."
Then as Exhibit No. 36, I submit an excerpt from the records of Military Tribunal No. 1 of 13 January 1947. I shall read this. I believe it's on Page If of Your Honors' book.
"Excerpt from the Transcript of the Military Tribunal No. 1, Nurnberg, Germany, 13 January 1947."
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is your Exhibit No. 36?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, 36.
"Session from 9:30 to 12:30, pages: 1551-1552 of the German version.
"Mr. Hochwald:" I presume he is a member of the prosecution on the first trial. I do not know the gentleman myself, but this is what I have been told. "I turn now to Document NO-1312, Prosecution Exhibit 338:
"The Director of the Mental Institution of the District Association Upper Bavaria Eglfing-Haar, Contract.'
"I have been instructed by the director of the mental institution Eglfing-Haar, Obermedizinalrat Dr. Pfannmueller, with regard to the kind of work and my duties in the special ward of the children's ward of the mental institution Eglfing-Haar, in which children of the Reich Committee for the Scientific approach to severe Hereditary and Constitutional Diseases are confined." I leave out one sentence and go over to the next page.
"I have been instructed that I have been ordered absolute secrecy as to the incidents which will become known to me during the treatment of the children of this ward, and that the law provides that any breach of secrecy will be punished with the death sentence," I leave the rest.
Signature: "Eglfing, 26 April 1941." Three names follow:
"Dentlmoser Emma, Spindler Maria, Lang Emma."
"The next document, No. MO-1311, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 339, another document swearing to secrecy one of the officials of the insane asylum: Obligation:
"I, the undersigned, have been obligated by handshake instead of by an oath, on the part of the director, to receive and to copy matters concerning the Reich which have to be kept secret. I herewith undertake to keep all papers which should become known to me under the heading 'Top secret' strictly secret, and never to give anyone knowledge of them without Specific order from the director of the Institution, Dr. Pfennmueller. My attention has been called to the fact that if I should not keep this oath of secrecy, I will face prosecution by the Gestapo, and that I will have to count with the possibility of the death penalty if I should either carelessly or deliberately divulge matters which have become known to me as 'Top Secret'.
"Eglfing-Haar, 20 february 1942. Signature: Erich Frank."
The next page follows, 1557. Mr. Schiller is speaking, another official of the prosecution team.
"Now, turn to the next Document on page 126 of the Document Book. I offer in evidence Document No. 1143 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 343. This consists of eleven letters of inquiry as to the whereabouts of former inmates of Eglfing-Haar Institute. It is interesting to note that these inquiries are not made by private individuals, but by Government agencies, that is Reich Government agencies.
"From page 1559, No. 182 V.k.H. back inclusive one document.
"To the Supreme Prosecutor in Nuremberg with information that Sofie Sara Wiesengrund, in accordance with a decision of the Reich Minister of the Interior was transferred in a collective transport of Jewish patients on 20 September 1940 to an institution unknown to us. Eglfing, 9 January 1941.
"The Director:
"Initialled."
The prosecution continues: "This clearly shows that the secrecy of the program at this time was such that even other Reich government officers and ministers were not being informed as to the exact disposal of the patients."
Your Honors, here we have heard from witnesses that were in Dachau that they had to sign secrecy orders and obligations. They are of the same manner -- you can see they are the same type -- how careful they were and how they threatened people with death, and these experiments were kept secret even from ministers and Reich agencies. This was the rule Himmler observed, which may be objectionable but it did exist.
I now turn to the next document, the affidavit of Freiherr von Kruedener, born 15. 6. 1906, of 30 January 1944. This will be Exhibit No. MI-37. It's the last document, but one in my document book. It's on page 44 of my document book. I submitted the original to the Secretary-General.
"I, Hans Joachim Freiherr Von Krubdener, born 15 June 1906 at Sitienka, residing in Braunfels on the Lahn, have been told that I shall be punished if I make a false statement under oath. I declare on oath that my statement is true and that it was made to be presented as evidence to the Military Tribunal No. 2 at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.
"I state as follows:
"One day in 1944 Milch met me in the corridors of the Reich Air Ministry on the way to the conference room and, passing me hurriedly, said to me, 'How aro you?'. In reply to my brief answer that on the previous day I had been called to the building site of a mineral oil plant to see for myself the untenable conditions in the concentration camp there and that I was worried about it, Milch, already half inside tho conference room, turned around, drew me into the opposite window seat and asked me to give him full particulars of the matter, although about 40 men were waiting only for him. Milch did not interrupt my report which went on for several minutes. When I had finished, he asked simply 'What did you do about it?'. When I told him that I had assumed responsibility for interrupting the construction work without any regard to the dates reported to the superior authorities, until the necessary work in the prisoners' quarters was finished, he thought for a short while and then turned towards the conference room. In the door he turned around once again and said, 'All right, all right. I cannot catch the guilt persons either., and disappeared. As far as I was concerned the incident was closed. About four hours later, immediately after the end of the conference, Milch summoned me and informed me that during tho conference he had had occasion to talk to Reich Minister Speer (or Commissioner General Geilenberg) about my report.
He said literally, 'Speer will phone the competent SS general. It will be more effective than if I do it.' Then Milch bade me goodbye and callod after me, as I was already going through the door, 'If anybody bothers you about the building dates, see me immediately.' Actually, an SS Obergruppenfuehrer, who was in charge of these camps, went there two days later already, inspected the camp thoroughly, and ordered a change in conditions which exceeded by far the measures taken by me, and succeeded.
1131 a "In order to be able to appreciate this incident fully, I must add that during these weeks and months Milch worked 14 hours and more daily, that he took his meals at his desk, often standing up, and that he was more than overburdened with work.