Q. And on the next page of the document you state, "The result was that some of the inmates died." Do you wish to say that this was the knowledge you had of the matter at that time, or do you wish to say that you acquired this knowledge after you had seen all the documents here, and in context?
A. This is a statement of what I know today. At that time I could not have known these interconnections because I had to do with these matters only from a purely external, technical point of view, namely, submitting them to Himmler and then passing on his orders to the competent officers. With the best mind in the world I could not have concerned myself with the content of such a report.
Q. They you will grant me that I am right when I point out to the Prosecution that the way this is formulated here in this affidavit can lead to errors?
A. At the time I was interrogated I was in such a state of health that I could not be so critical as to discriminate between what I was setting down as matters that I knew of at the time under question, and what I could deduce later from seeing the documents. I also attempted by using such words as, "certainly; probably; and so on," to express the fact that I really did not have actual knowledge of these things.
Q. Now, as last document book, we are to bring up Document Book No. 3, which concerns itself with the freezing experiments. I first bring to your attention your affidavit on page 1, NO 242, Exhibit No. 80. This is your most extensive affidavit and contains various other names, the names of other defendants. On the last page, page 6 of the document book, you say (Page 50, I believe):
"The Experimental subjects were kept for fifteen hours in the open air, naked."
In April of '43 a report on this matter was sent to Himmler. A person who reads this, of course, gains the impression that you, yourself, had read the entire report and that in this affidavit you are simply stating that at that time you knew not only what was going on in general but what was going on in detail. Would you like to state that this affidavit also is a statement regarding which you can say what you have already said in general about your affidavits?
A. The same thing is true here.
Q. Now, I ask you specifically whether you read the document 428--rather, correction--1613 PS, Exhibit 90, page 27, which is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, again with an extensive report on cooling or freezing experiments on human beings.
A. Because of the length of it alone I most certainly did not read this. Let me say now in regard to that affidavit of mine that you just brought up, in Document 371, Document Book No. 8, Exhibit 186, page 1; it says--that is the document book on epidemic jaundice--"I know that these experiments were carried out and that as a consequence of it some of the inmates died."
Prof. Gutzeit testified here that the danger of such experiments is not so certain, nor is it certain that the experiments were carried out--or could have been carried out. Now, the question is, how did this sentence ever get into my affidavit? Because, on the basis of facts I could not have made the statement; I can not know more that Prof. Gutzeit knows. This again this was merely a deduction that I drew from what the interrogator told me, and which I have certified in this affidavit by putting my signature to it.
Q. Mr. Brandt, I should like to take up now the question what your id were about the permissibility of such experiments on human subjects. You so today that you knew that experiments were being carried out on human beings, and that non-volunteers were being used in such experiments, and, finally, that fatalities must be expected. Now, I should like to know from you what your ideas are regarding the moral or ethical aspects of such experiments.
A. In taking care of requests that were addressed to Himmler, I always tried to put myself into the position of the person making the petition, and to work on the petition from that point of view. The same is true also for experimental subject. If I were in the position that an experimental subject finds himself, I certainly should wish not simply to be assigned to some experiment; rather I should like to be asked whether under certain condition I should be willing to submit to an experiment in order in this way, for example, to be pardoned, if my sentence were death. I am convinced that the would have been enough volunteers for such experiments if they were approach in the correct manner, and if they were treated as human beings -- even the they might be criminals condemned to death -- they should not be treated simply as chattel or as numbers. And in the way that the experiments were carried out a certain guarantee must be given that the risk for the subject is of a minimum. Now, I will be told that I am making these excuses now, as I admit that it is now that you have expressed such ideas for the first time But according to my whole nature it is true that I was of the same opinion that time, as the opinion I am now expressing. On the other hand, I doubt whether at that time I reflected along the lines which I am discussing now. First, that wasn't part of my work; secondly, I was so overworked that it was only with great difficulty that I managed to take care of the purely technical aspects of these matters; and thirdly, because I was ignorant of the details I was not in the position to calculate the implications of all these matters. I am convinced that if experiments are carried out of the s I have just described, it would not have to be repudiated by any one.
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brandt): I have one or two more questions, but before I ask the next question I should like to have the Court's approval.
The Court will remember that on last Friday the Prosecution objected to a certain question relating to the question of Himmler's influence and the whole milieu around him, could have on a man like Brandt. It is my opinion that this question must be ventilated.
It is my opinion that this question must be ventilated so that we may, so to speak, resurrect Himmler here for a few moments. That Himmler was Germany's grave-digger is perfectly clear, but this is a question which could lead to an extenuation of Brandt's guilt. The question: how did it happen that an innocent young man was so seduced? The seducer is always guiltier than the person seduced, and here it is Brandt who was seduced.
I should like to ask that he be allowed to say a few words about the influence that the demon, Himmler, had over him for years, and which finally led him to sign letters and documents which absolutely contradicted his own humane views.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor. I submit again that Heinrich Himmler or Himmler's influences are not on trial here. This case is against the man in the witness box, Rudolf Brandt. I can't see that any discussion as to the character of Himmler will be material. Therefore, I object to any interrogation along the lines of the influences of Himmler.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Mr. Hardy, if your contention is correct, then what does that portion of the underlying law which guides this Tribunal which deals with superior orders mean when it said that superior orders shall not constitute a defense but that the fact of superior orders may be heard in mitigation of the sentence? Now if that does not allow a considerable inquiry into the type of superior order and the circumstance under which it was given and the relation that existed between the superior and the subordinate, what does it mean?
MR. HARDY: I follow Your Honor quite clearly up to the point until you get into what influence Himmler had on this subject here. Himmler's superior orders may well be pleaded in mitigation, but I don't see that the influence of Himmler upon the personality of one Rudolf Brandt has any bearing thereon.
JUDGE SEBRING: As a superior on one hand and as a subordinate on the other.
MR. HARDY: Well, we may well argue on that from now until Doom's Day, but I myself don't see where it has any materiality here.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, if you were to take the other end of the discussion and all that would be ever relevant would be simply the statement from the witness: "I acted on superior orders" and quit, and the Court under those circumstances would never have any yardstick by which it could measure the question of mitigation if it thought that mitigation was proper.
MR. HARDY: I have no further comment, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Under those circumstances the witness may give the Tribunal a picture of the situation where he stood at the time, a brief succinct statement.
Counsel may propound to the witness the question which he suggested.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Dr. Brandt, for years and years since 1934, you worked with Himmler, and the Court certainly has some impression of your purely exterior activities. Now would you please say how you saw Himmler's personality and what influence Himmler's personality exercised on you during the course of the years? I want to know what memories you have, what feelings you had and how your whole orientation was influenced by Himmler's manner of thinking.
THE PRESIDENT: The question should also include the matter of the official relations between the witness and Himmler. That is the main point of the question, the official relations and how Himmler's character affected this witness in his official duties in the position which he occupied.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Witness, did you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. Please start.
A. Professor Gebhardt has already to a certain extent given a description of Himmler's personality. When I now describe Himmler and the SS as I understand them and as I experienced them, then I ask you not to construe that as propaganda because after all that we have found out in the meantime, there is no occasion for any such propaganda.
I emphasize particularly the fact that I clearly disapprove of Himmler the way every decent man does and must, first, because of the crimes he committed, secondly, because he committed suicide.
When I went to Himmler I was a young SS man, young both in years since I was not even twenty-five in the year 1934, and young also in my membership in the SS of which I had been a member less than four months. The first impression that a young and immature person has of the intentions and plans and of the human and official behavior of his superior make a particular impression on him and, in general, determine what his future development will be. Himmler's manner of working, working late at night, carrying out many official trips, brought it about even at the very beginning that I was subjected to the same working conditions. He took me everywhere with him to finish up the work that he was doing so that to a certain extent I was his body stenographer and was almost like his shadow. He dictated letters to me in the trains, airplanes, automobiles in the morning and at all hours of the day and night.
During the numerous official trips I saw how modest Himmler's behavior was in hotels where we spent the night, how friendly and polite he was to the servants. I saw how simply his way of living his life was and saw that he made no special demands, and in this connection I should like to remark that Himmler was one of the few leading Party or State officials who didn't play the "big shot" and who did not augment their legal incomes with a little money from the side. I saw how considerate he was for the welfare of women and children who were in distress because of the death of the bread-winner. These women should not have to deal fruitlessly with an unfeeling burocracy. The local SS offices relieved them of their cares and difficulties and to a large extent took care of the children.
This help was not restricted to the wives of members of the SS. Every woman who turned to him could be assured of SS assistance.
Himmler loved children, and for this reason played Godfather to a large number of children. Presents for these Godchildren on birthdays and on Christmas he chose himself, and until the very end he saw to it that all the children of an SS man who had fallen in battle received presents for Christmas. However, the SS men themselves were also the beneficiaries of his consideration. Front-line Waffen-SS units and SS field hospitals received special allotments of fruit, cigarettes, etc. on his orders; and I should like to say here that the correspondence that dealt with such matters was also under my competence.
It was a matter of course for Himmler during the War to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with front-line soldiers of the WaffenSS. He spent no Christmas at home during the war.
I saw also how industrious he was, how he made the performance of duty and work the prime consideration without ever thinking of his own personal enjoyments. He expected much more of himself than any other leading personage of the Party. These higher demands were generally valid for the whole of the SS but were made particularly on his closer collaborators.
I saw how understandingly and generously he received the many requests that were directed to him from members of the SS and from the entire population, how glad he was to help where financial or other assistance was necessary.
Right at the beginning of my job Himmler gave me the order that every letter addressed to him should be submitted to him no matter what its contents might be. No letter was to be filed away without being answered, much less thrown into the wastebasket, and his answer to such a letter was not merely a purely formal gesture. The person who sent the letter could see from the way it was treated and the contents of the letter with what human sympathy his application was being worked on.
A Himmler's orders regarding the treatment of applications that came in corresponded with the way I felt about such matters. In my family, and later as a student, I had personal experience with distress and suffering, and I knew how difficult and impossible it often was for the simple man of the lower classes to protect himself against the cursory treatment on the part of people who were his social superiors. Thanks to Himmler's attitude on such matters I was enabled to help such people and along with Himmler all of my enthusiasm went into this work, which I did industriously, conscientiously, and which was the central point of all of my activity.
In conclusion, regarding my remarks as regards this matter about Himmler's readiness to help, was in agreement with his character as I came to know and to esteem. It was a matter of course, to him that a person's confidence in one should not be destroyed, a person who turned to him or to his office for advice or confidence. In the course of time I also found out when he spoke with guests during a meal and I was present, what his views were in one field or another, and I should like very much to give a few examples briefly. For example, he wanted to create a healthy working class
Q Witness, I believe you could be a little more brief in this. Perhaps you could just outline the main points.
A No, I just wanted to mention the fact itself. He wanted to extend credit to hand workers and peasants so that they could start a new livelihood. In the racial question Himmler frequently expressed the opinion that the Nordice race was a particularly selected race that was destined to take over the leadership in the reorganization of the community of Europe. The leadership of this main European people was not, however, to be restricted solely to Germans of the Nordic race. They were to be men from all nations and they should all be given an opportunity in peaceful competition to prove their fitness for this leadership.
A greater German Reich was to be the predecessor for this greater community that was to follow, and it was his view that such a community could not long endure if only the smaller nations were compelled to sacrifice some of their sovereignty. It could only exist if the more powerful states made even greater sacrifices voluntarily. When a person he was conversing with expressed the opinion that Germany would hardly be able to share the leadership with such people as Dutchmen, Swedes, Danes and so on, Himmler answered with an analogy from sport. He said it was a matter, of course, that fair rules should be observed as in soccer. In one year there would be a case, for instance, of a well known team from a large city, and in the next year it would be the small and unknown team from a small town group. Thus by analogy, the leadership in the European Community should change hands from time to time so that each nation could do its best for this European community. Himmler believed that in this way a totally different step would be taken in the development of mankind, what he conceived, namely, the first step in that direction through the creation of a kernel. For this State in German youth he tried to put in all nationalities through the Waffen SS. This Waffen SS included, if I remember correctly, 17 nationalities, French, Swedish, Lithuanians, even Musselmen were represented in these SS units. Germans as members lead as SS leaders, those belonging to these above mentioned European SS units, just as they were lead by leaders of other nationalities. In Germany the basis principle of these kernel troops were the same as those laid down in the SS as a whole.
Q Witness, may I interrupt you a moment. Would you please concentrate your testimony more on the question of the influence these observations had on your manner of thinking?
AAll of these thoughts that were Himmler's and which were laid down in certain basic policies of his, I regarded as that which must be brought to realization. In some way or other these thoughts had to be made reality, and that was the direction in which my efforts were bent. Perhaps I, on the basis of my own ideals, I saw more in Himmler intentions than he really intended, but the difference cannot have been very great. It was clear to me that human insufficiency in general and the inevitable difference between theory and practice would push the achievement of these goals into the far future, but I was also of the opinion that we should try in every way to make reality from these thoughts. I should like to emphasize that what I have here said is not bused on conversations between me and Himmler, but that I saw these things in his letters and statements he made and in his basic orders to the SS. Thus I saw these goals being realized in my work and I believed a man who lived according to such basic rules and goals could only wish the good and would keep his hands clean of crime.
Q Now, witness, my last question. At the beginning of this trial you stated that you did not consider yourself guilty and in the course of the presentation of the evidence you have stated how nevertheless you participated, and you explained this by saying that in part the enormous scope of your work lead to the fact that you were ignorant in many fields; that you were under orders always and as you have just said, Himmler's personality exercised a decisive influence on you. Now at the end of the presentation of evidence, I ask you whether you are still convinced after mature consultation with your conscience whether you considered yourself guilty or not guilty.
A That is the decisive question for me. At any rate I do not feel myself to be guilty in the sense and within the scope of the indictment; for the Indictment characterizes me as Himmler's advisor, as a person of influence, who with a clear knowledge and cold calculation took part in the crimes against humanity. This is not the case. My guilt is, in my opinion, much slighter. On the other hand I am honest and consistent enough not to deny my guilt on principle. If a more or less exalted stenotypist in a relatively high position is guilty by having taken dictation and of having passed that dictation on to subordinate stenographers, or guilty by drawing up letters on Himmler's orders, then I am not without guilt in that sense. When if today after a calm reflection I must answer that question, and after I have discussed the documents with my counsel and he points out to me the tragedy for the individual human beings concerned, then I must say the following: The leaders mainly responsible to the German people in the last fifteen years are dead. Most of them took their own life - Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering and others. And, that is in my eyes a contradiction of the principles which these men represented while they were still alive. Aside from everything else they thereby offended against the principles of loyalty which they represented for other persons and persons whom they led. I condemn such an act and I myself would never have done anything similar. However, I am also of the opinion that my behavior can only be justly appraised after all the conditions are taken into consideration, which acted to determine my activity and my sphere of work. In the ante-room of one of the mightiest and most dangerous of men I never knew Himmler's soul. I don't know whether it can be traced back to the fact that I lack understanding for human beings, or that I am too trusting, or whether the reason lies in the fact that throughout all these years I lived more or less like a hermit with my eyes covered. Until the very few days before the collapse, I lived as a subordinate civil servant and never had any influence on Himmler. The reason for my promotion to Standartenfuehere and Ministerial Councillor lies in the fact that Himmler did not want to offend me or let me occupy an inferior position as against his other employees.
I should like to mention that the chauffeur of his vehicle had the rank of Sturmbannfuehere in the Waffen SS which corresponds to the rank of Major. Let me remind you of the subordinate nature of my position, something which some witnesses will testify to in affidavits. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Martin is an eye witness who will describe in his affidavit that when there were conferences of a third person with Himmler I was called to him by a buzzer in the same way that, let us say, a director of a business concern calls for his stenographer or secretary.
Q Mr. Brandt, we will avoid repetition. We have already gone into all these things.
A That was one side. The other side for understanding this question of guilt rests on the fact that for years, since the beginning of my activities with Himmler, I was so over-burdened that I was unable to know the details of the hundreds and thousands of matters that went through my hands nor to reflect on all these matters. This is particularly true of the human being experiments which are here being discussed, which were entirely alien to my actual sphere of work, which has been corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses. These two points of view, namely on the one hand my insignificant position, secondly, my overwork, and thirdly, the rate of speed at which I had to work. All of these factors should play a role in the decision of the penalty which is to be layed upon me. I am sure that the Court will find itself almost impossible to place itself in the position in which I found myself at that time. They could not do so with the best will since that situation was unique and cannot be reconstructed. Nevertheless I call your attention to those three points of view that I have just enumerated when asking for a just verdict because I am deeply under the impression that the evidence brought up against me is very serious. Now, subsequently, as I look at it in peace I see my guilt as lying in the fact that I did not carefully study the in and out going mail that went through my hands or at least saved it for a time when I could study it at leisure which, however, I could not do because I was so overworked. In my basic attitude toward all people, even toward those who were persecuted in Germany for racial or other reasons, it would certainly have been impossible for me to sign these letters which unfortunately I actually did sign without taking this precaution of first reading them.
Consequently, in many matters I was too uninformed of the scope - the implication - that was going on and I should be happy today had I not signed those letters because they stand in such utter contradiction to my basic attitude, convictions which to this day I did not have to change.
MR. PRESIDENT: I would ask if the counsel is advised as to the film?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, all arrangements have been made to project the film for the Commission at 3:35 here in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no objection to any persons remaining to see the film who are now present in the Court Room with tickets authorizing them to be in the Court Room.
MR. HARDY: Pardon me, I didn't hear you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: (did not come through ear phones) I say the Tribunal sees no objection to persons remaining to see the film who are now present in the Court Room with tickets authorizing them to be in the Court Room.
MR. HARDY: Does that include spectators too, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Those who do remain should be willing to remain during the film so their departure during the film will not disturb the hearing of the film.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 25 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their scats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
RUDOLF BRANDT - Resumed
DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Rudolf Brandt): Mr. President, at the moment I have no further questions to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to the witness on the part of any of the defense counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. NELTE (Counsel for the Defendant Handloser, also representing Dr. Servatius who appears for Professor Karl Brandt):
Q Dr. Brandt, you said yesterday that you were never in a concentration camp.
A I never visited a camp.
Q Did your activities ever bring you into contact with the execution of these human experiments in the concentration camp?
A No. I never had anything to do with these experiments, anything more than can be seen from the documents. These are documents which I wrote by order of Himmler either as a dictation or I transmitted them as copies.
Q Did anyone discuss these experiments with you who personally carried them through?
A No, no such conversation ever took place.
Q Did anyone who personally experienced such experiments discuss them with you?
A That was not the case either.
Q So you can say neither from your own knowledge nor from direct personal report, anything that went on as regards human experiments in concentration camps?
A No, I cannot do that.
Q You said yesterday that the gentleman who submitted these affidavits to you for your signature had discussed documents with you before and made certain statements in connection with these documents. That, as I remember, was your description yesterday, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In that case he put the conclusions to you which he derived from these documents?
A Yes, and to which I agreed.
Q And he then asked you whether that wasn't your opinion too, is that right?
A I can't tell you now whether he put that question to me directly-
Q I mean according to the sense?
A Yes, according to the sense, that is correct.
Q Who actually caused the affidavits to be formulated in the way we see them now? Did you do that by dictating in that form, or were they submitted to you in the finished form?
A I did not dictate these statements. They were submitted to me. I had, of course, an opportunity to make corrections.
Q May I summarize your testimony of yesterday to the effect that if there are any factual statements made in the affidavits which you signed then these statements cannot be based on what you said but are only based on the documents which have been submitted to you in connection with the subject?
A Yes, it can be based on the document and conclusions which I derived.
Q But conclusions are not facts, are they? I now want to limit myself to the facts.
A Yes, that is right, no facts.
Q Now, I shall have the document book number 8 shown to you. This is the document book regarding Jaundice. In this document book you will find on page 3 a letter by Dr. Grawitz directed to Himmler. In that connection and concerning that subject you made the affidavit NO 371, Exhibit 186. This affidavit starts, "Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt-SS wrote to Himmler around the middle of the year 1943 that Dr. Karl Brandt desired to obtain prisoners in order to find the cause for epidemic jaundice." Is it correct if I assume that the letter dated the 1st of June 1943 had been submitted to you and that this sentence which I have just read was to be a copy of the first sentence in that letter?
A This is possible. During that interrogation I remember I had a telephone conversation with Dr. Brandt, but I did not remember exactly what it was about. It may be that I brought that telephone conversation in connection with that incident.
Q. Well, you are here saying that Dr. Grawitz wrote, around the middle of 1943, to Himmler, or hasn't this document been submitted to you at all?
A. Well, I really can't tell you that any more. It is possible that it was submitted to me, but I can't tell you that at the moment.
Q. At any rate, this is an indication of a letter which Grawitz was supposed to have sent to Himmler. But then your testimony in your affidavit continues as follows: "He did research work in this field with the collaborate of Dr. Dohmann and the Robert Koch Institute." The wording of that sentence is not the same as it is contained in the letter but is composed in such a manner that any one reading it must assume that you were saying that from your own knowledge. Otherwise, you would have said "Grawitz said in that lett that Dr. Brandt carried on research work" or you would have had to formulate the sentence by saying: "that he was supposed to have carried on research work in that field." You did neither of these things. You are an academic person and you know the German language. Is it correct that such a sentence when read to a non-participant and especially when read to the Tribunal, must create the impression that you yourself knew about the matter which is contained in that letter? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that impression be incorrect?
A. Yes, that impression is incorrect.
Q. Did you choose this formulation consciously, or was it submitted to you without having realized what was behind it?
A. I did not choose this formulation. It was contained in the statement in that form when it was submitted to me.
Q. Do you now realize that this formulation gives something incorrect? Do you?
A. Yes.
Q. And now I ask you to look at Figure 4. "Himmler wrote to Grawitz that Dr. Dohmann had the permission to carry out these experiments in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and obtained a number of prisoners from WVHA who were to be used as experimental subjects." In the book which was submitted to you you will find, on page 5, the letter which was sent by you as a copy to Pohl.
Was this letter submitted to you when you were interrogated?
A. I think, yes.
Q. And you are adding the following sentence in your affidavit: "I know that these experiments were carried out and that, as a result, a few of the prisoners died." We are here concerned with hepatitis research and you already yesterday mentioned the testimony of Professor Gutzeit. Nobody up to that time knew that human beings died as a result of the experiments. How were you in a position to say: "I know that, as a result of these experiments, a few of the prisoners died"?
A. I have no knowledge of that. That is also a conclusion which I arrived at on the basis of the interrogation.
Q. Well, Dr. Brandt, if you had said "I believe" or if you had said "I assume" then one could discuss that question, but here you are saying "I know a formulation which cannot be misunderstood, and I am asking you - did you use that formulation during the interrogation, namely, that "I know that prisoners died"? Did you?
A. I don't believe so because I really didn't know it.
Q. In that case you are saying that you did not formulate the sentence in that manner; "I know"?
A. I am quite sure that I did not.
Q. In that case you would logically have to say that the interrogating officer formulated the sentence in that manner and in that manner submitted it for your signature, although you actually did not say that?
A. That can only be explained in that way.
Q. You are saying, under oath, today that neither at that time nor today you knew that prisoners died as a result of these experiments? Is that correct
A. I don't know it.
Q. Under Figure 5 it says: "Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, also carried out experiments in the Concentration Camp Natzweiler in order to discover effective vaccines against epidemic jaundice". You are saying then: "As I remember, Dr. Dohmann worked with Haagen in the year of 1944 in the Concentration Camp Natzweiler." When one says: "As I remember", one is expressing that one remembers that event, that is, that one knows about that incident.