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.
Do you want to state that you told the interrogating officer that you remember that Dohmann and Haagen worked in Natzweiler together?
A. I cannot have said that in that form because I had no positive knowledge about that.
Q. Let us leave out the words "positive knowledge". I am just asking you - did you know that Dohmann worked in the camp of Natzweiler, or didn't you?
A. No, I had no knowledge about that.
Q. Wouldn't you also think that this formulation, must create the impression as if you were testifying something that you yourself kept in your memory and stated?
A. This impression must arise.
Q. The next sentence reads: "Experiments on human beings who did not volunteer were carried out and such experiments resulted in fatalities." You are here saying "experiments on human beings were carried out (a) on human beings who did not volunteer, (b) and in which cases deaths occurred." Did you tell that to the interrogation officer at that time as being part of your knowledge?
A. No, I could do that just as little as in the preceding case.
Q. Then you are saying: "That it is impossible because I didn't know that then just as little as I do today." Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that one would arrive at the logical conclusion that the interrogating officer must have written down something other than you had said?
A. It must be, of course, but naturally I can't remember in detail what it all was that I told the interrogation officer. My state of health was not adequate at that time, for my attitude regarding all these matters to be sufficiently critical. In addition, I was completely under the spell of the documents which had been submitted to me and also under the impression which I gained from the conclusions of the interrogation officer.
Q. But if you had said anything like that then it would have been incorrect?
A. It would have been incorrect, yes.
Q. In that case, there is only one alternative. Either the interrogation officer had written down something to be signed by you that you did not state, or the other alternative, what you have said is incorrect as you are saying under oath today.
Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And now, Figure 6 says, and that is something that was frequently used by the prosecution in order to attempt to prove that a certain circle of persons must have had knowledge of the experiments and the following words were put into your mouth: "Karl Brandt naturally knew of these experiments since he personally fostered them." I believe that this sentence was submitted to you, since the name Brandt could be seen in the letter of the 1st of June, 1943. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you were told, "Well in that case he must have had knowledge," is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know from your own knowledge that Karl Brandt had known of these experiments and how they were carried out?
A. No
Q. The next sentence reads: "Handloser and Schroeder must have been informed about that since Dohmen and Haagen were physicians in the medical corps of the army, the air corps," Did you know Dohmen?
A. Dohmen? No, no, I didn't.
Q. Didn't you ever get in contact with him?
A. No.
Q. Did you know his position, his function?
A. No.
Q. In that case you only knew that he was a medical officer?
A. I knew only what I could see from the letter of the Reicharzt.
Q. And now it says here that Professor Handloser must have been informed about the experiments in Sachsenhausen and in Natzweiler since Dohmen was a physician in the medical corps of the army. Can you state, another reason, under oath, that Professor Handloser would have had to have knowledge of these experiments other than that Professor Dohmen was a medical officer in the medical corps?
A. No.
Q. In that case we are just concerned with a conclusion which I assume that not you made, but your interrogating officer, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have stated in yet another affidavit, No.-372, exhibit 252, matters regarding experiments with Lost gas. I am submitting to you Document Book 13 and I am referring to your report, Document NO-097, which you can find on page 19, of the document book. This is a letter from Ahnenerbe, Dr. Sievers, to Rudolf Brandt, with an attached report by Hirt, regarding his experiments which he carried out by order of the Wehramacht, as it says there. Now just listen to me and see what you said in your affidavit: "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. August Hirt, Professor at the University of Strasburg and co-worker at the Society Ahnenerbe, carried out before the year 1942, experiments on Lost, by order of the Wehrmacht." Furthermore, you are saying that Hirt had been writing reports. It says "My attention was drawn to Hirt's report when working in Himmler's office." This report which is before you on Page 19--is that the report which was pointed out to you when you were interrogated?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Did you discuss that report with your interrogating officer?
A. It was not discussed but I think it was just shortly mentioned. However, I cannot remember any details.
Q. You have said in your affidavit "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt had carried out experiments before 1942 by order of the Wehrmacht." Doesn't that have to create the impression with the Tribunal that when Hirt was carrying out experiments he did so by order of the Wehrmacht, and, secondly, that he was a Hauptsturmfuehrer with the SS? In other words, that there was a connection there between the Wehrmacht and the SS in this field? Isn't that right?
A. Yes, that impression must be created.
Q. Do you know what the date of this report is which Hirt made and which is before you now?
A. It bears the date of April 1942.
Q. April 1942 is the date of the letter sent to you, isn't it?
A. No, this is the letter from Sievers to Hirt.
Q. No, From Sievers to Brandt and to you. It is dated 2 June 1942, is that correct--page 19?
A. Yes, 2 June 1942.
Q. The attached report about experiments shows what regarding the time of the experiments?
A. No, there is no date mentioned on it.
Q. Do you know when the campaign against France had started?
A. I think it was in June 1941.
Q. When? You mean Russia. I am speaking about France.
A. That started in June 1940.
Q. Let us say May 1940. Now look at page 3 of that report which is before you, quite at the bottom: "The application of these experiments on human beings could not be carried out since the campaign against France called me back to my front duties, from which I only returned in May 1941." In that case this report refers to experiments which Hirt carried out when he was still medical officer of the army, at the beginning of 1940. At that time there was no Wehrmacht Medical Service as yet. And if you had read the report you would have found out that this was done on animals and officer-candidates of the medical military academy. If you are then saying in your affidavit "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. August Hirt" and now you are not mentioning the date "early 1940" but you are just saying "before 1942" and by order of the Wehrmacht carried out experiments with Lost gas," then that must create a wrong impression which has to be corrected.
First when the experiments were carried out that was before May 1940; secondly, Hirt was not Hauptsturmfuehrer as you have stated but he was medical officer of the army; thirdly, I must again ask you--it says he was a collaborator with the Ahnenerbe. Are you saying that Hirt, when carrying out experiments by order of the Wehrmacht, was a collaborator with the Ahnenerbe--now I remind you, the date was 1940?
A. Whether at that time he already belonged to the Ahnenerbe I do not know.
Q. But you are saying that here. Are you now saying, under your oath, that you do not know it?
A. I can't remember when Professor Hirt started to work with Ahnenerbe for the first time.
Q. Since when had you known him?
A. I only saw him once or twice at Himmler's headquarters during the war.
Q. And you cannot give me any dates, can you?
A. I think it must have been 1942 or 1943.
Q. Thus 1942 or 1943 for the first time.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I don't think this type of cross-examination is proper. I don't understand that the witness is being hostile to Handloser at this stage. He can state generally that his assumptions of knowledge on the part of Handloser with regard to these matters was an assumption on his part but this cross-examination is highly argumentative. He is now taking documents, captured documents, here and arguing with the witness on the basis of these documents about statements in his affidavit. He can ask the witness a direct question about a statement in his affidavit and the witness can give a short answer and we can proceed; but I must object to this argumentative type of examination based upon documents which speak for themselves and upon which Dr. Nelte can make his arguments in his summation and in his briefs.
He can point out any inconsistencies between the affidavit of this witness and the documents in the record but I don't understand that the witness is being hostile to Dr. Nelte. It seems to me that it is a great waste of time to spend the whole morning going over each of these affidavits and comparing them with the great number of documents in the record.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, we are not here concerned with one affidavit by one witness. We are here concerned with a series of affidavits of a certain witness, or rather co-defendant. This series of affidavits was used by the prosecution when submitting their evidence. It was partly submitted in connection with matters where there was no other means of evidence, but these affidavits. When conducting this examination I attach importance to show that we were here concerned with a certain method, namely that some documents which you, as well as the prosecution and we, are reading and from which the conclusion can be drawn that from those document, testimonies were made in a manner as if this witness not only just repeated the contents of these documents, but that he himself knew and experienced what is contained in the affidavits. This is to be proved in the case of all of these documents, and in my opinion that is of high importance for the judgment of all the matters which are being touched upon by these affidavits; and I therefore ask you to permit me to conduct my demonstration of evidence in the same way as the Prosecution in that respect.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel now examining the witness is entitled to examine the witness as to these affidavits in which the names of the clients of examining counsel are used, but insofar as the questions by counsel are purely argumentative they are improper. Counsel may ask the witness generally if he was personally advised as to the facts stated in these affidavits. So far the witness has said he was not; but the objective sought by counsel can be accomplished, it seems to the Tribunal, without lengthy arguments with the witness. A few short brief questions to the Wetness Brandt on the stand as to his knowledge of these affidavits would very likely elicit the statements already made that he made statements not based on his own personal knowledge. Counsel could propound his questions without argument in a more **mple form, and the Tribunal is of the opinion his right would exist to cross-examine the witness as to these statements.
Q. Dr. Brandt, you have submitted another affidavit, NO-370, Exhibit No. 294, and there you speak of experiments which were carried out with typhus serum in the concentration camp Natzweiler; here under Figure 6 you have said "I am not informed about the technical details of these experiments.
I know, however, that these experiments were carried through. Moreover I am sure that a number of prisoners died as a result of these experiments." Will you please state where from you gained that knowledge?
A. I know nothing about that. I can only give the same answer as I already did before.
Q. But it could not be seen from the documents which exist about that matter and which were submitted to you that prisoners died; now can you state "I am sure that a number of prisoners died?"
A. I signed the formulation in that form.
Q. Without actually knowing what you signed?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the next paragraph it says "As far as I remember, Haagen was carrying out experiments on human beings in Natzweiler with reference to other diseases, yellow fever, influenza, epidemic, jaundice, hepatitis, cholera, and so forth, and nephritis." Do you know what nephritis is?
A. I don't know it.
Q. But you wrote it, and you signed it, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. How could you say "as far as I remember Haagen was carrying out these experiments?"
A. It was submitted to me in that form, and I already pointed out that I could not differentiate between actual knowledge and the conclusions which I made from what the interrogating officer said, and from what I saw in the document.
Q. At any rate you cannot allow the sentence which I just read to be regarded as having been stated from your knowledge?
A. In no way at all.
Q. On the next point it says, "SS Gruppenfuehrer, Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for the Medical and Health Service, Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Siegfried Handloser, Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, Generalarzt Dr. Paul Rastock, Plenipotentiary for Science and Research, (Generaloberstabsarzt) Dr. Oskar Schroeder, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, must have known about Dr. Hagen's experiments on human experimental subjects:"
Do you know any concrete facts which would in any way justify you to say that the indicated persons had knowledge of the experiments on human subjects?
A. No.
Q. And now there is a final sentence in that affidavit which I think is of particular importance, and there it says: "These gentlemen were informed of all that happened in connection with scientific and medical research and these experiments could not have been carried out without their knowledge and approval." Did you tell that to the interrogating officer?
A. No.
Q. Can you maintain that statement under your oath today.
A. You mean what I said in the statement?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I cannot maintain it.
Q. Can you tell me any incident from which you could derive this information about all these gentlemen?
A. I have no facts, knowledge.
This is merely a conclusion on the basis of the position that the gentlemen concerned had held.
Q. Now, you made an affidavit NO-444, Exhibit 329, which mainly concerns itself with the selection of concentration camp inmates -
MR. McHANEY: I wonder if it would satisfy Dr. Nelte if the Prosecution stipulated that the witness will testify to the same facts as to all the remaining affidavits which he signed. I don't know what more he can ask the witness to do than he has already done, and the Prosecution is perfectly willing to stipulate that he will testify to the same effect as to all the other affidavits, and it will save us all the time and trouble of having the same questions put to each affidavit.