Q. What other tasks did you have as chief hygienist?
A. With the letterhead of chief hygienist all those letters were written which concerned the institutes which previously had been subordinate to Office 16. They concerned the procurement of materials, or transfers of personnel, or technical use of personnel, or professional instructions, or such matters. All of this belonged within the sphere of competence of the chief hygienist. However, that was only a relatively unimportant activity. The entire filing system of this office comprised, during this year and a half, two folders for ordinary letters and one small file for secret letters.
Q. In what way was your activity as chief hygienist different from your previous activity in Office 16 of the Fuehrung Main Office?
A. Activity in the Office 16 was more extensive, because the entire procurement for the Waffen-SS was the main job of this office; and Office 16 kept this job after the reorganization, whereas on the other hand the larger tasks, that had been planned as the tasks of the chief hygienist, were not given to him.
Q. What was your activity in the Hygiene Institute? First of all what was the size of this Institute?
A. The Institute, starting off on a small scale, developed into a rather large institute, which at the end of the war contained twentyfive scientists of the most varied fields and two hundred additional personnel in toto. The tasks, that it embraced also grew. The originally purely practical job of epidemic control was supplemented later by research tasks in varied fields. I set it as my goal not only to take care of the practical matters of epidemic control but to study and to search, into the biology of man as a whole from the medical point of view.
From this there resulted of necessity a number of professional departments which generally are not to be found in such a medical institute or hygiene institute. The individual research assignments resulted from practical experience.
The scope was as follows: The oldest department was that for bacteriology and virology. It, as a medical research office, examined incoming material for bacteria. This material came from the hospitals, field hospitals, and so forth. A second department was the Department for Medical Zoology, which was run by three zoologists. It was formed because of the necessity of combatting the insects that can communicate contagious diseases; and these insects, as in the case of other animals, have to be subjected to more exact research. Consequently, this struck the physician as a special problem that had to be dealt with. To this department belonged also a farm of poisonous snakes which were to serve as research material into the specific characteristics of the poisons of European and Near Eastern poisonous snakes and to apply them therapeutically.
A third department was that for hygienic technique. An engineer was in charge; it concerned itself with the construction of portable or motorized decontamination units for the purpose of delousing the troops. These units were set up with the divisions, particularly on the Eastern Front, and in part also in concentration camps to combat the spread of lice. They were operated mostly with hot air or steam. As I said, this department was also in charge of the Department for Antiseptics.
A fourth department was the Chemical Department, which was run at the end by six trained chemists. They had all been specially trained for their special tasks in this department; and this department had two assignments.
First, it had to test the water for the various units to see if it was safe. But the much larger one was the second one. We wanted to develop a vaccine against stomach typhpoid, and we had to ascertain just what its specific quota of bacteriological vaccine material should be, to immunize the human being, extensive knowledge of bacteriological chemistry, was a pre-requisite so that considerable work was to be done in this field.
Another department concerned itself with Geology, connected with finding water for the local units, -
Q. I believe you can be a little more brief?
A. There was another department for Climatology, which concerned itself with the question of climate, and, finally, there was a Statistical department which in particular concerned itself with research assignments, and with the problem of predicting epidemics, and to find a proctical solution to this problem. Finally, came the already known department for typhus and virus research, which was concerned with the production of a new typhus vaccine for the use of the SS. There was a large library a large amount of animals and various technical apparatus to complete the Institute.
DR. FLEMMING: I should like to correct a mistake in the translation in a previous question, the witness said, the field of activity of the Chief Hygienist filled only a few file volumes, and he spoke of two folders for tele graph matters. This was not translated as two folders but as two "employees" In other words, what is concerned, is not with the person in charge of the file, but the size of the actual file, there were two files.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. Now how did you supervise the working departments, and how did you take part in it yourself?
A. The work was assigned by me to the department chiefs, and , of course with many suggestions for the work. Once a week, I made many visits to the various departments of the Institute. From time to time conferred with the competent departmental chiefs, and could always tell how much work a department was doing by the amount of material that was used, and this could be seen from their monthly requirements.
Q. What was your own work day in the Institute?
A. I worked from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or even later in the Institute.
Q. Did you in addition do any private work?
A. In the Institute I had my own bacteriological laboratory in which I worked. At home, mainly at night, I wrote my scientific papers.
DR. FLEMMING: I submit to the Court the affidavit of the defendant Mrugowsky to be found on page 1 of the Document Book, offered as Mrugowsky's Exhibit No.7. The affidavit reads, after the usual introduction, where I shall now begin with the second paragraph. "The following scientific works by myself, and by co-workers at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, have been compiled by me according to my best knowledge and belief. The list is not complete. It contains merely the more important works. Since I had no data for the majority of them, and therefore had to rely on my memory, it is possible that the titles for the works mentioned by me are not literally correct in all details, and that years and places of publication are not exact. However I can assert that the works enumerated deal with the subjects as mentioned and that they are by the authors named by me."
Than on pages 2 to 7 there follows a list of these works.
BY DR. FLEMMING?
Q. Will you please tell the Tribunal again that you really wrote the works, and published the works that are listed here as your own?
A. Yes
Q. Was research work carried out by the Institute?
A. Yes, I already named part of it. Others concerned themselves with more detailed problems in the individual departments, with the production of maps that showed the spread of contagious diseases, bacteriological problems, chemical problems and so forth.
Q. According to what standpoints did you choose the leaders of the Institute under you?
A. From beginning of there on there was an order that applied to the whole of the Waffen SS that all physicians who had training in bacteriology and hygiene should automatically communicate with me, and were transferred to me.
This was necessary because at the beginning of the war there were only two bacteriologists in the whole Waffen SS, and, of course, those two were not sufficient to meet the tasks that arose as the result of the war in the East. Those appointed as Institute directors, or departmental chiefs, were so appointed on technical grounds, and on the basis cf their previous experience, and training.
DR. FLEMMING: Before I continue with my interrogation, of the witness, I should like to submit to the Court the Hippocratic Oath, that has so often been mentioned in this trial and has never been read in court. It seems to me that the text of this oath should be read in order that it be understood. Further, that such an oath is not an oath in the same sense as that of an oath sworn to before the court, or by an official. The oath is in Mrugowsky's Document No. 35 on page 19 of the Document Book, and should like to offer it as Mrugowsky's Exhibit No. 8.
The oath reads as follows:
"I swear by Apolle, the Physician, by Ascraepius (?) and Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods and goddesses, to carry out the following oath and obligation according to my ability and judgment:
To respect my teacher who taught me this art just as I do my parents; jointly with my life, if necessary, to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without reward or written promise; to impart share of the precepts and instructions pertaining to the science to my sons and the sons of the master what taught me, and the disciples who belong to the guild and have taken oath of the Physicians' Law, but only to these alone.
I will prescribe the regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and judgment, and keep away everything that may harm or injure them. To none shall I give a deadly poison, not even on request, nor give advice to that effect. Nor will I give to a woman the means of destroying growing life within her. I will keep my life pure and pious just as my art. I shall not even make a cut for gall stones in men, but I will leave this operation to those who practise this."
In this paragraph there are two insertions that do not belong to the oath itself, but which were made by him from whose version this wording of the oath originates. These are the words after "to perform a cut which destroys potency", and at the end of the paragraph "who practise this", the stone remove I continue now with my reading of the text:
"Every house I enter I shall enter only for the good of the patients, keeping myself away from all intentional ill-doing, and especially from acts of lust on the bodies of women and men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession, or outside of my profession in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be talked, about, I will keep secret by regarding this as a holy secret. If I carry out and keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men for all times; but if I swerve from it, or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."
As an indication that this oath of Hippocrates is no oath that has been delivered to us from antiquity with a firmly established text, I have on page 21 of the document book, under the same exhibit number, reproduced the form of the oath used in France, which differs considerably from the text just read. It reads:
"This is the Hippocratic Oath, as taken at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris: In presence of the masters of our school and of my beloved codisciples and before the image of Hippocrates, I promise and swear herewith that I will be faithful to the rules of honor and probity in the practice of medicine. I will assist the poor without fee, and never will I charge for my work a higher fee than it deserces. As a guest in other people's houses, I will not let my eyes perceive what is going on there; my tongue will not reveal the secrets which are confided to me, and I will do nothing in my profession which corrupts the morals and favors crime. Out of respect and gratitude toward my masters, I will pass on to their children all that I have learned from the fathers. May men esteem me if I keep my promise, and may I be covered with shame and despised by my colleagues if I fail."
That is the French version.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, would it be possible for me to see the original exhibit ?
DR. FLEMMING: The German original is in a library book which I could not give to the Tribunal for good. I ask that we follow the same procedure as was followed in the case of Dr. Sauter; namely, that a certified true copy, certified by me, be accepted in lieu of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will exhibit the book to the Prosecution. After the Prosecution has examined it, a certified copy may be substituted.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor. I have examined it, Your Honor, and I am satisfied.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. Witness, did you take this oath of Hippocrates?
A. No.
Q. From the way in which the oath is mentioned here, one could reach the conclusion that it is the professional oath of the physician.
Is that the case?
A. The oath of Hippocrates has for many centuries not been considered an oath in the legal sense of the term, like the oath that an official takes or the oath that a witness takes. Throughout my entire period of study and in my period of training, this oath was never submitted to no, and only a very few among my large circle of doctor friends became acquainted with this oath at the time when they were receiving their doctorates. Even in the case of the universities where that was customary, that was not an oath but simply the basis for a certain form of an obligation in which the physician would be instructed in his duties as a doctor.
Q. You have concerned yourself with the question of medical ethics and have published a book before the beginning of the war on this subject. I submit an excerpt from this book to the Court as Mrugowsky Document 36. It is on page 22 of the document book. I should like to offer it as Mrugowsky Exhibit Number 9. The defendant has only one copy of this book itself. Consequently, I ask permission to show the book to the Prosecution and then to submit a certified copy in lieu of the original. From this document number 36 I should like to read only a few passages. First, page 23:
"The task of the physician has always been the same, to heal the sick and to return them to life, with efficiency restored. One would think that this defined the task clearly and for all time. But if we look into the history of medical science, we see that the interpretation of this task has found anything but universal agreement. It is true that there has always been unanimity about the final aim, but for this reason the views as to its achievement differed.
"Each generation has its own attitude towards the problems of life which never recur with the same complete exactitude. From century to century, from decade to decade, even from day to day knowledge advances, and there is always something regarded as a foregone conclusion by the younger generation which was still a problem for the older. There is a continuous crumbling from the rock of the unknown, and every new germ of knowledge appears to the younger generation as a star snatched from the infinite firmament of eternal divinity.
Youth would not be youth if it did not leap with a smile over the restricting doubts of its elders; it would be without strength if it did not experience the unique, newly born feeling which is innate in every rising generation and which alone gives it creative power. Each generation was once young and ready to storm the heavens; the, as the decades passed, it became more slow and more deliberate, and the great problems of life always repeated themselves, although never exactly, always a little more advanced in accordance with the progress of knowledge and method. But the questions themselves--"
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it is now about time for the noon recess. Can you give me the date? I notice that this was written by Dr. Hufeland and edited with an introduction by the defendant Mrugowsky. Can you tell me the date of this publication?
THE WITNESS: 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: How much of this document do you propose to read into the record, Counsel?
DR. FLEMMING: I wished to read the first paragraph on the next page, an the last, and of page 24 the first four lines, from the next page the first three lines, and then on page seven of the document, I intended to read all of that, and a small piece from page S.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that; reading so extensively into the record, if the Tribunal has this before it in this form, is rather unnecessary and takes up time for no particularly good purpose. Counsel may read a few of the extracts but should choose the more important ones and not read as many as were contemplated according to his recent statement.
The Tribunal is now recessed until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 26 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it Please the Tribunal, during the presentation -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Mr. Hardy. The Secretary General will file for the record a medical certificate in regard to the defendant Oberhauser's condition. Proceed.
MR. HARDY: During the presentation of the defense thus far to date of the other defendants it has been more or less the practice to put in the documentary evidence during the course of the examination of the defendant, but it has been true that most of the defense counsel have limited that to documents which are important for the purpose of the examination. I should request that Dr. Flemming refrain from trying to introduce all of his documentary evidence during the course of his examination. The purpose of the examination is to ask pointed Questions, facts, to the defendant and to save his documentary evidence to be introduced separately, inasmuch as in some instances it is absolutely unconnected with the testimony of the defendant and I think it would be more expeditious than the manner in which he is beginning to follow now taking document after document in his document book. I request the Tribunal to rule on the suggestion of the prosecution.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I am only going to submit documents as they refer to the count of the prosecution and as I am asking defendant Mrugowsky regarding that document. I would consider it in that case to be more expedient to submit this document during the examination rather than submitting document after document after the examination, which would be completely out of its context.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, documents which tend to elucidate the testimony of the witness may be offered during his examination but only if they are particularly pertinent to the matters on which the witness is being interrogated. Documents of a general nature should be reserved until after the testimony of the witness is completed, but when counsel deems it of importance to present certain documents during the examination he may do so JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. I am not going to read any more from the medical report than what I have already read. I will now ask you: Do you maintain this high concept of your profession as before, or did you have strong reason in the meantime to revise it?
A. As before, it is my opinion that only that person has a right to call himself a physician who also feels the religious side of his profession and who is taken up with his physical task.
Q. How was your book accepted in the circles of your superiors, a book which had nothing at all to do with the SS spirit?
A. I had to submit that book to Grawitz before its publication for his approval. Grawitz then sent it to Himmler and Himmler rejected the thoughts contained in that book and prohibited this bock being distributed to SS physicians.
Q. After the court has learned your concept of ethical questions, after having read a few pages of that book, I want to speak to you about medical experiments on human beings. Do you consider it permissible that a physician under certain circumstances violates the request put to a physician to cure patients and not to cause damage?
A. This question is very hard to answer briefly since it concerns the wide field of philosophy and the study of ethics. These views, as are all other views of human thought, are dependant on timely currents. It is my opinion that when answering that question one has to differentiate between two different cases.
The first case is the following: A patient comes to a physician and submits himself trustingly to his treatment. This is a case which is not mentioned in any count of the indictment and I am only touching upon it in order to clarify the second case. I think that it is absolutely not permissible that a physician would do any medical experiments with a patient, who confidentially approached him for the purpose of being cured, without the express approval of that patient.
This holds true of every operation and of every other activity of the physician in relation to his patient. This relation of confidence of Physician to Patient is fully applicable to medical ethics in the classical sense, as before, and that will certainly also hold true of all times.
But all experiments which are here the subject of the indictment were not carried out on patients who put themselves into the hands of a physician with confidence but these were inmates of concentration camps. These men were entirely healthy and that in my opinion is the second case. They were not Patients of the physician in the sense of medical ethics and in reference to the concept of the relationship between the Physician and patient, and therefore what we understand by medical ethics can only conditionally be applied in this case.
Q. Wherein do you see the basic difference between experimentation by physicians on patients or inmates of a concentration camp?
A. The patient approaches the physician voluntarily, and the important thing is the relationship of confidence between him and his physician. It is entirely different in the case of the inmates that are being discussed here. To enter a concentration camp, in itself, could only be done by the approval of the concentration camp central administration at Oranienburg. I myself, for instance, was never in possession of a permanent pass and, therefore, couldn't enter a concentration camp whenever I felt like it. Only as far as I know the leading physician of concentration camps held such a permanent pass, and a close circle of his working staff. Whenever a visitor entered a concentration camp, he had to report to the commandant's office, and whenever there were people of high rank, they had to report to the commandant himself. They were not allowed to move freely within any camp, but they had to be accompanied. Those escorts only allowed them to see the places which were necessary for them to execute their orders. In that case apart from the actual camp physicians, no other physician even had the possibility to get into contact with the inmates in the concentration camps, and there we find a very essential difference between the voluntary confidential relationship of patient to physician on the one hand, and the relationship of the physicians, who are indicted here, and the inmates on the other hand.
Q. You know that at home and abroad a number of medical experiments were carried out on inmates asylums who also weren't patients of the physician who was carrying out these experiments. In your opinion, were such experiments on patients of insane asylums synonomous with experiments on inmates of the concentration camps?
A. No. This physician would in every case establish contact with the head of the insane asylum who himself was a physician, too, and would get everything necessary from him such as space and equipment. In the case of the concentration camp there was no such contact possible, contact between one physician and another. Whatever would have been necessary for the execution of experiments had to be made available to him by the commandant's office which was an agency of State. Above all, ho could only get the inmates for these experiments of an order by the Chief of the German Police had been issued, and, naturally, that Chief of Police is an organ of the State.
Therein I see a very clear distinction between the two types of experiments.
Q. What conclusions are to be derived regarding the permissibility of carrying out medical experiments on inmates from the fact that the State had to place these inmates at the disposal of the physician for the purpose of these experiments?
A. If the inmates are put at disposal for these experiments by the State, one can conclude clearly that there was at least an approval by the State for the planned experiment. In most cases the State was even the party that initiated these experiments and ordered them.
Q. In your opinion, did the State nave the right to dispose of the health and lives of the inmates by placing them at the disposal of medical experiments, as a result of which permanent disturbances of their health or even death could occur?
A. In normal times the State certainly does not have that right. But the experiments which are here the subject of the indictment were carried on during the war. In Germany, just as in England, a total war effort applying to the entire people was ordered, that is to say, the State in Germany as well as in England reserved the disposal over its citizens in every case. Not only did the State provide such commitment for men, but also for nonsoldiers, even women. The State also ordered the manner in which the citizens of the State would suffer loss of health or even death, such as in the Navy by drowning in water, or in the Air Force by crashing a plane, in the armament industry by poisoning. That also holds true for the women who were committed in that war effort, and that is true, therefore, for the entire German people. These circumstances of a total war are naturally quite unusual. Under these very unusual circumstances where the State exercises jurisdiction over its entire citizens, I don't think that inmates of concentration camps cannot be excepted. Now when the State orders the execution of medical experiments because some question regarding the combatting epidemics had to be settled as quickly as possible, I would imagine that the State has the right to select persons for that special purpose because in that case the State is doing nothing also that it is not doing with its soldiers and other population.
Q. Under what circumstances would you say that the speedy settlement of any question is of highest medical importance?
A. In order to remain within the scope of the indictment, I think there is such a case when some foreign epidemic is starting, which so far was not found within the Reich territory, and where a large number of deaths is to be reckoned with, so that the speediest settlement becomes necessary. It is important to find out whether a certain drug or a certain vaccine can control this danger.
Q. When making these presumptions, do you think that a physician is entitled to carry out experiments on human beings using new drugs or new vaccines, even if he knows that the life of the experimental subject is being endangered by that procedure?
A. I don't think that a physician is justified to do that when we are concerned with his own initiative. I think, however, that he is obliged to obey the order given by his State when the highest responsible official of the State is or ering such experiments for any specific purpose and defines expressly the circle of persons to be used. It is the duty of the State to keep his citizens from danger as far as possible. It is the duty of the respective highest official of a State organization to take the necessary measures and to find now ways for newly appearing cases.
Q. Now let us assume the case that a physician had received the order from the State to use healthy persons in order to clarify a question of highest medical importance and infect them with bacteria as a result of which they become ill, and a certain number, let us say 1/3 would most likely die, what would the attitude of this physician be in a case of war emer gency?
In that case I would make the further assumption that this physician is a soldier and was receiving this order from his superior agency.
A. The physician has to judge for each case what his activity towards this order has to be. If he realized that necessity and if be affirms it, then he will immediately obey that order. The responsibility for that order rests with the agency which had issued the order. The physician himself bears the responsibility for the execution of that order. If he believes however, that there is no urgent nex-essity for that undoubtedly unusual order, he would have to inform his superior of his misgivings, and in cases where no agreement is reached, he only has one alternative, namely, to report that matter to a yet higher superior. If in that case too the necessity of that experiment is affirmed, that is, against his own convictions, then he would have to obey that order, that is when his superior insists upon the execution of that order. Understanding superior, however, would not insist that just the one should execute such an order who has any inner objection to it. They would probably select other subordinates who are fully of their own opinion.
Q. Do you think that it is justifiable that a physician who received the order to carry out experiments on human beings, should be treated differently than a chemist or any other expert who receives orders by the State, during the war, as a result of which his life or the life of other citizens is being endangered?
A. In times of war it frequently occurs that research workers, chemists, technicians, et cetera, have to carry out experiments which are not only endangering themselves, but also endangering their environment. For example, in the explosive industry, numberous explosions occur, as a result of which many persons die. If the chemist who is concerned with the accident cannot be accountable for that disaster.
he is naturally not guilty. Whenever a fire guard officer has to remove a bomb from the street which came down as a dud, and if this dud exploded, the fire guard naturally cannot be held to account, and I may say that in large cities prison inmates were used for that purpose by the State in many cases and as a result suffered injury or died. One can see numerous examples at the front in the case of officers, where the officer could not overlook whether the order he had received is absolutely necessary, and where he often has to execute a military order without having to be convinced of it's necessity. This officer is certainly not guilty of having brought about the death of soldiers of his company, but it is the superior agency which bears the responsibility. That is very clear in military life.
Q. What would be the consequence if the physician refuses to carry out such experiments on human beings?
A. In time of war every medical officer is subordinate to the military law. Every country which has an army has military law and there one always finds the paragraph referring to refusal to obey orders. Even if he did refuse and then receive a court martial nothing would have been done to prevent the intention of the State, for another person would come into his place who probably would act with less expert knowledge in carrying the matter through.
Q. let us assume that the physicians for the reasons mentioned desires to carry out that infection, what kind of persons would he select for his experiments?
A. We cannot select any persons because he has none at his disposal. These experimental subjects must be put at his disposal by the State or some other source.
Q. And what kind of persons would come into consideration in your opinion?
A. In such a case one, of course, thinks of volunteers first. If, however, it is not possible to find any volunteers and the State, in spite of that , thinks that the execution of the experiment is necessary, any human beings would have to be ordered to submit themselves to experiments. The State has the power to do that for the same reason as the State has the power to commit it's soldiers at the front. On the other hand the State has the possibility to get a number of it's citizens which it cannot use during war and which it cannot use either at the front or us workers, and these are the criminals. In Germany, military service is considered an honorable service. Serving penal servitute results in being no longer regarded fit for military service. From this circle the State would choose it's experimental subjects if it decides to perform such experiments in view of some acute danger.
Q. In your opinion, is the physician to be held responsible for this furnishing of experimental subjects?
A. In my opinion, no. He exercises no influence whatsoever in this manner.
Q. In your opinion, isn't the physician obliged to make sure before the beginning of the experiments that the experimental subject actually comes from the circle, from which they should come, according to the order of the State?
A. As far as we are concerned with inmates of concentration camps, the physician wouldn't be in a position to exercise any such control. The personnel files of the inmates are not at his disposal. Therefore, he could not look at them.
He merely can believe and accept what he is being told officially by the competent agency.
Q. According to an affidavit made by Dr. Morgen, former SS Judge, which I am going to submit at a later date in a different connection, political inmates had also been smuggled into these series of experiments.
The witness Kogan testified to the same effect, and what is your opinion now in that respect, as regards the responsibility?
A. What I said before naturally only refers to criminals of German citizenship. It is not my opinion that a deviating political opinion represents crime. Political inmates, therefore, cannot be considered as criminals, not even when they are communists. I am of the opinion, therefore, that if it is correct that political inmates had been included in that circle of criminal persons, the agency would have to be responsible for this which was responsible , fir the furnishing of these inmates.
Q. Let us apply that situation in the case of Buchenwald. Who, in your opinion, must be made responsible for the order of the experiments?
A. In every case it is the agency which issues the order. In all cases which I can over-look it is (A) Dr. Grawitz in his position as Reichsarzt SS, or his immediate superior Himmler.
Q. Who is responsible that the inmates, who were furnished for that purpose from Buchenwald, were selected from that circle of persons according to Himmler's orders?