Q And now will you please look at document, which is found at page 19. It is document 040, exhibit 154. This is a letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS personal staff which bears your signature. It is a top secret letter and directed to Gehrlandt SS-Oberfuhrer. I call your attention to the first sentence of that document, and it says there and I shall only read a few words:
"On account of the absence of the Reichsfuehrer SS, who at present is taking a long official trip, I am acknowledging your letter."
The document also deals with the question of sterilization by using that foreign plant. Would you please state your position shortly?
A I can remember that event in as much as Himmler, to whom the letter by Gehrlandt had been submitted, gave the directive to write that letter in that form. However, I cannot remember any details.
Q Had Himmler already been absent for some time when you were writing that letter?
A I can't tell you that. It was often the case where he issued a directive to write a letter in that form just so he wouldn't have to come into appearance in that matter although he already knew the contents of the letter directed to him.
Q Now, would you please turn to page 41, which is document 206, exhibit 164. This is a letter by Himmler to the defendant Brack, dated 11 August 1942. A letter where Himmler says that he was interested in seeing that these sterilizations by X--ray were tried out in a camp in a series of experiments. You transmitted this letter for the attention of Pohl and Grawitz. Do you know the contents of that letter?
A I don't remember it.
Q Then now would you turn to page 57, document 213, exhibit 171. This is a letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS, personal staff, directed to Professor Blauberg. It is marked top secret. This letter bears your signature and was transmitted to various other agencies and persons. The document concerns the sterilization of 1,000 Jewesses and it says on the first page that in one and other case, a practical experiment might be arranged in order to see whether the sterilization was successful or not.
It is a little more drastically expressed in the document. Did you write that letter on your own initiative or did you send this letter off by order of Himmler?
A This letter was not written by me but this is dictated by Himmler. I never would have dreamed of expressing myself in a manner which used in that letter.
Q Did you ever discuss the question of sterilization with Himmler?
A I neither discussed the question of sterilization with Himmler or any other questions. Himmler never spoke to me about any such things. I would express it that conversations between him and me, impossible as it may seem never took place. Perhaps that was because of my not being a good conversationalist, but I think it was mainly because of the distance which was kept between Himmler and me on the basis of our respective knowledge and intelligence.
Q One remark - Dr. Brandt - in what manner did Himmler speak to you, address you?
A he always called me by first name, and that dates back from the early days.
Q And did it continue until the end?
A Yes, it did.
Q When did you leave Himmler?
A One day before his arrest. I was arrested one day before his arrest, that was Whit Sunday in 1945.
Q Now in order to come back to this document, I want to ask you is it correct that you knew Himmler intended to carry out sterilization?
A It is possible that I knew that but I can't tell you that today because I really don't remember these entire events by reason of the abunance of work I had to deal with.
A I shall now hand you document book No. 7. This deals with experiments to exterminate Jews. It deals with TB Polish Jews. Would you please look at page 1. This is document 246, Exhibit 196. This is a letter of the Reich Governor Greiser, dated the first of May 1942.
It is directed to Himmler an' is marked "top secret." Greiser suggests to afford special treatment to the TB Poles, which means to kill them. Do you remember that letter which Himmler received.
A No, when it was submitted to me during my preliminary interrogation I couldn't remember that event.
Q Now a possible explanation is missing here for if these things actually came to your office through the courier they had to be selected and sorted out by some person, and then had to be submitted to Himmer. Wouldn't you say you were basically dealing with the sorting out of the mail; is it correct that you read the individual letters when sorting out that mail, or was it often or occasionally the case that you presented these letters to Himmler without reading them, and that you presented them to him immediately, mainly because of the exterior form of the letter from which the contents could be seen?
A That was necessary merely by reason of time. It was necessary to embark on such a way. I have mentioned before that the courier service only arrived a half an hour before Himmler got up. It was impossible to read all reports or letters in that short period of time which were meant for Himmler. Now if you will look at page 3 you will find a document which bears the number 247, exhibit 197. This is a letter which is -directed to you personally and it states:
"Dear Comrade Brandt: "It alrefers to the same question, namely, the extermination of Poles, by way of the so-called special treatment. Does that hold true in the case of letters which were sent to you personally, or wouldn't one have to assume that you actually read such letters, and that you only transmitted these letters to Himmler after having read them, and then awaited his decisions and his orders?
A I certainly read that letter for it was directed to me, but I transmitted it to Himmler since Himmler was referred to in that regard, and only Himmler could make a decision.
Q. What you want to say is that there was practically no difference whether that letter was directed to you personally or directed to Himmler?
A. No. In all of those matters my address has to be considered as being equal to the address of Himmler.
Q. And why did the senders of these letters address you directly rather than addressing Himmler?
A. It was either because this way recommended by Himmler himself, and I tried to describe that a little earlier, or because the people concerned knew that I was sitting in the anti-race and that in that way those letters would get to Himmler anyway.
Q. And now I should like to draw your attention to page 18, Document 441, Exhibit 205. This is your own affidavit dated the 24 October 19466. In number four, of this affidavit you say:
"As a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser between eight to ten thousand Poles were exterminated." This was the original text in German. Another translation reads "miner us" Poles. How did you gain that knowledge?
A. In that connection I have to say that I have no knowledge about that whatsoever.
Q. Mr. Brandt, may I ask you something? May I interject a question? In addition to this affidavit you signed, other affidavits.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it corect that you already withdrew some affidavits because you were incriminating other defendants with then?
A. Yes.
Q. You are speaking about Blome and Greiser? Are you of the opinion even today, that you in justly incriminated the other defendants in your affidavits?
A. Yes. that is my opinion.
Q. Did you have any concrete factual indications for the matters with which you incriminated the other defendants in a very serious manner? That you often declared that other defendants participated in experiments or that you said that certain defendants had knowledge would have to have knowledge about certain experiments.
I am asking you, did you ever have any basis for any such assertion?
A. I did not have any basis for that. During the interrogation period documents were submitted to me as they are contained here in those books. In addition the interrogating officer made certain remarks. Whatever the formulation was did not originate from me but it was submitted to me in that form. All of that brings not the conclusion which I had to arrive at, on the basis of the documents which were submitted to me by the Prosecution and also on the basis of the remarks made to me by interrogating officer where I agreed to what he told. However, it does not mean that I had any knowledge
Q. But you will admit that by a large degree you were informed about the fact that experiments were being carried on in concentrating camps on human beings?
A. Yes.
Q. You are only saying that you didn't know any details?
A. Yes.
Q. You are saying furthermore that you only acted by express order?
A. Yes.
Q. And as far as you make statements in your affidavits you are saying now that these statements are only reflecting your knowledge today, knowledge which was gained by you after these Document were systematically submitted to you. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I may perhaps explain the figures in that affidavit which are before us now. The interrogating officer asked me, "You know that plan was carried through, didn't you?" And I answered, "No, I don't know that." When questioned repeatedly I finally said again that I didn't know anything about it, that I was convinced that this intention, since it was made was, really carried through. When asked about figures I could only say truthfully that I could make no statements about them. I was then asked to live an estimation and I then stated that a quarter of 32 to 35 thousand could be expected.
Q. Mr. Brandt, you must be clear about the fact that any such estimation is really a monstruosity if you have no indication t prove it. Were you so much under the impression of the documents that you never the less made such a vague estimation, or was your state of health or memory in such a bad state that you acted in good faith when making such estimations.
A. Both cases were true.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now 1230. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
RUDOLF BRANDT - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear counsel in regard to the showing of the film "I accuse."
DR. FROESCHMAN: Dr. Froeschman for Brack. Mr. President, the prosecution this morning protested against the admissibility of the film "I accuse," because the film does not represent any factual proof, but a freely conceived action, and because moreover the translation of the German film would take a great deal of time and this translation would be superfluous if it were found that the film is not admissible as evidence. I should like to say to that the following: I have already in the course of these proceedings had several opportunities to speak with definitive and important witnesses here in this Court Room regarding the question of euthanasia. I have gone into the basic concept of euthanasis, and as as sistance to a dying person, I have gone into euthanasia in its extended sense and finally I have repeatedly touched upon the question whether the witnesses or specialists in the cases of human life which cannot possibly be saved, consider it ethically, religiously, legally and philosophically justified that euthanasia in its widest sense should here be employed. I have not done this without reason. I wanted in this way to prepare the ground for the defense of the defendant Viktor Brack. I consider there is a sharp discrimination between this sort of euthanasia and the sort of euthanasia that in the years 1943 and 1944 took place in the East. The Prosecution has characterized euthanasia in the case of incurable patients as a first step towards this second Sort of euthanasia, and whoever embraces the notion of euthanasia will most sharply repudiate that notion.
The defendant Viktor Brack was in his collaboration in what the Prosecution calls the euthanasia program, only motivated by ethical considerations, by considerations of sympathy with the patient. That I could prove through his collaborators Hevemann, Blankenburg, and whatever their names were. These witnesses cannot be found Since November of lost year I made efforts in conjunction with the Court to find those witnesses, but,we were not able to do so. The fill "I Accuse" is the only and most effective proof of the defendant Viktor Brack's attitude at that time, for Viktor Brack was the one who conceived the notion of this file in its development, and made his notion known to the competent film manager, who told him of his points of view and brought it home to him by way of a book, that what could be found in that book should be communicated to the public.
THE RESIDENT: Tell, Counsel, do you know then that film could be show to some of the Judges, acting as Commissioners on behalf of the Tribunal? Could that be shown to day after half-past three when the Tribunal will recess? Do you know, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I fell sure that could be arranged unless there is save previous engagement of the projection room but I could ascertain that and have Mr. Hardy report to the Tribunal after the intermission Or, since there is no intermission, I could have him report immediately after adjustment of court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I will appoint Judge Sebring, Judge Crawford and Judge Swearingen, on behalf of the Tribunal, to see the film and then rep to the Tribunal as t whether r n t, in their opinion, it contains matter of probative value and shoud be shown to the Tribunal as evidence in the case.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Let me say the following in this connection, Mr. President Having a person or a Judge who does not speak German, it will be quite different to understand the words spoken by the characters in the film, and for that...
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting: Counsel, one of the interpreters informed me that an interpreter could be furnished with the Commissioners to see the film who would translate the matter to them so that they would understand it.
DR. FROESCHMANN: He recently showed the film among yourselves and it turned out that in the first part of the film the sound track is rather poor so that even Germans had difficulty in understanding it. Consequently, it will be all the more difficult for an interpreter so to interpret the first part of the film that the court could understand it this afternoon. Therefore should suggest, Mr. President, that we be allowed t find the text of this film which I have been trying to do lately. I think I should be able t find the script of this film within the next days and that will, of course, make it much easier. The defendant Brack worked personally in the script for the film. Therefore, it is actual factual proof which I wish to introduce and I believe that, for this reason, we cannot deny the defendant Brack, when has no other defendant to make this point for him, to present this film as part of his evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I winner if the film could be shown in the court room here with the sound tracks.
Mr. McHANEY: As the suggestion of Dr. Froeschmann, I think the court may very well postpone any decision on that matter until after it has looked at the film. As far as the first portion of the film is concerned, it s*** to me that it runs for an intolerable length of time and does a t present anything that, in any way, approachs anything having to do with this case, in any event, you could leave but the first hour an still have nothing lost as far as Dr. Froeschmann or his defendant are concerned.
DR. FRCESCHMANM: Mr. President, any cuts made in the film would make incomprehensible the conclusion, and such a work of art cannot be cut into pieces and no piece simply removed. If there is a trial run of it I should again suggest that the court view the entire film as soon as we have the script and it has been translated.
JUDGE SEBRING: Can it be ascertained whether or not any of the interpreters in the Translation Division, now presently here in the court room, *** ***r Seen the film.
INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: Did you have any difficulty in understanding the sound track?
INTERPRETER: They were immaterial, Your Honor - the difficulties.
JUDGE SEBRING: I knew, but could you understand the sound track?
INTERPRETER: Yes, very well, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: Can arrangements be made then, Mr. McHaney, for projecting the film here in the court room?
MR. McHANNEY: You mean after the recess, Your Honor?
JUDGE SEBRING: After the close of the day at 3:30.
MR. McHANEY: I shall certainly inquire. I don't know whether it will be more convenient fer the projection people t handle it in Room 153 or in the Court room, but off hand, I don't know any reason not to do it in the
JUDGE SEBRING: It occurred to us that if the film could be shown here with the presence of no or two of the translators, the Commissioners appointed by the President could view the film and here and could have the benefit of their explanations from the translation box.
MR. HcHANEY: And that would be very desirable, and I will try to arrange that for 3:45.
JUDGE SEBRING: 3:35.
Q. McHALEY: 3:35, yes, sir.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I should like to request that the defendant Brack be allowed to attend this performance.
THE PRESIDENT: The request is granted. The defendant Brack, when the nature is shown, may attend the showing.
Counsel for defendant Brandt may proceed.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. witness, I now put to you Document Book No. 9. This concerns, among other things, securing the skulls of Jewish Belshevistic Commissars. Please look at page 1 of Document No. 085, Exhibit 175. This is document of 9 February 1942, addressed to you. It is a secret communication, and it bears Sievers' signature. There are two annexes to this document. One of them concerns research into microscopy and the other one concerns the suggestion for securing the skulls of Jewish Bolshevistic Commissars for the purpose of scientific research. Now, I ask you whether you received this document and whether you are familiar with the contents of this letter, and whether you still remember it today?
A. I received the letter with the inclosures, but I recall as little on his as I recall on the other matters.
Q. Do you wish to say then that you did not road the two inclosures to this letter?
A. I really sh uld like to s ay that because, as I have already said, is reports which were destined for the Reichsfuehrer were put into the mail that he was to read personally, and in the case of Professor Hirth's report, which is really incomprehensible to a lay reader, this report Would not have been comprehensible as I said.
Q. Perhaps I might remind you that the two inclosures are closely bound together. The first incl sure should concern itself with the microscopic research, and the second inclosure should concern the securing of skeleton.
Q. that also your opinion?
A. Yes, that is the way the letter states it, First, cases the miscroscopic study and then the skulls.
Q. Now, I ask you, with particular regard to the fact that you arc justifying under oath, did you know details or did you know particularly that, as can be seen from this report, human beings were to be killed and that then the skulls or skeletons were to be Sent to the University of Strasburg? Did you know those details?
A. No, I did not know those details.
Q. Would you tell us just what you did know, in broad terms?
A. I knew the contents of the letter, which I also sent on to Eichmann.
Q. This is Document 116, Exhibit 168, page 12. In this letter you inform Eichmann that everything necessary would be done to build up this collection of skulls and this would be done for Professor Hirth and you say court ?? that SS Cbersturmbannfuehrer Sievers will communicate with Eichmann as to the details of this. Now, I ask you, what is Eichmann?
A. I don't believe that I had any idea who Eichmann was at that time. Sievers sent me this draft of this letter which I certainly did not send on this for as it appears here. As was always the case, I showed it to Himmler and only then did I send, it on, and I am quite sure that I heard Eichmann is name at that time for the first time I didn't know him there wise nor did I know him later.
Q. Can you not tell us whether you didn't have some idea or other what was going on here in this whole business? When, for instance, it says here that a collection of skeletons is to be mere than one would very likely ask oneself or one would ask whether one didn't have some there nations about what was really going on?
A. I certainly made on other associations in this matter except those that would arise in connection with the collection of skulls for anatomical purposes, on it would never gave occurred to that any we would be used for this except prisoners who had died a normal oath.
Q. Mr. Brandt, did you work in this matter independently hereafter or you submit it to Himmler for his decision.
I draw your attention new to page 12, exhibit 181 No. 057, this is page 15, a letter dated 21 June 1943 from Sievers to Eichmann. The letter was apparently sent by Seivers with copies for two other persons and also with a copy to be sent to you. This letter says in to 115 persons were worked on and that these selected persons should be sent to the concentration camps at **tzweiler. How was such a letter handled by you in your registry office and I refer now to the copy which was sent to you; did you again submit it to Himmler, did he draw up the letter or did someone else; just how was it handled?
A I do not remember ever having soon this letter. The note on it carries a file that not mine, but of my collaborator Borg's notation and he rise drew up several of the documents in the document book.
Q Then you see on page 15 of the document book, no, please look at Document No. 083 whore there again is a mark by this chap, Borg. Please look at page 16, No. 091 and page 18, here there is **** attributed to Dr. Brandt signed by Borg. This reproduces a talk that Berg had with sievers; do you remember seeing this notation?
A I do not remember having seen it.
Q Let me point out the date 23 October, 1944.
A. This day was the lust dry of our stay in our East Prussia branch. The *** ans were very close to our neighborhood. Borg draw up this memorandum, so that I could got a final report to Remmler but since we had to clear out by that evening there were more important things to do that to submit such a memorandum, so that possibly I did not show it to him at all.
Q How I show you Document book 12 used draw your attention to Document 008, you see the No. 304. This is a tap secret matter to Pohl from the Reich Research counsel and concerns the production of a now type of typhus vaccine. In this letter there is motion that research into the production of typhus vaccine was to be undertaken and for this purpose one hundred suitable prisoners were to taken to Natzwoiler; would you care to make u statement about this document?
A I can remember as little about this letter as the theres, but I would say that it would be directed to Oberoruppenfuehrer Pohl and that I received only a copy and then there was nothing more to be done about this. I simply glanced over the first part of the letter and probably only glanced at the second part, which concerned a publication which was to be made. Himmler rosdrved for himself the right to decide Whether anything was to be published. My reply t" Sievers which is on the next page of the document book only concerned itself with the second part of this letter.
Q Was that the sentence where you state and I quote: "I ask you to decide whether the Reicksfuehrer SS should be named or the W.V.H.A. or tho institute for Medical Military Research as the supporting agency," did that attract your attention and when you saw that you became active in the matter?
A Yes that is so. The rest of it was pertaining to an agreement that was reached earlier.
Q Now, I ask you to compare document 009 on page 95. This is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS personal and your copy dated 6 June 1944 directed to Sievers and registered; a registered letter is not the same as a secret letter?
A No.
Q Now please take a look at this letter and toll no That you think of it?
A That page is it?
Q Page 95 of the German. The second- sentence roads as follows: "I have informed the Reichs Fuehrer SS as the matter seemed important enough." Then you say that certain offices could be named as supporting offices and that Himmler also could be named to a support office; now what do you have to say what that?
A This was Himmler's task which I communicated to Pohl on the basis of the last sentences in his letter.
Q Now, please look at Document 370, Exhibit 294, page 74 of your document book. This is an affidavit on your part regarding experiments on typhus, please lock at paragraph 5 in paragraph 6 you say, "I am also quite sure that as a result of some of those experiments some prisoners died." Now are you making a statement as to whether you know that human being experiments were being carried out and for what did you know that human beings had allegedly died?
A I know in general that human being experiment were under way, as that could be soon from the correspondence, but I had no knowledge that worsens had died. The statement here is again a deduction, which I drew from the documents submit to me and from what the interrogator told me. It could also be soon from the documents that experimental subjects who had been sent to **tzweiler died on the way. Perhaps I drew sore association between that fact and this here, so that w uld be tho explanation for my statement here. As to the other statement in this affidavit, that tho experimental worsens were neither oriented nor could they avoid tho experiments. I have no actual knowledge either from written statements or from oral statements on tho part of third persons.
Q Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No. 2, concerning tho high altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher; you said this morning that you know Rescher?
A Yes.
Q Did you see him frequently?
A Very few times in tho course of four to five years.
Q Did he come to your office and speak with you?
A Twice, shortly before a train left Munich, whom he and his wife might a letter to Himmler to tho station and give it to me.
Q And what did ho want when he came to Himmler's anti-room and saw you?
A Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said this could net have happened more than four or five times.
Q Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher?
A No. I was never present at those conferences.
Q Did Rascher ever tell you personally either before or after a conference with Himmler why he had come?
A No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits together because I had no time for that.
Q But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying out experiments on human beings in Dachau?
A Yes, that I knew.
Q Did you over visit Dachau yourself?
A No, I was not in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp.
Q Did you ever yourself take part in experiments on human beings?
A No.
Q Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document books?
A I cannot recall ever having seen them.
Q Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler in which he for the first time makes succestions to Himmler that human being experiments should be carried out in Dachau; and he says in this letter that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on a lethal consequence for some of the subjects, a fatal consequence. Do you remember receiving this letter? If you don't, can you say how you probably handled this letter when it came in?
A I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have put this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally after I had seen by one glance through it that this was a medical matter in which Himmler was in general interested.
DR. KAUFMANN We are speaking now, your Honor, of No. 1002-RS, Exhibit 44.
Q Now, please look at Page 57 of the German document book. This is 1582-RS, Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which you tell him that, of course, prisoners will be gladly made available for high altitude experimentation.
"as this letter written on your own initiative or is it a case similar to all the other cases that you have brought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler?
A This letter does not originate with me but is to be traced back to clear orders on the part of Himmler.
Q Now, please take a look at Page 61, Document 1581-A-PS, Exhibit 48, a letter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write that low pressure experiments are being carried out by the- Luftwaffe in Dachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next document, Page 63, of the G German Document Book, Exhibit 49, Document 1971-A-PS, Page 60 of the English Document Book, a letter from Rascher to Himmler, In the first sentence of this letter there is mention of an enclosed intermediary report, and there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, I ask you whether you read this interim report.
A I should like to assume that I id not because such medical reports were quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of all the work which I had to do, I Did not have enough time to concern myself with reports which, first of all, I didn't understand and, secondly, which did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with the mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself.
Q Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Exhibit 32, Page 63 of the English Document Book, apparently a teletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles and Russians also are to be pardoned if they have survived several severe experiments. In the Document 1971-E-PS, Exhibit 33, Page 66 is to be found your answer, a teletype message to Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler in Munich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be pardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given particular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature was emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any explanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message?
A I have no memory of this communication. Of course, I cannot here state under oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype message was sent on Himmler's orders with my signature to it. It is quite as possible that I had seen this message and knew its contents and sent it off.
Q But I would think that a document with such contents would still be remembered by you today; and yet you say that you do not remember it?
A No, I don't. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got from Himmler, I could not concern myself with the details of each matter so that I would remember them for any length of time.
Q Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler and then waited for his orders?
A I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his mail and then received his orders along with all the rest of his orders.
Q Now, as last document from this document book, I bring up Document 402, Exhibit 66, Page 89 of the German Edition. This is a letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you?
A Yes.
Q This is Page 82 of the document book. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it?
A I certainly did not work on it; and I didn't even give a cursory glance at it, first of all because it's a medical report and, secondly, because it's much too long.
Q Now, I should like to discuss with you Document Book Number 13. That concerns mustard gas experiments. Let me point out Document 198, Exhibit 254. It's a top secret matter, a letter to the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. In this letter there is mentioned a then accompanying report on the use of a cure for mustard gas burns, a letter from Grawitz. Now, what is your memory of this matter?
A I don't remember it at all.
Q Please look now at your affidavit, Page 1, NO-372. You say here that experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates; "So far as I was aware, the experiments were directed toward giving the experimental subjects wounds in various parts of their bodies, and these wounds were then infected with Lost."