Q Well, Doctor, do you recall Document NO-422 which was Prosecution Exhibit No. 33, contained on page 80 of Document Book No. 2? That is the order signed by Heinrich Himmler to establish the Military Scientific Research Institute within the framework of the Ahnenerbe. Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q That is dated 7 July 1942, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Now was this idea to establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research exclusively the idea of Heinrich Himmler?
A I already stated earlier that after this conversation with Himmler and his subsequent order to get into closer contact with Hirt, and as I also stated during my direct examination that Hirt rejected to being put under Grawitz's jurisdiction, this thought arose to create an Institute for Military Scientific Research. This was in connection with the orders I was given Easter time with reference to my assignment, and the result of the conference with Hirt was passed on to Himmler, and it finally led to the formulation of the order dated the 7th of July.
Q Well, now, you were violently opposed to the attachment of any such institutes as outlined in this order by Heinrich Himmler, the attachment of any such institutes to the Ahnenerbe Society, as you have stated on direct, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct, and it was for that very reason that I was in favor of a separate institute being created, namely, this Institute for Military Scientific Research.
Q Then who suggested to Himmler that such an independent organization be used or be set up within the framework of Ahnenerbe?
A That was done on the basis of the mutual conversations between Hirt and myself, and then between me and Wuest who was my departmental chief, and it was all suggested to Himmler.
Q Who suggested it to Himmler that they found an institute to be attached to the Ahnenerbe Society?
A I suggested that to Himmler on the basis of my previous conversations with Hirt and Wuest. I did it by order of Wuest.
Q Well, at last we are coming around. You suggested that the Institute for Military Scientific Research be established within the framework of the Ahnenerbe Society, didn't you?
A In order to create an institution which was not in the Ahnenerbe, which would lie outside the framework of the Ahnenerbe.
Q I have been three days trying to get that answer from you and listening to you on direct; and it is certainly a fact that you suggested it.
MR. HARDY: We will turn now to Document NO-2210 which will be offered at this time for identification, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 483.
Q On that last page, Mr. Sievers, the one right in front of you, is that your signature?
A Yes.
Q Well, now, I have marked in pencil where I want you to take note. You state therein after -
MR. HARDY: This report is a report, Your Honor, dated the 26th of June, 1942, and the subject is "Research by SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt, Strassburg," and the question of closer collaboration between the Ahnenerbe and him, and here on the last page Defendant Sievers states -- which is the third paragraph from the top, Your Honor, on the next to the last page of your English copy, which is incorrectly assembled. The page containing the signature of Sievers, which is a half page of mimeographed subject matter -do you have it, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: It is marked page 4 on ours.
HR. HARDY: That's right, Your Honor.
Q Now here you state:
"To collect these and similar research in the Ahnenerbe, which certainly will occur, and thus facilitate the organizational and technical execution, I suggest:
"1) Foundation of an Institute for Military Scientific Research within the Ahnenerbe.
"2) Appointment of SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt as an active member, and his appointment to Chief of Department H (signifying Hirt) of the Institute for Military Scientific Research.
"Rascher's work could well be here included. He then could be appointed as Chief of Department R (Rascher). Necessary supplies for such an institute which in the first line will serve the needs of the troops would be easier to explain and more reasonable as if applied for under the name of the Ahnenerbe alone."
Signed, "Sievers."
What is the date that appears directly opposite your name on that last page, Mr. Sievers?
A 26 June 1942.
Q And the date of the order by Himmler establishing the Institute for Military Scientific Research is 7 July 1942, is it not?
A Yes, that is also true. From this passage it becomes evident that I am here referring to Himmler's decision dated the 25th of March, which I already mentioned earlier, where he ordered that I discuss with Hirt his closer collaboration. The discussions that were continued with Hirt are here set down; and they were then submitted to Professor Wuest. From the last sentence of this document it can be seen that it was intended not to continue the work under the name of "Ahnenerbe." In other words, this document confirms my conversation with Himmler Easter, 1942, and the subsequent organizational directives and considerations.
Q It certainly is apparent, Doctor. Let's turn now to another subject. Suppose a doctor wanted to gain entrance into a concentration camp. Generally, weren't you the man who was to be contacted if such an entry permit was requested?
A If anyone approached me on that matter, it was my duty to transmit that wish to Himmler, or Gluecks, who alone were competent for any such permission.
Q Now let us turn to Document NO-1657 -
MR. HARDY: -- which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 484, Your Honor.
Q Now this document, Mr. Sievers, is dated 10 January 1942, and it is addressed to Obersturnbannfuehrer Sievers.
"Highly Honored Mr. Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers:
"I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 3 January 1942. During Sunday I will work on the report which you wish to have, since I have already collected all the necessary material for it. During this week it was not possible for me to compile the report; as I had to give a lecture in Wilhelmshaven, and my time was almost completely taken up with consultations on outbreaks of typhus both there and here. The report will reach Berlin by Tuesday at the latest.
"An outbreak of typhus in the Neuengamme Concentration Camp occasions me to request your intervention; that I might be granted permission by the Reichsfuehrer-SS in my capacity as Consulting Hygienist to the Health Administration here concerning the outbreak of such epidemics to visit the concentration camps and; if circumstances permit; to be allowed to undertake experiments by treatment of the patients and tests of delousing agents. Also the Typhus Research Laboratory; established by me in the Tropical Institute; needs material from fresh cases.
"The research results achieved in the laboratory with experimental animals; etc., cannot be evaluated practically without such work on patients.
"The Hamburg Tropical Institute is available for all collaboration in typhus research and the combatting of typhus.
Heil Hitler."
signed "Muehlens, Professor Dr. Muehlens; Director of the Tropical Institute; Naval Medical Officer and Consulting Hygienist of the Bulgarian Army."
Now was it usual for people to request that you intervene for them to gain admission to the concentration camps?
A This letter constitutes a reply to an inquiry which I directed to a number of institutes and researchers at the beginning of January by order of Professor Wuest; in connection with the foundation of an entomological institute which on the 1st of January 1942 had been ordered by Himmler. In this connection I also had to write to Professor Hirt whose reply is also here available as a document.
I had to write to Professor Hirt because he mentioned Rose in his reply; and when cross-examined, I already answered the Defense Counsel of Rose as to what I did with that letter. I transferred it to my department chief who then on his own initiative found a head for this entomological institute. I didn't knew Professor Muehlens personally, nor did he know me personally, and I think that he probably only asked me to intervene on his behalf because he received a letter with the heading, "Reichsfuehrer-SS."
Q Well, now, when you intervened, to whom did you refer this matter?
A What matter are you talking about?
Q This letter of Dr. Muehlens. He wanted to get into the camp. To whom did you refer the matter?
A I can't tell you that from memory. I really don't know it anymore.
Q Well, now, logically let's think about it a moment. Who would you inform, or who would you ask, so that this doctor could be admitted into the Neuengamme concentration camp?
A I would have sent this letter of Mr. Muehlens to Rudolf Brandt asking him to present it to the Reichsfuehrer-SS and get his decision.
Q You wouldn't have sent it to Grawitz?
A Only after having received a reply from Brandt concerning Himmler's decision in that respect, but I was only directly in contact with Himmler and not with Grawitz.
Q Well, now, this appears to be from this letter you have before you a medical problem. Isn't it?
A Yes. We are here concerned with medical problems.
Q And who were the two highest ranking men in the medical services of the SS?
A Grawitz.
Q Who else?
A Grawitz and Gebhardt.
Q How about our friend, Mr. Genzken? He was a pretty high fellow, wasn't he?
A Yes, but I never had anything to do with Mr. Genzken. He was the chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen-SS, and I had no connections with that agency of the Waffen-SS.
Q Well, were you ever ordered to refer this matter to him, to Genzken?
A I already told you, I don't know what I really did in that case; but I think I probably transmitted that to Brandt, and if Himmler decided to sent it to Genzken, it may have been that later I transmitted it to Genzken, but I can't remember it.
Q Well, we will look again at another section of this same document, which is page 3 of this document. It is dated 22 January 1942, addressed to Professor Dr. Muehlens, Director of the Tropical Institute. Subject: "Research and Control of the Insects influencing human beings.
"Highly Honored Professor, "I thank you very much for your extensive report as well as for the enclosures attached to it and forwarded to me.
I have made use of your material for my report to the Reichsfuehrer-SS and I shall also inform you shortly in regard of your requests expressed in your report.
"I have forwarded your letter of 10th January 1942 with my recommendations to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS (SS-Brigadefuehrer Dr. Genzken), Berlin W 15, Knesebeckstrasse 43/44. I think you will be given the opportunity of doing research work in Neuengamme.
Heil Hitler:
and there appears your signature, does it not?
A Yes, this is my signature, and what I said before is quite correct.
I used this material for my report to Himmler; and it was from there that I received the order to transmit Muehlen's letter to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, and that is what I told Muehlens.
Q You are sure you did not receive the order to transfer this letter to the hygienist of the Waffen-SS from Gluecks. Wasn't he the logical man for you to have approached in the first instance to gain admission into a concentration camp?
A I don't understand your question in that connection. Maybe the translation was not quite correct.
Q. In the first letter Dr. Muehlens is asking for permission or a permit to gain entry into Neuengamme concentration camp. Now he has asked you to intercede in his behalf. Wouldn't the first step which you take be in the direction of Gluecks who had all of these passes? In other words, he had the power of admitting persons to concentration camps?
A. Gluecks would never have done that upon any answer by me. He couldn't have done that. The prerequisite was always in order by Himmler. My only channel was to approach Himmler, as it was actually done in that case, and whereupon Himmler decided that Muehlens' letter be directed to the Hygiene Institute. It is possible that he also ordered that Gluecks be informed of Muehlen's desire simultaneously. Whatever was done in that respect, of course, required an order by Himmler personally. I could order nothing whatsoever.
Q. Well then before you would have forwarded this letter to Genzken you would have had to receive an order from Grandt or Himmler, is that right?
A. Yes, that would have been a prerequisite.
Q. Maybe page two of this same document will clarify that problem for us. This is document, section is dated 19 January, and was sent for information to: The Ahnenerbe", and this document says: That the matter of Professor Muehlens should be referred to the SS Fuehrungshauptamt -- Medical Department, Berlin; and it is signed by Gluecks, and upon receipt of this, for information only, was that why you forwarded the original letter of Muehlens to Dr. Genzken?
A. I can't tell you that from memory.
Q. Hell, did you over talk to Dr. Genzken about this matter at all? Did you ever have any conversations with Genzken?
A. I never spoke to Genzken in all of my life. I transmitted the letter, just as I mentioned in the letter to Muehlens.
Q. So you never talked to Genzken in your life? Let's have a look at the fourth page of this same document. This is addressed to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, for the attention of the SS Brigadefuehrer Dr. Genzken:
"Subject: Application by Professor Dr. Muehlens, Director of the Tropical Institute in Hamburg for material for his spotted fever research laboratory.
"Brigadefuehrer:
"With reference to our telephone conversation of yesterday, I am forwarding you the enclosed letter from Professor Dr. Muehlens, in which he requests that he be granted an opportunity for conducting examinations in the Neuengamme Concentration Camp. I have informed him that I have passed this letter on to you.
Heil Hitler" And below that appears tho signature of Sievers.
Is that your signature?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
Q. Then you have talked to Genzken, haven't you?
A. No, it doesn't mean that at all. This letter was directed to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS for the attention of Dr. Genzken. I didn't speak to Genzken personally.
Q. Well, it was addressed to Brigadefuehrer. The salutation on the letter says: Brigadefuehrer, does it not?
A. Yes, because he was the chief of that office.
Q. It says: "Referring to our conversation" - does it not?
A. It probably refers to the conversation with his adjutant. I didn't speak to Mr. Genzken.
Q. We won't argue that point any further. We will let the Tribunal decide that, Mr. Sievers. I want to ask you a few more questions about your affiliations with certain individuals. When did you first meet Dr. Brandt?
A. You mean Professor Brandt, do you?
Q. Yes, Professor Brandt, Karl Brandt?
A. That was on the 31st of March 1944.
Q. The 31st of March 1944. When did you ever meet Professor Handloser?
A. I never met Professor Handloser.
Q. When did you meet Mr. Ruff, Dr. Ruff, for the first time?
A. Here during the trial.
Q. You never met him when he was working with Rascher?
A. No, I only knew that he was the chief of the German experimental station for aviation.
Q. And you met Romberg when you mot Rascher, is that right? About the same time?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the first time you had ever seen Romberg?
A. Yes, that is when the experiments were already being carried out.
Q. That was the first association you had with Dr. Rascher?
A. I knew Rascher before that, but I only met Romberg on the occasion of my first visit to Dachau.
Q. How long had you known Rascher? Was it early 1942 or when?
A. I already said during my direct examination that I had known Rascher since 1938.
Q. Did you ever make an attempt to intercede in behalf of Rascher, prior to this experimentation in May of 1942 or March of 1943, so that he could go to the concentration camps for experimentation purposes?
A. I said that Rascher up to that time was working with Himmler's adjutant office in Munich.
Q. And you never interceded for Rascher so that Rascher could go to the concentration camps for experimental purposes prior to the first high altitude experiments?
A. No, I can't remember that.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you and Rascher were actually old friends? That you had contact from 1938 on, and you had worked a lot together?
A. During my direct examination I already staked that Rascher at that time intended to carry out work in connection with an early diagnosis of cancer.
Q. What year is that? Establish the year for us, Mr. Sievers?
A. That was - must have been in 1938. Rascher was then drafted into the army, and then this matter never was continued.
Q. And then after that particular situation concerning the cancer problem, you had no further contact with Mr. Rascher until the high altitude problem arose?
A. Until the high altitude matters arose; in the meantime Rascher had been with the Luftwaffe.
Q. Let's have a look at Document NO-1331, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 485, Your Honors. Now this is dated 26 May 1939, to the Reichsfuehrer SS, personal staff, attention SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Brandt:
"Subject: Identification for Dr. Rascher, Munich, to enter concentration camps.
"Upon request of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, among the research experimentations which Dr. Rascher has to carry out, the crystallization of the blood of persons is to be examined, which serve long sentences in concentration camps or are imprisoned for a long time. Please see to it that Dr. Rascher can get authority enabling him to perform such experiments in the Dachau Concentration Camp, and please let me know whom Dr. Rascher may contact there."
Is that SI that appears there under the notation, Wolfram Sievers?
A. Yes, that is my initial.
Q. And the date thereon is the 26 May 1939?
A. Yes, it concerns the crystallization procedure with reference to the cancer work which Rascher intended to carry out.
Q. That is right.
A. The Reichsfuehrer was in favor of that as can be seen from the letter.
It was transmitted to Brandt and that is all.
Q. Now, doctor, here in this trial the Prosecution has introduced nearly seventy-five documents in which your name appears. Some of them are letters signed by you, addressed to you or wherein a third person has mentioned you as a collaborator. The documentary evidence has even proven, that you were better informed in most of these matters, than the human pen-man, Dr. Brandt. Now do you still wish to sit here on this witness stand and tell this Tribunal that you do not have a more complete knowledge of the activities as set forth in this indictment than you have elicited here the last two days? -- Do you have nothing further to add about the criminal nature of these experiments and about the part these gentlemen in the dock took in the conduct of such activities?
A. My participation in that work I described it in detail during my direct examination. I have had no reason whatever to keep anything quiet, and I did not intend to keep anything quiet. The documents submitted in that connection all refer to matters which I had to deal with in the framework of my position as General Secretary. If these matters, apparent from the letters and submitted here and often thrown out from their context, a picture appears which is not in accordance with the facts. One only needs to leave out everything which is sensible and clarifies the situation, and then it becomes very easy to condemn a person.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, prior to the day you walked into the court room for the arraignment in this case had you ever appeared in this court room before?
A. Yes, I was examined here before the I.M.T.
Q. Why did you appear here before the International Military Tribunal?
A. Because I was called here.
Q. You were called here as a defense witness for the SS as an organization, were you not?
A. I didn't volunteer for that. The defense counsel of the SS called me here and my first act was to show Dr. Pelckmann, my letter dated December 1945, where I told about my membership in the resistance movement, and I told him in that connection I was an unsuitable witness for him. Dr. Pelckmann, however, insisted very urgently that he examine me in connection with the problem of the Ahnenerbe, although this was not any voluntary action on my part. Finally, under difficulty I had an opportunity to speak before the I.M.T. and tell them what I really was, and I told you this morning what difficulties I had in that respect through you.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, you appeared before the Commission which was set up by the International Military Tribunal, did you not. Don't give me a long answer, now did you or did you not appear before the Commission of the International Military Tribunal?
A. Yes, under circumstances, which I have just described.
Q. Yes, and you appeared before the International Military Tribunal?
A. Yes, as it becomes apparent from the record.
Q. And didn't the International Military Tribunal, and doesn't the record of the International Military Tribunal show that the testimony before the Commission that it was felt that one Sievers was perjuring himself in this Tribunal?
A. It was the aim -- the very calculated aim of the representatives of the Prosecution, to make it appear that way. I studied both records with my defense counsel and I can say that this sophistry which I despise, did not accomplish its aim.
Mr. Hardy: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(The Tribunal adjourned at this time for noon recess)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Rose): Mr. President, I should like permission to have Rose excused from tomorrow's session. His case is the next one coming up and I should like to discuss it with him at somewhat greater detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of counsel for the defendant Rose, whose case will next be heard before the Tribunal, defendant Rose may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow for the purpose of consulting with his counsel.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of the witness by counsel for the defense?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for the defendant Sievers):
Q. Witness, the documents that the prosecution submitted this morning give me occasion for a few questions. The answer to the prosecutor's question regarding your letter of 20 January 1945 to Hirt, Exhibit 479 of the Prosecution, was somewhat brief. However, I consider it absolutely necessary, in the interests of clarity, that you state briefly what your situation was in January '45 and whether from this situation you had some particular inducement to write in the formulation in which this document appears. Do you remember that letter?
A. Yes. In my direct examination I attempted to make clear what difficulties, and what a tense situation, there were at that time, shortly before the collapse. A man like Hirt, who was so close to Himmler and who enjoyed his particular confidence, always found it necessary to live up to this relationship in the tone that he adopted in his relations with me. In my direct examination I stated that not only from the beginning of 1944 on did I have the feeling of being watched over by the Gestapo, but in May I found out confirmation that this was being carried, out on the Chief of Staff above me, and the SD leader who was in my department corroborated that.
Thus, in this situation, where everything was touch and go, it was very important to be careful and, therefore, I tried to explain that the tone in which this letter was held is quite comprehensible.
Q. To Document NO-935, that is Exhibit 481, I should like to ask you a few questions. I shall have this document put to you again. This document carries a postscript which begins with the words "SS Untersturmfuehrer Wolff". He was employed in the Ahnenerbe, was that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. In this note Wolff is asked to find out the location of the camp Natzweiler, and to find out who the commander was, and this information was to be translated to you by telephone at Strassbourg by the 29th of the sane month at the latest. Is my assumption correct that at that time, namely, in August 1943 --
A. The letter was dictated by me on the 27th of August and provided with this note regarding Wolff, in which I asked him to find out the exact address of the camp and the commander of Natzweiler, and to commit that to me by telephone to Strassbourg because I left Berlin on the 26th of August on an official journey, as the letter shows, and asked Wolff to give me this information by the 29th. In other words, when I left Berlin on the 27th of August, I intended to go to Strassbourg and at that time I did not know the location of Natzweiler, nor did I know who the commander was. In other words, your assumption is correct.
Q. In the first part of this letter there is mention of an official tour and the word "Dienstreise" is translated by the word tour in English and was interpreted by the prosecution as a round trip, as a tour. Now, tell me, did you simply make an official trip that was necessary for official reasons to Strassbourg, or did you really make a tour, such as the prosecution assumes, through various concentration camps?
A. At that time I made an official trip to Strassbourg and it is a matter of incorrect translation if this official trip was translated as an official round trip, and this is one of the repeated and unfair interpretations on the part of the prosecution.
Q. I can assure you that the interpretation was not meant to mislead.
A. Nevertheless it did so.
Q. Your note of the 26th of June, 1942, Exhibit 481 contains... In other words, as can be seen from it, your proposal for the founding of a military research institute within the Ahnenerbe. Now, I believe it is necessary in our search for absolute truth to go into the historical development that preceded this. You had this discussion with Himmler about which we have had enough discussion. You saw that Himmler wanted to have these experiments carried out by Rascher and Hirt by all means.
A. Yes.
Q. You saw that, from the administrative point of this, this Rascher and Hirt institute was to be looked after by the Ahnenerbe. Did you know then where the financial means for this institute were to be provided, or was that determined only later?
A. When I objected, Himmler arranged for that. I mentioned this morning briefly the very limited opportunities I had to interfere, and he arranged that money of the Waffen-SS and not that of the Ahnenerbe should be used for this.
Q. And was that not one reason why these institutes, which were alien in nature to the Ahnenerbe, were to be made a sort of annex to the Ahnenerbe and this whole idea was discussed in this conversation of Easter of 1942?
Is that not so?
A. Yes, quite clearly. Therefore, the institute was later called the institute of the Waffen-SS and Police.
Q. In other words, to work out this note of the 26th of June of 1942 there was no particular reflection necessary on your part. The working out of this note was simply a matter of setting down in writing what Himmler had very clearly decided at Easter, 1942?
A. Yes, it was simply the matter of setting down in writing what Himmler had already established as policy.
Q. I come not to Document NO-1657, Prosecution Exhibit 484. On page 2 there is a letter of the 19th of January, 1942, sent "for information" to the Ahnenerbe and this letter is directed to Obersenatsrat Dr. Ofterdinger. Did you know this man or did you have anything to do with him within the scope of the Ahnenerbe?
A. No, I didn't know him and I had no connections with him at that time, but I assume that Herr Muehlens turned to this man in this same matter in the same way that he wrote to me, although there was no possible reason for his doing so because he had received a letter from me with the letterhead of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q. Now, page 4 of this document was submitted to you by the prosecution with the accusation that your first statement that you had never spoken to Dr. Genzken was not true. Because of this notation here "with reference to our previous telephonic conversation", I should like to ask a few questions about the administration of the Reichgeschaeftsfuehrung of the Ahnenerbe. There the Ahnenerbe had a few collaborators, such as Hauptsturmfuehrer Wolf. In such cases as this did you yourself always carry on telephonic conversations with other offices and only use in such cases this phrase "with reference to our telephone conversation of yesterday" or was it your practice, as it was the practice so far as I know in many other offices, that the following took place. The adjutant or some other collaborator spoke by telephone with the member of another staff or office and then, when this conversation was corroborated in writing, this phraseology was used such as we see here in this letter?
A. Yes, I tried to express that in my answer this morning because, of course, it was not possible for me to carry on all the conversations by telephone myself and, moreover, in such general matters it was not at all customary for a high SS leader of Genzken's rank to go to the telephone. That was taken care of by the adjutant who would say that his Brigadefuehrer asks that the letter be forwarded and then the situation took place exactly as you have described. I remember very clearly that I never spoke with Genzken and didn't know him.
Q. This morning the prosecutor expressed his opinion regarding your relations with Dr. Rascher, saying that you were befriended with Dr. Rascher. Actually, your relations with Dr. Rascher were clarified well enough in your direct examination but this remark on the part of the prosecution induces me to return to your relations with Rascher. Were you ever friends with Dr. Rascher?
A. At no time did I have any close or friendly relations with Dr. Rascher because from the first moment on, and particularly because of his wife, I did not like him at all and I never had any reason to change this opinion. On the contrary, it became stronger and deeper and it was a rejection of Rascher's personality.
Q. Which, however, does not exclude the possibility that in official matters and within the scope of the matters that you had to deal with him you wrote letters to him such as this letter of 26 May 1939, which was put in this morning as Prosecution Exhibit 485.
A. That was one of my official duties and I carried out this duty also in Rascher's case with material courtesy, and precisely because of the close relations between the Rascher family and Himmler I was particularly careful since he was always ready to turn to Himmler directly if, in his opinion, he had any reason for complaint.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, that concludes my redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Any examination of this witness by way of redirect examination on the part of any defendant?
BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the defendant Romberg):
Q. Witness, would you please once again concentrate upon your visit to Dachau on which occasion you saw a high altitude experiment? Under interrogation by Judge Sebring you said that you ascertained on the occasion of this visit that after the experimental subjects got earache Dr. Romberg changed the pressure and thus brought about a condition that the subject found more tolerable. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you find out that the subjects had earache?
A. One could see through the observation window that the man pointed to his ear and I assumed from that he had earache. I couldn't hear him, of course.
Q. And when this sign was made by the subject, did Romberg then change the pressure?
A. Romberg moved a few levers and from the altitude meter I could see that the pressure was being changed.
Q. After Romberg moved this lever, did the experimental subject continue to point to his ear?
A. No, then he nodded in satisfaction to show that he liked the change that had been made.
Q. Do you assume that between the experimental subject and Romberg there had been a conversation to the effect that if the subject pointed to his ear Romberg was to set the chamber at a different altitude?