Will you first of all answer the question, what kind of Italians were involved here? Were they civilian workers or were they PW's?
A. These were the so-called Imis, who were interned soldiers. On the strength of an agreement with the Mussolini government, they were the Italians who had declared themselves in favor of the Badoglio government. On that Mussolini had them captured, and he stressed the point that they should, if possible, work with us.
Q. In *** connection with the transport of these people, you said that you are of the opinion that shooting should take place if somebody tries to escape from the train. How did you come to this opinion?
A. Well, we had received a report that the first transport or whatever it was had been dissolved by itself because the people had just left the trains, and it was quite legal in case of escape that the surveying power should use their arms. I understand by that if an attempt to escape cannot be prevented by any other means, then they should be entitled to shoot but not if the people had already been recaptured. But, as I have proved, that is quite the same for all other powers, also.
Q. But did you issue an order in this connection?
A. No, that wasn't my task. We had nothing to do with the transport of these people.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Your statement would only be true if they were prisoners of war, would it not?
A. Yes, they were prisoners of war.
Q. You don't mean that people who were coming voluntarily be agreement with their own country to work in Germany could be shot if they changed their minds and tried to go back, or do you mean that?
A. I may explain this then briefly. This was just one occurrence. In Italy there was an opposition against the Mussolini government and a revolt against that government. Now, one part of the Italian groups declared themselves in favor of Mussolini, and another part declared themselves against him.
Mussolini captured that part which had declared themselves against him with the help of Germany, and they were declared prisoners of war. These people now were prisoners of war of the German-Italian alliance, and Mussolini placed these people at the disposal of Germany as prisoners of war. He wanted to get them out of Italy because after all they were not secure enough in Italy, and he handed them over to Hitler for work purposes, and now these Italian PW's were to be transported to Germany, and that is how it came to this conference.
Q. Then we have the strange situation of Italian nationals being prisoners of war of Italy?
A. Yes, that was the situation. There was a mutual question. That is, the Bodoglio people also captured the Mussolini partisans. After all the nation didn't know where to go, and there were partisans for one as well as for the other.
Q. Did anyone who was a partisan and who was captured become a prisoner of war of the other faction?
A. Yes. They even did the following. The officers were asked whether they declared themselves for Mussolini or for Badoglio. I know of one of them, a good friend of mine. He was for a long time the Italian air attache in Berlin. This man declared himself for Badoglio, and as a consequence he was/interned and became a PW. He then remained in Italy as a prisoner of war, as an officer prisoner of war. Other officers, again, declared themselves pro Mussolini. If they were in the northern part of the country, that is, behind our front lines, then they were sent to the Graziani army, which continued to fight with the Germans. But if the man was behind the other front line, that is, behind the allied front line, then he became a prisoner of war there, if he declared so. Of course, I can't know whether he declared himself for Badoglio.
Q. The same situation was true in France, wasn't it?
A. In France there was a slightly different situation.
Q. Yes, but generally the same situation was true in France?
A. Yes, to a certain extent, at least. The difference was that as long as France was in the fight, that is, until the armistice, the France nation was united in the battle against Germany, but then later when the armistice was concluded and was broke later on by a part of the French, then another part remained on our side, and there we had similar conditions as in Italy.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, in other words, these Italians were not civilian workers who had volunteered to come to Germany and work.
A. No, if they had come to Germany as volunteers, after all they wouldn't have run away.
Q. I now pass on to NOKW-361. This is the conference of the private staff of the 9th of May, 1944, and this concerns a journey from the 8th to the 10th of May. Witness, can you remember that journey?
A. Yes.
Q. In this passage reference is made to the assignment of concentration camp inmates in the mining industry. Did you attend this conference?
A. These were only part conferences. As far as I remember, that was in Bruck at the Mur. In that case I did not attend any of the conferences with the exception of the speech I made at the beginning where I gave directives to the competent local authorities, and I gave them a report on the situation. I stressed the importance of the fighter production. At the end there were always a few words of thanks for the good reception. All other conferences were only part conferences which had been detached, but besides that I don't remember what you just said now.
Q I now pass onto NOKW 349, this is the conference of 23 May, which probably deals also with the employment of Jews for the large air raid shelters.
A May I ask for that again?
Q On 23 May, I just want to ask you whether you were attending these conferences?
A No, I was not in Berlin at that time. No, not at all. I was at Obersalzberg with Goering.
Q I now pass to NOKW 336, which is the conference on 26 May. Witness, did you attend this conference?
A Yes. Yes, and for that time I was there together with Speer. I think that was the first time that day when he attended any Fighter Staff meeting. But I did not attend the whole of the meeting, but together with Speer, so far as I remember, I left the meeting before it ended.
Q Here again reference is made to the Hungarian Jews, and "Schlempp's report that what Dorsch told me, and Speer answered: "We have often made such calculations but people never came." What do you know of that matter?
A That is possible in spite of the fact I don't remember it.
Q Witness, then suddenly reference is made, and that is on page 80 of the original, reference is made of the fact that you asked "How long did Italian prisoners of war worked there." Will you tell me where did this conference of 26 May 1944, where did that conference take place?
A This conference exceptionally took place in the Reich Air Ministry, because Speer came to the conference, and Speer had told us it would be too far for him to go to the Templehof.
Q Just a minute, witness, that is sufficient. Witness, will you tell us how it came then you say, "How long did the Italian Prisonners of war work there." Did you see the Italian prisoners of war work in Berlin?
A No, but I saw them walk around in the afternoon, and there were large numbers of them.
Q Were they accompanied, or were they guarded?
A Yes, if you can call that a guard, because there were fivehundred Italians, and they were with an old territorial soldier. They went where they wanted, and in whatever manner they wanted.
Q But that is quite peculiar. First of all they have to report either at the Italian plant with a very heavily armed guard, and now they walk around in Berlin?
A Yes, and they did so at the time when everybody else was still working. After all the practice was different from the theory.
Q I now pass to NOKW 350, and this is the eighth journey of the Budapest enterprise. Do you know where this journey went? Could you tell us about it?
A Yes, that was the very first to attend, the 3rd of July.
Q Oh, yes.
A This journey went to Budapest, June, and on the 2nd June in the morning we arrived at Budapest. The report of the matter, as I recall from my notes show it was a matter to discuss with the government Horty who was the Prime Minister at that time, and his Deputy Imredy, to conclude a state agreement with them concerning a joint firther production in Hungary, on which occasion Hungary had to service planes which were already in making. There were caves, there were wine caves of large volumes, and were fivehundred fighters amongst them that were to be produced, and a large part of which were to be delivered to Germany, while Germany was to send reconnaissance planes and bombers to Hungary, and also ach-ach batteries with ammunition. This was a matter or public production barter.
Q Witness, but did this journey ever serve the purpose of bringing Hungarian Jews to Germany?
A No, there was no word at all about that. That was not our task at all because -
Q Go on.
A That is all.
Q Witness, during one of these conferences, you made reference to the fact that "No Frenchman will work after the invasion had started, and I am of the opinion that the French should be forced to come over into Germany, and should be forced to come over as prisonners." How did you come to make such a statement?
A First of all, I don't know whether the words are quite correct that was as they are put in these minutes, but in the case of French prisonners of war which were to leave conditionally were to be brought over before the invasion started, in order to prevent them from fighting against us over there, but rather to make them turn into the status of prisonners of war.
Q Then this you speak of having machine engines in France, and you said everything is to be brought over into Germany, also the engines. Are those French engines, or were those engines which had been transported there from Germany to France?
A These were engines, that they had sent over to France because of the fact all the French worked for us in the productive factories, and they produced instruments for us, and they had no machinery for the production of those engines, and, therefore, we had to send our tools and instruments and also the engines, because we could not do anything with French engines.
Q Thank you. Witness, did you attend the conference of June 7, 1944, which comes under NOKW 348?
A That was of June?
Q Yes?
A No, at least I did not put it down. May I ask what it dealt with?
Q You are not listed in the stenographic report, but there was a teletype machine?
A If there was a teletype machine, no, in that instance I did not attend.
Q I now refer to NOKW 358, the fighter staff conference of 30 June. Did you attend that conference, that is, June, that is this second one?
A No.
Q And another document I come to, NOKW 335, Fighter Staff conference of 31 July, did you attend that conference?
A Yes, indeed. Just a minute. 31st, yes.
Q 31st.
A Yes, that was the final conference, wasn't it? No, on the 31st I did not attend, I made a mistake then. I attended the conference on the 1st of August.
Q I just want to make a brief reference, and I want you to answer the question I just put to you now. Did the Fighter Staff have the authority, and did the Fighter Staff reduce the authority in the field or task of Sauckel, or didn't it?
A No, it did not reduce the authority, and it did not reduce the authority of any other ministry either, or of any other government agency.
Q Now did Sauer distribute workers to the factories?
A So far as I know or I think, no, because of the fact -- it is true, that Speer had the authority to shift workers within his factories, but that only could be even done by Sauckel. I might answer, after all, the GL did not have that authority.
Q Witness, I now close this chapter, this chapter on the Fighter Staff, and I now pass onto the question of medical experiments. In 1932 was the Health Inspectorate directly under your authority?
A No.
Q Under whose authority was that?
A It was under the authority of the Chief of Air Defense.
Q And who was the Chief of Air Defense?
AAt that time that was still the General Ruedle, but then in 1942 was replaced by General Foerster.
Q And who was the medical inspector?
A That was the General Oberstabsarzt Hippke.
Q Witness, in this trial you have heard often enough of these medical experiments. Did you in 1944 have any connection, or any concern at all with these medical experiments?
A No.
Q Did you never have any report from Hippke, or from Mr. Ruff, or Rascher, or by Himmler, and have a proposal made by them that the air force should participate in human experiments at Dachau?
A No.
Q Witness, have you any knowledge of letters which were exchanged between Rascher and Himmler, or letters between Rascher and Brandt of 1941 concerning these medical experiments? Did you receive knowledge of these letters?
A Not before this trial.
Q Witness, on the first report on high altitude experiments, on April 5, 1942, did you receive knowledge of this report which Rascher sent to Himmler, and was it submitted to you?
A No, so far as I know this report never came to the Reich Air Ministry.
Q Witness, the request made by Wolf to Hippke, 16 April 1942, according to which Rascher's assignment should be prolonged, was this letter made known to you?
A No.
Q The same day there was a second report, also of 16 April, a second report made by Rascher concerning the high altitude experiments. Was this report submitted to you?
A No.
Q Did Hippke make a report to you of the fact that on 27 April he had written to Mr. Wolf and reported to him that he had prolonged Rascher's assignment?
A No.
Q Did you have any knowledge of the third report made by Rascher and sent to Himmler concerning high altitude experiments of 1 May 1942? Was it submitted you?
A No.
Q I now pass to the letter of 20 May 1942, which is Exhibit No. 87. That is your letter to Mr. Wolf concerning the remaining, or rather, the withdrawal of the high altitude chamber and the beginning of experiments concerning sea rescue questions. I submit this to you and ask you to explain your position with regard to it.
A May I have the original?
Q In that case, I shall have to ask the Secretary General to have Exhibit 87 brought into the courtroom.
A In that case, I would also ask that my letter to Himmler of 31 August be brought.
Q In that case, I ask also that Exhibit 115 be brought in the courtroom.
AAnd perhaps also Exhibit 89, if I may suggest it, because that is my letter of 4 June to Hippke.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's make sure we have these numbers. How many exhibits do you want, now?
DR. BERGOLD: Three. Exhibits 87, 115 and 89.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. But perhaps for the time being you can explain your position with regard to this letter.
A. Reference is made here to a telegram which Wolf is said to have sent to me on the 12th. I can not remember that telegram was sent to me. Maybe I can ask whether this telegram is in evidence.
Q. This telegram is not in evidence, witness.
A. May I say that if a telegram is sent on the 12th, then it will be received on the 12th or, at the latest, on the 13th. From the 10th to the 13th, inclusive, I was not in Berlin. Even if it had been sent to my address, the telegram would have been sent on automatically by my office. They would not have waited until I was there.
Q. But where would they have forwarded it to?
A. They would have forwarded it to the Medical Inspectorate. Even if I had been there, such a telegram or such a letter would always have been forwarded by my office to the competent authority. My reply is dated May 20. I have not dictated this letter, and I would like to prove that from the original Hippke has testified that he had submitted corresponding evidence to my office and he wanted to talk with me but I was not there. I quite understand that also because if I look at my notes, on that day there was a very important commemoration for armament workers, and there were a lot of important speeches from important person, from the V I P's, except from Hitler. Goering had something to do with it, and Speer. That day I came to my office only in the evening for a few minutes, because there was subsequently a joint dinner together with the workers.
On the 21st, which was the next day, I had been summoned to Goering's house at Karinhall in the early morning, and I did not return to Berlin, and I went to Rostock, where I had to be the whole day the following day. Therefore, I had not the possibility to go to my office for more than a few minutes before dinner and I just had to glance through the letters I received and the letters which were to be sent out.
Because I had absolute confidence in the Medical Inspector, I want to point out that the remark of my old ante-room man, according to which I did not like Mr. Hippke, is not correct. Richter right have gained that impression from the fact that I always raised both hands when Hippke came and wanted to report to me, because he always asked for half an hour, but if I did not get very energetic, I could not get rid of his in less than three hours. I could not quite reconcile that with the time I had available, but as far as his character and capacity were concerned, I had entire confidence. If he had submitted such a document to me, I never had any doubts in signing it, because I know that this man would never submit anything to me which could have the slightest doubt of bad treatment or a bad action. Today, as at that time, I am still firmly convinced of that.
We also discussed humane questions, and, therefore, since 1935 when on 1 April he became Medical Inspector, I know this man quite well from that moment forward.
I may add also that, as far as medical questions are concerned, I had no indirect or direct subordination. I never had any connection with these medical questions. I was not his superior in medical questions, and General Ruedl or General Foerster were not his superiors in these questions either, but, rather, all the medical questions were, of course, in the end decided at the highest military level. He was only organizationally attached to us, because, after all, the highest medical general had to be subordinated somewhere.
Q I now hand you the photostat of your letter, and I ask you to use this photostat in order to establish whether you dictated this letter or whether you did not.
A No, I did not dictate this letter. All letters which I dictated myself have under my name the letters "M.I." then a dash, and the first two letters of the secretary who took the dictation. That means that this letter was dictated by somebody else and submitted to me for signature.
Q Witness, how does it occur that in this letter you use such a confidential form of address as "my dear Wolfie"?
A May I refer to the testimony of Wolf in this regard? This address was quite correct. I liked this young officer very much, because he always placed himself at our disposal in all questions which we had to discuss with regard to Himmler. He also always tried to do what we wished him to do. I was very happy that this possibility of liasion was existing, because, of course, I had much less contact with Himmler himself.
Q But if you say now that you did not dictate this letter yourself, how can another subordinate agency use such a confidential address? This subordinate agency does not know your relations with Wolf.
A Yes, but my ante-room knew my relations with Wolf, and there they always asked, "How does the Field Marshal address this or that man; how does he sign below the letter --'Regards', etc.?" And when I was supposed to have written this letter, they even asked me to give them my letter paper, and I think Mr. Richter quite clearly and unmistakeably expressed that.
Q Witness, did anybody in connection with this letter of 20 May 1942 report to you in order to make you sign this letter?
A No, I can only assume from the time-table I have that, I did that very quickly before I left again, that I just signed it. Certainly I had not read it. I was not obliged to read every letter which I signed. Otherwise, I would have been a mere signing machine. Most days there were hundreds of signatures to be done, and, of course, I looked who sent the letter. Not every dispatching office was in my confidence, but Hippke was, and what he submitted, or what General Foerster submitted to me, or General Vorwald, I did not have to read that. That was okay. If I had read it, from the knowledge I had at that time, I could only have gathered that experiments were taking place concerning high altitude, that these experiments were terminated, and that, on the contrary now, other kinds of experiments concerning questions of sea rescue were of primary importance.
To the best of my ability I couldn't have imagined anything and I couldn't have seen what the doctors meant by that, but as I knew that there were instances of sea rescue, I, of course, would have been very glad of the attention of the medical inspectorate given to air rescue questions and questions of acute importance. I cannot remember either that I ever saw the name of Oberstabsarzt Weltz, Stabsarzt Rascher.
Q. Witness, from where did you know that this letter, which does not bear any notice of the instant which produced it, that this letter came from Hippke's bureau, Hippke's office?
A. A little note was attached and on this note was written, "Hippke requires the following notice be sent", or something of that sort.
Q. Was that customary in your office?
A. If a letter came from some other office, it was customary.
Q. Do you yourself have any knowledge about medicine?
A. No.
Q. Did you get anybody's counsel with regard to medical questions, anybody's advice?
A. It is quite obvious that when Hippke came to report I asked him questions, I asked him whether our soldiers of the airforce had been vaccinated, all of them, and what kind of innoculations they could receive, and so on. Of course, I had asked whether there were sufficient hospitals everywhere, everything from the viewpoint of organization work, but you couldn't call that medical questions, but rather medical organizational questions.
Q. Very well, Witness, I now submit to you Exhibit No. 89 and ask you to give me by book back. I ask you to explain your position with regard to that document. Did you draft this letter yourself?
A. No. Here again my personal initial is lacking, and I also see that I said "Dear Herr Hippke". I would never have addressed him that way if I had given a small note like that. I usually wrote, "My dear Hippke". Our personal relation was such that we wouldn't use the word "Herr" (mister), if I may say "we". In this connection this is of the 4th of June, then I was in the ministry.
I also see from the manner in which it is written in a general way that I have not dictated this letter. In these cases I wouldn't write in my own house to these gentlemen and sign it by "Heil Hitler". It is true that these kind of greetings were prescribed, but we didn't use it in our own offices, above all not to the people which we had confidence in, and I would never have written, in accordance with the agreement the low pressure chamber is this, and furthermore this and this is this. After all there must have been a report here and as no report was submitted, or telegram or letter, most probably it would have been a telephone call, but in that case I would have written, "My dear Hippke, Mr. Wolf called me up. He wanted to keep the low pressure chamber for so and so mush longer, and he wants to keep Dr. Rascher for so and so much longer. What is your position with regard to that? Please answer directly to these people. Yours, M., or Mi."
Q. According to your opinion who wrote this note?
A. Some one of ay adjutants who probably took this telephone call, which I assume, and from the word in accordance with the agreement with the Reichsfuehrer this and this and this. I assume that the other instance which has called up, and I should think either ti was Wolf or as he says himself some other instances which used, his name. This instance probably alleged that it was an agreement between the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Luftwaffe. It is most probable that was a lie because of the fact that Wolf was stated here as the others. That is quite obvious from the fact that this letter was sent to Wolf in a copy that way, copy of this letter was sent to Wolf, because Wolf has testified here that he has no knowledge of this matter and that at that tine he was not at all with Himmler. In any event this here, the note, is not an order issued by the man who wrote it. It is not in the way of "I order that this or that be done", but rather it is the passing on of a request which is made by a third party.
Q. Witness, did you receive any knowledge of the fact that Hippke had a talk with Rascher in June 1942, that is, did Hippke make a report to you in that matter?
A. No.
Q. The 25th of August 1942, in a letter which Himmler sent to you there is the final report concerning the high altitude experiment. Did you read yourself this final report and did you receive it before it vent to Hippke?
A. No. It was customary that if a letter was submitted to me which had such contents of experts, medicine, that such a letter wasn't even submitted to me, but only the letter which was attached to it, but very often even the letter which was attached was not submitted to me.
Q. Where were you during these days, witness?
A. That is after the 25th of August, isn't it? On the 25th I was in Berlin there. It could not have been received yet. On the 26th I was in Berlin, but I hardly vent to the ministry that day because it was the funeral for a friend of nine who had a fatal accident, that is Mr. Gablenz, and I was together with his family because many a thing had to be settled on that day. On the 27th I was in Berlin in the ministry; on the 28th also. I presume that the letter should have been received about these days, the 27th or 28th.
Q. Did you then give orders that was passed on to Hippke?
A. No. I am also firmly convinced that this letter was not submitted to me because it was customary and normal that in my anteroom such letters were passed on to the agency right away, and, that by themselves they very often wrote to it, "Report to the Field Marshall", or "Submission of the answer", or even they didn't write anything at all, and the competent expert was left to settle the matter. Of course, I don't know how it was in this particular case.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal Lumber 2 is again in session.
Q. Witness, we shall come now to your answer to Himmler; namely the acknowledgment of receipt which you sent to Himmler. May I ask you to make a statement about that? How hid you happen to write this letter?
A. On the 31st of August 1942, shortly before noon, Hippke came to see we in my office, and he brought along a letter which was to be sent to Himmler and which was to be signed by me. Hippo then, for the first time, told me about the whole question and at was also the first time then that I heard anything about the whole question of the experiments.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What was that date, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: On the 31st of August, your Honor, 1942.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well.
A. (Con'd) From that letter of the 20th of May I knew nothing whatsoever, although I had signed the letter, and on the question of the 4th of June I could not possibly imagine what it was all about no matter how hard I tried. This conference took place a little bit later in the afternoon because I had been all morning long in the Reich Economy Ministry during which time Minister Funk had had a conference. At noon I had to leave because I had am appointment with the widow of my friend Gablenz; it concerned his will. There was not too much time at our disposal, and I asked. Hippke to make it as short as possible. Hippke began to tell me all about it, and he said something about these experiments. I asked him, "What interest does the SS have with respect to these experiments?" Hippke said, "Well, it does not concern them too much actually. However, it is Himmler's vanity. He wants to be able to tell the Fuehrer once again that he is doing everything and in this particular case the doctors of the Luftwaffe are not very able to carry it out because they are a little bit too old fashioned", as he put it.
Then I asked him what kind of experiments are these. Hippke answered, "They are high altitude experiments and freezing experiments. Undercooling is freezing experiments." I asked him, "What is under-cooling?" "Freezing." From the question, it can be clearly soon that up to this time I had no idea about the whole latter and. what it could be. Thereupon, Hippke explained it to mo namely, on the basis of our pilots and. other personnel who wore being shot down during their flights from Germany to England over the North Sea. And that those pilots who are in the water in their 'Mae Wests' and he also said that rescue usually took a long time. Hippke, furthermore, explained that the high altitude experiments had been completed. However, the other thing was probably quite far, also, but that he had no report whatsoever on that matter. He did not like this cooperation with the SS.
I told him, "Are such experiments necessary at all?" He answered, "Yes they are, namely, seen from the medical point of .vice." I asked him then, "What kind of doubts do you. have about it, about the SS-misgivings? Are they substantiated?" Hippke said, "No; however the SS is not an expert with reference to our question." And then, of course, we have the channels of orders are not too clear either. We have not too much right of word with the SS. And, after all, these experiments are our own business. Or that sometimes the Navy could be interested in this. And now the SS wanted to carry out those highaltitude experiments without our help. However, I did not return them to the low-pressure chamber, and I do not wish to return them unless you order me to. I told him that I never thought of giving him such an order because it is purely a medical question, and if you have any misgivings; for instance, that Himmler would be intrigued because of this or against us, with Hitler, then, of course, we don't want to support these people on top of everything else.
Hippke, himself, added, "Apart from that, nothing good happened during these altitude experiments." I personally, would not have asked such a question. Hippke then Trent into detail, namely, that we had already carried out all the experiments -- we, of the Luftwaffe-and.
on top of this all our medical officers had volunteered for this kind of work; while in these SS experiments criminal 2042a and murders who had been sentenced to death were being used-- if they volunteered.
That pardon is at their disposal if they volunteer for that kind of work. Put, at that time, I did not quite understand why these experiments were still being carried out, that we had already taken care of all ourselves, namely, the Luftwaffe. However, the question in this particular case was the higher altitude for which the medical research was interested or in which the medical research was interested ... I thought at that same time of the fact that Hippke had mentioned the necessity that one had to have parachutes which, during the unconsciousness of the man who jumped, would automatically open. Then, a road the letter which he submitted to me; and, as far as I can remember, it contained many pages. And I told. him, "The less letters you have, then the less Himmler can interpelate or intervene in all these questions. And, as you and your people do not wish to have anything to do about that matter with Himmler, we only want to give him small possibilities to do so." And. I believe that I struck out two or two and a half pages of the letter, and all that remained were the first few sentences and the last few sentences.
May I ask you to show me the letter--an original if possible?
Q. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do that, but the Exhibit No. 115 refers to something else. But I believe that you will be able to do without it; we don't have to bother the Secretary-General about it.
A. I only wanted to show that I did not dictate that letter. The letter has been re-written by some other office, however submitted to me as Hippke's letter.
Q. That we can see from Hippke's statement.
A. I saw him at the time, and I saw that there was no signature whatsoever by me. In other words, this is just my thanks to Himmler for Ms letter. The names, Rascher and Romberg, which I hoar are the instigators of the letter--I can not remember anything about them. I never noticed the names of Rascher and. Romberg until the end. of the war, consciously. Then it says here, I am informed about the current experiments.
That is what it said in Hippke's report, and I must refer to many witnesses who have said that in 2043a the German ministerial style in which the letters are written, this "I"--the letter "I" is absolutely normal, even if the man who signed it does not mean himself.