Himmler must have pointed out to me that something had appeared in the Medical Journal, and this is how this letter to Rascher might have originated.
Q. I now come to Document NO-656. It is in Document Book VIII.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like some better explanation of this letter, Exhibit 275, than the one we got. I'll see if I can get it.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, did you write this letter?
A. According to the dictation mark, yes; I must have dictated it.
Q. Well, you don't deny that this is your letter?
A. No, I do not deny that.
Q. Now, in it you complain to Rascher that some articles had gotten into the Munich Medical Weekly Journal about Polygal.
A. Yes.
Q. And also that Dachau 3 K was mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q. And you warned Rascher that these things should not be made public... should not be printed?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You told Rascher that he must not let people know that experiments on prisoners are involved?
A. Yes, exactly as it is stated in this letter.
Q. Why did you not want the facts to be known about the experiments on prisoners?
A. Because that general order of Himmler existed to that effect, that no publications were to be made. I certainly did not read this publication myself, and it must have been pointed out to me either by Himmler or by some other agency.
I could not have written this letter to Rascher on my own initiative. However, I do not know what caused me to write this letter.
Q. Why could you not have written this on your own initiative?
A. Because I did not read this article in the Medical Journal. At least, I consider this improbable.
Q. Well, in the letter you say. "This (conclusion) is possible from various passages in the above mentioned article." Do you find that? -- the last paragraph?
A. Yes. As I already told you, I assume that probably the Minister for Food pointed out the fact to me. It is possible that I saw this article later on when I wrote the letter. It may be that this Weekly Journal was brought to me and that I read it at that time; it is quite possible.
Q. You either saw the article, or someone told you what was in it?
A. I assume that Schenk probably showed this article to me, and then I wrote this letter.
Q. Then you wrote to Rascher and said, "You must not write anything about the experiments at Dachau?"
A. Yes, that's what I did.
Q. Was there something in the experiments that you were afraid would be found out?
A. Well, first of all... experiments were not experiments which had been carried out... were not to be publicized. Himmler had already ordered that on various occasions. The reason for this probably was, and I can't see any other reason for it, because prisoners were being used for that purpose.
And the public was not to have knowledge of that.
Q. You mean the German people were not to be told the truth about these experiments?
A. Yes, that is my belief.
Q. It was your business, and Himmler's business, and Rascher's business, to lie to them, and deceive them as much as you could?
A. Your Honor, I do not think that I lied to the German people by such a letter.
Q. Well, that is splitting hairs... if you know what I mean... You were keeping the truth from them.
A. Well, there were also other reasons which favored our keeping this thing secret. After all, not every scientist wants to turn over his research work to the public. For example, in a case about sterilization experiments which were carried out, where no prisoners were used, such publication was prohibited. Experiments in concentration camps were not concerned at all in this case, and therefore I cannot conclude from this that we tried to keep the truth from the German people. I cannot imagine, however, that the German people, or a large part of the German people, would read the Medical Journal. After all, this article would only be seen by a certain small circle.
Q. Was it because you were guarding a scientific secret, or was it because you were killing human beings, that you didn't want the people to know. I say "you"... I mean- Rascher... - if you like.
A. I assume that we tried not to publicize the results of the research.
Q. Including the deaths of the victims?
A. I do not know if any people died in the development of this Polygal.
Q. Was Dachau 3 K your code address?
A. No; this description was used in this article. It did not originate with me. I do not know. I do not know where it comes from.
Q. That is the address of the person who wrote in the magazine?
A. Yes, that is what I assume.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q I now come to Document NO-656. It is in Document Book VIII, on Page 70 of the German text and on Page 72 of the English text. This document was offered as Exhibit 276. It is a letter from the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe and was addressed to you and Director of the Institute for Military Research on 25 April, 1945. In this letter you are requested to furnish three prisoners of the concentration camp Dachau in order to establish a production plant for Polygal. I now ask you what steps were taken after this letter.
A It was the production plant for the production of Polygal which I have already mentioned. In order to build this production plant Sievers requested three workers. He wanted mechanics, a locksmith, etc. Here it is a question of the allocation of labor for this production plant. I probably passed on this letter to Amtsgruppe D for the employment of these people.
Q As Exhibit 277, the Prosecution has presented various excerpts from the Sievers' diary. It is document PS-3546 on Page 71 of the German text and Page 78 of the English text. I now ask you, what contacts did you have with the manager of the Ahnenerbe, Sievers, and to what were these relations confined.
A Before the establishment of the Military Scientific Institute, Sievers only saw me in questions concerning the financing of the Ahnenerbe. Later on when the Ahnenerbe had established the Military Scientific Institute he also saw me in questions pertaining to the financing of the matter, and I can remember exactly he saw me because of the production of Polygal. Furthermore, I had no important meetings with him. For example, we never discussed experiments. Occasionally I received letters from him, but actually he only saw me on very rare occasions. Later on I found out about the experiments at Natzweiler through letters.
Q I now come to experiments which are in connection with typhus research and the means of combatting this disease. Document NO Court No. II, Case No. 4.571 was offered by the Prosecution as Exhibit 218.
It is in Document Book IX, on Page 1 of both the German and the English texts. It is a work report of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS for the year 1943. From this work report, the entry of 29 September 1943, shows that the Chief of the Office D-III, Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling, and Professor Dr. Schenk visited the institute at Buchenwald. I now ask you, did these two men act under your orders, and did you have knowledge of this visit?
A I cannot recall that I should have ordered the two men to go to Buchenwald in order to carry out this inspection. I assume that Lolling took Schenk along. I do not believe that this purely medical visit became known to me at the time. At least I cannot remember anything about it.
Q I now come to Document NO-265. It is the diary of the Department for Typhus and Virus Research in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, and it was offered as Exhibit 219. It is in Document Book IX, on Page 9 of both texts. In this diary under the 9th of January, 1943, we have the following entry, and I quote: "The Chief of the WVHA, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen-SS Pohl has ordered the construction of a stone quarry." I now ask you, did you personally give the order for the construction of this stone quarry at Buchenwald?
A I consider this completely impossible. I can say that it was a very long channel up to my office, and it would be ridiculous to approach me with such a little matter. The Central Construction Agency at Buchenwald and at Weimar would have been competent, then the Inspectorate, then Amtsgruppe C and finally I. The Inspectorate had a very independent authority, and I am firmly convinced that the construction of an infirmary would only have gone up as high as the Inspectorate. I cannot remember that I personally ever gave such an order.
Q In view of the entry of the 23rd of March, 1943, in this diary, I ask you if you knew anything of the conference which took place Court No. II, Case No. 4.between Sturmbannfuehrer Barnewald and Dr. Ding with Hauptscharfuehrer Schlesinger pertaining to the procurement of guinea pigs and rabbits for the experimental station at Buchenwald.
The WVHA is also mentioned here.
A I personally do not know anything about it.
Q In the presentation of the evidence of the Prosecution with regard to typhus experiments in the concentration camp Natzweiler the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt of the 14th of October, 1946. That is Document NO-370, Document Book IX, Page 28 of the German Text and Page 23 of the English text. Under Paragraph 3 of this affidavit the following is stated among other things: "Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, has requested a certain number of prisoners to be sent to the Natzweiler concentration camp, and experiments were conducted there by Dr. Haagen". I now ask you, is this claim of Dr. Brandt in this affidavit correct?
A The claim seems to be contained in all the affidavits of Rudolf Brandt, that there was no other way than that an experiment, which had been approved by Himmler was sent to me, and I furnished the prisoners. However, in reality the matter was handled differently, and it was handled in the way which is mostly shown by the documents, usually by direct notification of the camp or the Inspectorate, and when this presentation was completed I may have been affected by this matter. However, it is not correct that in every case I was ordered to procure the prisoners. I did not have any time to occupy myself with that at all, but Himmler had authorized such experiments, and he usually turned over this approval directly to the camp or to Amtsgruppe D.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Now I shall turn to Document NO-008. This is a letter from Sievers of the Institute of Military Research of May, 1944; it is Exhibit 223, Document Book 9, page 34. That letter also refers to the typhus experiments and the subject is "A New Type of Typhus Vaccine." I ask you: Concerning the statement contained in this letter that you on 25 October 1943 approved the carrying out of experiments for the production of that type of vaccine and the transfer of 100 prisoners to Natzweiler, is that correct? Did that letter ever reach you at all?
A I can not remember whether I personally received the letter. It is possible, but it is equally possible and probable that it was passed on directly to Office D-III, which was working on this process. It is out of the question that I personally approved typhus vaccine experiments. Only Himmler could do that, and I assume without being able to remember it in detail that the first order to this effect and the first inmates which were put at their disposal, went from Himmler to Office D-III. If I should have received this letter I most certainly would have protested against the setting aside of such a huge number of prisoners, especially healthy prisoners.
Q As Exhibit 224, the Prosecution submitted the letter of Rudolf Brandt to Sievers of 6 June, 1944, which deals with the production of the new typhus vaccine. I should like to ask you, witness, what were the reasons which caused the Reichsfuehrer-SS to suggest the WVHA as a supporting agency in this connection?
A Well, I assume that this financing of the Scientific Research Institute by the Waffen-SS was the purpose.
The budget was looked after by the WVHA.
Q I now turn to the so-called mustard gas experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Let's find out some of the important things about Exhibit 223. This is a letter from Sievers to you personally, is it not?
WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you ever get it?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I can not say yes or no. I simply do not remember.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that a letter that was addressed to you personally would be delivered to somebody else and you would never see it?
WITNESS: That is entirely possible. All incoming main was sifted. It was opened in our Circulation Center and distributed from there. As a rule it was sent to the man who worked on the subject and, as it is so clearly shown who was to work on it, this letter was given to Office D-III at once.
THE PRESIDENT: But, whoever opened this letter and read it for the purpose of distribution immediately saw that it stated that you approved certain experiments and that Dr. Lolling was acting on your orders, that's what the letter says, does it not?
WITNESS: Yes, that is what the letter says, but I did not order any experiments. I was not in a position to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: In spite of what the letter says, you think it would not be delivered to you, but to somebody else?
WITNESS: That is entirely possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Where do you think Sievers got the idea that you had given Dr. Lolling the proper orders?
WITNESS: I can see from the letter that Sievers must have negotiated with Lolling in this same matter and it is rather unusual that he should address himself to me, instead of going to Lolling directly, with whom, as can be seen by the letter he had negotiated before.
THE PRESIDENT: You assume that Dr. Lolling had told Sievers that you had given the necessary orders.
WITNESS: I do not think so, because I did not give Lolling any orders.
THE PRESIDENT: But that is what Lolling told Sievers, isn't it?
WITNESS: That is possible, because otherwise this strange view of Sievers is not understandable. It is entirely possible that Lolling said that to Sievers.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is entirely possible that Lolling also told him that you had approved on 25 October 1943 the carrying out of the experiments?
WITNESS: That is possible that Lolling said so, yes, but that doesn't mean that it need be so.
THE PRESIDENT: Lolling even had set a date on which you had given that order according to him?
WITNESS: That can not be correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Whether correct or not, Lolling did give a specific date to Sievers, 25 October 1943.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, it is the same letter to which Lolling and Sievers referred themselves. That is where he got the date from.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sievers also said that one-hundred suitable prisoners were transferred to Natzweiler. Were they?
A I don't know, Mr. President, whether they were transferred, or not.
Q Who had charge of the transferring of labor from one camp to another?
A I don't know how these typhus vaccine experiments at Natzweiler were conducted. The rule was always that people concerned who were interested saw and talked to Himmler. He then approved or disapproved the experiment, and then either the Inspectorate, Amtsgruppe-D, and all camps themselves where the experiments were to take place, were informed of Himmler's order, and of the fact that prisoners were to be transferred. That was the regular procedure. In this case, of course, where prisoners had to be transferred repeatedly, the man concerned turned to Lolling, then he came to see me, and I would send him back to Lolling's office or to Gluecks. Therefore, one can not say that a clear line of procedure was always adhered to. Standard orders of procedure were not always observed within the organization of the SS-agencies. Sometimes Sievers approached Brandt, as I can see from this document.
Q Well, you had charge of the labor allocation, didn't you? Can we agree on that?
A Yes.
Q Could one-hundred prisoners be transferred to Natzweiler and you not know anything about it?
A The transfer of inmates for the purpose of medical experiments was not part of labor allocation, because otherwise other labor allocations would have to be approved by Himmler personally, which was not the case. The transfer of inmates for medical experiments had to be approved by Himmler personally.
Q You could lose one-hundred inmates and not know it?
A Mr. President, if you had to deal with six or seven hundred thousand prisoners - a number which fluctuated constantly, and if I only saw the report once per month, I could not always see where one-hundred prisoners might be located. Five-thousand or ten-thousand might be lost by fatalities; twenty-thousand might be new arrivals and were distributed to 600 places of work, and I was unable to see where one-hundred prisoners would go, if they went to Natzweiler, or not, in the middle of the month. This always was the task of the lower agencies; in my Berlin Office, I did not deal with any condition concerning 100 prisoners. It would not reach me, that sort of thing. All I did
Q When your monthly report came in, and you were "shy" one-hundred prisoners, it would not mean anything then?
A I have explained, Mr. President, that these monthly surveys which go to an estimate say of six-hundred or seven-hundred thousand men, shown in twenty or thirty different columns, made it quite impossible for me to see where one-hundred inmates would be missing somewhere, because these small figures such as one-hundred inmates would not be contained therein.
Q In other words, this was just such a wholesale business, that the disappearance of one-hundred human beings was not even noticed?
A They were such large figures that I could not follow these fluctuations in detail. I was quite unable to do that.
Q How many men would have to disappear before you would notice it?
A I am unable to answer that question in this form. I can not say as much as twenty thousand or ten thousand, because the point is that I did not learn of a constant figure all the time.
I did not have a plan. I would have six-hundred thousand men at my disposal, and if there were five thousand missing for the month, they must either had died, or been released. That is quite impossible. It was not only the occasion of losing inmates, but that a certain number would arrive, and the new arrivals would not be reported to me, or discussed. That inmates from the RSHA, or the Gestapo, would be delivered at the gates of the concentration camp without my being informed previously. Not even the camp commandant was informed of the figures on the transport. That was one of the reasons that Amt-D was created.
Q Then any number of men and women up into the thousands could simply disappear, and nobody in your department would know it?
A The Inspectorate - the Inspector in the Inspectorate Office, D-II would know it.
Q But that was not your department, you say, the Inspectorate? That was independent?
A The Inspectorate of the concentration camps, as we know, became Office D-II, since May 1942 and belonged to the WVHA.
Q That is right.
A I only emphasize, Mr. President, that it was not under me in all the affairs. It was not. This morning I gave the example of the junction and the two rails. I quoted from the book of the inmate which also speak of two departments, A and B; to say the least, two important agencies were working on this which influenced all these things.
Q I got the impression that Amt-D, the Inspectorate, did anything that was wrong. That was not under you?
A Oh, no, Mr. President. The Office D-II received from all camps a monthly report, and when received each monthly report would be put together for a monthly survey for my benefit, which was usual with all the governmental agencies.
I could not receive reports from fifteen-hundred camps, a single report, as I could not read all these reports, that would take me an entire working day. From these single reports the office of D-II compiled the monthly survey and submitted it to me, and from this monthly report one could only see the big figure, from which you could not see small movements from one camp to another, the transfer of one-hundred, or two or five-hundred, or one-thousand men from Dachau to Natzweiler, for instance. I might say, for instance, for medical experiments three-hundred or fourhundred or five-hundred men, that would be a small figure, and then in that particular period of the month the figure would change, and I could not see from this big survey that change.
Q Well, in this same letter from Sievers he asked for twohundred more men; on the second page. It is on the first page of the original: "Should there be urgent reason twohundred experimental persons can not be transferred to Natzweiler, then these experiments could be carried out in another concentration camp." Do you know whether he ever got the extra two-hundred, or not?
A I am not able to say that today, Mr. President, but I am convinced that if I had seen the letter I would not let it pass without a remark or a note. Above all the demand for two-hundred able-bodied prisoners for medical experiments would not have passed me without my protest, because I disapproved in the case of Schilling, for instance, the demand for prisoners. I tried to stop that by intervening with Himmler, and I would not have let this pass.
Q Well, either Gluecks or Maurer would know about this?
A They were not in a position to do that. They, too, could not do that without first consulting Himmler.
Q They would know whether these prisoners were transferred or not, wouldn't they? Gluecks or Maurer?
A Yes, they would be told, of course.
Q Where is Gluecks?
A Gluecks is dead.
Q Where is Maurer?
A He is here in Nurnberg.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, I shall now turn to the mustard-gas experiments. The Prosecution has presented another affidavit from Rudolf Brandt. This is Document NO-372, Document Book 9, page 40, in paragraph 4 of the document which says that "Clothes had been detailed by WVHA for this purpose." I should like to ask you if you have any knowledge of the mustard-gas experiments in Natzweiler or Mauthausen? Did you get a copy of the Fuehrer's order, such as is alleged in paragraph 5 of Brandt's affidavit?
A In my own affidavit, which I submitted here, I described the experiments which I remember from that period, I think there were six or seven. This did not include the mustardgas experiments. I was asked about them at the time, and I confused them with Lost experiments, not can I recall about this date that I knew anything of this mustard-gas experiment. I am not quite sure, but I do not believe so. Likewise, if I had received an order from the Fuehrer, such as is mentioned in paragraph 5, surely I would have remembered that, because I got so few orders of that type, and they concerned only such important matters, that I would not have lost it in my memory altogether. I think Brandt ought to refresh his memory a little here.
Q. I shall now turn to NO-935 Exhibit 232. It is a letter from Sievers to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks. I would like to ask you, How does the fact which is contained in this letter tally with the statements made by Rudolf Brandt in his affidavit? Did Gluecks tell you about the contents of the letter of 27 August 1943?
A. It is difficult for me after five or more years to answer and identify each document with Yes or No, because in my activity within the Reich Leadership SS I dealt with tons of papers. It is interesting to see in this document that Sievers had talked to Lolling on one occasion, and on another he addressed himself to Gluecks, and on yet another occasion he asserts that he had seen me, which is quite possible. That is the best illustration of what I said before, namely, how irregularly the service worked in the absence of a clear channel of command so that one would be able to say, "This is the man for this matter, and he must have received this document." Sievers went and saw Gluecks. I do not know whether Gluecks informed me of the contents of this letter, which is not so important after all. It is quite possible.
Q. What you said just now would probably apply also to Document NO 978, which is Prosecution Exhibit 233, and also to Document NO-092, which is Exhibit 235; is that correct?
A. Yes, that applies as well.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Seidl, when you have the English page number before your eyes, would you kindly indicate it to us, so that we can find it a little more quickly?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, certainly, Your Honor. I must confess, however, that for the remaining questions concerning this document book I do not have the English pages because it was not possible to obtain an English copy, but in the following document books, I shall give the English page numbers.
A. As far as Exhibit 233 is concerned, I should like to point out that Sievers also talked to the Reichsfuehrer-SS. It says here in the letter to Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, "On the basis of my report, as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS, there is a good possibility for carrying out our military scientific work in the concentration camp Natzweiler", and so forth.
Yet another agency had been included.
Q. I shall now turn to Document NO-005, which is Prosecution Exhibit 237. It concerns experiments with N-Substance. It is a letter from the Reich-Physician Grawitz to Himmler of 29 November 1944. I should like to ask you, witness, did SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks report to you on the setting aside of 15 inmates who were sentenced to death? Were these experiments carried out at all, and when did you hear for the first time of this matter.
A. That was rather late in November 1944. At that time nothing became known to me of these things. I am almost certain that I can say that, and Gluecks, after having been charged with the preliminary work for these experiments, together with Gebhardt and Nebe, did not tell me every time, "I set five prisoners aside". That was an affair with which I as Ministerial Director, need not deal with at all. I can say, therefore, that I heard nothing about this at all.
Q. I shall now turn to the so-called sterilization experiments. The Prosecution in its presentation of evidence has submitted another affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, Document NO-440, Exhibit 238, Document Book 9, Page 54 of the German text, page 51 of the English version. What do you know about these experiments, witness, as far as they were connected with the so-called Caladium Seguinum, and what can you say about paragraph five of Brandt's affidavit?
A. Of these experiments on sterilization, I said in my affidavit what I knew, and I stand by that. I see under paragraph five of the affidavit that Brandt says,"As a result of Pokorny's suggestion, experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates". This business which really concerns only Dr. Koch and Madaus of Rathebeul, I only followed up to the point when the firm of Madaus was given a hothouse in order to cultivate the necessary plant, and I was to give assistance in this enterprise, that is to say, up to a point when the hothouse was not even ready yet, in order to cultivate this caladium seguinum from which the drug was to be gained, so I do not know to this day whether the cultivation and the production of this drug ever succeeded or whether there were any experiments at all, I do not know that, because after that one conference with Dr. Koch in Rathebeul, I never saw any of the people concerned again, and I didn't talk to them again.
Therefore, what Brandt says here is in my opinion a complete mistake. I now come to document NO-036.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. How far did you go in an effort to cultivate the drug mentioned in paragraph five of Brandt's affidavit for the purpose of mass sterilization of concentration camp inmates.
A. I said just now that my activity ceased when the hothouse was to be built. That was the purpose for which I was consulted.
Q. Just a minute. Did you build the hothouse for that purpose, or have it built?
A. The firm of Madaus asked us to assist them in building a hothouse. That was not easy at the time because --
Q. You need not go into that. I just asked you a simple question, and you can answer it. I asked you, Did you build a hothouse for that purpose or have it built? You can answer that with Yes or No.
A. We did not build it. We helped the firm Madaus in obtaining the necessary material.
Q. You had it built then?
A. It was to be built in Rathebeul, and I don't know whether it was built or not. All we did was to help them get the material.
Q. Did you help them get the material then? That is what I want to know -- what you did about it.
A. Yes. Permission to obtain the materials through the Ministry, not the material itself.
Q. That is all.
DR. SEIDL: In this connection, may I remark, quite apart from the interrogation of this defendant, that in Case No. 1 it became clear from the evidence that it was not possible to cultivate this Caladium Seguinum, and therefore no experiments took place.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. I now turn to Document NO-036, which is Exhibit 240, page 55 in Your Honor's book. This is a letter from Himmler to you of 10 March 1944, and I would like to ask you what you did in consequence of this letter and what were the results of the measures you took? When you answer this question, please remember the contents of Prosecution Exhibits 241 through 249.
A. These documents are all part of the complex which is under review now. The sterilization through Caladium Seguinum, was worked on actively by Madaus and also I believe by Dr. Pokorny. They approached us from two different sides, and it led to the results which we discussed just now. This is simply an exchange of correspondence, but nothing new came from them.
Q. The following documents refer to the sterilization experiments according to the method of Professor Glauberg. In connection with Document NO 211, Prosecution Exhibit 250, which is a letter from Glauberg to Himmler of 30 May 1942, I would like to ask you what you heard of these experiments according to the Glauberg method, and what were your connections with it?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I saw Clauberg during a stay in Auschwitz, we had dinner together, and I heard that he was busy on sterilization experiments in Auschwitz. At that time he invited me to look at the experiments, which I refused to do. Therefore, I saw nothing of his Auschwitz experiments or anywhere else--I do not know whether he carried out experiments anywhere else--and hence I am unable to say anything about it.
MR. ROBBINS: Before we get completely away from the experiments concerning caladium, I don't want to let Dr. Seidl's statement go unchallenged to the effect that experiments were not carried out according to the evidence in the medical case. I think the evidence there simply shows that it was not possible to grow the plant on a large scale and it was finally, in the end, given up. I don't think it was established that no experiments were carried out.
DR. SEIDL: I believe that is what I said; perhaps the translation was wrong. I said that it was not possible, as to the Caladium Seguinum, to cultivate that plant in order to make experiments, and that failure led to the result that no experiments on human beings were carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't what Mr. Robbins said.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: No, that is not the same.
MR. ROBBINS: I think the facts are shown by the defendants, that experiments were carried out and sterilizations were made by use of the plant; but it was found, through the experiments, that largescale sterilization could not be accomplished because the plant could not be grown on a large scale.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I think that the integrity of the translator was established.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q I shall now turn to Exhibits 251 and 253. These are two memos concerning a conference between Himmler, SS-Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, and SS-Brigadefuehrer professor Clauberg. These file memoranda concern different days, but it must be as Court No. II, Case No. 4.sumed, as a result of the evidence in Tribunal I in the medical case, that these two file memoranda concern one and the same conference.