I then wrote a letter to Himmler, which I have already described this morning. I pointed out in this letter that the furnishing of prisoners for these experiments was not considered as being correct by me.
Q I now come to the so-called food experiments. This is, first of all, Document NO 003. It is in Document Book 8, Page 15 of the German text and Page 10 of the English. The Prosecution has submitted this document as Exhibit 260. It is a letter which you wrote on 9 September 1942 to the Reichsfuehrer SS and which deals with the reform and settlement of food for the troops. I now ask you, witness, can you still remember the letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 12 August 1942, to which your letter represents the answer, and what food did these letters deal with, which are being discussed here?
A The letter which Himmler wrote to me and which I have answered in this letter I can no longer remember. However, I can see its contents from the reply which I gave, which refers to certain points which Himmler mentions or must have mentioned in his letter to me. In the entire letter, as is shown also by the reference, the letter deals with the reform and regulation of the food for the troops. At one time, Himmler sent me a booklet for me to study and which Professor Dr. Schenk, our expert, was also to look over. It was a booklet which came from reform circles and which was entitled "Poison in the Food". In the case of that booklet, we had a description on the false method of conserving food, which was being attacked by the reformers, and these reformers wished the preservation, and they wanted this to be within the legal limits. They claimed that certain assets such as salisylic acids which had arisen within the conservation for anything of time would not be fatal and would not damage the health but in any case that they would have a disadvantageous influence on the person who was eating this food for a lengthy period of time.
Himmler, who was also very much interested in this idea, now tried to make a certain experiment in this direction. These experiments, Court No. II, Case No. 4.in my opinion at that time, did not have very much sense because conserved food is being eaten in all countries by all people, and no physical harm ever results from it.
Since, however, he urged that the correctness of this plan should be examined, I told him that this could easily be done on prisoners because they would not incur any physical injuries, and, according to medical circles, there was no danger at all. However, nothing was done after this letter, and no experiments were made. They were postponed until after the war.
Furthermore, the letter also contains phrases in which only the reformist thoughts of the contents become evident. He talks about various reforms and other measures of improving food and so on.
Q I now come to Document NO 1422. It is in Document Book 8, Page 20. It is on Page 15 of the English Document Book. It is a letter which you yourself wrote on 20 March 1943 to the Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Service, Professor Dr. Karl Brandt. It is Exhibit 261 of the Prosecution. What reasons caused you to write this letter, and in what connection is this letter with the letter which we have just discussed to the Reichsfuehrer SS of 9 September 1942?
A This letter to Brandt has nothing to do with the letter which we just discussed. It must have been an answer which I gave Professor Brandt in reply to a letter which he had addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff. I can see from my answer, which is based on documents from the Inspector of Food, I can see there that Brandt was apparently interested in questions of the food supplies of the troops. I can not remember in detail just what matters were concerned. However, I have told him here that in carrying out experiments on prisoners, nothing new could be discovered, and no further steps were taken as far as I can remember. I can not remember that this matter was followed up any closer. However, again questions of the food supply of the troops were involved.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Just a moment, Dr. Seidl. You say this in the letter, at Page No. 16 of the English Document Book:
"Nevertheless, in other connections and with other aims in view, I am having nutrition experiments conducted in a concentration camp and shall be glad to work out there any special problems, if you have any such problems."
Now, if you did not carry out any experiments in furtherance of this letter, why did you say that in your letter back to him?
A That will have to be discussed in connection with another document, but we did carry out two food experiments at Mauthausen.
Q I just understood you to say that you did not carry out any, that nothing further was done about it.
A Nothing further was done about it in this connection. No experiments were carried out. In this matter in question which Brandt is discussing in this letter.
Q I am talking about your letter, the letter that you wrote back to Brandt, himself.
A No experiments were carried out in this case either.
Q What do you mean when you say this in your letter?
A With that I meant the two food experiments which we actually had carried out at Mauthausen. However, they were not in connection with the experiments which were being discussed here in this letter.
Q Why were you writing to Brandt then if they had no connection with it?
A Well, I don't understand that, Your Honor.
Q I don't either.
AAre you now referring to a letter of Brandt?
Q Yes. I am not referring to any other letter.
A. In both letters -- in my letter to Himmler and also in my reply to Brandt -- in both cases these matters were not followed up at all through experiments. The experiments which I have mentioned refer to the two food experiments which were carried out at Mauthausen which, however, did not have anything to do with these two letters.
Q. Well, why did you write Brandt about something that you weren't discussing at all, then?
A. I would have to look and see what I wrote to Brandt.
Q. The documents will speak for themselves. That is all.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Go ahead with your examination.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I want to see what I wrote to Brandt. I have not as yet found the place which you have quoted.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I was quoting from your letter to Brandt dated the 20th of March 1943, the third paragraph from the last in your letter, in which you put in brackets the quotation that I gave.
THE WITNESS: I have found it now; yes, that is absolutely correct. I state here in the paragraph:
"I therefore wish to say that we are able to determine exactly and in every respect what the forces need." The letter continues that nevertheless, that is without reference to what has been previously said in other connections, and that is what I have pointed out in my reply, that "with other aims in view, I am having nutrition experiments conducted in a concentration camp", and so on. These are the two experiments at Mauthausen, which I have already mentioned. Therefore, they did not have any connection at all with what is discussed here. These are the only two food experiments which were carried out with my knowledge. However, they do not have anything to do with this. That can be seen exactly from the text; they had another connection, and they had a different purpose.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that I should tell you that the misunderstanding was caused by the fact that the interpreter did not have the German text before him but gave a free translation from the English, and the defendant was not able to find this particular spot immediately in the document book.
In the German it was a little different, and that is the reason why he was unable to find it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is all straightened out now.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. I now come to document NO-1610, which was submitted by the Prosecution as Exhibit 262. It is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to you of the 2nd of August 1943. It is on page 23 of the German document book, and on page 18 of the English text.
What reasons were decisive for this letter, and did you, on your own initiative, order or approve any medical experiments before or afterwards?
A. The reason for this letter of Brandt's to me must have been in the letter of the Reich Physician SS. I replied to this letter that without the approval of Himmler I was unable to carry out experiments on my own and that at the time, by order of Himmler, two food experiments were under way. These are the two experiments which I have just mentioned.
These food experiments cannot be considered medical experiments. They were not aimed at testing food according to its medical aspects, but they were carried out in order to determine if the food was appropriate for the purpose for which it had been intended, as supplementary ration, that is to say, if the expenses which had been incurred would actually result in a deficiency with regard to food. Therefore, in my reply to Himmler, I mentioned once more the two experiments which he ordered carried out. Above all, this is the feeding of the egg yolk sausage, or as it says here, the diosine vegetable sausage.
This was a product of the albumen plant, which was contained in the fiber works and which, through a chemical treatment, was then changed and made useful for human consumption. It is the same product which the Friggs Works had developed, which even today is still known as Friggs Yeast and is still being sold for commercial use.
We hit upon this food during our search for additional food for the prisoners. It is within the field of my tasks to in some way improve the food of the prisoners. I myself, together with the inspector for food and with Staatsrat Schieber, to whom these works were subordinated, went right to the spot and I personally inquired as to the production and the conditions of sale. I also saw how this food was turned into the sausage. It was sold there to all the employees, and we were unable to obtain anything there. That is why, later, on, we went to another plant which was located on the Ruhr -- I can't remember its name any more. Schieber and Schenk again accompanied me. There we finally succeeded in obtaining the production for ourselves.
First of all, this food was tested on one hundred prisoners, only in order to see if this food was actually any good. That is why we carried out these food experiments. I frequently inquired with Schenk, and I received only favorable reports. I was therefore very much surprised, and I must say rather shocked to read in one of the documents here -- I believe it is an affidavit of Dr. Schiedlausky -that in the course of these food experiments prisoners are alleged to have died. I can't even imagine that today, because this substance was always used in food afterwards. I don't know what brought about these deaths; I personally tasted the sausage at the time. I never heard that any cases of death had occurred.
I cannot remember the second food experiment, which must have been in a similar direction, although I have tried to recall the circum stances.
However, It must have been something of a similar nature. In any case, these experiments had completely different aims, they had definitely positive aims, and they cannot be at all compared with the medical experiments.
Q. In any case, you say you never heard anything about the fact, in connection with these experiments, that any of the experimental subjects sustained injuries to health, and that you consider this completely impossible?
A. Yes. I never heard anything about it; I heard of it for the first time in this document. I am very much surprised. I personally --together with all the experts -- was of the opinion that this really was excellent food, and I still know it today as Friggs Yeast.
Q. I now come to document NO-177. This belongs to the documents which were presented in the course of the presentation of evidence of the sea-water experiments. It is on page 26 of the German document book, and in the English on page 21. It was offered as Exhibit 263. It is a record of a discussion which was carried out in the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe on the 23rd of May 1944.
I now ask you, witness: What did you know about this matter, and did the WVHA participate in this in any way?
A. I knew nothing at all about this matter. Neither I nor any representative of the WVHA participated in this.
Q. As Exhibit 264, the Prosecution, in this connection, offered a letter from the Reichs-Physician SS - Grawitz to Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, of the 28th of June 1944. It is document NO-179, and it is in document book VIII. It is at page 30 in the German book, and at page 28 in the English text.
I now ask you, witness; What does this letter show with regard to the participation of the WVHA, or you, in these experiments, and what reasons caused the Reichsfuehrer SS not to consult you on this question, but Gluecks and Nebe?
A. Well, I now see that Gluecks was involved in this matter; I do not know for what reasons. As I see, the Reich Physician SS approached the Reichsfuehrer SS on this subject. However, I did not find out anything about that at the time. I don't know what Nebe had to do with this; probably only the procurement of prisoners. However, I personally had nothing to do with this matter.
Q. I believe that the connection can be explained very easily if you will take document book VII and look at Exhibit 188. It is document NO-919, as it is an order from Himmler, which I have already referred to this morning, where it is stated leterally at the end: "The Reich Physician SS and Police will submit the application to me along with the critical opinion of the Chief Surgeon concerning the technical aspects and the opinion of SS-Gruppenfuehrer Nebe and SS-Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks."
Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I now come to Document NO-103. It is in Document Book VIII, page 32 in the German, page 30 in the English text. It was Exhibit No. 265. The Document also refers to the question of rendering sea water drinkable. I now ask you, witness... Did the Reichsfuehrer-SS previously discuss this matter with you, and do you know of the contents of this letter?
A. I can not recall that I had heard anything about the matter at the time. The entire organization of the experiments always were channeled over Grawitz and Nebe, ever since the order of May, and I was not included in any way.
Q. I now come to Document No-371. It is an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, which was presented as Prosecution Exhibit 267. The place which I have marked is on page 36 of the German Document Book and on page 34 of the English version. Under paragraph 4 it is stated, literally, and I quote: "Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Domen had his permission to conduct experiments at Sachsenhausen, and for that purpose he had Oswald Pohl of the WVHA to allocate a number of prisoners to be used as experimental subjects. I know that these experiments were carried out and that some of the prisoners died as a result." Unquote.
Now I ask you witness... Is this claim correct? Did you know anything about these experiments which were connected with research for causes of epidemic jaundice?
A. The allegation of Rudolf Brandt that I had selected a number of prisoners is in contrast with the order of Himmler which was issued - in Exhibit 269. Here Himmler personally wrote the number of prisoners to be used. That is, this letter to the Reich Physician-SS Dr. Grawitz. I received an information copy of this letter, and I did not have to take any action in this matter, because Himmler himself took the action.
Q. Are you referring to Document NO-011?
A. Yes.
Q. It is stated there, under paragraph 1 - "I approve that eight prisoners who were condemned to death at Auschwitz should be used for these experiments." Within the presentation of evidence in the sulfanomide experiments the prosecution has submitted several other affidavits and excerpts from the records of Military Tribunal One, about the testimony of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. These Prosecution Exhibits 270, 271, and 273, are on page 39 of the English Document Book, and the subsequent pages... I now ask you witness... Did you have anything to do with the sulfonomide experiments which were carried out in the concentration camp Ravensbruck?... when did you gain knowledge for the first time of these experiments?
A. I had nothing to do with these experiments. I can't remember that I heard of them at the time. Now I only have I gained knowledge of them; through these documents.
Q. As Exhibit 275 the Prosecution submitted a letter of 16 February 1944, which you yourself addressed to Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, which refers to the publication of Dr. Rascher, "the Polygal", in the Munich Medical Weekly Gazette. It is Document NO-615, Document Book 8, of page 65 of the German text, and on page 7C of the English text. I now ask you, witness,.. Did you write this letter to Rascher on your own initiative, or by order of Himmler?
A. I personally did not read any medical journals and weeklies, and therefore some agency must have given me the order to write this letter. I do not know if it was Himmler or Schenk, but I think it was Himmler.
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.