How does this witness know what was in Himmler's mind when he wrote a paper, which we haven't even seen?
DR. SEIDL: I did not ask the witness what Himmler was thinking about, but I did ask him whether perhaps Himmler had made any remarks toward him - toward the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't ask him that. If you had asked him that, that would be all right. If you had said, "Did Himmler tell you what his plan was in issuing this order?", there would have been no objection.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, that is the way I meant the question and I have the impression that this is the way the witness understood it. Of course, he can only know what somebody told him and in my opinion the witness has correctly understood the sense of my question, that perhaps Himmler had made some sort of a remark or perhaps that he himself had read the order by Himmler, which we seem to be lacking so much at this time.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Now, please answer this question, witness.
A. I cannot recall the order which we are discussing here, but I can remember with certainty that the Reichsfuehrer SS described to me the central direction of the allocation of labor as the reason for carrying out the incorporation or annexation.
Q. You then further testified that the supreme central agency for the handling of all administrative matters in connection with the concentration camps was the Inspectorate and that the Inspectorate was to maintain that position. That is what you meant with regard to the food, clothing, the billeting, and so on, isn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think that might be just a little leading? You've told him a long story with a number of items in it, and then you say to him, "Nicht wahr?"
DR. SEIDL: I do not have that impression, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Well, shall I answer the question in spite of everything?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, go ahead.
A. I meant by this that the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps in its own competence had to take care of supplying the prisoners, and it was to be responsible for that purpose.
Q. You then further mentioned the Reich Ministry of Agriculture. Did the Reich Food Department have anything to do with the WVHA with regard to its organization or in any other respect?
A. No. These are two completely different agencies and offices. One of them is an agency of the Reich.
Q. In connection with food you mentioned the agency for supplying the concentration camp prisoners.
A. Yes, because I wanted to express the fact that as far as I know these state institutions were supplying the entire German population and also the German Wehrmacht, the prisoners of war, and all inmates, and that this was not the task of Oswald Pohl.
Q. Do you know what Reich ministry or what Reich authority had to supply the food rations for all penal institutions and the concentration camps?
A. I cannot say under oath what agency this was, but it was an agency outside the competence of Pohl. It was an authority of the Reich.
Q. You have been asked about the position which Kammler had within the WVHA. Did you ever hear anything about a special staff of Kammler?
A. I only know that Kammler during the last years of the war occupied himself with the "V" weapons or had something to do with them. This was a special assignment.
Q. Do you know to whom Kammler was directly subordinated in his capacity as chief of this special staff, or don't you know this for the reason that since 1943 you were in Italy?
A. I happened to meet Kammler early in February 1945 at Himmler's headquarters at Birkenwald near Prenzlau. At that time I asked him what he was doing and how he was getting on. In the course of the conversation he told me that he was working on the V-1 and V-2 weapons. I therefore gained the impression that he was not a member of the SS anymore but that he belonged to a staff of the Wehrmacht. I didn't know if this was the Luftwaffe, the Speer organization, or the OKW. I didn't ask him for that information at all because I was not interested in it.
Q. What agency alone was able to have people sent to concentration camps for security reasons?
THE PRESIDENT: We know the answer to that.
DR. SEIDL: Well, Your Honor, there's another question coming up which I did not want to ask without this preliminary question.
Q. Would it not have been appropriate to incorporate the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps into the RSHA?
A. Certainly. If the executive or the police aspects had been placed into the foreground, then of course it would have belonged in the RSHA. However, since the allocation of labor was placed into the foreground, as far as the direction was concerned, it was incorporated into the WVHA.
Q. You further testified - and this is to be my final question that Eicke in his field, with regard to the administration of the camps, did not want any interference by anybody and that he was Glueck's heir. What did you mean by that and what subsequent effects did this have?
A. I can only recall that on one occasion for this reason a difference existed between Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and Gruppenfuehrer Eicke. Both of them were very pronounced personalities with strong wills, and Pohl wanted administrative order and wanted to be able to extend a reasonable amount of influence. However, Eicke refused to comply with this. The Reichsfuehrer ordered both of the men to come and see him. This is one of the few exceptional cases which I can recall at the moment.
He ordered that both men were to discuss the matter with each other in my ante-room until they had reached an agreement. Only then was I permitted to take them to Himmler. Since both of them were very strong-headed, the discussion lasted for three hours. I was not allowed to give them any water or refreshments. After three hours they were allowed to see the Reichsfuehrer.
DR. SEIDL: Then I have no further questions.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, I should like your permission to examine the witness once more tomorrow. I think there are several questions to be discussed here.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is to be further examination, it will be done tomorrow. I thought possibly the witness was finished. Dr. Seidl, do you want Rudolf Brandt immediately after this witness?
DR. SEIDL: If after the conclusion of the interrogation of the witness Wolff the witness Rudolf Brandt can be called here, solely for cross examination, I should be very grateful to the Tribunal if this could be done. I do not believe that the interrogation of the witness Rudolf Brandt will take up very much time.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. he will be the next witness then. We shall now recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 5 June 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 June 1947, 0945-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
KARL WOLFF - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal , may I mark the document which I examined the Witness Wolff on yesterday for identification? This is the letter from Ganzenmueller to Wolff and Wolff's reply, which is Document NO-2207. I should like to mark that as Prosecution's Exhibit 549 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: The two documents together will be 549?
MR. BOBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
DR. SEIDL: (For Defendant Oswald Pohl) Mr. President, in connection with the document which the Prosecution have just mentioned, and which was submitted to the witness yesterday, I would like to put one question to the witness.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, have you still your copy of the document?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you please look at the letter which you yourself wrote in reply to State Secretary Ganzenmueller's letter and which is dated 13 August , 1942. What are the dictation initials in the top lefthand corner?
A. These initials are BA/MZ.
Q. And what does that stand for, what does that show concerning the letter?
A. That shows that I did not dictate the letter myself, and I would be grateful if I could briefly explain how this letter came about, and about another important matter. I told the Tribunal yesterday that I received Ganzenmueller's letter at the Fuehrer's Headquarters in Winitza in the Ukraine, The field headquarters of the Reichsfuehrer-SS was at a distance of some 125 kilometers to the north of there near Schitomir, north of Bertitschew. As the Fuehrer's Headquarters were short of space it was not possible for me to have a stenotypist or a secretary at my disposal because such a person could not be accommodated. For that reason I had to, at the time, deal with the correspondence that reached me in a manner that on any reply I have to give I would put down the essential words on the original letter and send it along with the next mail to Himmler's field headquarters, to Schitomir, and there a letter would be drafted and would be sent back to me for my signature. From the handwritten notes by me on the letter of 28th July, it becomes clear that the orders for a reply were given by me on 2 August. Now, until the 13 letter reached me for my signature and left my office again the date became 13 August. Therefore, It took me eleven days. Nos, it is important for me to tell the Court that this letter was not dictated by me, and if I had been in a position to dictate it myself I would first of all have remembered it better than is the case in this way. Secondly, I would have given it a more decent form and clearer contents than was done here by our secretary. But more important is the stamp on the original letter of State Secretary Ganzenmueller of 28 July. There is a stamp called "Secret". That classification is the lowest degree usual in German official correspondence when matters are dealt with of security or secrecy nature. The other forms, "Top Secret, Most Secret," or anything like that, which pointed out that only the commander in chief or his chief of staff were allowed to see this document, that it must only reach an officer and must be forwarded by an officer, all this is lacking here, which proves that State Secretary Ganzenmueller did not regard this business as a strictly secret matter.
Still more important is that my reply to Ganzenmueller's letter was completely open without any classification of the slightest secrecy. It was forwarded perfectly normally through the open public mails. I would, therefore, ask you to conclude from this that I acted in good faith, that this was a purely technical transportation movement at that time, in which I saw nothing unusual at that time, because at the time large transfers of armament enterprises from the Reich to the General Government, and also within Poland itself, were going on, in order to have these armament enterprises evacuated from the intensifying British air raids.
As a third factor here, I would like to remark that as far as I can remember dimly, the Prosecution yesterday, when they read this letter aloud, did not give part of one sentence. That is how I remember it rather dimly, unconsciously as it were, and therefore it did not reach the transcript which was taken down yesterday, I am far from saying this definitely, but I would be grateful if the Court would go into this matter, whether my memory serves me right, or if the Court could see to it that this passage, which is so important for me and my veracity, which is in the middle of my letter of the 13 August, whether that statement is completely contained in the record or not. The sentence reads, and I quote: "and that this enables us to speed up this movement of the population." That sentence shows and attempts to express my attitude at the time and the whole context of the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: General, the whole letter is in the record.
THE WITNESS: Is yesterday's transcript in the hands of the President already?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. Efficiency, yes.
THE WITNESS: I admire you all the more.
Q. (By Dr. Seidl) Witness, I can recall myself that this passage reached the transcript. I would like to ask you now, the secretary, "B" who drafted the letter, and who used the expression "movement of population" did that person have any indication or any cause to use that expression from your own notes?
A. He chose that expression himself, and the letter does not give it at all.
Q. On my copy of Ganzenmueller's letter to you the file notes made by you are not contained. All it says here in brackets is "handwritten notes illegivle", and nothing is said of the movement of population , is that correct?
A. It is not there in my own handwriting. But may I say another thing? Judge Phillips, when I gave incomplete statements, which was all I could do under the circumstances, had cause to doubt my veracity. I should be most obliged to Judge Phillips if after today's decisive addition, as I see it, which I shall give today, if he could tell me whether he still maintains these doubts today. Might I remark that if these doubts are being maintained it would practically mean that this would have the same unfortunate consequences which lest year were caused by my transfer to a lunatic asylum, a fact which I described to the Tribunal during the Milch trial on 18 February.
A. Once again, therefore, as far as the possibilities are concerned for me to enlighten and tell the truth, these possibilities could be taken away from me, which would mean in effect that I would be silenced again at a moment in the trials which will become of the utmost importance later.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I accept your explanation of it.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions for the witness.
BY DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for the defendant G. Loerner):
Q. General, I have a few small questions, and I would like to ask you at the beginning that you should confirm to me that I have not had the honor yet to put these questions before you previously. Perhaps, I hope, this will not be unpleasant to you and that our conversation will be in the nature of a first night.
General, I would like to ask you about something which is not contained in the files here, but which may well be of decisive importance to this court. If I ask you about specific importance of the man in relation of others, can you imagine what I mean? What I am aiming at is I would like to ask you whether you have any personal impressions of the importance of Pohl in relation to his collaborators. Was he high above them, or was he only a formal chief in his office?
A. That question is very easy for me to answer in a simple manner, to the best of my conviction. Oswald Pohl was an outstanding leader personality in the office which he had built up throughout the years; namely, the WVHA. His willingness to bear responsibility, his willingness to take over all important positions, whenever he decided on some issue which the office chiefs had reported to him. Nobody counted in the Main Office except himself.
Q. Did you ever see him lose his temper?
A. Very rarely, but I did - yes. He could really let go at times.
Q. And then nobody could oppose him?
A. No, unless the opposing party wanted to risk great disadvantages.
Q. Now, yesterday or the day before yesterday you told us that Pohl could not do all the work in his office alone; he had to have assistants and colleagues.
Now, could one say that there was a general deputy, a substitute Pohl, in that office? Or was that a function which he reserved for himself?
A. I do not have any knowledge which I could impart here on my oath, from my own knowledge. My impression, my personal conviction, on the basis of my many contacts throughout the years, is that Pohl, as far as organization matters were concerned, had to have a deputy who, however, only took effective steps when Pohl was absent - on leave, perhaps. But in those times how he managed all questions of deputizing, whether he allowed the office chiefs in the offices to work independently, or whether, during his absence, his deputy would act as a substitute for Pohl and decide things - I am unable to say for certain.
Q. But, General, surely you can--- General, you telephoned this office, or did you never telephone them?
A. This, it seems to me, is a leading question.
Q. General, please imagine...you had many contacts with that office, didn't you?
A. No. Pohl's office was one of twelve main offices. It so happened that problems of Allach and Wewelsburg I was concerned with because they were dealt with by the personal staff. In those two cases I had an exceptionally intimate contact with the main office, but I regret to disappoint you. It would be in contradiction to my oath, and against my conviction, if I were to give you the confirmation which you desire me to give.
Q. But, General, I don't want you to confirm anything, but please imagine how you want to talk to Pohl: You ring up the office - or your secretary rings up the office; I don't know how you worked these things in detail. The agency calls up the office and you receive the reply: Pohl is away. Did you then say, "Could you put me through to so-and-so?" To whom would you ask to talk?
A. First of all I would ask how long he was away for. If this matter allowed postponement I certainly waited until Pohl the Great came back.
If he was on leave or absent for some length of time, and the matter could not be deferred, I would contact his secretary or his adjutant and ask him who deputized for him. And then I would apply to the person concerned. But please bear in mind that my tasks as chief of the personal staff were not concerned with small organizational details of another eleven main offices which were not under my authority.
Q. But, General, we are not asking you to pass an examination here. Nobody minds if you don't know. But we are very grateful to you for your descriptions, and you described it extremely well. You simply waited until Pohl the Great came back.
A. No, I think I put it somewhat differently. Or in urgent matters I would turn to the man who I was told was the competent person to deal with this matter under review. And that is all I could tell you here. I believe I said yesterday,when I endeavored to remember everything, down to the last detail, and inform the Court, I bothered the Court and the poor interpreters for a whole hour because I went into such detail. Perhaps I should have talked more simply; I should have halted at the limits of my memory. That is a mistake which I don't want to repeat.
Q. No, General, on the contrary you said much more than I had dared hope for.
A. All roads lead to Rome.
BY DR. FICHTE (Counsel for the defendant Klein):
Q. Witness, as far as the Wewelsburg matter is concerned, I have a few brief questions, and I am particularly interested in your previous testimony about financial matters in this connection. You said that Himmler ordered the financing of the Wewelsburg construction project. Do you know anything about a credit from the Dresdner Bank?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who opened the negotiations and made the fundamental arrangements and agreements?
A. I believe I do. As I told the interrogation officer in Room 203, Mr. Barr, that in peacetime, after Funk had taken over his office, I called on him on behalf of the Reichsfuehrer SS and I asked him somehow or other to open up a credit for us of about five million marks.
As I recall it now, and as I saw it in a letter from Pohl - which I saw without being influenced in any way; which, indeed, I saw with the permission of Mr. Barr - a credit was granted by the Dresdner Bank which was put at the disposal of the Society for the Care and Promotion of German Cultural Monuments, and was used by that society - not by me personally. That credit served the exclusive purpose, according to Pohl's statement, to finance the building of the Wewelsburg, and in the end it reached eleven million marks.
Q. I am not as interested in the details of the credit as I am in the fact whether you know anything about who negotiated with the Dresdner Bank.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I believe I did not negotiate myself with the Dresdner Bank. All I did was to regard it as important to say that the origin of this credit, as far as I know was based on my visit to Reich Minister of Economics Funk in times of peace for a purely different purpose, namely, the building of the Wewelsburg.
Q Do you know whether Pohl carried out any negotiations there?
A No, I do not know anything about that. All you have to do is to ask him, or members of his Main Office, because the credit was accorded by his Main Office.
DR. FICHTE: That's enough. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination by defense counsel?
Any further questions, Mr. Robbins?
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q General, I have only one question and I should like for you to give a good deal of thought to the question before you answer it. Was there any way in which an Office Chief of the WVHA could obtain his own release or retirement from the WVHA -- not from the SS but from the WVHA -- such as transfer to the front, and so forth?
A If an office chief for any reason at all wanted to go to the front he had the possibility to contact his Main Office Chief Pohl and ask him for permission to fight at the front.
Q And do you know whether such permission was ordinarily granted?
AAs in times of war the exchange of almost irreplaceable skilled workers is a difficult problem, I believe that a request of that sort would not have had any chance of being approved, especially as in times of war all soldiers, including officers on the staff or generals had to remain on their post to do their duty for their Father Court No. II, Case No. 4.land wherever they could make their maximum contribution and professional skill.
These office chiefs, for instance, had not learned suddenly to lead regiments or brigades. They were administrative officials, which is what they had been trained for.
Q Was there any other way in which an office chief could obtain his release, except through the permission of Pohl?
A Well, possibly through official channels, he might have by a letter in writing to the Reichsfuehrer SS, but the Reichsfuehrer SS, as a matter of experience, could not have done anything about it without hearing the Office Chief Pohl first, and it was a matter of experience here that Himmler would have covered his Main Office Chief.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you very much.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: General, I would like to put one question, which, perhaps is only of academic interest, but which certainly has aroused my curiosity, to say the least. Mr. Robbins indicated that at the first trial you had offered to place yourself in the defendants' box to represent Himmler.
WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Did you mean by that gesture that you would be willing to answer for the crimes which could be laid at his door, if any?
WITNESS: Yes. I was faced with the situation that the highest war lord and commander of the SS and the Wehrmacht, that is Hitler and the Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler had disappeared in a mysterious manner. After the surrender we, who were not guilty personally and who were not conspirators were faced by the startling fact that from one day to the next we had changed from members in an elite organization to members of a criminal organization. In order to have the possibility to clear up questions of guilt and innocence and to state the pure truth about that, I regarded it as my duty to jump into that gap, although I was not the deputy of the Reichs Leader SS, in order by sacrificing my own person to give a comprehensive picture Court No. II, Case No. 4.to the IMT, to establish legal evidence, and to help in finding out guilt and innocence in a manner which would be acceptable to history, the person of General Wolff is without any interest in this case; the principle, however, is important, which also appears in combat -if the man before you is killed, you jump into the gap.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: General, I don't want this to be too long a discussion. Isn't the evidence rather convincing to you now, and certainly it must have been equally convincing at the time you made this very unusual offer, that Himmler was apparently guilty of some very serious crimes and must it not now appear to you almost convincingly that he was a rather despicable character and that he was capable, as the speech at Posen indicated, of planning mass butchery, which you now have condemned here from the witness stand and how could you, knowing all that, be willing, consistent with character and honesty, how could you be willing to stand in his shoes and defend these murderous offenses against humanity and against all law and justice?
WITNESS: I did not want to defend it. What I wanted was -I did not want to step into Himmler's shoes. I wanted to speak for the large number of people, who, as I foresaw it at the time, would be deeply handicapped in both their conception of honor and economic existence. I am speaking here of innocent and ignorant little SS men. I was prepared to shoulder the responsibility and guilt which would be proved against Himmler, but in order to say something to the other part of what you said: To this day, I am not convinced as far as the evidence which has been submitted to me is concerned. I was isolated from all these interrogations and the evidence last year. My knowledge was confined to newspaper cuttings and radio reports, to statements made by interrogating officers, who attacked me -
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Well, General, in a word, what you were willing to do was to give your explanation of the SS organization as you knew it, to defend it where you thought it needed defending, and to admit its culpability where you found culpability existed and that's Court No. II, Case No. 4.what you intended to do?
WITNESS: Yes, indeed, so that the SS men would recognize the guilty person in a high SS leader of whose honesty they had not had any previous cause to raise any doubt. It would have been much more convincing than if a victor would pass sentence in his own way. That is, if two do something, it is not the same thing, naturally.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Then you didn't really intend to become the alter-ego of Himmler. You merely wanted to explain the SS organization as you had lived it?
WITNESS: Yes, and I was prepared, if necessary, to give my life for it, just as during the entire war.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Very well. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no further examination, the Marshal will escort him from the court room.
WITNESS: May I have an original photostatic copy of this letter, please -- of this letter?
MR. ROBBINS: This is the only one in my possession, General. I'll see if I can have one made and delivered to you.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Do you now wish the witness, Rudolf Brandt?
DR. SEIDL (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT POHL): Yes, Mr.Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be necessary for me to go to Tribunal No. 1 and request his transfer and have it appear on the record of that court to say why he is absent, so if we will just suspend for a few moments, while I can do that, I'll go there immediately.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready for the witness?
DR. SEIFL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will bring the witness Rudolf Brandt into the courtroom.
(RUDOLF BRANDT, A WITNESS, TOOK THE STAND AND was examined and testified as follows:)
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will raise his right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
( The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I think it is rather important that it should be shown in the record that the witness Rudolf Brandt is not a defense , but that he is being examined at the moment because he is to testify in cross examination about the affidavits which the Prosecution has used against these defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you are calling this witness for cross examination?
DR. DEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Because of the fact that the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit from him?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so indicate.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, will you tell the Tribunal your full name?
A. Rudolf Brandt.
Q. Where and when were you born?
A. I was born 2 June 1909 in Frankfurt on the Oder.
Q. What was your last position which you held within the organization of the S S and the ministry of the Interior of the Reich?
A. I was the personal expert and referent of the former SS and Reichsfuehrer Himmler, and in the Ministry of the Interior I was in charge of the Minister's office.
Q. At the present time you are one of the 23 defendants before Military Tribunal No. I in Nurnberg; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have given to the Prosecution and signed a series of affidavits which were introduced before Tribunal No. I and also before this Tribunal here in evidence. In connection with these affidavits, I would like to ask you some questions. Is it correct that during your own examination before Military Tribunal No. I you spoke about the manner in which these affidavits were brought about?
A. Yes.
Q. I shall read to you now what you wrote 24 March 1947 when you answered one of the questions put to you by your own defense counsel. I shall read from Page 4,956 of the German record. Your defense counsel asked you at the time with reference to these affidavits:
" Did you at any time have evidence for such statements?
A. I never did have evidence or proof to that effect. In the examination certain documents were shown to me, such documents as are contained in the document books here. Apart from that, the interrogator made certain statements to that effect and what could be seen from those single statements did not originate from me but rather constitutes the explanations which were put to me in that form. This practically was nothing but a deduction which I made, based on the documents which were introduced and based also on the statements made by the interrogator, where I simply agreed with the interrogator's opinion. However, it does not show any knowledge which I had about those facts."
Q. Witness, I ask you now whether you still stick to those statements which you made on 24 March 1947?
A. Yes.
Q. In a different passage your own defense counsel again interrogated you about these affidavits and particularly as to their origin and I shall quote from Page 4972 of the German record. Your a defense counsel asked you the following question:
" You will admit that it would have been correct if you had drawn the attention of the gentlemen of the Prosecution who were examining you to the fact that such a formulation can lead to mistakes?
A. "At the time of the examination I was in such a bad physical condition that I could not possibly see any critical difference between what I could have told on the basis of my deductions now. I simply tried at all times by adding certain words to one or another passage, as for instance, "apparently", to show that I did not have exact and factual knowledge about it."
Q. I ask you again, witness, Do you stick to that statement also which you made under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. And another defense counsel asked you the following question, and I shall quote from Page 4,988:
"Q. In other words, you can not testify from your own knowledge nor from immediate personal reports, and you can not give us any statements about experiments in the concentration camps?
A. No, I can not.
Q. Yesterday you told us that the man who submitted the affidavits to you for signature had discussed the documents with you and had given you certain explanations about them Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, he submitted to you the deductions which he drew from those documents?
A. Yes, and I agreed to his deductions.
Q. And he then asked you if that was not your opinion also?