Is that the way it was?
A. I cannot tell you now, if he asked me that question directly.
Q. I mean according to their sense.
A. According to the sense, that is correct.
Q. And who was it who formulated the affidavits as they appear before us now? Did you dictate then, or were they formulated for you and submitted to you?
A. I did not dictate these statements. They were submitted to me. However, I did have the opportunity to make certain alterations.
Q. Can I understand your statements of yesterday and today to the effect that if in the affidavits which you signed there are factual statements, these statements are not based on your statements but only on the documents which were put before you?
A. Yes, on both documents and deductions which I made.
Q. I ask you now, witness, whether you still maintain that affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. The Prosecution in this trial introduced one of your affidavits, NO. 444, and gave it Exhibit No. 185. This is contained in Document Book No. 7, and that is the third document in Document Book No. 7.
Your Honor, I would appreciate it if you would let me wait with the examination of the witness until the interpreters can get the document books. I have to quote documents from them. We need the Document Books 7, 8 and 9.
The question which I asked refers to Document NO-444 which is on Page 7 of the English Document Book No. VII. Under Paragraph 3 of this affidavit it says -
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit number, please?
DR. SEIDL: It is Exhibit No. 185.
Q (By Dr. Seidl) In Paragraph 3 it says the following, and I shall quote: "Prisoners to be experimented on were selected by Oswald Pohl, Chief of the Economic and Administration Main Office, which is WVHA. Unless he did it himself, Himmler used to order me to inform Pohl that a certain number of prisoners should be kept ready for a particular experiment. The people to be experimented on were generally earmarked by Himmler - for instance, Jews, Gypsies, Poles or criminals condemned to death. The individuals to be used were selected at the camp out of the groups specified beforehand by Himmler."
Witness, I ask you now, isn't there a certain contradiction in this document? Can you tell us from your own knowledge, and from your knowledge at the time that Pohl had been ordered to carry out the selection of those particular inmates or prisoners who were to be used in the experiments, or do you wish to make certain changes, or do you still wish to maintain this affidavit here and your statements contained therein?
A The latter is correct, because I did not know how the selection was carried out in detail. All I know is that I sent Himmler's orders either to Pohl or to Gluecks.
Q Today, however, you do not know to whom they were sent exactly?
A No.
Q Another affidavit was introduced as Exhibit 205. This is Document NO-242. It is also in the English Document Book No. VII as the first affidavit in connection with the freezing experiments. It is Document NO-242 on Page 38 of the English Document Book. Under Paragraph 12 it says the following, and I shall quote:
"Himmler wrote to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Oswald Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, regarding his visit to Dachau in November 1942 at which time he had observed the freezing experiments." I would like to interpolate here that "he" means Himmler apparently. "He informed Pohl that he had ordered that suitable women be set aside for the purpose of rewarming the experimental subjects." Was this affidavit, or did this affidavit originate in the same manner as the one you told us about, the others, and as you stated before Military Tribunal No. I?
A Yes.
Q Then in the same affidavit I shall proceed to Paragraph 17 on Page 42 of the English Document Book, and I shall quote: "I wrote Rascher acknowledging receipt of the aforementioned report and stated that further experiments with dry cold should be made at Auschwitz or Lublin. A copy of this letter was sent to Pohl who was to order the carrying out of the experiments at Lublin or Auschwitz." Does the same apply to this affidavit, what you said before?
A Yes.
Q Do you know if dry cold experiments were carried out in Lublin or Auschwitz at all?
A I do not know that. I never heard anything else about it after this letter was mailed.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: After the letter was sent to whom? You say "after the letter was sent off". Who was the letter sent to?
THE WETNESS: I understood the defense counsel to say that, I understood him to speak about my affidavit and of the letter which I sent to Rascher, of which a copy was to be sent to Pohl, and after these letters had been sent off I never heard anything about it.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did you send the copy of the letter to Pohl?
THE WITNESS: I could not tell you that anymore today for certain. It is possible that the copy was sent according to orders of Himmler.
Q (By Dr. Seidl) I shall then proceed to Document NO-371, which is in Document Book No. VIII of the Prosecution, and was introduced as Exhibit 267. It is the first document in connection with the experiments to determine the cause of epidemic jaundice, Hepatitis Epidemica. In Paragraph A of this affidavit signed by you it says: "Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Dohmen had his permission to conduct the experiments at Sachsenhausen and for that purpose he had Oswald Pohl of the WVHA allocate a number of prisoners to be used as experimental subjects." Does the same thing you said before apply to this affidavit, or rather what you said about all affidavits, in other words, that the affidavit was submitted to you ready for signature, and can you tell us from your own knowledge what part Pohl played in those experiments?
A The same applies to this statement or affidavit as applies to all the other ones. I did not have any knowledge of my own about the part that Pohl played in those experiments.
Q In Document Book No. IX of the Prosecution, a document is contained, NO-370, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 220, and it is one of your affidavits, and it is on Page 23 of the English Document Book. It is the first document which deals with typhus experiments at the Natzweiler concentration camp. In Paragraph 3 it says the following:
"In the fall of 1943, Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt and consultant in hygiene for the Luftwaffe and Professor at the University of Strasbourg, requested through Wolfram Sievers of the 'Ahnenerbe' that 100 concentration-camp prisoners be made available to him for experimentation on the effectiveness of typhus vaccines. Obergruppenfuehrer Oswald Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, had requested a number of prisoners sent to the Natzweiler Concentration Camp, and the experiments were conducted by Dr. Haagen there."
Was this affidavit also submitted to you, furnished to you for signature, and can you tell us something from your own knowledge, if PohL actually ordered that particular measure which has been alleged here?
A I did not have any personal knowledge about the things contained in this affidavit with the exception of what has been shown by the documents.
Q Then I shall proceed to Document NO-372 which is also in Document Book No. IX of the Prosecution on Page 38 and is Exhibit No. 231. This is the first document which deals with the poison experiments. That is on Page 40 of the German Document Book No. IX. It says here under Paragraph 4 of this affidavit: "Prior to 1942, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. August Hirt, Professor at the University of Strasbourg and associate of the 'Ahnenerbe', experimented with Lost wounds by order of the Wehrmacht. Reports by Hirt came to my attention in Himmler's office. In the latter part of 1942, Hirt began experimentation on inmates at the Natzweiler Concentration camp in cooperation with Oberarzt Dr. Karl Wimmer, who was on duty with the Luftwaffe. These inmates, as in other cases of experimentation, were simply selected by Pohl's office, the WVHA, to be used for this purpose." Was this affidavit also furnished to you ready for signature, and can you tell us from your own knowledge at that time about the participation of the Defendant Oswald PohL in those experiments?
I can say nothing at all to that effect. This affidavit was also furnished to me ready for signature.
Q. Then in paragraph 5 of the same affidavit it says further:
"In March of 1944 the Fuehrer ordered SS Brigadefuehrer Dr. Karl Brandt, General Commissioner for Health & Sanitation to further medical research in connection with gas warfare."
"Brandt sent a copy of this order to Himmler and asked him to distribute it to the appropriate persons in the SS, and have them contact Brandt. Accordingly, since the matter concerned experiments, I distributed copies of the Fuehrer Order to SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Reischsarzt SS and Police, to SS Standartenfuehrer Wolfram Sievers of the "Ahnenerbe", SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of the WVHA also received a copy of the Fuehrer Order."
Can you tell us from your own knowledge on the basis of your recollection if Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl also received a copy of this Fuehrer Order, which he denies?
A. At the time when I stated all the things contained in this affidavit I no longer recalled the original of the latter of Dr. Brandt's to Himmler. In the course of the medical trial I saw this letter again-in a photostatic copy -- and I found out that on the original Himmler had noted in handwriting that copies of Brandt's letter were to be sent to Sievers, Juettner -- and I don't know who was the third person mentioned. Sievers, Juettner and -
Q. Grawitz?
A. Grawitz. It did not say Pohl was to receive a copy and, therefore, Pohl did not get one.
Q. In other words, whatever is stated in this affidavit is not correct?
A. No; that was an assumption on my part which unfortunately slipped into the affidavit.
Q. I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel wish to interrogate this witness? Mr. Robbins, have you any questions? Or Mr. Hart.?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the Defense Counsel for the defendant Brandt -- that is, Dr. Kaufmann -- is not here in Nurnberg at the present time.
He asked me to represent him, and if I have the agreement of this Tribunal then I shall represent the defense counsel of Dr. Rudolf Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to question him?
DR. HOFFMANN: I do not know that; just in case. As he is not a witness of the Defense, but a defendant in the Medical Trial, his Defense counsel asked me to represent him here in this examination. This means to say that in case there should be certain questions to ask, then I shall represent the interests of the defense counsel of Rudolf Brandt here.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. We will understand that Dr. Hoffmann is ready to represent the witness if he needs to.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
CROSS - EXAMINATION BY MR. HART:
Q. Witness, you are a lawyer, are you not?
A. No; I only finished my doctor's examination in the field of law which dealt with copyrights.
Q. Copyright law?
A. Yes, that is correct; on the copyright law.
Q. Witness, as I understand you, you state that you do not now recall the substance of the affidavits mentioned by Dr. Seidl. Is that correct?
A. I did not quite understand the question.
Q. As I understand your testimony, you state that as of today you do not recall the substance of the affidavits mentioned by Dr. Seidl. Is that correct?
A. I don't quite understand what you mean by "substance."
Q. You don't understand as of today the facts stated. Excuse me, you don't remember as of today the facts stated in your affidavits mentioned by Dr. Seidl?
A. Whatever I said in those affidavits is not based on knowledge or recollection at the time when the affidavit was written, but it in based on documents which were shown to me by the interrogator, and his statements in regard to them.
Q. In other words, you don't deny that there were documents shown to you at the time you signed the affidavits which substantiated the facts set forth in the affidavits?
A. Yes. Documents were shown to me, and in the affidavits these particular facts which could be seen from the documents are expressed.
Q. Yes; and you don't deny , do you, that the documents showed that as of the time of the events mentioned in the documents you did have knowledge of the facts concerned in those documents?
A. In my own case, in the Medical Trial, I have stated that due to the load of work I had at the time -
Q. Excuse me, I want you to answer the question. You don't deny that as of the time of the events mentioned in the documents; that is to say, of the events which the documents concerned, as of that prior time, you did have knowledge of those events. You had to! Because you signed many of these documents. They show that you had knowledge as of that time. You don't deny that, do you?
A. Yes, I do deny that in respect to many matters which I simply signed without having noted the contents.
Q. Do you mean to say then that as of the time you signed these documents -- I am referring now to documents which you signed in your capacity as personal referent and assistant to Heinrich Himmler, that as of the time you signed those documents you didn't know what you were signing. Is that correct?
A. The procedure was such -
Q. Excuse me; will you answer the question? That is correct, isn't it?
A. I cannot answer the question simply by saying yes or no. I have to give you a statement which I want to make right now; namely, the fact that Himmler, even if the letters bore my signature, either dictated then to me or to a secretary,and if the letters to me then I knew of course the contents of that particular latter at that particular moment.
However, I could not possibly remember the contents of the latter for a longer period because my activity was not limited, only to this particular letter, to finish. But thousands of letters went through my hands in a month. That is the reason why I could not possibly deal with the contents of those various individual letters.
Q And if one of those letters had to do with the extermination, for example, of thousands and thousands of tubercular Poles, that fact that it dealt with such a subject wouldn't cause you to remember it, would it?
A. I assume that you are speaking about the incident of the tubercular Poles. When the letter of Greiser to Himmler was shown to me during my interrogation I did not have any recollection whatsoever about this incident.
Q. Then it is true, is it not, that you could sign letters dealing with the slaughter of thousands of people, and the fact that it did deal with the slaughter of thousands of people would not cause you to recollect it? Recollect the incident of signing such a letter a few years ago? Is that correct?
DR. SEIDL(Counsel for the defendant Oswald Pohl): Your Honors, I stated at the beginning of this examination that this was a witness of the Prosecution, that apparently the Prosecution has started out from the point that the statements of this witness in his affidavits are correct. It was my goal to show how these affidavits originated and that they are not correct in some essential points.
I am not able to see at the present moment what the Prosecution is driving at with his questions. To be sure, I am not the Defense counsel of this man, Dr. Rudolf Brandt, but if the Prosecution's goal is to be attack his credibility, then the Prosecution should in my opinion consider withdrawing the affidavits altogether, I don't see what the entire idea is.
THE PRESIDENT Well, the entire idea seems to the Tribunal to be this: The witness has made certain affidavits stating certain facts. You have then brought the witness into the Court to testify that he did not know those facts. In other words, you have made him hostile to the Prosecution. Now, the Prosecution is attempting to show that he did know the facts stated in his affidavits. They are trying to restore his credibility.
DR. SEIDL: However, I have to draw your attention to the fact that the point which the Prosecution is driving at here is not mentioned in the affidavit at all.
THE PRESIDENT: What point do you mean?
DR. SEIDL: I am talking about this particular question that the Prosecution just asked the defendant, the witness Dr. Rudolf Brandt, and which apparently deals with the treatment of tubercular Poles. The witness knows exactly what it all deals about, but these points are not contained in the affidavit. In other words, there is no connection whatsoever between the affidavits which the Prosecution introduced, and the questions which are being asked now in order to show that the witness's credibility is untouched.
THE PRESIDENT: If your're thinking, Mr. Hart, to reestablish the integrety of the affidavits, I think your examination would probably be confined to those affidavits, don't you think so?
MR. HART: I first thought to establish, Your Honor, that the witness does not deny that as of the time of the events mentioned in the affidavits the witness did have knowledge of those events. In other words, when the witness, as the assistant for Himmler, sent a letter referring to the slaughter of a great many people - thousands of tubercular Poles--that he did at that time know of the slaughter of those people.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I follow you all right, except that the affidavits introduced in this case do not refer to that, do they?
MR. HART: No, sir, not--Yes, sir, the slaughter of the tubercular Poles is an issue in this case. It is in evidence before the Tribunal; the actual mention of the slaughter of the tubercular Poles by this witness in he affidavits--no, there is no such mention in the affidavits here concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is just the point.
MR. HART: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Ought not your inquiry to be directed to the particular affidavits which you are asking the court to accept as true?
MR. HART: Very well, sir, I will so limit my inquiry.
DR. SEINE: (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT POHL): Your Honor, I am hearing for the first time from the prosecution that the treatment of the tubercular Poles is supposed to be one of the points indicted in this trial. So far I have not been in a position to see even the least bit of that in the document books.
THE PRESIDENT: it isn't referred to in this witness' affidavit, so, therefore, not in controversy as far as he is concerned, and Mr. Hart concedes that point.
Q. Witness, you say that you signed these affidavits because of the state of your health.
What do you mean by that? What state of health would cause you to sign these affidavits?
A. What I mean by that is the effects of the physical deterioration in the internee camp in Fallingbostel. I only weighed 44 kilograms, roughly 90 pounds, and during the interrogations I was being fed double rations in order to regain my old weight and physically I was restored. However, the psychological effects had not been overcome as yet, by far. And when the documents were shown to me, I did not have the possibility to judge them critically. In other words, I could not tell the difference between the things that I knew from my own recollection at the time when they actually happened and what could be considered deductions based on the documents introduced and also based on the explanations which were given to me by the interrogation so that apart from those things that are correct, there are also erroneous statements in those affidavits.
Q. Was it entirely the state of your health that caused you to change your mind, or did you have the assistance of any of the defense counsel?
A. I did not quite understand the question.
Q. Was it entirely the state of your health, that is to say, was the improved condition of your health the reason for your change of mind or, on the other hand, did you have the assistance of any defense counsel in suggesting such a change in the statements of your affidavits?
A. As a result of the interrogations and the introduction of the documents, I went through another physical decay here which reached a climax in February or March.
Q. My question to you is, did the mere improvement of your health since the time you signed these affidavits up to now, cause you to change your mind, or, on the other hand, did you have the assistance of any defense counsel in Tribunal No. 1 or before this Tribunal.-
THE PRESIDENT: Tell him what you mean by "changing his mind," Mr. Hart; that is the confusing part.
Q. Did the defense counsel in Tribunal No. 1, or here before Tribunal No. 2, suggest to you that you change your affidavits?
A. If one reads those affidavits in peace and in an improved state of health and then one considers all the documents which were introduced in the medical trial, then there must be some sort of a correction at one or another point, particularly if now was wrong.
Q. My question was whether or not the defense counsel in the medical trial, before Tribunal No. 1, or the defense counsel in this trial--made the suggestion to you that you should change the statements in these affidavits.
A. No defense counsel had to tell me such a thing. That results
Q. In other words, you state that defense counsel did not make the suggestion to you?
A. All I can say is that my defense counsel did in my trial did give me advice as things usually necessitate. However, I was not told in any way to change my opinion, particularly since my defense counsel does not know the actual conditions as they were.
Q. Referring to Prosecution's Exhibit No. 185, which is the first affidavit concerning which Dr. Seidl spoke to you, do you or do you not deny that as of the time of the facts mentioned in that affidavit you knew of your own knowledge those favts?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hart, your question is very difficult, even to an English speaking person. It calls for a pretty close scrutiny. May I suggest that you pick out some facts in the affidavit and ask him if he knew about those by way of illustration. That is typical of what you want to know, is it not?
MR. HART; Yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Select one or two facts from the affidavit and ask him whether he knew of those facts at the time he signed the affidavit.
Q. Did you or did you not know that the concentration camp prisoners who were to be selected for the medical experiments were to be selected by the Defendant Oswal Pohl?
A. I did not know that. All I had probably received was the order of Himmler and I had to write it to Pohl and, in other words, to forward his original order.
Q. Well, didn't the Himmler order say that Pohl was to select those prisoners for the purpose of the experiments?
A. I cannot tell that any more at the present moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you send Himmler's order to Pohl?
WITNESS: I assume that.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you assume it?
WITNESS: I assume that the order of Himmler was to that effect and, if it read the way I think it read, then I did send it on to Pohl. What I am talking about right now as an assumption on my part, is only that the whole thing can be found in the files and actually occurred.
Q. In other words, Witness, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that if I show you an order today of Himmler's stating that Pohl was to make the selection of such prisoners and if I show you that you transmitted that order to Pohl, you do not deny at the time you transmitted the order you knew that Pohl was to make the selection of such prisoners?
A. If I knew that at the time I cannot tell you today.
Q. Exactly. In other words, the only thing you are saying to us is this, that in such an instance as of today you no longer remember the fact; is that correct?
A I cannot recall details and facts because too many incidents went through my hands but only for my signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Do you have this order of Himmler's which purports to have been sent to Pohl?
MR. HART: No sir, I don't have it in front of me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it in the record? Has it been introduced in evidence?
MR. HART: I don't refer to any particular order, your Honor. I am trying to establish the fact that this witness is only testifying that he doesn't remember today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is rather important to know whether Pohl get this order. Pohl had denied getting it. Now, why not show this witness the order? It purports to have come from him. Then ask him, "Did you send this order to Pohl? Does the distribution memorandum show that Pohl got a copy?" That is what we are interested in. Is there such an order in the record?
MR. HART: I think your Honor first referred to the order. I was picking up a statement in the witness's affidavit, being Exhibit 185, to the effect that prisoners to be experimented on were selected by Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right. He says that he made that statement in the affidavit because Himmler's order had directed that that be done. Isn't true?
MR. HART: I'm not able to place my hand on the order at this moment, your Honor. I'll see if it is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Go ahead.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I should like to use this brief interval to suggest that these documents also be shown to the witness, that is, these documents that are mentioned here, particularly his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that's a fair suggestion? You are questioning him about his knowledge of the contents of a certain exhibit. Why not put the exhibit in his hands or a translation of it?
MR. HART: If your Honor please, I don't recall that I mentioned any exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: 185.
MR. HART: That is the affidavit, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that is what we are talking about. You are asking him what he knows about the affidavit, Exhibit 185.
MR. HART: He has already repudiated that same affidavit in answering the question of Dr. Seidl.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, shown it to him.
MR. HART: We don't have the German of that, your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL: (JUDGE MUSMANNO): MR. Hart, I think you go pretty far when you say the defendant repudiated his affidavit. It doesn't appear to the Tribunal, at least to this member of the Tribunal, that he repudiated it. He stated that in looking at the affidavit now or having it called to his attention that he recalls that the statements made therein were based upon documents which were shown to him at the time. That does not necessarily mean a repudition.
MR. HART: That is exactly the point I want to make clear, your Honor.
I therefore have no further questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Seidl has.
DR. SEIDL: I do have a few questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. Witness, has your own defense counsel at any time tried to move you to change anything in your affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Ho said no, he has answered that. He said no.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, in order to say it quite frankly, the prosecution reproaches me or possible also my colleagues that we actually induced the witness to repudiate certain things he has said to the prosecution; and I'm not in a position to let this reproach rest on me.
THE PRESIDENT: But the witness said no.
DR. SEIDL: Then I have another question to the witness.
Q. Did I in Military Tribunal Number I ever talk to you about the trial?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness says no.
DR. SEIDL: Upon this question he did not reply at all, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he did.
DR. SEIDL: However, he did not answer one of the prosecution's questions to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, ask him again. The answer will be "No".
Q. Did I at any time, Witness, talk with you about the trial before Military Tribunal I or about this trial here?
A. No.
Q. Did I at any time talk with you about any affidavit which you signed?
A. No.
Q. The prosecution during your preliminary interrogations showed various documents to you. Do you know if the prosecution ever put all those documents before you which were a part of that particular group of experiments; for example, part of the freezing experiments? Or do you know or can you assume that only selection was put before you? Do you have any reasons from which you can actually deduct that?
A. I cannot judge that very well, I believe that almost everything, was submitted to me, but I don't know.
Q. And the interrogator did make certain statements about those documents, did he not, which had as their aim to connect those documents with each other? And apparently, in a particular sense which would help the prosecution; is that correct?
A. Yes, I'd like to assume that.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):
Q. Witness, you were quite familiar with Himmler, were you not?
A. Familiar? What do you mean, "familiar"?
Q. Close to him and connected with him in the war, in his office, and so forth.
A. Well, I was at his disposal almost daily for official business.
Q. That's exactly what I meant.
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew Himmler's policies very well, did you not?
A. I cannot tell you that for certain because my field of work was limited on principle to the Allgemeine SS only; and Himmler had various fields of work.
Q. I didn't ask you anything about that. I asked you if you didn't know the general policies of Himmler in regard to his work and the work in the office in which you were connected.
A. As far as it concerned my field of work, surely.
Q. Was Himmler very much interested in human experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and the benefit of the army?
A. I cannot answer this question from my own knowledge and utterances made to me personally, and I can only tell you what I know from his letters. According to those letters he had a particular interest in those questions; and he always spoke personally with the doctors concerned with those problems
Q. He was interested in them, then. Now, why couldn't you answer that to start with? You know that.
A. He was interested in it, yes.
Q. He told you he was interested and had you write letters to doctors about these experiments?
A. What I did in this case was simply part of what he himself discussed with the doctors and what he himself wrote to those doctors. The letters which I signed were mostly dictated by him personally or the main points had been written down by him.
Q. Well, it took a long time to say yes. Just answer the questions more closely, please. You could have answered that in one word. Did you know that Himmler himself had to give the authority before experimental subjects could be used from concentration camps in the medical experiments?
A. I do not know that.
Q. You didn't know that?
A. No.
Q. I don't care to ask you anything else, then. That's all.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to this witness?
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Lat call--any other counsel? The Marshal will return this witness to Tribunal I.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, at the present moment I first had the intention of calling in SS Obergruppenfuehrer Juettner, whose appearing as a witness has been granted by the Tribunal; and I planned to interrogate him now. However, the witness is outside of Nurnberg at the present time, in one of the outside camps. I would, therefore, appreciate it if I could reserve for myself the right to have him brought before this Tribunal for his examination later, after his return. The examination will probably not last very long. Furthermore, I should like to reserve the right to introduce a few more documents at a later date. The document book is only being prepared now. As far as the rest is concerned, this examination of Dr. Rudolf Brandt ends for the defendant Oswald Pohl for the present.
THE PRESIDENT: On the list of witnesses submitted to the Court this morning the name of August Frank appears. Do you not intend to call him?
DR. SEIDL: That is the defendant August Frank, who is the second defendant sitting in the dock.