To do the latter would certainly have been the most convenient solution. That Sievers got into this conflict amply demonstrates his consciousness of responsibility, his love of justice and humanity. As to the struggle with his soul, he certainly did not succeed in getting the better of himself. Too many questions depended on his decision, not only for himself but above all for the resistance movement as a whole. We must try to look into the soul of a man, who, on the one hand, was exposed to the pressure of an enormous aversion to the approaching threatening events and, on the other hand, knew only too well that in his position he could no longer fulfill his task if he obeyed his personal impulses. Perhaps it would have been possible for Sievers to leave his office without creating a great sensation and without considerable disadvantage for himself. Could he not have retired to cooperate in some innocuous scientific research? But in doing so Sievers would have been a runaway, a deserter. In his agony of soul, Sievers applied to Hielscher who after mature consideration and deliberation came to the decision: _Sievers will stay!_ For the post in Himmler’s proximity could not be renounced. If Sievers abandoned it, Hielscher would be under the necessity of entrusting him with another position near Himmler or of replacing him by another member of the movement with the same task. Was this possible? Would he, remaining near Himmler, have not time and again come into the same dilemma? Was it possible to wait and see? Could it be expected that another man would be more successful? Would not Sievers, in spite of all circumspection, have raised suspicion in substantiating his withdrawal? For to do so openly and with protest would have been downright madness. Imagine only the danger he would have conjured up for himself and his associates! What could his withdrawal have availed? One more question: if Sievers’ withdrawal could have prevented the human experiments at all, that would have been only a partial success. For as to the aim in its totality, the removal of Himmler and the Nazi Government, nothing would have been gained but a further delay of the decision or the impossibility of achieving it because of the loss of the key position. As still more victims of the Nazi Government would have been the result, a partial success had to be sacrificed in favor of the great aim. If you try to answer these questions there cannot be the least doubt that the decision Hielscher arrived at was the only possibility. That brings me to the last, to the most important point of my defense, to the question: “How was Sievers to act in his position?”