1946-12-18, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 18 Dec. 1946)
THE MARSHALL: The Military Tribunal is again in session.
WALTER NEFF -- Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. VORWERK: (counsel for defendant Romberg)
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. HARX (counsel for defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder):
Q: When, on the 22nd of February, 1942, the car with the chamber arrived, were the Luftwaffe personnel with it?
A: No, I did not see any personnel with the car.
Q: You spoke, when you were examined, that several times high Luftwaffe officers visited the station. Now, I ask you did you know any of these officers visited the station. Now, I ask you did you know any of these officers by name?
A: No.
Q: Were these officers from the Munich Luftgau district?
A: I do not know.
Q: You speak of great differences between Dr. Rascher and Prof. Holzloehner; what was the cause of this, and what observation did you make?
A: Prof. Holzloehner wanted to conduct the experiments under anesthetics. Dr. Rascher opposed this. I know that in this respect he wrote a report to the Reichsfuehrer criticizing Rascher and Finke for not letting him work, because he wanted to conduct the experiments under anesthetics.
Q: Was it not so that Prof. Holzloehner quarreled with Rascher on other parts too? And he wanted to avoid a fatal outcome of the experiments, under all circumstances?
A: I know that Prof. Holzloehner did not have any deaths in connection with any experiments with water. The deaths took place in the reviving, in the Holzloehner experiments; but whether there was any quarrel between Rascher and Finke and Prof. Holzloehner in this respect I do not know.
Q: Was the separation rather abrupt, or were there several differences between the two, and what was the occasion for the final elimination of Holzloehner?
A: The elimination of Holzloehner and the substitution of Finke came about, because in the hot water baths they had found, or had sought to find, an aid to the people. A final report was dictated which all three gentlemen signed, Holzloehner and Finke, and Rascher later on.
Q: But it was so, was it not, that Prof. Holzloehner wanted to have the experimental subjects treated as painlessly as possible, and Rascher opposed it, and said that the people unconscious to the ice water?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether there was any order or assignment from LuftgauAmt 7?
A: I do not know whether there was an order from the Luftgau-Amt 7, or not.
Q: Well, did Rascher then report to this Luftgau-Amt 7?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you yourself see these reports?
A: The secretary pf the station, to whom these reports were dictated, had to make three or four copies of these reports. And, as Top Secret, these reports were sent to the Standartenfuehrer Dr. Sievers and to the Luftgau-Amt 7. How long the Luftgau Medical Office received these reports, I do not know. Whether they received them until the end of the experiments, I do not know.
Q: You were speaking of a Luftgau Medical Office, but there was no such office; isn't that the Luftgau-physician?
A: No. "Luftgau Office" or "Luftgau Medical office; The Luftgau Medical Office 7", Munich I think.
Q: Then, there was distribution list on those reports?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it always the same?
A: I don't know.
Q: Was it changed, from place to place?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did these reports refer to both to the high altitude experiments and to the cold experiments, or only to the latter?
A: I know them only with reference to the latter.
Q: Were there any gentlemen from this Luftgau Medical Office Munich 7, as you call it; were any gentlemen present at the station, to your knowledge?
A: There were Luft-Gau-officers from the station, but whether they were from the Gau Medical Office or not, I do not know.
Q: Could one see, from any indications, whether they were medical officers or whether they were pure Luftgau officers; couldn't you have told whether they were medical officers; wouldn't you have been able to conclude that, from what they said?
A: I know that officers with the medical staff were there. The talks were always in Rascher's room, so that I could not know anything about them.
Q: Did you recognize the medical insignia?
A: Yes, I did.
DR. MARK: Then I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. WILIE: (Counsel for defendant George August Weltz):
Q: Witness, I have a few brief questions to put to you, to supplement your testimony of yesterday and today. You have stated, among other things, that you did not see Prof. Weltz in Dachau, but, If I may say so, that you saw him accidentally one day talking to Dr. Rancher in front of the building of the Luftgau-Kommand in Munich; the question is: Do you remember, approximately what day?
A: No.
Q: Put, perhaps you can say, since you remember the 22nd of February so well, was it before or after that time, before or after your birthday.
A: It was rather late. It was later. It could only have been from the 15 of September, '42, until June '44.
Q: That is, at a time when Dr. Rascher had already left Luftgau-Amt 7 in Munich?
A: No.
Q: Do you know when he left that position?
A: I know that he were a Luftwaffe uniform, as far as I can recall, until August '43.
Q: The fact in and of itself that he were a Luftwaffe uniform, would not make it rue, that he was assigned to Luftgau 7. No was originally at Schongau.
Now, I come to the next question. In the months of February and March, '42, he was removed from Luftgau 7 and transferred away; did Dr. Rascher ever tell you that he had been transferred away from Luftgau 7?
A: No.
Q: He never said anything about it to you?
A: No.
Q: And didn't you know that in February, or in the beginning of March, there were serious differences between Prof. Dr. Weltz and Dr. Rascher; didn't he say anything about that to you?
A: During the course of several conversations which I heard, he told me -- well, he didn't tell me, but I heard it -- that he did not take Prof. Weltz' experiments very seriously.
DR. WILIE: That information is very interesting and it brings me to my next question.
Q BY DR. WILIE: Dr. Rascher was greatly interested in Dr. Weltz's animal experiments; that is true, is it not?
A: According to his statements, yes.
Q: Did you notice, or do you have any indication, that Dr. Rascher, and later Dr. Holzloehner, when his experiments had begun, attempted to find out what results Prof. Welts had had with his animal experiments?
A: I do not know about that.
Q: Did Dr. Rascher perhaps tell you that Professor Weltz had the ambition of taking over these experiments? Did Rascher ever say anything like that to you?
A: No.
Q: But perhaps you know that professor Holzloehner on occasion came to see Dr. Weltz to compare his experiments on human beings with Professor Weltz's animal experiments, but that Professor Weltz refused? Did you hear anything like that?
A: No, I never heard that there was any exchange of opinion between Holzloehner and Weltz.
Q: But y u know that Professor Holzloehner at the Nurnberg meeting on 10 October 1942 reported on human experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: But you do not know that before that he had asked Professor Weltz to report to him on his animal experiments and that Professor Weltz refused to do so?
A: No.
Q: Now, a little different subject. Do y u know that at about the same time, that is, the summer or fall of '42, Professor Holzloehner wanted to have apparatus, a calorimeter, from Professor Weltz and that Weltz told him, through his assistant, that he refused to turn ever the apparatus?
A: Please tell me what a calorimeter is.
Q: I can't describe it to you at the moment. I can only give you this explanation after consulting with Professor Weltz, but at least you can recognize whether you were ever t here and asked for a calorimeter?
A: No.
Q: Well then, it is n.t necessary for me to describe the apparatus?
A: No.
Q: Do you knew from the fact that you were constantly together with Dr. Rascher how he felt toward Professor Weltz? Did not Rascher ever speak somewhat ironically about the results of these animal experiments?
A: Rascher did not appreciate Weltz's animal experiments I know.
Q: Concerning high altitude experiments and the so-called severe experiments and the serious experiments, I need not go into. They have been asked you repeatedly today, but I should like to come back to one question, one statement of yours which you made today. You said that once or several times -- I don't remember exactly -- you delivered reports to the Luftgau Medical Office and you said that these were "Top Secret" reports. You can confirm that there was an express notice "Top Secret" on these reports?
A: I recall one report exactly. It had a yellow stripe across the folder. It was sealed and I had to bring back a receipt. Whether it was Geheime Reichs sache or Geheime Kommando sache. I don't know but it was one of the two. I delivered it in the Luftgau Medical Office VII.
Q: This term "Top Secret", does it mean anything to you? Do you know how far the obligation to keep such a document secret went?
A: I know only that I was told I must not let it cut of my hands and must only give it to the person to whom it was addressed, if I understand your question correctly.
Q: Yes, you, understood me correctly; and to whom was this one document with the yellow stripe addressed?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You don't remember. Perhaps you can tell me one thing, whether the presence of Professor Weltz before the building of the Luftgau Command in Munich had any connection with the delivery of this report?
A: No.
Q: Did you not consider it possible that it was purely a coincidental meeting of Professor Weltz and Dr. Rascher before this building?
A: Rascher took me with him in his car to Munich. He stopped in front of the Luftgau Office. I stayed in the car and Rascher went into the building on some errand? and then downstairs I saw him speaking to someone and when we got into the car, he said that was Professor Weltz.
Q: Then you know Professor Weltz only from this one meeting?
A: Only from that occasion, and I remember it only because Rascher had frequently mentioned him before that,
Q: Very well, and perhaps you can tell me whether Professor Weltz was wearing a military uniform at that time or whether he was wearing civilian clothes?
A: I remember he was in civilian clothes.
Q: Thank you, that's enough?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN (counsel for the defendant Viktor Brack)
Q: Witness, I have only a few questions to put to you, You mentioned "commissions" which in 1941 and '42 visited the camp of Dachau, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did these commissions include doctors?
A: There were many visits from doctors. To say in detail whether they were definitely medical visits, it is impossible to say.
Q: What was the purpose of the visits of these commissions?
A: Host of these visits were to inspect the hospital, and if it was by doctors, the medical installations?
Q: Then you don't know the names of any doctors?
A: Aside from Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Conti, I don't know the names.
Q: Then you spoke of the regrettable invalid action in Dachau, that was also in '41.
A: It began in the middle of '41.
Q: The middle of '41. Did you know what reasons there were which induced the camp commandant to carry out this inhuman action?
A: After the files had been sent to Berlin, it was our opinion that it was not the responsibility of the camp commandant but that it was ordered from above.
Q: Then you said that the death notices did not give the place in which this invalid actually died, but gave Dachau, that was falsification of the document. Do you know on whose instigation this false information was put into the announcement? -686
A: No.
Q: I have no more questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH (assistant counsel for the defendant Sievers)
Q: Witness, do you know that Himmler protected Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher particularly?
A: I kn w that Mrs. Rascher was a frine of Himmler's. When Rascher began the experiments he had little power, but his powers were increased in the course of his work.
Q: Was Mrs. Rascher employed in the camp at Dachau?
A: She was frequently in the administration. She was not in the concentration camp itself.
Q: Was it possible to do anything against Dr. Rascher with Himmler, to influence Himmler against Rascher?
A: I cannot give an opinion on that question.
Q: Did you have the impression that Sievers was brutal ward the prisoners, or did he take the part of the prisoners?
A: It is true that Sievers was correct in his treatment of the prisoners,
Q: Was Sievers interested more in the human experiments or in the other developments in the laboratories?
A: I am convinced that Sievers had the same interest in the other experiments as in the freezing experiments.
Q: In Sievers diary it says on the sixth of April '44, "Neff: Instructions given, all work to be continued without Rascher until my arrival on the 14th of April '44. What work does that refer to?
A: Would you give me the first date again?
Q: The Sixth of April 1944, after Rascher's arrest apparently.
A: The transfer of the station for the production of the blood coagulant to Schlachter was planned. In the meantime, Dr. Rascher was arrested. Sievers, and it was also in our interest, wanted to get to Schlachter.
Rascher's arrest was kept secret. With an SS escort and the five prisoners, I went to Schlachte Whether this was the period in question, I din't know; but I assume that it refers to these things.
Q: During Rascher's arrest did you continue Rascher's work on Sievers' instructions?
A: When Rascher was arrested I went to Berlin on the next day to report to Sievers, and when I explained the thing to him he answered: "Well, yes." Then I was told that Rascher would be the greatest failure of my life. "What doctor can we entrust with the continuation of the work?" And I told him that Dr. Ploetner could be trusted. I know that he would never conduct inhumane experiments. Then Sievers sent me to Schlachter's to continue the work on the production of the blood coagulate drug.
Q: Yesterday you stated that the prisoners did not volunteer for the experiments. Do you know that the prisoners told third persons that they had volunteered?
A: I said that there were individuals who volunteered for the experiments; for the so-called blood coagulate drug experiments. We had many volunteers. The detail instructors consisted of five prisoners and myself and we all volunteered to conduct these experiments on ourselves.
DR. ORTH: I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness on the part of Defense Counsel?
The Prosecution may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Witness, would you describe Sievers as having been a pretty good friend of Himmler?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Sievers ever voice any objection in your presence to the experiments which resulted in the murder of some of the experimental subjects?
A: No.
Q: Now, on the high altitude experiments; do you know whether Ruff or Rase was the superior of Romberg?
A: No.
Q: Didn't you know that Romberg was attached to the Institute in Berlin of which Ruff was the -chief of the medical department?
A: I knew that Romberg came form the Tempelhof Research Institute or something like that but that Ruff was Romberg's superior I did not know.
Q: You didn't know exactly what Ruff's connection with the high altitude experiments was then?
A: No, I did not know that.
Q: Now, you related to this Tribunal the incident where you interceded with Romberg to prevent the execution of the tailor in the low pressure chamberg. Do you remember that?
A: With Romberg, yes.
Q: And Romberg had the courage on that occasion to object to Rascher, did he not?
A: Yes, he went to see Rascher immediately and talked to him.
Q: But he did not object on the occasion of other persons being killed, did he?
A: In the experiments already mentioned, I do not know that he raised any objections or that he opposed it.
Q: Well, didn't the fact that he objected on one occasion and didn't object on others indicate to you something of his attitude toward the death experiments?
A: I must repeat that I had the impression that Romberg would have been glad to disassociate himself from these matters. I did not hear any objection to these matters.
Q: Now, let's go back to the sabotage of the low pressure chamber. I take it that some of the Defense Counsel feel that this probably did not occur and I questioned you at some length yesterday with respect to that matter. You still state that you did, in fact, fill one of the glass gauges on this low pressure chamber and in that way succeeded in having the chamber damaged, is that right?
A: The Defense Counsel may be right that I do not know exactly when the mercury rises, but it is certain that I knew that during the experiment the mercury would rise and I also knew that when someone went into the car, the car would lean a little to that side and that the mercury had to rise. Everything made of glass in this instrument was shattered. Whether the mercury container at the bottom was of glass I don't know, but where the gas went into the mercury container was certainly of glass because that is where I filled it.
Q: And while you arc not an export on these matters, you do know that considerable pressure was exerted inside of that chamber, do you not?
A: I did not understand the question. What do you mean when you say "pressure in the chamber?"
Q: As I understood one of the Defense Counsel's questions, he was urging to you that, as a matter of fact, apparently, there was not considerable pressure inside of the chamber and that, therefore, it is unlikely that this glass gauge broke. Now I am putting to you that you do know, as a matter of fact, that there was considerable pressure inside of this chamber; isn't that right?
A: In the chamber the vacuum was withdrawn and the air was thinned. It was to reproduce high altitude conditions. What the physical process is that it makes the mercury rise so that one can read the altitude from the height of the mercury. When an-experiment was made with a closed parachute, for instance the mercury column fell or it rose, one of the other; I don't know whether it rose or fell. I don't remember exactly, but anyhow, I know that at one time during the experiment it rose.
Q: Now, Defense Counsel has attempted to differentiate between the experiments conducted on the original ten experimental subjects and those which were conducted on other experimental subjects, and he suggests to you that Romberg had responsibility only with respect to the original ten subjects. Is that suggestion correct?
A: Experiments were conducted not only with these ten persons but, for example, in a series of experiments which Romberg also conducted on a large number of other prisoners. Tho distinction which the Defense Counsel tries to make between experiments included in the report to the Luftgau or of death, it is impossible for me to make this distinction and to distinguish between those which fell into one category or the other.
Q: Now, do you remember whether Rascher went off with Romberg after the low pressure experiments were concluded to assist him in writing a report?
Do you remember that?
A: I do not know where the report was made out our by whom. As far- as I could learn, the report was written up in Munich, but after the report was made there were no more experiments since the chamber had already been taken away at that time.
Q: Did Rascher ever tell you that he had recommended Romberg for a modal because of the part he played in these high altitude experiments?
A: Yes, but that was much later, Rascher once mentioned that he had suggested Romberg for some award to the Reichsfuehrer.
Q: Now, you have stated; as I understand it; that Romberg was certainly present when five experimental subjects were killed; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you do not exclude the possibility that he was present when other experimental subjects were killed; do you?
A: That is possible but I can not say so; I certainly do not remember it.
Q: I think before you leave the stand, witness that it might be well for you to describe to the Tribunal the incidents when Kapos Wagner and Hutterer were killed.
A: Yes. In order to describe this incident and to give you a true picture of it please permit me briefly to explain the devilish system which was created by playing one prisoner against another by putting the prisoners in various functions. It was as follows:
The block had a senior inmate for the room and for the block. The camp had a senior inmate for the camp and then there were kapos. Those persons had to keep order and coanliness and see that the orders given by the SS were carried out. If a prisoner was to be punished, the functionary had the duty of making a report on it. There were twenty-five blows for refusing to make this report, if not worse. In this way the prisoner was forced to denounce his comrades to the SS but if he old not report and if the block leader found that a bed was not made properly, that a knife was dirty, or something like that, then the functionary was the first to be punished and only afterwards the person who was guilty. It was there-fore easy to understand that many a functionary preferred to keep his comrades in order by blows rather than to report them. On the other hand, in the case of bad bod making by one person or two, the whole block got nothing to oat. And so it came that prisoners boat other prisoners. In Dachau there were, of course, results of this system. Prisoners in their brutality were sometime even worse than the SS. These were isolated cases in Dachau.
And now I come to the explanation which you asked for. A Dutch clergyman was brought to the low pressure chamber for an experiment. The senior innate of this block had already told me that "a very docent prisoner was coming for an experiment. Keep your eyes open." When he was brought into the block Rascher talked to kin. I saw a senior block inmate of the penal or of the Jewish block looking out of the next block and impulsively I said to Rascher: "Take that fellow and lot this peer one go." The nan in question was Robert Wagner. It is known of Robert Wagner, and every prisoner will confirm it, that he boat the prisoners inhumanely. I myself had transferred twenty-six people to the penal block because of an invalid action in order to keep them from being sent on the invalid transport to the hospital.
He immediately betrayed them and these twenty-six were sent on the transport. In the winter he let the Jews stand outdoors in the snow, barefoot, in the morning and evening. I do not feel guilty for having exchanged this man for a decent fellow. I take the responsibility on myself.
The second case when I acted independently and where some people accused me of having reached judgment myself was Hutterer. He was notorious. He arrived with an invalid transport from Grosshausen. When an invalid transport arrived it was taken to the bath. Nurses had to go over to bathe; delouse and bandage the sick people and take them to the hospital. In this transport there were a number of cripples with broken bones -- not simple fractures; but very complicated ones and the one who beat his comrads was there. He was also sick and the sick people pointed him out to us and said: "He broke our bones." These people could not be cured.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will speak more slowly.
A: The end was the invalid transport for these people. I went to this Kapo and I said to him: "I guarantee that you will recover but you will not beat any body any mere." When he had recovered I went and got him when Rascher toll me to go to the administration and get a man for a serious experiment.
That is two times I consciouslu interfered. A third time, and the Court may realize from this how hard it is to pass judgment. The third case was a man named Sammedinger. He was in Dachau and was a notorious Kapo. His last act was that eight Dachau women, who had given the prisoners food; he betrayed these women and the women were in danger of being locked up. I met him on the street in the camp and said to him: "If you arc in Dachau another week I will come and get you. You may rely on it." He reported for an outside detail for Natzweiler. In Natzweiler there is a road curve construction where Kapo Sammedinger was employed as Kapo, This curve is called Sammedinger Curve because on this road construction he crippled very many comrades by beating them. As we learned from our comrades from Natzweiler he is responsible for the death of at least one hundred people.
In this connection I may ask myself whether I would be accused for a third person for having brought him to the experiment or for the hundred deaths which I did not prevent by letting Sammedinger go. I am ready to take the responsibility for anything that happened at the experimental station with which I am charged. I did whatever I could that was positive. I am not praising myself. I do not want to say how often I succeeded in saving the life of comrades. The comrades themselves can tell you that. But what I feel as a disgrace was the manner of arrest to which I was submitted. To be put in Dachau with the very people who beat mo and who murdered us as my comrades. We are locked up together with them. The people who even today say: "If we had killed you all we would at least not have any witnesses." I was in protective custody for four and one-half years under worse conditions but it was not as difficult as these six month in Dachau.
MR. McHANEY: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further interrogation of this witness desired. The witness will stand aside. The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we will now proceed to the presentation of evidence on the Jewish skeleton collection. This crime is charged in paragraph 7 of the indictment against the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers. It is also included as a Crime Against Humanity in paragraph 12. The documents on this portion of the case are not voluminous, but I think that the Tribunal will find them quite conclusive and we are here presented with perhaps the most abominable crime which is charged in this indictment.
I come first to Document NO. NO-085 which will be prosecution Exhibit 175. This, if your Honors please, is in Prosecution Document Book No. 9. I think it night be expedient if we remark this Prosecution Document. Book #7 and it will then be in order. As I recall, the last document book was #6.
This is a letter from the Defendant Sievers to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt and it is dated 9 February 1942. Attached to this letter is a report written by Dr. Hirt and it is part of the same document end part of Prosecution. Exhibit #175. The letter reads as follows:
Doer comrade Brandt:
For the reason that Professor Dr. Hirt has, in the meantime, become seriously ill, I regret that I have been to submit any sooner Dr. Hirt's report which you. requested in your letter of 29 December 1941, Journal No. AR/493/37. He was stricken with pulmonary hemorrhages, the diagnosis was 'Cystlung', so at least it is not TB. In addition to that he suffered from cir-culatory asthenia. At present he is still in the hospital but hopes that the doctor will release him soon so that he can, at least to a limited degree resume his work. Duo to those circumstances Professor Hirt was able to furnish only a preliminary report which, however, I still should like to submit to your attention. The report concerns:
1. his research in the field of microscopy of living tissues, the discovery of a now method of examination, and the construction of a now research microscope.
2. a proposal for securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars.
As a supplement to report 1 some special publications are attached; of which the two articles from the 'Zeiss Nachrichton' #10 (Vol.II) and 1-5 (Vol.III) facilitate most rapid general orientation. Whereas, other publications deal with difficult, individual scientific studies.
Sincerely yours, /s/ Sievers.
MR. McHANEY: Now, what sort of skull collection was being suggested by Professor Hirt, and being passed on by the defendant Sievers to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, We see that on page 3 of the English Document Book:
Subject: Securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars for the purpose of scientific research at the Strassburg Reich University.
There exist extensive collections of skulls of almost all races and peoples. Of the Jewish race, however, only so very few specimens of skulls stand at the disposal of science that a study of them does not permit precise conclusions. The war in the East now presents us with the opportunity to remedy this shortage. By procuring the skulls of the Jewish Bolshevik Commissars, who personify a repulsive, yet characteristic subhumanity, we have the opportunity of obtaining tangible, scientific evidence.
The actual obtaining and collecting of those skulls without difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued to the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive all Jewish Bolshevik Commissars to the field M.P. The field Military Police in turn is to be issued special directives to continually inform a certain office of the number and place of detention of these captured Jews and to guard them well until the arrival of a special deputy. This special deputy, commissioned with the collection of the material (a junior physician attached to the Wehrmacht or even the field Military police, or a medical student equipped with car and driver), is to take a prescribed series of photographs and anthropological measurements, and is to ascertain, in so far as is possible, the origin, date of birth, and other personal data of the prisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose head must not be damaged, he will separate the head from the torso and will forward it to its point of destination in a preservative fluid within a well-sealed tin container especially made for this purpose. On this basis of the photos, the measurements and other data on the head and, finally, the skull itself, the comparative anatomical research, research on race membership, the pathological features of the skull form, the form and size of the brain and many other things can begin.
In accordance with its scope and tasks, the new Strassburg Reich University would be the most appropriate place for the collection of and research upon these skulls thus acquired.
According to Sievers testimony before the International military Tribunal, this collection was nothing but the usual anatomical collection made by any university. Nothing strange about the thing at all -- he was very unsuspecting about the whole thing. Of course, the report which we just read, which he sent along to Rudolf Brandt, very clearly states that these Jews were to be taken alive, their bodies were to be measured, and they were to be executed for the purpose of an addition to the Anatomical research at the Strassburg University.
Also a part of this document is the secret report of Doctor Hirt, and it deals with a new type of microscope. While I recommend it to the Tribunal attention, I do not think it is necessary that it be read at this time. I just want to call your attention to a short paragraph on page 8 of this report of Hirt. It gives you some indication of what use they are making of this microscope. It says:
The observation of bacteria in the living organism, their behavior there, and the possibility of destroying them by corresponding chemical agents.
Work on the last-mentioned problems forced itself upon us, and the careful microscopic observation necessary in this method requires that at least the decisive fundamental points of these questions be solved by anatomy It would therefore be wrong to stop because one had reached the limits drawn for the anatomist as such in his field, and to fail to solve the problems which offer themselves.
/s/ Hirt
I think that short paragraph will take on a new meaning when the court has heard the proof which we shall present upon the application of mustard gas and other gases to living human beings, and the studies made of the effects of these gases upon living tissues, and how they hoped to be able to counteract to some extent the effect by the use of various chemicals.
I now turn to Document No.090, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit 176 This is a letter from defendant Rudolf Brandt to the defendant Sievers in reply to the letter which I have just read, and which is Prosecution's Exhibit No.175.
This is dated 27 February 1942, to the Reich Business Manager of Ahnenerba, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers.
Dear Comrade Sievers:
I was able today to inform the Reichsfuehrer-SS of the reports of Professor Dr. Hirt. As I have told you before, the Reichsfuehrer is very much interested in Professor Dr. Hirt's work. Perhaps you could call on Hirt sometime soon and tell him again that the Reichsfuehrer-SS will place at his disposal everything he needs.
First of all, we for our part ought to do everything that would aid Professor Dr. Hirt in regaining his health. Please make some suggestions as to how you and we could be helpful in this respect. Perhaps a small shipment of fruit would also contribute essentially to his recovery.
After Professor Dr. Hirt's recovery, it would be best if a conference with the Reichsfuehrer-SS took place.
On your next visit which probably will take place in the near future you could report once more on Dr. Hirt's work.
Best wishes, Heil Hitler!
-- with the initials "R.B."
The next document will be No.086, which Prosecution's Exhibit No.177.
It is a letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, dated 2 November 1942, on the letterhead of The Ahnenerbe.
Dear Comrade Brandt:
The Reichsfuehrer-SS once ordered, as you know, that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt should be provided with all necessary material for his research work. I have already reported to the Reichsfuehrer-SS that for some anthropological studies 150 skeletons of inmates of Jews are needed and should be provided by the concentration camp Auschwitz. It is only necessary that the Reich Main Security Office will now be furnished with an official directive by the Reichsfuehrer-SS; by order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, however, you could advise so yourself.
Sincerely yours, Heil Hitler, /s/ Sievers.
And, Sievers was thoughtful enough to enclose a draft of a letter to the Reich Main Security Office.
We see here that the defendant Sievers was anything but an idealist in his statement here on the skeleton collection. He has told the ReichsfuehrerSS that they need 150 skeletons for use and they are to come from Auschwitz. And, the only thing that need be done to get the wheels moving is the letter or directive to the RSHA, and we see that this was forthcoming in the next document which is No.116, and Prosecution's Exhibit No.178.
This letter is dated 6 November 1942, four days following the receipt of the letter of 2 November 1942 from Sievers to Brandt. This is a letter to the Reich Main Security Office by Rudolf Brandt. The court will note that it is directed to the Office IV B 4, in care of SS Lieutenant Colonel Eichmann. As I recall, I told the court a few days ago that this office IV B 4 in the RSHA was the one charged with the responsibility of the solution of the Jewish question, which meant the extermination of the Jews, and that Eichmann was head of that office. It is very clear why this letter was sent to him because they wanted some 150 Jews skeletons.
The letter reads:
RE: Establishment of a collection of skeletons at the Anatomical Institute in Strassburg.
The Reichsfuehrer-SS has ordered that everything Professor Dr. Hirt needs for his research work be placed at his disposal. The director of the Anatomical Institute in Strassburg, Professor Dr. Hirt is at the same time chief of a department of the Institute for Military Scientific Research in the Office Ahnenerbe. By request of the Reichsfuehrer-SS I therefore ask that the establishment of the skeleton collection be made possible, as to the details SS Lieutenant Colonel Sievers will get in touch with you.
The signature is "Br" or Rudolf Brandt. Then this points out to us Dr. Hirt as well as Dr. Rascher were members of this Institute for Military Scientific Research in the "Ahnenerbe" and subordinates of the defendant Sievers.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)