1947-04-09, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 9 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HELMUT POPPENDICK — Resumed
DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, the prosecution submitted this morning various documents in which the defendant Mrugowsky is mentioned. In my opinion the prosecution so far as the material is concerned which it is using against one specific defendant, this material must be submitted when the defendant is on the stand, otherwise the counsel for the defendant has no opportunity to defend himself against this material. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal either to order that the material now submitted against the defendant Mrugowsky should not be used against the defendant Mrugowsky or that the defendant Mrugowsky later be again called to the stand so that he can make statements regarding this material. The same objection I raise also on behalf of Kaufmann for defendant Rudolf Brandt who was also mentioned this morning in one of the documents.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I am afraid that the defense counsel isn't aware of the concept of rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents to which defense counsel refers have merely been marked for identification; they have not yet been even offered in evidence. When they are offered in evidence, counsel for any defendant may be heard to interpose any objection to the admission into evidence which he thinks may be well taken. The Tribunal will then rule upon the admissibility of the documents. Of course, if these documents are offered in evidence at this time or when they are offered, any defendant would have an opportunity to take the stand and explain anything in connection with those documents that might refer to him.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
A: Just before the recess we were discussing document NO 1182which was addressed to the defendant Poppendick concerning the drug VK 25.
This letter is addressed to you, Dr. Poppendick, and I ask you again did you receive this first sample of the experimental preparation VK 25, as outlined in this letter from Von Kennel?
A: To speak honestly, I cannot say one way or the other now.
Q: Well, assume that you did receive it, would you have then passed it on to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS for delivery to Ding yourself?
A: I can't say that either.
MR. HARDY: Well, now, Document NO-1185. We offer this at this time for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 478. This document is dated 21 June 1944, addressed to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Prof. Dr. Scharlau, Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, and Herr Ding acknowledges receipt of one small bottle of Diamindodiphonylsulfon tablets as testing quantity for the clinical station of Department for Typhus and Virus Research. The tablets originate from Prof. Dr. Von Kennel, Leipzig, then in parenthesis, see our letter of June 15, 1944, signed Doctor Erwin Ding.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, at the top of this letter you will notice underneath the word "subject" the words "Re: Your letter dated June 19, 1944". Now, taking this letter into consideration and looking back at the letter addressed to you of 15 June 1944, would you state that these samples were sent to you by Von Kennel and were in turn delivered to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS who in turn on June 19, 1944, sent them on to Dr. Ding? Is that a reasonable explanation of the manner in which Dr. Ding received this drug at Buchenwald?
A: I am not in a position to make statements about what route those drugs took. I cannot remember that I received it. It is quite possible that it went on its way without my personal participation at all.
Q: Now, doctor, the prosecution has introduced Document Number NO 1500 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 289 which was admitted into evidence on 7 January 1947. This is a document concerning the hormone research of SS Sturmbannfuehrer [Major] Dr. Vaernet. Will you kindly look at the bottom of that document and tell me whether or not that is your signature, doctor?
A: Yes, that is my signature.
MR. HARDY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. BOEHM (For defendant Poppendick):
Q: Witness, this morning you were shown a photo copy, which I unfortunately have not yet received, but I believe you will be able to recall it; it was initialed by you, "A certified true copy, Poppendick." This concerned itself with gas gangrene, and was addressed to the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. Did you compare this copy with the copy drawn up by the secretary before you certified the correctness of the copy?
A: No, in no case, because the secretary was Grawitz's confidant, settled all sorts of matters for Grawitz, but did not sign such matters, particularly not matters directed to the Reichsfuehrer himself. That had to be signed by an officer, and it happened several times that I was asked by her for a signature, and she told me that she had made a copy of such and such a document, that it was a correct copy, and that I should please put my signature to it as a certification; and since this secretary had Grawitz's complete confidence I always assumed everything was in order. I knew nothing about the experiments in Ravensbruck except want I heard when it was reported.
Q: This is an interim report on the clinical experiments in Ravensbruck. Were you the technical manager or the treater of this thing?
A: No.
Q: Did you read it before you signed it?
A: I think that is most improbable.
Q: The document seems to indicate that you would know the contents of the document if you certified its correctness.
A: Under other circumstances that might be so, but in Grawitz's office where, as I said, the secretary took care of these matters with Grawitz's complete confidence, that was not customary. I could accept the secretary's word as a guarantee.
Q: In other words, you certified that the contents were correct without having read it?
A: Yes, that is just what happened.
Q: This morning Exhibits 474 and 475 were submitted; a letter of 4 July 1941 regarding the treatment of female sterile persons in other words, the treatment of a woman who is sterile. This letter, too, is initialed or signed by you. There was also another letter submitted concerning sterilization of women. Do you know of any connection between these two letters?
A: No, as I said before, I had no experience whatsoever with sterilization.
Q: The second letter is signed, not by you but by Grawitz. In other words, you knew only of the first letter, Exhibit 475?
A: Yes, in connection with the treatment of sterile SS-wives and which this letter concerning me in my capacity as a doctor in the Sippenamt [Genealogy Office].
Q: And the doctors here mentioned are Klauberg, Wolf, Ehrhard, Guenter — they being the doctors to whom this report was made.
A: The last man's name is Schulze; Guenter is the first name; Schulze is the last.
Q: Yes, that is right. My error. At any rate, you knew nothing about the contents of the second document concerning sterilization of women. You found out about it the first time today?
A: Yes, sir, that is all I knew about it.
Q: There is another document submitted, 476, from Reichsfuehrer-SS, Reich Physician, police and SS concerning the drug VK 25 that was spelled out this morning. I now should like to ask you whether you were the competent expert who worked with Von Kennel?
A: No, Von Kennel took care of his matters personally with the persons involved. As I have already said, I once provided him with experimental animals and that is probably the reason why Von Kennel wrote to me in this connection. That can only have happened this once. And thereupon I worked on the matter; or, it can also have been that Grawitz said that I should write a letter to Von Kennel, because, as a matter of fact, these matters didn't concern me at all; it was just accidental that I had anything to do with them.
Q: The last document submitted to you, which was addressed to you by Prof. Dr. Von Kennel, describes the production of this drug and points out that it was sent to you. Do you know of any experiments in this matter? Did you know that experiments were being carried out with this drug VK25, or were to be carried out?
A: Most certainly I did not, because I remember nothing about it. Moreover, I am persuaded that in this case also it was not a question of experiments, but that the trying out of this drug was being carried out in any clinic.
Q: Quite so; and you know where this drug was to be tried out?
A: In some clinic or an SS hospital.
Q: You are assuming that?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Above all, you didn't know that there were to be any sort of criminal experiments in this connection — experiments which could lead to the death or serious wounds, — wounding of human beings?
A: No. There was no reason to even think of such a thing.
Q: Now, if I may summarize, I should like to ask you: You had no orders, you gave no orders to carry out criminal experiments, you did not instigate such experiments, or knowingly support such experiments?
A: I can answer all these questions with no. It was only here in this courtroom that I found out about the experiments that were carried out, but I had nothing to do with these things and I had no reason to suppose they were going on.
Q: Did you not in official conversations find out about experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates against their wills and which lead to death, cripplings, or other forms of cruelty or torture?
A: No; if there had been any conversations about that it must have struck me especially, but it was not the subject of conversation.
When there was talk around the office actual matters were discussed; the front-line situation, the last bombing on Berlin, or such things, but there was no discussion of such things as you just mentioned.
DR. BOEHM: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other examination of this witness by any of defense counsel?
DR. SAUTER (for Blome): Mr. President, I should like to ask one question which I could not ask before because I was ill. I have only one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Witness, you recall the meeting at Hohenlychen?
A: Yes.
Q: You know which meeting I am referring to?
A: Yes, the last conference in May 1944.
Q: That was the conference regarding which the prosecution submitted a list of those present; and you saw that?
A: Yes.
Q: In this list of participants there is a mention of SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Dr. Gross. Do you remember that? There has been considerable discussion of that here. Do you know this SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross who took part in this meeting at Hohenlychen?
A: I do know a Dr. Gross who was, I believe, an SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer in 1944. He was chief physician of the SS hospital in Riga and I believe I remember that this Dr. Gross was present at the meeting at Hohenlychen because I think I saw him there.
Q: You have heard here on several days that a certain Dr. Gross was a collaborator of the co-defendant Dr. Blome; you heard that here?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this Dr. Gross whom you mentioned and know as the chief physician of Riga identical with the collaborator Dr. Gross who collaborated with Dr. Blome; or is that another Dr. Gross?
A: That must have been another Dr. Gross. I know from hearsay that there was a second Dr. Gross who, I believe, was a hygienist. However, I do not know him. At any rate, he was not the one I saw at this meeting at Hohenlychen but, as I said, was the chief physician in Riga. He was the one who was at Hohenlychen, not the hygienist.
Q: Did you know Prof. Dr. Blome before?
A: I heard the name once before but I didn't know him personally.
Q: Did you see Dr. Blome at this meeting at Hohenlychen?
A: No.
DR. SAUTER: No further questions. Thank you.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I am through interrogating the witness Poppendick. I should merely like now to submit a few documents.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no further questions to the witness, the defendant may resume his place in the dock. Counsel may proceed.
(Witness excused.)
DR. BOEHM: Dr. Jung already submitted an affidavit, I should like to read part three, which has not yet been read. This is HPO-2, Poppendick Exhibit No. 2, the part which I shall read is on page four:
3. The personality of Poppendick and his activities:
I met Poppendick fleetingly in 1937 or 1938 and again when I took up my duties in the Medical Inspectorate in Berlin, where he was the chief of the medical department of the Race and Settlement Main Office; I do not remember exactly what the department was called officially. As far as I remember, Poppendick, in this capacity, dealt with the medical supervision of eugenic and matrimonial questions which reached the Race and Settlement Main Office. This department of Poppendick, together with its small group of male and female workers, was subordinated in medical questions directly to the Reich Physician toward the middle of 1939. Poppendick worked for the Race and settlement Main Office in this capacity until the outbreak of the war, when he was drafted into the army-and, as far as I remember, later as well.
I saw Poppendick frequently during this time and I had the opportunity of forming a picture of his personality which I judge as follows:
Poppendick is a man who is conscientious and reliable in his routine work; basically serious, but a bit soft and in need of spurring on. He seemed to be interested exclusively in his specialized training (internist) and in his professional routing duties in the Race and Settlement Main Office. His way of living was calm and sober, in intercourse with others he was reserved.
As far as I came into contact with Poppendick and his work during the short visits when I reported in Berlin during the war, nothing seemed to have changed as far as his position and his tasks were concerned; and equally, the reorganization of the office was not much in evidence except that there were more people there.
Later as well, I never met anybody in the antechamber except the secretary, and I was not under the impression that anything had changed in the way visitors or experts were received or treated. I never had any knowledge of the institution of a 'Private Office' in 1943. There was no outward sign of one.
I know from conversations with Poppendick that he tried several times to be sent to the front again, but it seems that these attempts led to nothing, perhaps partly because Poppendick was promoted to ranks in accordance with his appointment and it was difficult to give an appointment at the front to a man of his rank and without front line experience. I remember that when I congratulated him on his promotion to Standartenfuehrer [Colonel], he said angrily that this promotion was neither in accordance with his intention nor his wishes, because now he could calculate for himself how difficult it would be for him to get a front-line appointment.
As I have said above, Dr. Grawitz was included to make judgments on external appearances. Certainly these promotions had some connection with this tendency.
It is signed and certified.
Further, I should like to read from the already submitted Document HPO 7, Exhibit No. 9, the Kirchert Affidavit, I should like to read part 3, which concerns Grawitz office and Poppendick's activities in this office.
The passage is on page 20 of the Document book:
3. Routine at the Office of Grawitz:
As Reich Physician of the SS and Police, Grawitz was my superior officer in the health service, and I had frequently to make reports to him. On these occasions, I had the opportunity to obtain some insight in the workings of his office.
The appointment with Grawitz was made by telephone through his receptionist, Fraeulein Sommerfeld. It was from Poppendick, whom I had telephoned several times to make an appointment, that I learned that appointments should be made not through him but through Fraeulein Sommerfeld. When, at the appointed time, one presented oneself in the reception room of the Reich Physician, where Fraeulein Sommerfeld sat alone, it was she who announced one's arrival to Grawitz by house telephone.
Grawitz was in the habit of conducting conferences in complete privacy, irrespective of whether important matters or matters of secondary significance were at stake. He used to keep the documents connected with the conferences in his desk. If it should happen that a written communication had to be prepared during the course of a conference, Fraeulein Sommerfeld would be summoned. From this conduct, the impression which I formed was of necessity that the Reich Physician SS discharged personally most of the official work, without the cooperation of his colleagues in the building.
Poppendick was Chief of the Personal Office of the Reich Physician SS. As such, he was neither his deputy, nor was he authorized to sign on his behalf, Poppendick's status underwent no change in the reorganization of 1943.
As far as I can judge, Grawitz, was able to deal with his correspondence alone with his secretary, without further assistance, and according to his known methods of working, this was what he liked to do.
I cannot remember ever having spoken of the treatment of phosporus burns with Poppendick. These discussions took place with Grawitz only.
In 1943, several conferences of the leading Physicians took place in Grawitz' office, regarding personnel and equipment requirements. Experiments with human beings were never the subjects of these conferences.
HPO-14, an affidavit of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt. In view of the fact that Rudolf Brandt has already been on the stand, I wish to simply draw the attention of the Tribunal to this affidavit. I shall dispense with the reading of it, because it concerns itself with the numerous affidavits that Rudolf Brandt signed regarding the other defendants. He simply admits here that his statement that Poppendick had knowledge of criminal experiments was based not on personal experience, but on the fact that he had seen documents to that effect here.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel offer this affidavit as an exhibit in the case?
DR. BOEHM: I have offered it as Exhibit No. 14, but I shall dispense with reading it — correction Exhibit No. 13.
MR. HARDY: I object to this Document as being irregular, inasmuch as defense counsel had ample time to examine the witness Rudolf Brandt when he was on the witness stand.
DR. BOEHM: I nevertheless ask the court to admit this Document as evidence because I wish to use it in my closing summary.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be over-ruled and the affidavit will be admitted as evidence with the privilege of the Prosecution to cross-examine the defendant Rudolf Brandt if it desires to do so.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution will not wish to cross examine the defendant Rudolf Brandt on this matter, inasmuch as the material of Rudolf Brandt is in the record and we have a duplication of it.
DR. BOEHM: As the next Document for the present in the presentation of my case for Poppendick, I offer Document No. HPO-15, which is on pages 41 and 42. This will be Poppendick Exhibit No. 14. This is an Excerpt from an article "The Sentencing of Internees" by Dr. Arthur Straeter, Minister of Justice, Nordrhein-Westphalia, published in the Westfalenpost, 31 January 1947. I do not intend to read anything from this Document.
This concludes my case for the time being.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for defendant Wolfram Sievers ready to proceed with his case?
DR. WEISGERBER (for the Defendant Wolfram Sievers): In the presentation of my case for Wolfram Sievers, I intend first of all to call my client to the stand and ask now the Tribunal's permission to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Wolfram Sievers will take the witness stand.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn.
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.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: Witness, your name is Wolfram Sievers and you were born 10 July 1905 in Hildesheim as the son of the church musical director Ehrhard Heinrich and Elizabeth Sievers?
A: Yes.
Q: After visiting grade school and gymnasium, you then went two years to college in Hildesheim?
A: Yes.
Q: What profession did you then choose?
A: It was my intention to become a merchant.
Q: How long were you active in this profession?
A: After two years training I was in a publishing house; from 1924 I worked until 1935 with a few interruptions in that branch.
Q: Did you carry out any private studies in addition to your profession?
A: Yes; I was interested in historical and religious questions, as well as music.
Q: Did you join any youth movements; the Pfadfinder Bund or any such movement?
A: Yes when I was in the Gymnasium, I was a member of the Wandervogel and later I joined the Pfadfinder Bund (Boy Scouts).
Q: Did you have any leading positions in these youth organizations?
A: From 1928 on, I led a working community, it was composed of members of various youth organizations.
Q: How long were you so active?
A: Until the Nazi Party dissolved these organizations in 1933.
Q: Was your activity in the Youth Movements of a political nature or nonpolitical?
A: It was in general unpolitical; its goal was simply the healthy education of youth and the repudiation of political cohesion whether for the right or the left and also demanded respect for deep religious convictions.
Q: Mr. President, at this time I submit Document Sievers No. 13 as Exhibit Sievers No. 1, page 30 of the document book. This is an affidavit by Heinz Ulrich Sieber, which I shall read:
I became personally acquainted with Wolfram Sievers in the years 1931 through 1933 at Stuttgart in the boy scouts movement. At that time I was about 15 years of age and met him, who was my elder comrade, often at camps and hikes of the boy scouts. He also came frequently to see me at the house of my parents in those days.
Sievers impressed me, as well as the other boys, as a man of singular integrity, at whatever occasion we came into touch with him. In word and deed he was an example of the boy-scouts' virtues; correctness, efficiency and readiness to help others.
In no way has he influenced us in any party-political sense nor has he preached hatred against other human beings, and thus he helped all the boys, who came in touch with him towards a humanly irreproachable and genuinely independent moral basis for their future lives.
Now I put in as evidence Sievers Document No. 19, page 48 of Sievers Document Book No. 1; this will be Exhibit Sievers No. 2. This is an affidavit on the part of the merchant George Adolf Menzel, I read the contents:
I met Mr. Wolfram Sievers in the second half of the twenties —
MR. HARDY: May I inquire at this time how many such character reference affidavits the defense counsel wishes to introduce? In addition, I should like to inquire if the four witnesses requested by defendant Sievers will be available during the presentation of the Sievers' case this week, so that I may as well know what type of evidence is being submitted so that I may more or less object to any as I see fit?
DR. BOEHM: At this time, I simply intend to submit these two documents. In the course of the direct examination, I shall introduce roughly 40 documents. Document Book No. 2, as I have just found out, has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal but I have been promised that Document Book No. 2 will be ready by tomorrow morning. The four witnesses, whom I have named, will be available at the correct time and I assume that day after tomorrow when I am through interrogating my client, I can put them on the stand.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
DR. BOEHM: I continue with my reading of this affidavit:
I met Mr. Wolfram Sievers in the second half of the twenties in Stuttgart, where he belonged to the youth movement (formerly 'Wandervoegel'). In accord with this membership, Mr. Sievers was a definite individualist with high ideals, genuine human warmth and a strong feeling of right and justice. At that time he was completely opposed to the Nazi Party and its methods; he rejected the Hitler Youth, since it was in nature and form diametrically opposed to the youth movement of the 'Wandervoegel' (Wanderers). He was an aesthete and an upright, frank character, for whom a thing was useful only if it was also morally good. His sensitive and soft nature was one of his typical characteristics.
Later I saw Mr. Sievers once again, briefly, in Berlin. At that time he was already working for the 'Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage].' There again I did not have the impression that Mr. Sievers had changed his inner attitude toward the tendency and methods of the Party and toward Nazism. In other respects, too, he had remained the same.
And, then there follows the signature and the certification.
THE PRESIDENT: The copy of this affidavit, contained in the Document Book furnished the Tribunal, contains a further statement in the affidavit.
DR. BOEHM: I am sorry, but I did not understand the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: In the copy of this affidavit in the Document Book, there is another paragraph.
DR. BOEHM: Document No. 19, which I have just put in; that is the one you are referring to is it not?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. BOEHM: I read the essential part of the Document.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to state you intended to read the entire Document; that was the reason for my question.
DR. BOEHM: No, I simply wanted to read the essential part of the Document, which I shall do in the future with all my Documents.
BY DR. BOEHM:
Q: Witness, is it correct that you married in 1934 and that three children resulted from that marriage?
A: Yes.
Q: Until your entrance in the Nazi Party, did you have anything to do with party politics?
A: No, I was not interested in politics at all.
Q: Around 1930 did not political problems begin to encroach on the youth organizations to which you belonged?
A: Our efforts were directed to keep the youth organizations free of party influence and various political parties. There were at that time more than thirty parties in Germany who made an effort to recruit the youth. Our efforts were directed to develop the young men's personalities, but not to make party members of them.
Q: Around 1930 did you meet in the youth organizations a person who was of decisive importance in the development of your career?
A: Yes; in 1929 I met Dr. Friedrich Hielscher, who exercised a strong influence upon me by his lectures before the youth movements.
Q: In the period thereafter did you have any particular contact with this doctor Hielscher for any special reason?
A: My contact with Dr. Hielscher was not interrupted after we made each other's acquaintance. On this it became closer and closer and even in 1929 was of the opinion that the Nazi Party was a danger for our youth organization. In the course of longer, extensive conversations we came to the question we would have to recognize this danger. Dr. Hielscher suggested that I should apply for membership in the Nazi Party which I did then in 1929 so that we might have a closer insight in this danger.
Q: What did you and Dr. Hielscher hope to achieve by your entering the NSDAP?
A: The only thing that was important was for us to have insight into the Party's intentions. We did not trust their propaganda even at that time.
Q: Could you realize this intention at that time? Could you do anything regardless of it?
A: Yes, I would achieve insight into the cultural aspects of the Party and the goal set for the youth organizations of the Nazi Party.
Q: Did you inform Dr. Hielscher of what you had found out?
A: I kept him currently informed.
Q: And how long did you continue this activity?
A: Until about 1930.
Q: For what reason then did you withdraw from the Party in 1931?
A: Hielscher and I felt that the reasons I joined the Party had been sufficiently met. In addition I was asked to join the SA which I didn't want to do.
Q: Did Dr. Hielscher give you any specific tasks or duties in the NSDAP?
A: I was to attempt to get in touch with leading personages of the NSDAP in order to report on them. Further, I was to attend to achieve a position from which I could have insight into the activities of leading personages of the Party.
Q: Did you succeed in this?
A: Yes. In the Spring of 1935 I succeeded by Prof. Hermann Wirth to get in touch of the Ahnenerbe.
Q: Did you know Prof. Wirth earlier?
A: Yes, I made his acquaintance around 1930. Prof. Wirth lived in Marburg and was a pre-historian and I had been interested in prehistory and was his secretary. I remained his secretary from November of 1932 until February 1933.
Q: When did Prof. Wirth appear in the Ahnenerbe Institute?
A: That was in the course of the year 1933.
Q: And then in 1935 you turned to Prof. Wirth asking him to use you for himself or the Ahnenerbe?
A: No, on the contrary, Prof. Wirth turned to me.
Q: What opportunities did you see of carrying out the task that Dr. Hielscher had said you were?
A: We knew that Wirth had connections with Himmler. I thought I might have an opportunity of penetrating into Himmler's staff in this way of having insight into it.
Q: Was the Ahnenerbe Institute of Himmler?
A: Well, it was in so far as Wirth suggested to him to create an institute which would concern itself with Nordic research work. Himmler took up that idea and that's how the Ahnenerbe became a registered association on the 1st of July 1935 with Wirth the President and I became the Secretary-General.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in that connection I should like to refer to the institution called Ahnenerbe. I should like to offer Document Sievers No. 1 which can be found on page 1 of the Document Volume No. 1. This will become Exhibit No. 3. This is a chart of the personal staff. This chart was already submitted in the Document Volume Rudolf Brandt. I also include that document in my document Volume by purposes of comparison. The office Ahnenerbe —
MR. HARDY: It's already an exhibit. Is it necessary to give the other exhibit number?
THE PRESIDENT: It will probably make it mere convenient to have it numbered in the Document Bock but marked duplicate by giving it another exhibit number.
DR. WEISGERBER: I give the document as Exhibit No. 3 and as I said before I only include it, this document, in my book in order to give you a complete picture of the Ahnenerbe Institution. The Office Ahnenerbe appears on this chart in the first row on the left-hand side. No further explanation is necessary in my opinion. I further offer the Document Sievers No. 2 which can be found on page 2 which will become Exhibit Sievers No. 4. This is a chart and contains a description of the Institution Ahnenerbe. Witness, I shall have this document handed to you in order to enable you to give the Tribunal a short description of the organization of the Institution Ahnenerbe, in other words.
MR. HARDY: If I understand this correctly the affidavit of Sievers is the certificate with the chart attached thereto. Is that it? In other words, the chart is part of Exhibit No. 4. Is that correct?
DR. WEISGERBER: The chart is Exhibit No. 4. I think the prosecutor was not quite clear about that.
MR. HARDY: That's what I understood; that the chart is Sievers Exhibit 4.
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes. Witness, using this chart will you please describe the organization of Ahnenerbe? Start from the President and work downwards.
A: The President and Chairman of the Ahnenerbe Association, was the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. The Ahnenerbe, which was to be a research and reaching association was to be a similar organization to already existing academies or scientific societies which, in addition to the Universities had to ver certain spheres of research and support them.
The scientif head of the Ahnenerbe was the Director of the University Munich, Prof. Wuest, who was the Curator. Under him were the subordinates, the scientif departments, which can be found on the left-hand of the chart. There were 46 of such departments. Beyond that there were about 15 research assignments and members of these assignments, the scientif department, were headed by scientists. They had to be either professors or lecturers at a German University. Summarizing, these 46 scientific departments and the 15 research assignments and arriving at the figure of 61, I have to state that 30 of them were professors, that is, people who were residing at German Universities. Fourteen were lecturers and who were actually lecturing at Universities and 13 of them were academic graduates, people who at any time could start a university career.
Q: Witness, we shall come to that later when discussing subsequent documents. I don't think we need go into the details at this time. Would you please explain your own personal position?
A: As General Secretary, which was later changed into Reich Business Manager, I had to be responsible for and care for the entire administrative problems of the Secretary's office, budget, as is set out in the square which one can see underneath Reich Business Manager. In addition I had to head the Ahnenerbe Foundation Publishing House which was founded in 1937 and which can be found on the right hand side of the chart.
Q: And now, Witness, on the left bottom half of this chart one can see a little square which reads:
Institute for Military Scientific Research
with seven subordinate departments. At this time I only want to ask you when this Institute was founded and affiliated to Ahnenerbe?
A: That was in the year 1942.
Q: The next Exhibit which will be No. 5 is Document Sievers No. 3 which follows right after Document Sievers No. 2, Exhibit No. 4. This is the affidavit of Wolfram Sievers certifying the correctness of the two charts submitted, namely chart no. 1 and chart no. 2.
As the next document I offer Sievers No. 3 which can be found in Document Book Sievers I on page 3, that will become Exhibit No. 6.
JUDGE SEBRING: What was counsel's Exhibit 5?
DR. WEISGERBER: Exhibit 5 is Document No. 4 — Document No. 4. I think I made a mistake right now. Document No. 4 is to be found on page 5 of Document Volume I.
Then I offer Document Sievers No. 3 which is found on page 3 in Document Volume I which will be Exhibit Sievers No. 6. This is a compilation of the Scientific Departments of the Research and Instruction Society Ahnenerbe.
They are listed here — the 46 departments which already appear on the chart and it is stated here quite briefly what the scientific activity of the various departments was. I don't deem it necessary to read this document in its entirety and I should like the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
On the second page of this document one finds another list of research assignments which were already mentioned by my client. The last listing is the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Waffen SS and the Police. This includes the departments: 1. Rascher. 2. Ploetner, and 3. Hirt, and then 4. Entomological Institute. Then, 5. Military Scientific Department for Chalk Geology, Mathematical Department, and finally, the Institute for Breeding Research.
Witness, would you please answer a few questions relating to that document? You were already speaking about the 46 scientific departments and about the various research assignments and we arrived at a total of 61. The departmental heads and the people in charge of research assignments you said were 30 professors, 14 lecturers, and furthermore there were 13 academic graduates who were lecturers at universities and four laymen research workers?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: I am now interested about the political make-up of these 61 persons. Can you tell us something as to what extent these 61 people were members of the SS, NSDAP, etc?
A: It was not compulsory that the department heads of the Ahnenerbe were to be members of the Party or the SS. Of these 61 persons 47 were members of the Party, 28 were members of the SS, 33 were not in the SS and 14 were not even in the Party.
Q: Could you subdivide these fourteen a little further?
A: Well, 8 of these 14 were political persecutees, two were catholic clergymen, and three were foreigners.
Q: Thank you. That is sufficient.
As the next document I offer Sievers No. 5 which is in Document Volume Sievers I on page 7 which will become Exhibit Sievers No. 7. This is a document which was already submitted to the IMT as Document PS-488. It contains the statutes of the Research and Teaching Society Ahnenerbe. I ask the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of that document and I only consider it expedient to read paragraphs 5,6,7, and 8.
5. Directors.
The directors of the Research and Teaching Society consist of —
This can be found on page 9 of the Document Book.
1. The president who is at the same time the chairman and legal representative of the registered society in the sense of Par. 26 of the German Civil Code.
2. The curator.
3. The Reich Business manager.
4. The Reichsfuehrer-SS is the president.
5. President.
The president stands at the head of the Research and Teaching Society. He is in charge of:
1. the direction of the Research and Teaching Society. He decides on the distribution of business and determines the individual tasks;
2. He appoints and dismisses the curator and the Reich administrator;
3. He appoints and dismisses the members;
4. He authorizes the budget;
5. He alone is authorized to undertake alterations of the charter and to dissolve the society, in as far as this is permissible under the existing legal regulations.
6. Curator.
The curator is in charge of the scientific work of the society within the framework of the directives given him by the president.
7. Reich administrator.
The Reich business manager will deal with the society's business he is responsible for business organization and administration, for drawing up the budget and keeping accounts.
Witness, was there a financial advantage which caused you to change your profession as publishing business man?
A: No. In 1935 I already had an income of about 600 marks in that profession, whereas Secretary General of Ahnenerbe only paid 400 marks a month.
Q: Were the financial expectations in the Ahnenerbe greater than expectations you could hope for in the publishing business?
A: No. Only in the year 1943 I had an income which was somewhat above 700 marks per month. I am sure that in the publishing business I would have had such income much, much earlier and I am sure I would have earned more in 1943 as a publisher.
Q: Were there any other advantages connected with your position at the Ahnenerbe or were you lead to expect such advantages?
A: No.- on the contrary. I got married at the end of 1934. My career in the publishing business was very favorable. As a General Secretary of the Ahnenerbe I had to change my flat and reside at Berlin. But it was only in 1936 when I succeeded in finding an apartment and until that time had to be separated from my wife and only had disfavor in that connection.
Q: Witness, in other words you are saying that it was an idea which called you to assume this position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe and you will probably agree with me that it is not easy to believe that anyone would be prepared to take into account such disadvantages and only follows a new course on account of an idea, as you said you did?
A: I conscientiously examined all of these disadvantages because the aims of Professor Hielscher and his groups were more important to me than any disadvantages.
Q: The position of Reich Business manager of Ahnenerbe was held by you until the end of the War?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you consider this position having the possibility of resuming your position with Hielscher?
A: Ahnenerbe was a registered society. Since Himmler was its president it was not easy to establish contact with every agency other than those that came within jurisdiction of the SS. It was much easier to do any work from the Ahnenerbe which was more or less in neutral grounds than it would have been from any SS agency.
Q: In the subsequent period you often got in touch with Himmler and I would be interested to hear something from you about that.
A: When Himmler in 1937 became president of Ahnenerbe I occasionally established contact with him. Now and again I was ordered to report to him or sometimes ordered to have dinner with him.
Q: What was it that you had to report to Himmler?
A: About organizational and financial questions as they related to my duties as Reich business manager.
Q: Did you also report to the curator regarding these questions?
A: I reported to both regularly about all these questions because both were my superiors.
Q: In order to clarify further happenings I consider it necessary that you briefly tell the Tribunal about this situation so they may understand what train of thoughts you were subject to. Professor Wuest was director of the Munich University, wasn't he? Considering your separation, you must consider that you yourself were in Berlin, didn't any difficulties arise?
A: This separation naturally made the work more difficulty, especially sine I had to go very often to Wuest at Munich while the other hand Wuest repeatedly visited me in Berlin. Cowing to the special separation it became necessary that I repeatedly had to represent Wuest at conferences and had to sign letters relating to matters which really did not belong within my sphere of tasks.
Q: The prosecution in connection with the counts which are here under the indictment has submitted a number of letters which bear signature. I am at first interested to know whether the entire correspondence arriving at the Ahnenerbe went through your hands.
A: That was not the case. Because of the independence of the departmental heads and the decentralized organization of the departments it came about that a large amount of the mail did not go through me but arrived at the departmental heads, respectively. They, in turn, when important matters came up submitted these matters to the curator Prof. Wuest.
Q: Could you yourself order any research assignment to be carried out in the framework of the Ahnenerbe?
A: No, I could not do that, Only the president, Himmler, or the curator, Wuest, could do that.
Q: At a later time we shall come back to the fact that in one or other cases you did that, nevertheless, but at any rate we shall talk about that later. The Ahnenerbe only dealt scientific tasks?
A: In accordance with its organization its tasks only dealt with cultural and scientific work and actually carried such work through.
Q: When for the first time, was the Ahnenerbe given tasks which organically had nothing to do with that society?
A: That happened on the 1st of January 1942, by order of Himmler when he ordered that an entomological institute be erected.
Q: To whom did Himmler give that order?
A: To the Ahnenerbe.
Q: Was the Ahnenerbe at that time an office within the Reichsfuehrer SS organization?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, the department chief was Prof. Wuest, wasn't he?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Did the Ahnenerbe in subsequent periods receive tasks which organically didn't belong to it?
A: At the beginning of March 1942 Dr. Rascher approached the Ahnenerbe and informed them that Himmler had ordered that the Ahnenerbe would take over his work at dachau.
Q: Had you known this Dr. Rascher from before?
A: Yes, I had known him since the year 1939.
Q: In what connection did you make Dr. Rascher's acquaintance?
A: Wuest at that time was informed by Himmler that a certain Dr. Rascher was to receive a diagnosis of cancer illnesses. This assignment was not to carried out because of Rascher being drafted into the Luftwaffe In this manner an opposition became superfluous as regards as science which had really nothing to do with the Ahnenerbe.
Q: Why did you at that time believe that you would have to oppose any such assignment given to Dr. Rascher?
A: At the time when neither Prof. Wuest as curator nor I as business manager had knowledge of any departmental head by the name of Rascher, an article appeared in the well-known periodical called "The Week" in which quite exciting results in cancer research were mentioned, and the same of Dr. Rascher was pointed out as the departmental head in the Ahnenerbe. I immediately notified curator Wuest, as well as Himmler, of that fact but nothing came of this entire affair because Rascher was drafted into the Luftwaffe. Since Wuest and I did not approve of this inconsiderate method of Dr. Rascher to put Himmler into the foreground our rejecting attitude revived itself when Rascher once more appeared in 1942 at the Ahnenerbe.
Q: I now come to your participation in the high altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher, and I shall have the Document Book Number 2 of the Prosecution shown to you.
(Witness receives the purported Book.)
Will you please turn to page 61, and page 59, in the English Book translation. This is the Document No. 1581-A, Exhibit 48 of the Prosecution. As it can be seen from this document you made an inquiry on the 9th of March to the 9th of March 1942 to the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. The inquiry referred to Dr. Rascher, since this inquiry itself is not available as a document I should like to ask you to tell us from your own memory what its subject was.
A: As far as I remember Rascher at that time turned to Wuest, who was in Munich, and then to me, and told us that certain research work which he was carrying cut by order of the Luftwaffe at Dachau were to supported by the administration of the Ahnenerbe. Since he, however said that he wasn't allowed to give us any more details I turned to the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS in order to gain more information about that matter.
Q: What support was to be given to Dr. Rascher on the part of the administration of the Ahnenerbe?
A: He was to be supported regarding the supply of equipment, apparatus, and the establishment of connections with scientific institutions with whom collaboration seemed to be necessary with reference to Rascher's work. This support was not used at the beginning because the Luftwaffe made everything that was needed available.
Q: Did you at that period of time know — that is, when receiving the letter of the 21st of March 1942 — that this concerned with experiments on human beings?
A: This only became evident to me when on the basis of this letter dated the 21st of March 1942 I talked to Dr. Rascher at Dachau.
Q: When was that?
A: That was at the end of March 1942, or on the 1st of April. At any rate, it was after this letter — either the end of March of the beginning of April.
Q: Had you been in any concentration camp before that date?
A: No.
Q: Could you enter the concentration camp at Dachau in the subsequent period of time without any ADO?
A: No. For that purpose an express approval was necessary, an approval and a directive by Himmler, which was done during that first visit. After that I had to report to the commandant of that camp and had to sign a statement which obliged me to keep secrecy, and furthermore, I was not to talk to the inmates regarding personal matters. It was always necessary to report to the commandant personally if at any time in the future a further visit was to take place.
Q: It was at the end of March 1942 when for the first time you came in contact with Dr. Rascher in the Concentration Camp at Dachau?
A: That's right.
Q: Were at that time the high-altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher started?
A: Yes, these experiments were already being carried out for a little more than one month. That is, ever since the 22nd of February 1942 but that is something I only found out here through the testimony of Neff.
Q: Up to that period of time you knew nothing of these experiments?
A: No.
Q: Is it correct that on invitation of Rascher you watched one such experiment?
A: Yes, that is correct. When on that day I arrived at Dachau, of course, at the end of March Dr. Rascher introduced Dr. Romberg to me and we then carried out an experiment at the pressure chamber. I watched two of these experiments.
Q: Did participation of those experiments fall within your tasks as they were defined by the order of Himmler?
A: No, it didn't belong to my task but Rascher requested me to watch these experiments.
Q: What did you find out about the experimental subject on this occasion, and what did you know about the course of these experiments and I am speaking of the experiments which you yourself watched?
A: A number of experimental subjects were there. The experiments were carried out by Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher. I spoke to those experimental subjects both of whom received no harm and emerged completely fit after the experiments. One person who had lost his consciousness during the experiment afterwards refused to believe that he had become unconscious. This phenomena interested me and I entered into a conversation with that man since I couldn't imagine that one wouldn't know about the fact of having become unconscious.
In that connection the man pointed to a number of figures which he wrote during this experiment which were not interrupted in his opinion.
Q: Was Dr. Romberg present during these experiments?
A: Yes, Dr. Romberg was present.
Q: Did you discuss with these experimental subjects whether they were volunteers?
A: I spoke to both of them since I was interested in that matter. Rascher had told me that these experimental subjects were volunteers, and Himmler confirmed that. For that reason I asked whether human people had volunteered for these experiments. The answer was made that more people had volunteered for the experiment than could be used at the moment. I inquired what the reason was that they volunteered for such experiments and the reply was made that in this camp every opportunity is seized to improve one's condition. This was a new train of thought for me because up until that time I had never been in a concentration camp.
Q: Did you report to Himmler about these two experiments which you attended at the end of March, Rascher hinted this in his letter of 5 April 1942 addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS? In this connection I refer to page 62. This is the letter by Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer SS, dated 5 April 1942 which is Document of the Prosecution 1971-A, Exhibit 49, which is to be found on page 60 of the English translation. In this letter it says SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Diehl took time for a few days watching experiments and probably may have given you a brief report. Did you report to Himmler about what you had seen in Dachau and when was that?
A: In view of the way Rascher expressed himself it is important to state that he is merely expressing an assumption. Easter 1942, that is on the 5th of April, shortly after I had seen this experiment I discussed with Himmler. Certainly I wasn't in a position to give him a report about it for the technical pre-requisites or anything that would have enabled me to give him a correct description I lacked.
Q: Rascher in this letter mentioned that you had been very interested in this work. How do you explain this passage in Rascher's letter?
A: This letter written by Rascher to Himmler is not known to me, which also applies to the entire correspondence of Rascher with Himmler or vice versa. For that reason I can only assume that Rascher chose this expression in the letter to Himmler in order to score a point with Grawitz with whose visit he was probably not satisfied. If he speaks about my interest, he probably mentions it because according to Himmler's order I had to carry out the support which I had been ordered.
Q: At that time in Dachau you recognized that human experimental subjects were used during these high-altitude experiments. Apart from the order which you, did you have — didn't any certain consequence arise for you personally from that fact, even if I take into consideration that these two experiments which you observed had no fatal outcome?
A: Yes. I personally rejected these experiments on human beings. I rejected them without being in a position to judge whether they were materially and essentially necessary.
Q: Did you communicate this thought of yours to any higher agencies?
A: Yes, when I reported to Himmler at Easter 1942, ordered to attend to field headquarters, that is, to report regarding other matters I stated to him that I had been to Dachau and that I there witnessed a high-altitude experiment, and that I was personally rejecting such experiments.
Q: And how did Himmler re-act to this statement?
A: Himmler spoke to me and gave me some long explanation. He stated that experiments on human beings were always carried out where nothing else would do.
He said that we were concerned with saving our German fliers when conducting these experiments, and he asked me whether I when rejecting to such experiments was not indicating that not all was being done to save German soldiers.
Q: Was the furnishing of experimental subjects your task?
A: No, all of these experiments had to be personally approved by Himmler. Himmler personally issued further directives to the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA). That is, to the competent agencies there. Himmler during that conference told me that only volunteers were used for these experiments, and in case these experiments may have a fatal result only those criminals condemned to death could be used and in no circumstance were any political protective prisoners to be used.
Q: On this occasion, during that Easter conference of April 1942, didn't you one more ask Himmler to give such research assignments to another institute, as this one given to Dr. Rascher?
A: Yes, I told Himmler that a layman I could make no reply to his statement but that in spite of that I asked him to consider whether it would not be more correct — that such medical experiments were transferred to the sphere of the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS, since he was at least more competent in regards these experiments than the Ahnenerbe was.
Q: Were you successful when voicing these misgivings?
A: Unfortunately, no. Himmler stated that no person in the world was asking me to carry out these experiments. I should have to leave to him that his directives were correct. He neither wanted Grawitz nor anyone else included in these research activities, but wanted to maintain them directly at his own control. He said expressly that it was because he wanted to exercise a personal influence since he personally carried the responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now adjourn until nine thirty tomorrow morning.