1947-04-10, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 10 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.

Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Tribunal.

There will be order in the court room.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser absent on account of illness, pursuant to doctor's certificate which will be filed. Defendant Oberheuser may be excused from attendance, it appearing that her interests will not be prejudiced.

MR. HARDY: May it please, your Honor, at the present time we have in Nuernberg a representative of the War Crimes Group who has requested permission of the Tribunal to interrogate the Defendant Hoven this morning. The defense counsel of the Defendant Hoven has agreed and prosecution is agreeable to such interrogation if the Tribunal should see fit to dismiss Hoven this morning for this interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: On the statement of counsel for the prosecution and agreement of counsel for the defense, Defendant Hoven may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this morning, subject to the interrogation which has been mentioned, it appearing that his absence from the Tribunal this morning will not prejudice his interests.

Counsel may proceed.

WOLFRAM SIEVERS — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):

Q: Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath; you were sworn in yesterday.

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, yesterday at the end of the session we had reached the question whether you were successful your misgivings to Himmler which went to the effect that the attachment of the department Rascher and Hirt to the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] was alien to its tasks and that you for certain reasons endeavored to keep these departments out of the Ahnenerbe society. Did Himmler on this occasion state that the execution of further research assignments were to be carried out with the support of the Ahnenerbe?

A: Yes. Himmler said that in addition he wanted the research work of Professor Hirt linked to the Ahnenerbe since he considered that to be of the utmost importance. We then discussed the Lost experiments of which Hirt had spoken to me, and in which connection he had formerly carried out experiments at the military medical academy on NCO's. Himmler then spontaneously declared that such experiments would have to stop. He said that the were being carried out against the will of Hitler, non commissioned officers were more important as soldiers. I was told to tell Hirt that he would have to report to Himmler about his work in detail and I was to transmit Himmler's wish to him that Hirt in addition to his animal experiments, would make a few practical experiments on human beings. Himmler, who originally wanted Hirt to report to him personally but Hirt was ill-asked me to relieve Hirt of all his work, which would keep him away from his real research activity. In this manner I came into contact with Hirt regarding his work.

Q: How, did you discuss this situation with any third parties into which you got on the basis of Himmler's order?

A: Subsequent to this objection I raised with Himmler and which had no success, I spoke to my departmental superior Wuest He maintained the point of view, however, that Himmler's orders were to be carried out.

I than discussed this question with my secretary, and I told her that I disliked this entire development. I discussed this question also with some of my friends, for instance, Dr. Hielscher.

DR. WEISGRUBER: Mr. President, in this connection I intend to submit an affidavit of Frau Dr. Schmidt. This affidavit is contained in document Volume II. I heard this morning that this will be compiled during the course of the morning and it is expected it will be delivered, to the Tribunal in the afternoon.

Q: Subsequently many reports, requests and inquires of Dr. Rascher arrived at your office, and there is reason for the assumption that you gained a rather extensive picture about the manner of execution of Dr. Rascher's experiments; isn't that correct?

A: Rascher always sent his reports directly to Himmler. They never went through me.

Q: Didn't any copies of these reports arrive at your office?

A: No. the entire scientific affair, the execution, was dealt with in direct contact with Himmler and Rascher. Rascher made a secret report entitled "In order to save from high altitude."

Q: It appears that this secret report was sent to Ahnenerbe, at least a copy of it; for that reason there is reason for the assumption you at least gained knowledge of this report?

A: I wouldn't want to exclude the possibility that this report was also sent to the Ahnenerbe. It may have been on the distribution list. However, I didn't read these scientific reports. This did not fall within my tasks. I knew nothing about its technical aspect. I was not interested in it, because it only dealt with medical questions. In most cases I read the usual summary which could be found at the end of any such report; and these reports, as far as they didn't concern Rascher, were either transmitted to Himmler, or Wuest, or to the competent departmental head.

Q: I shall now have the Document Book 2 of the Prosecution shown to you; I should like to discuss a passage which is contained in the Document, NO-226, Exhibit 75, on page 123 of the German text, and page 127 of the English text.

This is a letter by you to the Personal Staff of the Reichs Fuehrer SS, dated the 21st October 1942. In passage two you write there that the high altitude experiments would have to be continued and that therefore the low pressure chamber was again required. How did this letter originate?

A: Himmler had inspected a number of agencies of the Ahnenerbe in Munich. Afterwards a meeting took place, at which Rascher was present. Himmler asked Rascher how the situation was regarding low pressure chambers. Rascher said that the low pressure chamber hadn't come back, and as a result Himmler ordered that I should send him a draft of a letter addressed to Brandt, which he wanted to send to Milch. According to Rascher's instructions I sent this draft to Brandt, including this letter which you have just submitted to me.

Q: Were the high altitude experiments then continued?

A: The high altitude experiments were not continued because the low pressure chamber didn't return to Dachau.

Q: Could you assist in seeing to it that this low pressure chamber didn't come back to Dachau?

A: Yes, that was possible by establishing a contact with the Reich Research Council. By referring to the competent expert who made the views of the Air Force Offices and the DVL, which were known to me, his own, it could be prevented, that, in spite of the express order by Himmler, this low pressure chamber was returned to Dachau once more.

Q: I now summarize your activity in connection with the high altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher very briefly. You received the order from Himmler to assist Dr. Rascher in his experiments at Dachau by getting for him all the necessary laboratory equipment.

I state in that connection that at the time this order was issued by Himmler, Dr. Rascher had already been carrying out his experiments for a period of approximately four weeks. In addition I state that the low pressure chamber was not furnished by you. Upon Rascher's request you participated in two high altitude experiments one day, during which Dr. Romberg was also present. No harmful results could be ascertained after these experiments on the experimental subjects. Both experimental subjects confirmed to you that they had volunteered for these experiments. Thereupon you made a short report to Himmler about these experiments, and upon this occasion asked Himmler not to affiliate this work of Rascher to the Ahnenerbe, something which Himmler strictly rejected. During the course of these experiments you took no notice of any reports of Rascher, and the secret report which I previously discussed only arrived at the Ahnenerbe at a time when these experiments had already been concluded. You yourself state that you did not read that secret report. You admit, however, the possibility of having road the final sentence. You wrote two other letters, the subject of which was the new furnishing of a low pressure chamber, and in large outline this is all you had to do with Rascher's high altitude experiments; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is true. In this connection I did my best to see to it that experimental subjects be released.

Q: We shall later revert to this question. During the subsequent period you came in contact with the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher?

A: I once went to Dachau in order to participate in administrative conferences, at the time when Dr. Rascher, Professor Holzloehner and Dr. Finke were concluding a cold experiment.

That is to say, the experimental subject was just placed into a room, but I didn't see anything else of this experiment.

Q: On the occasion of this experiment, or on the occasion of a discussion which perhaps followed, did you hear anything more in detail about Rascher regarding these experiments?

A: These three gentlemen were very busy in reading the apparatus which was used in connection with that experiment. I was told that it was necessary to receive the warmth covers as quickly as possible, and Professor Holzloehner stated that they bad almost concluded their experiments, and that further experiments hardly seemed necessary. No scientific questions were discussed at that time.

Q: Did you see any report or did you receive reports from Rascher about these cold experiments?

A: No, these reports also went directly to Himmler from Rascher, as becomes evident from the documents which have been submitted here.

Q: I shall now have document Volume No. 3 of the Prosecution handed to you. In Document NO-1611, Exhibit 85, of the Prosecution, page 16 of the German text and page 17 of the English text, you find a letter sent by the Reichs Fuehrer SS to Dr. Rascher of 22 September 1942; and in the second paragraph it says:

Sent to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Sievers as information copy.

Paragraph one mentions the intermediate report of the cold experiments by Dr. Rascher at the concentration camp Dachau. One could conclude therefrom that you had received this intermediate report?

A: This intermediate report went directly from Rascher to Himmler, otherwise Himmler wouldn't have answered to Rascher directly. I don't think, however, that it is cut of the question that Rascher had told Hitler by way of this intermediate report, or in any other report that I when hearing of these cold experiments considered them to be perverse. I assume that by sending me that report Himmler's opinion on that subject was to be transmitted to me, and for that reason I received the copy of that letter for my information.

Q: Now, would you be good enough to turn over one page, and you will there find Dr. Rascher's letter dated 3 October 1942. This letter is obviously directed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It becomes evident from that letter, and I am referring to the last lines on page 17 of the document book, that Rascher had turned to you in a number of matters, is that correct?

A: Yes, I shall revert to the low pressure chamber briefly. He says here that he turned to me in order to take steps regarding the low pressure chamber. I didn't do anything about that, at least not on the basis of this request by Rascher, only later when Himmler arrived at Munich and when he himself gave me the order to send him this draft letter, which was previously discussed. Ho further says that he turned to me regarding a teletype which asked for the furnishing of women for the purpose of those experiments. Since Himmler had already issued orders regarding the furnishing of experimental subjects, there was nothing left for me to do.

Q: Didn't you participate in a second cold experiment?

A: Yes, I together with Dr. Hirt, whom I had to accompany by order of Himmler, as he had been included in Rascher's experiments by the approval of Himmler.

Himmler probably had realized in the meantime that for the purpose of the clarification of these scientifically very extensive and difficult questions Rascher alone would not be sufficient. Hirt, because of his state of health, could not come to Munich for one day, and for that reason asked that everything be prepared beforehand, that he could gain insight into all the work results which had been obtained so far. I told Rascher to prepare everything according to Hirt's desire. A professional criminal was presented for the purpose of this experiment.

Q: Was that a professional criminal who had already been condemned to death, and how did you know whether it was such a criminal?

A: Hirt, before the experiment started, wanted to look at the files, because there was a possibility that this experiment would end fatally. The sentence was furnished by the Criminal Police Department of the Camp Administration. We saw that this was a sentence which had been passed by a regular court, and it became evident therefrom that this man had more than 10 years penitentiary behind him, and had been sentenced recently to death because of murder and theft. Hirt furthermore asked the man whether he knew that this experiment might end fatally, whereupon the man answered that he was well aware of that. He said that he would have to die anyway for he was an old criminal, he was a criminal because he couldn't be anything else, and that he therefore deserved death.

Q: Did you convince yourself of that by asking the experimental subject whether he was actually a volunteer?

A: After Hirt's questioning I personally asked the man whether he agreed to that experiment. He thereupon said that he was in full agreement, providing it didn't hurt him. This assurance could be given to him, because the experiment was carried out under complete anesthesia. I didn't participate in the entire experiment, but I saw that this man was given anesthetics.

Q: You yourself received insight into the files from the criminal police?

A: Yes, I read through them, together with Hirt.

Q: Well, I guess there can be no doubt that this was a professional criminal sentenced to death by a regular court?

A: This was a very regular sentence. All previous sentences were listed in the files, and I remember in addition to the death sentence, he already had 10 years penitentiary.

DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in that connection I intended to read a document, which unfortunately is also contained in Document Volume No. 2, and I should like to reserve the right to revert to that matter as soon as this volume is available. This is a matter relating to concentration camp inmates who witnessed this episode between Hirt and Rascher regarding the death sentence and voluntary aspect of that subject.

JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel may present the document when available.

Q: Witness, it can be seen from further documents contained in Volume 3, which I won't go into detail about, that you were interest in Rascher being sent from the Luftwaffe to the Waffen SS; from that it could be assumed that you were on good footing with Rascher, and that you had personal interest in seeing that Rascher be transferred to the Waffen SS from the Luftwaffe, is that correct?

A: Himmler over since 1942 endeavored and pursued the aim to get Rascher into the SS, and have him transferred from the Luftwaffe. He ordered me to take care of this personnel matter. It isn't correct that I was personally interested in it, if only for the reason that Rascher was only actually transferred after 1944.

Q: Did Rascher repeatedly impress upon you to accelerate his transfer to the Waffen SS?

A: Rascher was very insistent on that matter, because he believed that owing to his close relationship to Himmler he would get on much better in the Waffen SS. In the same way Himmler was always pressing in this matter.

Q: In other words, you want to say that you didn't further the transfer of Rascher to the Waffen-SS on your own initiative nor did you deter it.

A: I was not interested in it at all and only on the basis of this insistence which was displayed by these two parties I wrote a letter.

Q: Now, would you please be good enough to turn to Page 86 of the document volume which is before you? This is a report about a so-called "Cold Conference" dated the 26th and 27th of October, 1942. It is to be found on page 88 of the English translation. Did you receive this report in the Ahnenerbe?

A: I certainly didn't receive it and I don't remember having seen it anywhere.

Q: Didn't Curator Wuest receive that report?

A: I don't believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher, which only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly by Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest when Himmler actually sent anything to Wuest. I don't believe that this has happened in this particular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about that. These reports and the research assignments which were just discussed lay completely outside the interests and sphere of Wuest.

Q: What do you know about the so-called dry cold experiments of Dr. Rascher.

A: I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler's order which was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing of the equipment. I don't know whether these experiments were actually carried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this court room. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was necessary that they be carried out in the mountains. Himmler had also ordered that these experiments be carried out on the terrain of the Mountain Villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodations were available there.

Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had heard that there were a sufficient amount of cases of freezing to be found at front hospitals. I therefore asked Rascher why it was necessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my question and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide by Himmler's order.

Q: What year did that occur?

A: That was at the end of 1942.

Q: The order was at the end of 1942?

A: Afterwards there ensued that conversation with Rascher in connection with accommodations.

Q: And that was intended for the winter of 1943 and 1944?

A: No, for 1942 and 1943. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable, some other place had to be found and I handled this matter very negatively. Rascher pressed me on that matter and Himmler was rather indignant, but, at any rate, I couldn't create a house by myself. Himmler subsequently ordered that preparations be made that these experiments could at least be carried out in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I think it must have been the winter of 1943 to 1944. I'm sure it was 1943 to 1944, and I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations be made for 1944 to 1945. These experiments, however, were never carried out because Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944.

Q: In that case you are saying that these dry cold experiments were not carried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943 and 1944. You assisted in the failure of these experiments being carried out because you delayed finding a suitable accommodation?

A: Yes.

Q: I am now shortly summarizing your testimony with reference to the count which concerned itself with cold experiments.

MR. HARDY: If it please Your Honor, the defense counsel has put questions to the witness and the witness has testified to these questions. I really think summations after each experiment are unnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement.

THE PRESIDENT: A short summation on the part of defense counsel might be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition.

DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, Your Honor.

BY DR. WEISGERBER:

Q: You accidentally attended the completion of a cold experiment of Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen no reports about Dr. Rascher's experiments and received no knowledge about them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects for the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually had nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the circumstances which yon have previously described. You know nothing about any dry cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You have succeeded in having delayed and finally completely frustrated the dry cold experiments in the mountains. Is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: After searching your mind, didn't you do anything in that connection which went beyond the orders which were given to you by Himmler?

A: No, in no way at all.

Q: I now come to the next count of the indictment, malaria experiments. The prosecution also connects you with that count of the indictment. During the course of this trial it was mentioned that a certain Professor Schilling was carrying out malaria experiments in the concentration camp of Dachau. Was this Dr. Schilling a member of the Ahnenerbe Society?

A: He neither belonged to the Ahnenerbe nor to the Institute of Military Medical Research.

Q: When did you gain knowledge for the first time about these malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling?

A: That was at the beginning of 1942. Himmler then briefly mentioned that a certain Professor Schilling was carrying out malaria research work at Dachau. At that time nothing became known to me about the manner in which he was conducting his work.

Q: Did you, in the subsequent period, establish any contact with Professor Schilling?

A: A contact with Schilling was for the first time established around the middle of 1944.

Q: And for what purpose did you contact him?

A: That was a mere courtesy visit in connection with the transfer of Dr. Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling's, to the Institute for Military Medical Research.

Q: You will remember that the witness Vieweg, who was examined here last December, has stated that he had seen you at Professor Schilling's institution. In what connection did you visit Schilling's laboratory?

A: I made Dr. Ploetner's acquaintance at the end of 1943 and I then visited him in his living room which was located at the malaria station where Schilling worked. Otherwise I wasn't present in the station itself.

Q: In other words, you want to say that you had nothing in the least to do with the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling?

A: No, nothing at all. This visit was occasioned by the pectin research work which was carried out by Dr. Ploetner.

Q: Did you have anything to do with malaria experiments which were conducted by other physicians or research workers, be it in concentration camp or in another research place?

A: Neither the Ahnenerbe nor the Institute for Military Medical Research, nor I personally, participated in malaria experiments on human beings.

Q: I shall now have Document Volume IV handed to you. Would you please turn to Document NO-721, Exhibit 126 of the Prosecution, to be found on page 15, page 10 of the English translation. We are here concerned with a file notation signed by you concerning a consultation with Dr. May at Munich on 1 April 1942. Would you look at paragraph four. This paragraph seems to be in contradiction with what you have so far testified.

A: With reference to this plan discussed with Dr. May it was only entomological question and investigations regarding combating insects.

Q: Well, paragraph four speaks about observations made on convicts. How about that?

A: Well, we are here concerned with information which Himmler issued when he ordered the erection of an institute for combating insects. It was to be the task of that institution to combat insects which were plaguing human beings, such as flies, lice, and bugs. Himmler wanted to see that the results were to be at his disposal in the summer of 1942. The notation which is available here was dictated in Berlin to my secretary after I returned from Munich. The fact that the name Schilling is misprinted here as Schilling indicates that the name Schilling was completely unknown to me at that time and, furthermore, the witness Vieweg has here testified that Schilling was only concerned with experiments of malaria terziana — was not malaria tropica.

Q: This notation bears the date of 3 April 1942. From the point of view of time it is after your consultation with Dr. May in Munich. During that consultation it became very clear that any experiments on human beings were out of the question, at least as far as the order went that Dr. May had received. Now it is somewhat surprising that in your notation, dated the 3rd of April, we find this paragraph four. There was really no reason for any such notation being made at that time, was there? How do you explain this paragraph four being included in this notation?

A: My consultation with Dr. May on the first of April was the first one with him. I already said that Himmler had been speaking about these experiments, and May immediately declared that an observation of convicts and using medical equipment in Dachau was out of the question since entomological research work was not being considered. And, he said that he had his own methods in carrying out that kind of research work.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit Document Sievers No. 11 and I offer it as Sievers Exhibit No. 8. This is to be found on page 24 of Document Volume I. It is an affidavit made by Hildegard Wolff. I read the following paragraphs, starting with paragraph two, and I quote:

From 1 March 1937 until 1 July 1943 I worked as a secretary in the Research and Instruction Society "Ahnenerbe", Reg. Assn., for the Reich Business Manager Wolfram Sievers.

Herr Sievers repeatedly gave me assignments to complete, and even assignments to deal with independently.

From the memorandum of 3 April 1942 on the conference with Dr. May in Munich of 1 April 1942 that was shown to me I remember that Dr. Sievers told me in the course of the very rapid dictation that I should include as paragraph four of this note Himmler's remarks made during a telephone conversation on 1 January 1942 concerning the establishment of the institute at Dachau.

I skip the next three paragraphs and I read the last paragraph on page 24. And I quote:

At any rate, in this case the wording of paragraph four clearly renders the opinion of Himmler's and not one of Herr Sievers who, as I positively know, was at that time not yet familiar with the establishments at Dachau, and who also later repeatedly expressed his annoyance about the fact that Himmler had in any way connected the "Ahnenerbe" with concentration camps.

Then follows the certification.

Witness, now in order to establish your activity in connection with the malaria experiments the Prosecution relies on a number of entries you made in your diary. I shall now have the diary of 1943 and 1944 shown to you.

Would you look at Document 3456PS, Exhibit 123 of the Prosecution, to be found in Document Volume III. This is to be found on page 53 of the diary and page 169 of the Document Book III of the Prosecution which only contains a few excerpts of the diary in its English translation. In your diary under the date of 22 of February 1944 there is a notation about a conference with Dr. May with reference to a collaboration with Dr. Ploetner and Professor Schilling. It, therefore, appears that some connection existed between Dr. May and Professor Schilling.

A: The situation is as follows: In January 1944 Himmler told me on the occasion of a conference that Schilling's reports would have to go to the entomological institute of Dr. May for their information. On the occasion of this conference of 22 February, held with Dr. May, I told Dr. May about this order of Himmler. Dr. May replied that there was nothing he could do with these reports and wanted to know why they wore being sent to him. He rejected a collaboration with Schilling. Schilling himself never sent these reports.

Q: Now would you please turn to the diary of 1943. Look at the entry of the 29 of March 1943, which is to be found on page 164 of the English translation. Under that date of 29 March 1943 a conference is mentioned that you held with the curator and departmental chief Wuest, which refers to the appointment of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Ploetner. How about this conference-this also appears to be in some connection with malaria experiments.

A: Dr. Ploetner was an SS physician active at some frontal hospital. Himmler had transferred Ploetner to the Ahnenerbe.

Q: Witness, you may be a little more brief. Did Dr. Ploetner have anything to do with malaria experiments? I mean, did he have anything to do with Dr. May's assignment?

A: No, nothing at all. Wuest at that time projected Ploetner's transfer who at that had not even anything to do with Schilling. Because of Wuest's rejection Ploetner went to Schilling because Grawitz then transferred him to Schilling's office.

Q: Now, under the 31st of May 1943 — there is no translation of this passage — there is an entry which refers to a conference with Dr. Ploetner about the collaboration with Professor Schilling. Did this conference have anything to do with malaria experiments?

A: That must have been 1944.

Q: It is quite possible, yes; it must have been 1944. Now, why don't you turn to the diary of 1944?

A: Yes, 31st of May 1944.

Q: Did this conference have anything to do with malaria experiments?

A: No, it had nothing to do with it. As I already explained before, I only made Ploetner's acquaintance at the end of 1943. He bitterly complained at that time that owing to the rejection and the treatment afforded to him by Wuest he had been sent to Schilling against his will, and he asked for assistance to get away from there.

Q: Now, witness, I think that is sufficient since it has obviously nothing to do with malaria experiments.

A: Nothing in the least.

Q: Now, if I shortly summarize: As regards your person there was no participation in any of the malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling?

A: None whatsoever.

Q: The assignment of Dr. May was clearly on entomological field and had nothing in the least to do with the malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling at Dachau?

A: No, there was no contact whatsoever.

Q: Witness, we have briefly discussed your diary. This diary is considered by the prosecution as an important piece of evidence. For that reason I shall fill in the time until the recess by briefly discussing that diary with you. With reference to your activity as business manager of the Ahnenerbe society it was this position which caused you to keep this diary, which was done very extensively and very carefully. Was this merely a hobby on your part?

A: On the contrary, it was a rather tedious task. Himmler on the other hand had ordered, on the basis of an SS directive, that all agencies would have to keep such a diary. Himmler attached considerable importance to that diary being kept carefully and in an orderly fashion. I therefore tried to give the impression that this diary was kept very accurately.

Q: Could you, in a few words, state an incident which would tend to show what value Himmler attached to the careful keeping of such a diary?

A: This diary had to be submitted to Himmler at regular intervals. After the outbreak of the war, when more important work was to be done, I spoke to the chief of staff regarding this very burdensome task; whereupon he told me that the dismissal of the chief adjutant of Himmler, von Altensleben, had brought the fact about that the diary had been neglected. Therefore the diaries had to be kept also during the war time as they were kept during peace.

Q: How do you yourself judge the accuracy and reliability of these diaries? Were these diaries kept particularly accurately, and are all the entries in this diary in strict accordance with the facts?

A: Owing to my frequent absence from my agency I often could only dictate these entries after days or sometimes even weeks. These entries in many cases are often not in accordance with the facts, neither from the point of view of time, nor substance.

When looking through that diary one notices discussion of conferences which had lasted until late at night. In those cases we were often concerned with entries which would have to constitute an alibi for certain cases, and likewise the compilation of the points of discussion as they are entered there are often in contradiction to the truth.

Q: Witness, according to the assertions made by the prosecution one could gain the impression that your activity, at least starting from the year 1942, for the most part concerned itself with the facts which are here under indictment. I have thought it to be expedient to look through your diary of 1943 and I found out that in this diary of 1943, which only covers the time starting from the 1st of January up to the 30th of June 1943, you had spoken with 326 persons, either verbally or by telephone. Several persons are listed there with whom you had a number of conversations, and the number of such conversations, including the telephone conversations, amounts to 878. I then selected those persons who are named here within the facts which are here under indictment. I extended the circle of these as far as possible, and I arrived at the number of 21 persons with whom you had 82 conferences during the first six months of the year 1943. Among these 21 persons also appears the curator and departmental chief Wuest, with whom you had altogether 23 conferences, that is, personal conferences, as well as telephonic conversations, and it becomes evident from that you were in very close information contact with your departmental head Wuest; is that correct?

A: Yes, absolutely. I could make no decisions at all unless I discussed matters with my departmental head. From this compilation it becomes evident very clearly that a quarter of these conversations were with my departmental chief.

Q: I then worked out the percentage of these conversations and persons, and I arrived at the figure of 6.3% of the persons mentioned in your 1943 diary and when considering the 82 conversations, I came to a percentage of 9.2. I tried to include as many persons as possible even including personnel workers in the personal staff of the SS, personnel officers in the staff of the Ahnenerbe, and in spite of all this, I only arrived at this relatively small percentage; is this percentage correct with reference to the counts which are charged here under the indictment as regard to your entire work?

A: That is absolutely true; this work was so much on the border line of my entire activities as it is very instructively described by your comparison.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(A recess was taken.)