1947-04-11, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 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 I.

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

There will be order in the courtroom.

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

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

WOLFRAM SIEVERS — Resumed

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness on the stand. The witness is reminded he is still under oath.

DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers): If it please the Tribunal, in testifying before the International Military Tribunal my client has already stated that he belonged to a resistance group against the National Socialist regime. This fact has resulted in urgent reasons for my client to remain yet in the position of Reichs business manager of the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] when fate brought him into contact with Hirt and Rascher's experiments, although at first he was firmly determined to give up his position as Reichs business manager of the Ahnenerbe precisely because he repudiated the experiments which he had seen at Dachau. Now, the question arises, was there a German resistance movement against the Nazi regime. German literature on this political phenomenon exists hitherto only in a very small measure. I know only of a few pamphlets and brief articles. I have heard, how ever, that there is already a larger amount of literature abroad on this question.

Unfortunately, this literature was not yet accessible to me.

Now, to introduce this final chapter of my direct examination, I should like to submit Document Sievers No. 50 as Sievers Exhibit 11. It is in Document Book 2, which is already available, page 25 in this document book.

I offer this document as Exhibit Sievers No. 11. This is an excerpt from the pamphlet by Emil Henk, "The Tragedy of the 20th of July 1944", I quote: —

THE PRESIDENT: That Document does not appear to be on page 25 of the English book.

DR. WEISGERBER: It is on page 27 in the English.

THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.

DR. WEISGERBER: (Reading)

The resistance movement against Hitler is as old as Hitler's dictatorship itself. The struggle of his enemies against his system and his terror began on the day be came to power. Hitler had passionate adherents, but he had also resolute opponents willing to die, from the first day up to the very day of his defeat. He was the first man in centuries to split the German people into two hostile and irreconcilable camps.

To be sure the world saw only one of those Germanys: The National Socialist one, proclaimed with the flourish of trumpets by the Goebbels propaganda. The other Germany was hardly visible to the public eye. It was oppressed, prohibited, persecuted, imprisoned in jails and concentration camps. In the Third Reich there were indeed two kinds of Germans. They spoke the same language but they did not understand each other. A fantastic and unscrupulous propaganda spread impenetrable darkness over the real state of affairs. The world stood before the colossus of Hitler's power state, the most thoroughly constructed despotism of all times, and no one knew what was going on behind the walls of this huge prison.

What was the 20th of July in reality? Was it merely a ludicrous military revolt, bound to fail hopelessly in a despotic power state -or was a real political power backing the attempt?

Probably it will never be possible to show the whole widely ramified conspiracy, all the preparations and conferences, the years of ebbing and flowing in the plans for the revolt. It will never be possible to spread out before the world the huge circle of conspirators and the gigantic secret organization, in short the whole illegal setup of generals, citizens and politicians.

Why not?

Just because the 20 July was not a revolt made by a few generals, but a conspiracy of wide strata of the German people. The threads of this conspiracy did therefore not converge in one hand, but ran through many hands, through groups which were separated within the opposition. No group knew exactly the set-up of the other, no group was permitted to know it exactly, if only for security reasons.

Moreover, the men who held the threads in their hands are dead now, With the exception of a few, they remained silent even under the tortures of the Gestapo. And now death has for ever closed their mouths.

At first glance two large groups of conspirators attract our attention; the military men and the civilians.

The military group is to a certain extent known to the public. It is knew to have prepared the attempt and to have carried it out. But that much may be said in advance: about 16,000 military men were involved in the revolt. Thus more than 16 generals from the innermost circle of the conspirators alone were executed. Immense numbers and dangerous work in view of an incredibly well-organized Gestapo.

One fact is self-evident: Hitler could not be overthrown by the military alone. Without being backed by a political opposition and in the last resort, by the masses of the people even a successful attempt would have been void of any meaning and sense.

Who were the Political Men that prepared and planned this attempt and which were the Political Parties involved on the 20th of July?

We may say unmistakably in advance: Behind the revolt stood the whole political Germany.

For the time being, I should like to quote only that much.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. WEISGERBER:

Q: Witness, in the first part of your examination you have already said how you became acquainted with Hielscher and his group. What were the intentions of Friedrich Hielscher, as far as you knew them?

A: On the 30th of January 1933 the rule of the NSDAP began; the movement was at that time much too strong for the people who opposed it to be able to destroy it again. Even the several million members of the trade unions were not able to prevent the destruction of the unions at that time. It was clear to us that at first only consistent infiltration into the NSDAP by the opposition could take place. The advance posts were to build up their posts carefully and try to form nests of resistance within the party. That was a process which could proceed only very slowly, since the entire public and private life was increasingly controlled by the SD and the Gestapo. When in the course of years it became more and more clear that a collapse of the Nazi regime by undermining was not possible, in our opinion the only way left was that of an armed uprising, and we worked toward that aim.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date or approximate date, of the publication of this Document; Sievers Document No. 50?

DR. WEISBERGER: Mr. President, this pamphlet by Emil Henk was published in 1946 in the second edition. I submitted a copy of this pamphlet as the original Document.

THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.

BY DR. WEISGERBER:

Q: Witness, was Hielscher alone in this intention?

A: Our opposition group was by no means the only one. In the course of years various other resistance groups were founded. In view of the great danger of their intentions they had to proceed very slowly and carefully before they could establish contact with each other.

Q: Can you tell us anything about attempts to establish contact with people of similar intentions from your own experience?

A: Yes, before 1933 Hielscher had established contact with a Munich lawyer, Dr. Liedig, who as I learned later, was in very close contact with Admiral Canaris, the head of the Counter Intelligence Service of the Wehrmacht. At the end of 1933, Hielscher came to Munich, where I was working at that time, and told me of his intention to bring Liedig and myself together. In the summer of 1934, that was before the Roehm affair of the 30th of June 1934, there was another thorough discussion between Hielscher, Liedig and myself at his house and at the house of Albrecht Schaeffer at Rimsting on the Chiemsee.

Q: Did this connection remain in the following time?

A: From that time on I was liaison man between Hielscher and Liedig, until 1936. Because I moved to Berlin in 1935 it was no longer possible for me to continue to act as liaison man, but Hielscher continued to maintain this contact.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document Sievers No. 17 from Document book Sievers No. 1, on page No. 41; I offer this as Sievers' Exbibit No. 12. This is an affidavit of the lawyer Franz Liedig of Munich. This is the same Dr. Liedig, whom the witness has just mentioned.

Franz Liedig status:

I declare herewith, that Wolfram Sievers was known to me from 1933-1936 as the liaison man between Friedrich Hielscher and myself. He was reliable, clever, unconditionally discreet and a passionate enemy of National Socialism.

Then follows the signature and certificate.

I also offer from Document Book No. 2, Document Sievers No. 46 which is on page 18. I offer this as Sievers' Exhibit No. 13.

THE PRESIDENT: That Exhibit does not commence on Page 16.

DR. WEISGERBER: Page 18 of the German, Document No. 46. Document No. 46, I offer that as Sievers Exhibit 13. This is an affidavit of Albrecht Schaeffer, the same Albrecht Shaeffer whom the witness just mentioned.

From 1939 on I have been a resident of the United States of America. I left Germany because of my opposition to the Nazi-regime.

Friedrich Hielscher, whose acquaintance I made in 1930, was a frequent guest in my house at Rimsting on the Chiem Lake and often stayed there with us for weeks. From discussions, conversations and papers which Friedrich Hielscher showed me, I was convinced that he was a member of an organization which attempted, by placing confidential agents within the NSDAP, to obtain information on the party and to do damage to the regime as such.

Through Hielscher I got to know several of his friends who belonged to this organization. Among them was also Wolfram Sievers whom he brought along as a visitor in 1943.

In the course of the conversations which took place at that time, Hielscher told me — as far as I remember in the presence of Sievers — that later worked within the SS-organization, i.e. in the so-called 'Ahnenerbe' which was founded by Himmler; his purpose was to cover up for the activities of the Hielscher organization, to protect members of the organization; to camouflage meetings and mainly to undermine the SS from the inside, and finally to prepare an armed revolution.

I therefore believe that Wolfram Sievers joined, and stayed in the SS, only in order to serve the purposes of the Hielscher-Organization.

Then follows the certificate.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, in this affidavit by Schaeffer, the affiant states that he has been a resident of the United States since 1939 and that he met the defendant Sievers in 1943.

DR. WEISGERBER: That is a typing mistake, Your Honor, it should be 1934, the original Document has 1934. I did not have an opportunity to compare the translation with the original and correct any typing mistakes.

THE PRESIDENT: If that should be an error I desire it be corrected at this time. The date is correct in the German Document book – 1934.

BY DR. WEISGERBER:

Q: Witness, what were your duties as liaison man to Dr. Liedig?

A: I had to carry information between Hielscher and Liedig.

Q: And what kind of information?

A: About events in the party; for example, the persecution of the church, contact with both Christian sects with the intention of intensifying their opposition to the National Socialist regime. In connection with the church and their knowledge about reliable elements, we hoped to find strength in our opposition at that time. We were also interested in the intention of the NSDAP, agricultural questions and in culture field. From the end of 1933 until the end of 1934, I was with the 'Wehr' Publishing House in Munich, the central publishing house of the NSDAP. Because a great deal of secret information of the party was collected there, I had very good opportunity for obtaining information. I was able to use this opportunity for the benefit of the resistance movement for Hielscher and Liedig.

Q: Through the fact that you moved to Berlin and your work for the Ahnenerbe there resulted for you a new situation. In this new work for yours did you continue to work for Hielscher?

A: Yes, my work for Hielscher and his resistance group was really only to begin here.

Q: The you first informed yourself about the people with whom you worked — the people around Himmler?

A: Yes, I had to fortify my position first and feel my way care fully.

Q: Were you in constant contact with Hielscher during this time?

A: Yes, that was a prerequisite for the success of my work in this position.

Q: And how was this contact secured? I imagine that in everything that you did in this direction at this time you had to work with extreme care.

A: Until 1937, Hielscher lived in Berlin which made it possible to have constant contact. In 1937, Hielscher moved to Meiningen. We met in Berlin or at other places. In 1939, Hielscher moved to Potsdam which reestablished constant contact.

Q: Did Hielscher give you definite duties for this time too?

A: Yes, we wanted to get further insight into the group of people around Himmler to find out the plans and intentions of the SS.

Q: Mr. President, I now offer Document Sievers #20 in Document Book, Sievers, page 50. I offer this as Sievers Exhibit 14. This is an affidavit of the Government physician, Dr. Ernst Friedrich Ebert, dated 14 January 1947. I shall read on page 51 the paragraph, "I swear" in the top third on Page 51, I quote:

From August 1938 on I was an active member of the secret organization of Friedrich Hielscher, which from 1933 until the collapse of the Nazi regime fought this regime without interruption, and which was connected with the attempted overthrow of 20 July 1944. In 1938, on the occasion of conferences with Friedrich Hielscher, I met the former Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] and Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, Wolfram Sievers from Berlin, as a member of the secret organization.

I know that his duty was to supply us constantly with news from the Reichsfuehrung [Reich Leadership] SS and, by virtue of his position, to help and conceal our work with all means at his disposal. From numerous meetings with Friedrich Hielscher and him, Sievers in the course of following years, I know that he always carried out this difficult task very well.

There follows the certification.

Witness, did you succeed in carrying out this intention of gaining insight into Himmler's entourage?

A: Yes, in my capacity of Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe I had to cooperate with Himmler's personal staff, the head of which was wolf, later Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General]. In the course of time I had a very good opportunity for obtaining information, but I must point out that I always had to be very careful not to disturb the appearance of loyalty.

Q: Professor Gebhardt had mentioned the so-called Freundenkreis — Circle of Friends of Himmler. What can you say about that?

A: My knowledge of the existence of this group goes back to the year 1936. The circle of Friends was composed primarily of big industrialists and bankers who met for a social evening at regular intervals. On these occasions a member or a guest usually gave a brief speech about a subject which interested the group generally. I gained the impression that there were influential people, especially in industry, who wanted to get into contact with Himmler. I remember one case when a personality from industry offered to pay one million in order to be admitted into this so-called Circle of Friends.

Q: Is it true that the circle of Friends financed the Ahnenerbe?

A: No, that is not true. It is true that Himmler received an annual sum of about one million from the Circle of Friends, but he used this money for personal representation purposes. The Ahnenerbe received none of this money. It was financed partly from funds of the German Research Association, from Reich funds, occasional contribution, and dues of members.

Q: Did you yourself belong to this Circle of Friends?

A: Yes, from the end of 1941 on.

Q: Was this not a personal preference based on friendship with Himmler or did you pay any large sum of money to be accepted?

A: It is well known that many high-sounding name often did not have the implied background. This was true of the Circle of Friends. It included a number of influential persons from industry and business who supplied Himmler with funds. These men were, of course, persona grata with Himmler. Himmler wanted in this so-called circle of Friends to make known his cultural ambitions. In this connection, from the end of 1941 on, the Curator and Office Chief of the Ahnenerbe, Professor Wuest, I, myself as Reich Business Manager, and the Main Department Chief of the Ahnenerbe, the Tibet research man, Dr. Schaeffer, were called into the Circle of Friends. Perhaps the paying members — if I may call them that — were considered friends of Himmler and were treated as such by him. For the others this was not the case and certainly not for me. I had no personal advantage from it, but in the interest of my resistance work I had a great deal of advantage.

Q: You mean to say then that you succeeded in getting a new and important source of information?

A: Yes, one might say that. I should like to mention an example in this connection. State Secretary Naumann belonged to this circle of friends from Goebbels Ministry. From 1943 on he gave reports in the circle of friends about the situation at the front, the political situation at home and abroad, and Goebbels information service worked quite well at times. Once at a meeting Naumann reported or rather he told us of a stenographic report on a meeting of the British House of Commons by Churchill which he had received two hours after the meeting.

Q: In your work for the Resistance Movement did you work alone in the Ahnenerbe or did you have associates?

A: As time went on I employed various associations gradually. This was made easier because I succeeded from time to time in having research assignments given to reliable men. In this way, for example, I gave Dr. Hielscher a fake research assignment, and I gave him a pass of a section chief of the Ahnenerbe. After that it was possible for him to travel abroad, which otherwise would not have been possible for him since he did not belong to the Party, SS, or any other organization.

Q: Witness, you said yesterday that you yourself could not issue research assignments and now you just said that you obtained a research assignment for Hielscher. Do you mean to say that this assignment was a fake, and that you yourself took the risk for Hielscher's appointment in the Ahnenerbe?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us how many members of yours or any other Resistance Group were occupied in any form in the Ahnenerbe?

A: For people belonging directly to Hielscher's Group, or people in contact with is, I managed to find positions for about ten and to finance them. Besides that, especially in the business management of the Ahnenerbe, there were about eighteen persons whom I knew were opposed to the Nazi regime.

The Ahnenerbe included a total of about three hundred people.

Q: Did you also have contact with other resistance groups? You have mentioned Leidig.

A: Yes. From time to time I received instructions and information from Hielscher who had all the threads in his hands for his group and his contact with other groups.

Q: Can you tell us a few noteworthy cases?

A: Hielscher discussed his various conferences with me, with Count Von der Schulenburg, head of the Young Conservative Group of Resistance Movement, before and afterwards. Also with Count Blumenthal who from the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944 was the man between Stauffenberg and Hielscher.

Q: When did you establish contact with these people?

A: I was in touch with Schulenburg first. I believe it was in 1940 when Schulenburg and Hielscher got together. We established contact with Blumenthal in 1943. Also, Lt. Von Haeften, Stauffenberg's adjutant.

Q: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to offer from Document Book II, Document Sievers No. 52 as Sievers Exhibit No. 15. The document is on page 36 of the English translation. This is a short excerpt from an article in the "Neue Auslese" (New Digest) 2nd year, No. 1. The article has the title "One of the German Resistance." It deals with Count Helmuth von Moltke. I do not intend to read this document but on page 37 I should like to point out a few names. At the top there is mentioned Theodor Steltzer, then Adam von Trott-Zu-Solz, and Johannes von Haeften.

Witness, this is an article, as I just said from "Neue Auslese" You just spoke of a Lt. von Haeften here. Is the name Johannes von Haeften — is that the same man?

A: No. That was his brother.

Q: This article on page 36 and 37 gives a number of names who are considered the most important members of the Kreisau group.

Witness, did you have any contact with other members of the Kreisau group?

A: Yes. I knew Legationsrat [Legation Counselor] Adam von Trott-Zu-Solz very well.

Q: How did you know of his membership in the resistance movement?

A: I learned that from him. We learned to know each other in our secret political situation when there was an air raid on Berlin. The name von Haeften was mentioned and after a few careful questions we mutually revealed our antagonism to the Nazis.

Q: If I remember correctly the name von Trott-Zu-Solz as well as Friedrich Hielscher occur repeatedly in your diary. If this was a very secret matter was it not careless of you to mention these names in your diary?

A: These were camouflage entries in my diary which I discussed yesterday. The frequency of my talks with these men had to be explained in some way and consequently the discussions listed were not the actual ones discussed but were merely alibis. That is especially true of Mr. von Trott.

Q: Were you in contact with any other resistance groups?

A: Yes. I had especially close relations with the Catholic Group headed by Freiherr [Baron] von Luedig. Also good relations with the Socialists, represented by Rauchwein and later by Hauberg. Hielscher also worked with Dr. Topf as a respected man in the Democratic or social Democratic circles. I personally had very close relations with Anton von Kliphausen who belonged to the so called Wolf Group, which also included Kunze for example, who was in contact with the former Reich Chancellor Wirth in Switzerland, and there were also connected with Resistance Movement in the occupied territories. I had close contact with Dr. Bommers of the University of Groningen who was an important member of the Dutch Resistance Movement.

Q: Mr. President, my client has just mentioned the name of Prof. Dr. Bommers. In this connection I should like to offer from Document Book I —

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, it seems to me that defense counsel has gene far enough into this defense of his in resistance movement. That is an attempt at mitigation. That the defendant was a member of the resistance group — they have explained fully what the resistance group did — and I think that the Tribunal is well aware now of the activities of that movement. The witness here is going to have three other witnesses come here to testify in his activity in resistance movement. I would assume that the Tribunal has now gathered sufficient information to determine the status of the defendant Sievers in that particular group. Therefore, I object to any further time being taken up with this resistance movement business.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Objection is over-ruled.

DR. WEISGERBER: I offer document No. 14 in Document Book I, page 32, as Seivers Exhibit No. 16. This is an affidavit of Dr. Assien Bohmers, dated 17 January 1947. I should like to read merely a few excerpts from this affidavit. I quote:

I, Dr. Assien Bohmers, born on 16 January 1912 at Kutfen, the Netherlands, Archeologist by profession, residing at Buitenpest, Julianalean 375, swear, testify and declare:

It had been known to me, already since 1937, that Herr Wolfram Sievers kept inwardly very much aloof from the official scientific Nazi doctrine of race, blood and soil, etc. In accordance with this attitude, he tried time and again, and succeeded in keeping typical representatives of the official false doctrine out of this branch of science, and that in order to protect this science. The question arises, of course, why Herr Sievers continued his efforts to gain importance among SS circles. In my opinion, his sole aim was, on the one hand, to form a cell by order and in accord with the resistance groups which existed already at that time. It is difficult now being acquainted with the development of the Nazi regime — to put oneself in the mental position of those Germans who then, under very desperate circumstances, contemplated the possibility of a revolution.

I shall not read what follows, but on page 33 I shall read the second and last paragraphs:

It is known to me that Herr Sievers, too, had more or less direct contacts in those years with persons who had connections with agencies interested in news and information from underground Germany.

The last paragraph on this page:

I have been in a position to observe Herr Sievers during many years under manifold circumstances. For obvious reasons I was originally by no means induced to trust him completely. Nevertheless, I have learnt to admire him as a man, more and more, in the course of years and I have more and more learnt to trust him, as far as his real political attitude is concerned.

His role was not easy and certainly did not pay. At the present moment it is not easy to judge the feelings of the individual resistance men. Their tragic fate was that all their efforts were in vain.

Then there follows the certification.

The following document, Sievers No. 15, on page 35 of the document book I, I offer as Sievers Exhibit No. 17. This is an affidavit of the same Dr. Bohmers, dated 14 February, 1947. It deals with the warning and about the saving of this Dr. Bohmers by Sievers. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this affidavit.

BY DR. WEISGERBER:

Q: Witness, on request of Hielscher, you maintained contact with a number of other resistance groups; I want to give the Tribunal a comprehensive and concise survey of the nature of your conspiratorial activities. Please be brief.

A: According to my position, my main duty was to obtain and pass on valuable information. Also I had to cover difficult situations, to make conferences possible, for which I made my office available, and many small incidents which may seen unimportant to an outsider, but in such a highly dangerous matter we had to be very careful about camouflage and security. It was very important, for example, how many SS troops were in the Reich at any time. It was my duty to get this information. Of course, one could not simply ask the SS main office, but I was able to do it because all of the training of the SS was under the main office and by reason of the fact that Himmler wanted to have the Ahnenerbe publication sent to the troops, and by the addresses and the appropriate number of publications used, I was able to judge the number of troops. This had to be done repeatedly because the revolt was put off several times.

Q: You can perhaps give us another example which would clarify your activities?

A: Hielscher wanted to find out from me what trips Himmler wanted to make, especially abroad or to the occupied territories. These trips were, of course, always kept secret. Exploiting Himmler's pseudo-scientific aspirations, I asked him whether he did not want to see the Bayeux carpet in France, and the royal graves in Norway, or the Megalithic graves in Holland, and in this way I frequently learned of Himmler's destination, and was able to tell Hielscher.

Q: Now did Hielscher always keep you informed of all details of his preparations about the final aim of this resistance activity? And the final aim, as you have already said, was armed overthrow.

A: Yes, that was clear. Hielscher informed me as far as necessary of the details, and he also informed me about one thing and another; but the individual people never had exact knowledge of everything that was going on, if only for reasons of camouflage; but I knew quite a large number of names of people who belonged to the various resistance groups because I came into contact with quite a large number of people, for example, the circle of friends which I have just talked about; and if names were mentioned in this connection, it might be of the greatest importance to ascertain in what connection they were mentioned, and it was important to watch this.

Q: Was it possible for you in many cases to warn members of the resistance movement who were in danger and thus to help them?

A: Yes, I was able to do so in many cases. Perhaps the most important case was the following: In 1943 I learned, when I happened to be in Copenhagen, that a drive was being planned against the Danish Jews. I heard of the differences of opinion between the SD in Copenhagen and the Wehrmacht Commander in Denmark, about the well known atomic physicist Professor Bohr. Then in Berlin I learned from the counter intelligence office of the Wehrmacht details which made it clear that Professor Bohr was in great danger.

I myself had no opportunity to warn him directly. Therefore, I went to Dr. Von Trott in the foreign office. I informed him of the planned drive against the Jews in Denmark and in particular about Professor Bohr. I asked him whether it was possible for him through his connections abroad to send a warning to the people who were endangered by a reliable means and he said "yes", and shortly thereafter he told me that the warning had been transmitted, and then Professor Bohr succeeded in fleeing to Sweden before the drive was carried out, and later he went to England and then to the United States.

Q.Is this the same Trott-Zu-Solz whom you mentioned before?

A: Yes.

Q: In the Article "One of the German Resistance Movement" which I have already submitted as Sievers' Exhibit 15 it is said that Moltke happened to find out that drastic measures were being planned against the Danish Jews. Do you mean this event?

A: Yes; that is the occasion.

Q: Now can you please tell the High Tribunal very briefly about one case or another in which you helped people who were in any way oppressed by the Nazi Regime or deprived of their freedom?

A: I helped whenever I had the opportunity to do so, exploiting the differences between Himmler and Rosenberg, For example, I was able to help the well-known archeologist, Professor Merhart, and Professor R. R. Schmidt. It was often necessary to take advantage of Himmler's scientific vanity in order to obtain research assignments in some cases, for example, in the case of Professor Leis, who had been dismissed as a university professor, because his wife was Jewish. Leis was a geologist at the university of Freiburg. Nevertheless, it was possible to arrange for him to receive a research assignment from the Ahnenerbe.

In 1942 I was able to obtain the liberation of the Norwegian freedom fighter, Professor Seidt, rector of the University of Oslo, from a concentration camp, and I also helped the Norwegian university professors, Kroger and Lesbeth. Several hundred Norwegian students in 1944 I had released from the concentration camp Buchenwald by intervening with Himmler. When in 1942 for the first time through my contact with Rascher I saw a concentration camp, I was deeply moved by conditions there.

Although I had heard about the atrocities and the horrible atmosphere on various occasions, seeing these things myself and the impression of such a slave camp surpassed anything I had been able to imagine. I was especially shocked to see that besides criminal types there were highly intelligent personages. I considered this system devilish, and wherever possible I helped; but it must be considered that I had only very slight opportunities because I had nothing whatever to do with the concentration camp system. Where I could, I tried to have people released, or otherwise I tried to have them given leaves. Thus I was able to have the following Dachau prisoners released: Kutzengruber, Feixt, Kreiz, Bromm, to mention only a few; and by transferring Ploetner's action outside of the concentration camps I was able to create good living conditions for about thirty prisoners and preserve them from the horrors of the last few months of the War. And I took a female Jehovah's Witness into my own house.

DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in this connection I offer from Document Book Sievers I Document No. 29 on page 73. This is Sievers Exhibit No. 18, page 73. This is an affidavit by Didrik Arup Seip, the same Professor Seip whom the witness Sievers has just mentioned. This statement, Oslo, 21 January 1947, reads as follows — I quote:

When I was discharged from the Prison Prinz Albrecht Strasse, Berlin, on 21 December 1942 after having been interned for seven months in the Concentration Camp Sachsenhausen, I first lived in Munich for several months; then (May 1943) an order was given that I should be allowed to move about freely in Berlin and later in the village of Gross Kreutz near Berlin.

Herr Wolfram Sievers saw to it that I could do scientific work in the libraries of Berlin, and he supplied me with ample money. In March

— the year is omitted here —

I had a rendezvous with Herr Sievers at the house of Friedrich Heilscher in Potsdam. Heilscher hinted to me that he was not a true National Socialist. Herr Sievers gave me complete freedom and saw to it that I could, as well as possible, live with my wife and work. He was always to the point and behaved in a fair and helpful manner towards me.

Then follows the signature and the certification.

The next document, Sievers No. 30 on page 75, I offer as Exhibit Sievers No. 19. This is an affidavit of Hedwig Patzer of the 30th of January, 1947.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal is disposed to receive these documents which you offer as exhibits in evidence, but I suggest that you read only very short and important portions of them so that the typewritten mimeographed record will not be unduly extended. Counsel would have an opportunity at the close of the trial in filing his brief on behalf of his client to call attention of the Tribunal.

DR. WEISGERBER: This is the affidavit of the female Jehovah's Witness whom my client took into his house. I do not intend to read this statement. Then I offer Sievers No. 41 which is on page 116 in Document Book 1. Those are the last two pages of the document book, Document 41, the last two pages of Document Book 1.

JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, in preparing these document books there has been a mistake in transposition in some manner, and a goodly portion of the so-called English Document Book has the German documents in them rather than the English, and I am inclined to believe that in the so-called German Document Book only the documents beginning on page 111 appear in the English translation.

DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have a few more complete copies of the English translation of the document book, and I shall see to it that they are submitted to the Tribunal.

JUDGE SEBRING: This is Document Book 1, both English and —

DR. WEISGERBER: Yes.

JUDGE SEBRING: — German

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution's document book is in the same form, Your Honor. I think it involves only one document, however.

JUDGE SEBRING: At the present moment it appears that this involves Document No. 40. Well, as a matter of fact, I have two Document 40's in German. Perhaps it can be straightened out more easily than it appears.

THE PRESIDENT: What number do you assign to this exhibit, Counsel?

DR. WEISGERBER: Sievers Exhibit No. 20.

THE PRESIDENT: This is the affidavit of Friedrich Bromm.

DR. WEISGERBER: Yes. This is a statement by the concentration camp inmate, Bromm, whom the Defendant has just mentioned, I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this statement. I do not intend to read it.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess. We will endeavor to adjust this matter during the recess.

(A recess was taken)