1947-04-11, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS — Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to the witness on the part of any of the defense counsel?
BY DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the Defendant Rostock):
Q: Witness, you were deputy business manager of the Reich Research Council and I can assume that you are informed about the business in the Reich Research Council.
A: Yes, I can give you information about that.
Q: Please, clarify once and for all who was responsible for issuing and supervising research assignments, were those individuals, was it the Board, the business management, or the heads of the special departments?
A: For the issuing of the research assignments issued by the Reich Research Council, the only persons responsible and competent were the 30 department heads and plenipotentiaries, who in turn were responsible solely to Goering as President of the Reich Research Council.
Q: You said "30 department heads". Was medicine the most important aspect if the Reich Research Council, or were there other departments, for example, how high do you estimate the number of research assignments?
A: I cannot give you any information about the research assignments issued in the department for general medicine, or about the the number of assignments issued in any other department. The total of assignments issued by the 30 departments was several thousand.
Q: And the persons conducting research in one specific field received their assignment from the head of that department, and if there were any duty of supervision then merely the head of this department would be responsible?
A: It was exclusively this head of department who was responsible, who issued the assignment and who received the regular reports on the research work.
Q: These reports were sent to the department head by the research worker, and he passed them on. In what form were they passed on? You know of the red pamphlets. Was there any other form?
A: I can explain that to you exactly. The research worker gave a report to the department head. The department head drew up a list every month which was a compilation of all the research assignments. This he sent to the department for card index and reports. These lists contained the name of the scientist who was carrying cut the assignment, the title of the work in very brief summary, and sometimes the number of the assignment and the priority rating. The department for card index and reports sent these reports, in the form which I have just described, to persons who were interested. They, in turn, if they wished to, could approach the individual research worker for further information. From time to time, about every six months, these lists were compiled into the so-called red reports. These were printed, the lists were merely mimeographed, and these red reports were sent to the members of the Board (Presidial-Rat), that happened about every six months or nine months. These red reports contained nothing but what was in the list, that is, merely a summary, the name of the scientist, and the title of the assignment.
Q: Can you state precisely from your own knowledge that in addition to these lists, and in addition to the red booklets, these people, for example, the Board, did not receive other regular and more detailed reports? Or is it your opinion that the members of the Board received only these lists and red folders?
A: There was never any other report issued.
Q: Now, you have said that the department head was alone responsible for his particular field, that is of great importance for my case and for that reason I should like to ask you a very concrete question. From the proceedings so far, you have heard that Professor Rostock from 1944 on, that is in the last year of the war, was in the Reich Research Council as deputy of Brandt as member of the Board.
If, in that capacity as deputy member of the Board in the year 1944, he wanted any research assignment changed in any way or had any objection, could he intervene personally or did he have to approach the department head, and who would that have been?
A: Personal intervention was quite impossible. He could only have gone to Geheimrat [Privy Councilor] Sauerbruck and whether he could have induced him to effect any change he wanted I do not know, but considering the personality of Mr. Sauerbruck, I imagine he would not have done any such thing.
Q: Then the Board was a curatorium, as it were, and had nothing to do with managing the affairs of the Reich Research Council?
A: The Board had nothing to do with the management. It included a large number of important personages, who as I said regularly received these red reports, and the members of the Board were also invited to the meetings, but generally they did not come, did not send any representatives. It had no doubt originally been the aim to avoid duplication of work in this way but it appeared that people were very eager to sit on the Board, but actually did not want to give the Reich Research Council anything, merely wanted to obtain benefits from it. From my own knowledge I know that satisfactory cooperation existed only between the representatives of the army, the navy, the post office, and I believe the Food Ministry, and the Reich Forestry Office.
Q: I have one more question. You know the Institute for Military Medical Research, the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] in Dachau and in Strassbourg. I believe you said that these were exclusively under the Ahnenerbe and, therefore, under the Reichfuehrer SS?
A: Yes.
Q: Then these institutes were never under the Commissioner General for medical and Health Matters?
A: No, certainly not.
Q: Now, I have one more question. Somewhere in this rather extensive diary under the date of 1 June 1946 there is an entry that Professor Rostock made an inquiry of you about the drug polygal and that you answered this inquiry. Do you recall this event and what happened?
A: The occasion for this inquiry, and this was referred to, was the publication in the Munich Medical Weekly (Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift) and because of this publication Professor Rostock asked to be sent a test sample of polygal.
Q: And your answer was to the same —
A: I believe Dr. Ploetner sent this sample to Dr. Rostock.
Q: That was all?
A: Yes.
DR. PRIBILLA: I have no further questions.
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for the defendant Weltz.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Witness, how long have you known Professor Weltz personally?
A: Since the beginning of this trial.
Q: Did you or the Ahnenerbe have any correspondence with Professor Weltz or his office?
A: No, certainly not, as far as I know.
Q: And did Rascher, who as you know was assigned to Professor Weltz, for sometime ever talk to you about Weltz?
A: Yes, he spoke of Professor Weltz a few times but I had no real idea about him because I did not know him personally or officially.
Q: Now, will you please tell us what Rascher said about Professor Weltz?
A: He wasn't very polite. He called him a typical scholar of the old school and he said he was slow thinking, especially because he did not accept Rascher's new ideas, and Rascher made fun of the Christian Catholic attitude of Dr. Weltz.
He said he was limited by his religious ideas and this at that time always implied a certain threat to the state.
Q: Now, in connection with Rascher's high altitude experiments in Dachau, I should like to discuss a document with you. It is in the German Document Book 2, on high altitude experiments, on page 61 of the English, which is page 59, the number is 1581-PS, Exhibit 48. It is a letter from the defendant Rudolf Brandt to you, dated 21 March 1942. I shall quote for the sake of simplicity:
The Reichfuehrer-SS, Personal Staff, Fuehrer Headquarters, 21 March 1944, to the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Sievers, Berlin, Dahlem: Dear Comrade Sievers: I refer to your inquiry of the 9th of March 1942 concerning Dr. Rascher.
I want to correct myself, the letter is dated 3 21 1942.
Reference is made to the sub-atmospheric pressure experiments which are being carried out on concentration camp inmates in the Dachau camp by the air force. The Reichsfuehrer SS has approved these experiments under the condition that SS 2nd Lieutenant Dr. Rascher, who is anyhow a medical 1st Lieutenant of the air force, takes part in them. I am sure that Dr. Rascher will be able to give you further details. Heil Hitler. Rudolf Brandt.
You have already said in your direct examination that your inquiry of March 9, 1942, which is mentioned here, was an inquiry as to what Rascher's experiments were about. Now, I should like to know the following. Did you perhaps learn from Rascher for what reason he wanted to be attached to the Ahnenerbe, which he finally managed to put through, with Himmler?
A: From the documents which have been submitted here it can be seen that as early as 1941 Rascher had established contact with Himmler, but only in the beginning of 1942, after the high altitude experiments had been begun, was there any contact with the Ahnenerbe. I asked Rascher later why he had been ordered to come to the Ahnenerbe. He gave quite an extensive answer. I cannot remember everything that he said now.
Rascher did not want to come to the Ahnenerbe. He wanted to work under Himmler. In 1942 Himmler ordered that he should be attached to the Ahnenerbe. Before that Rascher was attached to Himmler's adjutant's office in Munich, and he later retrained this association. It was my opinion that Rascher was primarily interested in being free from supervision, including supervision from Professor Weltz's institute. I could see no convincing reason for this at first and besides it was none of my business, but as early as 1942 Rascher wanted to get to a university, and he tried the University of Munich first. He went to the office of the chief of the Ahnenerbe, Professor Wuest, who was at the same time director of the University of Munich. From Wuest I heard later that both Professor Schittenhelm, as well as Professor Weltz, had refused to help Rascher qualify. These two gentlemen were on the medical faculty of the University of Munich. My own personal opinion about Rascher had no significance at that time because I had no right to mass judgment on a scientist, but in any case my personal opinion was confirmed by what Wuest told me. Unfortunately, Wuest did not draw any conclusions from this fact at the time I talked to him about it. He even refused to talk to Himmler about the matter although he could have based his arguments on the judgment of these two authorities. I would conclude from this circumstance that the fact that Wuest refused to help Rascher achieve his aim contributed to his action to dissolve his association with Wuest.
Q: Then I should like to discuss another document with you. It is in Document Book 5 of the prosecution, page 84 in the German and 77 in the English. This is Document 1609-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 92. It is a personal letter from Reichsfuehrer SS, Field Headquarters, 24 October 1942. It is marked Top Secret. It is addressed to Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Munich, and I quote:
Dear Rascher:
I acknowledge receipt of your letters of the 9th of October and of the 16th of October 1942. I have read your report regarding cooling experiments on human beings with great interest.
I skip a few things and go on to the next paragraph:
I regard those people as traitors who still do reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy German soldiers die as a result of these cooling conditions. I shall not hesitate to report these men to the offices concerned. I empower you to make my opinion on this known to the concerned offices.
The rest of the letter is of no interest here. It is signed:
Heil Hitler, Yours, Heinrich Himmler.
Can you tell us, witness, did Rascher talk to you about this document?
A: Yes, I remember it very well. When Rascher received this letter from Himmler he came in with it triumphantly and said that now, finally, thanks to this clear decision by Himmler, he had received the authorization to work without restriction, and now everybody should be careful who were opposed to him and objected.
Q: In this document the Luftwaffe doctors are mentioned who were apparently against Rascher. Do you have any reason to believe that Professor Weltz was referred to in this document by Himmler?
A: I can only speak about Mr. Weltz because Rascher mentioned — as I said in answer to your previous question — he named Mr. Weltz as an example.
Q: Weltz was explicitly mentioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you knew Rascher fairly well, witness. Can you tell us, could Rascher be expected to make use of this document?
A: In view of Rascher's mentality and character that was only too certain. In my opinion, by giving Rascher this authorization, Himmler put a dangerous instrument into his hands because he knew that Rascher would use it, and Rascher felt so sure of himself in possession of this authorization that even to me who was higher in rank though not his superior he dared to say that now, on the basis of this authorization by Himmler, I would withdraw any objections to these experiments. There was nothing to do since Rascher had this authorization but to be very careful, although my conscience was not satisfied.
Q: The poor relationship between Professor Weltz and Rascher which you have mentioned, at least after Rascher had this letter, meant a considerable danger for Professor Weltz?
A: I assume so if Weltz had given Rascher any occasion then Rascher, on the basis of this authority from Himmler, would have acted accordingly.
Q: I thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. FRITZ (Defense Counsel for the defendant Rose):
Q: Witness, did you know the defendant Rose before the collapse?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever have any correspondence with him?
A: No.
Q: In a letter from Professor Hirt to you — it is Document 792 in the Prosecution Document Book 13 — Professor Hirt mentions Professor Rose as a specialist in the field of entomology. He adds, however, that Professor Rose does not belong to the SS. Witness, why did you not get in touch with Professor Rose on the basis of this recommendation?
A: In connection with the establishment of a entomological institute which Himmler had ordered on the 1st of January, 1942, I asked not only Professor Hirt but also various other personages and institutes, on instructions from my chief, about a suitable specialist. All the answers received, including that from Professor Hirt, I passed on to my office chief. Since Professor Wuest then found a specialist for the institute himself there was no need to get in touch with Professor Rose about the matter.
Q: And another question in a different connection. In discussing the experiments of Professor Haagen with his new typhus vaccine in Natzweiler did any one ever speak to you about any participation of Professor Rose?
A: I did not participate in any such discussions, but I never heard the name of Professor Rose mentioned in this connection.
Q: Now, my final question in still another connection. Did you ever hear that Professor Rose had any part in the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling at Dachau?
A: Since I myself know nothing about these experiments I can tell you nothing, but as I say, I never heard the name of Professor Rose mentioned at all except in this letter from Professor Hirt.
Q: No further questions, Mr. President.
BY DR. VORWERK (Defense Counsel for the defendant Romberg):
Q: Witness, you said yesterday that you know the defendant Dr. Romberg. About how often did you see him?
A: I saw Romberg once in Dachau and later two or three times in Berlin.
Q: Where did you see him in Dachau?
A: I saw him when I was there at Rascher's invitation to watch a high altitude experiment which Rascher carried out together with Dr. Romberg.
Q: About when was that?
A: That was at the end of March or the beginning of April. In any case, it was shortly before Easter because at Easter in 1942 I talked to Himmler about it.
Q: Then you saw an experiment on this occasion?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the only time that you were in Dachau and saw an experiment?
A: It was the only time that I saw a high altitude experiment in Dachau. I was in Dachau several times.
Q: Were the experiments which were carried out in your presence in Dachau carried out correctly and with the necessary sense of responsibility as far as you could judge as a layman?
A: I had the impression that they were carried out with great medical care. I noticed that in one experiment the experimental subject complained of a violent earache and Romberg immediately changed the pressure and the man who was in the low pressure chamber indicated that the pain had stopped.
Q: Can you tell the Tribunal anything about whether these subjects were voluntary or not? Do you know whether they were volunteers or not?
A: I spoke about that yesterday in my direct examination. I asked both the people myself. Both of them assured me that they had volunteered for this experiment.
Q: You did not ask any one except these two experimental subjects?
A: There were only these two used in this experiment and I also said yesterday that I asked these people how many had volunteered. They said:
All of us volunteered but we didn't need that many people for the experiment.
Q: Did these two people also tell you why they had volunteered?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the defendant has rather elaborately explained this situation too during the course of his direct examination. I don't see any reason why we have to go over this material again. I object to this line of questioning, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant may answer the question.
Q: Will you answer the question, please, witness?
A: You asked me about the reason. Yes I asked them about that. They told me that they had volunteered because this gave them an opportunity to improve their position in the camp — their situation.
Q: Witness, so you recall what insignia these two experimental subjects were and whether that indicated whether they were criminals, political prisoners, or what they were?
A: I cannot remember any insigna but the one man with whom I had a conversation told me that he was in security custody in Dachau. As profession he was a safe cracker, so he told me — so I assume he was a professional criminal.
Q: Now another subject. Do you know whether Rascher was responsible for the administration and the organization of the experiments, for example, feeding, shelter, and so forth for the experimental subjects?
A: Unless that was up to the camp administration itself, of course, Rascher was responsible for it.
Q: Do you also know whether Rascher was competent for the selection of the experimental subjects or whether Dr. Romberg had any influence on it.
A: Romberg certainly had no influence whatever on that because Romberg was a civilian and could not give any orders in concentration camps.
Q: Would it have been possible for Romberg to consult the files on the prisoners to obtain information about the sentence passed, about previous commitments, etc. Was that possible?
A: In my opinion that was quite impossible. Romberg would never have been able to see these files. It is the same thing I just said Romberg was a civilian. I don't believe that a civilian would be allowed to see the files on criminals.
Q: Do you consider it possible that Romberg could have exerted any influence on the experiments Himmler had ordered Rascher to carry out, in particular would Romberg have had power to prevent fatal experiments be carried out by Rascher?
A: I cannot imagine how he could have done that. Rascher was an absolute autocrat. He relied on his personal relations with Himmler and he made ruthless use of this position.
Q: As far as you know what was Dr. Romberg's opinion of Dr. Rascher?
A: As I said I saw Romberg only a few times. I always had the impression that Romberg had definite reservations in regard to Rascher. I was given this impression at the first visit in Dachau. Rascher did not want Romberg to take any consideration of the pain of the experimental subjects, and at later meetings when we saw each other two or three times in Berlin, when Rascher was present, I also had the Repression that Romberg tried to restrain Rascher when something was not going fast enough for Rascher. And, Rascher said to me that Romberg was sometimes a brake on him and hampered him in his work. I can tell you nothing else. I didn't get more information about this matter.
Q: Do you know that Dr. Romberg saved the life of the tailor as testified here?
A: I heard the testimony but I knew nothing about it before.
Q: Didn't Dr. Rascher tell you about this when you visited Dachau?
A: No there was no mention of it.
Q: Do you believe that if this incident had occurred before your visit Rascher would have told you about it?
A: I assume so — on the basis of the tension I later discovered between Rascher and Romberg.
Q: Then it is your opinion that this occurred only after your visit?
A: I would assume so — yes.
Q: When were you interrogated for the first time about these high altitude experiments, witness?
A: Shortly after I was taken prisoner in May 1945.
Q: Were you examined on this subject while you were under arrest in England?
A: Yes, I was taken to London for that purpose.
Q: And what was the point of view of the interrogation?
A: I was the only non-scientist there in a special camp for scientists and finally I was asked about scientific matters.
Q: What do you believe that the interrogator was interested in proving to you?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, these interrogations the witness was subjected, to in England are completely irrelevant here. I object to this line of questioning as irrelevant and immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
Q: Under whose jurisdiction was Romberg after he went to the concentration camp?
A: On the basis of the waiver which everyone had to sign he was under the SS and Police Courts.
Q: How do you explain the great interest which Himmler had in these experiments on high altitude research so that he tried to obtain a low pressure chamber. Was that on behalf of Rascher or were they merely altruistic measures on behalf of the Luftwaffe?
A: All of Himmler's reasons and motives in pursuing his intentions I cannot say. But, certainly he was following up his own interest in that case and had a definite goal in mind.
Q: What goal do you believe Himmler had in mind in this case?
A: It is well known that Himmler had ambitions to set up a Luftwaffe for the SS. While I was serving with the troops in 1941 I saw that during a roll call a decree from Himmler was read calling on men to join the Luftwaffe and it said specifically that only the bravest, most courageous people should volunteer. And, the superior officers spoke of an SS Air Force. I noticed that particularly at the time because otherwise the SS tried to get men from other branches of the Wehrmacht into the SS rather than to give them up.
Q: Do you know that Himmler had strong ambitions to set up an SS Air Force. You just answered this question. Did that go any farther or was that the only indication you had?
A: The only evidence I had was my experience with the troops. What other talk there was I got only from hearsay.
Q: What do you know personally about Himmler's efforts in regard to high altitude experiments in addition to evidence which had been submitted here before the High Tribunal?
A: In the fall of 1942 Himmler gave me an assignment to buy a low pressure chamber for the SS.
Q: And what did you do? Where did you buy it?
A: I did not try to find it immediately — on the contrary. Rascher had said often enough that the Medical Inspectorate was making difficulties and that the DVL was obstructing his efforts. Therefore, he was quite enthusiastic when Himmler gave me the assignment to buy a low pressure chamber of our own in case the Luftwaffe refused to send their low pressure chamber to Dachau. Rascher said this would be the best thing and then Reichsfuehrer wouldn't have to let the Luftwaffe lead him around by the nose. When I had this assignment I called up Dr. Romberg in the DVL. I did not know his attitude exactly but I knew it well enough from Rascher's statements. I assumed, that he would react in the way that I expected him to.
Q: What do you mean by the way you expected him to act? What reaction did you expect from Romberg?
A: The letter which was shown to me a while ago, the letter from Himmler to Rascher, was already accessible at that time, and any opposition would be considered as high treason. In order to achieve anything we had to proceed very carefully. I asked Romberg whether he intended starting a now series of experiments with Rascher because I had an assignment from Himmler to buy a low pressure chamber. Roberg said he knew nothing about it and he had no definite intentions of collaborating with Mr. Rascher in a new series of experiments and I asked him not to talk about the matter any further because I was sure Rascher would not like it, and I said I assume you could have informed me of the details and I assumed that because the reluctance was palpable that something would be done.
Q: And do you know what happened after that?
A: Of course, I don't know what Romberg did, but shortly thereafter I approached the SS raw materials office which was in charge of obtaining machines and supplies. The raw materials office said that the firm could deliver a low pressure chamber only after several months and that it would require the highest priority, but to obtain this highest priority one needed the approval of the Luftwaffe because the SS could not prove any urgency or a great need for a low pressure chamber and then the contract was not given, could not be given, because the priority was blocked. One year later, in the fall of 1943, Himmler again issued an order for me to obtain a low pressure chamber with the head of the Reich Research Council. This can also be seen from one of the last documents submitted, a letter from Rascher to Pfannenstial I had, referring to an opinion of the head of the Research of the Luftwaffe, which I pretended I had obtained; that from the point of view of the people involved in the work of research in the Luftwaffe, it was not necessary to continue research on high altitude and no low pressure chamber could be made available because it was urgently needed for testing pilots, so Rascher could do nothing against this explanation of mine, because Rascher was known by the medical inspectorate but not by the people in charge of the research at the Luftwaffe.
Q: Witness, did you ever talk to your superior, Professor Wuest about Dr. Romberg, and in what connection?
A: Wuest told me of a conference which took place in Himmler's field command which was in the presence of Romberg and Rascher, and on this occasion he said that the young man of Rascher, had appealed to him very much. He did not remember Romberg's name any more. Romberg had not only opposed Himmler but also had given him no explanations which had lead those present to fall into an embarrassed silence.
Q: Did he also tell him in what points he opposed him and for what reasons?
A: The question at that time was one of a report on the high altitude experiments already concluded, and on this occasion there was discussion for the first time of carrying on further experiments, namely, the freezing experiments.
Q: From this statement of Wuest, would you say that Romberg refused to carry on further experiments with Rascher or just what impression did you have?
A: Wuest was prejudiced against Romberg without any real cause. It was not in his nature to contradict Himmler.
Q: Witness, you frequently had occasion to talk with Himmler. This morning you stated that you wanted to take it upon yourself to do away with Himmler, and consequently I must assume that you were perfectly clear as to Himmler's personality. Now in my opinion it is material for this trial, at least to the extent that Himmler was directly connected with the experiments, to know something about Himmler's personality. Therefore, as my last question, I ask you to present to the Tribunal a picture of Himmler's personality, in particular his wishes with respect to medical and human experiments?
A: Pictures of Himmler have already been presented here. If I am to answer your question, I cannot do so in just a few words. I should have to ask for a certain length of time to do so because this appears necessary to me in order to contradict the picture that must have arisen from the presentation of Rudolf Brandt.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President. Mr. President I consider this witness both as regards his personality and as regards the opportunity he had to come in contact with Himmler, as I say I hold this witness perfectly competent to present a character sketch of Himmler which is of importance in this proceeding, particularly since Himmler, as for instance we have seen from his correspondence with Rascher, was not only interested in carrying out these experiments but took an active part in them. I, therefore, ask permission, that the witness be given permission to make these statements.
(Mr. Hardy rises to make objection)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the character of Himmler has already been sufficiently described to the Tribunal and the objection will be sustained.
DR. VORKERK: In that case I have no further questions.
BY DR. FLEMING (For Dr. Kaufmann who is Rudolf Brandt's counsel):
Q: Witness in the course of your activities in the Ahnenerbe; did you know Rudolf Brandt?
A: As I have already said, I have known Rudolf Brandt since 1935.
Q: Did you notice a difference in Rudolf Brandt's attitude and the attitude on the part of other men in Himmler's immediate vicinity?
A: Yes, because during the years I was in a position to observe not only Rudolf Brandt, but also the other men in Himmler's immediate neighborhood. Most of them were very careful to extract for themselves every possible advantage from their position and to lead a more or less depraved life. I must say, in order to be true, that Rudolf Brandt on the other hand only was devoted to his work and lived only for his work. In this respect he differed most considerably from his colleagues in Himmler's staff, particularly in that one could rely on his word and one knew that he would not, like some of the others, stab you in the back.
Q: What did you know about the amount of work he had to do?
A: The amount of work that he had to do increased from year to year to such an extent that he was not able to get through all his work toward the end. During the last years there was no point in telephoning to Rudolf Brandt to have him try to settle something, because the stereotype answer was: "I shall have to look the matter up, please call up later." Therefore, as I said yesterday, I always went to him with my concerns when a decision on the part of Himmler was necessary. He was most reliable and those cases to be sure were purely mechanical. I saw Rudolf Brandt around 1940, when he was very over worked and physically weak, consequently I did not go into the official matters very deeply, particularly because I know his cultural and other limitations. I had the impression that his asceticism in his work had more or less addled his brain, so to speak.
Q: No further questions.
BY DR. MARX (Counsel for Becker-Freysung):
Q: How long were you in your office in Berlin; from when until when?
A: From 1935 to 1943.
Q: 1943?
A: Yes.
Q: How about the month?
A: My office, the Reichs Business Office and from there I was transferred in the month of August to Weissenfels.
Q: When was the first time that you saw or spoke to the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng or even heard of him?
A: Here in this trial.
Q: Did you or one of your subordinates have any negotiations with any of the representatives of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and with whom? Please disregard the discussion with Professor Beiglboeck back in 1944 as that has already been reported. Now the question; did you or one of your subordinates have any negotiations with any representative of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and if so with whom?
A: No negotiations were carried on.
Q: When a further question. In the session of 18 December of this trial, the witness Neff testified that reports on Rascher's experiments were sent to the Reichsfuehrer SS, to you and to the Luftgar Medical Office 7; not I ask you do you know to what office in the Luftgau Medical Office 7 that Rascher sent such reports; do you know anything about that at all?
A: I know nothing about Rascher sending any reports to anyone other than Himmler.
Q: Then I may assume that you do not consider Neff's testimony correct; in other words you want to say that these reports of Rascher were sent only to the Reichsfuehrer SS, namely Himmler?
A: On the basis of my own knowledge, I must regard Neff's testimony in this point as incorrect.
Q: Did you ever see the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftgar listed among the persons to whom Rascher's reports were distributed; that is to say the entire list of people to whom reports were sent?
A: No, I never saw any such things
Q: In other words, your answer to the previous question already answers this one; in other words you think Rascher never sent any reports to the Medical Inspectorate?
A: Yes, Rascher sent his reports to Himmler and I never saw a distribution.
Q: Did you ever find out that these reports were sent to other officers or were they kept secret perhaps?
A: Rascher was such a monument for secrecy in these matters that the negotiations took place only between him and Himmler.
Q: No further questions.
BY DR. DOERR (Counsel for the defendant Poppendick):
Q: Witness, I should like to refer to a discussion between Rascher and Grawitz, which took place in January 1943. This is set down in minutes by Dr. Rascher. Those minutes are part of Document NO 320, Prosecution Exhibit 103, on page 115 of the English Document Book 3. According to this alleged set of minutes, the following remark is said to have been made:
Yes, I asked Sievers to come to me several times to give me information;
what do you have to say about that?
A: I must say that Poppendick never asked me to come and see him; I made his acquaintance only in 1944.
Q: In other words, you never consulted Poppendick about this matter nor did he ever call on you?
A: No.
Q: No further questions.
BY DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Beiglboeck):
Q: Mr Sievers, do you recall that you are accused in the indictment with conspiracy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have a conspiracy with Beiglboeck.
A: No, as I said yesterday, I only had a total of twenty minutes talk with him.
Q: Exactly, that is just what I wanted to hear. Now on page 200 of your diary of 20th of July, there is something that I would like to draw your attention:
1:15 P.M. Arrived in Dachau
10:30-12:05 Conference with various persons, which was interrupted by an air attack.
Now comes the main point:
1315-1400 Hours. Dr. Beiglboeck discussion of carrying out the sea-water experiments in the entomological institute, which meant Glickner.
Let us take a look at the amount of time involved; here you put it down as 45 minutes, but I remember that yesterday you said 20 minutes; now which one is right?
A: That is right; to go from the entomological institute to Ploetner's department you needed a good 20 minutes.
Q: Splendid, now is it further true that during these 20 minutes, in view of the air attack that had just taken place, you had a couple of telephone conversations?
A: That also is true.
Q: So that your talk with Beiglboeck was considerably less than 20 minutes?
A: Yes, that is so, of course I was interrupted.
Q: You were a member of the Reich Research Council or at any rate had something to do with it, but do you know anything about sea water?
A: I know that you can swim in it.
Q: Don't you believe that your entry in the diary, discussion of carrying out sea water experiments, carrying out seems a bit far, is somewhat of an overstatement; you said yesterday that your entries in the diary were often made days after the actual events and I am asking you now, isn't it possible that you were exaggerating a bit when you made this entry in a discussion of carrying out sea water experiments? This, let me tell you, is very important. We have to go into this very deeply. Please don't feel any hesitation in giving me a straight out answer. Was that carrying out of experiments discussed? Yes or no.
A: No, nothing.
Q: That is sufficient for me. Then I can sum up your thought in this matter by saying that you, so to speak, were officer on guard?
A: As to what was going to be done here, all I can say here is that I heard something was going to be done with sea water and I put that down in my diary.
Q: In ether words, your entry in the diary does not correspond to facts?
A: That is quite so, and as I said yesterday in my direct examination.
Q: Thank you. We have in the trial Exhibit No. 92, that is a letter from Himmler to Rascher, Exhibit 238, the testimony on the part of Blome. I could also quote you Mr. Pohl, but I don't like the guy, so I won't. Now, in these two documents it is said that Himmler regarded everyone as a traitor who didn't consent to carrying out human being experiments? Do you remember that?
A: Yes, we were talking about that before.
Q: Now, in your direct examination you twice said that Dr. Ploetner was against sea water experiments, and nevertheless they had Himmler's approval. Mr. Hardy could mean that my client is in the same situation.
Now, I would like you to say that Ploetner was an exception?
A: The whole situation here played an essential part in this. You must bear in mind that Rascher was imprisoned and that therefore all the files which were taken to Himmler in general new became very clear, frighteningly clear, that by exploiting this impression Himmler told Ploetner that he did not have to carry out any experiments. He thought he could do it himself.
Q: Well, now Ploetner was otherwise described by others as a decent sort of fellow. Now, would you not also corroborate the fact that this is purely theoretical? Remember the Polish clergyman who testified here, and who had seen Ploetner with Schilling?
A: Ploetner came in a very tragic manner to Schilling as I mentioned yesterday.
Q: Never mind. We don't want to bother the Tribunal with this. We simply want to say Ploetner, despite his disapproval of human being experiments, took part in them?
A: Yes, that is so, he was with Schilling.
Q: Now, I have a question for Defendant Schaeffer; in your diary a certain Dr. Schaeffer is mentioned. I should like to ask you whether the defendant Schaeffer is the same as the Schaeffer mentioned in your diary?
A: This Dr. Schaeffer in the diary was an entomologist who worked a short time in the Entomological Institute, and was not identical with the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions of this witness on the part of defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
Just a moment, counsel, the Tribunal has some questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Do you remember the names of the two experimental human subjects whom you saw at Dachau?
A: No, I cannot tell you the names.
Q: How did you happen to ask these two experimental subjects whether or not they had volunteered for the experiments?
A: I said that both from Himmler and from Rascher I had been told that those were volunteers. I wanted to make sure of this for myself, first of all because I personally because of my general attitude did not believe that these men were really volunteers, and it seemed rather curious to me that in those cases and also later in Natzweiler when I asked, people on this question I was assured that they had volunteered. This statement on their part precluded, my investigating the matter any further.
Q: Well, now what difference would, it have made whether they were or were not volunteers, if as you say the experiments were practically harmless and were being carried out in accordance with sound medical methods?
A: I can only testify to this on the basis of any own knowledge with regard, to the high altitude experiment that I saw, and the ten or so experimental persons of Natzweiler who were treated with Lost. The treating experiments were by no means so harmless. I also said, that the man who was brought for the experimentation was a criminal condemned to death, and this experiment also had fatal consequences. But I did not take part in either experiment, and consequently can say nothing further about the nature of the experiments.
Q: But you did see the high altitude experiment conducted at Dachau on two experimental subjects, and the experiment was as you saw entirely harmless, and was being carried out in accordance with sound medical methods on men whom you had ascertained by direct conversation were volunteers, is that correct?
A: That is true, absolutely true with regard to the experiments that I myself saw.
Q: Then why was it that when you returned to Berlin you complained to Himmler about these experiments?
A: No matter how actually necessary these experiments might be nevertheless, because of the emphasis that they received in the SS I repudiated them, because from many of my friends there existed the assurance and conviction that the laws of humanity were being trampled under foot here and that no prisoner, no volunteer, because he had no free will, and that there was nothing more abominable, in our opinion, than to make such use of human beings in this fashion, whether or not the use was dangerous or harmless, and the entire manner and scope of these things appeared to us as an expression not of someone's personal decision, but of what one might call a bureaucratized infamy, and I had the feeling precisely because I knew the difference in the case of these high altitude experiments, since I knew Romberg was a very circumspect and punctilious person, and on the other hand I heard Rascher express himself brutally, saying the persons in question were completely unimportant, and it was for this reason I said to myself there could be consequences after such things got under way that could not be foreseen, and as a matter of fact under Herr Rascher these consequences really did occur.
Q: Was that the reason when you returned to Berlin you sought to prevent the return of the low pressure Chamber to Dachau for the second time for additional experiments?
A: My objection to Himmler was a general objection against human being experiments, and his connecting him with the Ahnenerbe. This was in the Easter of 1942. The low pressure chamber disappeared as I recall, in May from Dachau and only in the autumn when Himmler respectively and Rascher wished to continue the low pressure experiments solely through Rascher, and I was ordered to provide a low pressure chamber, only then did I try to prevent this precisely because from the statements and remarks it could be seen that both the Luftwaffe and the DVL disapproved of Rascher's further work in this field, but there is a lapse of six months between these two.
Q: You were able, however, to prevent another low pressure chamber being sent to Dachau for additional experiments, is that true?
A: That was possible in the autumn through the various circumstances that I have here tried to describe so that after the low pressure chamber in May of 1942 was taken away from Dachau there never again appeared another low pressure chamber at Dachau.
Q: Now, getting back to this question of the volunteer subjects who participated in the low pressure experiments that you witnessed at Dachau, what nationality were these experimental subjects?
A: One man — and I know this from his dialect — was an Austrian. The other man was a German.
Q: How do you knew this fact?
A: I know it only from my talk with him. One of them told me that he came from Vienna, I believe, and I asked the other where his home was and I believe that he said a locality in the Rhineland although I don't remember the precise town.
Q: Now, had your assassination plans to exterminate Himmler been successful, what plans did your resistance movement party have to take over the government?
A: The taking over of the government was planned by the leaders of the individual groups. Precise information on this will be most assuredly provided to you by Dr. Hielscher when he testifies as a witness here. The entire structure and plan of the individual groups was aimed at a federated union of the various German provinces, the creation of a free German government which would rest on a basis that would permit an understanding to be reached with the Allies.
Q: Do you know of any occasion when non-German nationals were used as experimental subjects, either with or without their consent?
A: No, I know no such case because the people whom I myself saw in Natzweiler in the case of the Lost experiments were all Germans so far as I got the impression.
In my talks with these people I could ascertain nothing to the contrary, and in the freezing experiments the experimental subjects were torn in Berlin as could be seen from the verdict which I myself saw. I saw no other experiments. Consequently, I did not speak with the experimental subjects.
Q: Then, as I understand the situation, based upon your knowledge, all of these experiments, as least so far as you witnessed them or knew anything about them, were conducted upon German nationals who had volunteered for the experiments with promises of leniency, and you objected to these experiments solely because of the fact that you were of the ethical view that a man who was a prisoner could not freely volunteer for such experimentation. Is that correct?
A: Yes, I repudiated any manner of such experimentation on human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 14 April 1947.)