1947-04-14, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Rose): Mr. President, I should like permission to have Rose excused from tomorrow's session. His case is the next one coming up and I should like to discuss it with him at somewhat greater detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of counsel for the defendant Rose, whose case will next be heard before the Tribunal, defendant Rose may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow for the purpose of consulting with his counsel.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS — Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of the witness by counsel for the defense?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for the defendant Sievers):
Q: Witness, the documents that the prosecution submitted this morning give me occasion for a few questions. The answer to the prosecutor's question regarding your letter of 20 January 1945 to Hirt, Exhibit 479 of the Prosecution, was somewhat brief. However, I consider it absolutely necessary, in the interests of clarity, that you state briefly what your situation was in January '45 and whether from this situation you had some particular inducement to write in the formulation in which this document appears. Do you remember that letter?
A: Yes. In my direct examination I attempted to make clear what difficulties, and what a tense situation, there were at that time, shortly before the collapse. A man like Hirt, who was so close to Himmler and who enjoyed his particular confidence, always found it necessary to live up to this relationship in the tone that he adopted in his relations with me. In my direct examination I stated that not only from the beginning of 1944 on did I have the feeling of being watched over by the Gestapo, but in May I found out confirmation that this was being carried, out on the Chief of Staff above me, and the SD leader who was in my department corroborated that.
Thus, in this situation, where everything was touch and go, it was very important to be careful and, therefore, I tried to explain that the tone in which this letter was held is quite comprehensible.
Q: To Document NO-935, that is Exhibit 481, I should like to ask you a few questions. I shall have this document put to you again. This document carries a postscript which begins with the words "SS Untersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Wolff". He was employed in the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage], was that not so?
A: Yes.
Q: In this note Wolff is asked to find out the location of the camp Natzweiler, and to find out who the commander was, and this information was to be translated to you by telephone at Strassbourg by the 29th of the sane month at the latest. Is my assumption correct that at that time, namely, in August 1943 —
A: The letter was dictated by me on the 27th of August and provided with this note regarding Wolff, in which I asked him to find out the exact address of the camp and the commander of Natzweiler, and to commit that to me by telephone to Strassbourg because I left Berlin on the 26th of August on an official journey, as the letter shows, and asked Wolff to give me this information by the 29th. In other words, when I left Berlin on the 27th of August, I intended to go to Strassbourg and at that time I did not know the location of Natzweiler, nor did I know who the commander was. In other words, your assumption is correct.
Q: In the first part of this letter there is mention of an official tour and the word "Dienstreise" is translated by the word tour in English and was interpreted by the prosecution as a round trip, as a tour. Now, tell me, did you simply make an official trip that was necessary for official reasons to Strassbourg, or did you really make a tour, such as the prosecution assumes, through various concentration camps?
A: At that time I made an official trip to Strassbourg and it is a matter of incorrect translation if this official trip was translated as an official round trip, and this is one of the repeated and unfair interpretations on the part of the prosecution.
Q: I can assure you that the interpretation was not meant to mislead.
A: Nevertheless it did so.
Q: Your note of the 26th of June, 1942, Exhibit 481 contains—
In other words, as can be seen from it, your proposal for the founding of a military research institute within the Ahnenerbe. Now, I believe it is necessary in our search for absolute truth to go into the historical development that preceded this. You had this discussion with Himmler about which we have had enough discussion. You saw that Himmler wanted to have these experiments carried out by Rascher and Hirt by all means.
A: Yes.
Q: You saw that, from the administrative point of this, this Rascher and Hirt institute was to be looked after by the Ahnenerbe. Did you know then where the financial means for this institute were to be provided, or was that determined only later?
A: When I objected, Himmler arranged for that. I mentioned this morning briefly the very limited opportunities I had to interfere, and he arranged that money of the Waffen-SS and not that of the Ahnenerbe should be used for this.
Q: And was that not one reason why these institutes, which were alien in nature to the Ahnenerbe, were to be made a sort of annex to the Ahnenerbe and this whole idea was discussed in this conversation of Easter of 1942?
Is that not so?
A: Yes, quite clearly. Therefore, the institute was later called the institute of the Waffen-SS and Police.
Q: In other words, to work out this note of the 26th of June of 1942 there was no particular reflection necessary on your part. The working out of this note was simply a matter of setting down in writing what Himmler had very clearly decided at Easter, 1942?
A: Yes, it was simply the matter of setting down in writing what Himmler had already established as policy.
Q: I come not to Document NO-1657, Prosecution Exhibit 484. On page 2 there is a letter of the 19th of January, 1942, sent "for information" to the Ahnenerbe and this letter is directed to Obersenatsrat [Upper Senate Councilor] Dr. Ofterdinger. Did you know this man or did you have anything to do with him within the scope of the Ahnenerbe?
A: No, I didn't know him and I had no connections with him at that time, but I assume that Herr Muehlens turned to this man in this same matter in the same way that he wrote to me, although there was no possible reason for his doing so because he had received a letter from me with the letterhead of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q: Now, page 4 of this document was submitted to you by the prosecution with the accusation that your first statement that you had never spoken to Dr. Genzken was not true. Because of this notation here:
with reference to our previous telephonic conversation
I should like to ask a few questions about the administration of the Reichgeschaeftsfuehrung of the Ahnenerbe. There the Ahnenerbe had a few collaborators, such as Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Wolf. In such cases as this did you yourself always carry on telephonic conversations with other offices and only use in such cases this phrase "with reference to our telephone conversation of yesterday" or was it your practice, as it was the practice so far as I know in many other offices, that the following took place. The adjutant or some other collaborator spoke by telephone with the member of another staff or office and then, when this conversation was corroborated in writing, this phraseology was used such as we see here in this letter?
A: Yes, I tried to express that in my answer this morning because, of course, it was not possible for me to carry on all the conversations by telephone myself and, moreover, in such general matters it was not at all customary for a high SS leader of Genzken's rank to go to the telephone. That was taken care of by the adjutant who would say that his Brigadefuehrer [Brigadier General] asks that the letter be forwarded and then the situation took place exactly as you have described. I remember very clearly that I never spoke with Genzken and didn't know him.
Q: This morning the prosecutor expressed his opinion regarding your relations with Dr. Rascher, saying that you were befriended with Dr. Rascher. Actually, your relations with Dr. Rascher were clarified well enough in your direct examination but this remark on the part of the prosecution induces me to return to your relations with Rascher. Were you ever friends with Dr. Rascher?
A: At no time did I have any close or friendly relations with Dr. Rascher because from the first moment on, and particularly because of his wife, I did not like him at all and I never had any reason to change this opinion. On the contrary, it became stronger and deeper and it was a rejection of Rascher's personality.
Q: Which, however, does not exclude the possibility that in official matters and within the scope of the matters that you had to deal with him you wrote letters to him such as this letter of 26 May 1939, which was put in this morning as Prosecution Exhibit 485.
A: That was one of my official duties and I carried out this duty also in Rascher's case with material courtesy, and precisely because of the close relations between the Rascher family and Himmler I was particularly careful since he was always ready to turn to Himmler directly if, in his opinion, he had any reason for complaint.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, that concludes my redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Any examination of this witness by way of redirect examination on the part of any defendant?
BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the defendant Romberg):
Q: Witness, would you please once again concentrate upon your visit to Dachau on which occasion you saw a high altitude experiment? Under interrogation by Judge Sebring you said that you ascertained on the occasion of this visit that after the experimental subjects got earache Dr. Romberg changed the pressure and thus brought about a condition that the subject found more tolerable. Do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you find out that the subjects had earache?
A: One could see through the observation window that the man pointed to his ear and I assumed from that he had earache. I couldn't hear him, of course.
Q: And when this sign was made by the subject, did Romberg then change the pressure?
A: Romberg moved a few levers and from the altitude meter I could see that the pressure was being changed.
Q: After Romberg moved this lever, did the experimental subject continue to point to his ear?
A: No, then he nodded in satisfaction to show that he liked the change that had been made.
Q: Do you assume that between the experimental subject and Romberg there had been a conversation to the effect that if the subject pointed to his ear Romberg was to set the chamber at a different altitude?
A: That Romberg and the experimental subjects had reached an agreement beforehand, and must have done so, that I learned subsequently from a conversation that Romberg had with the experimental subject after the experiment.
Q: Do you remember the contents of that conversation?
A: I at any rate had the impression that they had reached a satisfactory agreement regarding the course that the experiment was to take.
Q: Now who said that, the subject or Romberg?
A: The man more or less thanked Romberg for this.
Q: Now to another matter. You stated that Rascher had said things to you in connection with these experiments; he had cursed and said that the experimental subjects were unimportant and that it did not make any difference whether they were done harm or not. Did he make this statement after the experiments or did he express it in a loud cursing, so that everyone could hear it?
A: When the experiments had been concluded and the chamber was no longer in Dachau, I asked Rascher how everything had gone off in the experiments, and whether nothing had happened to the experimental subjects. To my surprise, since this contradicted what I had observed at the experiments myself, he said that a couple of persons had died. Then I asked him "How come?" He said Himmler had asked him to carry out a few extreme experiments and I then asked him whether Romberg had been present. Rascher said no, he had done them alone, and on this occasion he made that statement about Romberg — that Romberg was in his way because he was too weak. That Himmler had demanded his extreme experiments can be seen from the documents here which, however, did not go to me or to the Ahnenerbe at that time but only to Gluecks and the SD -namely a document in which Himmler commanded Rascher to carry out further experiments with criminals condemned to death.
Q: I asked you whether Rascher made this statement at the time you witnessed the experiment — whether he made any remarks regarding the treatment of the experimental subjects at the time when you were there.
A: No, he did not.
DR. VORWERK: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of the witness on the part of defense counsel? Any further cross-examinations by the Prosecution? Examination of the witness having been closed, the witness will be excused from the witness stand and may resume his place.
(Defendant Sievers leaves the witness stand.)
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, it is now my intention to call the witness, Dr. Eduard May. I shall appreciate the Tribunal giving me permission to call him to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will summon the witness Eduard May.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I inquire as to whether or not the defense counsel has all four witnesses available to be heard here in the next day or two, and then is it his idea to submit the rest of his documentary evidence after the witnesses have been heard?
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, all witnesses are present and I intend to hear them, one after the other, but before we hear Hielscher I should like very briefly to put in a few documents.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
EDUARD MAY, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
You will hold up your right hand and be sworn. Repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: Witness, your name is EDUARD MAY?
A: Yes.
Q: You were born on 14 June 1905 in Mainz?
A: Yes.
Q: And you live in Niederbroecking near Starnberg?
A: Yes.
Q: You have the title of Doctor. Which one?
A: Doctor of Natural Philosophy.
Q: Were you ever a member of the Nazi Party, the SS or the SA?
A: No, I belonged neither to the Nazi party nor to any of its organizations or affiliations.
Q: In the Defendant Sievers' diary, an SS Oberscharfuehrer [Squad Leader], Dr. Mai, appears. Are you identical with that man?
A: No, I am not. My name is spelled with a "y" — M-A-Y, and I remember having heard or read the name of this SS man and he spells his name with an "i" — M-A-I.
Q: Doctor, as a private scholar you have specialized in the field of entomology?
A: Yes.
Q: Since when?
A: Since 1928.
Q: And with what did you concern your research?
A: My special field was applied entomology. This is research into combatting insect pests in agriculture, in forestry, in orchards, etc. So far as insects are concerned which do damage to human beings by carrying diseases, you speak of medicinal entomology; that is, in other words, a branch of applied entomology. All applied entomology aims at finding means and methods to destroy insect pests, and to find means of preventing their mass multiplication.
Q: Doctor, have you taught?
A: Yes, in 1941 I was a lecturer in the University of Munich.
Q: Who was the rector of the university at that time?
A: The rector was the ordinary professor of Indo-Germanic languages, Dr. Walter Wuest.
Q: And do you know whether Dr. Wuest had any other function at that time?
A: Yes, I knew that Professor Wuest was at the same time, and this had nothing to do with the university, curator of the Ahnenerbe Office. Shortly thereafter he became chief of the Ahnenerbe Office.
Q: Is it correct that Professor Wuest, in the spring of 1942, asked you to carry out a research assignment for the Ahnenerbe?
A: Yes, in 1942 Dr. Wuest called upon me and told me that Himmler had an applied entomology research assignment to be carried out, and he ordered in this connection to set up a laboratory or institute where the research for this assignment could be carried out. This concerned the question of combatting insects that do damage to human beings and this research was to be carried out within the framework of the Ahnenerbe. I pointed out to Professor Wuest that because of assignments from industry I was very overworked and that, moreover, it was not my intention to sacrifice my free professional position for the same of some official position. Professor Wuest thought that this was of no importance and that I could take over this research assignment and my free professional position would not thereby be in any way endangered; I would have some sort of loose contract with the Ahnenerbe and that I should discuss this matter with the Reichs business manager of the Ahnenerbe, namely Mr. Sievers. That was the first time I heard his name. That was the contents of our discussion, and Wuest said that Sievers would get in touch with me.
Q: Did you then have a talk with Sievers?
A: Yes. In the next few days Sievers called me up. I then made his acquaintance and we met and had our first conversation.
Q: Do you recognize Sievers among the defendants?
A: Yes — first row, first one from the right.
Q: What else was said about this research assignment that you were given?
A: Mr. Sievers said the same thing to me that Professor Wuest had said, namely that this was research into combatting insect pests that do damage to human beings. I then pointed out to Sievers that this was a very large problem, and I should have to know precisely what problems specifically interested Himmler. Sievers answered that I myself should give these problems which I, on the basis of my specialized knowledge, would regard as the most pressing. I then had to say to Sievers again that was not possible without further attention, that I could only draw up a precise working program after I knew what equipment and work means were to be put at my disposal; and I asked him whether there were any laboratories, whether there were instruments, whether he had the necessary assistants, technicians, assistants, specialists and so forth, and to what extent this equipment was available. I was rather surprised when Sievers told me that there was nothing there at all yet, that he didn't know anything about the whole matter himself, he simply had the order, and there wasn't even a building available, and if I took over this matter I should have to erect this whole laboratory. Sievers and I reached some sort of an agreement to the effect that I agreed to carry out a very rough survey of the whole problem on the basis of which the specified work on the problem would later be arranged for, and furthermore, that I should make efforts either in Munich or in the neighborhood of Munich to find a building that could be used for the purpose of this institute.
Q: Doctor, regarding this conversation of 1 April between you and Sievers that took place in Munich, there is a file note which I should like to show to you. Look at No. 4.
A: Yes.
Q: There is mention of observations on prisoners; was this question discussed on 1 April between you and Sievers?
A: No, this whole point 4 is incorrect, because it says here:
in this connection I am wondering whether we couldn't begin the experiments most rapidly if we used Dachau installations.
Now, in this first talk with Sievers there was no mention of Dachau. Otherwise I never should have made the suggestion that I find a building through private agencies, nor should I after this conversation have made an effort to find a building in that way. It was not very easy at that time to find buildings, so I ran all over the country and looked at various buildings which firms had named as for sale, and then made a suggestion to Sievers on this subject, which was then accepted by Sievers. In other words, there was no mention either of prisoners or of Dachau in this first conversation.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, a file note of some description has been submitted to the Witness. Will defense counsel kindly identify same?
DR. WEISGERBER: It is in document book 4, Document NO-721, Exhibit 126 of the Prosecution; page 15 of the Document Book No. 4.
Q: In other words, there was no talk of carrying out observations on prisoners?
A: No.
Q: Was there any mention of the excellent medical facilities at Dachau?
A: No.
Q: Was there any talk of Professor Schling, who carried out his anopheles experiments in connection with tropical malaria in Dachau?
A: No.
Q: Then where was your institute housed?
A: I found a building in the little town of Holzkirchen near Munich, which was for sale, and which would be suitable after being expanded. I spoke with Mr. Sievers. He agreed, liked the place and empowered me to enter into negotiations with the owner for the purpose of purchasing it. While these negotiations were still going on, Sievers again came to Munich, and in this third conversation, did he for the first time tell me that Himmler had decided that the laboratory, respectively the Institute was to be set up in Dachau.
I was rather surprised by this at first, and Sievers gave me the following reason for this. I have already mentioned that the taking over of this building in Holzkirchen, which was an old inn, would have involved remodeling, and Speer's prohibition regarding new construction work had already been issued, and Sievers said to me if the Institute is set up in Dachau we are no longer dependent on this Speer prohibition, because we have all the material we need. We have land belonging to the SS, and moreover there are enough architects and building technicians among the prisoners at Dachau to do the work for us. Sievers then asked me whether I agreed to this arrangement, because he had to tell me right at the beginning that I could not get any stone buildings in Dachau, such as I had intended, but could simply get a barracks, and he asked whether the entomological laboratory could be housed in a barracks. I then told Sievers that an entomological laboratory just like any others could be housed in a barracks, and that I had no objections to locating the research institute in Dachau.
Q: When did this conversation take place, roughly?
A: That, I believe, was four weeks after the first conversation, because I remember that I spent some time in locating a building, and that there was some length of time again elapsed before the plan of buying the building in Holzkirchen was abandoned.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems counsel that a considerable of this evidence is quite irrelevant. Can you not expedite the testimony of this witness?
Q: When then did your laboratory begin its work?
A: Let me interrupt. I am sorry, I didn't hear anything.
Q: When did your institute begin its activity?
A: The first experiments were in June of 1944.
Q: Now, it is noteworthy that there is a lapse of roughly two years between the first discussion of this and the actual setting up of the institute.
A: Yes, the preparatory work, construction and getting the instruments, and so forth.
Q: Witness, was this delay to be traced back to the fact that Sievers went forward with this matter only very reluctantly and hesitatingly?
A: Yes, that is the impression I had, namely that Sievers personally was not the least interested in these matters, and above all I had the impression that he did not use the means that on the basis of his position he could, in my opinion, have used and should have used in order to carry out the construction and preparations and to hasten them.
Q: In other words he was very dilatory in this whole matter?
A: Yes, very dilatory indeed; and I might say in addition that this was really a simple matter of barracks construction, a barracks that could have been erected in three or four weeks, and that it took more than half a year.
Q: Now, in your institute, did you ever carry out any malaria experiments?
A: No, malaria is not in my field at all. I named one of the main problems already, and I was told that I was to carry this out, namely to find new means of combatting larvae of biting mosquitoes — of creating a poison in powder form to be sprinkled over water in pools, stagnant water where mosquito larvae are breeding in order to kill off this larvae. Research in this was carried out at great length, and it was largely at this time the problem became particularly important, the problem of combatting them with new means, since the raw material situation was such the previous used means were not available any more in sufficient quantities.
Q: Did you ever work with Professor Schilling in Dachau?
A: No, I did not work with Professor Schilling, nor did I know him personally, but I found out in Dachau itself in conversations that in the camp a Professor Schilling was concerning himself with malaria and also was breeding mosquitoes to obtain the larvae, as I did for my experiments. The research institute was outside the camp.
Q: Between you and the malaria institute, which was in the camp itself wherein your institute was outside the camp, was there any collaboration or did that institute made larvae available to you?
A: No, I received no material from Schilling, and the Schilling institute never asked for material from my institute.
Q: Did Sievers, in connection with your research activities, have anything to do with malaria research?
A: No.
Q: In Sievers' diary under 6 January 1944, there is an entry according to which there was a talk between you and Sievers on combatting malaria in Auschwitz?
A: Yes, that was the following: Mr. Sievers reported to me one day that in the camp of Auschwitz the number of cases of malaria had increased, and it was intended to undertake measures against this. He asked me whether something could be done that applied on the anopheles and whether in combatting anopheles the mosquito was possible. I then told Sievers I would have to look at this first. Consequently, I went to Auschwitz and ascertained that under such and such prerequisites the shrinking of water with this powder could be undertaken. That is how this came about.
Q: In other words this activity at any rate had nothing to do with malaria experiments on human beings?
A: No, this was simply the business of clearing the area of mosquitoes.
Q: Under 22 February 1944 there is an entry in Sievers' diary:
Talk with Dr. May, collaboration with Dr. Ploetner and Professor Schilling.
From this one could infer that there after all was some sort of collaboration?
A: Perhaps this entry refers to the following situation — but first of all I should like to say, there was never any talk about any collaboration: During the time the institution was constructed, I had taken over a number of people in these barracks, who in themselves had nothing to do with my experiments, but whom I merely gave an opportunity to settle there. If I remember correctly I was informed, or rather I was asked by Professor Wuest, not by Sievers, whether it was possible to accommodate a certain Professor Ploetner to enable him to carry on his experiments. I emphasize this is not a matter of collaboration, but merely the furnishing of space. I met Professor Ploetner, he was introduced to me, and we went out to the barracks, which at that time had only been half completed.
Q: Doctor, I believe that will suffice.
A: Perhaps I may add that Dr. Ploetner looked at the barracks and said he did not have sufficient space there.
Q: Did you have an opportunity of ascertaining whether Sievers had anything to do with Dr. Schilling's department?
A: No.
Q: You really had nothing to do with the real inside of the concentration camp in Dachau?
A: No, this research station was outside the SS camp.
I was not even allowed to enter the concentration camp.
Q: During the course of your activities at Dachau, did you ever come in contact with Professor Blome?
A: Yes, that occurred in the beginning; and I don't know whether directly through Blome or through Sievers' mediation I received an inquiry to the effect that I render an expert opinion to Dr. Blome concerning the possibility of taking a combat measure in case that harmful insects be dropped from airplanes.
Q: Did this conference with Blome concern itself with an active biological warfare?
A: No, at that time the question was discussed whether it was possible that in the case of dropping potatoe insects, a certain counter measure could be taken, and what in detail was to be done.
Q: Was Sievers present during that conference?
A: I believe.
Q: Did you see Professor Hirt, the anatomical expert at the University of Strassburg?
A: Yes, I made his acquaintance upon my own desire. In the expert world, it was well known that Hirt had developed a fluorescent microscopic method with the Zeiss firm. At this time it was quite a new affair and I was extremely interested in the matter, because I attempted to apply this method also in the entomological field. At this time I drew Sievers' attention to this method whereupon Sievers replied that he know Professor Hirt, and Professor Hirt was collaborating with him in some manner. He further said that he would make it possible for me to meet Hirt and I would therefore be able to look at his intravital microscopic work.
Q: You then looked at Hirt's work, and this mainly concerned experiments with insects?
A: A number of gentlemen were present at that time. I remember that Hirt held an introductory lecture about his method, and he then demonstrated it.
Q: Was the other part of Dr. Hirt's activities discussed in Strassburg at that time?
A: No.
Q: In the summer of 1944 sea-water experiments were to be carried out at Dachau; did Sievers discuss this question with you?
A: No, Sievers said nothing to me about sea-water experiments, but the following connection has to be observed here. Sievers, one day asked me, when visiting me, whether it was possible for me to furnish a room. We were then concerned with a number of chemists who were to carry out chemical examinations and had to be accommodated for two to three weeks. He said that the gentlemen would bring all the equipment with them that they only need a room and they needed gas and water. I agreed to do that, and after a certain period of time a number of gentlemen arrived and settled there. It was only on this occasion that I found out what the connection was, namely that seawater was to be made potable by applying a special method, and this sea-water was to be given to the inmates to drink and that the analysis of urine was to be carried out in the room I placed at the disposal of these chemists.
Q: You know nothing about the manner of execution of these experiments?
A: No, nothing at all.
Q: Can you say anything at all about Sievers' participation in these experiments?
A: No, I know nothing further than that Dr. Sievers asked me, if it would be possible to accommodate a number of these chemists for a period of from two to three weeks.
Q: I once more establish that your institute had nothing at all to do with these sea water experiments. Do you know on the basis of conversations which you heard at your institute anything about the extent and the result of these sea water experiments?
A: No, I found out nothing about that. I only found out what I already told you concerning this room which I furnished and where I knew that urinalyses were being carried through. I only came into a very superficial contact with these gentlemen. I remember a certain man — I think his name was Schuster or Schumacher — who repeatedly approached me because he as a civilian, like myself, could not eat at the officers' mess, and had to go somewhere else for his food, and that is how a very superficial contact was established with that gentleman.
Q: I am being informed that when translating the demonstration of Hirt regarding intravital microscopical work; the word "frogs" was not used, in the translation, and I should once more like to establish that the demonstrations of Hirt's that you witnessed were carried out on frogs.
A: Yes; that is correct.
Q: In connection with these sea water experiments, do you remember the name, "Dr. Beiglboeck"?
A: Yes. By way of conversation I learned through my secretary that this group of chemists who were working with me were working under a certain Professor Beiglboeck. Personally I did not make the acquaintance of Professor Beiglboeck.
Q: This conference regarding the furnishing of the room took place on the 20th of July, 1944, on the basis of Sievers' diary. Do you know whether Sievers went to Dachau after this period of time?
A: No.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have concluded the examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to the witness on the part of any other Defense Counsel? If not, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Witness, what is your present address?
A: My present address is the same which was mentioned by Defense Counsel before, Starnberg, Oberbayern.
Q: Whom are you living with now?
A: With whom?
Q: Yes.
A: I am living alone.
Q: You are living alone. How well did you know Professor Hirt?
A: I made Professor Hirt's acquaintance at Strassbourg. That was probably around Summer, 1944.
Q: How well did you know Dr. Rascher?
A: I made Dr. Rascher's acquaintance in Spring, 1944, when I was engaged in the construction of the institute. On one occasion when I was out there and observed the development of the institute, an officer came alone, and introduced himself to me. He said his name was Dr. Rascher, and he told me that he was active in the camp doing experimental work, and on that occasion asked me what my activity was. I told Dr. Rascher about my work, and he asked me to show him some of my laboratory equipment which was unpacked.
Q: Well, now, after you had been established in the entomological institute which was outside of the camp at Dachau, did you ever have a visit from Professor Blome?
A: No. Professor Blome was never in Dachau.
Q: You don't ever remember seeing Professor Blome on his way to visit Dr. Rascher?
A: No.
Q: You never heard whether or not Professor Blome experimented on human beings with Dr. Rascher?
A: No; I never heard anything about that.
Q: Well, now, do you know a Miss Schmidt that used to work for Professor Hirt?
A: No.
Q: Didn't Miss Schmidt at one time work for Professor Hirt and then come to work with you?
A: Schmidt?
Q: That's right.
A: Schmidt.
Q: Yes.
A: I beg your pardon. I understood "Smead". It is "Schmidt". Yes. Yes. I know that a Miss Schmidt came to me and worked with me as a technical assistant. She had previously been working with Professor Hirt.
Q: Did Miss Bennemann also come to work with you from Professor Hirt's laboratory?
A: Yes. Yes. These two ladies, Miss Schmidt and Miss Bennemann, had come from Professor Hirt.
Q: What was their specific field of research? Were they specialists in some sort of particular problem that you had an interest in?
A: No. They had no special research field at all. They were ordinary technical assistants as one needs them in every laboratory. I had a great lack of technical assistants. I only had one who was not very good, and I repeatedly asked Mr. Sievers to get me at least another two technical assistants since I could not make any progress in any other way. As a result, one day these two ladies arrived, Schmidt and Bennemann. They had no special knowledge of any kind but only knew about general technical matters as is demanded of a technical assistant.
Q: Well, now, how far is it — how long a ride is it from Strassburg to Dachau?
A: That all depends. It depends what time you are speaking of. It depends whether any air attacks were taking place or not. At any rate, when I was in Strassburg at that time visiting Professor Hirt, there was an express train from Munich to Strassburg which was very fast.
I am not sure whether it took eight or ten hours. At any rate, one could do it within one day. Later, however, that was no longer possible.
Q: Well, these two assistants that you received from Professor Hirt, they later went back to Professor Hirt, didn't they?
A: I don't know that at the moment. I think they stayed with me almost until the laboratory dissolved. I can't tell you that exactly. I think I can remember that at least one of these two young ladies left a little earlier than the other one in order to go to Tuebingen. Already in March or April I sent my female assistants home.
Q: Well, now, they went to Tuebingen to the institute that Professor Hirt had set up there, didn't they?
A: I don't know whether Professor Hirt had an institute at Tuebingen.
Q: Now, Doctor, you stated that you knew that these experiments were to be conducted concerning sea water. Did you know that these experiments were to be conducted on the inmates of the Dachau concentration camp?
A: No. I only learned that later.
Q: Well, didn't you assume that they would be conducted on human beings?
A: I thought that this regenerated sea water would be given to people to drink, but I didn't think of inmates. I really considered these experiments to be very harmless.
Q: Well, then, didn't it strike you rather strange that they would be coming to Dachau to perform these experiments rather than doing it in Berlin?
A: No. This didn't strike me as being peculiar at all. At the beginning I thought that I was to accommodate a few chemists temporarily who had been bombed out from somewhere, and that I was giving these people a temporary possibility to work and that they were later to continue their work at another place.
That was what I thought originally.
Q: Did you know where Professor Beiglboeck came from?
A: No. I hadn't known his name or where he came from.
Q: He was a Vienna boy, wasn't he?
A: I don't know that.
Q: It is rather a substantial ride from Vienna to Dachau, isn't it?
A: That is not too bad from Vienna to Munich. You can do that normally within one day or three quarters of a day. That is no affair at all.
Q: Then you exclude the possibility that the purpose of bringing these men to Dachau to experiment with sea water was only because the subjects were available there?
A: Well, after having heard that from this and that side, I naturally got to know what the connections were: but you were asking me whether from the very beginning I had known about it, and at that time I didn't. I hadn't known that Dr. Beiglboeck had come from Vienna; I didn't know what experiments one was concerned with. All I learned was that a number of chemists would come along to carry out chemical tests. I was asked whether it was possible for me to accommodate them for a short period of time. That was all I knew.
Q: Well, now, you gave them a room in your institute, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever see what happened to that room?
A: Occasionally I passed the room and I saw that chemical experiments were carried out there. Dr. Schuster or Dr. Schumacher whom I mentioned before, and whose name I don't recollect exactly, — I found out that urinalyses were being carried out.
Q: Now do you know Dr. Mrugowsky, SS-Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Mrugowsky, who later became SS-Oberfuehrer [Senior Colonel]? Do you know him?
A: Yes, I made Dr. Mrugowsky's acquaintance. I saw him once, and that was in Berlin.
Q: Do you remember when you met him in Berlin?
A: Well, that is hard to say.
Q: Would you say it was —
A: I was in Berlin very often.
Q: Would you say it was in the year 1941? 1942?
A: No. No. No. No. No. That must have been in 1944. The only year in question is 1944, but I don't know exactly when in 1944.
Q: Let's have a look at a document, Doctor, which was presented here in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 124 —
MR. HARDY: — which Your Honor will find in Document Book No. 3, which is Document No. NO-647 and is on the last page of Document Book No. 3. Now this states:
Subject: Cooperation with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen—SS.
With reference to my letter of 9 June 1942 regarding vermin control, a meeting took place on 21 October 1942 with the participation of SS-Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky and SS-Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Schadlau, Keisbeck Strasse 43/44. Under discussion was the cooperation not only in the field of vermin control but also in the research sphere of Rascher, and with regard to the use of gastein water in cases of freezing as well as in various operational fields of the Hygiene Institute. As had already been laid down in the interview with SS-Untersturmfuehrer, Dr. Schadlau, on 6 November 1941, 'K' Enterprise: release of the archeologist Hunt.
A further meeting took place then at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS on 20 November 1942 in which SS-Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers, and lecturer Dr. May, took part.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember that meeting, Doctor?
A: Yes. I remember this meeting very well, only it is my opinion that it took place much later and not in the year of 1942. In effect there was a conference between Sievers, Mrugowsky, and me, at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS. My tasks were discussed at that time, that is, the combat against flies and against mosquitoes.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. WEISGERBER: Would you permit me to put one question to the witness, Mr. President:
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: In connection with the sea water experiment I should like to clarify the following point: When Sievers at that time told you that you would furnish a room at your institute temporarily, did you have the impression from Sievers remarks that he know the details about the planned experiments?
A: No; Sievers himself had no idea of those experiments.
Q: When a little later chemical experiments were carried out at your institute, were they just analysis?
A: Yes, pure analysis.
Q: Inmates of the camps were not employed?
A: No, of course not. There wasn't any space for that. There was no possibility for it. There were three or four gentlemen sitting at a table who were analyzing their substances.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions to the witness, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: I have one question, Your Honors.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: You stated Dr. Sievers had no knowledge whatsoever of those sea water experiment. How do you know that?
A: Otherwise, he probably would have told me what it was all about.
MR. HARDY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further question of the witness, counsel for the defense may proceed.
The witness will be excused from the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: With the approval of the high Tribunal I should now like to call the witness, Dr. Franz Borkenau.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will call the witness Dr. Franz Borkenau.
JUDGE SEBRING: You will please hold up your right hand and be sworn: Repeat after me:
I Swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You my be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: If you prefer to answer in the English language, please do so. Your name is Franz Borkenau?
A: Yes.
Q: You were born in Vienna on 15 December 1900?
A: Yes.
Q: And you now live at Marburg on the Lahn?
A: Yes.
Q: You hold a degree?
A: Yes.
Q: What degree?
A: In philosophy.
Q: Witness, you nay give replies in English if you like. You are now a lecturer at the Marburg University?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you please describe your career very briefly?
A: I was born in Vienna, and went to school there. Then I went to the University in Vienna and at Leipsig, and graduated at Leipzig. Then I lived in Berlin a few years, and accepted a research fellowship at Frankfurt University Institute of social Research, which is now in New York, and while I had this fellowship I was working in Paris first and in Vienna then and then I was surprised by Hitler's advent to power in Vienna; so I just didn't go back; and I didn't spend a day in Nazi Germany or in any other country dominated by the Nazis.
I went to London in 1934 and lived there first as a free lance political writer, published a number of books on political and sociological subjects and from 1938 onwards I taught International Affairs as an adult education lecturer for London-Cambridge Universities at Steton. I took up war work in the proper sense in 1943. Only until then I was teaching international affairs. In 1943 I joined the BBC monitor service, and in 1944 I changed over to the African service of the OWI German policy department, and from there to the American broadcasting station in Europe as a German Editor. I was scheduled to go to Luxembourg at the end of 1944, and then that didn't come off owing to the Rundstedt offensive, so I only got to the continent at the end of July 1945 with the Allied Press Service at Luxembourg as an Allied employee accompanying the American forces. I might state that I was born in Austria and am stateless now, so I worked in Luxembourg first, still in American civilian uniform, and then went to Bad Nauheim where I helped build up the Press Agency Dana, for a time had under me Foreign Affairs in the Dana, and then on the suggestion of the American University Officer Dr. Hartsherne, I took up a lectureship in social science and history in Marburg which I hold at present. Of course, I had a sort of idea I would do that if possible when I left England and returned to the Continent.
Q: Witness, the defendant Wolfram Sievers, whom I am representing here is relying on the fact in his defense that already prior to 1933 and then during the entire subsequent period of the national socialist regime he was a member of the resistance groups headed by Dr. Hielscher. Now I have been attempting to give the High Tribunal the possibility to gain a picture of Dr. Hielscher's personality. Do you know Dr. Friedrich Hielscher?
A: Yes
Q: When did you make his acquaintance?
A: I met Dr. Hielscher first in the spring of 1928. I was then still a Communist. I left the Communist Party a year after and I was a Communist member of the Students' Representation at Berlin University. We had inter-party students' debates and I not Dr. Hielscher there as a speaker for the Right. Also we had a snail shoot from our Communist Students' group, and there once, from reading Hielscher's "Vormarsch", we started debating briefs with him which led us to personal contact. That must have been, I should say, perhaps February or March 1928.
Q: During the later period did you get into any close contact with Friedrich Hielscher?
A: I should say no. In the year after I left Berlin. Although I left Berlin the year after and that, of course, limited my contact with Hielscher to the periods when I was in Berlin, but that was on very frequent visits, and before that, one year I was still living in Berlin, so all through that time I got into increasingly close contact with him. That, of course, was made still easier when I left the Communist Party and so I was no longer in the Party discipline and could say and talk what I liked and see whom I liked. So, all through that time, we talked at length about many subjects, politics and also nonpolitical things end I got increasingly interested in Hielscher because he was so utterly untypical, as a man coming from the right. First of all, he was just an interesting man, to chat with, but apart from that I started to wonder more and more and I found points where our opinions touched and perhaps even met, despite the fact that we had come from extremely opposite wings of the political rainbow.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this testimony of the witness thus far is merely covering the period from 1929 to 1933. The charges here in the indictment include the years from 1939 to 1945 in the first instance; and secondly, I point to the objection by the prosecution to calling this witness. The Prosecution objected on the grounds that the witness is merely to testify as to the personality of Hielscher, and it appears that that is all he is going to do. If that is the case, I think this testimony is irrelevant here. If he is going to testify to the personality of the Defendant Sievers, he may continue, but this manner of examination I don't think is taking up the valuable time of the Tribunal correctly. Your Honor, I would further request that the Tribunal asks if this witness knows the defendant Sievers.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, may I shortly define my attitude to that? When making my written application I already pointed out that Dr. Borkenau will be a witness for the resistance activity of Dr. Hielscher and will testify in that regard. I believe that the Tribunal two weeks ago when the prosecutor already raised objection against these witnesses, Dr. Borkenau and Dr. Topf, I had heard the same arguments as just now.
At that time I defined my attitude and my attitude now is completely the same. If I am calling Dr. Hielscher as the principal witness for Dr. Sievers activity in his resistance movement, I cannot expect the High Tribunal to have a complete picture about Dr. Hielscher's activity in Germany. Now, in order to enable the Tribunal to gain some picture about Dr. Hielscher, I called Dr. Borkenau and Dr. Topfas I already stated at an earlier date. I therefore ask that those two witnesses be approved, which has already happened, and you permit me to continue questioning these witnesses.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it was my understanding that the objection of the prosecution to the calling of these two witnesses was overruled on the grounds that it was the understanding of the Tribunal that their testimony would go over and beyond that of testifying as to the personality of Hielscher, and this man here is merely testifiying as to the personality of Hielscher and the resistance movement and that is not an issue in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has assumed that the testimony of the witness heretofore was largely preliminary. The witness will be entitled to testify, within reasonable limit, to the fact that there was, at the time testified to by the Defendant Sievers, a genuine resistance movement in Germany, and testify to some extent concerning what that movement was and what it did and anything he knows if any thing, about the activities of the defendant Sievers.
The objection to that will be overruled.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, may I briefly add that the witness, Dr. Borkenau, as well as the witness, Dr. Topf, know as well as nothing about Dr. Sievers activity within the framework of the resistance movement where Dr. Hielscher was active. But about Dr. Hielscher.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Very well, counsel. I wasn't sure whether the witness knew anything about that or not. The witness may testify as to the existence or non-existence of a genuine, bonafide resistance movement in Germany during the years testified to by the Defendant Sievers.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I interpose a question here to defense counsel that, inasmuch as Dr. Topf, his next witness to be called, will testify substantially the same things as this witness is testifying to, the prosecution will be in a position to stipulate that if they submit an affidavit by the witness to be called, Topf, concerning the background and the history of the resistance movement, and inasmuch as Topf has no knowledge about the defendant Sievers, that we will stimulate that we will not wish to cross-examine Topf, if that be the case, and that will save considerable time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel would not be required to cross examine the witness if he didn't desire to do so.
At this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning at which time counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 15 April 1947.)