1947-04-16, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the-matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 16 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed with examination of the witness.
FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER — Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is reminded that he is still under oath.
BY DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Handloser):
Q: Yesterday, witness, the Tribunal asked you a few questions, that witnesses and defendants have declared on the witness stand under oath that the terrible things which happened behind the barbed wire had been unknown to them. You will understand that people who have not lived in our environment, as they look back after all the atrocities have been revealed, cannot understand how this could be possible. Yesterday, if my notes are correct, you said, "The existence of concentration camps was known in Germany but nobody knew what happened there," is that right?
A: I didn't say nobody. I meant nobody who was not politically active against the Nazis.
Q: We shall see. The question is: Did the general public, the German people as a whole, or did only a few people know, or did certain groups know about these things? Now he asked you yesterday spoke of the Fuehrer Order No. 1. Then you know about it.
Would you agree with me if I were to say that this Fuehrer Order No. 1 was the typical expression of Hitler's principle, divide et impera, divisions of the various spheres of work and strictest secrecy? Would you agree with me?
A: Yes, I would. I believe, in addition, the actual significance of the Fuehrer's order becomes understandable only if one considers the pressure under which the whole nation was living; that is, the knowledge that if I say anything carelessly I'll disappear and I don't know what will happen to me.
Q: You say that was the prerequisite for the effect and it was the consequence of this order, and it was the intention, because in the last analysis the whole nation was not behind the system to achieve by division what could be achieved with a minority. Were the concentration camps under the SS as early as 1933?
A: I know that concentration camps were guarded by SA and that there was a struggle about the control of concentration camps among the higher party agencies. The example that I gave yesterday where people were thrown into water at 80 degrees Centigrade and then their skin was taken off, that was done by the SA.
Q: This Hitler order sett/up the basic principle of secrecy was now expanded and completed in the SS. Are you aware that aside from this Hitler order there was a general order from Himmler for the SS which provided severe penalties, even death, for violation of the obligation to secrecy?
A: I don't recall the text but I know the general effect.
Q: You know that an order existed?
A: Yes, I know that there were some such orders.
Q: Now, what if someone wanted to visit a concentration camp? Could he go to a camp and ask to be let in?
A: I don't think that any one in Germany would have come upon the idea of simply going to a concentration camp and asking to be let in.
Q: Was it possible to visit a camp and what requirements had to be fulfilled?
A: One had to have connection with the SS and under some pretext try to find a legitimate excuse for wanting to get in. One had to find an excuse that agreed with the SS vocabulary. I have to look at this from the point of view of my own work.
Q: Yes, but, of course, I have to ask you, in judging these things, to distinguish between your specific case and the case of the person who did not have these special connections which you had.
A: A normal German would not dare to think to get into a concentration camp.
Q: Could the members of the camp administration and the guards talk about the things which they observed to third persons?
A: No, of course not.
Q: Could the inmates tell their relatives or any one else in letters about what they observed?
A: No, of course not.
Q: If some one was fortunate enough to be released could he freely describe what he had seen and experienced?
A: Except for personal conversations with his best friend or with his wife, such people were very reticent.
Q: Was that because of a systematic order, a waiver which they had to sign or some such thing?
A: It was because of the tortures which this man had experienced himself, or had seen, and the knowledge which he had received in the concentration camp of the malevolence of the SS system, and on the probability which bordered on certainty that if he said any thing to any one and was not 100% certain that that person would be silent he would be sent back to the camp and would be killed immediately.
Q: Well, let us sum up this system. Primarily, the basic Hitler order of secrecy, the specific orders from Himmler for the SS, the concrete orders for the camps and events in the camps, and the conclusion is it correct that all these orders were carried out with the greatest severity?
A: Yes.
Q: That this systematic secrecy, in effect, had to lead to the general public that is everyone who did not have something to in some official connection or some other connection such as yours, learning nothing about what happened in concentration camps?
A: I can only repeat what I said yesterday. The general public knew that the camps existed. There was a general impression that something very unpleasant happened in the camps. What actually did happen in the camps was not known to the public up to the end of the war.
Q: You said that there was a general horror of concentration camps — this feeling that something was happening there. For example, medical experiments on prisoners?
A: No, this did not refer to any details at all. It had the following significance. Everyone knew people disappeared from time to time and were no longer seen. A large number of these people did not return at all. Those who did return were extremely reticent, even to their own brother, cousin or parents. That was all. And this uneasy feeling that there is something going on, something that one wouldn't like to get involved in — that was the intended effect of the existence of the camps.
Q: Did any one of the public get the idea that experiments on human beings might be carried out?
A: I can only repeat that no one had any idea of any details or had any clear impression of what was going on. Otherwise, our underground work would have been much easier if we had been able to use such general knowledge.
Q: I can, of course, imagine that if some one knew some one has been sent to a concentration camp he could imagine that it was rather unpleasant there, as if some one is sent to prison or to a penitentiary, but what I wan to know is this. Could the idea of horror mean anything so specific to the individual as the experiments which were carried out there?
A: I can only repeat that the general impression was a stricter form of penitentiary. Nothing specific, just a general unpleasant impression.
Q: But in a penitentiary one doesn't generally imagine that experiments are conducted on the inmates, then this feeling could never arise that human experiments were being carried out in the camp? Is that so?
A: I know nothing of any such specific impression among the general public.
Q: In this system as you have discussed it I should like to ask — did it make any difference among the German population in general, whether some one was in a high position, whether he learned anything specific, anything positive about what went on in concentration camps, or can one say that that was generally impossible and did not depend upon the position of the official?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this ground has been covered rather extensively, both by the defense counsel, the prosecution and the Tribunal. I object to any further questioning of this kind.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection overruled. Counsel may proceed for a few minutes.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q: Did you understand me? The Tribunal asked whether any certain groups, because of their position, would necessarily have to know about —
A: I can answer the question only generally for the higher or middle officials in the various ministries that was the subject of our conversations — what can be done with these government officials; and the impression of all my friends in all the groups, Right or Left, without any distinction, was that this class of government officials, not only since 1933, not only since 1919, not only since Bismarck, were disgustingly unpolitical and had no education outside of their specialized field. They worked in their own field and had no idea about anything else and didn't worry about anything else. That was the whole psychological prerequisite for holding National Socialism power. Nothing could be done with these people that didn't know anything.
Q: Now, if a general, for example, says here on the witness stand in answer to the question "Did you know what happened in the concentration camps?" If he says, under oath "No", would you believe that?
A: That is a very difficult question because we all laughed at the stupidity of the generals. It is quite possible that just because he was a general he knew nothing, unless he was related to some one who was connected with the 20th of July.
Q: When you say "unless there were specific connections with the events and with these camps" —
A: No, no, I meant to say that the generals, who formed a quite distinct class in society, and a large number of people executed after the 20th of July, were executed because this class insofar as they weren't anti-Nazi, didn't always maintain secrecy. I don't knew who you are talking about here, but if a general, says he knew nothing and he was related to some one connected with the 20th of July, then I don't believe it likely.
Q: Then, if I make my question more specific: Professor Handloser said that he knew nothing of the events in these concentration camps?
A: Unfortunately, I don't know Professor Handloser's family and social connections.
Q: Well, assume that he had no relatives connected with the 20th of July, or with concentration camps, but that he had an enormous work as Army physician, as Army medical inspector and as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and that he had no contact with the SS? Do you believe that this statement is correct. I assume that you knew his name and had some idea of what judgment you have to make of him.
A: That's not possible. I can only say that if what you say is true it is not impossible that he would not know anything. I don't consider it impossible.
Q: This problem is very important and it cannot be discussed in to much detail. I believe it is one of the problems which is decisive for restoring Germany to a role in international life. As long as other countries believe that the general public knew about and approved such things, we shall not have peace and that is why it is so important to me to hear your opinion on this matter and to give the Tribunal a picture that the people in general had no knowledge.
I thank you.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Doctor, the Tribunal has listened with a great deal of interest to the statements you have just made, and as Doctor Nelte has indicated, under the system of government which citizens of the United States have known for one hundred and sixty years, it is difficult to understand the reign of terror under the guise of duly constituted and organized government which you have delineated in your testimony. Now do you mean to say it can be possible that such a system of practice as you have delineated as having occurred in the concentration camps, could exist over a period of eight to ten years without such practices becoming generally known to middle and high level officials of the so-called government, the Wehrmacht, and the SS?
A: I must say the following. In the case of the middle and higher government officials, it would not have been possible if we had not, for a very very long time here in Germany, especially in the East Elbe area, had had a class grow up, trained to devote themselves exclusively to their own department which they had studied with above-average thoroughness and which they took care of with the necessary thoroughness and, in addition, had the obligation to worry about nothing else. That was a habit of the middle and higher class which had lasted for centuries. For example, in the higher military offices we political people always talked about a dementia militaris maxima. It was not possible to talk to these people about anything that was outside of their own field because they did not understand it. That has increased since the beginning of the 19th century. For the middle and higher government officials, Your Honor, I must answer your question with "No" in general. In general they did not know about such things. In our many attempts to approach people there, unless they were actually relatives or friends of ours, we could do nothing. The thing was different if they were high party, Wehrmacht or SS authorities; that is, the people immediately around Hitler, Himmler, Frick, Rosenberg, and so on. Then, of course, things were different. They were, of course, definitely informed.
Q: Well, let's drop down in the party level from Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Heydrich, Funk, and the rest of these men. Let's drop down on lower levels of men who were Party members or still had contacts with Party members officially. For example, let's consider the strata of Party officialdom represented by these defendants in the box. What is your view?
A: I would be grateful if the rank of these men could be described to me because I have not followed this trial, with the exception of Sievers. It is difficult for me to give a general judgment because I do not know on what level these gentlemen were.
Q: If that be true, then the Tribunal will not press the question, because it would be apparent that such an answer would be simply an opinion of the witness, is that correct?
A: Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, with your personal acquaintance of the resistance movement, do you believe that a person who was an active follower of Stresemann and Bruening since June 1933, and was persecuted by the Gestapo, as of the 2nd of May 1935 would have been accepted into the NSDAP?
A: Only on condition that such a man had changed suddenly in 1933. That happened, of course. There were surprising people who changed their allegiance immediately.
Q: Witness, if three months before, this man had openly protested against the Party propaganda play at the theater and had been beaten up and injured, do you believe it was likely that shortly after that he would be accepted by the Party?
A: At the same place?
Q: Yes.
A: No, that is very unlikely.
Q: Do you believe that ten months later this man would be admitted to a State examination and receive a State position?
A: Again, unless there had been a definite change in the meantime-which happened in Germany very often—it is very unlikely.
Q: Do you believe that this man would be kept under arrest only 1 month if, a year later, after this incident, as a government official he sent 8,500 pamphlets to high government officials?
A: That he would be under arrest only one month? No, I don't believe so.
Q: Do you believe that the consequence would have been merely that he lost his position and that he could have studied medicine until the beginning of the war?
A: This was discovered?
Q: Yes, he says it was discovered and he lost his position and studied medicine. That was in 1941. Do you consider that probable?
A: No, I consider it very unlikely. The man would very probably have been sent to a concentration camp.
Q: Do you believe that one could send 230,000 subversive pamphlets through the mail without being discovered?
A: I never heard of that happening.
Q: Aside from the 230,000 pamphlets, do you believe that this man would be held for six weeks in a concentration camp after being arrested the second time if he had been dismissed from the Party, as he says, two years before?
A: That is even more unlikely.
Q: Do you believe that it was possible for the man, in 1941, to receive two letters of recommendation from the Gestapo, to become a member of the Waffen-SS?
A: That pre-supposes a political change of allegiance.
Q: This man says that he did so in order to get into the Party and to investigate conditions in the extermination camps, to reveal to the world what he discovered. Did you hear anything about this—about such a man in an important position working at Auschwitz, who wanted to inform the world?
A: No, I know nothing about it. Of course, that doesn't prove anything. There were so many people who did not know each other. That doesn't prove anything.
Q: Witness, this man has recorded his activities in a document, it is 1553-PS, submitted by the Prosecution, Exhibit 428. I have here an English copy. On page 4 of this document conditions were described as I have just repeated. This witness is Dr. Kurt Gerstein. Do you know the name?
A: No, I never heard it.
Q: A graduate engineer for mine surveying (Bergasessor Diplomingenieur) who studied medicine?
A: No, but that doesn't prove anything in itself.
Q: Witness, when did you first hear of the execution of the euthanasia program?
A: I cannot give the year. I know in general that the Party wanted it and I knew that these intentions were carried out, not as a private citizen, of course, but that was information which I received and we discussed it frequently.
Q: In July or August 1938, did you know anything about the extermination of insane, feeble-minded and sick people in the mental institutions? Or was it later?
A: I am sorry, I cannot give any dates, but I can say that at the time when it happened we knew about it. One of the men, I don't know how it was, said — "The news is the following —"
Q: Well, witness, tell me, was it before or after the beginning of the war?
A: I am sorry, I cannot tell you. All my diaries were burned, It was noted down there in some form.
Q: Witness, this Dr. Gerstein gave a long report to the occupation troops when they entered Germany. Even his family has not been able to find it since. Don't you believe that the occupation troops failed to believe his statements?
A: I can only say that what you have told me so far about the man makes it unlikely that he was in the resistance. But I do not know enough about the methods of the occupation authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. VORWERK: Vorwerk for defendant Dr. Romberg.
Q: Mr. Hielscher, did you think about the problem of experiments on human beings for a long time or were your answers in this field yesterday really a result of a question for the moment?
A: What problem did you say?
Q: Human experiments?
A: I have dealt with this problem for some time, long before the Nazis.
Q: Mr. Hielscher, do you consider experiments on human beings criminal under all conditions?
A: Under my ethical convictions they are criminal under all conditions.
DR. VORWERK: Thank you. No further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann for Vikter Brack.
Q: Witness, yesterday you said that shortly after 1933 you got one or two of your acquaintances out of concentration camps, is that right?
A: One.
Q: Did you also have an opportunity in later years, let us say 1938 — 1939, to try to have concentration camp inmates released?
A: From that time on I was not able to achieve any direct release personally. Some of my men were able to help in this respect. I have already said that Sievers did so.
Q: Did you know that there was a way to have inmates released from concentration camps through an office in Berlin?
A: Generally I know nothing about this.
Q: Did you know the Chancellory of the Fuehrer?
A: Yes, I did. That way existed, yes.
Q: Did you know —
A: And then there was also a second way, through Emmy Goering, yes.
Q: Did you know the work of the Chancellory or the Fuehrer in this field?
A: No, we kept away from this method, because it was very unreliable and dangerous. I can say nothing from my own experience.
Q: Then you didn't know Reichsleiter [Reich Leader] Bouhler personally?
A: Yes, but not in this connection.
Q: Witness, did you see prisoners personally who were not in concentration camps one or two years, but many years, and then got out.
A: Yes.
Q: Yesterday you said that these prisoners made a very disturbed impression, and that it was very difficult to get anything out of them, is that right?
A: They were extremely reticent, extremely secretive. They bore the impression of great fear, but there were people who managed to adjust themselves to it.
Q: Could one use the expression "mental wrecks" for these people?
A: I would say a large proportion of them were. There were people who managed to adjust themselves to it, and those were the best ones.
Q: One could say that in part the psychiatric condition of concentration camp inmates after years of imprisonment was very disturbed, very reduced — how would you express it?
A: In general Himmler succeeded in breaking these people to a large extent. It was a devilish system.
Q: Is it true that a large part of these people, as a witness recently testified in a different trial, were through with their whole life?
A: It is difficult for me to answer since I am dependent on the reports of the prisoners with whom I worked later, and they are people who are not broken. If I can rely on their reports, and I am quite sure I can, I can say that a large proportion, as I have already said, were broken in their ambition, and so forth.
Q: Do you consider it possible, witness, that these prisoners themselves lost any respect for the lives of others?
A: That is extremely difficult to answer. I know two very different reactions which we often discussed. One is that such a person comes out and says from now on I shall never hurt a fly. Now I know what horrible things a human being is capable of. I know how a human being lives. I will never hurt anyone else. That is one reaction. The other reaction is, now I don't care about anything, nothing is important anymore, and I will do the same as they do. Those are the two typical reactions which follow from human nature.
Q: Witness, you had some knowledge about the treatment of the prisoners by the guards in the concentration camps?
A: Not personally, of course, aside from the time when I was in prison, but from reports from men in my own group and other groups.
Q: Do you know from what part of humanity, to speak carefully, these guards were drawn?
A: The guards in the concentration camps? You mean the SS?
Q: I am talking about the guards. I want to avoid the expression SS. They were dressed in SS uniforms, but I just want to talk about the guards in the concentration camps.
A: There were two heterogenic elements, so to speak. One was what we called the typical SS man, and the best thing to do today if we met them on the street is to shoot them down. Shooting is too good for them. The second group are the ones who are brought in unsuspectingly. That happened often, that in the cast in the foreign German settlements the people were called to a meeting and were told we were to carry out a census or something, and they had to sign a list. On the next day they were called in and they said they were called in for the SS. They were put into formations and suddenly discovered they were guards. For example, I was guarded in the Lehrter prison by seven Saxons, three from Silesia. Aside from the other kind that is who were very very decent and regretted they hand been forced into this position, and I as a prisoner had an opportunity to talk to them about supervision, and we used to talk about who was the worst off.
I had to console them. These people did exist. But aside from then the guards were rather an unpleasant bunch of people.
Q: Did you learn anything about the way in which the guards treated the prisoners in the concentration camps; do you know anything about mistreatment, or anything similar?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: And into what year did your experience extend?
A: My experience began in 1933. My reliable reports began in 1933.
Q: And do you believe that this condition of the guards was supported from above?
A: Yes, I do. They went up to the Commandant office, and went up to Himmler and Hitler, too, of course.
Q: Then for a man who was against this system in the concentration camps, did it involve danger to his own life to effect the release of prisoners from these camps?
A: May I ask you to repeat the question.
Q: Was it for a man, —
A: For a man in this hierarchy, you mean?
Q: No, a man outside the hierarchy, a man who wanted to help the poor prisoners to be released from the concentration camp; did it mean danger to his own life to do so?
A: Unless the man was extremely well covered he was under extreme danger.
DR. FORESCHMANN: Thank you. No further questions.
DR. WEISGERBER: Dr. Weisgerber—
THE PRESIDENT: Before you proceed counsel I have a few questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, have you any idea as to the approximate number of Germans in societies, exclusive of the Jews, who were sent to the concentration camp prior to September 1, 1939?
A: I cannot given any exact figure, but it is certain that it was in the 10 thousands, — 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 40 thousand, something like that.
Q: Were those Germans taken from all levels of society throughout the entire country?
A: Yes, these people came from the whole country.
Q: Is it true, as we have read, that even the German school children were instructed to act as informers even against their own parents as to disloyal statements against the Nazis, and so forth?
A: That was not an exception. That was a general phenomenon. A case from my own family, the nurse, children's nurse comes to a lady and says "your daughter doesn't say 'Heil Hitler' as often as she should." The lady says "that isn't right. The little ones don't lie. We don't say such nonsense," and it turned out that the nurse took the lady to one side and said, "Listen you are very fortunate. I am an old socialist. I know you are conservative. You must instruct the child to lie to other people. In her class at school there are four or five girls who systematically inform on their parents and their school friends." That was quite a common experience. I talked to my worker friends and to some count. I talked to everyone, and we said "what do we do with the children? They must either be taught at home to lie systematically, and that is very had for the child," and we don't want to put the children into such a conflicting situation. These are only children of six or seven, and the child is told at school it is his duty to report his parents if they don't think as they should.
Q: Now that system; was it or was it not well known throughout Germany that those things were done and the children were so instructed?
A: To my knowledge, that was a general experience that one had to be careful in the presence of ones children, but I must add, of course, that this was only the experience of people who were not National Socialists, people who were Nazis or who had no opinion at all had no occasion to have this experience, it was only the growing group within the country who were not National Socialists who had this experience.
Q: My idea was to ask you whether or not that system was known by all German National Socialists and if members of all parties knew that such things were going on?
A: What should I say?
Q: Well, my question is, witness, whether or not throughout all classes or political parties in Germany it was not generally known that things were reported by children, by everyone, that everyone was under instructions to report disloyal statements to the Nazi authorities?
A: In all classes of any political training from right to left, in all circles, who were not definitely National Socialists, it was known that spies were everywhere, children and adults, and one had to be careful even in the most harmless conversations, it was called the German look when two people met as they immediately looked over their shoulder before they could talk; that was quite general.
Q: Now, when persons were arrested for alleged disloyalty; they were taken from their homes were they not?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, no one could be, no adult person could be taken from his home or her home without a good many of the neighbors knowing that person had disappeared; is that true?
A: Yes, that is true unless it was a man who was constantly traveling.
Q: Of course, I understand that. So, it must have been generally known throughout all limits of German society that many people from time to time simply disappeared from their homes; is that true?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Well, was it or was it not also generally known that when those people disappeared from their homes that they had been arrested?
A: Yes, that was the general conviction.
Q: Well, was it or was it not generally known when such people were arrested where they were sent or where they were taken; I don't mean the definite locality; it was known they were in the custody of the Nazi Government; was it not?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Well, would not that arouse considerable general interest among the population, among their friends, even among their enemies who disagreed with them; would it not arouse some general interest as to where those people were put and where they were kept?
A: No, that was not the case. It was generally said if you investigate this thing you will possibly endanger yourself, so don't ask any questions; that is the best for you, that was the general reaction.
Q: My question was as to the general reaction; that it would raise interest; not to ask questions I understand that; but it would be a matter of some general interest where these people were kept even though people would not dare ask?
A: Mr. President, that assumes a manner, a type of thinking which we unfortunately did not develop in our country for generations. This general interest, what is going on here, aside from my vague feeling that something is wrong, was missing. Let us not get involved, leave things alone. The average man, up to the war, felt the Government probably does the right thing, those people were possibly criminals, who knows what they have done?
We were not, before 1933, accustomed to the Government arresting people without any legal basis. We were accustomed to the Government acting according to its best judgment. If people disappeared, as this was suddenly done, without any legal reason, simply arbitrarily, the average person never thought that way, they felt the other fellow was probably a criminal or the police would not take him away. One has to imagine the lack of political interest among the population.
Q: Were German Nationals, who were put in concentration camps, allowed in any respect to communicate with their families?
A: As far as I know there was permission at certain intervals, to write "I am here, I am well."
Q: Now, after September 1, 1939 can you give any estimate as to the number of German Nationals, exclusive of Jews, who were confined in concentration camps after that date?
A: We assumed at the time that it was two or three times the number before the war.
Q: Could you give any estimate, of course I understand it could not be an accurate estimate, but could you give some figures as to what you think; understanding that is simply your opinion as to the number of Germans after 1939 who were placed in concentration camps?
A: I assume that there were several hundred thousand.
Q: Have you any idea as to the number of Jews, German Jews, German citizens, who were confined in concentration camps prior to September 1st, 1939?
A: I am sorry I did not understand; — how many there were before?
Q: Have you any idea at all as to the number of Jews, who were German citizens, who were confined in concentration camps prior to September 1, 1939?
A: I assume that the number of Jews before the outbreak of war, German citizens before the outbreak of war, was not especially large;
I assume that it was ten thousand or twenty thousand at the most.
Q: And after September 1, 1939; have you any idea as to the number?
A: The number increased very rapidly, the idea of extermination was put into effect during the war. It is difficult to say how many were in concentration camps before. We knew that they merely went through the concentration camps, they were transferred for example or were killed in the ghettoes without being sent to a concentration camp. I don't think half of the six million Jews who were finally killed ever went through the gas chambers in the concentration camps. As we discovered in the East, they were taken directly from the Ghetto to the mass graves or gas chambers as at Ghetto Litzmannstadt for example where there was a gas chamber; they were not sent to concentration camps at all and the question is very difficult to answer that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: Witness, to conclude my examination I have four short questions. With the first question I want to clarify something. Yesterday, I showed you Document No. 975, Prosecution Exhibit 479, this is a letter which the Defendant Sievers wrote on 20 January, 1945 to Dr. Hirt. In cross examination, the Prosecution showed you the teletype message of 5 September, 1944 from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt and asked you the question, at least this was the German translation that I heard, asked you whether it was admirable for the resistance movement to deal with such things; either there was a translation mistake or the Prosecution misunderstood your answer to my question about the Document, which I showed you. Therefore, I should like to give you an opportunity briefly to explain what you mean by praiseworthy?
A: I did not mean that Hirt's idea which he had submitted to Himmler through Sievers to destroy this Strasbourg collection and to explain the bodies as belonging to the French Anatomical Institute I didn't think it was praiseworthy for Himmler to order that and I didn't think it was praiseworthy that Hirt was rejoicing that this would escape from the notice of the Allies. All I meant was that if Sievers could not change the thing and if no one could be saved that it was praiseworthy since the thing had already happened in view of the threat to him personally to speak as in Nazi terms about something which had already happened to cover himself. Not what Himmler did was praiseworthy but only the reason which he used.
Q: I think you should speak a little, slower, witness, Witness, yesterday you said that you had repeatedly to bring your knowledge about what happened during the Nazi regime to the attention of occupation authorities. Can you please tell us when and where you made such attempts?
A: I connection with a report about the activity of my organization, I offered to report what we had discovered about misdeeds of the national socialists to the following offices: the CIC in Marburg, the ICD in Marburg, Mr. Noll and his successor, Mr. Nescamp, the English field security in Goettingen, in Duesseldorf and in Hamburg. I offered to report it at the Hersdorf camp when I allowed to visit the defendant Silvers, there breifly. I was referred to an American office in Nuernberg — the building is next to this building. I was sent as not authorized to Wiesbaden from there. The Wiesbaden office send me to Frankfurt. The Frankfurt office refused to listen to me. If I had been at all informed which of the prosecutors was going to [illegible] work on the matter, I would of course, have gone to him.
Q: Witness, you said yesterday that Sievers after long discussions and consideration decided to remain in the office of the Reich Business manager even when the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] came into contact with experiments on human beings. Did Sievers say, or did you give him any instructions as to how he was to carry out his administrative from then on?
A: That was a matter, of course, and, besides, emphasized by both sides that when passing on the administrative orders that went through his secretary's office, he would, of course, pass on only as many as he was unable to prevent, and wherever he could prevent anything, he would do so. In my knowledge of Sievers, it is quite impossible that he did anything beyond that.
Q: My final question now, witness: did you consider exact knowledge of details in the execution of the experiments of Rascher and the activity of Dr. Hirt necessary in order to form your opinion on the ethical admissibility of Sievers remaining in the Ahnenerbe?
A: I did not consider exact knowledge necessary because our ethical judgment was formed independently of the details, and the discussions of the details would merely have brought about new dangers. From my fundamental attitude, which was the attitude of the whole group, and which we discussed before, I repudiated these experiments on principle. Now as is the case in such a group as we were in a team which has to count on the independence of every man, where I had to rely on the man's taking up his duties independently. I gave Sievers his assignment and left him a completely free hand as to how he carried it out. Otherwise we could not work at all: but, of course, I claim the responsibility since I gave the man his assignment: since I expected the man to take this risk, I alone claim the responsibility for everything that he actually did in the spirit of our work.
DR. WEISBERGER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to the witness on the part of the defense counsel concerning these matters which have been brought out after previous examinations? There being no questions has the Prosecution any further cross-examination?
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused form the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President to conclude my case I should like to offer a number of documents. I believe that it will not be necessary to read these documents. In some cases I shall merely point out certain statements.
The first document is Sievers Document No. 6, Exhibit No. 31, Document Book I, page 14. This is a letter from the Chief of the SS personnel main office to the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff. This affidavit shows that the Chief of the SS personnel main office was trying to have Dr. Rascher taken into the Waffen SS. It was a very high authority that was interested in that.
The next document which I offer is Sievers No. 12, on pages 26 and 27 and 28 of Document Book I, which is Sievers Exhibit No. 32. This is an affidavit of Dr. Arno Seemann-Deutelmoser, who collaborated closely with Sievers and Hielscher. On page 27 Dr. Seemann-Deutelmoser makes statements about the planned assassination in which he would have participated. The next document is Sievers No. 16 on page 37 to 40 of Document Book I, Sievers Exhibit 33. This is an affidavit of the archeologist Alfred Rust, who knew Sievers from 1937 to 1939, who concludes this statement by saying: I quote:
Summing up I would like to express the wish as a party opponent I never belonged to either the NSDAP nor the SA not SS — and as an individual, that all members of human society in their actions may behave as decent and as fine as Herr Sievers did towards me and my acquaintances.
The next document is Sievers No. 21 on pages 53 to 55 of document book I, Sievers Exhibit No. 34.
The next document is Sievers No. 22, on page 56 and 57, Sievers Exhibit No. 36, I beg your pardon, No. 35, on affidavit of Professor Dr. Von Lutterotti.
The next document is Sievers No. 23 on pages 58 and 59, as Sievers Exhibit No. 36, the statement of Dr. Weingartner.
The next document is Sievers No. 24, on pages 60 and 61, document book I, Exhibit No. 37.
The next document is Sievers No. 25, pages 62 to 64, document Book I, Exhibit No. 38, an affidavit of Count Dr. Oswald Trapp, and Sievers No. 26, on pages 65 and 66 of Document Book I, an affidavit of Dr. Georg Innerebner, Sievers Exhibit No. 39. These six affidavits which I have just identified all deal with Sievers activities in the Southern Tyrolean Cultural Commission which he headed from 1940 on.
I shall not read these affidavits. They speak for themselves.
Then I also submit the affidavit ——
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)