Q Then how did this come to be put in the affidavit?
A. It was an assumption of mine on the basis of Officer Schroeder's position.
Q. Then the question was brought up whether volunteers were used in these experiments, is that so.
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that in your opinion the experiments were conducted on non-volunteers; and didn't you see that at all yourself?
A. I cannot remember details. It is possible that I said that.
Q. Did you realize that this was a very important change, that this would be a very important charge, or didn't you realize that?
A. No.
Q. Now, will you please look at Document No. 371, Prosecution Exhibit 186 in Document Book VIII. That is the second part of the excerpt. On Page 1 it says "This is your affidavit of the 14th of October 1946." In this document you spoke about experiments of Dr. **********, Officer Dr. Dohmen and Dr. Hagen; what did you know about these experiments from your own observation or what did you know remember when you were brought to Numbers?
A I did not know or remember anything.
Q But you expressed certain knowledge; were documents shown to you by the Prosecution?
A I cannot say from memory.
Q Now, a few questions on the document itself. You say under No. 5 that Dr. Eugen Hagen, Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, and Constultant Hygienist, and also been doing research work at the Natzweiler Camp in an effort to discover effective innoculation against epidemic and jaundico I ask you first, how does it happen the emphasis is given to Dr. Hagen's capacity as Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe and Consultant Hygienist; did you yourself give these, in fact?
A No.
Q Did you know he was Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe?
A I don't believe that I knew it.
Q. Did you know he was consultant hygienist?
A No, unless that was indicated in the document.
Q Do you know what a consultant hygienist is at all; please tell the Tribunal?
A I have no actual conception of his work.
Q Did you know that Officer Hagen, aside from his position as Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe and consulting Hygienist in the Air Fleet Reich, was something else, that he had a civilian position at the University of Strasbourg, did you know that?
A Not unless the document showed it.
Q Do you know it today?
A From the files of the trial, yes.
Q Did you know what the work of an officer of hygiene was, what he had to do with Reich Agencies at the Reich Research Council; or other agencies; I mean research work; research assignments; do you know anything about that?
A No.
Q And you also say under the same number; No. 5, that it is true that Dohmen collaborated with Hagen in 1944 in concentration camp Natzweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings were conducted; and you also say that deaths occurred; can you remember making such a statement?
A But not on the basis of my own knowledge.
Q Well; then why did you make such a statement in that affidavit; such a serious charge; you surely must have realized the nature of an affidavit; you knew that that is a violation of an oath if you make incorrect statements; or even negligent statements; did I understand you correctly if I say that all of your statements on this point are based merely on assumptions on your part; that you had no factual knowledge of these experiments?
A Yes.
DR. MARX: Your Honors, I should like to point out one thing. The Tribunal will recall that the witness Schmidt called by the Prosecution on the 9th of January 1947, testified here, German Transcript page 1375, and said that no human experiments were conducted at all concerning hepatitis.
Q Now, my last question on this subject. Witness; you say under No. * in the same document; which is before you, that Professor Schroeder was informed of these ostensible experiments; and he must have been informed before Professor Hagen was a doctor in the medical service of the Luftwaffe?
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor; before the witness answered this question; defense counsel stated witness Schmidt on January 9 testified not hepatitis experiments had been conducted on human beings. If my recollection is correct I directed the examination of that particular witness, and I believe the witness stated to her knowledge no experiments were conducted as to the research of hepatitis, and I want to clarify that before the question is put to the witness.
DR. MARX: Your Honor, I can not say with certainty, but as far as I remember the witness Schmidt in answer to my question, I believe, said that she could not assert that the hepatitis experiments were experiments on human beings. If the Prosecutor thinks his memory is better, I will say nothing, but until the contrary is proved I should like to maintain my point of view. But this isn't important. The only question here is the witness admits what was said on this point was not said on the basis of his own knowledge.
Q Witness, now I come back to my question, under No. 6, in this document which is before you you said that Professor Schroeder, and you also mentioned Handloser, but Schroeder is the one I am interested in, you said Officer Schroeder must have knowledge of these ostensible experiments because Hagen was a doctor in the medical service of the Luftwaffe. I ask you, am I to take it that this assertion is again merely an assumption on your part?
A Yes.
Q You did not have any factual evidence for it?
A That is true.
Q The next document -- please keep your affidavit of the 14th of October 1946 before you -- you spoke of the typhus experiments as well, is it again the case that you did not speak from your own knowledge and your own memory and describe the facts, but that you were merely drawing conclusions as subsequently, from documents?
A Yes.
Q. Did you know anything at all about typhus experiments over? Did you over hear anything about typhus experiments?
A. As far as the documents - the correspondence of our office indicated, yes, but nothing beyond that.
Q. If you look at No. 4, you make the assertion that Haagen was under the protection of the Medical Office of the Luftwaffe. Do you mean to say that these alleged experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates on behalf of and with the knowledge of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A. I have no facts substantiating that.
Q. I am interested in the expression "under the protection of the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe." You didn't use this expression yourself?
A. No.
Q. And then only one more question. Under No. 8 in the same document you say that "Generaloberstabsartz Dr. Oskar Schroeder certainly know about Haagen's experiments on human experimental subjects." On what do you base this assertion? It is only an assumption, but why did you say "certainly"? You did not make this statement yourself?
A. Yes I did. That was probably a limitation which I made.
Q. One could also say that it is an intensification. If I say "certainly" I could easily give the impression that that is to confirm the statement.
A. No, but it was meant in a sense of "probably".
Q. You meant to say "I assume that he might have known about it."? That is what you meant to say?
A. Yes.
Q. You know how that was translated into the English? Did you see the Translation? Did it say "I suppose"?
A. I didn't see the translation.
Q. Then may I state in conclusion that all your assertion: which concern Professor Schroeder or the Medical Inspectorates of the Luftwaffe are merely assumptions or conclusions drawn by you from documents presented to you?
A. Yes.
Q. But you admit that you have no factual evidence from your own knowledge for making such statements?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you admit that you have no right to draw such conclusions. First, from the point of view of your state of health at the time and, in the second place, because it was not your job but the job of the court to draw conclusions from documents?
A. I did not realize that.
Q Do you admit that, in a careful examination of your knowledge and your mental capacities, you should have refused to make such statements?
A. Yes, I should have.
Q. DR. MARX: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
BY DR. SAUTER (Defense Counsel for the defendant Blome):
Q. Witness, I must put an affidavit to you which you made on the 4th of October, 1946, to the prosecution. This affidavit is the Document Book 9, On the Extermination of tubercular Poles. Its number is 441, Exhibit 205. Do you remember this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the same affidavit which has been read here twice I believe, and at the end of which was mentioned the figure of 8-10,000 tubercular Poles, which you then had changed to -"Numerous". You remember this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, do you know when the defendant Dr. Blome became acquainted with Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler?
A. No.
Q. You said "no"?
A. No, I cannot say.
Q. Do you know it now? According to the trial?
A. I've forgotten again.
Q. Please?
A. I've forgotten again.
Q. You've forgotten? But you were here in the court room when the defendant Blome said, under oath, that he not Himmler only in July or August of 1943. Do you remember now?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Could that be right? Could it be true what the defendant Blome said on oath here that he not Himmler in July or August 1943? I'm asking you because you were always with Himmler and you were his special confident. According to your knowledge can that be true?
A. I have no reason to think that it is not true.
Q. Do you know, or when you made your statement on the 24th of October, 1946, did you know when this plan for the extermination of the tubercular Poles existed? In what year?
A. I did not remember this at all when the document was shown to me.
Q. You didn't remember the thing at all?
A. No.
Q. Fitness, you remember from Document Book 9 this project - drive against the Poles? That a number of documents were submitted here but this terrible drive which was planned and that these documents originated with you?
That you yourself had passed on many documents and that you signed your name to this notation? And, today, you are telling us, under oath, that you've forgotten all this? Have I understood you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, in a short time, you have forgotten that the plan went through your hands - the plan to kill eight or ten thousand Poles, or twenty-five thousand or thirty thousand Poles? You've forgotten that completely? Do you really want to say that, under oath, witness.
A. Yes
Q. Witness, you know today that the plan for the extermination of these tubercular Poles existed in the 1942? You know that certainly from the trial and from the documents? Isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. In your affidavit which I quoted just now you say as follows: (I quote)."Dr. Blome, from time to time, called *n Himmler and supported Greiser's suggestion". Greiser's suggestion, which you are referring to here - that was his suggestion to have these twenty-five or thirty thousand incurably sick tubercular Poles liquidated? Isn't that true? Isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And the suggestion was made in 1942? You just greed to that didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, how do you come to say that this plan was discussed by Blome with Himmler - or rather that Blome called on Himmler from time to time for that purpose in 1942, whereas you have just said that you have no reason to believe that he knew Himmler in 1942; that he met him only in 1943?
Do you still assert today, that at the time of this plan in 1942, as it says here, Blome called on Himmler from time to tine?
A. I never meant to say that.
Q. But it says so here witness. You can read, can't you, witness? If it says here Dr. Blome called on Himmler from tine to tine and supported Greiser's suggestion there can be no difference of opinion on this sentence, not even for you, and I should like to know from you how did you come to make such a statement, under oath? Under oath, witness? Explain it to me.
(No response).
Q. (continuing) "Witness, I am waiting for your answer.
A. The same thing is true of this affidavit as of all the others. I signed it in the form in which it was submitted to me.
Q. Witness, I cannot accept that answer. In this case you cannot get out of it with that explanation. Witness, in all the other cases you have always said what had been shown to you was only conclusions which you had drawn from documents, isn't that true? Now tell me a single document, witness, where it is supposed to have said that Blome called on Himmler from time to time to support Greiser's suggestion. Tell me of even one document if it exists at all.
A. There are no documents for this.
Q. But witness, the interrogator or the prosecution could not have shown you such a document then. He did not have any documents for this.
A. He asked me whether Professor Blome ever called on Himmler and I said "Yes." Then these two sentences were probably set up like that although they did not belong together from a point of view of time
Q. And you, Dr. Brandt, signed it on your oath, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then today you no longer maintain this statement?
A. No.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit of the 24th of October 1946, that is the same affidavit, there is the following sentence. You say first that Dr. Blome called on Himmler from time to time and supported Greiser's suggestion, a statement which you cannot maintain today. Then you say, and I quote: "The end of 1942 and beginning of 1943, Greiser carried out the extermination of the Jews in the Warthe Gau, and the drive against tubercular Poles was completed at the same time with the drive against the Jews. According to my memory as a result of the suggestion made by Blome," ... you say Blome, witness, ..."and Greiser, 8,000 to 10,000 Poles were exterminated." End of quotation. Then later you changed this number to read "numerous Poles." Witness, do you want to maintain this statement today, under oath?
A. I made an explanation yesterday of how I arrived at these figures.
Q. No, never mind the figures for the moment. Answer the other question -- whether you mean to maintain, on your oath, that this drive against tubercular Poles was actually carried out?
A. No, I can't do that because I don't know about that.
Q. Well, witness, that was a statement which was made by YOU. The interrogator did not make it. You were the confidant on the staff of Himmler. That was not suggested by somebody else. You said that, yourself, and on your oath.
A. I gave the explanation yesterday.
Q. That was no explanation, witness, at least not for this statement. Witness, do you know today that this plan of Greiser's was not carried out at all? Do you know that from the documents which have been read here?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that now
A. Yes.
Q. And do you realize that these documents also show that you knew exactly that the plan was not carried out? Witness, I will make my question more detailed. A letter was read one time which Himmler had written to Greiser, where he referred to an order from Adolf Hitler and said that this Polish drive had to be stopped for the reason which Dr. Blome had given. Do you remember this letter by Himmler?
A. Yes, but I was not shown this letter in the interrogation.
Q. But, witness, in 1942 this letter went through your hands.
A. It was one of a hundred thousand letters which went through my hands that time.
Q. But, witness, at that time you knew that 25,000 or 30,000 sick people wore to be killed.
A. If I have read the letter as carefully at that time as I have Court I 25 Mar 4 -M - 11-3 - LJG - Lesser - (Int.
von Schoen) now, perhaps.
Q. You don't have to read the letter carefully. If you read it at all, if you just glanced at it, one should think that it could not have escaped your memory. Do you want to admit today, witness, under oath, that Greisier's plan for the liquidation of the Poles, was given up completely, and that the documents clearly show this? Do you admit that?
A. The documents indicate it.
Q. Do you remember something else?
A. I do not remember this case at all, only with the aid of the documents which have been submitted.
Q. Witness, I must ask you something. You were on Himmler's staff. You had a responsible position. Did you sign everything blindly, without reading it?
A. I gave the explanation yesterday. I said that because of the volume of work it was simply not possible to read everything.
Q. Witness, it was not just once in 1942 that you learned of Dr. Blome's point of view that he was against the Polish drive, but twice, and in both cases, as can be proved, the letters went through your hands. One time was Greiser's letter to Himmler with the opinion of Dr. Blome which was for the establishment of a reservation and against liquidation. And the second time, the answer, Himmler's decision that this plan was not to be carried out. In other words, you dealt with the matter twice. You learned twice that Dr. Blome rejected it and you never mentioned that. You said quite to the contrary under oath.
witness, I have a question now on another subject, Lost experiments. You have again given an affidavit here, one without date, which is in Document Book 13, No. 372. You state various persons in this affidavit who carried out the Lost experiments or who were connected in some other way with the Lost experiments. You mentioned first, Professor Hirt, then Oberarzt Dr. Wimmer, and your three co-defendants, Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Handloser and Dr. Rostock, and at the end you say, and I quote: "Dr. Blome was also no doubt informed about these experiments." End of quotation. Do you want to maintain this statement today, Dr. Brandt?
A. No.
Q. You don't. Today, under oath, you say that that is not true?
A. It was only an assumption on my part, which was put on record.
Q. An assumption on your part. Did you have any factual evidence to support this assumption, which would make it seem probable that Dr. Blome actually was connected with these Lost experiments?
A. No.
Q. No. And then, Dr. Brandt, a last question, of a similar nature but I must ask it because you mention other experiments and you try to incriminate Dr. Blome in connection with these other experiments too. In your affidavit of 24 October 1946, document 444, Exhibit 329, you mention low-pressure experiments, freezing experiments, sea-water experiments, typhus experiments sterilization experiments, Lost experiments, and gas experiments, all of them conducted on concentration camp inmates. Then you mention a number of your co-defendants who, you say, were connected with these experiments, and at the end you say, and I quote: "Kurt Blome, in his capacity as Conti's deputy, must have been informed, just as well as Conti himself. " You, signed that under oath, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to maintain this statement today?
A. Just as little as at that time.
Q. Dr. Brandt, you are a lawyer. You have experience. On the 24th of October 1946 did you know what function the defendant Dr. Blome had as deputy of Conti?
A. No.
Q. You did not know that?
A. No.
Q. And, never-the-less, you signed an affidavit saying that Dr. Blome, as deputy of Conti, must have been informed just as well as Conti himself.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness. I thank you.
BY DR. WEISSGERBER (for the Defendant "Wolfgang Sievers):
Q Dr. Brandt, yesterday in answering the second from my last question, as your defense counsel, you described some of the traits or characteristics of Himmler, which made a special impression on you. In the course of your examination you said several times that you acted on orders; now I would like to ask you a few questions on this subject in order to show to the Tribunal briefly the atmosphere which prevailed in the office of the Reichs Fuehrer SS. You were in the immediate entourage of Himmler for ten years and you no doubt gained lasting impressions there, so that you are still in a position today to answer my questions. Was an order from Hitler, a so-called Fuehrer order, was it sacrosanct for Himmler himself?
A Yes, one might say that.
Q Then as far as your knowledge goes, Himmler himself always abided by these Fuehrer orders?
AAs far as I can judge, yes.
Q Now, how did Himmler issue orders, and how did he insist on the strict execution of these orders?
A He issued his orders and took it for granted that they would be carried out.
Q Was there any objection possible?
A Perhaps one person or another could have said something, but he would not have had any success.
Q What would have happened if someone had violated the Fuehrer's orders or orders of Himmler himself?
A He would have had to take the consequences.
Q Do you know anything from the collection of the decisions of the Higher SS and Police- Court as to the consequences of failure to obey such orders?
AAt the moment I cannot give any example but I assume that--
Q I will go on to another question. The Ahnenerbe was known to you; its organization?
A In general, yes.
Q What was the organization of the Ahnenerbe; who was Sievers superior?
A Professor Wuest was the immediate superior.
Q Professor Wuest; that was the curator from 1937 on?
A Yes.
Q And who was above the curator?
A Himmler himself.
Q Himmler himself; do you know whether Himmler repeatedly had discussions with Professor Wuest?
A Yes.
Q The organization of the Ahnenerbe was such that specialized departments existed, a number of them, and at the head of each department was the chief of that department, a section chief, is that so?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that Himmler himself got in touch directly with these section chiefs without Wuest or Sievers knowing anything about it?
A Yes, that happened.
Q Did it happen that Himmler went to see the men personally; some of them were not in Berlin at all?
A Yes, on official trips he paid such visits.
Q Do you know that Himmler in connection with his research assignments, which he took under his own protection, was especially interested in them and watched over them jealously so that no third person could interfere in them?
A Yes.
Q And so you know anything about instructions from Himmler that without his knowledge a third person was not to be allowed to learn anything about the execution of such research assignments?
A I believe there is even an order to that effect.
Q What do you have to say about this order?
A I don't remember it, unfortunately.
Q Sievers was frequently in your office?
A Yes.
Q From a certain period of time on; did Sievers complain to you that the Ahnenerbe was being burdened with assignments which were completely alien to its structure?
A He often mentioned that.
Q What did he say about it; what was his point of view, did he consider this addition to the research assignments a burden or was he willing to support it?
A No, he considered it a burden especially because of the amount of his work which was already almost too much for him.
Q Do you know that Sievers went to Himmler himself and tried to have the assignment of fields of work alien to the Ahnenerbe removed?
A Yes.
Q Did Sievers talk to you about the work of Dr. Rascher in this connection?
A I assume so; but I do not remember it.
Q You knew Dr. Rascher; a number of the documents here have said that Sievers wanted Rascher to be taken over by the Waffen SS; did Sievers do that on his own initiative or was there an order or a wish from Himmler?
A There was an order from Himmler and also the wish of Rascher himself.
Q Now, I shall have Document Book No. 2 shown to you, from which I shall refer to Document 1581-PS, Exhibit 49, on page 60 of the German Document Book, I shall read it and I quote:
"To the Reichs Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe SS, Obersturmbann-fuehrer Sievers, Dear Comrade Sievers: I refer to your inquiry of 9 March 1942 concerning Dr. Rascher. Reference is made to the low pressure experiments carried out in the Dachau camp on concentration camp inmates by the Luftwaffe, the Reichsfuehrer SS has approved these experiments under the condition that SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, who is anyhow a medical 1st Lieutenant Oberarzt of the airforce takes part in them."
This inquiry of 9 March 1942 is missing from the document book, consequently I have to learn from you what the contents of this inquiry from Sievers of 9 March 1942 were; can you remember that?
A No.
Q Re can't remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding further, the Tribunal will be recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(a recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment Counsel, The Tribunal having received the certificate signed by the prison surgeon certifying that Defendant Oberheuser should be excused from this afternoon's session, the Secretary General will file the certificate.
Yesterday afternoon, three members of the Tribunal, having been designated as commissioners to observe and hear the film "I accuse", accomplished their mission and saw and heard the film. They reported that the translations were entirely effective and the the film with the accompanying sound track was both heard as well as seen. The commissioners have unanimously reported to the Tribunal that in their opinion the film is of no probative value whatever in this case. The Tribunal having considered their report, it is unanimously of the same opinion. The Tribunal, therefore orders that the film will not be shown to the Tribunal as evidence, being entirely lacking in materiality or probative value.
Counsel may proceed.
RUDOLG BRANDT - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q Dr. Brandt, before the recess I asked you whether Himmler attach value to the maintenance of greatest secrecy Regarding his research assign ment. You affirmed that question and you furthermore stated that according to your knowledge there was in existence a special order for the maintenance of secrecy. When speaking about this special order were you speaking about the basic order Number 1 regarding the maintenance of secrecy, namely, the order of Hitler, or was there yet another special secrecy order issued by Himmler which just concerned his research assignments?
AAt the moment I cannot remember that, I would assume that another order was especially issued for that purpose; but I can't tell you that now for sure.
Q In that case you cannot remember the year in which this order was issued?
A No.
Q I shall now have the document Volume 3 shown to you. I am referring to the affidavit which you made on the 6th of September 1946 and which was submitted by the prosecution as Document NO-242, Exhibit 80. On page 4. I will refer to a paragraph which starts with "Sievers was annoyed", and I am going to show you this document book so that you can define your attitude towards it.
(Document book handed to witness.)
Q (Continuing) This passage can be found at the end of the page. It starts with "Sievers was annoyed". "Sievers became annoyed at the intervention of Dr. Grawitz and immediately raised objections against his gaining control of the experiments. Sievers was also annoyed with a report of a conference between Grawitz, Rascher and Obersturmbahnfuehrer Poppendick, in which Rascher quoted Grawitz as having said that it was an untenable state of affairs, that one who was not a physician such as Sievers should have jurisdiction over medical matters."
Would you please turn to page 126 of the German translation in the very same document volume. We are concerned with the document NO-320, exhibit of the prosecution 103.
This is a letter sent to you by Sievers on the 28th of January, 1943. Would you please read through that letter and then answer the following questions? First, was this letter submitted to you during your interrogation? Were the contents of this letter transferred to your affidavit of 6 September 1946 that you subsequently made?
A. I assume that this letter was submitted to me, but really what I then said in my affidavit would be contradiction to the contents of the letter.
Q. Where do you see that contradiction?
A. Nothing about "being annoyed" can be derived from that letter.
Q. I attach importance to whether you can remember that this letter was submitted to you during your interrogation of the 6th of September, 1946. Can you still remember that?
A. I believe it was submitted to me.
Q. If you look at the letter, the Document No. 320, Exhibit 103, are you then still of the opinion that Sievers sent this letter to you on your own initiative, and that he personally was annoyed about the behavior of Dr. Grawitz, or is this letter kept along the general line which of necessity was a consequence of the directives of Himmler?
A. The latter is true.
Q. Then you are of the opinion that Sievers personally had no special interest in the development of the situation between Grawitz and Rascher, but that he had to write this letter in order to carry out the directives of Himmler who wanted the collaboration of Rascher with Ahnenerbe?
A. Yes.
Q. You know Sievers' diary, don't you? Do you know Sievers' diary?
A. Yes, I have seen it here.
Q. You didn't know it before?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Were such diaries dept in all of the agencies of the Reichsfuehrung-SS?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the result of an order by Himmler?
A. Yes.
Q. From Sievers' diary it can be seen that he repeatedly had conferences with you.