For that reason I think that this is quite necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understood correctly, counsel for the prosecution was suggesting that there was a mistranslation in the English document book. At least, certain words were read from the German that counsel said were not in the English book. Did counsel for the prosecution make some comparison between the English document book and the German?
DR. WEISGERBER: The passage I quoted comes word for word from the German text.
MR. HARDY: In paragraph 4, he stated as follows: "The Ahnenerbe, whos manager Sivers was, had developed in Dachau, by order of Himmler, a medicine......" That isn't in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The words"by order of Himmler" are lacking from the English translation. Did counsel for the prosecution examine the German document?
MR. HARDY: I can see the name "Himmler" here, Your Honor, but I could not make out the other German words. Obviously, the defense counsel is correct in his translation from what I see here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the prosecution see that the English translation is corrected in accordance with the German? I don't mean right now, but at some later time so it will be correct.
MR. HARDY: I will check the German, Your Honor, and report to you.
Q Did you tell Pohl anything to that effect, that an inmate was shot at in connection with polygal?
A I told Pohl exactly what I had found out from Eberstein. As I already said the development stage of polygal was already concluded when he received Himmler's order to take care of the production. If Rascher shot at an inmate in connection with polygal research then this, at any rate, occurred at a period of time when he had nothing to do with that matter. I only gained knowledge of this alleged shooting after Rascher's arrest, as I already testified earlier.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document Sievers No. 10 as Exhibit Sievers No. 8. I beg your pardon, Exhibit No. 9. This is an affidavit of Oswald Pohl on page 21 of Document Book Sievers I. I read the essential points to be found on page one of this document, and I quote:
"1. My affidavit of 23 July 1946 concerning medical experiments was submitted to me with reference to my statements in paragraph 4 Sievers (Ahnenerbe).
"2. Sievers' diary of 1944 (Doc. No. 3546-PS) was submitted to me with reference to the entry of 15 June 1944, 9 o'clock, (page 167):
"SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
"1. Production of polygal and settlement Felix."
The paragraphs two to six are not interesting here and I shall skip them. I quote again:
"After having read this entry in the diary, I can remember Sievers' visit very well and I can state according to the best of my knowledge and conscience:
"When all relevant points concerning the possibility of producing (installation for manufacture) the blood-stanching remedy "polygal" as well as concerning the other items had been discussed, Sievers told me a few things concerning the Rascher case before I called in the SSStandartenfuehrer Maurer to discuss the employment of scientist prisoners in mathematical calculating problems.
He informed me that Rascher and his wife had been arrested for jointly committing child substitution and abduction. Through Rascher's arrest several unbelievable things had apparently come to light which were now being investigated. So it was also maintained that Rascher was supposed to have fired at a prisoner in order to test the "polygal". Sievers therefore express an assumption which he himself had only heard, but not a fact which corresponded to his own knowledge."
And then follows the certification.
Q Witness, I come to the next count of the Indictment which refers to the Lost experiments. I shall have Document Book XIII shown to you. Would you turn to Document NO-793; Exhibit 258 of the Prosecution, page 16. This is a letter dated the 9th of April 1942 which you sent to Professor Dr. Hirt. In this letter you are writing about special secret experiments at Dachau. To what experiments did you refer in that entry?
A It referred to the high altitude experiments which were carried out by Rascher at Dachau.
Q The letter is dated 9 April 1942 which is a short time after you yourself had attended a high altitude experiment of Dr. Rascher at Dachau and reported to Himmler 5 April about it.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now, looking at this letter of 9 April 1942, I have to ask you whether this letter constitutes your own opinion as to how these Lost experiments were to be carried through?
A This morning I already stated in detail what the subject of my conference with Himmler at East 1942 was. Four days after this I transmitted the directives to Hirt as I received them from Himmler.
Q Did you yourself consider the Lost experiments as being dangerous?
A That Lost experiment must entail a certain amount of danger I said to myself as a layman. However, I did not consider this danger to be particularly extensive since Hirt had told me by way of conversation that he was carrying out such experiments on NCOs at Military Medical Academy.
Q In this Document Volume XI there appears as a Document NO-098, Exhibit 263, on page 26, a notation which you transmitted to Dr. Rudolf Brandt for his acknowledgment. On the 5th of April 1942, Himmler told you orally, and later in the form of an order, that you were to support Dr. Hirt's task to a full extent. Why didn't you personally deal with this notation which contains a few wishes a Hirt?
A I was only in a position to transmit Dr. Hirt's wishes. In spite of Himmler's basic order I could neither deal with the people's nourishment nor with the question of the second camp physician nor with the question of payment of certain inmates on my own initiative. I had no jurisdiction whatever in concentration camps.
Q Now, would you turn to page 30 of this Document Book which is Document NO--193, Prosecution Exhibit 264. What was the reason for this letter of Ahnenerbe which was signed by you addressed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt?
A The reason for this letter was the report made by Dr. Wimmer on the same date about his being drafted and about the report by Hirt where it is stated that these experiments could not be conducted without the assistance of Wimmer.
Q Did you at that time discuss these experiments with Dr. Wimmer, particularly experiments on human beings?
A The experiments were not discussed with Dr. Wimmer that time. Apart from this affair we only discussed questions of a current nature which were necessary.
Q You knew, however, what these experiments were, didn't you? It becomes evident from your diary that on the 25 June 1943 you were in Natzweiler.
A Yes, on the occasion of this visit Dr. Wimmer showed me a few persons with their lower arms bandaged.
Q What was your impression of the general state of health of these experimental subjects?
A There were about ten of them. They made quite a lively impression. I saw one man whose dressing was just being changed and I saw that the place on the treated arm was covered with scurf.
Q Did Dr. Wimmer tell you of any deaths?
A No.
Q In your visit to Natzweiler did you learn anything about volunteering of experimental subjects?
A Yes. I asked several of the persons who were introduced to me by Wimmer. I was told that after a lecture which was given by Prof. Dr. Hirt they had volunteered for this experiment, and I had already learned that from Prof. Hirt. After the conclusion of the experiments he also told me that he had given the commandant a report about the good conduct cf the prisoners and had recommended that they be released.
Q Now, we will go on a few pages in Document Beck 11; we will find on page 33 the Document NO-195, Prosecution Exhibit 266. This is a letter from Brandt to Ministerialrat Dr. Geernert. It says, "More details about the experiment could be given to you by SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers." Then at least in the opinion of the person who wrote this letter - that is, Dr. Rudolf Brandt - you were informed cf these experiments in Natzweiler?
A I was informed insofar as I knew of the order from Himmler to Hirt. Beyond that I was informed to the extent that I had been able to observe the work when I visited Natzweiler. I must point out that what I saw and heard at Natzweiler did not give me the impression of any special danger. And besides, since I was not a doctor I was not able to gain any definite impression of any method of investigation. Moreover, as far as the medical side cf the experiments was concerned, that didn't concern me at all.
Q Now, when did you learn that in connection with Lost experiments experimental subjects had died?
A In March 1943 I asked Hirt whether experimental subjects had suffered any harm. He mentioned that two cf the experimental subjects had died but that the cause of death had nothing to do with the Lost experiments in both cases.
Q After this visit in March 1943 did you visit Hirt in either Strasbourg or Natzweiler again?
A I was not in Natzweiler after January 1943; I visited Hirt in Strasbourg once in February 1944.
Q Do you know whether, and in what form, Hirt conducted Lost experiments on himself?
A Yes, in 1941 Hirt told me that he was conducting experiments on himself, when he became seriously ill because of this in 1942 I had to tell him on behalf of Himmler that he was to stop these experiments on himself, but Hirt answered that he couldn't do that, ho would conduct any experiments on himself that he considered necessary.
Q What was your personal impression of Hirt? Was he serious in his research work?
A I had the best impression of Hirt. I considered him a very serious research worker whose life was completely devoted to science.
Q In your diary 1944 there appears on the 8th of March a report of Hirt to Himmler in Salzburg. Were you present?
A Yes, I was present. Also my office chief Wuest.
Q Was the course of human experiments and any deaths which had occurred discussed?
A There was no mention of death in this report. Hirt demanded animal experiments to continue the research, but Himmler ordered human experiments. Hirt said that he could obtain further results only through animal experiments.
Q This morning in connection with the Hirt report, at the beginning of 1942, we mentioned intravital microscopy. I should like to ask you only one question to clarify whether this method is applied to human beings or only to experimental animals?
AAs I heard at this discussion, and as I know otherwise, these intravital microscopic tests could be conducted only on animals, and this was the reason why Hirt, whose studies were along this lino, wanted larger numbers of animals for experiments.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document SI-No. 9, as Sievers Exhibit 10. This is a letter of the firm Carl Zeiss concerning these types of microscopes. I believe I can dispense with reading this document.
MR. HARDY: Defense counsel said he would dispense with reading this document. However, I object to admission of this into evidence as it lacks the required jurat. It does not comply with the regulations set forth by the Tribunal.
DR. WEISGERBER: It is true that this document has no certificate; that is,the signature of the Zeiss firm is not certified. The Zeiss firm is in Jena, in the Soviet occupation zone, and up to now it has not been possible to obtain a certified copy of this letter from this company. The court has the possibility to admit such document even if the necessary certificate is lacking, if the difficulties of obtaining a certified signature are very great, and that is the case here. Independently of this I have already endeavored to obtain this document with a certification.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal well accept this Document provisionally. If counsel is at some later time able to obtain a proper jurat it will be admitted; if counsel is unable at any time to procure that jurat, counsel may again present the question to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will then rule on it independently. It will now be marked Exhibit 10, provisionally.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have already tried to obtain a copy in the prescribed form.
Q In your diary for 1943, witness, you record on 28 January 1943 a conference with Curator Wuest and SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, concerning continuation of the "L" experiments; why was Pohl called to this conference and what was discussed?
A The reason for this discussion was the assignment of a building site for the entomological institute. I had just come from Strassbourg, and I reported to my office chief about the talks I had there with Professor Hirt, the main subject of which was the expansion of the animal brooding at Natzweiler. As I said before, experimental animals were needed in large numbers for Hirt's experiments, and Pohl's approval was necessary to expand the breeding of animals at Natzweiler.
Q In your diary on the 22 May 1943, there is the following entry: "Conference with SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt about gas experiments, according to letter 14 May 1943"; this diary entry is not contained in the English translation; what wore those gas experiments?
A These gas experiments have nothing whatever to do with the Lost experiments; but at this opportunity I can give information about it because the letter mentioned in this diary entry was shown to the witness Meine here during cross-examination.
Q Is that Document No. 1368-*, Exhibit 464, which I shall now have shown to you; please look at it?
(The Document is shown to the witness.)
A Yes, it was this letter which was sent to me. According to request, I wont to see Maine and I received from him a sealed envelope on which was written "Return Sealed" after taken notice of contents. The witness Meine therefore could not testify anything about this matter. Then, Dr. Gerlow, who is mentioned in that letter, was at that time the head of the SS and Police Technical academy.
By order of Himmler he was to develop a gas bullet with which it would be possible to make a criminal, who was being pursued, incapable of fighting or acting for a short time, so that he could be seized, but which would not harm him in any way or kill him. The experiments which were made were without success.
Now Himmler, who always had the most remarkable ideas, demanded that Professor Hirt should name a substance which would achieve the desired effect. Hirt, as could be expected, said he was not competent to do so. He said that such a question could be answered only by an export and then I told Brandt about this for Himmler's information, and later I told Dr. Gerlow, and that settled the matter as I heard no more about it.
Q In any case these gas experiments had nothing to do with Lost or any other poison gas?
A No, nothing.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I would like to offer another Document, which however is also in Document Book No. 2. Upon my investigation this noon, I have discovered that Document Book No. 2 will be finished this evening and I shall submit this Document later.
Witness, the Prosecution has charged you with experiments with the so-called N-substance; in your diary under the date of 23 October 1944, there was recorded a discussion at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for physical chemistry; the notation reads: "Discussion concerning special substance, discussion of use and biological tests." Please in a very few sentences explain this matter.
AAt a discussion shortly before this, Dr. Ploetner had told me that on orders from Grawitz he was to be called upon for tests with special substances.
There was a meeting at the Reich Research Council when Dr. Ploetner mentioned this, at which Professor Thyssen was participating and I wont to him for information about this mysterious new substance as Thyssen know about the matter. He reacted quite violently to my question, and he called it folly and Utopian thinking on the part of the SS to try and use this substance again or even to discuss it. The head of the technical office in the SS Operations Office (SS Fuehrungshauptamt), Schwab, apparently had suggested something to Himmler because he thought he would be able to have some success and get some laurels from this.
Q Witness, I think we can shorten the subject a little; you, yourself, watched such an experiment with this N-substance, and what did you observe?
A Professor Thyssen invited me to watch a laboratory experiment, because he had no concept of N-substance. This experiment took place on the 23rd of October, as the diary entry shows. The consequence was that Professor Thyssen gave me an expert opinion to pass on to Himmler, which I did, so that even Himmler gave up the idea of using the N-substance.
Q Then the matter was settled?
A Yes, then the matter was settled.
Q. The next subject, which I shall discuss, is your participation in typhus experiments. I shall now show you Document Book No. 12, on Page 78, there is a Document No. NO-120, Exhibit 297 of the Prosecution; the Institute for Military Scientific Research, according to this, on 30 September 1943 informed the Director of the Hygenic Institute of the University of Strassbourg according to his suggestion of 16 August 1943, the persons desired would be made available; what were the events which led to this letter of 30 September 1943?
A. Information came from Professor Hirt that Professor Haagen had been asked to perform typhus vaccinations in Natzweiler, Hirt wanted Himmler's approval for this and therefore wrote to the Institute for Medical Scientific Research. I passed on the letter to Himmler and after several weeks, as the dates indicate, Himmler approved Haagen's request. Everything else was up to Dr. Lolling, therefore Haagen's request was to be sent through Pohl as Lolling's main office chief and to be sent on to Lolling, who was the doctor in charge of all concentration camps and the letter was passed on on September 30th.
Q. Did Haagen or Hirt tell you about the vaccinations, which they intended to carry out?
A. No, I merely considered from the application that it was a question of typhus protective vaccinations with a new vaccine.
Q. Did this letter from Hirt contain any reference to the fact that there was danger to the life of the experimental subjects?
A. No, it said that there was no danger to the persons involved through the vaccinations although a rather strong fever reaction might be expected.
Q. Subsequently did you ever talk to Hirt or Haagen about the results of the vaccination?
A. I did not talk to Haagen either then or at any other time about it. I saw Haagen for the first time in 1946 in the prison in Nurnberg. Professor Hirt told me at the beginning of 1944 that the typhus vaccinations in Natzweiler had been successful, and I assumed that the expected protection had been achieved.
Q. Did you ever see any report from Haagen or Hirt about this vaccination ?
A. No, unless the letter which Hirt wrote to me at the beginning of 1944 might be considered such a report. I passed it on to Pohl almost verbatim.
Q. Now if you will look at page 92 in the document book which you have before you, page 84, I mean, you will find a letter from Haagen to the Reich Research Council dated the 21st of January, 1944. Did you see this letter?
A. No, I did not see the reports which are mentioned in it. They went directly to the head of the Department for General Medicine.
Q. Did all the reports, letters, and so forth, not go over the Board of the Reich Research Council, the managing board?
A. Like all letters they went through the mail room of the Reich Research Council which sent the reports to the specialists in the specialized departments or to their section for a card index and reports. Because of the number of reports and the independence of the specialized departments, the managing board was in no position to take notice of them.
Q. Were you ever present in Natzweiler when typhus vaccinations were carried out?
A. No. As I have already said in answer to a previous question, I was in Natzweiler the last time in January, '43, and at that time there was no question of typhus vaccination.
Q. Now in Document Bock 12 look at page 95. This is Document NO-009, Exhibit 305 of the Prosecution, a letter from Brandt to you. After the receipt of this letter, did you have anything to do with typhus vaccination in any form?
A. No. I passed on Himmler's decision to Hirt.
Q. And that was all?
A. Yes, that was all.
Q. In this connection I discuss briefly your work in the Reich Research Council. I consider it necessary to ask a few questions to clarify briefly your position in the Reich Research Council. How was it that from June, 1943; on you wore employed in the Reich Research Council?
A. The head of the managing board, Professor Menzel, appointed me his deputy.
Q. Who was Professor Menzel?
A. Professor Menzel was a ministerial director and head of the office of science in the Ministry of Education. He was also president of the German Research Association.
Q. Had you known Professor Menzel previously?
A. I had known Menzel since 1936. I met him at that time as president of the German Research Association.
Q. What was your function as Professor Menzel's edputy?
A. I was to represent Menzel when he was absent, but that happened only rarely.
Q. And what type of work did you do?
A. Purely administrative. I did not have to reach any decisions in this position. Besides it was a secondary job. I retained my position as business manager of the Ahnenerbe.
Q Then these two functions were not identical?
A. They had nothing to do with each other. The Reich Research Council was under Goering and the Ahnenerbe was under Himmler.
Q. Can one say that you were an official or an employee of the Reich Research Council?
A. I was neither. I received no salary from the Reich Research Council. I had no contract with it. I was no rely given my traveling expenses, nothing else.
Q. Then you mean to say that your position in the Reich Research Council was an honorary one?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. But in this position you got considerable insight into various fields of German research during the War?
A. The research assignments issued by the Reich Research Council numbered in the thousands. Not only because of the number was it impossible to get insight into all this research work, but also because tho twenty-five or thirty heads of special departments were very independent in their functions.
Q. Did not the reports on research work go through the managing board?
A. The reports wont directly from the persons who had been given the research assignments to the individual heads of special departments.
Q. Were these reports not compiled, printed and made available to a large number of people?
A. Yes, that was done but these printed reports contained only the title but not the contents of the reports or the works.
Q. Do you mean to say that the papers did not show how the research assignments were carried out?
A. No, it did not show how it was carried out in any way.
Q. From whom did you or the managing board learn of the contents of these reports?
A. The heads of departments and the plenipotentiaries told the department for the card index and reports, to give them a summarized version of the contents.
Q. Did you as deputy of the head of the managing board receive knowledge in any other way except in writing of the details of the execution of research assignments?
A. No, I did not. For example, I never attended scientific meetings.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in this connection I also intend to submit an affidavit to clarify the subject of tho Reich Research Council. This declaration is also in Document Book 2.
Q. Witness, the prosecution also charges you with preparations for biological warfare. Dr. Blome among others has discussed this subject. I believe, therefore, that I can be very brief. On the 18th of August, 1944, you sent a teletype message to Rudolf Brandt. You asked for an interview between Professor Blome and Himmler. Why was this done?
A. Shortly before there had been a discussion between Professor Blome, Dr. May and Dr. Borchers concerning the expansion of the production facilities of tho firm Borchers Brothers in Goslar. This extension seemed necessary in view of an increase in the product on of insecticides. Blome considered that a discussion with Himmler was necessary. He, therefore, asked me to get him an appointment with Himmler and told me what he wanted to discuss.
Q. I shall have you shown Document NO-641 -- Prosecution Exhibit 327. This is, no doubt, the teletype of the 18th of August 1944.
A. Yes.
Q. Point 1 deals with enemy use of insecticides harmful to human beings. What does that mean?
A. Blome said that the Intelligence Service had reported preparations for biological warfare on the enemy side. He did not mention any details. I can say nothing about that. Mention was made of dropping containers with anopheles mosquitoes.
Q And what about the potato beetles mentioned here?
AAccording to reports from the Reich the potato beetle had appeared in areas where it had been heretofore completely unknown.
Q What about the poison experiments? What does that mean - under #3?
A Point 3 says exactly what Blome told me on the subject. He merely mentioned that there was a suspicion that there might be some connection with the attack of the 20th of July. He had talked to Himmler about it on the 21st of July and that was incorporated into this letter.
Q Do you know anything about experiments in July, 1943, on Russian prisoners of war which were alleged to be in preparation for biological warfare?
A No, I know nothing about them.
Q On the basis of your apparently only superficial contact with this subject, did you have the impression that active biological warfare was intended?
A No, I did not have that impression.
Q Witness, I now come to the count of conspiracy. In the examination of your co-defendants on the witness stand we have already learned who was in slight or close contact with you and who did not know you at all up to this trial. Which of the remaining co-defendants, with the exception of these who have already testified to this on the witness stand, were known to you?
A Dr. Romberg I met in 1942 in Dachau. Later I saw him two or three times in Berlin. Dr. Beiglboeck I met in the middle of 1944 once in Dachau. Of the rest I knew no one.
Q As the document books show there was rather close official contact between Dr. Rudolf Brandt and you. Therefore I should like to ask you two questions to clarify this matter. What was your official relationship with Dr. Rudolf Brandt?
A Dr. Rudolf Brandt was Himmler's referent for the SS in the main office "personal staff". Brandt was, in no way, my superior, but Himmler had ordered that all Ahnenerbe matters, and later those of the Institute for Military Scientific Research, were to be submitted to him through his personal referent Brandt, and also orders, documents, etc.
, which came from Himmler, or which were issued on instructions from Himmler, went through the hands of Rudolf Brandt. It was generally known that these were personal decisions of Himmler and were evaluated as such.
Q Now, the things which appear in the document books of the prosecution - did you not discuss then with Brandt?
A I talked to Brandt from time to time. I went to see him when it was necessary to obtain Himmler's decision. I brought the pertinent documents along to these discussions. Brandt took shorthand notes on them which he submitted to Himmler. Through this procedure it was always possible to get a decision from Himmler. There were no discussions with Brandt in the sense of planning were out of consideration since he lacked the time.
Q You spoke of urgent decisions which you had to get from Himmler. Was that not something for the Office Chief (Amtschef) to do?
A Yes, that was the case, but that is not in contradiction to my discussions with Rudolf Brandt, My superior talked to Himmler frequently without my presence - more frequently than when I was present, and then he told me what decision Himmler had reached insofar as it affected my work; but Professor Wuest was in Munich and he was director of the university, as I said yesterday, and he did not like to travel. He frequently deputized me to obtain the necessary decisions from Himmler through Brandt. Thus I had to go to Munich very often to hear what Wuest wanted.
Q How often did you see Brandt in general?
AAbout every four to six weeks, but only for a short time.
Q Now, another question. Did you participate in any medical meetings?
A No. They were none of my business as a layman.
Q Were you not given the assignment to attend such meetings as an observer?
A No.
Q Now, a few questions on your membership in the SS. When did you become a member of the SS?
AAt the end of 1935.
Q Did you apply for admission?
A No. Himmler asked me when I had been General Secretary of the Ahnenerbe for several months why I was not in the SS. I answered that I was interested only in cultural work and that I was not interested in service in such a formation. Himmler said that no actual service was necessary, that he would take me into his staff. I asked for a short time to think it ever. I talked to Dr. Hielscher about it and at his suggestion I agreed. Then I was accepted into Himmler's personal staff as an SS man.
Q Did you take the so-called SS oath?
A No. There was no formality.
Q Were you promoted later?
A Himmler promoted me oberscharfuehrer when I joined and then at intervals I was promoted as far as standartenfuehrer.
Q Were you an SS leader on a full-time basis? (Hauptamtlich)
A No. I was always an employee of the Ahnenerbe Society and I was always paid by the Ahnenerbe.
Q While you belonged to the SS did you perform any service in the SS?
A No, never.
Q Then your membership in the SS was merely on paper?
A Yes, one could say that.
Q Did you receive any Party awards or money?
A No, neither.
Q Were you drafted to military service?
A In May 1941 I was drafted into the Waffen-SS.
Q And what was your rank in the Waffen-SS?
A SS-Schuetze.
Q That is private?
A Yes
Q What was your rank in the SS at that time?
A Obersturmbannfuehrer.
Q And how long did you serve with the Waffen-SS?
AAbout three months.
Q Was your promotion in the SS recognition of your services as business manager of the Ahnenerbe?
A No, it had nothing to do with that. Himmler wanted to have a pseudo military machine in all his offices, as is well known. For that reason everyone was given an SS rank according to his position.