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.
Q Did this SS rank mean any additional income?
A No, not in my case.
Q Were you ever promoted prematurely in your rank in the SS?
A No, as I just said, when I was admitted I was made Oberscharfuehrer by Himmler, and then I went through all the ranks at the normal rate.
Q Your superior, Curator Wuest, was also an SS member. What was his rank.
A Wuest as far as I recall was taken in as a Hauptsturmfuehrer or Sturmbannfuehrer, and in 19411942 he held the rank of Oberfuehrer.
Q That was a few ranks above yours?
A Yest, at the end but Wuest was always one or two ranks above me.
Q Did that express the fact that you were Dr. Wuest's subordinate?
A Yes, I was always Wuest's subordinate in rank as well as otherwise.
Q And my final question - why were you released from service in the Waffen SS after three months.
A Two substitutes were employed who had to be trained when I was drafted and both of these people were killed in an auto accident at the same time, so that I was ordered back from the Armed Forces and was assigned to the personal staff.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have now concluded this subject. I would continue tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow 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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room 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 the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness on the stand. The witness is reminded he is still under oath.
DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers): If it please the Tribunal, in testifying before the International Military Tribunal my client has already stated that he belonged to a resistance group against the National Socialist regime. This fact has resulted in urgent reasons for my client to remain yet in the position of Reichs business manager of the Ahnenerbe when fate brought him into contact with Hirt and Rascher's experiments, although at first he was firmly determined to give up his position as Reichs business manager of the Ahnenerbe precisely because he repudiated the experiments which he had seen at Dachau. Now, the question arises, was there a German resistance movement against the Nazi regime. German literature on this political phenomenon exists hitherto only in a very small measure. I know only of a few pamphlets and brief articles. I have heard, how ever, that there is already a larger amount of literature abroad on this question.
Unfortunately, this literature was not yet accessible to me.
Now, to introduce this final chapter of my direct examination, I should like to submit Document Sievers No. 50 as Sievers Exhibit 11. It is in Document Book 2, which is already available, page 25 in this document book.
I offer this document as Exhibit Sievers No. 11. This is an excerpt from the pamphlet by Emil Henk, "The Tragedy of the 20th of July 1944", I quote: -
THE PRESIDENT: That Document does not appear to be on page 25 of the English book.
DR. WEISGERBER: It is on page 27 in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.
DR. WEISGERBER: "The resistance movement against Hitler is as old as Hitler's dictatorship itself. The struggle of his enemies against his system and his terror began on the day be came to power. Hitler had passionate adherents, but he had also resolute opponents willing to die, from the first day up to the very day of his defeat. He was the first man in centuries to split the German people into two hostile and irreconcilable camps.
To be sure the world saw only one of those Germanies: The National Socialist one, proclaimed with the flourish of trumpets by the Goebbels propaganda. The other Germany was hardly visible to the public eye. It was oppressed, prohibited, persecuted, imprisoned in jails and concentration camps. In the Third Reich there were indeed two kinds of Germans. They spoke the same language but they did not understand each other. A fantastic and unscrupulous propaganda spread impenetrable darkness over the real state of affairs. The world stood before the colossus of Hitler's power state, the most thoroughly constructed despotism of all times, and no one knew what was going on heind the walls of this huge prison.
What was the 20th of July in reality? Was it merely a ludicrous military revolt, bound to fail hopelessly in a despotic power state -or was a real political power backing the attempt?
Probably it will never be possible to show the whole widely ramified conspiracy, all the preparations and conferences, the years of ebbing and flowing in the plans for the revolt. It will never be possible to spread out before the world the huge circle of conspirators and the gigantic secret organization, in short the whole illegal setup of, generals, citizens and politicians.
Why not?
Just because the 20 July was not a revolt made by a few generals, but a conspiracy of wide strata of the German people. The threads of this conspiracy did therefore not converge in one hand, but ran through many hands, through groups which were separated within the opposition. No group knew exactly the set-up of the other, no group was permitted to know it exactly, if only for security reasons.
Moreover, the men who held the threads in their hands are dead now, With the exception of a few, they remained silent even under the tortures of the Gestapo. And now death has for ever closed their mouths.
At first glance two large groups of conspirators attract our attention; the military men and the civilians.
The military group is to a certain extent known to the public. It is knew to have prepared the attempt and to have carried it out. But that much may be said in advance: about 16,000 military men were involved in the revolt. Thus more than 16 generals from the innermost circle of the conspirators alone were executed. Immense numbers and dangerous work in view of an incredibly well-organized Gestapo.
One fact is self-evident: Hitler could not be overthrown by the military alone. Without being backed by a political opposition and in the last resort, by the masses of the people even a successful attempt would have been void of any meaning and sense.
Who were the Political Men that prepared and planned this attempt and which were the Political Parties involved on the 20th of July?
We may say unmistakably in advance: Behind the revolt stood the whole political Germany.
For the time being, I should like to quote only that much.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. Witness, in the first part of your examination you have already said how you became acquainted with Hielscher and his group. What were the intentions of Friedrich Hielscher, as far as you knew them?
A. On the 30th of January 1933 the rule of the NSDAP began; the movement was at that time much too strong for the people who opposed it to be able to destroy it again. Even the several million members of the trade unions were not able to prevent the destruction of the unions at that time. It was clear to us that at first only consistent infiltration into the NSDAP by the opposition could take place. The advance posts were to build up their posts carefully and try to form nests of resistance within the party. That was a process which could proceed only very slowly, since the entire public and private life was increasingly controlled by the SD and the Gestapo. When in the course of years it became more and more clear that a collapse of the Nazi regime by undermining was not possible, in our opinion the only way left was that of an armed uprising, and we worked toward that aim.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date or approximate date, of the publication of this Document; Sievers Document No.50?
DR. WEISBERGER: Mr. President, this pamphlet by Emil Henk was published in 1946 in the second edition. I submitted a copy of this pamphlet as the original Document.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, was Hielscher alone in this intention?
A Our opposition group was by no means the only one. In the course of years various other resistance groups were founded. In view of the great danger of their intentions they had to proceed very slowly and carefully before they could establish contact with each other.
Q Can you tell us anything about attempts to establish contact with people of similar intentions from your own experience?
A Yes, before 1933 Hielscher had established contact with a Munich lawyer, Dr. Liedig, who as I learned later, was in very close contact with Admiral Canaris, the head of the Counter Intelligence Service of the Wehrmacht. At the end of 1933, Hielscher came to Munich, where I was working at that time, and told me of his intention to bring Liedig and myself together. In the summer of 1934, that was before the Roehm affair of the 30th of June 1934, there was another thorough discussion between Hielscher, Liedig and myself at his house and at the house of Albrecht Schaeffer at Rimsting on the Chiemsee.
Q Did this connection remain in the following time?
A From that time on I was liaison man between Hielscher and Liedig, until 1936. Because I moved to Berlin in 1935 it was no longer possible for me to continue to act as liaison man, but Hielscher continued to maintain this contact.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document Sievers No.17 from Document book Sievers No.1, on page No.41; I offer this as Sievers' Exbibit No.12. This is an affidavit of the lawyer Franz Liedig of Munich. This is the same Dr. Liedig, whom the witness has just mentioned.
Franz Liedig status:
"I declare herewith, that Wolfram Sievers was known to me from 1933-1936 as the liaison man between Friedrich Hielscher and myself. He was reliable, clever, unconditionally discreet and a passionate enemy of National Socialism."
Then follows the signature and certificate.
I also offer from Document Book No. 2, Document Sievers No.46 which is on page 18. I offer this as Sievers' Exhibit No.13.
THE PRESIDENT: That Exhibit does not commence on Page 16.
DR. WEISGERBER: Page 18 of the German, Document No.46. Document No.46, I offer that as Sievers Exhibit 13. This is an affidavit of Albrecht Schaeffer, the same Albrecht Shaeffer whom the witness just mentioned.
"From 1939 on I have been a resident of the United States of America. I left Germany because of my opposition to the Nazi-regime.
"Friedrich Hielscher, whose acquaintance I made in 1930, was a frequent guest in my house at Rimsting on the Chiem Lake and often stayed there with us for weeks. From discussions, conversations and papers which Friedrich Hielscher showed me, I was convinced that he was a member of an organization which attempted, by placing confidential agents within the NSDAP, to obtain information on the party and to do damage to the regime as such.
"Through Hielscher I got to know several of his friends who belonged to this organization. Among them was also Wolfram Sievers whom he brought along as a visitor in 1943.
"In the course of the conversations which took place at that time, Hielscher told me - as far as I remember in the presence of Sievers - that later worked within the SS-organization, i.e. in the so-called 'Ahnenerbe' which was founded by Himmler; his purpose was to cover up for the activities of the Hielscher organization, to protect members of the organization; to camouflage meetings and mainly to undermine the SS from the inside, and finally to prepare an armed revolution.
"I therefore believe that Wolfram Sievers joined, and stayed in the SS, only in order to serve the purposes of the Hielscher-Organization."
Then follows the certificate.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, in this affidavit by Schaeffer, the affiant states that he has been a resident of the United States since 1939 and that he met the defendant Sievers in 1943.
DR. WEISGERBER: That is a typing mistake, Your Honor, it should be 1934, the original Document has 1934. I did not have an opportunity to compare the translation with the original and correct any typing mistakes.
THE PRESIDENT: If that should be an error I desire it be corrected at this time. The date is correct in the German Document book -1934.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, what were your duties as liaison man to Dr. Liedig?
A I had to carry information between Hielscher and Liedig.
Q And what kind of information?
AAbout events in the party; for example, the persecution of the church, contact with both Christian sects with the intention of intensifying their opposition to the National Socialist regime. In connection with the church and their knowledge about reliable elements, we hoped to find strength in our opposition at that time. We were also interested in the intention of the NSDAP, agricultural questions and in culture field. From the end of 1933 until the end of 1934, I was with the 'Wehr' Publishing House in Munich, the central publishing house of the NSDAP. Because a great deal of secret information of the party was collected there, I had very good opportunity for obtaining information. I was able to use this opportunity for the benefit of the resistance movement for Hielscher and Liedig.
Q Through the fact that you moved to Berlin and your work for the Ahnenerbe there resultet for you a new situation. In this new work for yours did you continue to work for Hielscher?
A Yes, my work for Hielscher and his resistance group was really only to begin here.
Q The you first informed yourself about the people with whom you worked - the people around Himmler?
A Yes, I had to fortify my position first and feel my way care fully.
Q Were you inconstant contact with Hielscher during this time?
A Yes, that was a prerequisite for the success of my work in this position.
Q And how was this contact secured? I imagine that in everything that you did in this direction at this time you had to work with extreme care.
A Until 1937, Hielscher lived in Berlin which made it possible to have constant contact. In 1937, Hielscher moved to Meiningen. We met in Berlin or at other places. In 1939, Hielscher moved to Potsdam which reestablished constant contact.
Q Did Hielscher give you definite duties for this time too?
A Yes, we wanted to get further insight into the group of people around Himmler to find out the plans and intentions of the SS.
Q Mr. President, I now offer Document Sievers #20 in Document Book, Sieversl, page 50. I offer this as Sievers Exhibit 14. This is an affidavit of the Government physician, Dr. Ernst Friedrich Ebert, dated 14 January 1947. I shall read on page 51 the paragraph, "I swear" in the top third on Page 51, I quote:
"From August 1938 on I was an active member of the secret organization of Friedrich Hielscher, which from 1933 until the collapse of the Nazi regime fought this regime without interruption, and which was connected with the attempted overthrow of 20 July 1944. In 1938, on the occasion of conferences with Friedrich Hielscher, I met the former Standartenfuehrer and Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, Wolfram Sievers from Berlin, as a member of the secret organization.
I know that his duty was to supply us constantly with news from the Reichsfuehrung SS and, by virtue of his position, to help and conceal our work with all means at his disposal. From numerous meetings with Friedrich Hielscher and him, Sievers in the course of following years, I know that he always carried out this difficult task very well."
There follows the certification.
Witness, did you succeed in carrying out this intention of gaining insight into Himmler's entourage?
A Yes, in my capacity of Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe I had to cooperate with Himmler's personal staff, the head of which was wolf, later Obergruppenfuehrer. In the course of time I had a very good opportunity for obtaining information, but I must point out that I always had to be very careful not to disturb the appearance of loyalty.
Q Professor Gebhardt had mentioned the so-called Freundenkreis - Circle of Friends of Himmler. What can you say about that?
A My knowledge of the existance of this group goes back to the year 1936. The circle of Friends was composed primarily of big industrialists and bankers who met for a social evening at regular intervals. On these occasions a member or a guest usually gave a brief speech about a subject which interested the group generally. I gained the impression that there were influential people, especially in industry, who wanted to get into contact with Himmler. I remember one case when a personality from industry offered to pay one million in order to be admitted into this so-called Circle of Friends.
Q Is it true that the circle of Friends financed the Ahnenerbe?
A No, that is not true. It is true that Himmler received an annual sum of about one million from the Circle of Friends, but he used this money for personal representation purposes. The Ahnenerbe received none of this money. It was financed partly from funds of the German Research Association, from Reich funds, occasional contribution, and dues of members.