Q Did you yourself belong to this Circle of Friends?
A Yes, from the end of 1941 on.
Q Was this not a personal preference based on friendship with Himmler or did you pay any large sum of money to be accepted?
A It is well known that many high-sounding name often did not have the implied background. This was true of the Circle of Friends. It included a number of influential persons from industry and business who supplied Himmler with funds. These men were, of course, persona grata with Himmler. Himmler wanted in this so-called circle of Friends to make known his cultural ambitions. In this connection, from the end of 1941 on, the Curator and Office Chief of the Ahnenerbe, Professor Wuest, I, myself as Reich Business Manager, and the Main Department Chief of the Ahnenerbe, the Tibet research man, Dr. Schaeffer, were called into the Circle of Friends. Perhaps the paying members - if I may call them that - were considered friends of Himmler and were treated as such by him. For the others this was not the case and certainly not for me. I had no personal advantage from it, but in the interest of my resistance work I had a great deal of advantage.
Q You mean to say then that you succeeded in getting a new and important source of information?
A Yes, one might say that. I should like to mention an example in this connection. State Secretary Naumann belonged to this circle of friends from Goebbels Ministry. From 1943 on he gave reports in the circle of friends about the situation at the front, the political situation at home and abroad, and Goebbels information service worked quite well at times. Once at a meeting Naumann reported or rather he told us of a stenographic report on a meeting of the British House of Commons by Churchill which he had received two hours after the meeting.
Q In your work for the Resistance Movement did you work alone in the Ahnenerbe or did you have associates?
AAs time went on I employed various associations gradually. This was made easier because I succeeded from time to time in having research assignments given to reliable men. In this way, for example, I gave Dr. Hielscher a fake research assignment, and I gave him a pass of a section chief of the Ahnenerbe. After that it was possible for him to travel abroad, which otherwise would not have been possible for him since he did not belong to the Party, SS, or any other organization.
Q Witness, you said yesterday that you yourself could not issue research assignments and now you just said that you obtained a research assignment for Hielscher. Do you mean to say that this assignment was a fake, and that you yourself took the risk for Hielscher's appointment in the Ahnenerbe?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us how many members of yours or any other Resistance Group were occupied in any form in the Ahnenerbe?
A For people belonging directly to Hielscher's Group, or people in contact with is, I managed to find positions for about ten and to finance them. Besides that, especially in the business management of the Ahnenerbe, there were about eighteen persons whom I knew were opposed to the Nazi regime.
The Ahnenerbe included a total of about three hundred people.
Q Did you also have contact with other resistance groups? You have mentioned Leidig.
A Yes. From time to time I received instructions and information from Hielscher who had all the threads in his hands for his group and his contact with other groups.
Q Can you tell us a few noteworthy cases?
A Hielscher discussed his various conferences with me, with Count Von der Schulenburg, head of the Young Conservative Group of Resistance Movement, before and afterwards. Also with Count Blumenthal who from the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944 was the man between Stauffenberg and Hielscher.
Q When did you establish contact with these people?
A I was in touch with Schulenburg first. I believe it was in 1940 when Schulenburg and Hielscher got together. We established contact with Blumenthal in 1943. Also, Lt. Von Haeften, Stauffenberg's adjutant.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I should like to offer from Document Book II, Document Sievers No. 52 as Sievers Exhibit No. 15. The document is on page 36 of the English translation. This is a short excerpt from an article in the "Neue Auslese" (New Digest) 2nd year, No. 1. The article has the title "One of the German Resistance." It deals with Count Helmuth von Moltke. I do not intend to read this document but on page 37 I should like to point out a few names. At the top there is mentioned Theodor Steltzer, then Adam von Trott-Zu-Solz, and Johannes von Haeften.
Witness, this is an article, as I just said from "Neue Auslese" You just spoke of a Lt. von Haeften here. Is the name Johannes von Haeften - is that the same man?
A No. That was his brother.
Q This article on page 36 and 37 gives a number of names who are considered the most important members of the Kreisau group.
Witness, did you have any contact with other members of the Kreisau group?
A Yes. I knew Legationsrat Adam von Trott-Zu-Solz very well.
Q How did you know of his membership in the resistance movement?
A I learned that from him. We learned to know each other in our secret political situation when there was an air raid on Berlin. The name von Haeften was mentioned and after a few careful questions we mutually revealed our antagonism to the Nazis.
Q If I remember correctly the name von Trott-Zu-Solz as well as Friedrich Hielscher occur repeatedly in your diary. If this was a very secret matter was it not careless of you to mention these names in your diary?
A These were camouflage entries in my diary which I discussed yesterday. The frequency of my talks with these men had to be explained in some way and consequently the discussions listed were not the actual ones discussed but were merely alibis. That is especially true of Mr. von Trott.
Q Were you in contact with any other resistance groups?
A Yes. I had especially close relations with the Catholic Group headed by Freiherr von Luedig. Also good relations with the Socialists, represented by Rauchwein and later by Hauberg. Hielscher also worked with Dr. Topf as a respected man in the Democratic or social Democratic circles. I personally had very close relations with Anton von Kliphausen who belonged to the socalled Wolf Group, which also included Kunze (?) for example, who was in contact with the former Reich Chancellor Wirth in Switzerland, and there were also connected with Resistance Movement in the occupied territories. I had close contact with Dr. Bommers of the University of Groningen who was an important member of the Dutch Resistance Movement.
Q. Mr. President, my client has just mentioned the name of Prof. Dr. Bommers. In this connection I should like to offer from Document Book I --
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, it seems to me that defense counsel has gene far enough into this defense of his in resistance movement. That is an attempt at mitigation. That the defendant was a member of the resistance group - they have explained fully what the resistance group did - and I think that the Tribunal is well aware now of the activities of that movement. The witness here is going to have three other witnesses come here to testify in his activity in resistance movement. I would assume that the Tribunal has now gathered sufficient information to determine the status of the defendant Sievers in that particular group. Therefore, I object to any further time being taken up with this resistance movement business.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Objection is over-ruled.
DR. WEISGERBER: I offer document No. 14 in Document Book I, page 32, as Seivers Exhibit No. 16. This is an affidavit of Dr. Assien Bohmers, dated 17 January 1947. I should like to read merely a few excerpts from this affidavit. I quote:
"I, Dr. Assien Bohmers, born on 16 January 1912 at Kutfen, the Netherlands, Archeologist by profession, residing at Buitenpest, Julianalean 375, swear, testify and declare:
"It had been known to me, already since 1937, that Herr Wolfram Sievers kept inwardly very much aloof from the official scientific Nazi doctrine of race, blood and soil, etc. In accordance with this attitude, he tried time and again, and succeeded in keeping typical representatives of the official false doctrine out of this branch of science, and that in order to protect this science. The question arises, of course, why Herr Sievers continued his efforts to gain importance among SS circles. In my opinion, his sole aim was, on the one hand, to form a cell by order and in accord with the resistance groups which existed already at that time. It is difficult now being acquainted with the development of the Nazi regime - to put oneself in the mental position of those Germans who then, under very desperate circumstances, contemplated the possibility of a revolution."
I shall not read what follows, but on page 33 I shall read the second and last paragraphs:
"It is known to me that Herr Sievers, too, had more or less direct contacts in those years with persons who had connections with agencies interested in news and information from underground Germany."
The last paragraph on this page:
"I have been in a position to observe Herr Sievers during many years under manifold circumstances. For obvious reasons I was originally by no means induced to trust him completely. Nevertheless, I have learnt to admire him as a man, more and more, in the course of years and I have more and more learnt to trust him, as far as his real political attitude is concerned.
His role was not easy and certainly did not pay. At the present moment it is not easy to judge the feelings of the individual resistance men. Their tragic fate was that all their efforts were in vain."
Then there follows the certification.
The following document, Sievers No. 15, on page 35 of the document book I, I offer as Sievers Exhibit No. 17. This is an affidavit of the same Dr. Bohmers, dated 14 February, 1947. It deals with the warning and about the saving of this Dr. Bohmers by Sievers. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this affidavit.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, on request of Hielscher, you maintained contact with a number of other resistance groups; I want to give the Tribunal a comprehensive and concise survey of the nature of your conspiratorial activities. Please be brief.
AAccording to my position, my main duty was to obtain and pass on valuable information. Also I had to cover difficult situations, to make conferences possible, for which I made my office available, and many small incidents which may seen unimportant to an outsider, but in such a highly dangerous matter we had to be very careful about camouflage and security. It was very important, for example, how many SS troops were in the Reich at any time. It was my duty to get this information. Of course, one could not simply ask the SS main office, but I was able to do it because all of the training of the SS was under the main office and by reason of the fact that Himmler wanted to have the Ahnenerbe publication sent to the troops, and by the addresses and the appropriate number of publications used, I was able to judge the number of troops. This had to be done repeatedly because the revolt was put off several times.
Q You can perhaps give us another example which would clarify your activities?
A Hielscher wanted to find out from me what trips Himmler wanted to make, especially abroad or to the occupied territories. These trips were, of course, always kept secret. Exploiting Himmler's pseudo-scientific aspirations, I asked him whether he did not want to see the Bayeux carpet in France, and the royal graves in Norway, or the Megalithic graves in Holland, and in this way I frequently learned of Himmler's destination, and was able to tell Hielscher.
Q Now did Hielscher always keep you informed of all details of his preparations about the final aim of this resistance activity? And the final aim, as you have already said, was armed overthrow.
A Yes, that was clear. Hielscher informed me as far as necessary of the details, and he also informed me about one thing and another; but the individual people never had exact knowledge of everything that was going on, if only for reasons of camouflage; but I knew quite a large number of names of people who belonged to the various resistance groups because I came into contact with quite a large number of people, for example, the circle of friends which I have just talked about; and if names were mentioned in this connection, it might be of the greatest importance to ascertain in what connection they were mentioned, and it was important to watch this.
Q Was it possible for you in many cases to warn members of the resistance movement who were in danger and thus to help them?
A Yes, I was able to do so in many cases. Perhaps the most important case was the following: In 1943 I learned, when I happened to be in Copenhagen, that a drive was being planned against the Danish Jews. I heard of the differences of opinion between the SD in Copenhagen and the Wehrmacht Commander in Denmark, about the well known atomic physicist Professor Bohr. Then in Berlin I learned from the counter intelligence office of the Wehrmacht details which made it clear that Professor Bohr was in great danger.
I myself had no opportunity to warn him directly. Therefore, I went to Dr. Von Trott in the foreign office. I informed him of the planned drive against the Jews in Denmark and in particular about Professor Bohr. I asked him whether it was possible for him through his connections abroad to send a warning to the people who were endangered by a reliable means and he said "yes", and shortly thereafter he told me that the warning had been transmitted, and then Professor Bohr succeeded in fleeing to Sweden before the drive was carried out, and later he went to England and then to the United States.
Q.Is this the same Trott-Zu-Solz whom you mentioned before?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Article "One of the German Resistance Movement" which I have already submitted as Sievers' Exhibit 15 it is said that Moltke happened to find out that drastic measures were being planned against the Danish Jews. Do you mean this event?
A. Yes; that is the occasion.
Q. Now can you please tell the High Tribunal very briefly about one case or another in which you helped people who were in any way oppressed by the Nazi Regime or deprived of their freedom?
A. I helped whenever I had the opportunity to do so, exploiting the differences between Himmler and Rosenberg, For example, I was able to help the well-known archeologist, Professor Merhart, and Professor R.R. Schmidt. It was often necessary to take advantage of Himmler's scientific vanity in order to obtain research assignments in some cases, for example, in the case of Professor Leis, who had been dismissed as a university professor, because his wife was Jewish. Leis was a geologist at the university of Freiburg. Nevertheless, it was possible to arrange for him to receive a research assignment from the Ahnenerbe.
In 1942 I was able to obtain the liberation of the Norwegian freedom fighter, Professor Seidt, rector of the University of Oslo, from a concentration camp, and I also helped the Norwegian university professors, Kroger and Lesbeth. Several hundred Norwegian students in 1944 I had released from the concentration camp Buchenwald by intervening with Himmler. When in 1942 for the first time through my contact with Rascher I saw a concentration camp, I was deeply moved by conditions there.
Although I had heard about the atrocities and the horrible atmosphere on various occasions, seeing these things myself and the impression of such a slave camp surpassed anything I had been able to imagine. I was especially shocked to see that besides criminal types there were highly intelligent personages. I considered this system devilish, and wherever possible I helped; but it must be considered that I had only very slight opportunities because I had nothing whatever to do with the concentration camp system. Where I could, I tried to have people released, or otherwise I tried to have them given leaves. Thus I was able to have the following Dachau prisoners released: Kutzengruber, Feixt, Kreiz, Bromm, to mention only a few; and by transferring Ploetner's action outside of the concentration camps I was able to create good living conditions for about thirty prisoners and preserve them from the horrors of the last few months of the War. And I took a female Jehovah's Witness into my own house.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, in this connection I offer from Document Book Sievers I Document No. 29 on page 73. This is Sievers Exhibit No. 18, page 73. This is an affidavit by Didrik Arup Seip, the same Professor Seip whom the witness Sievers has just mentioned. This statement, Oslo, 21 January 1947, reads as follows -- I quote:
"When I was discharged from the Prison Prinz Albrecht Strasse, Berlin, on 21 December 1942 after having been interned for seven months in the Concentration Camp Sachsenhausen, I first lived in Munich for several months; then (May 1943) an order was given that I should be allowed to move about freely in Berlin and later in the village of Gross Kreutz near Berlin.
Herr Wolfram Sievers saw to it that I could do scientific work in the libraries of Berlin, and he supplied me with ample money. In March --" the year is omitted here --" I had a rendezvous with Herr Sievers at the house of Friedrich Heilscher in Potsdam. Heilscher hinted to me that he was not a true National Socialist. Herr Sievers gave me complete freedom and saw to it that I could, as well as possible, live with my wife and work. He was always to the point and behaved in a fair and helpful manner towards me." Then follows the signature and the certification.
The next document, Sievers No. 30 on page 75, I offer as Exhibit Sievers No. 19. This is an affidavit of Hedwig Patzer of the 30th of January, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal is disposed to receive these documents which you offer as exhibits in evidence, but I suggest that you read only very short and important portions of them so that the typewritten mimeographed record will not be unduly extended. Counsel would have an opportunity at the close of the trial in filing his brief on behalf of his client to call attention of the Tribunal.
DR. WEISGERBER: This is the affidavit of the female Jehovah's Witness whom my client took into his house. I do not intend to read this statement. Then I offer Sievers No. 41 which is on page 116 in Document Book 1. Those are the last two pages of the document book, Document 41, the last two pages of Document Book 1.
JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, in preparing these document books there has been a mistake in transposition in some manner, and a goodly portion of the so-called English Document Book has the German documents in them rather than the English, and I am inclined to believe that in the so-called German Document Book only the documents beginning on page 111 appear in the English translation.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have a few more complete copies of the English translation of the document book, and I shall see to it that they are submitted to the Tribunal.
JUDGE SEBRING: This is Document Book 1, both English and -
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: -- German
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution's document book is in the same form, Your Honor. I think it involves only one document, however.
JUDGE SEBRING: At the present moment it appears that this involves Document No. 40. Well, as a matter of fact, I have two Document 40's in German. Perhaps it can be straightened out more easily than it appears.
THE PRESIDENT: What number do you assign to this exhibit, Counsel?
DR. WEISGERBER: Sievers Exhibit No. 20.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the affidavit of Friedrich Bromm.
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes. This is a statement by the concentration camp inmate, Bromm, whom the Defendant has just mentioned, I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this statement. I do not intend to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess. We will endeavor to adjust this matter during the recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, during the recess I have got my hands on a few copies of Document Book No. 1 and I request permission to give them to the Tribunal. First, though, I should like to point out one thing. I have ascertained that the correct English text and also the German text of Sievers Document No. 40 is to be found in English Document Book No. 1. On the other hand, in the German document book the English text is also included. I can explain that as follows. The witness Borkenau, whose document this is, gave me at the time his English translation. Then, when I turned in my document book to be translated, I also turned in this English translation in order to be of assistance to the Translation Division. When the document book was finally put together, the defense, according to present custom, has no influence and consequently it was not possible for me to look through this book before it was put before the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, night I ask the defense counsel whether or not the affiant in Document No. 40, Borkenau, is the same Borkenau that he intends to call here as a witness?
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, that is the same man so that there is no question of reading this document here.
MR. HARDY: Then there will be no necessity of introducing Document No. 40.
DR. WEISGERBER: No, the witness will appear here. Consequently, this document will not be read.
May I now inquire whether Document No. 41 is in English or in German in the document book before the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: The copy furnished me of Document No. 41 arrears in English. I don't know about the other document books but that matter will be corrected. Any that are incorrect will be supplemented with an English translation.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. Witness, before the recess you mentioned a few cases in which you were able to assist persons who were repressed by the Nazi regime.
Was the assistance that you were able to give in certain cases possible without any further ado?
A. No, by no means. Luck, strong nerves, and courage were an essential part of this. Those who don't know this period from their own experience in Germany can only have an approximate picture of the difficulties that always had to be overcome. Thus, in 1944 the Chief of Staff of the Personal Staff, as my superior officer, wanted to institute a trial against me for doing favors for prisoners and, in this connection, the rights that I had previously had were taken away from me; namely, my right to have immediate personal contact with the division chiefs. I had to carry on a steady warfare with the SD which demanded very careful tactics. This alone, however, was not enough to take care of the ticklish situation. Himmler was president of the Ahnenerbe and from 1943 I could withdraw into my position in the Reich Research Council and frequently I could only master the situation because of this. Let me give a brief example to clarify that matter. Himmler wanted to give Hitler a birthday present, a printed work which was to be printed especially for the purpose. I received the order to arrange for this. I had this volume prepared by a famous Leipzig professor who was known as a bookbinder. This artist, however, was not a Party member. In fact, he was under surveillance as a Social Democrat and the SD made a great issue of this. It was considered as lese majesty for Himmler to submit a book to Hitler that had been prepared by a Social Democrat. Then, as a matter of fact, Himmler did not use this book for the birthday present as he had intended. I was called to answer for this and only because it was such a high work of art which Himmler saw was I spared difficulties.
Q. Witness, in describing this event you wish to make clear how care fully you were being supervised and watched by the SD, is that so?
A. Yes, that is so, and I can give you an example to prove that I actually was being supervised. In 1944 I had a violent showdown with the SD which was concluded with the assurance that the matter was settled.
However, such assurances were always of a very dubious nature and I found out thereafter that I was to be supervised by the SD in Bayreuth. The SD leader there came to me on the pretense that he wanted to get information on my office which had been transferred to that neighborhood. During the conversation it appeared that we had an acquaintance in common, a man who was closely befriended to this man, and because of this he said to me what his real assignment was. He then sent a report to Berlin which clarified the situation so far as I was concerned. This was just one of those pure accidents that sometimes appear. However, I was sitting on a keg of powder, as it were, and at the end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945 the police chief of Nuernberg at that time wanted to charge me with sedition which, at that time, would have been considerably more than just a concentration camp penalty. However, I regarded it as my human duty always to help whenever Dr. Hielscher or other members of our circle asked for assistance.
Q. Witness, in the first part of your direct examination you stated that the human being experiments with which you came in touch because of Himmler were odious to you personally. Why then did you not, on some excuse or other, abandon your activities as the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe? Thus, in one fell swoop you would have extracted yourself from this complicated position in which you found yourself.
A. In the Spring of 1942 I had already this point of view when I saw the experiments in Dachau. I have already said that during the Easter discussions with Himmler I attempted to keep this matter separate from the Ahnenerbe because I wished to have nothing to do with that personally. It is true that after I was frustrated in this effort to effect this separation I might have been able to extract myself in some way or other from this situation. However, this did not take place for the following reasons. As soon as I came in touch with the first experiments on human beings I told Dr. Hielscher and my other friends about them and declared unequivocably that I wanted to have nothing to do with these things and did not have anything to do with them. My friends pointed out to me that, should I go away, should I abandon the position of Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, I would not thereby effect the least changes in these experiments that Himmler had ordered and it is true that this is correct, what they said.
On the other hand, because of my departure the members of our group would no longer be protected by me in my position in the Ahnenerbe and this would most assuredly direct the attention of the Gestapo in my direction. Everything that I had done in the Ahnenerbe would have been checked very carefully and it could be counted on that the secret thread that led to the other groups in the resistance movement would be discovered. These consequences would be most unhappy for the conspiratorial activities of the group and, moreover, my very important observation post for the Hielscher movement would have been abandoned had I left. After mature consideration and inner struggle I decided to remain at my post in order, in this position, to contribute to the destruction of the Nazi regime. My entire contact with the experiments in which, according to the prosecution, I participated in some way or another consisted, so far as I regarded these matters as criminal, in purely external things. Spiritually, I repudiated them definitively. My external participation consisted only in assisting in the carrying out of the plans, the goal of which was the liberation of the German people; but, nevertheless, I didn't let things just take their own way. I was not, by any means, indifferent to what was going on. Accordingly, among other things I was able to prevent first the undertaking of Rascher's human being experiments, which he was planning on a large scale in the field of cancer research, by interesting the chief cancer researcher in the Reich Research Council, Dr. Blome. Secondly, I was able to prevent what Himmler had repeatedly ordered; namely, the finding of a low-pressure chamber, both in the Autumn of 1942 and in the Autumn of 1943, and this meant that Rascher's experiments were not continued.
A (continued) Thirdly, I prevented the carrying Out of Rascher's cold experiments in the mountains because by prolonging negotiations I kept him from getting the necessary equipments. Thus, I was also able to bring about a union of orders from Himmler to Rascher, with assignment by the Reich Research Council. Since Reich Research Council orders were issued at the end of 1942 Rascher did not carry on any further human being experiments, because from then on he was not responsible for his work solely to Himmler but for the first time was responsible also to a professional faculty to which he was obliged to report: to the competent man in the Reich Research Council, namely Professor Sauerbruch. And Rascher would never have been able to stand up against the criticism of such a man. When finally, and fourthly, I met in Dr. Ploetner the first man who refused outright to carry on human being experiments, Himmler finally in 1944 saw to it that the institute for Military Medical Research no longer had anything to do with human being experimentation and said that such matters were exclusively Grawitz' affair, who also carried them on. I would have been unable to prevent this had I left my position.
Q. Mr. President, in this context I offer from Document Book I, Document No. 18, on page 42, as Sievers Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit of Wolfgang Wellmann. From this affidavit I should like to read merely a brief paragraph, namely on page 43, the first paragraph.
"All these actions of Sievers were tactical masterpieces which I admired, as Himmler and most of the other Leaders of Party and State justifiably and continually mistrusted each other and their closest circle and protected themselves by means of a well organized and effectively secret police mechanism."
This affidavit is correctly certified.
As further document I offer from Document Book Sievers II, No. 48, on page 22 in the English book. This will be Sievers Exhibit No. 22.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please give me that Document number again.
DR. WEISGERBER: Document No. 48, Sievers Exhibit No. 22, Sievers Document Book II, page 22, of the English translation, and this I offer as Sievers Exhibit 22. This is an affidavit by Arno SeemannDeutelmoser also a member of Hielscher's Resistance Group, and with whom Sievers spoke at great length about the situation in which he found himself because the Ahnenerbe concerned itself with experimentation. Seemann-Deutelmoser states here in detail a number of reasons for which Sievers at that time was to remain in this Resistance Movement, above all, because of his position in the Ahnenerbe. I need not read this document.
Witness, in view of the goal of the Resistance Movement, namely, an armed uprising - did you undertake any larger plans yourself?
A In connection with the other groups, it appeared after the collapse at Stalingrad that the appropriate time for action had arrived. Hielscher, Deutelmoser, and myself had long conversations about how this final goal should be achieved. Hielscher who was also in touch with the leading members of other groups reported on the incomprehensible hesitation on the part of the military clique which primarily was commissioned to do away with the leading Party members. We decided to carry out our own assassination of Himmler and Hitler, and if that were not possible to at least assassinate Himmler as the more powerful man.
Q You just said that Himmler was the more powerful man. Now please explain that.
A It does sound funny, but that is the way it was. Hitler looked like the most important man, but Himmler, because of concentration of means of power in his hands was actually the more powerful. Himmler was the center point of the entire Waffen-SS and of most of the Allgemeine (Generl) SS.
The entire Police, including the SD and the Gestapo. From 43 he was Reich Minister of the Interior, and thus in control of the entire internal German control machinery. Moreover from 1944 on, after disposing of Canaris, Himmler took over the entire Military Counterintelligence Service. Thus Himmler had acquired an extraordinary power, and consequently he appeared to be the man whom it was the most important to do away with. There was, however, another important factor.