A. At this time even in higher SS leading circles there already were misgivings about Hitler, which were to be traced back to his false decisions in military spheres, and also to persons like Bormann's attitude toward him by Himmler, whoses person seemed to them to be inviolable, and they saw in Himmler to be sure, largely for their own private selfish reasons, the man who should be at the helm of the state instead of Hitler. If Himmler were done away with first, then the danger of civil war would be measureably reduced because there was the opposition to Hitler which was founded on a larger basis, and that after first getting away with Himmler it would be a simple matter to do away with Hitler. We could avoid civil war within the frame work of our revolt and this was in the interest of the nation as a whole which was under serious enough pressure as it was.
Q. Witness, was the intention to do away with Himmler discussed with the other groups of the resistance movement and was it oriented towards their intentions also?
A. In all groups that are armed to act forcibly could only be done by getting rid of the leading personages in the SS and the Nazi regime, that way only could the goal be attained. To be sure it was not easy to reach agreements with the other groups regarding time and technique. This circumstance and the preparations which were necessary to make it possible for us to take over the entire administrative machinery of the State, which was our intention, and this kept postponing the date at which our uprising was to take place.
Q. Now, witness, I should like to hear from you very briefly something about your concrete plans, which as you said previously, were directed toward getting rid of Himmler.
A. Well the point of departure was the following: The assassination would have to be carried out so that between the time it was carried out and the time it became known, there were at least twenty-four hours. In this way we were to have an opportunity to acquaint the entire State apparatus and the Army with the new state of affairs, and thus, if possible, to avoid a civil war. From the plans that were cast on this point of view, the following seemed to offer the best chances of success: I have already mentioned yesterday the "House of Nature" in which Himmler was very much interested. He had visited it several times and the manager of the "House of Nature" had told him that in a certain region of the Alps vultures still lived. Himmler issued the order to find out where these birds nests and to observe them. After these observations had been concluded, he himself wanted to go there on a hunting trip. The place was found in the Salzachtal in Oberpinzgau in a deep side valley. Roughly, thirty vultures were seen there. I had a film taken of this in order to interest Himmler even more in this habitation. In the summer of 1943 I made all the arrangements necessary for the assassination to be carried out.
Q. Witness, in your diary of 1943, under the date of 18 May, there is an entry "Movie Pictures of White Headed Vulture." Now are those the movies you just spoke of?
A. Yes, the location was particularly favorable for this assassination. There was a climb of several hours up to the hunting region, which made it certain, even if everything went wrong, that we would have a head start of a few hours. I got a hold of a car that could go through rough terrain and found out that there would only be necessary a short one hour's walk from where the car would have to stop to the hut.
The narrow valley, once the car had left the hut up the valley, could most readily be closed for several days. We worked out exactly where it was to take place and when. Signal stations were arranged for which were to communicate the news of the event a few moments after it had occurred, to our men in Berlin, and they would then go into action immediately. This would give us a very great head start and the fact that Himmler was out of the way would only become known where we wanted it to become known, and during this decisive period the orders could actually be given to the SS as if they came from Himmler.
Q. When were the preparations for these plans concluded?
A. They were concluded in the autum of 1943.
A. Now how is it that these plans were never carried out? You just said that in 1943 because of the considerable military reverses you thought that would be a most appropriate time for such an undertaking?
A. There were three reasons for this: First of all, the hunting could only be done between July and September; secondly, it depended on what time Himmler picked for the trip; and thirdly, in 1943, the cooperation between the various groups was not so close that we could have taken over the entire governmental administration immediately.
Q. In other words, you had to put off the carrying out of your plans until 1944?
A. Yes and we made many efforts, continually reminding Himmler of this vulture hunting trip. I spoke to Himmler about personally in January and in March 1944.
At the beginning of 1944 he himself looked at a panorama which was arranged in the house of nature about the life of these vultures, and then Himmler himself set the date for this hunting trip at the end of July or the beginning of August.
Q. Now how come you didn't carry out the plan in 1944?
A. On 19 July 1944, I went to Salzburg to check on arrangements once more for the last time. There while I was on the way I received information on the 20th of July on the unsuccessful attempt on Hitler's life. I hastened back to Berlin to get more details and if possible to help my friends. Our intended attempt was abandoned after the 20th of July, because most of the leaders of our resistance movement, including Hielscher, were arrested, and Himmler called off the hunting trip because of the new duties that were falling upon him as a consequence of his new job as commander of the Reserve Forces (Ersatzheer)
Q. You just said that Hielscher was put in prison in connection with the attempt of the 20th of July. Now I am surprised that you yourself, because you belonged to the resistance movement, were not also arrested.
A. I also was interrogated by the Kriminalrat Neuhaus of the Gestapo. I was accused of participating in the movement and Nehaus told me that Hielscher had already confessed that I participated and had named the men in his group and that perhaps I could save my life if I named those who were in the Hielscher group. Since we had agreed not to name the names of the others under any circumstances, I assumed quite correctly that Neuhaus was merely bluffing. From his questions I saw that he had pretty well uncovered the threads of these resistance groups and I had to confess that I had known of Hielscher's conversation with Stauffenberg at Bamberg. It was also unfortunate that a letter in the Villa Haeften proved Hielscher's connection with the Ahnenerbe. My explanation of this was not accepted by Neuhaus; I was treated very roughly and brutally by him and he released me with orders to keep myself available until I received further orders.
When I was called for a further investigation, this was in October of 1944, I heard that Neuhaus had been transferred and a Kriminalrat by the name of Saunders continued my interrogation and it was because of this that I got off. Saunders was an old official, very correct and decent in contrast to Neuhaus. I was able to cover for Hielscher on the basis of his phony orders from the Ahnenerbe and in the time that followed I was even able to bring it about that Hielscher was set free after I had agreed to stand for him; however, the condition was made that he should be freed from prison so that he could join an SS 'probation' troop, but this in turn we were able to prevent as when he was set free there was waiting for him an induction order into the Wehrmacht, which his friends and I had arranged for him.
Q Witness, what would your role had been had the assassination been carried out?
A My active participation in the assassination itself.
Q You firmly intended to take part in it; did you not?
A Yes.
Q This what you and your friends attempted; was it not political murder?
A In our circle, for humane and ethical reasons, we repudiated political murder, what we intended was to liberate the German people and the innumerable foreigners who had fallen into Himmler's clutches. The liberation from a man, whom we regarded as the incarnation of cruelty and conscientiouslessness, the doing away of such a creature, in comparison to whom the brutal and sadistic actions of persons like Caeser Borgia were nothing, appeared to me, in view of the whole situation, as a morally completely justifiable deed. I believe that in this attitude I am in agreement with not only the great majority of decent Germans, including prominent representatives of the two Christian faiths. I am fully convinced that this attitude of mine will be approved by every ethical and righteous thinking person in the whole civilized world.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, this is the end of my direct examination. I ask permission to submit further Documents at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that counsel rests his case for the defense of this defendant at this time.
DR. WEISGERBER: That is true.
THE PRESIDENT: With leave to submit Documents at a later date.
DR.WEISGERBER: The direct examination is concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes the direct examination of the defense counsel.
DR. WEISGERBER: That is so.
THE PRESIDENT: The court will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS - Rescued
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to the witness on the part of any of the defense counsel?
BY DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the Defendant Rostock):
Q Witness, you were deputy business manager of the Reich Research Council and I can assume that you are informed about the business in the Reich Research Council.
A Yes, I can give you information about that.
Q Please, clarify once and for all who was responsible for issuing and supervising research assignments, were those individuals, was it the Board, the business management, or the heads of the special departments?
A For the issuing of the research assignments issued by the Reich Research Council, the only persons responsible and competent were the 30 department heads and plenipotentiaries, who in turn were responsible solely to Goering as President of the Reich Research Council.
Q You said "30 department heads". Was medicine the most importand aspect if the Reich Research Council, or were there other departments, for example, how high do you estimate the number of research assignments?
A I cannot give you any information about the research assignments issued in the department for general medicine, or about the the number of assignments issued in any other department. The total of assignments issued by the 30 departments was several thousand.
Q And the persons conducting research in one specific field received their assignment from the head of that department, and if there were any duty of supervision then merely the head of this department would be responsible?
A It was exclusively this head of department who was responsible, who issued the assignment and who received the regular reports on the research work.
Q These reports were sent to the department head by the research worker, and he passed them on. In what form were they passed on? You know of the red pamphlets. Was there any other form?
A I can explain that to you exactly. The research worker gave a report to the department head. The department head drew up a list every month which was a compilation of all the research assignments. This he sent to the department for card index and reports. These lists contained the name of the scientist who was carrying cut the assignment, the title of the work in very brief summary, and sometimes the number of the assignment and the priority rating. The department for card index and reports sent these reports, in the form which I have just described, to persons who were interested. They, in turn, if they wished to, could approach the individual research worker for further information. From time to time, about every six months, these lists were compiled into the so-called red reports. These were printed, the lists were merely mimeographed, and these red reports were sent to the members of the Board (Presidial-Rat), that happened about every six months or nine months. These red reports contained nothing but what was in the list, that is, merely a summary, the name cf the scientist, and the title of the assignment.
Q Can you state precisely from your own knowledge that in addition to these lists, and in addition to the red booklets, these people, for example, the Board, did not receive other regular and more detailed reports? Or is it your opinion that the members of the Board received only these lists and red folders?
A There was never any other report issued.
Q Now, you have said that the department head was alone responsible for his particular field, that is of great importance for my case and for that reason I should like to ask you a very concrete question. From the proceedings so far, you have heard that Professor Rostock from 1944 on, that is in the last year of the war, was in the Reich Research Council as deputy of Brandt as member of the Board.
If, in that capacity as deputy member of the Board in the year 1944, he wanted any research assignment changed in any way or had any objection, could he intervene personally or did he have to approach the department head, and who would that have been?
A. Personal intervention was quite impossible. He could only have gone to Geheimrat Sauerbruck and whether he could have induced him to effect any change he wanted I do not know, but considering the personality of Mr. Sauerbruck, I imagine he would not have done any such thing.
Q. Then the Board was a curatorium, as it were, and had nothing to do with managing the affairs of the Reich Research Council?
A. The Board had nothing to do with the management. It included a large number of important personages, who as I said regularly received these red reports, and the members of the Board were also invited to the meetings, but generally they did not come, did not send any representatives. It had no doubt originally been the aim to avoid duplication of work in this way but it appeared that people were very eager to sit on the Board, but actually did not want to give the Reich Research Council anything, merely wanted to obtain benefits from it. From my own knowledge I know that satisfactory cooperation existed only between the representatives of the army, the navy, the post office, and I believe the Food Ministry, and the Reich Forestry Office.
Q. I have one more question. You know the Institute for Military Medical Research, the Ahnenerbe in Dachau and in Strassbourg. I believe you said that these were exclusively under the Ahnenerbe and, therefore, under the Reichfuehrer SS?
A. Yes.
Q Then these institutes were never under the Commissioner General for medical and Health Matters?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Now, I have one more question. Somewhere in this rather extensive diary under the date of 1 June 1946 there is an entry that Professor Rostock made an inquiry of you about the drug polygal and that you answered this inquiry. Do you recall this event and what happened?
A. The occasion for this inquiry, and this was referred to, was the publication in the Munich Medical Weekly (Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift) and because of this publication Professor Rostock asked to be sent a test sample of polygal.
Q. And your answer was to the same --
A. I believe Dr. Ploetner sent this sample to Dr. Rostock.
Q. That was all?
A. Yes.
DR. PRIBILLA: I have no further questions.
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for the defendant Weltz.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, how long have you known Frofessor Weltz personally?
A. Since the beginning of this trial.
Q. Did you or the Ahnenerbe have any correspondence with Professor Weltz or his office?
A. No, certainly not, as far as I know.
Q. And did Rascher, who as you know was assigned to Professor Weltz, for sometime ever talk to you about Weltz?
A. Yes, he spoke of Professor Weltz a few times but I had no real idea about him because I did not know him personally or officially.
Q. Now, will you please tell us what Rascher said about Professor Weltz?
A. He wasn't very polite. He called him a typical scholar of the old school and he said he was slow thinking, especially because he did not accept Rascher's new ideas, and Rascher made fun of the Christian Catholic attitude of Dr. Weltz.
He said he was limited by his religious ideas and this at that time always implied a certain threat to the state.
Q. Now, in connection with Rascher's high altitude experiments in Dachau, I should like to discuss a document with you. It is in the German Document Book 2, on high altitude experiments, on page 61 of the English, which is page 59, the number is 1581-RS, Exhibit 48. It is a letter from the defendant Rudolf Brandt to you, dated 21 March 1942. I shall quote for the sake of simplicity: "The Reichfuehrer-SS, Personal Staff, Fuehrer Headquarters, 21 March 1944, to the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, Berlin, Dahlem: Dear Comrade Sievers: I refer to your inquiry of the 9th of March 1942 concerning Dr. Rascher." I want to correct myself, the letter is dated 3 21 1942. "Reference is made to the sub-atmospheric pressure experiments which are being carried out on concentration camp inmates in the Dachau camp by the air force. The Reichsfuehrer SS has approved these experiments under the condition that SS 2nd Lieutenant Dr. Rascher, who is anyhow a medical 1st Lieutenant of the air force, takes part in them. I am sure that Dr. Rascher will be able to give you further details. Heil Hitler. Rudolf Brandt."
You have already said in your direct examination that your inquiry of March 9, 1942, which is mentioned here, was an inquiry as to what Rascher's experiments were about. Now, I should like to know the following. Did you perhaps learn from Rascher for what reason he wanted to be attached to the Ahnenerbe, which he finally managed to put through, with Himmler?
A. From the documents which have been submitted here it can be seen that as early as 1941 Rascher had established contact with Himmler, but only in the beginning of 1942, after the high altitude experiments had been begun, was there any contact with the Ahnenerbe. I asked Rascher later why he had been ordered to come to the Ahnenerbe. He gave quite an extensive answer. I cannot remember everything that he said now.
Rascher did not want to come to the Ahnenerbe. He wanted to work under Himmler. In 1942 Himmler ordered that he should be attached to the Ahnenerbe. Before that Rascher was attached to Himmler's adjutant's office in Munich, and he later retrained this association. It was my opinion that Rascher was primarily interested in being free from supervision, including supervision from Professor belts's institute. I could see no convincing reason for this at first and besides it was none of my business, but as early as 1942 Rascher wanted to get to a university, and he tried the University of Munich first. He went to the office of the chief of the Ahnenerbe, Professor Wuest, who was at the same time director of the University of Munich. From Wuest I heard later that both Professor Schittenhelm, as well as Professor Weltz, had refused to help Rascher qualify. These two gentlemen were on the medical faculty of the University of Munich. My own personal opinion about Rascher had no significance at that time because I had no right to mass judgment on a scientist, but in any case my personal opinion was confirmed by what Wuest told me. Unfortunately, Wuest did not draw any conclusions from this fact at the time I talked to him about it. He even refused to talk to Himmler about the matter although he could have based his arguments on the judgment of these two authorities. I would conclude from this circumstance that the fact that Wuest refused to help Rascher achieve his aim contributed to his action to dissolve his association with Wuest.
Q. Then I should like to discuss another document with you. It is in Document Book 5 of the prosecution, page 84 in the German and 77 in the English. This is Document 1609PS, Prosecution Exhibit 92. It is a personal letter from Reichsfuehrer SS, Field Headquarters, 24 October 1942. It is marked Top Secret. It is addressed to Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Munich, and I quote:
"Dear Rascher:
"I acknowledge receipt of your letters of the 9th of October and of the 16th of October 1942. I have read your report regarding cooling experiments on human beings with great interest."
I skip a few things and go on to the next paragraph:
"I regard those people as traitors who still do reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy German soldiers die as a result of these cooling conditions. I shall not hesitate to report these men to the offices concerned. I empower you to make my opinion on this known to the concerned offices."
The rest of the letter is of no interest here. It is signed "Heil Hitler, Yours, Heinrich Himmler."
Can you tell us, witness, did Rascher talk to you about this document?
A. Yes, I remember it very well. When Rascher received this letter from Himmler he came in with it triumphantly and said that now, finally, thanks to this clear decision by Himmler, he had received the authorization to work without restriction, and now everybody should be careful who were opposed to him and objected.
Q. In this document the Luftwaffe doctors are mentioned who were apparently against Rascher. Do you have any reason to believe that Professor Weltz was referred to in this document by Himmler?
A. I can only speak about Mr. Weltz because Rascher mentioned - as I said in answer to your previous question - he named Mr. Weltz as an example.
Q. Weltz was explicitly mentioned?
A. Yes.
Q Now, you knew Rascher fairly well, witness. Can you tell us, could Rascher be expected to make use of this document?
A. In view of Rascher's mentality and character that was only too certain. In my opinion, by giving Rascher this authorization, Himmler put a dangerous instrument into his hands because he knew that Rascher would use it, and Rascher felt so sure of himself in possession of this authorization that even to me who was higher in rank though not his superior he dared to say that now, on the basis of this authorization by Himmler, I would withdraw any objections to these experiments. There was nothing to do since Rascher had this authorization but to be very careful, although my conscience was not satisfied.
Q. The poor relationship between Professor Weltz and Rascher which you have mentioned, at least after Rascher had this letter, meant a considerable danger for Professor Weltz?
A. I assume so if Weltz had given Rascher any occasion then Rascher, on the basis of this authority from Himmler, would have acted accordingly.
Q. I thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. FRITZ (Defense Counsel for the defendant Rose):
Q Witness, did you know the defendant Rose before the collapse?
A No.
Q Did you ever have any correspondence with him?
A No.
Q In a letter from Professor Hirt to you - it is Document 792 in the Prosecution Document Book 13 - Professor Hirt mentions Professor Rose as a specialist in the field of entomology. He adds, however, that Professor Rose does not belong to the SS. Witness, why did you not get in touch with Professor Rose on the basis of this recommendation?
A In connection with the establishment of a entomological institute which Himmler had ordered on the 1st of January, 1942, I asked not only Professor Hirt but also various other personages and institutes, on instructions from my chief, about a suitable specialist. All the answers received, including that from Professor Hirt, I passed on to my office chief. Since Professor Wuest then found a specialist for the institute himself there was no need to get in touch with Professor Rose about the matter.
Q And another question in a different connection. In discussing the experiments of Professor Haagen with his new typhus vaccine in Natzweiler did any one ever speak to you about any participation of Professor Rose?
A I did not participate in any such discussions, but I never heard the name of Professor Rose mentioned in this connection.
Q Now, my final question in still another connection. Did you ever hear that Professor Rose had any part in the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling at Dachau?
A Since I myself know nothing about these experiments I can tell you nothing, but as I say, I never heard the name of Professor Rose mentioned at all except in this letter from Professor Hirt.
Q No further questions, Mr. President.
(DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT ROMBERG)
BY DR. VORWERK
Q Witness, you said yesterday that you know the defendant Dr. Romberg. About how often did you see him?
A I saw Romberg once in Dachau and later two or three times in Berlin.
Q Where did you see him in Dachau?
A I saw him when I was there at Rascher's invitation to watch a high altitude experiment which Rascher carried out together with Dr. Romberg.
Q About when was that?
A That was at the end of March or the beginning of April. In any case, it was shortly before Easter because at Easter in 1942 I talked to Himmler about it.
Q Then you saw an experiment on this occasion?
A Yes.
Q Was that the only time that you were in Dachau and saw an experiment?
A It was the only time that I saw a high altitude experiment in Dachau. I was in Dachau several times.
Q Were the experiments which were carried out in your presence in Dachau carried out correctly and with the necessary sense of responsibility as far as you could judge as a layman?
A I had the impression that they were carried out with great medical care. I noticed that in one experiment the experimental subject complained of a violent earache and Romberg immediately changed the pressure and the man who was in the low pressure chamber indicated that the pain had stopped.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal anything about whether these subjects were voluntary or not? Do you know whether they were volunteers or not?
A I spoke about that yesterday in my direct examination. I asked both the people myself. Both of them assured me that they had volunteered for this experiment.
Q You did not ask any one except these two experimental subjects?
A There were only these two used in this experiment and I also said yesterday that I asked these people how many had volunteered. They said: "All of us volunteered but we didn't need that many people for the experiment."
Q Did these two people also tell you why they had volunteered?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the defendant has rather elaborately explained this situation to during the course of his direct examination. I don't see any reason why we have to go over this material again. I object to this line of questioning, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant may answer the question.
Q. Will you answer the question, please, witness?
A. You asked me about the reason. Yes I asked them about that. They told me that they had volunteered because this gave them an opportunity to improve their position in the camp - their situation.
Q. Witness, so you recall what insignia these two experimental subjects were and whether that indicated whether they were criminals, political prisoners, or what they were?
A. I cannot remember any insigna but the one man with whom I had a conversation told me that he was in security custody in Dachau. As profession he was a safe cracker, so he told me - so I assume he was a professional criminal.
Q. Now another subject. Do you know whether Rascher was responsible for the administration and the organization of the experiments, for example, feeding, shelter, and so forth for the experimental subjects?
A. Unless that was up to the camp administration itself, of course, Rascher was responsible for it.
Q. Do you also know whether Rascher was competent for the selection of the experimental subjects or whether Dr. Romberg had any influence on it.
A. Romberg certainly had no influence whatever on that because Romberg was a civilian and could not give any orders in concentration camps.
Q. Would it have been possible for Romberg to consult the files on the prisoners to obtain information about the sentence passed, about previous commitments, etc. Was that possible?
A. In my opinion that was quite impossible. Romberg would never have been able to see these files. It is the same thing I just said Romberg was a civilian. I don't believe that a civilian would be allowed to see the files on criminals.
Q. Do you consider it possible that Romberg could have exerted any influence on the experiments Himmler had ordered Rascher to carry out, in particular would Romberg have had power to prevent fatal 5797.