A Unfortunately, I don't know Professor Handlsoer's family and social connections.
Q Well, assume that he had no relatives connected with the 20th of July, or with concentration camps, but that he had an enormous work as Army physician, as Army medical inspector and as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, and that he had no contact with the SS? Do you believe that this statement is correct. I assume that you knew his name and had some idea of what judgment you have to make of him.
A That's not possible. I can only say that if what you say is true it is not impossible that he would not know anything. I don't consider it impossible.
Q This problem is very important and it cannot be discussed in to much detail. I believe it is one of the problems which is decisive for restoring Germany to a role in international life. As long as other countries believe that the general public knew about and approved such things, we shall not have peace and that is why it is so important to me to hear your opinion on this matter and to give the Tribunal a picture that the people in general had no knowledge.
I thank you.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Doctor, the Tribunal has listened with a great deal of interest to the statements you have just made, and as Doctor Nelte has indicated, under the system of government which citizens of the United States have known for one hundred and sixty years, it is difficult to understand the reign of terror under the guise of duly constituted and organized government which you have delineated in your testimony. Now do you mean to say it can be possible that such a system of practice as you have delineated as having occurred in the concentration camps, could exist over a period of 8 to 10 years without such practices becoming generally known to middle and high level officials of the so-called government, the Wehrmacht, and the SS?
A I must say the following. In the case of the middle and higher government officials, it would not have been possible if we had not, for a very very long time here in Germany, especially in the East Elbe area, had had a class grow up, trained to devote themselves exclusively to their own department which they had studied with above-average thoroughness and which they took care of with the necessary thoroughness and, in addition, had the obligation to worry about nothing else. That was a habit of the middle and higher class which had lasted for centuries. For example, in the higher military offices we political people always talked about a dementia militaris maxima. It was not possible to talk to these people about anything that was outside of their own field because they did not understand it. That has increased since the beginning of the 19th century. For the middle and higher government officials, Your Honor, I must answer your question with "No" in general. In general they did not know about such things. In our many attempts to approach people there, unless they were actually relatives or friends of ours, we could do nothing. The thing was different if they were high party, Wehrmacht or SS authorities; that is, the people immediately around Hitler, Himmler, Frick, Rosenberg, and so on. Then, of course, things were different. They were, of course, definitely informed.
Q Well, let's drop down in the party level from Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Heydrich, Funk, and the rest of these men. Let's drop down on lower levels of men who were Party members or still had contacts with Party members officially. For example, let's consider the strata of Party officialdom represented by these defendants in the box. What is your view?
A I would be grateful if the rank of these men could be described to me because I have not followed this trial, with the exception of Sievers. It is difficult for me to give a general judgment because I do not know on what level these gentlemen were.
Q If that be true, then the Tribunal will not press the question, because it would be apparent that such an answer would be simply an opinion of the witness, is that correct?
A Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, with your personal acquaintance of the resistance movement, do you believe that a person who was an active follower of Stresemann and Bruening since June 1933, and was persecuted by the Gestapo, as of the 2nd of May 1935 would have been accepted into the NSDAP?
A Only on condition that such a man had changed suddenly in 1933. That happened, of course. There were surprising people who changed their allegiance immediately.
Q Witness, if 3 months before, this man had openly protested against the Party propaganda play at the theater and had been beaten up and injured, do you believe it was likely that shortly after that he would be accepted by the Party?
AAt the same place?
Q Yes.
A No, that is very unlikely.
Q Do you believe that 10 months later this man would be admitted to a State examination and receive a State position?
AAgain, unless there had been a definite change in the meantime-which happened in Germany very often--it is very unlikely.
Q Do you believe that this man would be kept under arrest only 1 month if, a year later, after this incident, as a government official he sent 8,500 pamphlets to high government officials?
A That he would be under arrest only one month? No, I don't believe so.
Q Do you believe that the consequence would have been merely that he lost his position and that he could have studied medicine until the beginning of the war?
A This was discovered?
Q Yes, he says it was discovered and he lost his position and studied medicine. That was in 1941. Do you consider that probable?
A No, I consider it very unlikely. The man would very probably have been sent to a concentration camp.
Q Do you believe that one could send 230,000 subversive pamphlets through the mail without being discovered?
A I never heard of that happening.
Q Aside from the 230,000 pamphlets, do you believe that this man would be held for 6 weeks in a concentration camp after being arrested the second time if he had been dismissed from the Party, as he says, 2 years before?
A That is even more unlikely.
Q Do you believe that it was possible for the man, in 1941, to receive 2 letters of recommendation from the Gestapo, to become a member of the Waffen-SS?
A That pre-supposes a political change of allegiance.
Q This man says that he did so in order to get into the Party and to investigate conditions in the extermination camps, to reveal to the world what he discovered. Did you hear anything about this--about such a man in an important position working at Auschwitz, who wanted to in form the world?
A No, I know nothing about it. Of course, that doesn't prove anything. There were so many people who did not know each other. That doesn't prove anything.
Q. Witness, this man has recorded his activities in a document, it is 1553-PS, submitted by the Prosecution, Exhibit 428. I have here an English copy. On page 4 of this document conditions were described as I have just repeated. This witness is Dr. Kurt Gerstein. Do you know the name?
A No, I never heard it.
Q A graduate engineer for mine surveying (Bergasessor Diplomingenieur) who studied medicine?
A No, but that doesn't prove anything in itself.
Q Witness, when did you first hear of the execution of the euthanasia program?
A I cannot give the year. I know in general that the Party wanted it and I knew that these intentions were carried out, not as a private citizen, of course, but that was information which I received and we discussed it frequently.
Q In July or August 1938, did you know anything about the extermination of insane, feeble-minded and sick people in the mental institutions? Or was it later?
A I am sorry, I cannot give any dates, but I can say that at the time when it happened we knew about it. One of the men, I don't know how it was, said - "The news is the following --"
Q Well, witness, tell me, was it before or after the beginning of the war?
A I am sorry, I cannot tell you. All my diaries were burned, It was noted down there in some form.
Q Witness, this Dr. Gerstein gave a long report to the occupation troops when they entered Germany. Even his family has not been able to find it since. Don't you believe that the occupation troops failed to believe his statements?
A I can only say that what you have told me so far about the man makes it unlikely that he was in the resistance. But I do not know enough about the methods of the occupation authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. VORWERK: Vorwerk for defendant Dr. Romberg.
Q. Mr. Hielscher, did you think about the problem of experiments on human beings for a long tim or were your answers in this field yesterday really a result of a question for the moment?
A. What problem did you say?
Q. Human experiments?
A. I have dealt with this problem for some time, long before the Nazis.
Q. Mr. Hielscher, do you consider experiments on human beings criminal under all conditions?
A. Under my ethical convictions they are criminal under all conditions.
DR. VORWERK: Thank you. No further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Dr. Froeschmann for Vikter Brack.
Q. Witness, yesterday you said that shortly after 1933 you got one or two of your acquaintances out of concentration camps, is that right?
A. One.
Q. Did you also have an opportunity in later years, let us say 1938 - 1939, to try to have concentration camp inmates released?
A. From that time on I was not able to achieve any direct release personally. Some of my men were able to help in this respect. I have already said that Sievers did so.
Q. Did you know that there was a way to have inmates released from concentration camps through an office in Berlin?
A. Generally I know nother about this.
Q. Did you know the Chancellory of the Fuehrer?
A. Yes, I did. That way extisted, yes.
Q. Did you know...
A. And then there was also a second way, through Emmy Goering, yes.
Q. Did you know the work of the Chancellory or the Fuehrer in this field?
A. No, we kept away from this method, because it was very unreliable and dangerous. I can say nothing from my own experience.
Q. Then you didn't know Reichsleiter Bouhler personally?
A. Yes, but not in this connection.
Q. Witness, did you see prisoners personally who were not in concentration camps one or two years, but many years, and then got out.
A. Yes.
Q. Yesterday you said that these preisoners made a very disturned impression, and that it was very difficult to get anything out of them, is that right?
A. They were extremely reticent, extremely secretive. They bore the impression of great fear, but there were people who managed to adjust themselves to it.
Q. Could one use the expression "mental wrecks" for these people?
A. I would say a large proportion of them were. There were people who managed to adjust themselves to it, and those were the best ones.
Q. One could say that in part the psychiatric condition of concentration camp inmates after years of imprisonment was very disturbed, very reduced -- how would you express it?
A. In general Himmler succeeded in breaking these people to a large extent. It was a devilish system.
Q. Is it true that a large part of these people, as a witness recently testified in a different trial, were through with their whole life?
A. It is difficult for me to answer since I am dependent on the reports of the prisoners with whom I worked later, and they are people who are not broken. If I can rely on their reports, and I am quite sure I can, I can say that a large proportion, as I have already said, were broken in their ambition, and so forth.
Q. Do you consider it possible, witness, that these prisoners themselves lost any respect for the lives of others?
A. That is extremely difficult to answer. I know two very different reactions which we often discussed. One is that such a person comes out and says from now on I shall never hurt a fly. Now I know what horrible things a human being is capable of. I know how a human being lives. I will never hurt anyone else. That is one reaction. The other reaction is, now I don't care about anything, nothing is important anymore, and I will do the same as they do. Those are the two typical reactions which follow from human nature.
Q. Witness, you had some knowledge about the treatment of the prisoners by the guards in the concentration camps?
A. Not personally, of course, aside from the time when I was in prison, but from reports from men in my own group and other groups.
Q. Do you know from what part of humanity, to speak carefully, these guards were drawn?
A. The guards in the concentration camps? You mean the SS?
Q. I am talking about the guards. I want to avoid the expression SS. They were dressed in SS uniforms, but I just want to talk about the guards in the concentration camps.
A. There were two heterogenic elements, so to speak. One was what we called the typical SS man, and the best thing to do today if we met them on the street is to shoot them down. Shooting is too good for them. The second group are the ones who are brought in unsuspectingly. That happened often, that in the cast in the foreign German settlements the people were called to a meeting and were told we were to carry out a census or something, and they had to sign a list. On the next day they were called in and they said they were called in for the SS. They were put into formations and suddenly discovered they were guards. For example, I was guarded in the Lehrter prison by seven Saxons, three from Silesia. Aside from the other kind that is who were very very decent and regretted they hand been forced into this position, and I as a prisoner had an opportunity to talk to them about supervision, and we used to talk about who was the worst off.
I had to console them. These people did exist. But aside from then the guards were rather an unpleasant bunch of people.
Q. Did you learn anything about the way in which the guards treated the prisoners in the concentration camps; do you know anything about mistreatment, or anything similar?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And into what year did your experience extend?
A. My experience began in 1933. My reliable reports began in 1933.
Q. And do you believe that this condition of the guards was supported from above?
A. Yes, I do. They wont up to the Commandant office, and went up to Himmler and Hitler, too, of course.
Q. Then for a man who was against this system in the concentration camps, did it involve danger to his own life to effect the release of prisoners from these camps?
A. May I ask you to repeat the question.
Q. Was it for a man ,......
A. For a man in this hyrachy, you mean?
Q. No, a man outside the Hyrachy, a man who wanted to help the poor prisoners to be released from the concentration camp; did it mean danger to his own life to do so?
A. Unless the man was extremely well covered he was under extreme danger.
DR. FORESCHMANN: Thank you. No further questions.
DR. WEISGERBER: Dr. Weisgerber--
THE PRESIDENT: Before you proceed counsel I have a few questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, have you any idea as to the approximate number of Germans in societies, exclusive of the Jews, who were sent to the concentration camp prior to September 1, 1939?
A. I cannot given any exact figure, but it is certain that it was in the 10 thousands, -- 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 40 thousand, something like that.
Q. Were those Germans taken from all levels of society throughout the entire country?
A. Yes, these people came from the whole country.
Q. Is it true, as we have read, that even the German school children were instructed to act as informers even against their own parents as to disloyal statements against the Nazis, and so forth?
A. That was not an exception. That was a general phenonomen. A case from my own family, the nurse, children's nurse comes to a lady and says "your daughter doesn't say 'Heil Hitler' as often as she should." The lady says "that isn't right. The little ones don't lie. We don't say such nonsense, and it turned out that the nurse took the lady to one side and said, "Lister you are very fortunate. I am an old socialist. I know you are conservative. You must instruct the child to lie to other people. In her class at school there are four or five girls who systematically inform on their parents and their school friends. That was quite a common experience. I talked to my worker friends and to some count. I talked to everyone, and we said "what do we do with the children? They must either be taught at home to lie systematically, and that is very had for the child," and we don't want to put the children into such a conflicting situation. These are only children of six or seven, and the child is told at school it is his duty to report his parents if they don't think as they should.
Q Now that system; was it or was it not well known throughout Germany that those things were done and the children were so instructed?
A To my knowledge, that was a general experience that one had to be careful in the presence of ones children, but I must add, of course, that this was only the experience of people who were not National Socialists, people who were Nazis or who had no opinion at all had no occasion to have this experience, it was only the growing group within the country who were not National Socialists who had this experience.
Q My idea was to ask you whether or not that system was known by all German National Socialists and if members of all parties knew that such things were going on?
A What should I say?
Q Well, my question is, witness, whether or not throughout all classes or political parties in Germany it was not generally known that things were reported by children, by everyone, that everyone was under instructions to report disloyal statements to the Nazi authorities?
A In all classes of any political training from right to left, in all circles, who were not definitely National Socialists, it was known that spies were everywhere, children and adults, and one had to be careful even in the most harmless conversations, it was called the German look when two people met as they immediately looked over their shoulder before they could talk; that was quite general.
Q Now, when persons were arrested for alleged disloyalty; they were taken from their homes were they not?
A Yes.
Q Now, no one could be, no adult person could be taken from his home or her home without a good many of the neighbors knowing that person had disappeared; is that true?
A Yes, that is true unless it was a man who was constantlytravelling.
Q Of course, I understand that. So, it must have been generallyknown throughout all limits of German society that many people from time to time simply disappeared from their homes; is that true?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Well, was it or was it not also generally known that when those people disappeared from their homes that they had been arrested?
A Yes, that was the general conviction.
Q Well, was it or was it not generally known when such people were arrested where they were sent or where they were taken; I don't mean the definite locality; it was known they were in the custody of the Nazi Government; was it not?
A Yes, of course.
Q Well, would not that arouse considerable general interest among the population, among their friends, even among their enemies who disagreed with them; would it not arouse some general interest as to where those people were put and where they were kept?
A No, that was not the case. It was generally said if you investigate this thing you will possibly endanger yourself, so don't ask any questions; that is the best for you, that was the general reaction.
Q My question was as to the general reaction; that it would raise interest; not to ask questions I understand that; but it would be a matter of some general interest where these people were kept even though people would not dare ask?
A Mr. President, that assumes a manner, a type of thinking which we unfortunately did not develop in our country for generations. This general interest, what is going on here, aside from my vague feeling that something is wrong, was missing. Let us not get involved, leave things alone. The average man, up to the war, felt the Government probably does the right thing, those people were possibly criminals, who knows what they have done?
We were not, before 1933, accustomed to the Government arresting people without any legal basis. We were accustomed to the Government acting according to its best judgment. If people disappeared, as this was suddenly done, without any legal reason, simply arbitrarily, the average person never thought that way, they felt the other fellow was probably a criminal or the police would not take him away. One has to imagine the lack of political interest among the population.
Q Were German Nationals, who were put in concentration camps, allowed in any respect to communicate with their families?
AAs far as I know there was permission at certain intervals, to write "I am here, I am well."
Q Now, after September 1, 1939 can you give any estimate as to the number of German Nationals, exclusive of Jews, who were confined in concentration camps after that date?
A We assumed at the time that it was two or three times the number before the war.
Q Could you give any estimate, of course I understand it could not be an accurate estimate, but could you give some figures as to what you think; understanding that is simply your opinion as to the number of Germans after 1939 who were placed in concentration camps?
A I assume that there were several hundred thousand.
Q Have you any idea as to the number of Jews, German Jews, German citizens, who were confined in concentration camps prior to September 1st, 1939?
A I am sorry I did not understand;.....how many there were before?
Q Have you any idea at all as to the number of Jews, who were German citizens, who were confined in concentration camps prior to September 1, 1939?
A I assume that the number of Jews before the outbreak of war, German citizens before the outbreak of war, was not especially large;
I assume that it was ten thousand or twenty thousand at the most.
Q And after September 1, 1939; have you any idea as to the number?
A The number increased very rapidly, the idea of extermination was put into effect during the war. It is difficult to say how many were in concentration camps before. We knew that they merely went through the concentration camps, they were transferred for example or were killed in the ghettoes without being sent to a concentration camp. I don't think half of the six million Jews who were finally killed ever went through the gas chambers in the concentration camps. As we discovered in the East, they were taken directly from the Ghetto to the mass graves or gas chambers as at Ghetto Litzmannstadt for example where there was a gas chamber; they were not sent to concentration camps at all and the question is very difficult to answer that is all.
Q The counsel may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, to conclude my examination I have four short questions. With the first question I want to clarify something. Yesterday, I showed you Document No. 975, Prosecution Exhibit 479, this is a letter which the Defendant Sievers wrote on 20 January, 1945 to Dr. Hirt. In cross examination, the Prosecution showed you the teletype message of 5 September, 1944 from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt and asked you the question, at least this was the German translation that I heard, asked you whether it was admirable for the resistance movement to deal with such things; either there was a translation mistake or the Prosecution misunderstood your answer to my question about the Document, which I showed you. Therefore, I should like to give you an opportunity briefly to explain what you mean by praiseworthy?
A I did net mean that Hirt's idea which he had submitted to Himmler through Sievers to destroy this Strasbourg collection and to explain the bodies as belonging to the French Anatomical Institute I didn't think it was praiseworthy for Himmler to order that and I did n't think it was praiseworthy that Hirt was rejoicing that this would escape from the notice of the Allies. All I meant was that if Sievers could not change the thing and if no one could be saved that it was praiseworthy since the thing had already happened in view of the threat to him personally to speak as in nazi terms about something which had already happened to cover himself. Not what Himmler did was praiseworthy but only the reason which he used.
Q I think you should speak a little, slower, witness, Witness, yesterday you said that you had repeatedly to bring your knowledge about what happened during the Nazi regime to the attention of occupation authorities. Can you please tell us when and where you made such attempts?
A I connection with a report about the activity of my organization, I offered to report what we had discovered about misdeeds of the national socialists to the following offices: the CIC in Marburg, the ICD in Marburg, Mr. Noll and his successor, Mr. Nescamp, the English field security in Goettingen, in Duesseldorf and in Hamburg. I offered to report it at the Hersdorf camp when I allowed to visit the defendant Silvers, there breifly. I was referred to an American office in Nuernberg -- the building is next to this building. I was send as not authorized to Wiesbaden from there. The Wiesbaden office send me to Frankfurt. The Frankfurt office refused to listen to me. If I had been at all informed which of the prosecutors was going to ** work on the matter, I would of course, have gone to him.
Q Witness, you said yesterday that Sievers after long discussions and consideration decided to remain in the office of the Reich Business manager even when the Ahnenerbe came into contact with experiments on human beings. Did Sievers say, or did you give him any instructions as to how he was to carry out his administrative from then on?
A That was a matter, of course, and, besides, emphasized by both sides that when passing on the administrative orders that went through his secretary's office, he would, of course, pass on only as many as he was unable to prevent, and wherever he could prevent anything, he would do so. In my knowledge of Sievers, it is quite impossible that he did anything beyond that.
Q My final question now, witness: did you consider exact knowledge of details in the execution of the experiments of Rascher and the activity of Dr. Hirt necessary in order to form your opinion on the ethical admissibility of Sievers remaining in the Ahnenerbe?
A I did not consider exact knowledge necessary because our ethical judgment was formed independently of the details, and the discussions of the details would merely have brought about new dangers. From my fundamental attitude, which was the attitude of the whole group, and which we discussed before, I repudiated these experiments on principle. Now as is the case in such a group as we were in a team which has to count on the independence of every man, where I had to rely on the man's taking up his duties independently. I gave Sievers his assignment and left him a completely fre hand as to how he carried it out. Otherwise we could not work at all: but, of course, I claim the responsibility since I gave the man his assignment: since I expected the man to take this risk, I alone claim the responsibility for everything that he actually did in the spirit of our work.
DR. WEISBERGER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to the witness on the part of the defense counsel concerning these matters which have been brought out after previous examinations? There being no questions has the Prosecution any further cross-examination?
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused form the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President to conclude my case I should like to offer a number of documents. I believe that it will not be necessary to read these documents. In some cases I shall merely point out certain statements.
The first document is Sievers Document No. 6, Exhibit No. 31, Document Book I, page 14. This is a letter from the Chief of the SS personnel main office to the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff. This affidavit shows that the Chief of the SS personnel main office was trying to have Dr. Rascher taken into the Waffen SS. It was a very high authority that was interested in that.
The next document which I offer is Sievers No. 12, on pages 26 and 27 and 28 of Document Book I, which is Sievers Exhibit No. 32. This is an affidavit of Dr. Arno Seemann-Deutelmoser, who collaborated closely with Sievers and Hielscher. On page 27 Dr. Seemann-Deutelmoser makes statements about the planned assassination in which he would have participated. The next document is Sievers No. 16 on page 37 to 40 of Document Book I, Sievers Exhibit 33. This is an affidavit of the archeologist Alfred Rust, who knew Sievers from 1937 to 1939, who concludes this statement by saying: I quote:
"Summing up I would like to express the wish as a party opponent I never belonged to either the NSDAP nor the SA not SS - and as an individual, that all members of human society in their actions may behave as decent and as fine as Herr Sievers did towards me and my acquaintances."
The next document is Sievers No. 21 on pages 53 to 55 of document book I, Sievers Exhibit No. 34.
The next document is Sievers No. 22, on page 56 and 57, Sievers Exhibit No. 36, I beg your pardon, No. 35, on affidavit of Professor Dr. Von Lutterotti.
The next document is Sievers No. 23 on pages 58 and 59, as Sievers Exhibit No. 36, the statement of Dr. Weingartner.
The next document is Sievers No. 24, on pages 60 and 61, document book I, Exhibit No. 37.
The next document is Sievers No. 25, pages 62 to 64, document Book I, Exhibit No. 38, an affidavit of Count Dr. Oswald Trapp, and Sievers No. 26, on pages 65 and 66 of Document Book I, an affidavit of Dr. Georg Innerebner, Sievers Exhibit No. 39.These six affidavits which I have just identified all deal with Sievers activities in the Southern Tyrolean Cultural Commission which he headed from 1940 on.
I shall not read these affidavits. They speak for themselves.
Then I also submit the affidavit ----
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: You Honors, as the next document I submit is Sievers No. 27, Document Book I, pages 67 to 70, Sievers Exhibit No. 40. This is an affidavit by University Professor Dr. Gustav Schwantes. On page 69 I refer to the membership in a number of foreign scientific societies, and I should like to read the last paragraph of his statement, to be found on page 69.
"Summarizing up, again and again I had the strong impression that this man Sievers inwardly nothing whatsoever to do with the actual power conscious and dictatorial National Socialism."
The next document is Sievers No. 28 on page 71 and 72 of Document Book I which I put in as Sievers Exhibit No. 41. This is an affidavit of the University Professor R.R. Schmidt.
Next is Sievers No. 31 on pages 78 and 79, Document Book I Sievers Exhibit No. 42. This is an affidavit of the former Georg Schruefer of Waischenfeld who here describes Sievers' activity when Sievers at the end of the War, while the American Forces were approaching, himself saw to it that the town of Waischenfeld was not defended, thus saving the lives both of German inhabitants and American soldiers.