A. No, there was no contact whatsoever.
Q. Witness, we have briefly discussed your diary. This diary is considered by the prosecution as an important piece of evidence. For that reason I shall fill in the time until the recess by briefly discussing that diary with you. With reference to your activity as business manager of the Ahnenerbe society it was this position which caused you to keep this diary, which was done very extensively and very carefully. Was this merely a hobby on your part?
A. On the contrary, it was a rather tedious task. Himmler on the other hand had ordered, on the basis of an SS directive, that all agencies would have to keep such a diary. Himmler attached considerable importance to that diary being kept carefully and in an orderly fashion. I therefore tried to give the impression that this diary was kept very accurately.
Q. Could you, in a few words, state an incident which would tend to show what value Himmler attached to the careful keeping of such a diary?
A. This diary had to be submitted to Himmler at regular intervals. After the outbreak of the war, when more important work was to be done, I spoke to the chief of staff regarding this very burdensome task; whereupon he told me that the dismissal of the chief adjutant of Himmler, von Altensleben, had brought the fact about that the diary had been neglected. Therefore the diaries had to be kept also during the war time as they were kept during peace.
Q. How do you yourself judge the accuracy and reliability of these diaries? Were these diaries kept particularly accurately, and are all the entries in this diary in strict accordance with the facts?
A. Owing to my frequent absence from my agency I often could only dictate these entries after days or sometimes even weeks. These entries in many cases are often not in accordance with the facts, neither from the point of view of time, nor substance.
When looking through that diary one notices discussion of conferences which had lasted until late at night. In those cases we were often concerned with entries which would have to constitute an alibi for certain cases, and likewise the compilation of the points of discussion as they are entered there are often in contradiction to the truth.
Q. Witness, according to the assertions made by the prosecution one could gain the impression that your activity, at least starting from the year 1942, for the most part concerned itself with the facts which are here under indictment. I have thought it to be expedient to look through your diary of 1943 and I found out that in this diary of 1943, which only covers the time starting from the 1st of January up to the 30th of June 1943, you had spoken with 326 persons, either verbally or by telephone. Several persons are listed there with whom you had a number of conversations, and the number of such conversations, including the telephone conversations, amounts to 878. I then selected those persons who are named here within the facts which are here under indictment. I extended the circle of these as far as possible, and I arrived at the number of 21 persons with whom you had 82 conferences during the first six months of the year 1943. Among these 21 persons also appears the curator and departmental chief Wuest, with whom you had altogether 23 conferences, that is, personal conferences, as well as telephonic conversations, and it becomes evident from that you were in very close information contact with your departmental head Wuest; is that correct?
A. Yes, absolutely. I could make no decisions at all unless I discussed matters with my departmental head. From this compilation it becomes evident very clearly that a quarter of these conversations were with my departmental chief.
Q I then worked out the percentage of these conversations and persons, and I arrived at the figure of 6.3% of the persons mentioned in your 1943 diary and when considering the 82 conversations, I came to a percentage of 9.2. I tried to include as many persons as possible even including personnel workers in the personal staff of the SS, personnel officers in the staff of the Ahnenerbe, and in spite of all this, I only arrived at this relatively small percentage; is this percentage correct with reference to the counts which are charged here under the indictment as regard to your entire work?
A That is absolutely true; this work was so much on the border line of my entire activities as it is very instructively described by your comparison.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Now I come to your participation in the sea water experiments. I shall show you Document Book No. 5. Please look at page 21. It is Document NO-182, Exhibit 137. It seems to be a letter from you to Dr. Grawitz dated the 26th of July, 1944. On what occasion was this letter written?
A Grawitz had demanded laboratories in the Institute for Military Scientific Research to carry out sea water experiments for the Luftwaffe. That was the contents of Grawitz' letter of the 11th of July which is mentioned as reference in this letter of mine of the 26th of July.
Q Did not Grawitz ask you to supply experimental subjects as well?
A Neither in this case nor in any other case did I have anything to do with supplying the subjects. Grawitz had said that these questions would be settled by him directly with the Luftwaffe.
Q As this letter shows, you talked to SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner and Oberarzt Dr. Beiglboeck on the 20th of July. Was that the same Dr. Ploetner whom we have spoken about before?
A Yes, that was Dr. Ploetner who continued the pectin work after Rascher was arrested.
Q Had you known Dr. Beiglboeck up to that time?
A No, not up to that time.I met him for the first and last time on the 20th of July. I did not know that I would meet Dr. Beiglboeck in Dachau on that day in this connection. In connection with the sea water experiments I had heard only the name of the Vienna Professor Eppinger, and my very brief conversation with Dr. Beiglboeck referred only to my laboratory rooms available in the entomological institute where the discussion took place, and Dr. Beiglboeck said that all other questions would be settled directly between himself and Grawitz.
Q How long did this talk with Dr. Beiglboeck last?
A Twenty minutes, as I recall.
Q Now, was not Dr. Ploetner to participate in some way in the sea water experiments?
A Yes. Grawitz had wanted Ploetner to participate in an advisory capacity as an internist.
Q And did he participate?
A No. In the beginning of 1944, when he took over the Rascher section, Dr. Ploetner had refused to participate in experiments on human beings.
Q Did Dr. Ploetner not encounter opposition from Himmler in this?
A Himmler recognized Ploetner's standpoint and I supported it. It was finally achieved that the Ahnenerbe should no longer be included in research assignments which involved human experiments. That was then exclusively a matter for Grawitz.
Q Now in the document book which you have before you please look at Document L)-183, Exhibit 136 of the Prosecution, on page 20. When did you learn of this letter?
A Only here during tho proceedings. The letter did not go through my office. It went from Dr. Brandt to Grawitz.
Q Now let us look at the next document again, the letter to Dr. Grawitz of the 26th of July, 1944. This letter speak of the accommodation of forty experimental subjects. Did you not instigate that, too?
A No; although there was room for forty experimental subjects in Ploetner's section, this room was not used because the commandant's office had given the gentlemen from the Luftwaffe rooms, which belonged to the malaria station.
Q The malaria station which you or the Ahnenerbe had nothing to do
A That is right, we had nothing to do with it.
Q Now, were you present, at my experiments connected with sea water matters?
A No, I was not present.
Q On one of you subsequent visits to Dachau did you not take an interest in these experiments?
AAfter the 20th of July, I never went to Dachau again.
Q Did not the Ahnenerbe receive reports on these experiments?
A No, we did not receive reports of them nor did we learn anything about the course of these experiments.
Q Then you say, in connection with the so-called sea water experiments, you did nothing further than to pass on this letter of the 26th of July, 1944, and talk to Dr. Beiglboeck in Dachau?
A That is true, that was all I did in that connection.
Q And this discussion dealt merely with making laboratory rooms available?
A Yes.
Q Now, I come to the next complex of questions. It deals with the skeleton collection. I shall have Document Book 9 of the prosecution handed to you. Look at page 1 here. This is document No.-085, Exhibit 175 of the Prosecution. This is a letter to Rudolf Brandt and contains a preliminary report from Dr. Hirt of Strasbourg. This letter deals first with the work done by Dr. Hirt in the field of intra-vital miscrocospy and the second part contains a suggestion for securing skulls of Jewish Bolshevik Commissars. Was this report from Dr. Hirt made at your suggestion?
A No.
Q Who had this report made?
AAt the first sentence of the letters indicates, Brandt had asked for this report. As I learned later, he was acting on Himmler's orders. 5704
Q What do you know about the background of this report?
A I Learned only later of what had proceeded this report. At Easter, 1942, when Himmler gave detailed instructions for the execution Himmler said that the race office Rassenamt had given him such an assignment already in 1941.
Q Did your office chief, Professor Wuest, talk to you or Himmler about setting up a Jewish Boshevist skull collection before your letter of the 9th of February, 1942?
A I do not recall that Wuest talked to me about it. Whether Himmler discussed this matter with Wuest I cannot say. I may point out that from May until August, 1041, I was on active service with the Waffen-SS and had only a very loose connection with the Ahnenerbe during this period. After that I was working for the Southern Tyrolean Cultural Association and was way from Berlin almost at the time. It would be possible that a suggestion made by the Rassenamt went through the Ahnenerbe for some reason, although in view of the general nature of the work of the Ahnenerbe there would have been no occasion for this.
Q At any rate, at the time when this letter was written, on the 9th of February 1942, you knew nothing about the previous history?
A No, I did not.
Q Do you know whether any office of the Ahnenerbe had suggested setting up such a skull collection?
A I know nothing about that. I do not imagine that this happened during my absence.
Q Why do you assume that?
A Because so-called racial research was the duty of the race and settlement main office (Rassen und Siedlungs Hauptamt). There was no section for racial research in the Ahnenerbe.
Q Had you known Dr. Hirt before 1942?
A Yes, I saw him twice previously on official occasions, The first time was in 1936 in Quedlingburg, and the second time was in the spring of 1941 when the University of Strasbourg was opened.
Q What do you know about Himmler's acquaintance with Hirt?
AAs I learned later, from 1931 on Hirt belonged to the SS. His acquaintanceship with Himmler I learned of in 1936 in Quedlingburg. Subsequently, however, I had no opportunity to observe the relations between Hirt and Himmler. I learned, however, that Hirt had been given an assignment by Himmler to decide the anthropological age of the skull of King Henry 1.
Q Then you are of the opinion that Hirt enjoyed the special confidence of Himmler?
A Yes, at the celebration in Quedlingburg in 1936, I observed that Hirt, who was present as an Honor guest of Himmler's was given special attention by Himmler and had his special confidence.
Q. What was the position of Dr. Hirt in 1941?
A. Hirt was a university professor and director of the anatomy Institute of the University of Strasbourg.
Q. Was Dr. Hirt a member of the Ahnenerbe?
A. No, he was not at that time. Himmler appointed him at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943.
Q. Then you mean to say the point of departure for this preliminary report was not due to you or some other office of the Ahnenerbe but lay in the relations between Hirt and Himmler?
A. Yes.
Q. This report which we have before us, did you change it any way? Did you add anything to it when you passed it on to Dr. Brandt?
A. I passed on the report in its original form without any comment to Brandt.
Q. Now let us go on a few pages, to page 7. That is Document NO090, Exhibit 176, page 9 in the English. That is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to you. I shall quote from this letter, the second sentence. "As I have told you before, the Reichsfuehrer-SS is very much interest in Professor Dr. Hirt's work. Perhaps you could call on Hirt some time soon and tell him again that the Reichsfuehrer-SS will place at his disposal everything he needs for his experiments." End of quote. When, and on what occasion, did Dr. Brandt say that to you?
A. As far as I recall it was in a telephone conversation when he asked for Hirt's report for Himmler.
Q. Were you not surprised that Himmler was giving or was going to give Professor Hirt everything he needed for his experiments?
A. No. According to the observations which I had made at this meeting in Quedlinburg and also from the information from Hirt I was able to gather that Hirt was given definitely preferential treatment by Himmler. In such cases Himmler displayed enormous generosity.
Q. But would it not have been possible for you, considering the fact that Himmler was very busy, to reduce this generosity some what in individual cases?
A. I could not do that without its becoming noticeable.
Q. But the correspondence went through your hands? If any complaints had been received it would have been possible for you to deflect the matter in some way.
A. That was quite impossible for two reasons. First Himmler, as well as my office Chief Wuest were in direct written and personal contact with the individual scientists. That is shown, for example, by Himmler's visit to Hirt in Strasbourg at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943 I don't know exactly when. And, in the second place, Himmler and Hirt met quite frequently so that complaints could reach and reached Himmler from Hirt and other people without my having any knowledge of it.
Q. In the letter which I just quoted the last paragraph mentions a visit which you were to pay to Hirt. When did you make this visit?
A. As far as I can remember that was in the summer of 1942.
Q. Now, I could imagine that a request for you to visit Hirt might lead to the conclusion that you were to deal with the scientific part of Dr. Hirt's work. Now you told us yesterday that your work as Reich Business manager was limited to purely administrative things. How about that?
A. That was true in this case also. I was not to talk to Hirt about scientific matters. Besides he had just sent a report to Himmler about these matters as the letter of 27 February shows.
Q. Now, if we go on to the next page we find Document NO-086, Exhibit 177 of Prosecution, Document volume 9. This mentions 150 skeletons of prisoners. How did you reach this number?
A. Hirt mentioned this number. I have already said that Himmler had visited Hirt in Strasbourg. I was not present during this visit. As Hirt then told me he was to contact Gluecks directly according to Himmler's instructions and if necessary was to use my services as mediator if he could not come to Berlin himself.
Q. Before you talked to Gluecks himself, had Gluecks known of Himmler's order?
A. Yes. Gluecks had already received Himmler's order when I talked to Gluecks at Hirt's request.
Q. Now, the next document NO-116 is a letter from Brandt to Eichmann. Why was such a letter sent to Eichmann who worked in the RSHA? Why was this necessary if Gluecks already knew about this order? Gluecks was the man in charge of all the concentration camps.
A. Gluecks sent me to Eichmann. I had not known him at all up to that time. Eichmann had been informed by Gluecks by telephone but he said that he needed a letter from Himmler or from his personal stuff, and thereupon this letter was written.
Q. And what did you discuss with Eichmann?
A. I gave Eichmann the report from Hirt and I said that associates of Hirt wanted to conduct some anthropological tests, and that he, Eichmann, was to give them the necessary prerequisites in Auschwitz according to Himmler's instructions.
Q. Now, if we go on in the Document Book to Document NO-092, we find a letter which speaks of short comings. Did these short comings have any connection in obtaining persons?
A. No, there is no connection. This refers to Hirt's work on Lost.
Q. In the next document, NO-087, Exhibit 181, you mention a Dr. Behger. What was Dr. Behger's assignment?
A. Hirt had given Behger the assignment from the persons condemned to death to select certain persons from the institute and conduct anthropological measures.
Q. You say Professor Hirt gave him this assignment?
A. Yes.
Q. This letter of 21 june 1943, which we have here as Exhibit 181, did you dictate it yourself?
A. No. I did not dictate it as the initial "S-2" indicates. Since I was never in Auschwitz and knew nothing about Behger's investigations, only Behger could give the necessary information; and Behger was in direct contact with Hirt and received instructions from him.
Q. But you signed this letter -- why?
A. Since it was a top secret letter - on the basis of secrecy regulations I had to sign it.
Q. Would that not have been a matter up to the curator?
A. Actually the letter should have been sent to Munich and signed by Wuest, but because of the urgency of the matter, as the contents show, this was not possible. It is one of the cases which we have already discussed earlier here. Because of the separation I had to sign letters which Wuest really should have signed; but he had been informed about all these letters previously by telephone and he was sent copies of them.
Q. The next document is in Document Book 9 - NO-088, Exhibit 182. It is a teletype which you send to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. Why was this teletype sent?
A. The teletype was made on request of Dr. Hirt by telephone on the same day.
Q What did Dr. Hirt have to say?
A That can be seen from this teletype. It repeats Hirt's inquiries word for word, and Hirt also made the suggestions which are listed at the end of the teletype.
Q Then you were just passing on a telephone conversation from Hirt?
A Hirt called me up and I sent it on by teletype, yes.
Q The next Document, NO-091, speaks of an SS Standartenfuehrer Baumert.
A Baumert was the head of the personal staff of Himmler.
Q Was he your superior?
A Yes. As staff leader he was my disciplinary superior since the Ahnenerbe office was under the personal staff. Baumert had the right to issue instructions to Wuest and certainly to me as Wuest's subordinate.
Q The instructions mentioned here, to dissolve, to take up the collection in Strasbourg, did not originate with you?
A No, not with me.
Q You received the instructions from Baumert and then passed them on to Hirt?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A On the 7th of September 1944, as my diary shows.
Q Then after that, did you take any further interest in this matter?
A No. As this note here shows on the 12th of October I was not able to tell Hauptsturmfuehrer Berg anything about the dissolving of this collection.
Q Then did you get in touch with Hirt?
A Yes, I called Hirt up in Strasbourg and then I passed on to Borg what Hirt told me.
Q In this Document NO-091, the final sentence reads: "He (that refers to SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers -- that is, you) thinks that this procedure was the best one considering the whole situation."
Was this your personal opinion?
A No, I said - I think I merely passed on Hirt's statements to Berg without any comment.
Q You have Document NO-483 before you. That is the next Document, page 17, Exhibit 184. You recall the testimony on the 18th of December 1946, here, the witness Kiehr, and you know, therefore, what happened in Strasbourg and Natzweiler in 1943 and 1944. When did you learn for the first time of these events?
A Perhaps in the Fall of 1943 I heard from Hirt that the bodies had been taken over by the Anatomical Institute. Hirt, and no one else, told me what happened in Strasbourg. I learned that only here during this trial.
Q It was your opinion that the Jews selected by Behger in Auschwitz as Commissars of the Red army were doomed to death. Did you know of the so-called Commissar Order?
A Yes, at the Easter discussion in 1942 Himmler had told me about it.
Q You have repeatedly mentioned this Easter discussion in 1942 which you had with Himmler. Was Hirt present?
A No; in the beginning Himmler had intended that he should be present but Hirt was not well at the time and Himmler did not want to ask Hirt to take the long trip to his headquarters.
Q It seems to me that this Easter discussion, 1942, is of decisive importance, for the further developments in the Ahnenerbe and also for you personally; therefore, I consider it expedient for you to tell the Tribunal, as briefly as possible, how this conference came about, and what the essential contents of the discussion were.
A I shall be as brief as possible. This Easter discussion 1942 was the longest conference I had ever had with Himmler. Usually, conferences with Himmler lasted only a matter of minutes. This particular conference lasted several hours.
The occasion for it was the establishment of a new cultural historical section. Himmler ordered me and Dr. Petrau, who was proposed as the director of this section, to come to this section because there were certain matters of organization and financial matters to be discussed. I went to Himmler's headquarters with the firm determination to discuss with him the intention of attaching to the Ahnenerbe tasks which had no connection with it; especially about human experiments because shortly before I had seen one high altitude experiment in Dachau. I realized that this would be very difficult in my position, and would not be easy. I had, therefore, prepared myself in order to have an excuse for the discussion which held Himmler's attention. The House of Nature -- "Haus der Natur" in Salzburg was attached to the Ahnenerbe. That is a big museum for natural history and still exists today, and a procedure had been suggested by the head of this museum which made it possible to preserve all plants, even the most delicate ones, so permanently that both the form and the color were preserved.
Q And you told Himmler about this?
A I had a collection of these plants made up for Himmler and took them with me.
Q You wanted to awaken Himmler's interest so that after that you could present to him what was on your mind?
A Yes.
Q You wanted to get the opportunity to have a long discussion with Himmler?
A Yes; because I knew his mentality I took this occasion to bring about a personal discussion. After the end of the conference with Dr. Petrau I asked him for it, and he granted me ten minutes. He was very much interested in these plants. And then I began to tell him that I did not see any connection between the new military scientific research and the work the Ahnenerbe had done previously, and I personally did not like it, and I didn't see what I was supposed to do in this field which was entirely alien to me.
Then Himmler began a discussion with me, which lasted about two hours - until two at night. From his point of view he presented explanations for all the questions which I brought up, but I held out in my point of view. But Himmler did not change his mind and we came to no agreement. Finally, he said - grudgingly - "actually, as a business manager this is none of your business; you don't have to interfere in scientific matters. That is my responsibility." He said he would take into account the fact that I didn't understand these things, but I had to let him make the decisions, and I should worry about my own duties.
Then I said that I would very much like to know what my duties were. Himmler said that I had to take care of the administrative matters as before, I had to take care of the wishes of the gentlemen, whom he appointed, just as those of the people who had been heads of sections up to now if they asked for my help in administrative matters and wanted to be relieved of the minor details because I knew his point of view. He said that research workers were to carry out research and should not worry about incidental things. He said he would inform the gentlemen, which he did, anyhow as far as the Hirt case anatomical connections, it was a university matter and was none of our business at all. Himmler became quite excited. I asked him for a written order, because they were quite new things. That irritated Himmler, but finally I did get it.
Q Do you mean by this order Document No. 422, which is Exhibit No. 33 in Document Book 1, page 52 -- page 52, Document 422, Exhibit 33: "From the Reichsfuehrer SS to the Reichs Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers: I assign the Ahnenerbe, etc..."; do you mean this order?
A. Yes, this order was given to me at first orally and then on July 7th Himmler repeated it in writing. It also shows clearly what the Ahnenerbe or I was to do in connection with Hirt. Because of my opposition in this matter, Himmler had made a special point of Hirt's appointment. What I was to do is shown by Point 3 of the order. I was to make the necessary equipment and personnel available as is shown also in Point 4. As far as the Ahnenerbe or I was concerned this referred only to laboratories and workshops, that can be seen from the fact that in each case, I had to send the section chiefs to Himmler for experimental subjects and I believe that enough Documents submitted here have shown that.
The question of the experimental subjects was up to Himmler and was always under the RSHA or Glueck. Finally, according to this order I had to deal with the budget for the Military Scientific Research Institute and had to contact the chief of the WVHA. The funds were to be supplied by the Waffen SS, as is shown by a Document which I think is in this Document book.
Q Witness, did you not point out to Himmler during this conference that such research assignments, as those of Rascher and Hirt, might be more effectively attached to the office of the Reichsarzt-SS?
A Yes, I said that yesterday. After Himmler had refused that, I made another attempt in that direction. I approached Hirt because Hirt himself had not expected to get support through the Ahnenerbe, he was even surprised at it and he was quite willing to ask Himmler to attach him to some other organization. He asked me what suggestion he could make to Himmler and when I said perhaps the Reichsarzt SS, Hirt said that he could not discuss that, as he did not want to work under a man like Grawitz as he said that he was a nincompoop, so he would have to get the support directly from Himmler. When this attempt too failed Hirt was put under the Institute for Military Scientific Research.
Q You mentioned the Commissar order a while ago; you knew about it?
A Yes.
Q Did you consider this Commissar order legally admissable?
A I am not a lawyer; I can not judge the admissability of such orders. I was a soldier at that time, a private, I had no commission, when I asked for the order in writing from Himmler, Himmler said as a soldier you have to carry out every order.
He showed me pictures of arrested commissars, men and women as well as pictures of German soldiers and civilians who had been terribly maimed and killed by these men and women. I could not then object any further to this matter, but the inner conflict which Himmler brought to his subordinates, through his order, he never worried about them. In the background there were the SS courts and if someone failed, the SS courts administered ruthlessly and they were stricter against SS officers than they were in other cases. I had to adjust myself to this situation, which was very difficult for me as it was an enormous spiritual burden.
Q Witness, now I come to a few diary entries which are connected with this subject; under the date of 10 February 1943 is .......
THE PRESIDENT: It is almost time for adjournment, as you are now going to proceed with the diary entries in this matter, the court will be in recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)