A. Himmler over since 1942 endeavored and pursued the aim to get Rascher into the SS, and have him transferred from tho Luftwaffe. He ordered me to take care of this personnel matter. It isn't correct that I was personally interested in it, if only for the reason that Rascher was only actually transferred after 1944.
Q. Did Rascher repeatedly impress upon you to accelerate his transfer to the Waffen SS?
A. Rascher was very insistant on that matter, because he believed that owing to his close relationship to Himmler he would get on much better in the Waffen SS. In the same way Himmler was always pressing in this matter.
Q. In other words, you want to say that you didn't further the transfer of Rascher to the Waffen-SS on your own initiative nor did you deter it.
A. I was not interested in it at all and only on the basis of this insistence which was displayed by these two parties I wrote a letter.
Q. Now, would you please be good enough to turn to Page 86 of the document volume which is before you? This is a report about a so-called "Cold Conference" dated the 26th and 27th of October, 1942. It is to be found on page 88 of the English translation. Did you receive this report in the Ahnenerbe?
A. I certainly didn't receive it and I don't remember having seen it anywhere.
Q. Didn't Kurator Wuest receive that report?
A. I don't believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher, which only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly by Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest when Himmler actually sent anything to Wuest. I don't believe that this has happened in this particular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about that. These reports and the research assignments which were just discussed lay completely outside the interests and sphere of Wuest.
Q. What do you know about the so-called dry cold experiments of Dr. Rascher.
A. I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler's order which was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing of the equipment. I don't know whether these experiments were actually carried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this court room. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was necessary that they be carried out in the mountains. Himmler had also ordered that these experiments be carried out on the terrain of the Mountain Villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodations were available there.
Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had heard that there were a sufficient amount of cases of freezing to be found at front hospitals. I therefore asked Rascher why it was necessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my question and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide by Himmler's order.
Q. What year did that occur?
A. That was at the end of 1942.
Q. The order was at the end of 1942?
A. Afterwards there endued that conversation with Rascher in connection with accommodations.
Q. And that was intended for the winter of 1943 and 1944?
A. No, for 1942 and 1943. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable, some other place had to be found and I handled this matter very negatively. Rascher pressed me on that matter and Himmler was rather indignant, but, at any rate, I couldn't create a house by myself. Himmler subsequently ordered that preparations be made that these experiments could at least be carried out in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I think it must have been the winter of 1943 to 1944. I'm sure it was 1943 to 1944, and I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations be made for 1944 to 1945. These experiments, however, were never carried out because Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944.
Q. In that case you are saying that these dry cold experiments were not carried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943 and 1944. You assisted in the failure of these experiments being carried out because you delayed finding a suitable accommodation?
A. Yes.
Q. I am now shortly summarizing your testimony with reference to the count which concerned itself with cold experiments.
MR. HARDY: If it please Your Honor, the defense counsel has put questions to the witness and the witness has testified to these questions. I really think summations after each experiment are unnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement.
THE PRESIDENT: A short summation on the part of defense counsel might be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition.
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. You accidentally attended the completion of a cold experiment of Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen no reports about Dr. Rascher's experiments and received no knowledge about them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects for the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually had nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the circumstances which yon have previously described. You know nothing about any dry cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You have succeeded in having delayed and finally completely frustrated the dry cold experiments in the mountains. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. After searching your mind, didn't you do anything in that connection which went beyond the orders which were given to you by Himmler?
A. No, in no way at all.
Q. I now come to the next count of the indictment, malaria experiments. The prosecution also connects you with that count of the indictment. During the course of this trial it was mentioned that a certain Professor Schilling was carrying out malaria experiments in the concentration camp of Dachau. Was this Dr. Schilling a member of the Ahnenerbe Society?
A. He neither belonged to the Ahnenerbe nor to the Institute of Military Medical Research.
Q. When did you gain knowledge for the first time about these malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling?
A. That was at the beginning of 1942. Himmler then briefly mentioned that a certain Professor Schilling was carrying out malaria research work at Dachau. At that time nothing became known to me about the manner in which he was conducting his work.
Q. Did you, in the subsequent period, establish any contact with Professor Schilling?
A. A contact with Schilling was for the first time established around the middle of 1944.
Q. And for what purpose did you contact him?
A. That was a mere courtesy visit in connection with the transfer of Dr. Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling's, to the Institute for Military Medical Research.
Q. You will remember that the witness Vieweg, who was examined here last December, has stated that he had seen you at Professor Schilling's institution. In what connection did you visit Schilling's laboratory?
A. I made Dr. Ploetner's acquaintance at the end of 1943 and I then visited him in his living room which was located at the malaria station where Schilling worked. Otherwise I wasn't present in the station itself.
Q. In other words, you want to say that you had nothing in the least to do with the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling?
A. No, nothing at all. This visit was occasioned by the pectin research work which was carried out by Dr. Ploetner.
Q Did you have anything to do with malaria experiments which were conducted by other physicians or research workers, be it in concentration camp or in another research place?
A Neither the Ahnenerbe nor the Institute for Military Medical Research, nor I personally, participated in malaria experiments on human beings.
Q I shall now have Document Volume IV handed to you. Would you please turn to Document NO-721, Exhibit 126 of the Prosecution, to be found on page 15, page 10 of the English translation. We are here concerned with a file notation signed by you concerning a consultation with Dr. May at Munich on 1 April 1942. Would you look at paragraph four. This paragraph seems to be in contradiction with what you have so far testified.
A With reference to this plan discussed with Dr. May it was only entomological question and investigations regarding combating insects.
Q Well, paragraph four speaks about observations made on convicts. How about that?
A Well, we are here concerned with information which Himmler issued when he ordered the erection of an institute for combating insects. It was to be the task of that institution to combat insects which were plaguing human beings, such as flies, lice, and bugs. Himmler wanted to see that the results were to be at his disposal in the summer of 1942. The notation which is available here was dictated in Berlin to my secretary after I returned from Munich. The fact that the name Schilling is misprinted here as Schilling indicates that the name Schilling was completely unknown to me at that time and, furthermore, the witness Vieweg has here testified that Schilling was only concerned with experiments of malaria terziana - was not malaria tropica.
Q This notation bears the date of 3 April 1942. From the point of view of time it is after your consultation with Dr. May in Munich. During that consultation it became very clear that any experiments on human beings were out of the question, at least as far as the order went that Dr. May had received. Now it is somewhat surprising that in your notation, dated the 3rd of April, we find this paragraph four. There was really no reason for any such notation being made at that time, was there? How do you explain this paragraph four being included in this notation?
A My consultation with Dr. May on the first of April was the first one with him. I already said that Himmler had been speaking about these experiments, and May immediately declared that an observation of convicts and using medical equipment in Dachau was out of the question since entomological research work was not being considered. And, he said that he had his own methods in carrying out that kind of research work.
Q Mr. President, in this connection I should like to submit Document Sievers No. 11 and I offer it as Sievers Exhibit No. 8. This is to be found on page 24 of Document Volume I. It is an affidavit made by Hildegard Wolff. I read the following paragraphs, starting with paragraph two, and I quote:
"From 1 March 1937 until 1 July 1943 I worked as a secretary in the Research and Instruction Society "Ahnenerbe", Reg. Assn., for the Reich Business Manager Wolfram Sievers.
"Herr Sievers repeatedly gave me assignments to complete, and even assignments to deal with independently.
"From the memorandum of 3 April 1942 on the conference with Dr. May in Munich of 1 April 1942 that was shown to me I remember that Dr. Sievers told me in the course of the very rapid dictation that I should include as paragraph four of this note Himmler's remarks made during a telephone conversation on 1 January 1942 concerning the establishment of the institute at Dachau."
I skip the next three paragraphs and I read the last paragraph on page 24. And I quote:
"At any rate, in this case the wording of paragraph four clearly renders the opinion of Himmler's and not one of Herr Sievers who, as I positively know, was at that time not yet familiar with the establishments at Dachau, and who also later repeatedly expressed his annoyance about the fact that Himmler had in any way connected the "Ahnenerbe" with concentration camps."
Then follows the certification.
Witness, now in order to establish your activity in connection with the malaria experiments the Prosecution relies on a number of entries you made in your diary. I shall now have the diary of 1943 and 1944 shown to you.
Would you look at Document 3456PS, Exhibit 123 of the Prosecution, to be found in Document Volume III. This is to be found on page 53 of the diary and page 169 of the Document Book III of the Prosecution which only contains a few excerpts of the diary in its English translation. In your diary under the date of 22 of February 1944 there is a notation about a conference with Dr. May with reference to a collaboration with Dr. Ploetner and Professor Schilling. It, therefore, appears that some connection existed between Dr. May and Professor Schilling.
A The situation is as follows: In January 1944 Himmler told me on the occasion of a conference that Schilling's reports would have to go to the entomological institute of Dr. May for their information. On the occasion of this conference of 22 February, held with Dr. May, I told Dr. May about this order of Himmler. Dr. May replied that there was nothing he could do with these reports and wanted to know why they wore being sent to him. He rejected a collaboration with Schilling. Schilling himself never sent these reports.
Q Now would you please turn to the diary of 1943. Look at the entry of the 29 of March 1943, which is to be found on page 164 of the English translation. Under that date of 29 March 1943 a conference is mentioned that you held with the curator and departmental chief Wuest, which refers to the appointment of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ploetner. How about this conference-this also appears to be in some connection with malaria experiments.
A. Dr. Ploetner was an SS physician active at some frontal hospital. Himmler had transferred Ploetner to the Ahnenerbe.
Q. Witness, you may be a little more brief. Did Dr. Ploetner have anything to do with malaria experiments? I mean, did he have anything to do with Dr. May's assignment?
A. No, nothing at all. Wuest at that time projected Ploetner's transfer who at that had not even anything to do with Schilling. Because of Wuest's rejection Ploetner went to Schilling because Grawitz then transferred him to Schilling's office.
Q. Now, under the 31st of May 1943 -- there is no translation of this passage -- there is an entry which refers to a conference with Dr. Ploetner about the collaboration with Professor Schilling. Did this conference have anything to do with malaria experiments?
A. That must have been 1944.
Q. It is quite possible, yes; it must have been 1944. Now, why don't you turn to the diary of 1944?
A. Yes, 31st of May 1944.
Q. Did this conference have anything to do with malaria experiments?
A. No, it had nothing to do with it. As I already explained before, I only made Ploetner's acquaintance at the end of 1943. He bitterly complained at that time that owing to the rejection and the treatment afforded to him by Wuest he had been sent to Schilling against his will, and he asked for assistance to get away from there.
Q. Now, witness, I think that is sufficient since it has obviously nothing to do with malaria experiments.
A. Nothing in the least.
Q. Now, if I shortly summarize: As regards your person there was no participation in any of the malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. The assignment of Dr. May was clearly on entomological field and had nothing in the least to do with the malaria experiments of Dr. Schilling at Dachau?
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?