A. I believe that the question can not be answered the way you ask it, because that Jewish barrack was the only barrack of its kind in the camp. As I said before, it was separated from the rest of the camp, and it was the only barrack in which the windows were closed.
As far the activity of the Jews who were locked up in there, I was only told-- I asked, for instance, "What are the Jews doing?" and I was told that they were working on watch works, etc.
Q. In other words, there is a possibility that you misunderstood that-- namely, the Jewish barracks with the watch repair shop barrack, which was somewhere else?
A. No, Defense Counsel, I believe I am able to answer that question in a positive manner. The man who told me that could have been misinformed about that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will tell you frankly, Counsel, that we are not very much interested in watch making.
DR. BELZER: May it please Your Honor, I will state on this that this watch repair shop was an installation for the evaluation of watches which were collected by the Reinhardy Action, and therefore I am sure that the Prosecution will then refer to the activity of the defendant Sommer. That is why.
BY DR. BELZER:
Q. In other words, you admit that your informant could have been wrong.
A Defense Counsel, today it is very difficult to say whatever was said by an innate at the time is still correct. However, on the other hand, the inmates of the camp were well informed on all the things in the camp so that the possibility of misinformation can be reduced down to a minimum.
Q If I tell you now, Witness, that the man in charge of that watch repair shop at Sachsenhausen was a watchman in profession, in other words, he was not a Jew, and that other inmates also were working in those barracks who were not Jews, would you think then that these persons worked in the barracks in which the windows were nailed too?
A The way I feel about it is, that apart from the barrack which you mentioned, in other words, where civilians and other inmates worked, that is another position to the question which I mentioned.
Q That was the idea of my whole question. Isn't it possible that there is some sort of misunderstanding here about it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have had enough of that. It is always possible for some person to be mistaken, so whatever this inmate or this witness says we will concede that people may be mistaken, and we are still not impressed by the watchmaking business. I suggest that there are more important inquiries to be made.
Q Witness, in the course of your examination this morning, in your direct examination and also during the cross-examination, you repeatedly mentioned the fact that the conditions in the concentration camps from 1942 on had changed in various things, particularly as far as the flogging and the capos, etc. were concerned.
A Defense Counsel, I believe that the way I put it was a little bit different. It must have been '43 and not '42.
Q I have notes here twice in which it says 1942.
A Yes. Well, I thought the whole thing over, and I reconstructed the events, and I arrived at Neuengamme in March, 1942, and I had a very hard time there, beatings every day, and only early in 1943 before I arrived at Oranienburg that is when the conditions changed, only so far that the capos were no longer allowed to distribute floggings.
Q You spoke of the prohibition to beat inmates. Do you know of any directive according to which these capos were explicitly told they were not allowed to beat the inmates?
AAt that time I had no knowledge neither of the files nor of the connection, the whole connection. I was just another inmate, No. 6978, who had no opinion of his own and who didn't even have the opportunity to discuss or no certain facts of himself.
Q In other words, you could not receive the real reason which was responsible for the change of those conditions in the concentration camp?
A I don't know if this is part of the whole affair, but at that time they were saying in the camp that an ultimatum had been given to Germany, that is, if the German concentration camp inmates were not treated better, namely that then the German prisoners of war would have been treated in the same way. I insist here this is just something that was a rumor that went around in the camp, and if this is true I could not tell at the time, and I still could not tell today.
Q Then I would like to know from you, witness, how many hours a day you worked both at Neuengamme and at Oranienburg?
A I take it that during the summer months, as I already mentioned this morning, we worked twelve hours, and during the winter we only worked during that time when the site was clear and until it was dark again.
Q How many shifts did you have in the bread factory in Sachsenhausen?
A Originally we worked in one shift in the bread factory in Oranienburg and later on in two shifts.
Q From what time on?
A I could not give you the exact date. I take it it was in July or August, but I couldn't give you an exact date.
Q '43?
A '43, that is correct. No, I have to correct myself, it wan't in '43. Yes, '43.
Q Not 1944?
A Yes. No, it wasn't, because in '44 I joined the Amt W-1.
Q Apart from the additional food which you received in the bread factory did you have any other additional rations?
A No, apart from bread we received nothing else.
Q Not even sausage?
A Yes, you are right, we received a small piece of sausage once a week.
Q Do you know anything about the fact that the working inmates, or a certain percentage of the inmates in the Neuengamme and Sachsenhausen camps received a special hard workers' allocation regardless of the fact if they worked or not?
A I can answer your question to the effect that the situation in Neuengamme was such that the capo was in charge of the distribution of food for the heavy workers. The capo was a man who could say, according to his own opinion, "You do not work hard enough today and you do not get your heavy worker allocation," and he acted as if he did not receive any more food allocation from the commando himself, and, of course, I could not actually tell you if he actually kept the broad back on his own responsibility or not.
Q Do you know of cases during which people were released from the camp? To help you now I am referring now to inmates who worked in the DEST and were then released, and only after their release in the DEST they were used there as workers?
A Yes, I know these cases from Oranienburg.
Q Do you know of any suck cases?
Q Yes, I know two or three cases. I couldn't tell you the name of the man. It was a man by the name of Dollfuss, I believe, and he was the secretary of the Chief of 0-2, and from 0-2 there were two more releases as far as I know at the time. However, we said at the plant that Herr Brauner, who was the Chief of the office of the Amt, or rather at the plant at the time, had been retransferred in connection with this. However, I shall make the restriction that this was nothing else but a rumor in that connection.
Q On whose orders would these releases occur? You did not know?
A No, I don't.
Q Did you ever hear of any case in which an inmate was released and then became worker for an ammunition factory and then became prokurist?
A No, I don't.
Q You furthermore stated that you received money every month from your father?
A Yes.
Q How much of the money could you draw?
A It was the following way at Neuengamme, I can only purchase up to ten marks worth of stuff, so that I wrote to my father one day he should not send any more money later on, because at the moment I could not use the money.
Q And how was it at Sachsenhausen?
A In Sachsenhausen it did not play a large part for me as I had more opportunities there to buy other things through a friend of mine.
Q With this premium that you used, was there a possibility that an inmate could possibly be in a better position through these premiums than if he would have taken money from his parents?
A I am of the opinion that they were not so interest ed in it. This was only interesting for those inmates who did not receive any money.
Q Don't you know of the fact that you were only allowed to draw up to a certain amount of money from your parents?
A No, because this limit was never reached because we had no power of buying anything there, and one could never spend 50 marks per month. I told you that exactly already that 10 marks was all you could spend.
Q Wasn't there the possibility, however, on the other hand, that an inmate while working hard, received more premiums through hard work?
A One can only say this because as, for instance, the greatest part of the inmates, that is all these inmates who were not foremen or were not capos, were not skilled workers, that they just received 50 pfennigs, and not every inmate received this 50 pfennigs. I, myself, I had the 2 marks and the 2 marks and a half premium, and all the camp elders received more than 2.50. However, I don't remember, I can't recall a case in which I was given the money.
Q Yesterday a witness declared that premiums could be received up to six or eight in the month, per month.
A Yes. Well, I told you that I received up to 10 marks myself. That was the highest premium I received.
Q You don't know of any case in which premiums were received up to fourteen marks?
A The cases of which you are speaking are special inmates. They were inmates who on the basis of their papers could not be released. However, due to the long time which they had spent in the camp and collaboration with the place they were working for, they finally got it through with the camp administration that these few inmates received special allocations with special privileges.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
As far as I know there were three or four inmates in those in certain camps who as you just mentioned received an increased premium.
DR. BELZER: Thank you. No further questions.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, I have a few questions with regard to Bohemia. You mentioned the name of Hechtfischer in connection with Bohemia.
A Yes.
Q Who is Hechtfischer?
AAs far as I know, he was a director of ALA, who as far as I know also received the order to make and carry out the discussions with Bohemia.
Q With reference to buying the shares of Bohemia, I wish to put the following thing before you: These shares belonged to the Bohemian Bank which was a subsidiary of the German Bank in Berlin. What do you have to say to that?
A I stated with reference to the Bohemian Bank, and I believe I said before, that the situation was in the following manner at the time-
Q If I put before you that these shares were not in London, but that the shares were with the Dresdner Bank, what would you say then?
A I don't know why the legal department was afraid of an English intervention in that connection.
Q You can tell me that with certainty?
A Yes, I can.
DR. GAWLIK: No further questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination?
(There was none.)
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, you are not Jewish.
A No, Your Honor, I am not.
THE PRESIDENT: Last chance. Is there any other cross-examination?
(None.)
Any redirect?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
MR. McHANEY: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you about to call another witness, Mr. McHaney?
MR. McHANEY: No, Your Honor; we would like to submit some documents for a change.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will take a recess.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal Number II is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I have been offering documents from Prosecution Document Book Number IX. We have completed the presentation of the documentary proof on the high-altitude and freezing experiments which were contained in Prosecution Document Book Number VII, and in Prosecution Document Book Number IX. We had completed the presentation of the typhus experiments at Buchenwald, and also the typhus experiments at the Natzweiler concentration camp carried out by Dr. Hirt.
I proceed now to the presentation of documents dealing with the gas experiments also conducted by Dr. Hirt at Natzweiler; and I would now like to offer Document NO-372, which is on page 38 of Document Book Number IX, and this will be Prosecution Exhibit 231. It is an affidavit by Rudolf Brandt concerning the Lost (Mustard) gas experiments. Just by way of introduction, I think it might be well to read paragraphs three and four of that affidavit. He states in paragraph three as follows:
"3. Late in 1939, experiments were performed on involuntary human subjects at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp to determine the effectiveness of various treatments upon wounds caused by Lost gas. Lost is a poison gas which has a deleterious effect on the skin. I think it is commonly known as mustard gas. Since the war had started it was considered desirable to ascertain the best treatment for wounds caused by Lost in the event that this gas was used against the Reich. Therefore, experimentation on concentration camp inmates was undertaken. As I understood it, the procedure followed was that wounds were created on various parts of the body of the experimental subject and then the wound was infected with Lost. Different types of treatment were used to determine the ones most effective."
"4. Prior to 1942, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. August Hirt, professor at the University of Strasbourg and associate of the "Ahnenerbe," experimented with Lost wounds on orders of the armed forces.
Reports by Hirt came to my attention in Himmler's office. In the latter part of 1942, Hirt began experimentation on inmates at the Natzweiler Concentration Camp in cooperation with Oberarzt Dr. Karl Wimmer, who was on duty with the Luftwaffe. These experimental subjects, as in other cases of experimentation, were simply assigned by Pohl's office, the WVHA, to be used for this purpose. The experiments on human beings with Lost gas continued during 1943 and 1944 and at Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp as well as Natzweiler. Some of the prisoners died as a result."
MR. MCHANEY: Turning now to Document NO-935, it will be Prosecution's Exhibit 232. This is a letter dated 27 August 1942. The latter part of the date may not appear on the Tribunal's mimeographed copy. 1942 is the year. It is from Sievers to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who, as the Tribunal will recall, was the chief of the Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA. The subject of the letter is a military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler Camp and in this letter Sievers states that he will have a conference with Gluecks concerning the establishment of a branch of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe in Natzweiler and he mentions that he will be talking also with Dr. Hirt and that they would like to visit the camp.
The next document, NO-978, will be Prosecution Exhibit 233, a letter a few weeks later, dated 11 September 1942. It is another letter from Sievers to Gluecks concerning the same subject, namely, setting up of a branch of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe in the concentration camp Natzweiler, and he refers to the personal discussion with Gluecks on the 9th of September, 1942, and he here summarizes the things that will be necessary in order to set up this branch of the Institute for Military Scientific Research in Natzweiler. The first paragraph, I might read, says, "Information to the commander's office, concentration camp Natzweiler: SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer and Dr. Kieselbach, are authorized to enter the concentration camp Natzweiler. During their activity in the concentration camp Natzweiler they are to be provided with accommodations and board."
On the next page, on Page 43, paragraph 5 reads, "The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barracks. Only slight changes in the construction of the building are required: in particular the installation of a hood which can be produced with very little material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction management at at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to carry out the reconstruction."
Prosecution submits that this construction management at Natzweiler was a construction brigade which was controlled by Amtsgruppe C of the WVHA.
Document NO-098 on page 44 will be Prosecution Exhibit 234. This is another letter by Sievers dated the 3rd of November, 1942 on the letterhead of the Ahnenerbe Institute and it concerns the research work by Hirt at the Institute for Military Scientific Research of Ahnenerbe in Natzweiler. In this letter Sievers is complaining that the camp management at Natzweiler is not showing the proper interest in the branch office of the Institute for Military Scientific Research and that they are not cooperating with him properly and he complains in this letter about that lack of cooperation. This is a memorandum which is addressed, or, at least, stamped, "Personal Staff Reichsfuehrer SS" and one of the later documents will show that it came into the hands of Rudolf Brandt. He mentions in here, Sievers mentions, that he reported orally to Gluecks on the 9th of September and afterwards in writing on the 11th of September and that Gluecks had promised his full support for the research work in Natzweiler, and then he quotes from a report by Hirt concerning Hirt's visit to Natzweiler in October, on page 45, Hirt remarks that the concentration management put forward the atrocious suggestion that they would have to pay for the human experimental subjects and this outraged both Sievers and Dr. Hirt. On page 46, Sievers goes on to remark about one-third of the way down the page, "When I think of our military research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding way in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given. Payment of prisoners was never discussed." Of course, that is a reference to the high altitude and freezing experiments in Dachau, conducted by Dr. Rascher, among others.
I also call the Tribunal's attention to the remark on the same age about one-third from the bottom, "The budget of the Institute will be met, according to the order of the Reich Fuehrer of the SS and as already discussed by me in detail with SS Standartenfuehrer Loerner, out of the funds of the Waffen-SS." The Standartenfuehrer Loerner referred to, of course, is the defendant Hans Loerner.
The next document will be that on Page 48, Document NO-092, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 235. This is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to Sievers, dated 3 December 1942 and it makes reference to the memorandum which we have just introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 234. With reference to that Rudolf Brandt wrote as follows: "I have your note of 3-11-1942 before me again to-day. I have had a chance at that time to have a short talk with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. If my memory serves correctly he had also sent me word that these complaints which you outline, which, however, I did not report in detail would be remedied. I had received your letter just the very morning I went to see SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Therefore, I could not possibly read it through before." And he concludes, "If further intervention on my part should be necessary will you please let me know."
On Page 49 there should have been inserted Document NO-590. It appeared in the index as NO-390, which was a typographical error. Document NO-590 is now in the process of distribution to the defense counsel and to the Tribunal and I will offer it tomorrow morning, but I would like now to reserve Prosecution Exhibit No. 236 for this document. The document consists of an affidavit by one Ferdinant Alt, who was an inmate in Natzweiler and he has interesting things to say about the gas experiments by Dr. Hirt.
The last document on the gas experiments is that on page 44 of the Document Book, Document NO-005, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 237. This is a letter dated 22 November, 1944, from the deceased Dr. Grawitz, who was the Reich Physician of the SS-Police.
It is addressed to Himmler and is concerned with experiments with a certain N-substance. I might read the first paragraph of the letter. It says, "The Chief of the Technical Office in the SS-Chief Administrative Office, SSGruppenfuehrer Schwab, has contacted me in September of this year with the request to furnish him with 2 doctors, who as medical experts were to witness experiments with N-substance, which he was carrying out at the time by order of the Fuehrer. This was above all a matter of the clarification of the question, if N-substance was to be considered for chemical warfare or otherwise."
In the third paragraph it states, "In accordance with these investigation experiments carried out on 25 September 1944, the necessity has now arisen to carry out sever experiments on human beings for the final clarification of the physiological effect of N-substance on and through the human skin. 5 prisoners are necessary for the execution of these experiments. It is highly improbable that the experiment will cause any permanent damage."
The last of the letter consists of remarks made by Dr. Gebhardt and by Gluecks and by Panzinger with reference to the advisability of these experiments.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
The Tribunal will recall that we have previously submitted an order of Himmler which stated that before any medical experiment could be carried out it would have to be submitted for the opinion of Gebhardt, who was the Chief Hygienist of the SS, to Gluecks, who was Chief of Amtsgruppe B under Pohl, and to Nebe, who was Chief of the Criminal Police. In this case Panninger makes the comment apparently in place of Nebe.
Gluecks stated: "I have received your letter of 7 September 1944 with regard to the procurement of five prisoners for the experiments which are to be carried out in substance. For this purpose I have had five prisoners, who have been condemned to death in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, placed in readiness on whom these experiments can be carried out."
We turn now to the series of documents dealing with the sterilization of human beings. I first offer Document NO-440 on Page 51 of the document book as Prosecution Exhibit 238. This is an affidavit again by Rudolf Brandt; and he here outlines the various types of sterilization experiments carried out. I think that I have previously briefly outlined the several methods endeavored to be used, namely, medicinal sterilization, X-ray sterilization, together with castration, and, finally, the method of Glauberg, which was the sterilization of females with the injection of an irritating solution into the uterus. I think the affidavit speaks for itself; and I shall not read from it.
I now offer Document NO-035 as Prosecution Exhibit 239. This begins a series of documents dealing with medicinal sterilization, in which the defendant Pohl was particularly interested, as we shall see. Exhibit 239 is a letter written by the defendant in the Medical Case Pokorny to Himmler. It is dated October, 1941. Pokorny in this letter calls to Himmler's attention several scientific articles written by a certain Dr. Madaus, which dealt with medicinal sterilization of animals. Dr. Pokorny advances for the first time that we have been able to find the suggestion that experiments be carried out on human beings with Dr. Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Madaus' method, in order to see if they could not develop an effective way of sterilizing millions of human beings, namely, those who were considered to be enemies of the Third Reich.
On the first page of the letter on Page 53 of the document book, about the middle of the page, Dr. Pokorny stated: "If on the basis of this research it were possible to produce a drug which after a relatively short time effects an imperceptible sterilization on human beings, then we would have a new, powerful weapon at our disposal. The thought alone that the three million Bolsheviks, at present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction opens the most far-reaching perspectives."
It goes on to suggest that experiments be carried out on human beings and that Dr. Madaus be directed not to make any further publication on those matters.
The next document is NO-036, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 240. We see here that Dr. Pokorny's letter was passed along by Himmler to the defendant Pohl. This letter is dated 10 March 1942; and it is from Himmler to Pohl. He encloses therewith a copy of the Pokorny letter and asks Pohl to get in touch with Madaus and to inform him that he should not publish anything more on medicinal sterilization and says that Pohl should offer him the possibility of doing research in cooperation with Grawitz on criminals who, he remarks, would have to be sterilized in any event.
Document NO-038 is on Page 56 and will be Prosecution Exhibit 241. This is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to Pohl, dated June, 1942; and there Brandt asks Pohl to report on the status of the sterilization matters and Dr. Madaus and refers back to the letter which we have just introduced, that of 10 March 1942 which enclosed Pokorny's memorandum.
The document on Page 57 gives the report back by Pohl. This is Document NO-046-A, and will be Prosecution Exhibit 242. It is a letter dated 3 June 1942 and was directed to Himmler. He reports that he has contacted Dr. Koch of the Biological Institute of Dr. Madaus and Company Court No. II, Case No. IV.
and instructed him to discontinue publications on medicinal sterilization. It goes on to report that the plant "Schweigrohr", from which the drug "caladium seguinum" was derived, grown naturally only in North America; and consequently they are having some difficulty getting sufficient quantities of the plant, and from the plant the drug, to carry out experiments on a very large scale. Pohl goes on to state in this letter that the only practical step which they can take to advance the experiments is to construct hothouses in which the plant "Schweigrohr" will be cultivated.
Document NO-046-B, on Page 59, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 243, is the response by Rudolf Brandt to Himmler, dated 11 June 1942, in which Himmler instructs the defendant Pohl to be sure to have a large hothouse set up as soon as possible so that the plant can be cultivated.
Document NO-044 on Page 60 will be Prosecution Exhibit 244. This is a file memorandum by Rudolf Brandt, dated 22 June 1942. It concerns a consultation on the 19th of June 1942 at Wewelsburg between Himmler and Pohl. Now, it may have been only between Rudolf Brandt and Pohl. I don't think it is clear from the context that Himmler was there. In connection with the place of this conference, Wewelsburg, I should like to remark that is the concentration camp in which they were using the inmates for the purpose of constructing an SS school and that project was under the direction of the defendant Klein, you will remember, of Amtsgruppe W.
This memorandum reports that Pohl was to continue his efforts to have the plant "Schweigrohr" cultivated and that "the work of Dr. Koch of the Madaus Institute shall be supported to the fullest extent" by Pohl and that an effort should be made to produce synthetically the drug which was necessary for the medicinal sterilization. It ends up by saying: "SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl agreed to take the necessary steps at once."
On Page 61 is Document NO-050, which will be Prosecution Exhibit Court No. II, Case No. IV.
245. This is a letter from Fischer, dated 4 July 1942. Fischer was a member of Himmler's staff. The letter is addressed to the Reich Main Security Office or the RSHA, Amt IV-B-4, to the attention of SSSturmbannfuehrer Guenther. In this letter Fischer sends along copies of the work by Dr. Madaus on medicinal sterilization and instructs Guenther to work in closest collaboration with the agency of Pohl in this matter.
I think it would be interesting for the Tribunal to know that Amt IV-B-4 was directed by the notorious Eichmann, who together with Amt IV-B-4 of the RSHA was charged with the so-called solution of the Jewish question. In other words, the mass extermination of the Jewish people was supervised to a large degree by Amt IV-B-4; and, of course, this letter which deals with sterilization matters is directed to that office because, as an alternative to the extermination of those able to work, sterilization could be used so that they could not propagate but at least would be able to work during a certain period of usefulness.
On Page 62 Document NO-042 will be Prosecution Exhibit 246. This is a letter by the defendant Pohl to the Deputy Gauleiter in the Lower Danube, a man by the name of Gerland, dated 7 September 1942. Gerland by coincidence had also come across the articles by Madaus and had advanced substantially the same suggestion that Pokorny did at an earlier period and immediately sent a letter to Himmler, which in turn had been forwarded to the defendant Pohl. This in turn is a letter from Pohl to Garland, stating that he has been working on this matter of medicinal sterilization for some months prior to the receipt of Gerland's suggestion.
He states, rather braggingly, if I may say so, in the third paragraph: "I myself have personally instituted the negotiations with the director of the Biological Institute Madaus, Dr. Koch, and also supervise the experiments personally, together with the physician of Main Department, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling." Dr. Lolling, the Tribunal will remember, was the Chief of Amt D-3, which was the Medical Court No. II, Case No. IV.
