I do not see how Dr. Kogon got to write such a statement. It is, therefore, impossible, that Dr. Kogon was able to save the secret diary of Block 46 and turn it over to the American troops after the liberation."
That is the end of the quotation.
Witness, I am asking you now, do you still stick to your statement, after having heard the statement by the witness Dietsch, that after the liberation of the camp of Buchenwald turned this original original diary of Block 46 over to the American troops?
A Yes, of course I do.
Q I shall put something else before you from this affidavit, witness. I shall quote:
"The original secret diary of Block 46 was bound also. The cover, however, was a different one. The cover did not have the inscription 'Diary' as this document which was submitted to me today did, but the inscription 'Secret Diary', and the writing was larger and a little bit thicker than the one that was submitted to me this morning. The left margin of the cover was not provided with a figure and letters. The paper which was used in the diary came from different supplies. Different sorts of papers were therefore used. The original supplies of paper have a special watermark 'Official'. The diary which was submitted to me today does not contain one single sheet of paper that was marked in the same manner, in other words 'Official'. I further remember that we changed typewriters once in Block 46 because the typewriter which we were using theretofore was out of order. The document that was submitted to me shows apparently the same typewriter type. In the block diary no official stamp was used when Dr. Ding signed that book. We did not have any such stamps in Block 46. Dr. Ding never signed with his 'Doctor' title in a diary but only with his name, Ding, the same as this applies to Page Number 24 of the document that was submitted to me."
I ask you again, witness, what do you have to say on this statement that was made by Artur Dietsch?
A I ask you whether I am to refer to the first part which you quoted here or am I to answer on the second part.
Q I have already asked you about the first part, and you said that you, of course, stick to your statement. I therefore forego your answering on the first part, and I am asking you now about the second part, that part of the affidavit which I just quoted.
A It is for me very interesting that Artur Dietsch in his affidavit here mentions a further secret diary, or rather, produces such a diary. I have to admit that I did not have any knowledge of a second diary, in the manner in which Artur Dietsch is stating here and that I have never seen such a diary. I know nothing of its having been set up. I know only of that diary which I myself turned over to the American authorities. That is the only one I know, and I can speak only of that one which was written up in Block 46. Repeatedly, either through Artur Dietsch personally or upon orders of Artur Dietsch or by the First Medical Clerk of Block 46, Artur Gaczinski (?) it was transferred for a short period of time to Block 30 in order for Dr. Ding to use it as a basis when he wrote the report to Berlin, reports that he dictated to me. He was the one that gave the original signatures. The material for the single entries in that diary came from Block 46. The diary was written up in Block 46.
As far as the other diary is concerned, which consists of various kinds of sheets of paper, I know nothing whatsoever.
In this connection, I should like to correct myself, or rather, make a statement concerning the burning of these documents. The burning took place on the second of April 1945. My memory of these things is very good. To be exact, I myself went with Dr. Ding-Schuler upon his orders -- that is, upon his calling me -- to Block Number 46. Artur Dietsch knew nothing of the burning which was to be carried out. Artur Dietsch was standing on the first floor -- second American floor-of the left wing of the next to the last room. He was standing right at the window which went out to the small camp.
On the right of him was Ding-Schuler, and I was to the right of Ding-Schuler, and all three of us were in front of the table.
Dr. Ding ordered that Dr. Dietsch destroy all the documents which were in Block Number 46, or rather, that he bring them right away because he had to sort them in order to burn or to destroy the incriminating documents.
I shall interpolate here that before I had discussed this burning action with Dr. Ding. Dr. Ding took these documents in great big heaps. He took the bound documents, and these which were not bound, and he glanced through them hurriedly. The whole action took approximately an hour and a half. I shall add explicitly that they were great heaps of documents. He sorted them in a great hurry. He threw a few pages to the right and a few pages to the left, and he asked repeatedly of Artur Dietsch, in my presence, if he thought that the thing in question was of importance. With references to many documents, he decided that they were to be destroyed and burned.
The documents which he decided were to be burned were not thrown into the stove. He had Artur Dietsch on the left side of the stove, but they were not thrown into the stove. It was just a plain iron stove, approximately of the size of this stand (indicating) here, and it was about three-quarters as broad as this stand here (indicating). The circumference was approximately 50 to 55 centimeters. All the documents could not have been put in that small stove. I am not even sure that the stove was burning, in other words, that it was lit.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Artur Dietsch had sacks, or rather he had brought along sacks, and he put all the material that was to be burned into those sacks. That he took those sacks to the crematorium later on I did not see myself. Artur Dietsch told me that. He told me that story, namely that he had destroyed these documents in the crematory. If that was actually the case, that is, if he burned them in Block 46, that is officially by and by, one after the other, and if he saved some documents, I don't know. I only base myself on his own words when I testified during the I.M.T., the International Tribunal trials, or rather in Case No. 1 for the medical trial, namely that the documents were burned in the crematory.
The diary which is being discussed here is not the diary which Artur Dietsch told you of, and which, I would like to provide with brackets, was put over on myself by Dr. Ding-Schuler, and to be exact very fast, without discussion, without looking at anything at all, that is, together with other documents. This document which I knew, I immediately put it aside when Dr. Ding-Schuler was speaking to Dr. Dietsch. I was of the opinion that Dr. Ding-Schuler did not put it aside on purpose. To be exact this diary and other documents which I pulled out of the whole heap myself, I put them in Block 50 together with Dr. DingSchuler. That is in order to be very exact about it. I did not agree upon that with Dr. Ding-Schuler, but I went together with him to Block 50, or rather went back to Block 50. There were other urgent matters to be taken care of there. However, I grasped the first opportunity on the same day in order to discuss this diary with Dr. Ding. I told him that I thought it to be a very important evidential document, and as I put it also his saving.
It might be necessary that I add a few things, only a few things because too many things would be too complicated, with reference to the difficult psychology of Dr. Ding-Schuler. He swayed uninterruptedly, or rather he didn't know what to do between what I said and what others told him, that is between the facts of the development itself and the things he was told by the SS leaders. In other words, he couldn't make Court No. II, Case No. IV.
up his mind up to the very last days, and it was possible, as generally speaking and politically, he didn't have a political sense. He didn't have a political knowledge, and it was possible, that was before, to tell him certain things which today, for instance in this Tribunal, could not seem fully logical. In other words, they could not seem fully convincing. I told him like this, I told him after several conversations concerning this diary what was to happen to him, after the end of the concentration camps, what was to happen to him, what his fate would be. I told him by the introduction of this diary he could prove his absolute loyalty in the collaboration with me, and in order to save many lives the experiments which we carried out. I was in some sort of close contact with Dr. Ding-Schuler, that is in the last year and a half, and if I mean close contact, I don't mean it outside, but I mean inside contact.
I never left Dr. Ding-Schuler in doubt that according to my opinion he was to be put before a Tribunal. I myself was of the opinion, and I am not a lawyer, that against murderers there is also some sort of human forgiveness, in other words, a great number of extenuating circumstances. I said it would be possible to regard the fact the man who committed murder, on the one hand, might have saved the lives of many people. That was already at the time when most of the SS leaders thought the fact of the collapse of the National Socialists was not a certainty. In this psychological connection I told Dr. Ding, or rather told him repeatedly that he had to do whatever he could do in order to get a counterweight against the proceedings and trials, etc, and this was very sincere on my part. Under my influence he let many things happen, although up to the very end, or almost up to the very end, although hesitating and sometimes not fully, to the full extent, he carried out the orders of the SS.
On the 2nd of April, 1945, I said to him, "This diary, please give it to me. I will introduce it in court, and you know, Sturmbannfuehrer, I shall make true statements should there be a trial."
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
I have to interpolate here again. After the saving of Allied paratroopers, whom I saved in cooperation with Dr. Ding-Schuler and Dr. Dietsch, that is when he knew nothing of my action from the beginning when he carried out this action. In this action Dr. Ding-Schuler was also given a certificate by the French and the English.
Q Excuse me, Witness, I do not want to interrupt you, but I believe that your statements deviate from the question I asked or put to you.
A I shall come back to your question right away. I consider it of utmost importance for the answering of this question, of the one you just put to me, that the psychology of Dr. Ding-Schuler at least be considered in broad outline in these decisive days. I will be through in a minute.
He had a certificate from these rescued ones. To be exact this was a childish and fantastic idea of his, namely that the G-2, the British intelligence or the Allied intelligence, would be in a position to take him immediately, without a trial, abroad some place, in some colony, him, together with his family, and that he could have a new house there. I do not wish to discuss the SS psychology here which considers it absolutely possible as to various imaginings. He also wanted to be secure from the other possibility, and that did not actually happen. Indeed, there was considerable muddle at this particular time, and he told me, "Well, do whatever you think is right, but I shall rely on you, Kogon." From that moment on I kept that diary. I hid it in Block No. 50 very well. Heinz Baumeister, that is my closest comrade who is still alive, can testify to that fact. He knew that diary. He already knew that diary from before. He knows that I hid it and he knows that I saved it. Artur Dietsch does not know anything at all about the saving of this diary. I myself had no reason to tell Artur Dietsch anything at all about it later on, because Artur Dietsch, it has been established, has been incriminated in such a manner as will be quite disagreeable to him. At that time I was in good relation with Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Artur Dietsch. I had no reason whatsoever to have decided to incriminate Dr. Dietsch in that respect. As far as that is concerned, Dr. Dietsch wouldn't have got into trouble. That is all I have to say to this point.
Q Witness, I have to put before you now, before I go on, that the witness, Artur Dietsch, in his affidavit does not speak of two secret diaries as you do, but of the official secret diary of Block No. 46, and the assertion that two diaries existed comes from you and no one else, Witness.
A Of course it comes from me. I did not testify to the effect that Dr. Dietsch said something in his affidavit there were two diaries. I say there are two diaries. Artur Dietsch is speaking of a different diary apparently than this one here, and myself and the other members knew nothing of that diary which you speak of there. Artur Gaczinsky, who was the medical clerk of Block 46, is still alive, and I know he knows very well if there was a diary, which was sort of funny, as the one described by Dr. Dietsch.
Q Witness, you testified a few minutes ago that you informed Dr. Ding on the same day of the fact that you did not burn the diary. Did I understand you correctly?
A With Dr. Ding in the course of the day, which was the 2nd of April, I repeatedly discussed this matter. That was not the last time that I mentioned it. Dr. Ding, up until the 5th of April, was in contact with me. On the 4th of April, on that evening, he worried me of the execution that was to take place. On the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of April Dr. Ding and myself repeatedly discussed the fact. I have to interpolate something. I only mentioned the 2nd of April.
Q When did you tell him you didn't burn the diary?
AAccording to my recollection on the 2nd of April. I know what you are driving at.
Q On the 2nd of April? It was the day when the diary was apparently or allegedly received by you, is that correct?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
A I rather question it.
Q In other words, on the same day?
AAccording to my recollection, yes, on the 2nd of April, on the same day.
Q You say that Dr. Dietsch will probably be incriminated by this diary?
A I say that I was of that opinion, and I am still of that opinion.
Q Does the name "Dietsch" appear in the diary?
AAccording to my recollection no.
Q However, you are of the opinion that this diary will be incriminating material against Dr. Dietsch?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
A The contents of that diary could, if Dr. Ding-Schuler would still be alive, and before a trial, never be incriminating. The first famous page could be incriminating where he refers--or could refer--to orders. That, of course, we don't want to discuss here...the orders, the problems that are connected with orders. I just point out that the fact of the saving of the diary-- In other words, an act of loyalty, clarity, psychological-
Q Witness, I want to put the following thing before you. Do you want to deny that Dr. Ding is the most incriminating document that there is, and that Dr. Ding was the least interested in this? Or rather that this diary has not been destroyed?
A One can see how important it was that it was carried out. Namely, when I pointed out the psychology of Dr. Ding-Schuler, and of the SS leaders. Defense counsel never had the opportunity--and he may be very lucky and happy about it--to be in close contact with the SS. And I mean as a victim and as a citizen who has the same rights...and to be in a concentration camp. He would have more understanding for that which I just pointed out here. However, if any Tribunal should ask me to do so, I would be ready to testify in all intensity and broad outlines all the details I know--not only about Ding-Schuler but of all other SS, of the same kind or of a similar kind--and to explain what their psychology was like and how they reacted in every respect, and how they could react in every respect. And that their intellectual development, on broad outlines, according to my opinion, was rather infantile or childish.
Q Witness, I am of the opinion that one does not have too much sense to understand the contents of this diary. Would, if not the death sentence, they would at least be very incriminating for Dr. Ding.
I shall now pass over to another point. In the affidavit of Artur Dietsch it says the following thing, and I shall quote verbatim. "The title on page one says, "Block Diary"--not "Diary of the Department for Typhus and Virus Research." But the entries were made without any title Court No. II, Case No. IV.
whatsoever. The institute in Buchenwald did not know that name at that time. It was called "Isolated Station of Sick Bay," at that time."
What do you say to this assertion of Dietsch's?
A I am very happy that this statement of Dr. Dietsch's finally is introduced now. A few things will be decided upon later on in the Medical trial concerning this diary. I know that on the diary pages are entries made both Block 46 and Block 50 which are not identical with the official diary which is here. I do not say that these sheets are identical with those that Dr. Dietsch mentioned in his affidavit which he calls that diary, but there were such pages and ever since the beginning there entries had been made in them. And Artur Dietsch took good care of them, and they were one of the bases of the sources from which the official diary was made daily. The regular entries were made on that basis. That is correct. Now, I already testified to that effect in a long debate with the Defense Counsel in the Medical case that there were such documents--to be exact, several of them--and it is quite possible that this first, old title of the time when the clinical station was formed might have been based on that. The fact is that towards the end of 1943 Dr. Ding-Schuler changed the first page of the official diary. I already said that during the Doctors' trial since the beginning because the title had finally been agreed upon. The text remained absolutely unchanged. However, the title was inserted, and from that moment on, it said "Department for Typhus and Virus Research". Prior to that this had not been the case. And that is how it can be explained. Namely, that this first page of the official diary--I don't see any contradiction between that diary and those sheets on which there was the title--or could leave been the title; or, to be exact, there probably was a title, as Dr. Dietsch mentions. To tell the truth, I believe that the two statements add up to one another in connection with the Medical trials.
Q Witness, what you just said now particularly points out that Dr. Dietsch means the diary which was burned in the presence of Dr. Ding, Court No. II, Case No. IV.
himself, and which you allegedly saved, and that there can be no question of the second diary.
A I cannot understand how the German Defense counsel can possibly draw such conclusions. I am ready to start all over again, just like in a small children's school, and tell you, sentence by sentence, word by word.
Q Witness, you don't have to explain to me. You just have to answer my question.
A I am doing that all the time.
Q Artur Dietsch mentions the official diary here-
A Where does it say that in the affidavit?
Q Because he couldn't be able to speak of something else-
A That is no evidence; that is no proof.
Q You personally admitted that this page was later on changed, is that correct?
A In what diary?
Q In the diary of Block 46.
A What do you mean by that?
Q The official diary of block 46.
A You mean the diary which Dr. Dietsch mentioned?
Q I am only talking of the diary which was in the block.
A You don't know that!
I feel like a small, dumb boy here.
Q I shall put something else before you now, witness. This is a statement which was made by you--to be exact, on the tenth of January, 1947. It says the following and is from your answer: "Ding-Schuler was department chief and chief of block 46. When he gave the order to make entries in the diary, and he, himself, dictated this diary, then this diary was an official diary in block 46." End of quotation. That is on page 1258 of the German record of Military Tribunal No. 1. That was a statement that was made by this witness, at the time. What do you answer to this, witness?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
THE WITNESS: Between Defense counsel and myself there must be-there are such contrasts. I mean, not as far as the opinion is concerned, but on the capacity to understand things, and to differentiate them...that it is very difficult for me to speak about this thing again.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, I want to draw your attention to the fact for a minute, for the last time-
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him a question; do you want the answer? You asked him a question; what do you have to say to that? He never got to answer it. Do you want the answer?
DR. SEIDL: I want the answer, Your Honor, but I want a factual answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, before you could get any kind of an answer you wanted to put something else before him. You are now starting to ask him something else, and you haven't had the answer to your previous question.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I believe that the translation did not come through. The witness made a statement which was not nice, and I took the liberty to draw his attention to that fact, that he is appearing here as a witness, and that he has to answer actual or factual answers to factual questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, regardless of that, you read him a statement purported to be made by him, and then you said, "What do you say to that?" And he got only as far as saying that he had some difficulty in making you understand him, and then never answered the question. Do you want the answer?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I wish the witness to answer my question.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Now, let's go back and never mind the difficulty you have, witness. Just answer the questions as calmly and as briefly as you can.
THE WITNESS: I want the Tribunal to ask the Defense counsel to repeat the question.
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Witness, I shall repeat the question. Prior to your examination before Military Tribunal 1, on the seventh of January, you said the following; and I shall quote page 98 of the record. Correction: You testified before Tribunal Number 1.
Just a moment, Your Honors. I am afraid the page is not quite where it should be in the record. I shall ask a different question in the meantime, Your Honors. I shall put another statement of Dr. Dietsch's affidavit before you, and I shall quote. He says, amongst other things, and I shall quote: "I know nothing of a prior experiment A, although I was busy on that station all the time." In the diary which you submitted they are speaking of the preliminary experiment. On the basis of your own recollection, can you tell me if there was such a preliminary experiment, and if such an experiment was carried out? And that, therefore, the entry in the diary which was submitted by you is correct, or if that is the opinion of Artur Dietsch?
A What experimental series was it all about?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
Q It was the entry of the 5th of January, 1942.
A 1943 or 1942?
Q 1942. It says here, "Preliminary Experiment A, defined as acute method of artificial infection of people." Do you remember that part?
AAround that time I was not medical clerk with Dr. Ding-Schuler. I was in the Department for Pathology and around June we were inaugurated by Dr. Dietsch to the secrets of typhus and Dr. Dietsch here touches a very dangerous point. I myself with reference to the connecttion, I couldn't tell you, if, in January that series of experiments was a preliminary experiment. I couldn't tell you. I told you. I can only quote from the diary. I couldn't do more than that, because I wasn't there.
Q Now, I shall put before you a last entry in that affidavit of Artur Dietsch. It reads as follows: "According to my precise recollection, during the first typhus experiment no deaths occurred. How this entry was made in the document which was submitted to me, that I couldn't tell; the typhus vaccines of experimental series No. 1 were the first which I made and, therefore, I am sure that deaths that occurred would have remained in my mind." What can you say to this question, that is, from your own knowledge, and can you prove Dr. Dietsch's statement?
A It is somewhat difficult for me to remember things which would not be interesting to Artur Dietsch in Block 46 and the preparatory Blocks 46, so many things were discharged that I presume that Capo Artur Dietsch -- it will be somewhat difficult for him to tell the difference after so many years, who, when, or what opportunity they had in the experimental station. They did not only work with typhus there and with other typhus chemo-therapeuthics or visus, but they also worked with a club and other instruments. I only state here that between the entry in the diary and that statement of Artur Dietsch there is a contradiction and furthermore I find that defense counsel apparently presumes in advance that the diary is wrong, that it has either been falsified or Court No. II, Case No. IV.
has bean changed by me, because he goes on saying, "you apparently," or, "allegedly", saved the diary," and that "you say that" etc. and that his opinion is that the diary is not true and that leads him to the fact, to over-estimate Dr. Dietsch's statement, which he puts before me all the time. If the Tribunal can see the difference between Dr. Dietsch's statements and this affidavit, and the entries in the diary, in other words, if this contradictory statement can be cleared up, then Dr. Dietsch is to be put before me and then we shall see who has the better recollection, who can tell you the things in a more convincing way, and who can produce living witnesses who will testify against, or, rather, will testify to the effect that his statements are true ones. I do not see a possibility to say any more at this point, at least not at the moment.
Q Witness, now I shall put before you the affidavit which I quoted before, or, rather the statement which you made before Tribunal No. 1 on the 7 of January, 1947. That is the question which you did not want to answer before. I shall quote: That is from Page 1275 of the German record. "Schuler was the chief of the Department and Chief of Block 46. If he gave the order to make entries in the Diary and he, I am sure, dictated this diary, then that diary was an official diary within Block 46." What have you to say to this, Witness?
THE PRESIDENT: That's the trouble. That opens the door wide. You ask him what he has to say and there is no end. What is the particular question now? Do you want to ask him whether or not his testimony was true?
DR. SEIDL: No, I want to ask the witness and that is the special question, if, from his statement at the time, that is, three or four months ago, it cannot be seen quite clearly that there was only one diary and could only have been one diary and it is impossible to say now that it was an official diary and a second diary which was only known to Artur Dietsch or to him or to Dr. Ding.
THE PRESIDENT: But your question is too long. Why don't you ask Court No. II, Case No. IV.
him, was there only one diary?
DR. SEIDL: Very well, I agree with you. I want to ask the witness to answer that question.
Q Witness, you heard the question put to you by the Tribunal.
A Well, yes, but I would appreciate if the defense counsel would ask me this question in his own manner because afterwards he will not be satisfied with my answer.
Q I agree with the formulation of the question the way the President put it, and I ask you to give me an answer that actually refers to that question.
A There is no logical connection for the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Never mind the logical connection. Don't argue the case. The lawyers have to have something to do. You just answer the questions. Do you know whether there was one diary or more than one kept in Block 46.
A I know that there was the official diary and that there was diary documents and diary sheets from which the entries were made out of which the only official diary was made and that official diary has been saved by me from being burned and turned over to the American authorities by myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know of any other diaries?
DR. SEIDL: I am quite satisfied with the answer, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask him this on my own. Do you know of any other diary, except the official diary?
A Yes, I do.
Q I shall ask you now something else, Witness. In the direct examination you testified that a poison experiment in connection with this case was carried out before the Russian Prisoners-of-War in such a manner as to make poison on the experimental subjects. Did I understand you correctly?
A Yes.
Q The two SS judges, Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner, according to your Court No. II, Case No. IV.
statement carried out the experiment, together with Dr. Ding, is that correct? I mean, is it merely possible that you meant this statement differently, or did I understand you correctly?
A I do not know if I am to answer the question, "Who was behind that curtain?" I don't know. I told you before and I have been telling you all the time what I heard from Dr. Ping Schuler and later on from Dr. Artur Dietsch and also from Artur Gaczinsky and Ernst Walker in Block 46, that is another inmate.
Q You can only tell me what according to your recollection Dr. Ding Schuler told you.
A Yes, what the persons I mentioned before told me.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions to the witness.
BY DR. HOFFMAN (Attorney for the Defendant Scheide):
Q Witness, prior to your arrival, that is, apart from the fact that you didn't like the SS, did you have special friends amongst the SS people?
A Yes. What do you mean by special friends? However, I did know persons who were national socialists or then who were in contact with the SS and therefore thus I had discussions with leading leaders of the NSDAP or the SS officers. Maybe I exaggerated it. I don't know how many there were, but in any case, I remember one conversation which I was able to carry out.
Q What was your general impression concerning this conversation?
A The question is not very easily answered. Would it be possible for you to specify?
Q I mean, Witness, if you can tell from the fact that you were entirely against various ideas of the SS, I mean, could you actually find facts which were sort of different than everything that is humane, or were there only certain contradictory things that occurred there?
A Should that mean opinion contradictions and there were also political contradictions and there were also official contradictions there and as far as it was possible, I wish to say, as far as the Court No. II, Case No. IV.
typology was concerned of the SS and their superiors which were something themselves, I tried to recognize, but specific ways of barbarism or cruelty or cynicism did not set me more against those which I met than they became apparent to me amongst others of my comrades.
Q Do you believe that from the ranks of the SS the SS people particularly tried to get jobs in concentration camps, or do you believe that the most active ones among them went to another formation, for instance, the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, where they wore beautiful uniforms, and so forth?
A Not only do I think so but I know so from a whole series of direct and indirect experiences I went through and know that there was such a discriminating process in the SS. In the course of time, without knowing it, the worst elements were around and in the concentration camps, while another part, that is, the largest part of the SS, joined other groups of the SS and pursued other aims which were not in direct connection with the concentration camps.
Q Witness, do you believe that such control over people could be carried out in a concentration camp. That is, do you think that people who did not belong to the most intelligent group in advance could be spoiled more than they already were? Do you think that they could become cruel and bad because they had such control over everybody in the concentration camps?
A To be sure, I think that people who normally were good, who then were used as guards or SS officers or Scharfuehrers in the concentration camps, people who weren't against these things ever since the beginning, from the inside as well as from the outside, under the extremes which prevailed there had of necessity to be spoiled by this situation so that they became worse and worse.
Q In other words, you believe that an SS man who had been in a concentration camp could not be put on the same level as an SS man who had been outside of a concentration camp?
A Generally speaking, yes.
Q Witness, do you believe that every camp system - I don't quite know how to express myself - which was under special control could lead to some such results as in the concentration camps in which you were?
A In any camp, no matter where, that is, a compulsory camp, where the manner of administration was that of these National Socialist concentration camps, with no controls, no security measures, where these camps are in a general milieu of society, economy, the state, morals, if they exist in all those groups, then every such camp has to lead to exactly the same results as the National Socialist concentration camps.
Q Witness, do you know the fact that in 1933 a concentration camp system was installed for the first time in Germany?
A Yes.
Q Do you believe that a part of those cruelties can be brought back to these concentration camps or to the first one because they didn't know whether the control could be carried out for the camps?
A That question itself leads deeply into the German problematic. If I am to answer that in a few words, I can only speak relatively. There are many circumstances and connections to be considered here. Undoubtedly the fact that prior to 1933 the German people did not know the real ethical sense of the policy, in other words, the selfconfidence of the citizens with reference to the state authorities who were put in office by the citizens themselves contributed to the fact that the concentration camp system of the SS did actually exist and nothing was done against it.