Q. I think before you leave the stand, witness that it might be well for you to describe to the Tribunal the incidents when Kapos Wagner and Hutterer were killed.
A. Yes. In order to describe this incident and to give you a true picture of it please permit me briefly to explain the devilish system which was created by playing one prisoner against another by putting the prisoners in various functions. It was as follows:
The block had a senior inmate for the room and for the block. The camp had a senior inmate for the camp and then there were kapos. Those persons had to keep order and coanliness and see that the orders given by the SS were carried out. If a prisoner was to be punished, the functionary had the duty of making a report on it. There were twenty-five blows for refusing to make this report, if not worse. In this way the prisoner was forced to denounce his comrades to the SS but if he old not report and if the block leader found that a bed was not made properly, that a knife was dirty, or something like that, then the functionary was the first to be punished and only afterwards the person who was guilty. It was there-fore easy to understand that many a functionary preferred to keep his comrades in order by blows rather than to report them. On the other hand, in the case of bad bod making by one person or two, the whole block got nothing to oat. And so it came that prisoners boat other prisoners. In Dachau there were, of course, results of this system. Prisoners in their brutality were sometime even worse than the SS. These were isolated cases in Dachau.
And now I come to the explanation which you asked for. A Dutch clergyman was brought to the low pressure chamber for an experiment. The senior innate of this block had already told me that "a very docent prisoner was coming for an experiment. Keep your eyes open." When he was brought into the block Rascher talked to kin. I saw a senior block inmate of the penal or of the Jewish block looking out of the next block and impulsively I said to Rascher: "Take that fellow and lot this peer one go." The nan in question was Robert Wagner. It is known of Robert Wagner, and every prisoner will confirm it, that he boat the prisoners inhumanely. I myself had transferred twenty-six people to the penal block because of an invalid action in order to keep them from being sent on the invalid transport to the hospital.
He immediately betrayed them and these twenty-six were sent on the transport. In the winter he let the Jews stand outdoors in the snow, barefoot, in the morning and evening. I do not feel guilty for having exchanged this man for a decent fellow. I take the responsibility on myself.
The second case when I acted independently and where some people accused me of having reached judgment myself was Hutterer. He was notorious. He arrived with an invalid transport from Grosshausen. When an invalid transport arrived it was taken to the bath. Nurses had to go over to bathe; delouse and bandage the sick people and take them to the hospital. In this transport there were a number of cripples with broken bones -- not simple fractures; but very complicated ones and the one who beat his comrads was there. He was also sick and the sick people pointed him out to us and said: "He broke our bones." These people could not be cured.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will speak more slowly.
A. The end was the invalid transport for these people. I went to this Kapo and I said to him: "I guarantee that you will recover but you will not beat any body any mere." When he had recovered I went and got him when Rascher toll me to go to the administration and get a man for a serious experiment.
That is two times I consciouslu interfered. A third time, and the Court may realize from this how hard it is to pass judgment. The third case was a man named Sammedinger. He was in Dachau and was a notorious Kapo. His last act was that eight Dachau women, who had given the prisoners food; he betrayed these women and the women were in danger of being locked up. I met him on the street in the camp and said to him: "If you arc in Dachau another week I will come and get you. You may rely on it." He reported for an outside detail for Natzweiler. In Natzweiler there is a road curve construction where Kapo Sammedinger was employed as Kapo, This curve is called Sammedinger Curve because on this road construction ho crippled very many comrades by beating them. As we learned from our comrades from Natzweiler he is responsible for the death of at least one hundred people.
In this connection I may ask myself whether I would be accused for a third person for having brought him to the experiment or for the hundred deaths which I did not prevent by letting Sammedinger go. I am ready to take the responsibility for anything that happened at the experimental station with which I am charged. I did whatever I could that was positive. I am not praising myself. I do not want to say how often I succeeded in saving the life of comrades. The comrades themselves can tell you that. But what I feel as a disgrace was the manner of arrest to which I was submitted. To be put in Dachau with the very people who beat mo and who murdered us as my comrades. We are locked up together with them. The people who even today say: "If we had killed you all we would at least not have any witnesses." I was in protective custody for four and one-half years under worse conditions but it was not as difficult as these six month in Dachau.
MR. McHANEY: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further interrogation of this witness desired. The witness will stand aside. The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we will now proceed to the presentation of evidence on the Jewish skeleton collection. This crime is charged in paragraph 7 of the indictment against the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers. It is also included as a Crime Against Humanity in paragraph 12. The documents on this portion of the case are not voluminous, but I think that the Tribunal will find them quite conclusive and we are here presented with perhaps the most abominable crime which is charged in this indictment.
I come first to Document NO. NO-085 which will be prosecution Exhibit 175. This, if your Honors please, is in Prosecution Document Book No. 9. I think it night be expedient if we remark this Prosecution Document. Book #7 and it will then be in order. As I recall, the last document book was #6.
This is a letter from tho Defendant Sievers to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt and it is dated 9 February 1942. Attached to this letter is a report written by Dr. Hirt and it is part of the same document end part of Prosecution. Exhibit #175. The letter reads as follows:
"Doer comrade Brandt:
"For the reason that Professor Dr. Hirt has, in the meantime, become seriously ill, I regret that I have been to submit any sooner Dr. Hirt's report which you. requested in your letter of 29 December 1941, Journal No. AR/493/37. He was stricken with pulmonary hemorrhages, the diagnosis was 'Cystlung', so at least it is not TB. In addition to that he suffered from cir-culatory asthenia. At present he is still in the hospital but hopes that the doctor will release him soon so that he can, at least to a limited degree resume his work. Duo to those circumstances Professor Hirt was able to furnish only a preliminary report which, however, I still should like to submit to your attention. The report concerns:
"1. his research in the field of microscopy of living tissues, the discovery of a now method of examination, and the construction of a now research microscope.
"2. a proposal for securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars. "As a supplement to report 1 some special publications are attached; of which the two articles from the 'Zeiss Nachrichton' #10 (Vol.II) and 1 - 5(Vol.III) facilitate most rapid general orientation. Whereas, other publications deal with difficult, individual scientific studies.
Sincerely yours (signed) Sievers."
MR. McHANEY: Now, what sort of skull collection was being suggested by Professor Hirt, and being passed on by the defendant Sievers to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, We see that on page 3 of the English Document Book:
"Subject: Securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars for the purpose of scientific research at the Strassburg Reich University.
"There exist extensive collections of skulls of almost all races and peoples. Of the Jewish race, however, only so very few specimens of skulls stand at the disposal of science that a study of them does not permit precise conclusions. The war in the East now presents us with the opportunity to remedy this shortage. By procuring the skulls of the Jewish Bolshevik Commissars, who personify a repulsive, yet characteristic subhumanity, we have the opportunity of obtaining tangible, scientific evidence.
"The actual obtaining and collecting of those skulls without difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued to the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive all Jewish Bolshevik Commissars to the field M.P. The field Military Police in turn is to be issued special directives to continually inform a certain office of the number and place of detention of these captured Jews and to guard them well until the arrival of a special deputy. This special deputy, commissioned with the collection of the material (a junior physician attached to the Wehrmacht or even the field Military police, or a medical student equipped with car and driver), is to take a prescribed series of photographs and anthropological measurements, and is to ascertain, in so far as is possible, the origin, date of birth, and other personal data of the prisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose head must not be damaged, he will separate the head from the torso and will forward it to its point of destination in a preservative fluid within a well-sealed tin container especially made for this purpose. On this basis of the photos, the measurements and other data on the head and, finally, the skull itself, the comparative anatomical research, research on race membership, the pathological features of the skull form, the form and size of the brain and many other things can begin.
"In accordance with its scope and tasks, the new Strassburg Reich University would be the most appropriate place for the collection of and research upon these skulls thus acquired."
According to Sievers testimony before the International military Tribunal, this collection was nothing but the usual anatomical collection made by any university. Nothing strange about the thing at all -- he was very unsuspecting about the whole thing. Of course, the report which we just read, which he sent along to Rudolf Brandt, very clearly states that these Jews were to be taken alive, their bodies were to be measured, and they were to be executed for the purpose of an addition to the Anatomical research at the Strassburg University.
Also a part of this document is the secret report of Doctor Hirt, and it deals with a new type of microscope. While I recommend it to the Tribunal attention, I do not think it is necessary that it be read at this time. I just want to call your attention to a short paragraph on page 8 of this report of Hirt. It gives you some indication of what use they are making of this microscope. It says:
"The observation of bacteria in the living organism, their behavior there, and the possibility of destroying them by corresponding chemical agents.
"Work on the last-mentioned problems forced itself upon us, and the careful microscopic observation necessary in this method requires that at least the decisive fundamental points of these questions be solved by anatomy It would therefore be wrong to stop because one had reached the limits drawn for the anatomist as such in his field, and to fail to solve the problems which offer themselves" Signed, "Hirt".
I think that short paragraph will take on a new meaning when the court has heard the proof which we shall present upon the application of mustard gas and other gases to living human beings, and the studies made of the effects of these gases upon living tissues, and how they hoped to be able to counteract to some extent the effect by the use of various chemicals.
I now turn to Document No. 090, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit 176 This is a letter from defendant Rudolf Brandt to the defendant Sievers in reply to the letter which I have just read, and which is Prosecution's Exhibit No. 175.
This is dated 27 February 1942, to the Reich Business Manager of Ahnenerba, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers.
"Dear Comrade Sievers:
"I was able today to inform the Reichsfuehrer-SS of the reports of Professor Dr. Hirt. As I have told you before, the Reichsfuehrer is very much interested in Professor Dr. Hirt's work. Perhaps you could call on Hirt sometime soon and tell him again that the Reichsfuehrer-SS will place at his disposal everything he needs.
"First of all, we for our part ought to do everything that would aid Professor Dr. Hirt in regaining his health. Please make some suggestions as to how you and we could be helpful in this respect. Perhaps a small shipment of fruit would also contribute essentially to his recovery.
"After Professor Dr. Hirt's recovery, it would be best if a conference with the Reichsfuehrer-SS took place.
"On your next visit which probably will take place in the near future you could report once more on Dr. Hirt's work.
"Best wishes "Heil Hitler!"with the initials "R.B."The next document will be No. 086, which Prosecution's Exhibit No. 177.
It is a letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, dated 2 November 1942, on the letterhead of The Ahnenerbe.
"Dear Comrade Brandt:
"The Reichsfuehrer-SS once ordered, as you know, that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt should be provided with all necessary material for his research work. I have already reported to the Reichsfuehrer-SS that for some anthropological studies 150 skeletons of inmates of Jews are needed and should be provided by the concentration camp Auschwitz. It is only necessary that the Reich Main Security Office will now be furnished with an official directive by the Reichsfuehrer-SS; by order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, however, you could advise so yourself.
"Sincerely yours, "Heil Hitler "Your "Sievers."
And, Sievers was thoughtful enough to enclose a draft of a letter to the Reich Main Security Office.
We see here that the defendant Sievers was anything but an idealist in his statement here on the skeleton collection. He has told the ReichsfuehrerSS that they need 150 skeletons for use and they are to come from Auschwitz. And, the only thing that need be done to get the wheels moving is the letter or directive to the RSHA, and we see that this was forthcoming in the next document which is No. 116, and Prosecution's Exhibit No. 178.
This letter is dated 6 November 1942, four days following the receipt of the letter of 2 November 1942 from Sievers to Brandt. This is a letter to the Reich Main Security Office by Rudolf Brandt. The court will note that it is directed to the Office IV B 4, in care of SS Lieutenant Colonel Eichmann. As I recall, I told the court a few days ago that this office IV B 4 in the RSHA was the one charged with the responsibility of the solution of the Jewish question, which meant the extermination of the Jews, and that Eichmann was head of that office. It is very clear why this letter was sent to him because they wanted some 150 Jews skeletons.
The letter reads:
"RE: Establishment of a collection of skeletons at the Anatomical Institute in Strassburg.
"The Reichsfuehrer-SS has ordered that everything Professor Dr. Hirt needs for his research work be placed at his disposal. The director of the Anatomical Institute in Strassburg, Professor Dr. Hirt is at the same time chief of a department of the Institute for Military Scientific Research in the Office Ahnenerbe. By request of the Reichsfuehrer-SS I therefore ask that the establishment of the skeleton collection be made possible, as to the details SS Lieutenant Colonel Sievers will get in touch with you." The signature is "Br" or Rudolf Brandt. -700 Then this points out to us Dr. Hirt as well as Dr. Rascher were members of this Institute for Military Scientific Research in the "Ahnenerbe" and subordinates of the defendant Sievers.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: We had come to Document NO-089, which is on page 13 of your Honors' document book, and this will be Prosecution Exhibit 179. This is a letter which is identical to the one which went in under Prosecution Exhibit 178 with the exception that this letter shows at the bottom that a copy went to the ahnenerbe. It is just one of the instances which sometimes occurs when we find two copies of the same letter at different places. I will therefore net read Prosecution Exhibit 179.
The next document is NO-092 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 180, and this is a letter from the Defendant Rudolf Brandt to the Defendant Sievers of the Ahnenerbe. The letter is dated 3 December 1942.
"Dear Comrade SIEVERS: I have your note of 3 November 1942 before me again today.
"I 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 outlined, 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-Obergruppenhuehrer Pohl. Therefore I could not possibly read it through before. I only remembered what you had told me orally. If further intervention on my part should be necessary will you please let me know. Heil Hitler, Yours." with the initials R.B.
The next document is NO-087 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 181. This is a letter signed by the Defendant Sievers, addressed to the Reich Main Security Office, Office IV B 4), to the attention of the notorious Eichmann.
"Subject: Assembling of a collection of skeletons.
"With reference to your letter of 25 September 1942"... and then come the file numbers ... "and the personal talks which have taken place in the meantime on the above matter, you are informed that the co-worker in this office who was charged with the execution of the above-mentioned special task, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Bruno Beger, ended his work in the Auschwitz concentration camp on 15 June 1943 because of the existing danger of infectious diseases. -702 "A total of 115 persons were worked on, 79 of whom were Jews, 2 Poles, It Asiatics and 30 Jewesses.
At present, these prisoners are separated according to sex and each group is accommodated in a hospital building of the Auschwitz concentration camp and are in quarantine.
"For further processing of the selected persons an immediate transfer to the Natzweiler concentration camp is now imperative, which must be accelerated in view of the danger of infectious diseases in Auschwitz. Enclosed is a list containing the names of the selected persons.
"It is requested that the necessary directives be issued.
"Since with the transfer of the prisoners to Natzweiler the danger of spreading diseases exists, it is requested that an immediate shipment of disease-free and clean prisoners' clothing for 80 men and 30 women be ordered sent from Natzweiler to Auschwitz.
"At the same time one must provide for the accommodation of the 30 women in the Natzweiler concentration camp for a short period."
Signed Sievers, SS-Standartenfuehrer; carbon copies to SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Beger, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and SS-Qbersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt, and this copy obviously was found in the files of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and bears the stamp of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS and therefore was the copy sent to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt.
Here again we can see very clearly that the Defendant Sievers played a very active part in the collection of the Jewish skeletons and was anything but a mailbox, as he will have you believe.
Before passing on to the next document, I would like to clear up a problem in connection with Prosecution Exhibit 175 which was the first document to go in out of this book; that is, Document NO-085. Actually the exhibit contains only the covering letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt plus that part of the report dealing with the Jewish skeleton collection. The exhibit which is going into evidence does not contain that part of Professor Dr. Hirt's report dealing with the new microscope, and accordingly my remarks with respect to that portion of the report of Hirt should be disregarded in the record at this time. It may be that we will put in this additional portion of the report which was in two parts at a later state of the trial.
I come now to Document NO-088 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 182, and this is a teletype from Sievers to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt and it is dated 5 September 1944 and if your Honors will recall, the invasion of the continent by the Allies had already taken place and Strasbourg itself was being endangered. Obviously the collection of the Jewish persons taken to Natzweiler had been accomplished and their bodies had been delivered to Strasbourg where they had been kept, where they had been preserved, and we now find in this teletype that these men who were participating in this diabolical crime were now becoming worried lest evidence of their crime be found at Strasbourg. This teletype contains some stenographic notes at the top and as best they could be deciphered, read as follows:
"Was dissolved entirely in our place by mistake according to former order. In case nothing has happened, solution for the time being until official proposal for execution..." a bit garbled.
The body of the teletype reads as follows:
"Subject: Collection of Jewish Skeleton.
"In conformity with the proposal of 9 February 1942 and with the consent of 23 February 1942, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Professor Hirt planned the hitherto missing collection of skeletons. Due to the extent of the scientific work connected herewith, the preparation of the skeletons is not yet concluded. Hirt asks with respect to the time needed for 80 specimens, and in case the endangering of Strassbourg has to be reckoned with, how to proceed with the collection situated in the dissecting room of the anatomical institute. He is able to carry out the maceration and thus render them irrecognizable. Then, however, part of the entire work would have been partly done in vain, and it would be a great scientific loss for this unique collection, because ..." there is a word here I can't make out ..." casts could not be made afterwards. The skeleton collection as such is not conspicuous. Viscera could be declared as remnants of corpses, apparently left in the anatomical institute by the French, and ordered to be cremated. Decision on the following proposals is requested: 1) collection can be preserved;
2) collection is to be partly dissolved; 3) entire collection is to be dissolved." Signed Sievers, SS-Standartenfuehrer He see here that their plans changed somewhat from the original proposal by Hirt which was for a collection of skulls.
We now see that they were desirous of making a collection of skeletons, and also in connection with that, to take plaster casts of the bodies of the persons before the flesh was removed, and it is apparent from this letter that defleshing, if we may call it that, had not been completed.
We pass on to Document NO-091 which is Prosecution Exhibit 183. This is a note signed by a man named Berg, an SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer. It is dated 15 October 1944, in other words a little more than thirty days following the request of Sievers for information as to what was to be done with the collection. This not reads:
THE PRESIDENT: What date did you read for that document, counsel?
Mr. McHANEY: This is on page 18 of your document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I know, but what date did you read in the beginning of the document? -705 MR. MCHANEY: This date is 15 October 1944. This exhibit consists of two notes. The one on the top is 15 October 1944. It says:"On 12 October 1944 I talked to SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers on the Telephone and asked him whether the skeleton collection at Strassburg had already been completely broken up in accordance with instructions given by SSStandartenfuehrer Baumert, SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers could not tell me anything about that, since he had not yet received any detailed news from Professor Hirt.
I told him that, if the dissolution had not yet taken place, some part of the collection should still be preserved. It had to be certain however, that the complete dissolution could be accomplished promptly if Strassbourg should be endangered because of the military situation. SS-Standartenfuerer Sievers promised to have the appropriate investigations made and to report about them." Signed, Berg.
And as part of the same document and exhibit is a second note signed by Berg which is dated 26 October 1944 and it says:
"During his presence at the Field Command Post on 21 October 1944, SSStandartenfuehrer Sievers informed me that the dissolution of the collection in Strassburg had already been completed in compliance with the orders given formerly. Considering the whole situation he thinks that this procedure was the best one." Signed, Berg, with the handwritten initials Br. at the bottom, which are those of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt. I am sure that the defendant Sievers certainly does wish that the collection had in fact been completely destroyed, but as we shall see later this very afternoon, that in ace was not accomplished.
I would now like to refer back and read a few excerpts from the Sievers diary which trows a little further light on this particular subject. The firs reference is in Document NO-538 which went in as Prosecution Exhibit 122, and I would like to call the Court's attention to several excerpts which appear on pages 2 and 5. Thus he makes a note on 10 February 1943.
Thus he makes a note of 10 February, 1943, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Beger and this Court and the Tribunal will recall Dr. Beger was the Assistant in the Ahnenerbe Institute who was actually doing the anthropological measurements in Auschwitz and Natzweiler. This note says: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - Dr. Beger: Anthropological work at Auschwitz made questionable due to military draft. And on page 5 we find a note made on 21 May, 1943: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, Dr. Beger, (by telephone) regarding survey of anthropological examinations at Auschwitz, and another note: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, Dr. Hirt (by telephone Execution of examinations at Auschwitz.
Again on the 22nd of May, 1943, Sievers enters in his diary a note: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. Dr. Beger (by telephone) concerning examinations at Auschwitz. Again on the 16th of June, 1943: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Beger: Report on anthropological survey at Auschwitz. On the 23rd of June, 1943: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer: Dr. Hirt, Strassburg (by telephone) Re adaptation of the Auschwitz conclusions and executions of the skull x-rays at Natzweiler.
That was from the Sievers diary for the first half of 1943. Unfortunately, we do not have that portion covering the last half of 1943, but we do have the diary for the full year of 1944, and this is document 3546-PS, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 123, and on page 3 of this diary we find on the 2nd of February, 1944, note No. 9, which covers the discussion with Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt, Mr. Sievers makes the following entry: "Casts of examined race types. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Beger is to arrange for the sending of the required amount of negocoll and positive-substance so that (Praeparator) Bong can carry out the casting himself and Gabel does not have to come. Substance required for eighty persons. In the event the substance is not available, shall the casting be done with gypsum?" That note makes very clear that Professor Hirt in a conference with defendant Sievers was making arrangements so that the plaster casts of the bodies of these victims could be made before the bodies were reduced to skeleton form, and that they were here talking about the amount of material required, and they mentioned the name of Bong and the Tribunal will hear some mention made of Bong in the testimony of a witness who will be brought to the stand shortly.
Turning to page 6 of the Sievers Diary for 1944, we find that on the 4th of April, 1944, a note appears: SS Uschaf. Dr. Beger - Advised discussion with Professor Abel in regard to work by Dr. Trojan in prisoner-of war camps on Mongols. Beger requests that his unit be advised of his assignment since clarity does not exist on this subject, and that a request be made for his being put on the payroll as Sonder fuehrer - that is a Special Leader, and this note indicates perhaps that he did anthropological studies going on in another sphere in prisoner-of-war camps on Mongols.
I think those are the only excerpts from the diary dealing with the skeleton collection, and I would at this time like to request that the witness Henri Henripierre be called to the stand to testify.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will call the witness, Henri Henripierre: HENRIHENRIPIERRE; a witness took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. What is your name?
A. Henri Henripierre.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. Witness
A. Yes
Q. Your name is Henri Henripierre?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You are a citizen of France?
A. Yes, I am a French citizen.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. I was born in Lievres an the 23rd of August 1905.
Q. What was the year in which your were born again, please?
A. 1905.
Q. What is your present address? That is your home address?
A. My present address is 14 Rue De lail, Strassbourg.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal just a bit about your personal history, that you have done and been doing up to the time you came to be a Clerk in the Anatomical Institute at Strassbourg?
A. I should first of all to make it clear that I did not come here with any feelings of hatred or vengeance. I came here solely owing to a sentiment of having to do my duty and out of justice. I owe this to the 86 doctor victims whom we received in the month of August, 1943, I would, therefore, say before having to proceed with the preservation of the 86 victims that I made at least 250 preservations of Russian and Polish prisoners who died under the ill treatment at Untzig. That is enough to show you that I know how to appreciate the difference between a violent death and a natural death.
4. Witness, lot's find out just a little bit about you before you tell the Court about what happened at the Anatomical Institute in Strassbourg under Dr. Hirt. Now, were you ever arrested by the Germans?
A. I was arrested by the Germans in Paris.
Q. In Paris?
A. I was arrested by the Germans in Paris and was taken to the concentration camp at Compiegne, and it was after the intervention of Dr. Chezwolle, my principal officer, that I was transferred to the concentration camp at Compiegne, and before being liverated from that camp I passed before a Commission of High SS Officers, who told me that I would have to return to my country if I wished to have my relatives spared, and it was on the 6th of June, 1942, which was the date I would have to leave Paris. It was as a result of that I was at Strassbourg.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the witness speak more slowly?
WITNESS: It was when I arrived there I tried to find employment at the hospital which might make use of my knowledge as a chemist's assistant at the chemist shop and there was no further employment there, and at the hospital they telephoned to Dr. Hirt and asked him if he still required an employee and he answered "yes" and at that moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not receiving the translation.
WITNESS: At that moment I was taken on in Professor Hirt's Department, and naturally it was a principal anatomist who taught me to prepare bodies for preservation.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. Witness, just a minute. When was that when you took this job at Strassbourg under Dr. Hirt, what was the date?
A. The date of my entrance was around about the 20th of June, 1942.
Q. All right, who was your immediate superior on this job that you took?
A. My immediate chief was under Professor Hirt, then the principal preparator who taught me how to prepare bodies for preservation.
Q. And who was that?
A. He was a German subject, Mr. Otto Bong, who came with the Professor to Strassbourg.
Q. And how do you spell that name Bong?
A. Bong.
Q. All right, now let's go back just a minute. You stated you were arrested in 1942 in Paris by the Gestapo?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Why were you arrested?
A. I do not know yet.
Q. They did not tell you why you were arrested?
A. They did not tell me why, no sir.
Q. And then you wont to the concentration camp at Compiegne?
A. Yes, when I left the concentration camp at Compiegne I remained a month in Paris and on the 6th of June 1 had to leave.
Q. Now you went to Strassbourg then on the 6th of June, 1942?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you took this job in Hirt's institution?
A. On the 20th of June I took the job.
Q. And your task there was the conservation of corpses under the supervision
A. My employment was to proceed with the preservation of corpses, and to prepare for their lectures to students in the auditorium and I also looked after the central heating and I also had to go with the car that belonged to the section to fetch the corpses of the victims.
Q. And I believe you stated that you had received about 250 to 300 corpseof Russian prisoners-of-war, is that right?
A. Russians and Poles, yes sir.
Q. How do you know were prisoners -of-war?
A. Because every corpse was accompanied by a death certificate and for the 86 victims which we received in August there were not papers at all.
Q. Now, we will come to the eighty-six victims in just a moment; let's find out a little bit more about your job before then.
A. My employment was principally to preserve the corpses, to fetch these corpses, and also to prepare for the lectures which were given to the students.
Q. All right. Now, did there come a time in the middle of 1943 when you received some other corpses? I think you have been trying to tell us about that. Will you now relate the circumstances of that?
A. Which circumstances do you mean, sir?
Q. You had mentioned the receipt of some eighty or eighty-six corpses. Will you tell us about that; when it happened, what you saw, and what you did?
In the month of July, 1943, Professor Hirt received a visit from the senior officer of the SS. I thought that ho was a senior officer because he came in his own car, accompanied by his own driver. Now, to have a driver and a car, you would need to be a senior officer.
This officer came three times in the month of July. Professor Hirt took him and showed him the cellars of the laboratory. A few days later, Mr. Bong told me that he would have to prepare the tanks to receive a hundred and twenty corpses. We prepared the tanks. In these tanks there were synthetic spirits of 55 degrees.
The first convoy which we received was a convoy of thirty women. It was supposed to arrive at five o'clock in the morning, but it only arrived at seven. After having interrogated the driver about the delay, the driver gave answer, "They gave us a lot of trouble." These thirty corpses of women were unloaded by the driver and two assistants, also helped by Mr. Bong and myself.
The preservation of those corpses started straight away. The corpses arrived when they were still warm. The eyes were wide open and brilliant; they seemed congested and red, and they were popping out of the orbits. There were traces of blood at the nose and at the mouth, and there was evidence of focal matter coming out. There was no rigor mortis apparent. At that moment I judged for myself that it was a case of victims who, in my opinion, had been poisoned or asphyxiated, because in the case of no victim of any previous preservation were there presented the symptoms and signs that these victims showed when they arrived.