Q In other words this activity at any rate had nothing to do with malaria experiments on human beings?
A No, this was simply the business of clearing the area of mosquitoes.
Q Under 22 February 1944 there is an entry in Sievers' diary, "Talk with Dr. May, collaboration with Dr. Ploetner and Professor Schilling;" from this one could infer that there after all was some sort of collaboration?
A Perhaps this entry refers to the following situation - but first of all I should like to say, there was never any talk about any collaboration: During the time the institution was constructed, I had taken over a number of people in these barracks, who in themselves had nothing to do with my experiments, but whom I merely gave an opportunity to settle there. If I remember correctly I was informed, or rather I was asked by Professor Wuest, not by Sievers, whether it was possible to accommodate a certain Professor Ploetner to enable him to carry on his experiments. I emphasize this is not a matter of collaboration, but merely the furnishing of space. I met Professor Ploetner, he was introduced to me, and we went out to the barracks, which at that time had only been half completed.
Q Doctor, I believe that will suffice.
A Perhaps I may add that Dr. Ploetner looked at the barracks and said he did not have sufficient space there.
Q Did you have an opportunity of ascertaining whether Sievers had anything to do with Dr. Schilling's department?
A No.
Q You really had nothing to do with the real inside of the concentration camp in Dachau?
A No, this research station was outside the SS camp.
I was not even allowed to enter the concentration camp.
Q During the course of your activities at Dachau, did you ever come in contact with Professor Blome?
A Yes, that occurred in the beginning; and I don't know whether directly through Blome or through Sievers' mediation I received an inquiry to the effect that I render an expert opinion to Dy. Blome concerning the possibility of taking a combat measure in case that harmful insects be dropped from airplanes.
Q Did this conference with Blome concern itself with an active biological warfare?
A No, at that time the question was discussed whether it was possible that in the case of dropping potatoe insects, a certain counter measure could be taken, and what in detail was to be done.
Q Was Sievers present during that conference?
A I believe.
Q Did you see Professor Hirt, the anatomical expert at the University of Strassburg?
A Yes, I made his acquaintance upon my own desire. In the expert world, it was well known that Hirt had developed a fluorescent microscopic method with the Zeiss firm. At this time it was quite a new affair and I was extremely interested in the matter, because I attempted to apply this method also in the entomological field. At this time I drew Sievers' attention to this method whereupon Sievers replied that he know Professor Hirt, and Professor Hirt was collaborating with him in some manner. He further said that he would make it possible for me to meet Hirt and I would therefore be able to look at his intravital microscopic work.
Q. You then looked at Hirt's work, and this mainly concerned experiments with insects?
AA number of gentlemen were present at that time. I remember that Hirt held an introductory lecture about his method, and he then demonstrated it.
Q Was the other part of Dr. Hirt's activities discussed in Strassburg at that time?
A No.
Q In the summer of 1944 sea-water experiments were to be carried out at Dachau; did Sievers discuss this question with you?
A No, Sievers said nothing to me about sea-water experiments, but the following connection has to be observed here. Sievers, one day asked me, when visiting me, whether it was possible for me to furnish a room. We were then concerned with a number of chemists who were to carry out chemical examinations and had to be accommodated for two to three weeks. He said that the gentlemen would bring all the equipment with them that they only need a room and they needed gas and water. I agreed to do that, and after a certain period of time a number of gentlemen arrived and settled there. It was only on this occasion that I found out what the connection was, namely that seawater was to be made potable by applying a special method, and this sea-water was to be given to the inmates to drink and that the analysis of urine was to be carried out in the room I placed at the disposal of these chemists.
Q You know nothing about the manner of execution of these experiments?
A No, nothing at all.
Q Can you say anything at all about Sievers' participation in these experiments?
A No, I know nothing further than that Dr. Sievers asked me, if it would be possible to accommodate a number of these chemists for a period of from two to three weeks.
Q I once more establish that your institute had nothing at all to do with these sea water experiments. Do you know on the basis of conversations which you heard at your institute anything about the extent and the result of these sea water experiments?
A No, I found out nothing about that. I only found out what I already told you concerning this room which I furnished and where I knew that urinalyses were being carried through. I only came into a very superficial contact with these gentlemen. I remember a certain man -- I think his name was Schuster or Schumacher -- who repeatedly approached me because he as a civilian, like myself, could not eat at the officers' mess, and had to go somewhere else for his food, and that is how a very superficial contact was established with that gentleman.
Q I am being informed that when translating the demonstration of Hirt regarding intravital microscopical work; the word "frogs" was not used, in the translation, and I should once more like to establish that the demonstrations of Hirt's that you witnessed were carried out on frogs.
A Yes; that is correct.
Q In connection with these sea water experiments, do you remember the name, "Dr. Beiglboeck"?
A Yes. By way of conversation I learned through my secretary that this group of chemists who were working with me were working under a certain Professor Beiglboeck. Personally I did not make the acquaintance of Professor Beiglboeck.
Q This conference regarding the furnishing of the room took place on the 20th of July, 1944, on the basis of Sievers' diary. Do you know whether Sievers went to Dachau after this period of time?
A No.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have concluded the examination of this witness. 5882
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to the witness on the part of any other Defense Counsel? If not, the Prosecution may crossexamine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Witness, what is your present address?
A My present address is the same which was mentioned by Defense Counsel before, Starnberg, Oberbayern.
Q Whom are you living with now?
A With whom?
Q Yes.
A I am living alone.
Q You are living alone. How well did you know Professor Hirt?
A I made Professor Hirt's acquaintance at Strassbourg. That was probably around Summer, 1944.
Q How well did you know Dr. Rascher?
A I made Dr. Rascher's acquaintance in Spring, 1944, when I was engaged in the construction of the institute. On one occasion when I was out there and observed the development of the institute, an officer came alone, and introduced himself to me. He said his name was Dr. Rascher, and he told me that he was active in the camp doing experimental work, and on that occasion asked me what my activity was. I told Dr. Rascher about my work, and he asked me to show him some of my laboratory equipment which was unpacked.
Q Well, now, after you had been established in the entomological institute which was outside of the camp at Dachau, did you ever have a visit from Professor Blome?
A No. Professor Blome was never in Dachau.
Q You don't ever remember seeing Professor Blome on his way to visit Dr. Rascher?
A No.
Q You never heard whether or not Professor Blome experimented on human beings with Dr. Rascher? 5883
A No; I never heard anything about that.
Q Well, now, do you know a Miss Schmidt that used to work for Professor Hirt?
A No.
Q Didn't Miss Schmidt at one time work for Professor Hirt and then come to work with you?
A Schmidt?
Q That's right.
A Schmidt.
Q Yes.
A I beg your pardon. I understood "Smead". It is "Schmidt". Yes. Yes. I know that a Miss Schmidt came to me and worked with me as a technical assistant. She had previously been working with Professor Hirt.
Q Did Miss Bennemann also come to work with you from Professor Hirt's laboratory?
A Yes. Yes. These two ladies, Miss Schmidt and Miss Bennemann, had come from Professor Hirt.
Q What was their specific field of research? Were they specialists in some sort of particular problem that you had an interest in?
A No. They had no special research field at all. They were ordinary technical assistants as one needs them in every laboratory. I had a great lack of technical assistants. I only had one who was not very good, and I repeatedly asked Mr. Sievers to get me at least another two technical assistants since I could not make any progress in any other way. As a result, one day these two ladies arrived, Schmidt and Bennemann. They had no special knowledge of any kind but only knew about general technical matters as is demanded of a technical assistant.
Q Well, now, how far is it -- how long a ride is it from Strassburg to Dachau? 5884
A That all depends. It depends what time you are speaking of. It depends whether any air attacks were taking place or not. At any rate, when I was in Strassburg at that time visiting Professor Hirt, there was an express train from Munich to Strassburg which was very fast.
I am not sure whether it took eight or ten hours. At any rate, one could do it within one day. Later, however, that was no longer possible.
Q Well, these two assistants that you received from Professor Hirt, they later went back to Professor Hirt, didn't they?
A I don't know that at the moment. I think they stayed with me almost until the laboratory dissolved. I can't tell you that exactly. I think I can remember that at least one of these two young ladies left a little earlier than the other one in order to go to Tuebingen. Already in March or April I sent my female assistants home.
Q Well, now, they went to Tuebingen to the institute that Professor Hirt had set up there, didn't they?
A I don't know whether Professor Hirt had an institute at Tuebingen.
Q Now, Doctor, you stated that you knew that these experiments were to be conducted concerning sea water. Did you know that these experiments were to be conducted on the inmates of the Dachau concentration camp?
A No. I only learned that later.
Q Well, didn't you assume that they would be conducted on human beings?
A I thought that this regenerated sea water would be given to people to drink, but I didn't think of inmates. I really considered these experiments to be very harmless.
Q Well, then, didn't it strike you rather strange that they would be coming to Dachau to perform these experiments rather than doing it in Berlin?
A No. This didn't strike me as being peculiar at all. At the beginning I thought that I was to accommodate a few chemists temporarily who had been bombed out from somewhere, and that I was giving these people a temporary possibility to work and that they were later to continue their work at another place.
That was what I thought originally.
Q Did you know where Professor Beiglboeck came from?
A No. I hadn't known his name or where he came from.
Q He was a Vienna boy, wasn't he?
A I don't know that.
Q It is rather a substantial ride from Vienna to Dachau, isn't it?
A That is not too bad from Vienna to Munich. You can do that normally within one day or three quarters of a day. That is no affair at all.
Q Then you exclude the possibility that the purpose of bringing these men to Dachau to experiment with sea water was only because the subjects were available there?
A Well, after having heard that from this and that side, I naturally got to know what the connections were: but you were asking me whether from the very beginning I had known about it, and at that time I didn't. I hadn't known that Dr. Beiglboeck had come from Vienna; I didn't know what experiments one was concerned with. All I learned was that a number of chemists would come along to carry out chemical tests. I was asked whether it was possible for me to accommodate them for a short period of time. That was all I knew.
Q Well, now, you gave them a room in your institute, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever see what happened to that room?
A Occasionally I passed the room and I saw that chemical experiments were carried out there. Dr. Schuster or Dr. Schumacher whom I mentioned before, and whose name I don't recollect exactly, -- I found out that urinalyses were being carried out.
Q Now do you know Dr. Mrugowsky, SS-Standartenfuehrer Mrugowsky, who later became SS-Oberfuehrer? Do you know him?
A Yes, I made Dr. Mrugowsky's acquaintance. I saw him once, and that was in Berlin.
Q Do you remember when you met him in Berlin?
A Well, that is hard to say.
Q Would you say it was -
A I was in Berlin ver often.
Q Would you say it was in the year 1941? 1942?
A No. No. No. No. No. That must have been in 1944. The only year in question is 1944, but I don't know exactly when in 1944.
Q Let's have a look at a document, Doctor, which was presented here in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 124 -
MR. HARDY: -- which Your Honor will find in Document Book No. 3, which is Document No. NO-647 and is on the last page of Document Book No. 3. Now this states: "Notice." The subject: "Cooperation with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen--SS.
"With reference to my letter of 9 June 1942 regarding vermin control, a meeting took place on 21 October 1942 with the participation of SS-Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky and SS-Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Schadlau, Keisbeck Strasse 43/44. Under discussion was the cooperation not only in the field of vermin control but also in the research sphere of Rascher, and with regard to the use of gastein water in cases of freezing as well as in various operational fields of the Hygiene Institute. As had already been laid down in the interview with SSUntersturmfuehrer, Dr. Schadlau, on 6 November 1941, 'K' Enterprise: release of the archeologist Hunt.
"A further meeting took place then at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS on 20 November 1942 in which SS-Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, SS-Standartenfuehrer Sievers, and lecturer Dr. May, took part."
A Yes.
MR. HARDY: "Dr. May promised on that occasion to send in his
Q Do you remember that meeting, Doctor?
A Yes. I remember this meeting very well, only it is my opinion that it took place much later and not in the year of 1942. In effect there was a conference between Sievers, Mrugowsky, and me, at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS. My tasks were discussed at that time, that is, the combat against flies and against mosquitoes.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. WEISGERBER: Would you permit me to put one question to the witness, Mr. President:
BY DR. WEIS GERBER:
Q In connection with the sea water experiment I should like to clarify the following point: When Sievers at that time told you that you would furnish a room at your institute temporarily, did you have tho impression from Sievers remarks that he know the details about the planned experiments?
A NO; Sievers himself had no idea of those experiments.
Q When a little later chemical experiments were carried out at your institute, were they just analysis?
A Yes, pure analysis.
Q Inmates of the camps were not employed?
A No, of course not. There wasn't any space for that. There was no possibility for it. There were three or four gentlemen sitting at a table who were analyzing their substances.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions to tho witness, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: I have one question, Your Honors.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q You stated Dr. Sievers had no knowledge whatsoever of those sea water experiment. How do you know that?
A Otherwise, he probably would have told me what it was all about.
MR. HARDY: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further question of tho witness, counsel for tho defense may proceed.
The witness will be excused from the stand.
DR. WEISGERBER: With the approval of the high Tribunal I should now like to call the witness, Dr. Franz Borkenau.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will call the witness Dr. Franz Borkenau. 5889
JUDGE SEBRING: You will please hold up your right hand and be sworn: Repeat after me:
I Swear by God, the Almight and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You my be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q If you prefer to answer in the English language, please do so. Your name is Franz Borkenau?
A Yes.
Q You were born in Vienna on 15 December 1900?
A Yes.
Q And you now live at Marburg on the Lahn?
A Yes.
Q You hold a degree?
A Yes.
Q What degree?
A In philosophy.
Q Witness, you nay give replies in English if you like. You are now a lecturer at the Marburg University?
A Yes.
Q Would you please describe your career very briefly?
A I was born in Vienna, and went to school there. Then I went to the University in Vienna and at Leipsig, and graduated at Leipzig. Then I lived in Berlin a few years, and accepted a research fellowship at Frankfurt University Institute of social Research, which is now in New York, and while I had this fellowship I was working in Paris first and in Vienna then and then I was surprised by Hitler's advent to power in Vienna; so I just didn't go back; and I didn't spend a day in Nazi Germany or in any other country dominated by the Nazis.
I went to London in 1934 and lived there first as a free lance political writer, published a number of books on political and sociological subjects and from 1938 onwards I taught International Affairs as an adult education lecturer for London-Cambridge Universities at Steton. I took up war work in the proper sense in 1943. Only until then I was teaching international affairs. In 1943 I joined the BBC monitor service, and in 1944 I changed over to the African service of the OWI German policy department, and from there to the American broadcasting station in Europe as a German Editor. I was scheduled to go to Luxembourg at the end of 1944, and then that didn't come off owing to the Rundstedt offensive, so I only got to the continent at the end of July 1945 with the Allied Press Service at Luxembourg as an Allied employee accompanying the American forces. I might state that I was born in Austria and am stateless now, so I worked in Luxembourg first, still in American civilian uniform, and then went to Bad Nauheim where I helped build up tho Press Agency Dana, for a time had under me Foreign Affairs in the Dana, and then on the suggestion of the American University Officer Dr. Hartsherne, I took up a lectureship in social science and history in Marburg which I hold at present. Of course, I had a sort of idea I would do that if possible when I left England and returned to the Continent.
Q Witness, the defendant Wolfram Sievers, whom I am representing here is relying on the fact in his defense that already prior to 1933 and then during the entire subsequent period of the national socialist regime he was a member of the resistance groups headed by Dr. Hielscher. Now I have been attempting to give the High Tribunal the possibility to gain a picture of Dr. Hielscher's personality. Do you know Dr. Friedrich Hielscher?
A Yes
Q When did you make his acquaintance?
A I met Dr. Hielscher first in the spring of 1928. I was then still a Communist. I left the Communist Party a year after and I was a Communist member of the Students' Representation at Berlin University. We had inter-party students' debates and I not Dr. Hielscher there as a speaker for the Right. Also we had a snail shoot from our Communist Students' group, and there once, from reading Hielscher's "Vormarsch", we started debating briefs with him which led us to personal contact. That must have been, I should say, perhaps February or March 1928.
Q. During the later period did you get into any close contact with Friedrich Hielscher?
A I should say no. IN the year after I left Berlin. Although I left Berlin the year after and that, of course, limited my contact with Hielscher to the periods when I was in Berlin, but that was on very frequent visits, and before that, one year I was still living in Berlin, so all through that time I got into increasingly close contact with him. That, of course, was made still easier when I left the Communist Party and so I was no longer in the Party discipline and could say and talk what I liked and see whom I liked. So, all through that time, we talked at length about many subjects, politics and also nonpolitical things end I got increasingly interested in Hielscher because he was so utterly untypical, as a man coming from the right. First of all, he was just an interesting man, to chat with, but apart from that I started to wonder more and more and I found points where our opinions touched and perhaps even met, despite the fact that we had come from extremely opposite wings of the political rainbow.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this testimony of the witness thus far is merely covering the period from 1929 to 1933. The charges here in the indictment include the years from 1939 to 1933 in the first instance; and secondly, I point to the objection by the prosecution to calling this witness. The Prosecution objected on the grounds that the witness is merely to testify as to the personality of Hielscher, and it appears that that is all he is going to do. If that is the case, I think this testimony is irrelevant here. If he is going to testify to the personality of the Defendant Sievers, he may continue, but this manner of examination I don't think is taking up the valuable time of the Tribunal correctly. Your Honor, I would further request that the Tribunal asks if this witness knows the defendant Sievers.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, may I shortly define my attitude to that? When making my written application I already pointed out that Dr. Borkenau will be a witness for the resistance activity of Dr. Hielscher and will testify in that regard. I believe that the Tribunal two weeks ago when the prosecutor already raised objection against these witnesses, Dr. Borkenau and Dr. Topf, I had heard the same arguments as just new.
At that time I defined my attitude and my attitude now is completely the same. If I am calling Dr. Hielscher as the principal witness for Dr. Sievers activity in his resistance movement, I cannot expect the High Tribunal to have a complete picture about Dr. Hielscher's activity in Germany. Now, in order toenable the Tribunal to gain some picture about Dr. Hielscher, I called Dr. Borkenau and Dr. Topfas I already stated at an earlier date. I therefore ask that those two witnesses be approved, which has already happened, and you permit me to continue questioning these witnesses.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it was my understanding that the objection of the prosecution to the calling of these two witnesses was overruled on the grounds that it was the understanding of the Tribunal that their testimony would go over and beyond that of testifying as to the personality of Hielscher, and this man here is merely testifiying as to the personality of Hielscher and the resistance movement and that is not an issue in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has assumed that the testimony of the witness heretofore was largely preliminary. The witness will be entitled to testify, within reasonable limit, to the fact that there was, at the time testified to by the Defendant Sievers, a genuine resistance movement in Germany, and testify to some extent concerning what that movement was and what it did and anything he knows if any thing, about the activities of the defendant Sievers.
The objection to that will be overruled.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, may I briefly add that the witness, Dr. Borkenau, as well as the witness, Dr. Topf, know as well as nothing about Dr. Sievers activity within the framework of the resistance movement where Dr. Hielscher was active. But about Dr. Hielscher.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Very well, counsel. I wasn't sure whether the witness knew anything about that or not. The witness may testify as to the existence of non-existence of a genuine, bonafide resistance movement in Germany during the years testified to by the Defendant Sievers.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I interpose a question here to defense counsel that, inasmuch as Dr. Topf, his next witness to be called, will testify substantially the same things as this witness is testifying to, the prosecution will be in a position to stipulate that if they submit an affidavit by the witness to be called, Topf, concerning the background and the history of the resistance movement, and inasmuch as Topf has no knowledge about the defendant Sievers, that we will stimulate that we will not wish to crossexamine Topf, if that be the case, and that will save considerable time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel would not be required to cross examine the witness if he didn't desire to do so.
At this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning at which time counsel may proceed with the examination of tne witness.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 0930 HOURS, 15 APRIL 1947).
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in the court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Rose who was excused by the Tribunal yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Rose, who is excused in order to spend the day consulting with his counsel.
The Tribunal desires to announce that when a recess is taken tomorrow at 12:30 o'clock the Tribunal will not reconvene until ten minutes after 10:00 o'clock on Thursday morning. There will be no session of the Tribunal tomorrow afternoon.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FRANZ BORKENAU - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q Witness, I remind you that you are still today under oath. At the conclusion of yesterday afternoon's session you briefly told us when you made Friedrich Hielscher's acquaintance and for what reasons you established a close contact with him. My question is, did you clearly realize Hielscher's attitude toward the National Socialism at that time--that was around 1930?
A I don't think Hielscher at that time took the Nazis very seriously, as in fact few people did. I think he regarded Hitler as a mountebank, almost as a sort of a harlequin. His whole interest at that time was concentrated upon Italian Fascism, and that was just one of the reasons why I got so interested in and that he was violently hostile to Italian Fascism in all its aspects. That, of course, was exceptional because practically everybody of the right had at least some mild sympathy for Mussolini, and Hielscher made definite an exception on all grounds. First of all, I must say he was very much opposed to big business and to large landed property, and he regarded Italian Fascism as an agent of these social forces. Also he was opposed to the whole atmosphere, to the whole spirit of the thing. I remember if I may just give one incident-I remember on the evening when when the news came through of that miserable failure of that grandiloquent North Polo expedition of General Nobile, and I and one or two of my friends were sitting together with Hielscher and, I believe, one of his friends somewhere-perhaps a beer garden I don't remember exactly-they were just exalted about that failure and about the blow it was to Fascist prestige.
Well, from 1931 onwards Nazism of course started to become important, and we talked about it a few times--we met in 1931--and Hielscher was getting more and more bitter about the prospect of that sort of thing getting important in Germany. Now there is one talk, in fact, the last time we met--I met him again in 1945--the last time I met him before Hitler--they must have been the beginning of September 1332, perhaps it was the end of August: I was with my friend Loewental who is now at Router's. Incidentally, I should say one of the reasons why Hielscher could never have any truck with National Socialism was his definite friendliness with Jews. I myself am a case in point and so is Richard Loewental whom I just mentioned. And as far as I know that I know only indirectly--he had quite a close contact with Martin Bober, a well-known Zionist philosopher.