I would suggest I hand the originals to Mr. Hardy, which would enable him to look at them with the assistance of his German speaking assistants, and that I would be permitted to submit them to the Tribunal after recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We have Document Book III by Mrugowsky.
DR. FLEMMING: These are the excerpts from the Pohl record. The other documents, the other affidavits, which I submit, are in Supplement II.
THE PRESIDENT: I have here a "Table of Contents of Supplement III" by Mrugowsky, evidently what appeared by the statement of the prosecution's witness Kogon.
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, these are the testimonies of Kogon in the Pohl tribunal. Supplemental Volume 2 is also the other one I intend to offer.
MR. HARDY: Supplement 2 is the one Mr. Hodges said we would get today. I think we could hold up on Dr. Flemming and I think we will get the English today.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be filed with the Secretary-General the excuse from the prison physician on the absence of the defendant Herta Oberhauser, who is ill.
DR. TIPP: (Defense counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng.) Mr. President, I have two documents for Becker-Freyseng, which I have still to put in. Becker-Freyseng document 80, which was Exhibit 65. This is an affidavit from Dr. Max Matthes dated 25 June 1947. This document I received only yesterday for translation, but do not know if it is translated; however, I should like to read some of the important parts into the record. The document is net very long, the important passages do not embrace more than two pages. I think it would be best if we had it read into the record now.
MR. HARDY: It is a little late, Your Honor, for this document.
DR. TIPP: That is not our fault, Your Honor, but the fault of the bad postal connections between Nurnberg and Bonn. We asked for it a long time ago, but only yesterday did we receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. TIPP: "The affiant Max Matthes, Bonn, Kaiser Friedrich Strass, after the importance of this affidavit and punishability of bearing false witness has been brought to his attention, signs the following affidavit to be put in as evidence before the Military Tribunal No. 1 in Nurnberg: I. Regarding the Person" I may skip the first few sentences and I shall begin about twothirds of the way down:
"At the beginning of March of 1943 I, as chief medical officer was appointed Sea Emergency Service Leader 5 (North) in Oslo, after I had prepared myself for this post by working on the documents on sea emergency service (draft of the conference report, sea emergency experience reports, etc.) which Professor Dr. Anthony and Dr. Becker Freyseng put at my disposal.
At the end of March, 1944 I was transferred in the same capacity to the main center of gravity for sea emergency service, namely the Black Sea. After the Baltic retreat I was appointed as the Navy Training Director for the medical personnel the Navy Personnel School of the Luftwaffe, Lobbe at Ruegen."
The other sentences in this part are net important. I now turn to No. 2. Regarding the facts:
"1 - In the conference on medical problems in sea emergency and winter distress of October, 1942, which took place in Nurnberg, I did not take part. The contents of the lectures delivered there became known to me only later through reading the printed reports on the conference, which were distributed in 1943 and in which the scientific grounds for the theory of rapid rewarming were given. So far as I have discussed this theme with medical officers and troops officers in the sea emergency service, they never mentioned any alleged unpermissable human experiments and did not even hint at them."
"2 - Rapid rewarming had already been introduced when I was transferred to the sea emergency service at the beginning of March 1943. This included: a) a special memorandum, which was distributed in the summer of 1943 to the troops and was to replace the memorandum of August 1942 in the soldiers' book of the Luftwaffe soldiers in the Northern and Eastern area; b) instructions for handling cases of severe cooling which occurred in ships and boats, as well as in the emergency airplanes of the Luftwaffe, and which also replaced previous instructions in which slow rewarming was ordered; c) 'Instructions for Troop Physicians', distributed by the Inspector or Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. It was distributed to the troop doctors in Norway in the summer of 1943."
"3 - The German Navy also, on the example of the Luftwaffe, introduced the method of rewarming persons who had been severely cooled."
I can skip the next sentences. I go now to No. 4.
"4 - In order to carry out rapid rewarming, the following technical means were issued in the sea emergency service:
(a) In the ship hospitals of the rescue ships, hot baths were installed. (When I arrived in Norway this reconstruction had to a large part been.) Moreover, there were electrical heating rooms used there.
(b) In the emergency rescue boats, the radiator water, which was 45 degrees centigrade, was piped to a shower room.
(c) In the emergency rescue airplanes there were two electrically heated sleeping bags, which were heated up to 40 degrees centigrade.
(d "Efforts were made in all emergency rescue stations on land to have boats and air-planes and hot bathing arrangements available in the immediate neighborhood of where the ships landed. Where no other means were available, electrically heated bags were used.
"5. During my activity in the emergency sea service I frequently applied this method of rapid rewarming. I never observed fatalities or serious or lasting injuries to the body. On the contrary, when a troop transport sank in the Black Sea I experienced this castrophe, where we did not have the necessary equipment for rapidly rewarming those who had been frozen and were the immediate transport to hospitals was not possible in all cases; and in the cases which could not be subjected to rapid re-warning there were fatalities, whereas those who had rapidly been rewarmed had no fatalities.
"6-- According to the experience reports of the Nave, those on ships had good experiences with this method of rapid rewarming in the case of persons who had experienced ship wreck. At any rate the number of persons mentioned in those reports who were saved by this method of treatment is very large."
No. 7 I may skip and like wise 8, 9, and 10 also are not of decisive importance in this trial, so I shall skip them.
"11. According to the reports I knew of at that time the units of the German Sea Emergency Rescue Service carried out more than 6,000 successful resuces, of which ten per-cent were members of the air forces and navies of the allies."
I shall dispense with reading the rest of the document.
It was signed in Bonn on 25 June 1947 by Dr. Max Matthes and on the 26th it was certified by the Notary in Bonn. I shall put this document in as Becker Freyseng document 80, which will be Exhibit 65.
As the last Becker Freyseng Document I have Becker Freyseng Document No. 81, which will be Exhibit 66. This is an excerpt from the publication of the French Academy of Sciences of 7 October 1935. It is a scientific paper on immunization by Blanc, Novrit and Baltasar. This work, Mr. President, was discussed by the witness Haagen in his direct examination here. The Prosecutor at that time wished to have this document shown to him and I am taking into consideration that wish and the document is now. The translation into English is not yet ready but I may perhaps put it in and I am sure the translation will soon be here.
MR. HARDY: After considering the testimony of Haagen I think the Prosecution can dispense with receipt of this copy and thus dispense with the translation if defense counsel wished to withdraw the document.
DR. TIPP: This concludes Becker Freyseng's defense.
DR. DUERR: FOR DEFENDANT POPPENDICK:
I have one more document, Your Honors. This document was approved by the Tribunal Saturday afternoon. This is an affidavit by the defendant himself. I should like to have this affidavit read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: The English translation has not yet come through. How long is the document?
DR. DUERR: One half a page, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding I would ask if any of defense counsel know where Dr. Weissgerber, counsel for defendant Sievers, is. I understood his document book was to be ready at half past one. We could proceed if he was here.
DR. TIPP: So far as I know, Your Honors, Weissgerber was informed of this. He said that he would come as soon as he had received the English translation in the Information Center. Apparently the translation has not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.
DR. DUERR: I shall now offer Poppendick Exhibit HPO 24, which will be Exhibit 24. After the usual introduction it reads:
"Regarding Professor Teitke's letter of 29 April 1943 to me I say the following:
"At the tine when I wasan assistant at the First Medical University Clinic, 1929 to 1932, Tietke was Chief Physician at the same clinic. Teitke later became the director of a large municipal hospital in Berlin, namely the Urban Hospital. About 1943, Professor Teitke was taken into the Public Heath administration in Poland. Teitke knew that I was active in the Race and Settlement Office, but he had no insight into my activities and tasks. Teitke wrote the above cited letter to me since he knew me personally and believed that I could give him information about the above mentioned questionnaire and hereditary card file. I did not however know this questionnaire and still don't know of it. The Dieckmann Publishing House, was so, far as I know, the house that worked for the Reich Ministry of the Interior; and the card index on hereditary was introduced by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to by used in the Municipal Health Office. Consequently I was not in a position to give tietke the information he requested. As I remember, Teitke shortly thereafter came to Berlin and telephoned me to ask about this letter. I advised him to turn to the Health Department of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, since in my opinion, that office was competent. I never had anything officially to do with the matters mentioned in the letter, the taking care of German Soldiers' children born of Polish women, and never found out anything about that matter thereafter. This letter of Professor Teitke's to me with the request for information about matters that had nothing to do with my fielf of work, was an absolutely unique occurrence.
Its cause is to be found in the fact that Teitze remembered his acquaintance with me and had the vague idea that I might be able to give him some information." The document has been correctly certified. That concludes the defense of Poppendick.
DR. MARX: For Professor Dr. Schroeder.
Mr. President, I should like to put in five documents for Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, have these documents been translated? Have these documents been translated into English?
DR. MARX: They have not yet been translated. Therefore, I should like to take the liberty of giving the originals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed first with the documents which we have already translated into English. I understand that the documents on behalf of the defendant Sievers have now been translated. Is that correct, Dr. Weissgerber?
DR. WEISSGERBER: FOR SIEVERS.
I have just inquired at the Information Center for the English translations. I was told they were not yet there and that it would take a little while still.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was assured they would be there at one-thirty o'clock.
DR. WEISSGERBER: I have just come from there and they are not there.
DR. HOFFMAN: For Defendant Porknorny:
I believe that none of my colleagues have the English translations available now but they are on the way; but I am sure that my translations will not come in today, so I ask permission to put these documents in now and permission to read them into the record.
MR. HARDY: I might inquire whether or not any defense coun sel other than those here in the court room now have further documents to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: Whether or not defense counsel who are not in court now are advised as to that I don't know.
MR. HARDY: We night take time to find out now how much they are going to be and adjourn until tomorrow; and my rebuttal documents I can put in in fifteen minutes tomorrow afternoon. If we have five documents for Schroeder and two for another and two from another then we might be in good stead and adfourn until tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I was assured the Sievers documents would be ready at one-thirty and we should have the rest this afternoon and I do not desire to recess, and we can go ahead with these this afternoon.
MR. HARDY: They are not here yet, Your Honors. Shall we wait for them a few moments?
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the Prosecution examined these documents of the defendant Porkorny in German?
MR. HARDY: No, I haven't your Honor. Dr. Fleming--
DR. FLEMMING: I have one document I can put in now if I can get an English copy later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Fleming. Dr. Fleming we will hear from you now with the document. You may proceed to offer the document for Dr. Steinbauer.
DR. FLEMMING: This is an excerpt from the police record of Hoellenrainer, the gypsy who testified here yesterday. This is Document Beiglboeck 40, and it will be Exhibit 38. This is the record of Hoellenrainer's previous convictions.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I should now like to put in the two documents for Dr. Pokorny that I did not have available during the presentation of his case but which I was permitted to put in later.
First, there is an affidavit by Pokorny himself, which gives an exhaustive explanation of what his thoughts were when he drew up his letter and explains why he thought that caladium sequinum could not be used for sterilization. I do not wish to read the document in its entirety into the record. It will be translated. However, I should like to read the most important passage.
MR. HARDY: I don't see the necessity for reading some of the passages out of this. It is an expert opinion on the part of Pokorny. His own testimony was heard on direct, and this is his expert opinion on why he thought it was of no value.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit may be received in evidence, but I see no reason for reading portions of it in the record, Counsel. Just offer the exhibit and give it a number.
DR. HOFFMAN: Very well. Then this affidavit is Document 29, and it will be Exhibit 29.
The next affidavit is an expert opinion by Dr. Jung of the University of Wuerzburg, who states his opinion regarding the question of sterilization with caladium sequinum. This affidavit is also to be translated, but if the Tribunal will permit, I would like to read the summary at the end. It is very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel.
DR. HOFFMANN: The expert comes to the following conclusion:
"Madaus and Koch made animal experiments on sterilization through caladium sequinum. The conclusions set down in Madaus and Koch's paper, 'Animal Experimentation as Elucidation of the Question of Sterilization by Way of Drugs, Using Caladium Sequinum', are certainly honest, but are of no importance regarding the question of caladium sequinum's sterilization effects.
These effects are part of a general toxic effect of caladium extract. Caladium can be used for sterilizing, or achieve the same effects as castration, but not more and not less than can be achieved with hunger, vitamin deficiency, infection, inflammation, and so on.
"The experiments of Madaus and Koch with respect to their application to human beings are in no way proof of anything. The symptoms in the sexual glands of the experimental animals are only a revertible, partial symptom, part of a permanent injury to the organism as a whole endangering its life, and have nothing to do with true sterilization or castration. Pokorny's suggestions, which are based on certain completely unfounded conclusions from the Madaus paper, can readily be recognized as fallacious by experts in the field."
This is Pokorny Document 30, which will be Exhibit 30.
That concludes my presentation for Pokorny.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will deliver these documents to the Translation Department, which will translate them so that the English translations may be filed.
DR. HOFFMANN: Very well.
DR. FROSCHMANN: I have only a request, Your Honor. At the conclusion of the morning session I was told by the Defense Center that the three Brack Exhibits approved this morning by the Tribunal-namely, 52, 53, and 54--would not be translated save by explicit instructions from the President of the Tribunal I therefore ask that the Translation Department be given that explicit instruction.
THE PRESIDENT: The Translation Department will be so instructed. I spoke to the Chief of the Translation Department this noon, and he informed me that the department had not refused to translate any documents at all but had simply told Defense Counsel bringing in documents late that they could not be ready by tomorrow morning, or this morning, but I will give instructions that these documents be translated, and, Dr. Froschmann, if you will again offer the second document that you offered this morning, which the Tribunal rejected, that second document will be admitted in evidence.
DR. FROSCHMANN: I shall do so immediately.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I request that the admission of those two documents be forestalled until such time as I get an English copy so that I can render a proper objection. I do not think that the document is admissible. I have not seen it in English. I think I should see it in the English language in order to object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: You can if you desire.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for Defendant Hoven): Mr. President, I have one document, an affidavit which refers to the document put in by the Prosecution on Saturday, namely, NO 2631, which was accepted in evidence--an affidavit by Ackermann. I could not put in this affidavit earlier than right now because the Prosecution put in its Document 2631, Exhibit 522, only last Saturday. Since this document was accepted in evidence last Saturday, I could not bring this document earlier. For the same reason, I do not have an English translation. I could have this affidavit taken down only yesterday afternoon.
MR. HARDY: This needs clarification badly. Document 522 was put in during the cross-examination of Hoven, not on Saturday. Furthermore, Hoven stated on direct examination that he never just arbitrarily selected anybody for exterminations or injections. This affidavit completely rebuts his testimony in that an eye-witness saw Hoven point out the window and say, "I want that man's skull on my desk in the morning." It is testimony of a witness on rebuttal. I do not see any occasion for an answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness Hoven expressly denied the testimony to which you are referring. Who makes this affidavit, Counsel? Is this an affidavit?
DR. GAWLIK: This is an affidavit regarding Ackermann's credibility. Mr. President, to be sure, Hoven denied this, but I must have the opportunity to substantiate Hoven's denial.
THE PRESIDENT: If the document you offer concerns the credibility of the witness Ackermann, you may offer the document.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: It would not be received if it is simply contradictory as to facts, but if it attacks the credibility of the witness, it may be received.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I want to know who the author of this document that he is putting in is.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose affidavit are you offering?
DR. GAWLIK: Paul Dorn is the affiant. He was a witness here. At that time I could not put this question to him because at that time this Ackermann issue had not arisen.
MR. HARDY: It is perfectly all right if he puts in the affidavit of Paul Dorn. He is one of the witnesses that appeared here before Hoven took the stand, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: This is an affidavit stating, "I, Paul Dorn, born 16 February 1916 in Winzheim"--and then the usual introduction.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how long is the affidavit?
DR. GAWLIK: One page, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: "I am the same Paul Dorn who testified here as a witness on 5 and 6 June 1947 before Military Tribunal I.
"Josef Ackermann's affidavit Document 2631, Exhibit 522, has been shown to me. I know Josef Ackermann. I made his acquaintance in the concentration camp Buchenwald in 1941. I know the general reputation which Josef Ackermann enjoyed in the concentration camp Buchenwald. Josef Ackermann enjoyed among the prisoners in the concentration camp a very bad reputation.
I still remember for certainty that Josef Ackermann in about the year 1942 or 1943 betrayed a few prisoners who had stolen some food in the camp to the SS camp management--namely, to the head of the administrative custody camp, Schober. Among the prisoners whom Josef Ackermann denounced was included the former political prisoner Heinrich Bach, a medical student by profession, from Finsterwalde. The SS camp management then carried out exhaustive investigations of the persons denounced. Heinrich Bach was to be transferred to the quarry work detail, where he very probably would have died. It is only to be attributed to Dr. Hoven's intervention that the SS camp management could not carry out this plan. Dr. Hoven first accommodated Bach in Block 46 in order to withdraw him from the clutches of the SS camp command. I think it therefore quite possible that Ackermann had a disinclination toward Dr. Hoven because Hoven helped the prisoners whom Ackermann had denounced at that time.
"I state further Dr. Hoven never had a skull on his desk. This I know for certain. My statements here refer to the period from 1941 until his imprisonment in September 1943. I, therefore, consider it out of the question that Hoven asked Ackermann to give him a skull for his desk."
This will be Hoven Document and Exhibit No. 20. I ask that the Translation Department be requested to provide the necessary English translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Translation Department will be so advised.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, after hearing this document I could stipulate that Hoven didn't want the skull for his desk for an ornament. Hoven wanted the skull put on his desk. This affidavit has no value. I will stipulate now Hoven didn't want the skull for an ornament for his desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit has some value as to the witness Ackermann. In so far as stating a fact it is not proper rebuttal; but it has some pertinency regarding Ackermann's credibility.
Dr. Marx, how many affidavits have you to offer? How many exhibits?
DR. MARX: Six, your honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When were they delivered to the Translation Department?
DR. MARX: Most of them about 10 days ago. One went to them a little bit later than that. I have just heard that most of them have already been translated. Does the Tribunal have these translations?
THE PRESIDENT: Not yet.
MR. HARDY: In as much as most of these are translated can't we hold up the presentation of the Schroeder ones?
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't going to have them presented, merely wanted to know when they were handed into the Translation Department. The Tribunal will now be in recess a few moments while I communicate with the head of the Translation Department.
In the meantime I would have Dr. Froeschmann interpret the document to Mr. Hardy, the one he read here in Court.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. STEINBAUER: (Counsel for defendant Prof. Dr. Beiglboeck) Mr. President, according to my application, the witness Josef Tschofenig had been brought to Nurnberg for the purposes of crossexamination.
Then making his testimony about his activities as an X-ray Kapo at Dachau he raised an serious accustation against my client to the effect that a man, in his opinion, became a victim of the seawater experiments. In order to refute the credibility of that witness, especially with reference to his activity and knowledge as an X-ray expert, I have called upon an expert, an X-ray technologist, Dr. Gerhard Hammer, the head of the X-ray Institute of the Hospital of Nurnberg, and asked him to give us his expert opinion. The said man is an elderly man, a very busy physician, and only this morning in the hospital have I been able to get his opinion. In view of the importance of this matter and in order to refute the credibility of the witness I should like to get the permission to submit the opinion to the High Tribunal. Since it was not translated I shall only read the beginning and the end of that statement.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in this connection, might I ask defense counsel what association Dr. Gerhard Hammer had with the witness Tschofenig?
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Hammer has no personal connection at all with the witness Tschofenig. He does not know him personally. I have submitted to him the court record in its original, and I asked him to check Tschofenig's testimony on what happened in this record, especially with reference to his statements which he made as an alleged X-ray specialist.
MR. HARDY: If the expert witness has no knowledge of the work of Tschofenig in Dachau, where Tschofenig was working in the X-ray institute and was not a Kapo, as stated by Defense Counsel, I do not see how this witness would be qualified to testify as to the witness Tschofenig. He never saw the witness take an x-ray. He never saw the witness analyze an x-ray. The witness did not testify to the condition of the inmate whom he claimed died as a result of the seawater plates. He testified from observation. I think the document is completely inadmissible inasmuch as the expert has no knowledge of the work of Tschofenig to refer to and has never seen Tschofenig operating x-ray equipment and has never seen Tschofenig analyzing an x-ray. I do not see how he can qualify to give expert testimony as to whether or not Tschofenig is qualified to testify in the manner that he did before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, I do not see how this affidavit can be admissible in the absence of any knowledge on the part of your witness of Tschofenig's personality, work, ability as an x-ray man. This application will have to be denied.
DR. STEINBAUER: Tschofenig in appearing as a witness has stated that he carried out 300 x-ray treatments daily, which would represent about 10,000 x-ray treatments per year. This expert proves that this is impossible.
Furthermore, he exactly described, the state of the x-ray picture of the alleged victim of the seawater experiments. The expert states his opinion on that matter too. On the basis of this statement, it can be clearly established that Tschofenig's testimony is incorrect, and in order to refute Tschofenig's credibility I have brought this opinion to the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion, Doctor, that this is not proper rebuttal at this time. Your application is denied.
I understand that Counsel for Defendant Sievers is ready with some documents. Counsel may proceed.
DR. WEISSGERBER (Counsel for defendant Sievers): Mr. President, I am going to submit all supplemental documents. The first document in my supplemental document volume is a letter sent by Rudolf Brandt to Sievers with reference to Professor Hirt's research with intravital microscopy. This is Document NO-059 of the Prosecution. I shall prove with this document that Himmler attached particular importance to Hirt's activity and for that reason it says in the last sentence of this document, "Please contact Hirt as soon as possible on this question and try to think out the best way of getting Hirt into a still closer connection with us."
This document will receive Exhibit Number 49.
The next document will be Siever's Document 54. This will receive Exhibit Number 50. I shall remind you that Sievers, in connection with the conference which he had with Himmler at Easter of 1942, tried to separate the departments dealing with medical questions from the administration of the "Ahnenerbe". Himmler opposed that suggestion and referred to the so-called Commissar Order with reference to Hirt's assignment. The Commissar Order itself was not submitted during the proceedings before the IMT. I have not been in a position to get a copy of this original Commissar Order. However, in order to enable the Tribunal to gain a picture of the contents of this Commissar Order, I have extracted the directives for the units of the chiefs of the Security Police and the SD, which are to be attached to the Stalags. I have submitted that in this document, and this document was also submitted before the IMT as USA Exhibit 486.
I am merely submitting this document in order to illustrate what Himmler meant when he referred to the Commissar Order during this conference at Easter 1942.
The next document, your Honor, will be Sievers Document 55, which will receive Siever's Exhibit No. 51. This is an affidavit signed by Dr. Gisela Schmitz, dated 21 April 1947. It also deals with the special protection which Himmler afforded Hirt and which caused Sievers to sponsor Hirt's research work in the manner he did on the basis of his position as Reich Manager of the Research Council. I think that I can forego the reading of this affidavit.
The next document, your Honor, will be Siever's document number 56, which will receive Sievers Exhibit No. 52. This is another affidavit signed by Dr. Gisela Schmitz, who, since she was a secretary of the Ahnenerbe from 1937-45, is in a position to illustrate the events of that time. I remind you that Sievers during his direct examination has stated, among other things, how he protected the geologist Dr. Lais, who was a professor at the University of Freiburg, when he was removed from his office because his wife was Jewish.
Furthermore, this affidavit tells how Sievers protected Freiherr von Rokitansky because he, not being of pure Aryan descent, feared difficulties in the continuance of his duties.
The next document, your Honor, will be Siever's No. 57, which will receive Exhibit No. 53. This is an affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Joseph Wittig. Wittig is a well known Catholic clergyman who is well known beyond the boundaries of Germany. This Professor Wittig certifies that he made Siever's acquaintance through Friedrich Hielscher in the year 1932. Wittig had known Hielscher well and had been on friendly terms with him since 1932. He discussed with Hielscher his fight against National Socialism, and on which occasion Hielscher repeatedly told him about the task which he had given Sievers. I quote the fourth sentence of this affidavit: "As a Christian theologian I can testify that I am deeply convinced of the moral aims and the profound seriousness in which they commenced the task of fighting the Third Reich by applying similar tactics to those of the Trojan Horse."