Q You were a member of the Reich Research Council or at any rate had something to do with it, but do you know anything about sea water?
A I know that you can swim in it.
Q Don't you believe that your entry in the diary, discussion of carrying out sea water experiments, carrying out seems a bit far, is somewhat of an overstatement; you said yesterday that your entries in the diary were often made days after the actual events and I am asking you now, isn't it possible that you were exaggerating a bit when you made this entry in a discussion of carrying cut sea water experiments? This, let me tell you, is very important. We have to go into this very deeply. Please don't feel any hesitation in giving me a straight out answer. Was that carrying out of experiments discussed? Yes or no.
A No, nothing.
Q That is sufficient for me. Then I can sum up your thought in this matter by saying that you, so to speak, were officer on guard?
AAs to what was going to be done here, all I can say here is that I heard something was going to be done with sea water and I put that down in my diary.
Q In ether words, your entry in the diary does not correspond to facts?
A That is quite so, and as I said yesterday in my direct examination.
Q Thank you. We have in the trial Exhibit No. 92, that is a letter from Himmler to Rascher, Exhibit 238, the testimony on the part of Blome. I could also quote you Mr. Pohl, but I don't like the guy, so I won't. Now, in these two documents it is said that Himmler regarded everyone as a traitor who didn't consent to carrying out human being experiments? Do you remember that?
A Yes, we were talking about that before.
Q Now, in your direct examination you twice said that Dr. Ploetner was against sea water experiments, and nevertheless they had Himmler's approval. Mr. Hardy could mean that my client is in the same situation.
Now, I would like you to say that Ploetner was an exception?
A The whole situation here played an essential part in this. You must bear in mind that Rascher was imprisoned and that therefore all the files which were taken to Himmler in general new became very clear, frighteningly clear, that by exploiting this impression Himmler told Ploetner that he did not have to carry out any experiments. He thought he could do it himself.
Q Well, now Ploetner was otherwise described by others as a decent sort of fellow. Now, would you not also corroborate the fact that this is purely theoretical? Remember the Polish clergyman who testified here, and who had seen Ploetner with Schilling?
A Ploetner came in a very tragic manner to Schilling as I mentioned yesterday.
Q Never mind. We don't want to bother the Tribunal with this. We simply want to say Ploetner, despite his disapproval of human being experiments, took part in them?
A Yes, that is so, he was with Schilling.
Q Now, I have a question for Defendant Schaeffer; in your diary a certain Dr. Schaeffer is mentioned. I should like to ask you whether the defendant Schaeffer is the same as the Schaeffer mentioned in your diary?
A This Dr. Schaeffer in the diary was an entomologist who worked a short time in the Entomological Institute, and was not identical with the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions of this witness on the part of defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
Just a moment, counsel, the Tribunal has some questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Do you remember the names of the two experimental human subjects whom you saw at Dachau?
A No, I cannot tell you the names.
Q How did you happen to ask these two experimental subjects whether or not they had volunteered for the experiments?
A I said that both from Himmler and from Rascher I had been told that those were volunteers. I wanted to make sure of this for myself, first of all because I personally because of my general attitude did not believe that these men were really volunteers, and it seemed rather curious to me that in those cases and also later in Natzweiler when I asked, people on this question I was assured that they had volunteered. This statement on their part precluded, my investigating the matter any further.
Q Well, now what difference would, it have made whether they were or were not volunteers, if as you say the experiments wore practically harmless and were being carried out in accordance with sound medical methods?
A I can only testify to this on the basis of any own knowledge with regard, to the high altitude experiment that I saw, and the ten or so experimental persons of Natzweiler who were treated with Lest. The treating experiments were by no means so harmless. I also said, that the man who was brought for the experimentation was a criminal condemned to death, and this experiment also had fatal consequences. But I did not take part in either experiment, and consequently can say nothing further about the nature of the experiments.
Q But you did see the high altitude experiment conducted at Dachau on two experimental subjects, and the experiment was as you saw entirely harmless, and was being carried out in accordance with sound medical methods on men whom you had ascertained by direct conversation were volunteers, is that correct?
A That is true, absolutely true with regard to the experiments that I myself saw.
Q Then why was it that when you returned to Berlin you complained to Himmler about these experiments?
A No matter how actually necessary these experiments might be nevertheless, because of the emphasis that they received in the SS I re pudiated them, because from many of my friends there existed the assurance and conviction that the laws of humanity were being trampled under foot here and that no prisoner, no volunteer, because he had no free will, and that there was nothing more abominable, in our opinion, than to make such use of human beings in this fashion, whether or not the use was dangerous or harmless, and the entire manner and scope of these things appeared to us as an expression not of someone's personal decision, but of what one might call a bureauocratized infamy, and I had the feeling precisely because I knew the difference in the case of these high altitude experiments, since I knew Romberg was a very circumspect and punctilious person, and on the other hand I heard Rascher express himself brutally, saying the persons in question were completely unimportant, and it was for this reason I said to myself there could be consequences after such things got under way that could not be foreseen, and as a matter of fact under Herr Rascher these consequences really did occur.
Q Was that the reason when you returned to Berlin you sought to prevent the return of the low pressure Chamber to Dachau for the second time for additional experiments?
A My objection to Himmler was a general objection against human being experiments, and his connecting him with the Ahnenerbe. This was in the Easter of 1942. The low pressure chamber disappeared as I recall, in May from Dachau and only in the autumn when Himmler respectively and Rascher wished to continue the low pressure experiments solely through Rascher, and I was ordered to provide a low pressure chamber, only then did I try to prevent this precisely because from the statements and remarks it could be seen that both the Luftwaffe and the DVL disapproved of Rascher's further work in this field, but there is a lapse of six months between these two.
Q You were able, however, to prevent another low pressure chamber being sent to Dachau for additional experiments, is that true?
A That was possible in the autumn through the various circumstances that I have here tried to describe so that after the low pressure chamber in May of 1942 was taken away from Dachau there never again appeared another low pressure chamber at Dachau.
Q Now, getting back to this question of the volunteer subjects who participated in the low pressure experiments that you witnessed at Dachau, what nationality were these experimental subjects?
A One man - and I know this from his dialect - was an Austrian. The other man was a German.
Q How do you knew this fact?
A I know it only from my talk with him. One of them told me that he came from Vienna, I believe, and I asked the other where his home was and I believe that he said a locality in the Rhineland although I don't remember the precise town.
Q Now, had your assassination plans to exterminate Himmler been successful,What plans did your resistance movement party have to take over the government?
A The taking over of the government was planned by the leaders of the individual groups. Precise information on this will be most assuredly provided to you by Dr. Hielscher when he testifies as a witness here. The entire structure and plan of the individual groups was aimed at a federated union of the various German provinces, the creation of a free German government which would rest on a basis that would permit an understanding to be reached with the Allies.
Q Do you know of any occasion when non-German nationals were used as experimental subjects, either with or without their consent?
A No, I know no such case because the people whom I myself saw in Natzweiler in the case of the Lost experiments were all Germans so far as I got the impression.
In my talks with these people I could ascertain nothing to the contrary, and in the freezing experiments the experimental subjects were torn in Berlin as could be seen from the verdict which I myself saw. I saw no other experiments. Consequently, I did not speak with the experimental subjects.
Q Then, as I understand the situation, based upon your knowledge, all of these experiments, as least so far as you witnessed them or knew anything about them, were conducted upon German nationals who had volunteered for the experiments with promises of leniency, and you objected to these experiments solely because of the fact that you were of the ethical view that a man who was a prisoner could not freely volunteer for such experimentation. Is that correct?
A Yes, I repudiated any manner of such experimentation on human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 0930 HOURS, 14 April 1947) Official Transcript of the American military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 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, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Any further examination of the witness on the part of any defense counsel?
WOLFRAM SIEVERS - Resumed BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome):
Q. Witness, I should like to question you on two points; one of them concerns your diary entry of 18 August 1944. In your diary there is a note reading "Professor Blome asks a date from the Reichsfuehrer-SS in order to report to him after 25 August." Points under discussion refer to: "1. Insects" - doesn't interest us; "2. Potato beetles" - doesn't interest us either; "3. 'Poison experiments in connection with Reichsfuehrer SS". Number 7 reads: "Professor Blome is being pressed anew to test the poison now." You were already asked about this entry during your direct examination, Dr. Sievers, and if I understood you correctly you testified that this entry referring to poison has some connection or other, or could have some connection, with the attempt on Hitler's life on July 20, 1944. But I am not quite sure that I understood you correctly. Therefore, I should like you to state again briefly just what/the significance of this entry is so far as Dr. Blome is concerned - this entry concerning poison.
A. You are asking me to call on my recollection to an extent that far surpasses human nature. Just let me check on this once more. I said in my direct examination that I wrote into the diary what Dr. Blome told me. It reads, "Poison experiments in connection with Reichsfuehrer-SS with requests for report on 21 July," That is to say, Blome said to me that Himmler had said something to him on the 21st of July about this matter. That does not mean that Dr. Blome, so far as I recall, said anything to the effect that this poison was connected with the attempt on Hitler, but what Dr. Blome said to Himmler on 21 July, in other words, one day after the attempt. That, of course, he didn't tell me.
Q. I am asking you this, Dr. Sievers, only because you in your direct examination seemed to connect this entry strangely with the events of the 20th of July, and I am not sure whether you expressed yourself correctly or whether we understood you correctly. Perhaps you remember that Dr. Blome, when he was interrogated on the stand, said that this referred to Doryl, that is to say, to that other poison which was found during partisan fighting in the hast and which was almost unknown in Germany. Therefore, witness, I should ask you Please to exert your memory a bit and say whether or not it is possible, as far as you recall, that this talk in connection with that teletype message, which I think was also the 21st of July, referred to Doryl.
A. Yes, that I remember. Dr. Blome did mention Doryl, but then in my direct examination I didn't express myself clearly for I meant that Dr. Blome had already talked about this with Himmler on the 21st of July. But Dr. Blome said nothing about a connection with the events of 20 July.
Q. Then I have another question, witness, You recall that when Dr. Blome was interrogated on the stand we discussed at some length the card index file which was kept at the Reich Research Council for Dr. Blome and Sauerbruch. You were present at this discussion. This concerns two documents, one is Document 690 concerning Blome and the other is 691, Sauerbruch's card index file. These documents, and a few others that are connected with this matter, are in a supplementary volume.
They have been turned in for Blome document book to be translated and will subsequently be submitted to the Tribunal. Now, you remember that in this card index file for Dr. Blome there are two assignments mentioned of which Dr. Blome asserts that they have nothing to do with him, that through an oversight on the part of the personnel staff they were entered on his card index file, but really should have been put on Dr. Sauerbruch's file card. That is the assignment 0328 of Rascher, "Re-warming after cooling of entire human body; healing, with cases of partial freezing, and adjustment of the human body to cold". And then the next assignment is 0329, Hirsch-Strassbourg, which reads, "Alteration in the living organism after use of chemical warfare agents". You remember these documents?
A. Yes.
Q. Now it would interest me to know - now I should like to hear from you something on this subject since you are well informed about the Reich Research Council. Do you know who gave this assignment Rascher, 0328, "Rewarming after general cooling"? Who gave that assignment? Do you know anything about that assignment at all and, if so, just what do you know?
A. The Rascher assignment is, so far as the contents are concerned, the same as the assignment that Himmler formulated and which was submitted here as a document. When on my initiative these assignments were joined with the Reich Research Council, the rules of the Reich Research Council demanded that the researcher himself, that is to say, both Rascher and Hirt, had to make their application to the Reich Research Council. Thus it is altogether possible that this is a false entry because it is true that at the time the organization of the Reich Research Council was suffering from lack of personnel, but on the other hand I consider it quite possible that, for example, Rascher, when he turned in his application for research work, referred to the fact that he ha.d connections with Dr. Blome, which as you know is true in connection with cancer research and with Polygal, and that thereupon the entry was made on both card index files in order to inform both Dr. Sauerbruch and Dr. Blome of the matter.
But both assignments were assigned through Dr. Sauerbruch who alone was competent for that. But with regard to the Hirt assignment I can tell you something of material importance. In addition to this card index there are copies of the original research assignments; in the card index cards, for reasons of space, there is only a very brief notation of the title of the research assignment. Both the card index and the copies of the originals were in the camp at Kranzberg, the interrogation camp where I myself saw them in 1945. The Hirt assignment reads; "Flourescent microscopic examinations on the behavior of Lost gas in living organisms." If this complete formulation were present here, then this matter would not need be discussed before this Tribunal because this research in living organisms in liver, pancreas and so on, then, as the expert for the prosecution, namely, Dr. Alexander, said, these experiments could only be carried out on animals. Therefore, in these Hirt experiments they could only have been animal experiments.
Q Could you please reiterate the precise title of that research assignment, such as you saw it in the Camp Kranzberg?
A "Fluorescent microscopical examination of the reaction of Lost gas in living organisms."
Q Mr. Sievers, because of your activities in the Reich Research Council do you know what order number Sauerbruch's department had and what number Dr. Blome had?
A Every one of the 30 plenipotentiaries and department leaders had an order number but I cannot say, from memory, just which number each one had.
Q To refresh your memory, I put two documents to you that I have received from the Prosecution. These are photo copies, document No. 700 and document No. 699. When I examined Dr. Blome I already stated that I was going to include these 2 documents in a subsequent volume and submit them later to the Tribunal. I have received these photo copies from the Prosecution.....
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it is my understanding that Dr. Sauter wishes to establish the file number on one Dr. Sauerbruch and of Dr. Blome. The prosecution will stipulate that Sauerbruch's number was No. I and Blome's was No. 15, and these questions will not be necessary.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q You are getting now the list of order numbers and also the list of the various departments. These are Prosecution documents and not defense documents.
A Yes, I knew this list and it is correct.
Q And you see from the list that Professor Blome had order number 15?
A That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Prosecution has stipulated that Dr. Blome's number was 15 and Dr. Sauerbruch's was 10.
DR. SAUTER: In that case I need not ascertain it again.
Q Then I have one more question. Even if you are a layman, can you, because of your activities in the Reich Research Council, confirm that an assignment, such as for example, rewarming human beings, or effecting changes in the human organism, does not belong to Department 15 but to Department 10, which is General and Classical Medicine? You have already said this more or less indirectly? but I would like you to say it specifically now.
A I can tell you that Dr. Breuer, who was Dr. Sauerbruch's expert in the Reich Research Council, told me at that time that Dr. Sauerbruch gave these assignments.
Q Now one last short question. In your direct examination you stated that you yourself were in principle opposed to all human being experiments, and expressed yourself to this effect to Himmler. How, then, did it happen that you were so opposed to human being experiments? Can you explain that more precisely?
A The reasons were the following: When, on Easter of 1942, I spoke with Himmler about this, I was under the recent impression of my first visit to a concentration camp. Before that I had nothing to do with concentration camps and this visit moved me greatly. Moreover? I had Hirt's report on the Jewish bolshevist collection of skulls; and at the end of March Himmler ordered that Hirt should, in connection with the Lost experiments, be more closely affiliated to the Ahnenerbe. I also knew Rascher, although only slightly, and had an unpleasant impression of him; and I knew that Himmler had acted as protector of this research, and that it could not be seen, in view of Himmler's personality, just where this activity would stop. All of these factors played a role in inducing me to make the effort to persuade Himmler to disassociate this activity from the Ahnenerbe. That was the primary reason I had for expressing myself as I did to Himmler. Over and beyond that I wanted to attempt to interrupt all this research activity if I possibly could, because I, personally, and let me emphasize that this is a purely emotional matter, repudiated human being experiments, no matter under what conditions they took place, and held them to be ethically intolerable.
I saw this as my humane duty at that time. However, I emphasize that I am not a doctor of medicine, nor am I a physician; I did not have any academic degrees since I never graduated from a university. Until this Easter conversation with Himmler in 1942, I had never spoken either with a doctor or a lawyer on the question of the admissibility of human being experiments, so that my point of view was an entirely personal one. Only during the course of this trial, and in view of the material here submitted about human experiments in all countries and during all periods of time, have I realized that this is a series of most difficult problems, which has persuaded me that my attitude heretofore has been onesided. Even though after the Easter conversation in 1942 the effort was made by various physicians to make it clear to me that in the interests of medical progress, and for the good of humanity, many problems could not be treated through animal experiments but only could be clarified through human being experiments; the great scientific importance of the high altitude experiments as a pre-requisite for flight at high altitudes and that conditions cannot be ascertained unless through human experiments.
was brought home to me through instrutive questioning by a high ranking American Medical Officer in 1945 in England, where I had been specially brought to give information about this, I could, however, not answer the many questions he put to me, because I am not a scientist, for which he erroneously held me.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to this witness on the part of any defense counsel? There being none the Prosecution may cross examine.
MR. HARDY: Before we proceed to the cross-examination of Mr. Sievers, I would like to clarify for the record your last statement, you were in England; and it came over in the translation it was in 1944, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: 1945.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Mr. Sievers, you were a member of the Secret Resistance Movement, whose purpose was to overthrow the Hitler regime, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you were willing to risk your life by working with the inner circle pretending to be an ardent NSDAP member so that you could gain information to transmit to the leaders of the Resistance movement, is that right?
A. I was prepared to sacrifice my life for this if necessary.
Q. And your purpose was to gain information to transmit to the leaders of the Resistance Movement?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, why was the Resistance Movement so intent upon overthrowing the Nazi Regime?
A. I don't understand the question. Since one of the main reaproaches an the part of the Allies against the Germans is that there was no German Resistance Movement; and since we did carry on this resistance I cannot understand the point of your question.
Q. Now, your purpose was to overthrow the Hitler Regime and in carrying out that purpose you were willing to risk your life in your capacity in the Ahnenerbe, wherein you were in the position to gain valuable information which could be transmitted to the leaders of this Resistance Movement; now, inasmuch as you were a member of this Resistance Movement and apparently a strong member, what was the reason for the Resistance Movement being so intent in overthrowing the Nazi Regime; what did they have against the Nazi Regime? Do you understand the question?
A. We rejected the centralized form of Government of the Nazi Government. We regarded the party as a whole as consisting of riffraff. We recognized their Socialism as a swindle, because in reality agrarian feudilism and Big Industry were furthered.
Q. Are there any further reasons, Mr. Sievers?
A. These main reasons I have just mentioned can, of course, be supplemented by any number of details.
Q. And then you also yourself, that is personally, subscribed to these views of the resistance movement, didn't you?
A. Of course.
Q. And now, I assume that at the present time you would be violently opposed to the rise of such a type of rule in Germany in the future, and that you would be willing to do whatever you could to prevent it, is that a correct assumption on my part?
A. Our basic orientation was not based on experience that we had after 1933, but we saw this era drawing near before, and, of course, as it was then it is now our wish not to see a Tolitarian Regime arise again.
Q. Let me be a little more specific; would you be in favor now of having Hitler rise to power once again here in Germany?
A. After what I have just said at great length about these matters I simply cannot answer that question. It does not make sense.
Q. You would do all within your power, if you were in a position to do so, to avoid any rise of such an organization of the Nazis to the realm or the helm here in Germany, wouldn't you?
A. Of course.
Q. Then I assume therefore that you would be willing to tell us, that is the Tribunal and the German people, all you know about the activities of the Nazi Regime, to the end that the German people will be fully informed of such activities and best be in a position to guard themselves against the rise of such a Government in the future?
A. I have always declared myself to do so, but unfortunately it was only under the protection of this High Tribunal that I had a chance to speak of our activities at any great length. From the very beginning, at the very first day of my interrogation in 1945 I pointed this out, but the result simply was that I was treated worse. Consequently, I had no reason to press myself forward. Then in December 1945 I made a written statement on this subject. In the interrogation before the Commission I was, because of an objection on the part of the Prosecution, not allowed to talk about these matters. In the IMT also I was very limited, and when I made a written statement on this subject in August of 1946, I did not hear anything further. In other words, it is not my fault that many of these matters have not come to light, which it would perhaps have been very expedient to have come to light; and during my direct examination on Friday, you yourself raised an objection about my speaking on these matters.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, inasmuch as you are willing to tell us what you know about the activities of the Nazi Regime, I wish you would enlighten this Tribunal further on these experiments that are the subject of this indicement. These are activities which took place under the Nazi regime with typical Nazi actions, and you are in position to know just what each and every one of these defendants did to further such experimentation on human beings; are you now fully able and willing to tell us how each one of these defendants participated in these experiments so we can get a good clear picture and the Tribunal can render a decision which will be a complete story; will you do that for us now?
A. I am of course prepared to answer your question, but as examination and interrogation has already proved, I know very few of my co-defendants. The persons who participated in the experiments that I know of, namely Hirt and Rascher, are not here in the deck; and regarding the other experiments that took place outside my sphere, I am unfortunately not so informed as to be able to give you detailed information, which otherwise I should naturally be ready to do.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, were any of the defendants members of the Ahnenerbe Society? - Did you hear my question?
A. Yes, I understood you. We must discriminate as is evident from the statutes, between the three groups of members of the Ahnenerbe Every German could become a member of the Ahnenerbe. These were the so-called participating members. The scientific collaborators could only, by a special act on the part of the Society become active members and then there were the so-called corresponding members. Of the codefendants only Rudolf Brandt was a ordinary member of the Society, and as far as I know no one else.
Q. Now, did any of the other member's, such as Brandt or . Handloser or any of the defendants, did any of these defendants have subordinates who were members of the Ahnenerbe Society?
A. The number of ordinary members ran into one or two thousand; now whether or not there were subordinates among them, I don't know and I don't know them by name or personally. Concerning the active members I don't know this. Rascher was a member of the Luftwaffe and a University Professor, therefore, I cannot say just what the subordinating relationship would be there.
Q. Who were the more important members of the Ahnenerbe society?
A. I have already said that they comprised roughly sixty-one persons; namely the various department chiefs and those who had important research assignments.
Q. That is as outlined in your Document Book No. 1; the chart you submitted to the Tribunal?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, of course you know it is of considerable interest to everyone as to how the fantastic program of experimentation was conceived; now in your position as a deputy in the Reichs Research Council and as the Reichs business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society, were you able to ascertain who conceived the idea of medical experiments on human beings in the concentration camps? Now I know the element of experiments on human beings is an age old idea, but I mean here in Germany, who conceived the idea to experiment on concentration camp inmates?
A. So far as documentary material makes it clear to me, Rascher played a decisive role in this, and Rascher had close connections with Himmler. Himmler, who always exaggerated things and over-did them, had these experiments on inmates in concentration camps carried out and also pointed out the possibility of such experiments. In other words I can only deduct from the way the high altitude experiments came about, of which Rascher was evidently the inaugurator. Then, as also is shown by the documents, it was Milch who, in his turn went to Himmler to have the freezing experiments carried out, and then later there were added the sea-water experiments.
Q. Well, then, here you have heard all the evidence in this Tribunal and from your own personal knowledge of the sea-water experiments, the freezing experiments and high altitude experiments; do you think that Himmler, exclusively, without any suggestions from other people, conceived this idea of this sphere of experimentation in the concentration camps?
A. It is my opinion, as I have already said, that the basic cause for all this was the connection between Rascher and Himmler, but then when it was soon what possibilities there were other persons went to Himmler in order to extend such work, for the idea of the freezing experiments was certainly not Himmler's own idea.
Q. Now, in addition to that, Mr. Sievers, Himmler like yourself and myself was a lay-man, he had no knowledge of medical research, would he be approached by Rascher in the instance of high altitude experiments, by Milch for freezing experiments, perhaps by Hirt for lost experiments, or by various other individuals to secure human beings or to have made available inmates of the concentration camps for the purpose of conducting the experiments, now would Himmler, or you, or I, have been able to determine whether these experiments were justified without first consulting a specialist in the medical research field?
A. No, and that was my reason for wanting to break away from experiments of this sort in the Ahnenerbe, because there was no specialist there who could supervise such things as a specialist. Himmler arrogated these things to himself, he interfered personally in the experiments, which can be seen not only from the documents themselves, but also in that letter from Wolf to Milch where it is even explicitly stated to what extent Himmler personally took part in this research and interfered in it; but I consider Himmler anything but a specialist or an authority. He, however, as I said, arrogated that to himself and Herr Gobhardt described Himmler very well in this respect.
Q. Well, now, you recall that the date 1943, in the fall of 1943, from that point on all matters of research had to go through Gebhardt and Grawitz before Himmler would act on it; now do you know of any other advisors Himmler had so that he could justify sanction these experiments?
A. No, I remember no others, and that can be seen from the order of 15 May 1944 where he includes specially Grawitz and Gebhardt in these matters.
Q. Well, now, from your knowledge of these various activities, what individuals within the frame-work of the German Government, that is the entire German Government taken into consideration, what individuals had knowledge of these experiments?
A. It is hard to say who these persons were by name, but it was Himmler's custom about matters in which, in his opinion, he could especially show off, to talk about them in conversations. I once was a witness at a luncheon for two submarine captains, who had come to headquarters to receive decorations, and very proudly he told these submarine captains the results of his freezing experiments. That is what I can say of my own knowledge because I happened to have been there. Whether he also spoke about this elsewhere, and to whom, that I do not know. On the other hand, he forbade reports being given to people on the outside, so that with the exception of Milch and Goering no nondoctor was to be informed of these matters.
Q. Well, now Mr. Sievers, you were in the position in the Reichsforschungsrat where you were able to observe a great deal; you fully realize, of course, that the SS had experimental research problems, that the Wehrmacht had experimental research problems, the civilian sector had experimental research problems; and due to the chaotic conditions in German from 1941 to 1945 when all were engaged in all-out warfare; it must have been necessary to coordinate these activities, so that you could utilize the supplies and activities to the best ad vantage.