Q. The 31st of March 1944. When did you ever meet Professor Handloser?
A. I never met Professor Handloser.
Q. When did you meet Mr. Ruff, Dr. Ruff, for the first time?
A. Here during the trial.
Q. You never met him when he was working with Rascher?
A. No, I only knew that he was the chief of the German experimental station for aviation.
Q. And you met Romberg when you mot Rascher, is that right? About the same time?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the first time you had ever seen Romberg?
A. Yes, that is when the experiments were already being carried out.
Q. That was the first association you had with Dr. Rascher?
A. I knew Rascher before that, but I only met Romberg on the occasion of my first visit to Dachau.
Q. How long had you known Rascher? Was it early 1942 or when?
A. I already said during my direct examination that I had known Rascher since 1938.
Q. Did you ever make an attempt to intercede in behalf of Rascher, prior to this experimentation in May of 1942 or March of 1943, so that he could go to the concentration camps for experimentation purposes?
A. I said that Rascher up to that time was working with Himmler's adjutant office in Munich.
Q. And you never interceded for Rascher so that Rascher could go to the concentration camps for experimental purposes prior to the first high altitude experiments?
A. No, I can't remember that.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you and Rascher were actually old friends? That you had contact from 1938 on, and you had worked a lot together?
A. During my direct examination I already staked that Rascher at that time intended to carry out work in connection with an early diagnosis of cancer.
Q. What year is that? Establish the year for us, Mr. Sievers?
A. That was - must have been in 1938. Rascher was then drafted into the army, and then this matter never was continued.
Q. And then after that particular situation concerning the cancer problem, you had no further contact with Mr. Rascher until the high altitude problem arose?
A. Until the high altitude matters arose; in the meantime Rascher had been with the Luftwaffe.
Q. Let's have a look at Document NO-1331, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 485, Your Honors. Now this is dated 26 May 1939, to the Reichsfuehrer SS, personal staff, attention SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Brandt:
"Subject: Identification for Dr. Rascher, Munich, to enter concentration camps.
"Upon request of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, among the research experimentations which Dr. Rascher has to carry out, the crystallization of the blood of persons is to be examined, which serve long sentences in concentration camps or are imprisoned for a long time. Please see to it that Dr. Rascher can get authority enabling him to perform such experiments in the Dachau Concentration Camp, and please let me know whom Dr. Rascher may contact there."
Is that SI that appears there under the notation, Wolfram Sievers?
A. Yes, that is my initial.
Q. And the date thereon is the 26 May 1939?
A. Yes, it concerns the crystallization procedure with reference to the cancer work which Rascher intended to carry out.
Q. That is right.
A. The Reichsfuehrer was in favor of that as can be seen from the letter.
It was transmitted to Brandt and that is all.
Q. Now, doctor, here in this trial the Prosecution has introduced nearly seventy-five documents in which your name appears. Some of them are letters signed by you, addressed to you or wherein a third person has mentioned you as a collaborator. The documentary evidence has even proven, that you were better informed in most of these matters, than the human pen-man, Dr. Brandt. Now do you still wish to sit here on this witness stand and tell this Tribunal that you do not have a more complete knowledge of the activities as set forth in this indictment than you have elicited here the last two days? -- Do you have nothing further to add about the criminal nature of these experiments and about the part these gentlemen in the dock took in the conduct of such activities?
A. My participation in that work I described it in detail during my direct examination. I have had no reason whatever to keep anything quiet, and I did not intend to keep anything quiet. The documents submitted in that connection all refer to matters which I had to deal with in the framework of my position as General Secretary. If these matters, apparent from the letters and submitted here and often thrown out from their context, a picture appears which is not in accordance with the facts. One only needs to leave out everything which is sensible and clarifies the situation, and then it becomes very easy to condemn a person.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, prior to the day you walked into the court room for the arraignment in this case had you ever appeared in this court room before?
A. Yes, I was examined here before the I.M.T.
Q. Why did you appear here before the International Military Tribunal?
A. Because I was called here.
Q. You were called here as a defense witness for the SS as an organization, were you not?
A. I didn't volunteer for that. The defense counsel of the SS called me here and my first act was to show Dr. Pelckmann, my letter dated December 1945, where I told about my membership in the resistance movement, and I told him in that connection I was an unsuitable witness for him. Dr. Pelckmann, however, insisted very urgently that he examine me in connection with the problem of the Ahnenerbe, although this was not any voluntary action on my part. Finally, under difficulty I had an opportunity to speak before the I.M.T. and tell them what I really was, and I told you this morning what difficulties I had in that respect through you.
Q. Now, Mr. Sievers, you appeared before the Commission which was set up by the International Military Tribunal, did you not. Don't give me a long answer, now did you or did you not appear before the Commission of the International Military Tribunal?
A. Yes, under circumstances, which I have just described.
Q. Yes, and you appeared before the International Military Tribunal?
A. Yes, as it becomes apparent from the record.
Q. And didn't the International Military Tribunal, and doesn't the record of the International Military Tribunal show that the testimony before the Commission that it was felt that one Sievers was perjuring himself in this Tribunal?
A. It was the aim -- the very calculated aim of the representatives of the Prosecution, to make it appear that way. I studied both records with my defense counsel and I can say that this sophistry which I despise, did not accomplish its aim.
Mr. Hardy: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(The Tribunal adjourned at this time for noon recess)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Rose): Mr. President, I should like permission to have Rose excused from tomorrow's session. His case is the next one coming up and I should like to discuss it with him at somewhat greater detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of counsel for the defendant Rose, whose case will next be heard before the Tribunal, defendant Rose may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow for the purpose of consulting with his counsel.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of the witness by counsel for the defense?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for the defendant Sievers):
Q. Witness, the documents that the prosecution submitted this morning give me occasion for a few questions. The answer to the prosecutor's question regarding your letter of 20 January 1945 to Hirt, Exhibit 479 of the Prosecution, was somewhat brief. However, I consider it absolutely necessary, in the interests of clarity, that you state briefly what your situation was in January '45 and whether from this situation you had some particular inducement to write in the formulation in which this document appears. Do you remember that letter?
A. Yes. In my direct examination I attempted to make clear what difficulties, and what a tense situation, there were at that time, shortly before the collapse. A man like Hirt, who was so close to Himmler and who enjoyed his particular confidence, always found it necessary to live up to this relationship in the tone that he adopted in his relations with me. In my direct examination I stated that not only from the beginning of 1944 on did I have the feeling of being watched over by the Gestapo, but in May I found out confirmation that this was being carried, out on the Chief of Staff above me, and the SD leader who was in my department corroborated that.
Thus, in this situation, where everything was touch and go, it was very important to be careful and, therefore, I tried to explain that the tone in which this letter was held is quite comprehensible.
Q. To Document NO-935, that is Exhibit 481, I should like to ask you a few questions. I shall have this document put to you again. This document carries a postscript which begins with the words "SS Untersturmfuehrer Wolff". He was employed in the Ahnenerbe, was that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. In this note Wolff is asked to find out the location of the camp Natzweiler, and to find out who the commander was, and this information was to be translated to you by telephone at Strassbourg by the 29th of the sane month at the latest. Is my assumption correct that at that time, namely, in August 1943 --
A. The letter was dictated by me on the 27th of August and provided with this note regarding Wolff, in which I asked him to find out the exact address of the camp and the commander of Natzweiler, and to commit that to me by telephone to Strassbourg because I left Berlin on the 26th of August on an official journey, as the letter shows, and asked Wolff to give me this information by the 29th. In other words, when I left Berlin on the 27th of August, I intended to go to Strassbourg and at that time I did not know the location of Natzweiler, nor did I know who the commander was. In other words, your assumption is correct.
Q. In the first part of this letter there is mention of an official tour and the word "Dienstreise" is translated by the word tour in English and was interpreted by the prosecution as a round trip, as a tour. Now, tell me, did you simply make an official trip that was necessary for official reasons to Strassbourg, or did you really make a tour, such as the prosecution assumes, through various concentration camps?
A. At that time I made an official trip to Strassbourg and it is a matter of incorrect translation if this official trip was translated as an official round trip, and this is one of the repeated and unfair interpretations on the part of the prosecution.
Q. I can assure you that the interpretation was not meant to mislead.
A. Nevertheless it did so.
Q. Your note of the 26th of June, 1942, Exhibit 481 contains... In other words, as can be seen from it, your proposal for the founding of a military research institute within the Ahnenerbe. Now, I believe it is necessary in our search for absolute truth to go into the historical development that preceded this. You had this discussion with Himmler about which we have had enough discussion. You saw that Himmler wanted to have these experiments carried out by Rascher and Hirt by all means.
A. Yes.
Q. You saw that, from the administrative point of this, this Rascher and Hirt institute was to be looked after by the Ahnenerbe. Did you know then where the financial means for this institute were to be provided, or was that determined only later?
A. When I objected, Himmler arranged for that. I mentioned this morning briefly the very limited opportunities I had to interfere, and he arranged that money of the Waffen-SS and not that of the Ahnenerbe should be used for this.
Q. And was that not one reason why these institutes, which were alien in nature to the Ahnenerbe, were to be made a sort of annex to the Ahnenerbe and this whole idea was discussed in this conversation of Easter of 1942?
Is that not so?
A. Yes, quite clearly. Therefore, the institute was later called the institute of the Waffen-SS and Police.
Q. In other words, to work out this note of the 26th of June of 1942 there was no particular reflection necessary on your part. The working out of this note was simply a matter of setting down in writing what Himmler had very clearly decided at Easter, 1942?
A. Yes, it was simply the matter of setting down in writing what Himmler had already established as policy.
Q. I come not to Document NO-1657, Prosecution Exhibit 484. On page 2 there is a letter of the 19th of January, 1942, sent "for information" to the Ahnenerbe and this letter is directed to Obersenatsrat Dr. Ofterdinger. Did you know this man or did you have anything to do with him within the scope of the Ahnenerbe?
A. No, I didn't know him and I had no connections with him at that time, but I assume that Herr Muehlens turned to this man in this same matter in the same way that he wrote to me, although there was no possible reason for his doing so because he had received a letter from me with the letterhead of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q. Now, page 4 of this document was submitted to you by the prosecution with the accusation that your first statement that you had never spoken to Dr. Genzken was not true. Because of this notation here "with reference to our previous telephonic conversation", I should like to ask a few questions about the administration of the Reichgeschaeftsfuehrung of the Ahnenerbe. There the Ahnenerbe had a few collaborators, such as Hauptsturmfuehrer Wolf. In such cases as this did you yourself always carry on telephonic conversations with other offices and only use in such cases this phrase "with reference to our telephone conversation of yesterday" or was it your practice, as it was the practice so far as I know in many other offices, that the following took place. The adjutant or some other collaborator spoke by telephone with the member of another staff or office and then, when this conversation was corroborated in writing, this phraseology was used such as we see here in this letter?
A. Yes, I tried to express that in my answer this morning because, of course, it was not possible for me to carry on all the conversations by telephone myself and, moreover, in such general matters it was not at all customary for a high SS leader of Genzken's rank to go to the telephone. That was taken care of by the adjutant who would say that his Brigadefuehrer asks that the letter be forwarded and then the situation took place exactly as you have described. I remember very clearly that I never spoke with Genzken and didn't know him.
Q. This morning the prosecutor expressed his opinion regarding your relations with Dr. Rascher, saying that you were befriended with Dr. Rascher. Actually, your relations with Dr. Rascher were clarified well enough in your direct examination but this remark on the part of the prosecution induces me to return to your relations with Rascher. Were you ever friends with Dr. Rascher?
A. At no time did I have any close or friendly relations with Dr. Rascher because from the first moment on, and particularly because of his wife, I did not like him at all and I never had any reason to change this opinion. On the contrary, it became stronger and deeper and it was a rejection of Rascher's personality.
Q. Which, however, does not exclude the possibility that in official matters and within the scope of the matters that you had to deal with him you wrote letters to him such as this letter of 26 May 1939, which was put in this morning as Prosecution Exhibit 485.
A. That was one of my official duties and I carried out this duty also in Rascher's case with material courtesy, and precisely because of the close relations between the Rascher family and Himmler I was particularly careful since he was always ready to turn to Himmler directly if, in his opinion, he had any reason for complaint.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, that concludes my redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Any examination of this witness by way of redirect examination on the part of any defendant?
BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the defendant Romberg):
Q. Witness, would you please once again concentrate upon your visit to Dachau on which occasion you saw a high altitude experiment? Under interrogation by Judge Sebring you said that you ascertained on the occasion of this visit that after the experimental subjects got earache Dr. Romberg changed the pressure and thus brought about a condition that the subject found more tolerable. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you find out that the subjects had earache?
A. One could see through the observation window that the man pointed to his ear and I assumed from that he had earache. I couldn't hear him, of course.
Q. And when this sign was made by the subject, did Romberg then change the pressure?
A. Romberg moved a few levers and from the altitude meter I could see that the pressure was being changed.
Q. After Romberg moved this lever, did the experimental subject continue to point to his ear?
A. No, then he nodded in satisfaction to show that he liked the change that had been made.
Q. Do you assume that between the experimental subject and Romberg there had been a conversation to the effect that if the subject pointed to his ear Romberg was to set the chamber at a different altitude?
A That Romberg and the experimental subjects had reached an agreement beforehand, and must have done so, that I learned subsequently from a conversation that Romberg had with the experimental subject after the experiment.
Q Do you remember the contents of that conversation?
A I at any rate had the impression that they had reached a satisfactory agreement regarding the course that the experiment was to take.
Q Now who said that, the subject or Romberg?
A The man more or less thanked Romberg for this.
Q Now to another matter. You stated that Rascher had said things to you in connection with these experiments; he had cursed and said that the experimental subjects were unimportant and that it did not make any difference whether they were done harm or not. Did he make this statement after the experiments or did he express it in a loud cursing, so that everyone could hear it?
A When the experiments had been concluded and the chamber was no longer in Dachau, I asked Rascher how everything had gone off in the experiments, and whether nothing had happened to the experimental subjects. To my surprise, since this contradicted what I had observed at the experiments myself, he said that a couple of persons had died. Then I asked him "How come?" He said Himmler had asked him to carry out a few extreme experiments and I then asked him whether Romberg had been present. Rascher said no, he had done them alone, and on this occasion he made that statement about Romberg -- that Romberg was in his way because he was too weak. That Himmler had demanded his extreme experiments can be seen from the documents here which, however, did not go to me or to the Ahnenerbe at that time but only to Gluecks and the SD -namely a document in which Himmler commanded Rascher to carry out further experiments with criminals condemned to death.
Q I asked you whether Rascher made this statement at the time you witnessed the experiment -- whether he made any remarks regarding the treatment of the experimental subjects at the time when you were there.
A No, he did not.
DR. VORWERK: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of the witness on the part of defense counsel? Any further cross-examinations by the Prosecution? Examination of the witness having been closed, the witness will be excused from the witness stand and may resume his place.
(Defendant Sievers leaves the witness stand.)
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, it is now my intention to call the witness, Dr. Eduard May. I shall appreciate the Tribunal giving me permission to call him to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will summon the witness Eduard May.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I inquire as to whether or not the defense counsel has all four witnesses available to be heard here in the next day or two, and then is it his idea to submit the rest of his documentary evidence after the witnesses have been heard?
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, all witnesses are present and I intend to hear them, one after the other, but before we hear Hielscher I should like very briefly to put in a few documents.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
(EDUARD MAY, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
You will hold up your right hand and be sworn. Repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q Witness, your name is EDUARD MAY?
A Yes.
Q You were born on 14 June 1905 in Mainz?
A. Yes.
Q And you live in Niederbroecking near Starnberg?
A Yes.
Q You have the title of Doctor. Which one?
A Doctor of Natural Philosophy.
Q Were you ever a member of the Nazi Party, the SS or the SA?
A No, I belonged neither to the Nazi party nor to any of its organizations or affiliations.
Q In the Defendant Sievers' diary, an SS Oberscharfuehrer, Dr. Mai, appears. Are you identical with that man?
A No, I am not. My name is spelled with a "y" - M-A-Y, and I remember having heard or read the name of this SS man and he spells his name with an "i" - M-A-I.
Q Doctor, as a private scholar you have specialized in the field of entomology?
A Yes.
Q Since when?
A Since 1928.
Q And with what did you concern your research?
A My special field was applied entomology. This is research into combatting insect pests in agriculture, in forestry, in orchards, etc. So far as insects are concerned which do damage to human beings by carrying diseases, you speak of medicinal entomology; that is, in other words, a branch of applied entomology. All applied entomology aims at finding means and methods to destroy insect pests, and to find means of preventing their mass multiplication.
Q Doctor, have you taught?
A Yes, in 1941 I was a lecturer in the University of Munich.
Q Who was the rector of the university at that time?
A The rector was the ordinary professor of Indogermanic languages, Dr. Walter Wuest.
Q And do you know whether Dr. Wuest had any other function at that time?
A. Yes, I knew that Professor Wuest was at the same time, and this had nothing to do with the university, curator of the Ahnenerbe Office. Shortly thereafter he became chief of the Ahnenerbe Office.
Q Is it correct that Professor Wuest, in the spring of 1942, asked you to carry out a research assignment for the Ahnenerbe?
A Yes, in 1942 Dr. Wuest called upon me and told me that Himmler had an applied entomology research assignment to be carried out, and he ordered in this connection to set up a laboratory or institute where the research for this assignment could be carried out. This concerned the question of combatting insects that do damage to human beings and this research was to be carried out within the framework of the Ahnenerbe. I pointed out to Professor Wuest that because of assignments from industry I was very overworked and that, moreover, it was not my intention to sacrifice my free professional position for the same of some official position. Professor Wuest thought that this was of no importance and that I could take over this research assignment and my free professional position would not thereby be in any way endangered; I would have some sort of loose contract with the Ahnenerbe and that I should discuss this matter with the Reichs business manager of the Ahnenerbe, namely Mr. Sievers. That was the first time I heard his name. That was the contents of our discussion, and Wuest said that Sievers would get in touch with me.
Q Did you then have a talk with Sievers?
A Yes. In the next few days Sievers called me up. I then made his acquaintance and we met and had our first conversation.
Q Do you recognize Sievers among the defendants?
A Yes -- first row, first one from the right.
Q What else was said about this research assignment that you were given?
A Mr. Sievers said the same thing to me that Professor Wuest had said, namely that this was research into combatting insect pests that do damage to human beings. I then pointed out to Sievers that this was a very large problem, and I should have to know precisely what problems specifically interested Himmler. Sievers answered that I myself should give these problems which I, on the basis of my specialized knowledge, would regard as the most pressing. I then had to say to Sievers again that was not possible without further attention, that I could only draw up a precise working program after I knew what equipment and work means were to be put at my disposal; and I asked him whether there were any laboratories, whether there were instruments, whether he had the necessary assistants, technicians, assistants, specialists and so forth, and to what extent this equipment was available. I was rather surprised when Sievers told me that there was nothing there at all yet, that he didn't know anything about the whole matter himself, he simply had the order, and there wasn't even a building available, and if I took over this matter I should have to erect this whole laboratory. Sievers and I reached some sort of an agreement to the effect that I agreed to carry out a very rough survey of the whole problem on the basis of which the specified work on the problem would later be arranged for, and furthermore, that I should make efforts either in Munich or in the neighborhood of Munich to find a building that could be used for the purpose of this institute.
Q Doctor, regarding this conversation of 1 April between you and Sievers that took place in Munich, there is a file note which I should like to show to you. Look at No. 4.
A Yes.
Q There is mention of observations on prisoners; was this question discussed on 1 April between you and Sievers?
A No, this whole point 4 is incorrect, because it says here "in this connection I am wondering whether we couldn't begin the experiments most rapidly if we used Dachau installations."
Now, in this first talk with Sievers there was no mention of Dachau. Otherwise I never should have made the suggestion that I find a building through private agencies, nor should I after this conversation have made an effort to find a building in that way. It was not very easy at that time to find buildings, so I ran all over the country and looked at various buildings which firms had named as for sale, and then made a suggestion to Sievers on this subject, which was then accepted by Sievers. In other words, there was no mention either of prisoners or of Dachau in this first conversation.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, a file note of some description has been submitted to the Witness. Will defense counsel kindly identify same?
DR. WEISGERBER: It is in document book 4, Document NO-721, Exhibit 126 of the Prosecution; page 15 of the Document Book No. 4.
Q In other words, there was no talk of carrying out observations on prisoners?
A No.
Q Was there any mention of the excellent medical facilities at Dachau?
A No.
Q Was there any talk of Professor Schling, who carried out his anopheles experiments in connection with tropical maleria in Dachau?
A No.
Q Then where was your institute housed?
A I found a building in the little town of Holzkirchen near Munich, which was for sale, and which would be suitable after being expanded. I spoke with Mr. Sievers. He agreed, liked the place and empowered me to enter into negotiations with the owner for the purpose of purchasing it. While these negotiations were still going on, Sievers again came to Munich, and in this third conversation, did he for the first time tell me that Himmler had decided that the laboratory, respectively the Institute was to be set up in Dachau.
I was rather surprised by this at first, and Sievers gave me the following reason for this. I have already mentioned that the taking over of this building in Holzkirchen, which was an old inn, would have involved remodeling, and Speer's prohibition regarding new construction work had already been issued, and Sievers said to me if the Institute is set up in Dachau we are no longer dependent on this Speer prohibition, because we have all the material we need. We have land belonging to the SS, and moreover there are enough architects and building technicians among the prisoners at Dachau to do the work for us. Sievers then asked me whether I agreed to this arrangement, because he had to tell me right at the beginning that I could not get any stone buildings in Dachau, such as I had intended, but could simply get a barracks, and he asked whether the entomological laboratory could be housed in a barracks. I then told Sievers that an entomological laboratory just like any others could be housed in a barracks, and that I had no objections to locating the research institute in Dachau.
Q When did this conversation take place, roughly?
A That, I believe, was four weeks after the first conversation, because I remember that I spent some time in locating a building, and that there was some length of time again elapsed before the plan of buying the building in Holzkirchen was abandoned.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems counsel that a considerable of this evidence is quite irrelevant. Can you not expedite the testimony of this witness?
Q When then did your laboratory begin its work?
A Let me interrupt. I am sorry, I didn't hear anything.
Q When did your institute begin its activity?
A The first experiments were in June of 1944.
Q Now, it is noteworthy that there is a lapse of roughly two years between the first discussion of this and the actual setting up of the institute.
A Yes, the preparatory work, construction and getting the instruments, and so forth.
Q Witness, was this delay to be traced back to the fact that Sievers went forward with this matter only very reluctantly and hesitatingly?
A Yes, that is the impression I had, namely that Sievers personally was not the least interested in these matters, and above all I had the impression that he did not use the means that on the basis of his position he could, in my opinion, have used and should have used in order to carry out the construction and preparations and to hasten them.
Q In other words he was very dilatory in this whole matter?
A Yes, very dilatory indeed; and I might say in addition that this was really a simple matter of barracks construction, a barracks that could have been erected in three or four weeks, and that it took more than half a year.
Q Now, in your institute, did you ever carry out any maleria experiments?
A No, maleria is not in my field at all. I named one of the main problems already, and I was told that I was to carry this out, namely to find new means of combatting larvae of biting mosquitoes -of creating a poison in powder form to be sprinkled over water in pools, stagnant water where mosquito larvae are breeding in order to kill off this larvae. Research in this was carried out at great length, and it was largely at this time the problem became particularly important, the problem of combatting them with new means, since the raw material situation was such the previous used means were not available any more in sufficient quantities.
Q Did you ever work with Professor Schilling in Dachau?
A No, I did not work with Professor Schilling, nor did I know him personally, but I found out in Dachau itself in conversations that in the camp a Professor Schilling was concerning himself with malaria and also was breeding mosquitoes to obtain the larvae, as I did for my experiments. The research institute was outside the camp.
Q Between you and the malaria institute, which was in the camp itself wherein your institute was outside the camp, was there any collaboration or did that institute made larvae available to you?
A No, I received no material from Schilling, and the Schilling institute never asked for material from my institute.
Q Did Sievers, in connection with your research activities, have anything to do with malaria research?
A No.
Q In Sievers' diary under 6 January 1944, there is an entry according to which there was a talk between you and Sievers on combatting malaria in Auschwitz?
A Yes, that was the following: Mr. Sievers reported to me one day that in the camp of Auschwitz the number of cases of malaria had increased, and it was intended to undertake measures against this. He asked me whether something could be done that applied on the anopheles and whether in combatting anopheles the mosquito was possible. I then told Sievers I would have to look at this first. Consequently, I went to Auschwitz and ascertained that under such and such prerequisites the shrinking of water with this powder could be undertaken. That is how this came about. 5877