Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

Hielscher was one of the first and few people who realized that the way to take measures against the system could be only from within the ranks of the party itself. He had gained the firm conviction that a prospect of success could be seen only by doing away with the heads of the Nazi Government and assuming the government from the top and that nothing, nothing at all, was to be anticipated from a revolution of the people from below. A revolution of such a kind would have been of no avail, as it would very quickly have been stifled in torrents of blood.

The knowledge of these facts required four groups of measures to be taken, the particulars of which Hielscher detailed on 15 April:

Preparation of the undertaking by a well-camouflaged
organization of trusted men and spies within the ranks of the
NSDAP, i.e., the Trojan Horse policy.

Placing suitable courageous men in positions as near as possible
to leading personages of Nazism, the most dangerous of whom was
Himmler.

Doing away with Himmler and other leaders of the Nazi Government
upon a given cue.

Taking over the government by an organization prepared in
advance.

In spite of all liberty of action granted to the “activists” of his group, Hielscher had realized that success could only be expected if everybody, in strict discipline, obeyed his orders only. This was the only way for him to hold the reins and to give the cue at the right moment. Here I must emphasize that within the scope of this indispensable discipline, Sievers in all details acted in complete unison with Hielscher, that in all important moments he described the real state of affairs and asked for his instructions. In this way Hielscher obtained ample information of everything enacted around Sievers and of what Sievers did himself. Sievers was nothing but the tool in the hands of the leader of the movement. Therefore, your Honors, your verdict affects Sievers’ commissioner, Hielscher, in just the same way as Sievers himself. Hielscher is condemned together with Sievers, as he is acquitted with Sievers. With the same courage of responsibility with which he placed Sievers and other accomplices in most dangerous positions, Hielscher could declare at the end of his evidence that he not only took but also _claimed_ the whole responsibility for all the deeds with which his follower Sievers would be charged as a result in this trial.

Hielscher sketches the task of Sievers as follows: In the belly of the Trojan horse, i.e., under the color of eager and enthusiastic cooperation his duty would be (_a_) to scout and to spy, (_b_) profiting by his influence, to place other persons in similar positions for the same purposes, or in places where they would be given the possibility of working undisturbed, (_c_) to back endangered members of the resistance movement and if possible to rescue them, and finally (_d_) to do away with Himmler at the moment of action.

This last item was the essential point of the task of my client. All the other tasks were inferior to this aim and assignment, they only served to prepare and support it. It is from this point of view that his whole conduct must be understood and all his acts judged.

What did Sievers achieve in the sphere of this task?

I cannot reiterate all the details that I set forth in the first part of my plea. I came to the conclusion that Sievers did not make himself guilty of complicity or assistance in the facts charged in the indictment. If, however, you suppose with the prosecution that Sievers is to be found guilty of some of the counts of the indictment, it is my task to justify this conduct before the forum of a concept of justice transcending codified law, and to expound it to the Tribunal.

How did it come about that in 1942 Sievers remained in his position when the Ahnenerbe came into contact with medical experiments which possibly might assume a criminal character? We must not forget that Sievers was assigned the removal of Himmler and that in the Hielscher group he was the only person who could have been entrusted with such a task. Properly speaking, in Hielscher’s group he had the key position; the success or failure of the whole enterprise depended on him alone. For Himmler was the most dangerous personality in the Nazi system, because in his quality of Chief of the Police and Commander of the Reserve Army all the internal political armed forces were concentrated in his hand. Consequently he had the power of nipping in the bud every rebellion. Himmler was able to rule without Hitler, whereas Hitler could not rule without Himmler. The latter was to be done away with first. Should Himmler be overlooked or should he somehow succeed in escaping, the whole enterprise would be endangered. Himmler’s importance is therefore the measure of the importance of Sievers, who had to be ready for the decisive blow in Himmler’s immediate proximity. To ask if this post could be abandoned is to answer it in the negative.

As Sievers was fully conscious of the importance of such a decision, he became involved in the greatest internal conflict of his life. Of two evils, the worse had to be avoided and the smaller to be endured, or both of them to be shunned.

To do the latter would certainly have been the most convenient solution. That Sievers got into this conflict amply demonstrates his consciousness of responsibility, his love of justice and humanity. As to the struggle with his soul, he certainly did not succeed in getting the better of himself. Too many questions depended on his decision, not only for himself but above all for the resistance movement as a whole. We must try to look into the soul of a man, who, on the one hand, was exposed to the pressure of an enormous aversion to the approaching threatening events and, on the other hand, knew only too well that in his position he could no longer fulfill his task if he obeyed his personal impulses. Perhaps it would have been possible for Sievers to leave his office without creating a great sensation and without considerable disadvantage for himself. Could he not have retired to cooperate in some innocuous scientific research? But in doing so Sievers would have been a runaway, a deserter. In his agony of soul, Sievers applied to Hielscher who after mature consideration and deliberation came to the decision: _Sievers will stay!_

For the post in Himmler’s proximity could not be renounced. If Sievers abandoned it, Hielscher would be under the necessity of entrusting him with another position near Himmler or of replacing him by another member of the movement with the same task. Was this possible? Would he, remaining near Himmler, have not time and again come into the same dilemma? Was it possible to wait and see? Could it be expected that another man would be more successful? Would not Sievers, in spite of all circumspection, have raised suspicion in substantiating his withdrawal? For to do so openly and with protest would have been downright madness. Imagine only the danger he would have conjured up for himself and his associates! What could his withdrawal have availed? One more question: if Sievers’ withdrawal could have prevented the human experiments at all, that would have been only a partial success. For as to the aim in its totality, the removal of Himmler and the Nazi Government, nothing would have been gained but a further delay of the decision or the impossibility of achieving it because of the loss of the key position. As still more victims of the Nazi Government would have been the result, a partial success had to be sacrificed in favor of the great aim.

If you try to answer these questions there cannot be the least doubt that the decision Hielscher arrived at was the only possibility.

That brings me to the last, to the most important point of my defense, to the question:

“How was Sievers to act in his position?”

Without any doubt, he was compelled to make certain concessions. He was forced to camouflage, i.e., to accommodate himself outwardly to his surroundings which he was going to spy on and to remove. Every spy has to camouflage and I do not betray a secret in mentioning that in wartime many a man donned the uniform of the enemy. It is generally known that in 1942 the French General Giraud performed his escape from German captivity in the uniform of a German general.

When Sievers was a member of the party from 1929 to 1931, when later on he joined the NSDAP and the SS again, when he filled higher positions in these organizations, when he held the position of Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe and suffered himself to be promoted to a higher rank in the SS, without any doubt at all that was part of the camouflage measures which Hielscher, Dr. Borkenau, Dr. Topf, and other witnesses call the indispensable prerequisite, the compulsory mask for the tasks of the defendant Sievers.

Nobody will pretend that these camouflages which were to render possible a legally approved, nay, desirable aim, are in themselves punishable and illegal. Sievers’ outward membership in the SS is therefore excused by its camouflage purpose. And it is equally unobjectionable that occasionally he played the part of a good Nazi. The duty of doing so had expressly been urged upon him by Hielscher. The career of the organizer or an active member of a German underground movement would have found a sudden end if he had not behaved like a Nazi.

All the more seriously must I turn to the question of Sievers’ consent to and further participation in the human experiments and the establishment of the collection of skeletons, in which third persons suffered bodily injury.

Here the question is raised where are the bounds of necessity if it involves actions which in themselves are punishable facts. The answer to this question is the essential point of the Sievers case.

The legal orders of the world set up the principle: “_The legal values damaged by the action committed under necessity, must not be of a disproportionally greater value than the protected and rescued legal value._” That is the principle of proportion concerning which Wharton [“Criminal Law”], paragraph 642, says, “Sacrifice of another’s life, excusable when necessary to save one’s own.”

What were the competing legal values in the Sievers case?

On the one hand, there was the civilization of the world, the peace of the earth, humanity, the lives and existence of millions of men threatened and hurt by Hitler’s criminal government. Such actions are called crimes against peace and humanity by the new international law which threatens them with the severest punishments. The Allied Nations considered these legal values worthy of their soldiers enthusiastically going to war and death for them.

On the other hand, you will find the lives of individuals, their bodily safety, the respect and esteem of their personality, their liberty and the free expression of their will, certainly legal values of no less high value. There may have been hundreds of victims. But it was a meager number in comparison with the multitudes that Hitler, Himmler, and their accomplices had already murdered and continued murdering.

My question runs: Which of the two contending legal values is more valuable from the point of view of proportion?

I am far from excusing the ghastly crimes that happened in the concentration camps or even minimizing them, but with all my abhorrence for them I cannot help answering: The protection of civilization and humanity deserves preference over the life and health of individuals, deplorable as the inevitable sacrifices may be. So finally it was necessary, absolutely requisite, to put up with the violation of the less valuable legal values and to rescue the more precious, the whole. Sievers’ remaining at his post in the Ahnenerbe was absolutely necessary for the removal of Himmler.

Of course it would not be difficult to state _post festum_ that Sievers could have acted differently, that he ought not have advanced thus far. But up to now nobody has been able to tell us _how_ he should have acted. Even the public prosecutor did not try to make a concrete proposal.

* * * * *

_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
HOVEN_[5]

* * * * *

In two further parts of my closing brief I dealt with the killings which Dr. Hoven either undertook himself or which were undertaken with his knowledge.

In part (b) of the closing brief, I stated that these killings had no connection with the euthanasia plan.

I further stated that it can be considered proved that Dr. Hoven killed only two prisoners himself, and that about 50 or 60 prisoners were killed by order of those responsible for the German and foreign political prisoners with the knowledge of Dr. Hoven.

I have set forth a legal evaluation of these killings in a further paragraph under (e) of the closing brief.

The legal arguments as set forth in the closing brief are taken from the work of the well-known American criminologist Wharton, _Criminal Law_. The first part of this argument contains, under (e), the literal quotations from this book.

According to common law, the killing of a man can be either murder, manslaughter, excusable homicide, or justifiable homicide. Excusable homicide and justifiable homicide are not punishable.

The present American law does not differentiate between justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. I refer to my closing brief, particularly to the statements of Wharton in his book _Criminal Law_, 12th edition, volume I, 1932, pages 826 to 879. According to Wharton, excuse and justification for a homicide are either repulsion of felonious assault, or prevention of felony.

The right of self-defense, i.e., repulsion of felonious assault, is restricted to a narrowly defined number of persons.

On the other hand, everybody is entitled to prevent a crime. I refer to the details contained in my legal arguments of my closing brief.

Killing a man to prevent a felonious crime requires the following conditions which are set forth in my closing brief:

(1) The perpetrator must have the bona fide belief that the
commission of a felonious crime is immediately impending. It is
not a condition that such a crime would actually have been
committed. The bona fide belief of the accused is quite
sufficient. In this connection I refer to the legal arguments of
the closing brief.

(2) This belief of the accused must not be negligently adopted.

(3) There must not be any other possibility of preventing a
crime than the killing of a person. In other words—the killing
must be the only means available to prevent the crime.

The prosecution’s assertion in its final plea, “One must not kill five to save five hundred”, therefore, cannot be considered generally valid either from the point of view of German or American law.

On the basis of the statements of the prosecution, I have not been able to see clearly whether that sentence had reference only to the justification of experiments on human beings or else to the killings which were carried out by Dr. Hoven or with his knowledge.

The justification of the killings is materially distinguished from that of the experiments. Those spies, stool-pigeons, and traitors, for whose killing Dr. Hoven accepted responsibility when in the witness stand, had planned to commit serious crimes against their fellow prisoners. Therefore, if the three prerequisites which I mentioned are given, we are concerned with cases of justifiable or excusable homicide.

In my closing brief, I elaborately explained that these conditions existed in the case of all the killings for which Dr. Hoven accepted the responsibility.

The defendant Dr. Hoven had the conviction and good faith that the spies and traitors, who were killed by him or with his knowledge, were about to commit serious crimes, resulting in the death of numerous inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp. During his examination on the witness stand, Dr. Hoven gave a thorough description of this.

The decision on these killings was not reached by Dr. Hoven alone. Dr. Hoven had no cause for that. It was not his life that was endangered by those spies or traitors. It was, on the contrary, the committee of political German and foreign prisoners, many of whom are today holding high office in their countries. Those persons guaranteed to Dr. Hoven that only such individuals would be killed who already had been active and would continue to be active as spies and as traitors. These statements by Dr. Hoven were expressly confirmed by a number of witnesses who were heard on this subject. These observations may be found in the affidavits I submitted. Above all it has been proven that only such people of whom Dr. Hoven held that conviction were done away with. Dr. Hoven testified to that effect and it has been reaffirmed by the witnesses Dorn, Dr. Kogon, Seegers, and Hummel.

In his interrogation of 23 October 1946, Dr. Hoven stated expressly that he killed or knew only of the killings of such persons of whom he was certain that their deaths were necessary to save the lives of a multitude of political prisoners from the various countries. At that early date he expressly emphasized that he refused to carry out any of the killing orders of the Camp Commander Koch; the prisoners who were covered by these orders were put into the hospital or hidden in some other way by Dr. Hoven.

Dr. Hoven had not negligently adopted the conviction that their killing was essential for the salvation of huge numbers of prisoners.

This is proved first of all by the testimony of the witness Dorn, who gave many details as to the means and methods employed by Dr. Hoven and the illegal camp administration in becoming convinced of the necessity for the killings. Dr. Hoven supplemented those statements. Furthermore, they were corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses Hummell, Dr. Kogon, Seegers, Philipp Dirk, Baron von Pallandt, and van Eerde through their affidavits.

Actually, the prevention of the planned crimes, i.e., the mass murder of a multitude of German and foreign political prisoners, could be accomplished only through the killing of the spies and traitors. There was no other means. What should Dr. Hoven have done to prevent the crimes planned by the spies and traitors? Those spies collaborated with the SS camp commanders to carry out Himmler’s program to destroy the political prisoners. To whom should Dr. Hoven have turned? Perhaps to the SS camp commanders who worked with the spies and traitors? Or perhaps to the Gestapo or to the police who worked under Himmler’s orders?

There was no other way but the one which Dr. Hoven chose in order to prevent crimes. I showed that with details in my closing brief. There I assembled the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and defense who were heard on this point.

Here, I merely wish to stress the following statements by witnesses:

In this courtroom, Dr. Kogon, a convinced Christian and a deeply religious man, said: “There was really no other possibility for the men of the illegal camp administration. I, as a convinced Christian, do not deny those men the right to have killed people in an emergency who in collaboration with the SS endangered the lives of individuals or of many.”

The witness Pieck stated: “It may be that the liquidation of many political prisoners and of SS spies employed in the camp may make Dr. Hoven a murderer in the eyes of many; yet, for me and others who understood the real situation he was a soldier fighting on our side and risking a great deal.”

Pieck expressed the same opinion also in a letter to the Dutch Ministry of Justice, a letter that was co-signed by the City Council of Amsterdam and Mr. Droering, head of a department of the State Institute for War Documentation in The Hague.

Pieck is one of the few who is best equipped to answer these questions, for he belonged to the committee of German and foreign political prisoners which formed itself at Buchenwald.

Father Katjetan, presently Supreme Abbot of one of the largest religious orders in Czechoslovakia, a former prisoner of the concentration camp Buchenwald, declared, in the presence of witness Dr. Horn, that those killings were an inevitable necessity for the preservation of the inmates who had been abandoned by justice in the camp.

Even the prosecution witness Roemhild had to admit on the stand that it would have been impossible to save 20,000 prisoners if those spies or traitors whom Dr. Hoven killed or of whose killing he knew had remained alive.

Let me ask in this connection: What would have happened if a man of Kushnir Kushnarev’s caliber had not been killed, and if the murder of the Russian prisoners of war in the Buchenwald camp had been continued? Would Dr. Hoven not stand before this Tribunal even then? Then, would not the same charge be made against Dr. Hoven as the one levelled against the Japanese Governor of the Philippines who was tried before an American Military Court for not having prevented atrocities and abuses?

* * * * *

d. Evidence

_Testimony_
Page
Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 29
Extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Friedrich 30
Hielscher
Extract from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 42
Andrew C. Ivy

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[6]

_EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

JUDGE SEBRING: Witness, this question of the necessity for an experiment, is it your view that it is for the state to determine the extreme necessity for such an experiment and that thereafter those who serve the state are to be bound by that procedure? I think you can answer that “yes” or “no”.

DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: This trial shows that it will be the task of the state under all circumstances basically to clarify this question for the future.

Q. Witness, as I understood your statements a moment ago, they were that the physician, having once become the soldier, thereafter must subordinate such medical-ethical views as he may have when they are in conflict with a military order from higher authority, is that true?

A. I didn’t want to express it in that form. I did not mean to say that the physician, the moment he becomes a medical officer, should change his basic attitude as a physician. Such an order can in the very same way be addressed to a physician who is not a soldier. I was referring to the entire situation as it prevailed with us in Germany during the time of an authoritarian leadership. This authoritarian leadership interfered with the personality and the personal feelings of the human being. The moment an individuality is absorbed into the concept of a collective body, every demand which is put to that individuality has to be absorbed into the concept of a collective system. Therefore, the demands of society are placed above every individual human being as an entity, and this entity, the human being, is completely used in the interests of that society.

The difficult thing, and something which is hard to understand basically, is that during our entire period, and Dr. Leibbrandt referred to that, everything was done in the interests of humanity so that the individual person had no meaning whatsoever, and the farther the war progressed, the stronger did this principal thought appear. This was designated in the end as “total war,” and in accordance with that, the leaders of the state gave orders quite generally and demanded that orders be carried out. It was very tragic for a number of persons, not only within the framework of these experiments, but also in other situations that they had to work under such orders. Without considering the entire situation as it prevailed in Germany, one cannot understand the question of these particular experiments at all.

* * * * *

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS
DR. FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER[7]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

DR. WEISGERBER: Witness, your name is Friedrich Hielscher?

WITNESS HIELSCHER: Friedrich Hielscher.

Q. You were born on 31 May 1902 in Plauen, and you are now living in Marburg, that is right?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your profession?

A. I am a scholar.

Q. And since when have you taken an active part in politics?

A. Since 1927.

Q. Did you belong to a definite political ideology?

A. No. I had a group of students to whom I expounded my historical and philosophical theories and ideas.

Q. How did it happen that you became an opponent of the NSDAP so early?

A. From the information available to me I knew the personal inferiority of the National Socialist leaders. I could observe that they were constantly lying and that what they really wanted was undesirable.

Q. Did you believe, as early as 1928, that the NSDAP would come to power?

A. No, not in 1928. In 1930, after the first election battle at which the Party was victorious, I considered it possible. In 1931 I considered it probable. In 1932 I felt that it was certain.

Q. Did you join any definite political party with the intention of combating the NSDAP?

A. No. I considered it impossible for any of the 33 German parties, with their bureaucratic methods, to be able to prevent a fascist dictatorship, or if it had come into existence, to overthrow it.

Q. What methods did you think were the right ones?

A. The fascist dictatorship is a mass machine in a technical age. Therefore it seemed to us to be out of the question, when confronting such a mass body, to act openly. It seemed impossible to carry out propaganda publicly. We were convinced that the only thing possible was to form very small cadres which would not be recognizable to an outsider and which at the proper time could be employed for a coup d’etat.

Q. Then that was more or less the method of the Trojan Horse?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you, in your ideas and in your efforts to combat this movement alone or did you have associates?

A. First, a selected group of my students were willing to collaborate in this illegal work; second, I knew quite a number of personages of various political backgrounds with whom I agreed that this regime would not last.

Q. That was before 1933?

A. That was around 1933—1932-33.

Q. Now came the 30th of January 1933, the so-called seizure of power, and now your real work began. How and when did you apply your method of the Trojan Horse?

A. This group of my students, who were willing to collaborate, I made into an illegal organization, with dues, secrecy, and other necessary conditions, and I appointed people who were willing and suitable to get into important Party positions.

Q. When and how did you meet the defendant Wolfram Sievers?

A. As far as I can recall, I met Sievers about 1929, on one of my historical-philosophical lecture trips. He was a Boy Scout at that time. He spoke up during the discussion and we took a liking to each other.

Q. Did Sievers show at that time that he was opposed to the NSDAP?

A. That was a matter of course with the people with whom I had anything to do at all.

Q. And did you consider him suitable to work in your circle?

A. Yes.

Q. In 1929 Sievers joined the NSDAP. Was that done with your knowledge?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you advise him to do so or how did it come about? There had to be some special reason, since you were both opponents of this political party.

A. That was the first time, aside from 1923, when the NSDAP was talked about, and it was useful to know what was going on in this growing machine—were there any people of good will within the machine, what were the leaders doing, what plans were being made, what organization was being set up.

Q. Then first of all you wanted to find out what intentions the NSDAP had?

A. Yes, and specifically in the youth work, because that had to be the most important in the long run.

Q. Now, in 1931 Sievers resigned from the NSDAP again; did he do that with your knowledge?

A. Yes.

Q. On your orders?

A. Yes, one might say that. We discussed it, and I considered it the thing to do.

Q. Now, why should he suddenly leave the Party since he had been sent into the Party with the definite purpose of getting information?

A. He had found out what he was to find out, the nature and the make-up, especially of the youth organization. It was just as inferior as we had thought, and even at that time it was so corrupt that without any further plan—and we had no plan at the time—without any further plan it was not necessary to have him continue.

Q. Now, in the year 1933, Sievers, as the Tribunal has already been told, again joined the NSDAP; was this also done on your behalf?

A. Yes. At that time we were already a thoroughly organized organization. We were already asking for volunteers, who were willing and who were capable of working up in the sense of the Trojan Horse. Sievers seemed suitable, and he was willing.

Q. Were you able to get him any position within the Party?

A. No. I was not able to help him to obtain any position, and in the second place I had no intention of telling the individual persons whom I trusted, in detail, what they were to do.

Q. Then it was up to the skill of the individual to get into a position from which he would be able to carry out the assignment which you gave him?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did Sievers obtain this position?

A. He got into this with Hermann Wirth in the Ahnenerbe.

Q. Who was Hermann Wirth?

A. Hermann Wirth was a rather crazy student of pre-history, who had excellent material and terrible concepts.

Q. Was Wirth already in contact with the Ahnenerbe at that time?

A. As far as I know he was one of the founders.

Q. Then, as you say, Sievers got in contact with Wirth, and through Wirth he got into the Ahnenerbe?

A. Yes. He was there from 1935 on as Reich Business Manager.

Q. Now, did you give Sievers any specific assignment in the spirit of your movement?

A. As soon as it was clear that there was a possibility of exploiting Himmler’s racial romancing and half-education, the assignment developed to gain Himmler’s confidence with the aid of the Ahnenerbe and to get as close to him as possible. We, that is my group, were among the people who very early recognized the special personal danger of Himmler, and in the second place from the beginning we had been determined that one day we would have to overthrow the Party regime by force, and for that purpose one has to get as close as possible to the most dangerous man.

Q. And what were the duties which Sievers had this time? When he first belonged to the NSDAP, you said he was to get information about the intentions of the youth movement of the NSDAP.

A. This time, of course, he had to get as many details as he could from the office of the Reich Leader SS, and transmit them to us. We had to protect people. We had to build up camouflage positions. We had to help the other people and in turn to remain unrecognized.

Q. And how did Sievers carry out these duties?

A. Well, it will be best if I begin with myself. I myself was known and considered undesirable by the Party leadership.

Q. You mean the NSDAP?

A. Well, yes, of course. The Party leaders knew me and considered me undesirable. I had already been under arrest and had had my house searched. I was watched by the Gestapo, and in order to build up my organization I needed to be able to travel anywhere without arousing suspicion. Consequently, Sievers gave me a fake research assignment, which was to study Indo-Germanic culture, customs of the annual festivals.

Q. Sievers said during direct examination that he himself could not issue any research assignments; you said that you received a fake research assignment from him; wasn’t this research assignment actually issued by the curator, Professor Wuest?

A. Yes. If things were going well, and Wuest was in a good mood, or had been drinking with Sievers, it was possible to persuade him to do something, and so he succeeded in persuading Wuest that I was efficient for this research assignment, and so I was given this assignment. And what concerned Indo-Germanic customs could be found anywhere. I was given a false pass as a section chief, though I was not a section chief, and was not a member of the SS nor the Ahnenerbe.

Q. And with this pass you were able easily to get visas to go abroad?

A. Not necessarily. I needed a little more for that purpose, but it was easier.

Q. Then the actual purpose of this fake research assignment was that you, who were a suspect, might appear in a more harmless light and would be able to move rather freely and without supervision?

A. Yes.

* * * * *

Q. What did Sievers do in order to further the activities of your organization?

A. For instance, he took care of supplying all information which was of importance. He told us what troops of the Waffen SS were in Germany during the war. He gave us fake official trips and he worked out a plan for an assassination, which was to be carried through by our group in case the generals’ plan did not come off. We all thought it was not safe to rely on the generals. In March 1944, Werner Haften told me by order of Stauffenberg that one would have to take into account the fact that the generals would have to be moved into action by a certain assassination and everyone was to make his own preparations, in case he had any, in such a manner as if he was the only one active. That was the situation in March 1944. We worked out a substantial plan to remove, if possible, Himmler and Hitler simultaneously, but in case of doubt Himmler himself. We were of a completely different opinion there than the other groups.

Q. What concrete preliminary work was done for the assassination in your group?

A. Sievers was the only one in our group who came into question regarding that assassination because he was the only one so close to Himmler. He was therefore assigned this task and we worked out this matter as far as the detailed plan was concerned; all that was necessary now was to press the button.

Q. And for what period of time was this assassination intended?

A. We started our preparations in the year 1943, and we could have started at the earliest at the end of 1943. Then we finally thought of the middle of 1944 because Schulenburg and Luening told me that the generals would be ready around that time.

Q. Well, an assassination is a matter for quick decision. Is it not true, therefore, that all these long preparations that you are telling us about are rather surprising?

A. The following would have to be taken into consideration: Around Himmler and Hitler there was a strong guard, a strong ring of guards, through which none could get unless he was carefully searched and checked. Secondly, and that I already emphasized, one did not have to be quite sure that the generals would carry out that assassination, but one had to be sure that a sufficient number of generals were ready to remove the National Socialist system immediately after the assassination, for the elimination of just these two people would have no political purpose whatsoever. We did not intend to carry out a Putsch but we intended to remove a political system, a political order, and for that reason we had to wait until the situation became right and the generals were ready.

Q. Now, the question crops up whether these plans for the assassination of Hitler and Himmler were only in your fantasy, or the fantasy of your collaborators, or was there any real basis or concrete preparation for such assassination?

A. I already said that the preparations had been worked out in the detailed technical points insofar as the location, the shooting, etc., were concerned.

Q. And who would have assassinated Himmler and Hitler?

A. Sievers was to do that and a few young men belonging to my organization.

Q. And why was it in effect not carried out?

A. After the Stauffenberg assassination had failed, the Wehrmacht circles that came into question were eliminated by Himmler and therefore it was no longer possible to remove that system. The only consequence of any attempted assassination would have been—since the foreign political situation would not have changed—that the people would have said again, “This is the stab in the back for the victorious front line.”

Q. What did Sievers do to further your activity in addition to what you have already said?

A. He, for instance, supported my representative, Arnold Deutelmoser, when he was put on the list of those who were to be removed under the pretext of the assassination which took place in Munich at the Buergerbraeu. He also protected Bomas who was working in the Netherlands. He protected Dr. Schuettelkopf whom we had sent into the RSHA and it was possible for him in turn to send me to Sweden. He saved Niels Bor, Professor Seyb of Oslo University, and he saved a number of Norwegian students, etc.

Q. Do you know that Sievers informed you about Himmler’s double play in the case of the minister Popitz, and that as a consequence he saved that entire group against measures by Himmler?

A. Yes. The following thing happened. One day Sievers approached me and said that he had just heard Himmler ridicule in a close circle an attempt on the part of Popitz. He said that Minister Popitz with the mediation of the lawyer Lampe had approached Himmler and tried to persuade him to bring about a change of the National Socialist system, perhaps by removing Hitler. He said Himmler thought it was very funny that these men had so little sense as to think of him in that connection. Thank God one could enter negotiations with them because certainly nobody in the country was behind these people, but it did seem that these gentlemen had many foreign political relationships and it would be advisable to find out what in effect was behind it all and to enter into negotiations with them. We were quite surprised about the naive attitude shown by Himmler, and I sent Deutelmoser to Reichwein whom I knew had connections with Popitz. In that way Popitz was warned. Reichwein was so surprised and hardly wanted to believe the situation.

I was asked to participate in a conference, and Reichwein after having convinced himself that all of this was true promised to warn all of the gentlemen concerned in Berlin and then asked Deutelmoser, who was to go to Norway shortly thereafter to notify Reichwein’s friend, Stelzer, the present Minister President of Schleswig-Holstein, in order to see that he, too, took the necessary precautionary measures. In this way we hoped that a number of these people had actually been saved. Popitz, however, himself was careless and was captured.

Q. This conspiracy could not have been carried out unless you had the necessary financial means at your disposal. How did you get these means?

A. Everyone of our people, be it man or woman, had agreed to give up ten percent of their monthly income for that illegal work. Many gave a substantially larger sum.

Q. How about Sievers?

A. Sievers gave more than he had to.

Q. Do you know the case of the three hundred Norwegian students who on the basis of Sievers’ intervention were released from the concentration camp Buchenwald?

A. Yes. Terboven, or some other official in Norway, disliked some demonstration which occurred there, and as a result arrested three hundred students. Through some dark channels they were brought into the concentration camp at Buchenwald. Sievers found out about that, and if I remember correctly, he was in a position to see to it that these students were released from the concentration camp, making use of Himmler’s Nordic ideas to this end.

Q. In that case you think that Sievers’ activity was substantially important for your resistance movement?

A. Yes. That was true of my organization, for he protected and covered me as its chief, and, secondly, as far as I know, he was the only man belonging to any resistance movement who was as close as he to the Reich Leader SS. If any other group had brought any such information as he did, I would have noticed that it could have only come from the same source.

Q. Witness, I shall have a document handed to you which was submitted by the prosecution. This is Document NO-975, Prosecution Exhibit 479. It is a letter sent by Sievers to Dr. Hirt. Would you please look at that letter?

A. Yes.

Q. This letter contains a tone of voice which seems to indicate that he tried to cover Dr. Hirt’s activity. Dr. Hirt was working in the Anatomical Institute of the Strasbourg University. I assume, for reasons which we shall mention later, that you know Hirt’s name. How do you explain that tone in this letter?

A. I think that this is very proper and praiseworthy. I would have thought it very foolish of Sievers if he adopted any other tone in any of his official correspondence. It was his task to say “yes” but act in a negative way. There couldn’t have appeared any pretense of any disapproval on his part. The more active one had to be in an anti-National Socialist way, the more one had to speak in favor of National Socialism.

Q. I shall now turn to another complex of questions. Sievers is indicted in this trial as having participated in a number of crimes. Did Sievers at any time tell you about the so-called research assignments of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Hirt who was just mentioned? These were experiments carried out in the concentration camps.

A. Sievers, as far as I remember, came to me in the year 1942 and told me very excitedly that Himmler in his desire to extend the Ahnenerbe Society had embarked on the thought of including experiments on human beings in the work of the Ahnenerbe Society. He said that he did not succeed in frustrating that. He said that he had no desire whatsoever to participate in these horrible acts and asked me what to do. At that time we considered this horrible situation very thoroughly and thought of what we could do. It was quite clear to us what the SS intended here, and it was questionable whether responsibility could be assumed for any such acts, whether it would be advisable to be the instrument of Himmler if he embarked on any such acts, measures where human beings were degraded to the level of insects.

The following considerations proved to be decisive for us: If Sievers left, not one person, not one subject in these experiments would be saved. If Sievers stayed there as a technical secretary, he could throw sand into that machinery and would, perhaps, be in a position to save somebody. In addition, the entire plan and the entire overthrow of the Party stood or fell with Sievers staying at his post. The experiments on human beings were only part of this horrible Party system, and one had to concentrate on the decisive points in order finally to remove everything, and, as I have said before, there was no other way into the staff of the Reich Leader SS. We therefore concluded that if Sievers resigned because of that, it was sure that he would be eliminated and probably all the people he had ever entrusted with a research assignment, and everything that we had done so far would be lost if he left, and if anyone was to be saved at all, he could only be saved by Sievers remaining at his post.

Q. If I have understood you correctly, Sievers at first wanted to resign from his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe?

A. Yes. That is correct.

Q. Did Sievers approve of these arguments which you and your friends put forward in favor of his staying with the Reich Leader SS as the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe? Did he do it immediately or only after trying to persuade him for some time?

A. This took a number of days, because Sievers, according to his nature, was softer than many of us and did not want to agree with us. We finally had to appeal to his sense of duty and persuade him that he had to do it and that it was the only way.

Q. Among other matters, it was considered that by Sievers remaining at his post, there would be a possibility of mitigating these horrible experiments?

A. The chance wasn’t very great but we were convinced that this would be the only way possible, if at all. Then it could only be done in that manner. If I may say so, this was such a horrible situation that we always had to come back to it and we were very lucky at least to have the hope of saving a number of people. Other opponents of the SS system have told me about similar dilemmas which were just as difficult, and where the alternative was yet more horrible, and where persons, according to my belief and knowledge, acted correctly. If the Tribunal would permit me I could relate a few almost incredible situations which were even worse.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: In what connection are these narrations, Witness?

WITNESS HIELSCHER: In connection with the question as to whether it was morally justifiable to enable Sievers to remain at his post.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Such matters as that would not be material in this inquiry.

* * * * *

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. HARDY: Now, what did Sievers ever tell you about the Sievers-Hirt skeleton collection? Did he ever tell you about that?

WITNESS HIELSCHER: Yes. He told me that Himmler had ordered—as far as I know, it was in connection with Jewish commissars who were under this terrible execution order which was valid in the East—that some of them were to be selected and used for the skeleton collection. The order was from Himmler, as Sievers reported to me.

Q. And did you know what they were going to do with these people?

A. Yes. It was the same as in the experiments. There a danger of death was a possibility; here it was certain.

Q. You knew, of course, that they were going to stand these people up, pick them out, select them according to size, take their anatomical measurements, then ship them to Natzweiler and at Natzweiler kill them, then deflesh them, then send the skeletons to the Strasbourg University for collection? And you knew that?

A. Yes.

Q. A fine thing for a resistance man to be involved in, isn’t it?

A. The situation, as I have said repeatedly, was as follows: We made no distinction in the real evaluation of the skeleton collection and other experiments in which there was this so-called “volunteering” and in which the result was the same—in our eyes, they were the same thing. I should like to emphasize one more thing. Does one have the moral right to tolerate a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil?

Q. Just a moment. Now in connection with the skeleton collection, do you further know that they dispensed with the idea of taking Jewish commissars but selected Jewish inmates of concentration camps?

A. Yes. What particular persons were selected I do not know, of course, but I knew that a number of Jews were to be gassed and were selected for this anthropological collection. That was the same case as in the Ghetto of Lodz. The Jewish commander of the Ghetto—that was Lieutenant Rosenblatt—after he had gained confidence in me because I had gone in with a false pass, said personally to me: “I was picked out by the SS. When a new group of Jews comes into this Ghetto of Lodz and crowds the Ghetto, I have to select exactly the same number of Jews and I know that they will be gassed. That is, I was selected by the SS to determine who is to be gassed. Now, I ask you in the name of God, Mr. Hielscher, you are a Christian, what am I to do? I had nothing to do with that. I have asked the Rabbis. I have asked the old people themselves, and we have come to the conclusion that I must stay in this office. At least I can determine the persons—I can at least select the oldest people who can’t stand life in a ghetto and perhaps, in this way, perhaps I will be able to save the life of one person. These two old people that I am telling you about were about seventy years old. There were five Christians among the Jews. At least I was able to see that these two old people were gassed together. They asked me to tell their daughter that we were able to achieve at least that. Tell me, did I do right or not?” That is still more horrible because the man could not even reduce the number. I was ashamed that the people who were in charge of this camp were called Germans. But I said: “You have acted right and you are justified in the eyes of God.”

Q. Now, Dr. Hielscher, I assume that the defense counsel has shown you all the documents concerning the skeleton collection. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. There won’t be any need for me to go over them. You have stated in connection with the one document that was presented to you today on the stand that this was a very praiseworthy act on the part of Sievers in a negative way. Since you are familiar with all the skeleton collection documents—I had intended to go into each one but I will just go into that one. That is Document NO-088, Prosecution Exhibit 182. This is a document which was written by Sievers. You will see that his signature appears thereon. Do you recognize the signature at the bottom of the letter?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, Sievers here is proposing a way in which they can destroy the skeleton collection so that it will not be known to any one—that is, to the Allies when they overrun Strasbourg. And you will notice, two-thirds of the way through, the one paragraph that states: “The viscera could be declared as remnants of corpses apparently left in the anatomical institute by the French.” You see that?

A. Yes.

Q. “In order to be cremated.” Now this is an idea of one Wolfram Sievers, wherein he is suggesting that these, or the results of these criminal activities be left so that they may, by the Allies, be blamed on to the French, and bearing in mind, of course that the French, as well as the United States, Great Britain, and other Allies were equally as interested as the resistance movements in defeating the Nazi regime, were they not?

A. I have already said that it was Sievers’ duty to say “yes” and to act negatively, but, of course, I did not praise this action, but I praised the vocabulary, the formulation. He spoke like a Nazi. The concrete question in such a case was simply as follows: Can anyone be saved here or not? If no one can be saved, what can I do to keep up the appearance of a Nazi since I know that Obersturmbannfuehrer Neuhaus suspects that I have some contact with the resistance movement? Sievers, since the 20th of July, or rather since my arrest, was constantly seeing to it that his actions looked like Nazi actions, insofar as no one was actually killed; that was part of his duty, part of the mask without which the organization could not operate.

Q. Yes. But from this letter does it not suggest that he was willing to allow an innocent Frenchman to answer for the crimes which flowed out of this skeleton collection activity?

A. If you show me—

Q. I have asked you—does it not appear from this letter, this letter signed by Sievers, that he was willing to allow a Frenchman to suffer for the crimes committed during the course of the collection of these skeletons?

A. Yes. The letter quite deliberately, I believe, creates this impression. That was the purpose of it, like all such letters.

* * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS
DR. ANDREW C. IVY[8]

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

* * * * *