Dr. Schilling worked for the Rockefeller Foundation in Berlin, receiving a grant in 1911 for the study of various diseases and for a trip to Rome. In 1941, in Italy, Dr. Schilling met Dr. Conti, the Reich physician leader, who invited him to see Himmler. Schilling went to Himmler who gave him the order for him to continue his studies at Dachau.
Tribunal is not necessarily binding. It may have been admitted without objection as far as this Tribunal knows.
The objection of counsel for the defense to the offer of this document will be sustained without prejudice to its being offered again if other supporting evidence may be procured.
MR. McHANEY: This completes the presentation of documentary evidence on the freezing experiments conducted at Dachau; and Mr. Hardy will continue now with the introduction of testimony and proof on the malaria Experiments.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution charges in the indictment the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers, in Count Two, Paragraph 6, Sub-paragraph C, and in Count Three, Paragraph 11, with special responsibility for and participation in the malaria experiments.
As will be shown in the course of this presentation, those experiments were also conducted at the Dachau Concentration Camp; and in this connection a Military Government Court of the United States of America sentenced Karl Schilling to death by hanging in the case of the United States versus Weiss, Ruppert, et al.
At this time the prosecution respectfully requests that the Honorable Tribunal call the witness August Heinrich Vieweg to the witness stand. Due notice has been filed with the office of the Secretary General; and the defense counsel have been duly notified that this witness has been summoned to appear before this Tribunal to testify to facts concerning the experiments at the Dachau Concentration Camp.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will take the stand. Mr. Prosecutor?
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this man a German national?
MR. HARDY: This man is a German national, yes sir.
FRANZ RIETWEG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you will stand at your place in the witness box, hold up your right hand, and be sworn. Repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Witness, what is your full name?
A [Rietweg]: Franz Rietweg.
Q: Witness, when and where were you born?
A: I was born in Lucern on the 10th of April, 1906.
Q: What is your occupation?
A: I am a physician.
Q: Witness, will you kindly tell the Tribunal where your present place of abode is?
A: At the moment I am in prison in an internment camp in Hanneborge.
Q: Will you kindly tell the Tribunal for what reason you are a prisoner in the internment camp?
A: I was an Obersturmbannfuehrer in the Waffen SS.
Q: When were you at Dachau — ?
MR HARDY: Pardon me, your Honor, this witness is apparently the wrong witness.
Q: Would you kindly repeat your full name again, please?
Q: How do you spell that, Mr. Witness?
MR. HARDY: I’m sorry, your Honor, the Marshal has called up the wrong witness as Vieweg. I have called up August Heinrich Vieweg.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will stand aside.
MR. HARDY: If Your Honors please, I will proceed with the presentation of the malaria experiments and when the witness arrives, we can use him at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: You may go ahead.
MR. HARDY: At this time, Your Honors, the Prosecution respectfully requests the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the official review of the proceedings in the Dachau trial, under Ordinance 7, Article 9. In accordance with the rules of the Tribunal I shall introduce the entire findings of fact contained in the official review of the trial with respect to malaria experiments. These particular facts have been given Document No. [NO] 856, and have been translated into the German language and made available to the defense counsel. This document is also offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 125 [HLSL item 69] [HLSL item 2027]. I shall read from the document. This is contained on page 1 of Your Honors’ Document Book [HLSL item 68]. Do you have the malaria documents with you?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I have not seen them.
MR. HARDY: They were delivered two days ago to the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: They have not reached the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I suggest that we send the General Secretary after the copies. They should be in the General Secretary’s office.
(The documents are procured)
MR. HARDY: I shall proceed to read Document NO 856, “EXTRACTS FROM THE REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES VS. WEISS, RUPPERT, ET AL, HELD AT DACHAU, GERMANY.
HEADQUARTERS THIRD US ARMY AND EASTERN MILITARY DISTRICT Office of Judge Advocate.
REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS OF GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES VS. WEISS, RUPPERT,” and I will not read the rest of the names.
“TO: Commanding General, Third United States Army and Eastern Military District, APO 403, United States Army:”
Now, if Your Honors will please turn to page 2, paragraph 2:
“Series of experiments concerning the treatment of malaria were conducted under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling. 300 to 400 persons died as a result. The facts elicited with respect to these experiments are set out in detail infra in connection with Dr. Schilling.”
We now proceed to Section “C” of the Review, Paragraph 15, which concerns the facts against the individual defendant, Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number did you assign to this exhibit?
MR. HARDY: I assigned the number 125.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit is a review by the reviewing authorities of the findings?
MR. HARDY: It is by the reviewing authorities on the findings in the trial held at Dachau, Germany, in the case of United States vs. Weiss, Ruppert, et al.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this exhibit contain the findings of the Court[?]
MR. HARDY: This exhibit contains the findings of the Court at the end and this is an official review of the trial and the only publication as a result of the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: It contains the findings then which are merely quotations from the sentences of the Court?
MR. HARDY: If you will turn to page 8 in Your Honors’ Document Book, second paragraph, there is stated the Court’s sentences in this particular case, in regard to Schilling, and then it is affirmed by the Reviewing Authorities, after having been sent on to be reviewed, and signed by Lieutenant General, L. K. Truscott.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this also contain what you perceive to be pertinent documents and documents upon which the sentences were based or not?
MR. HARDY: This contains, Your Honors, the facts introduced from the arguments of the Prosecution, as well as the Defense, and then the statement of the Reviewing Authorities of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Now as I understand it, you are asking this Tribunal to take judicial notice of the entire proceedings which culminated in this judgment, is that correct?
MR. HARDY: I am asking the Court to take judicial notice of the particular section pertaining to the malaria experiments in the case of Dr. Schilling at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the testimony upon which these findings were based available so that this Tribunal will have the opportunity, if it cares to do so, to examine this testimony?
MR. HARDY: Yes, that testimony can be made available, Your Honors. There are limited copies on file with the Judge Advocate in Weisbaden, and I am certain I can produce copies for Your Honors’ consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest you give consideration to that. As I understand it, this is not a copy directly of the findings of the court-martial or military commission or whatever it was that tried the defendant, but it is a copy of the action of the reviewing authorities upon those findings?
MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be admitted, taken in view of the statement of the Prosecution that the evidence upon which the judgment of the Court was based, may be made available.
MR. HARDY: I shall proceed on page 2, Your Honors, of the document book, the last paragraph, entitled paragraph 15:
“15. Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling. A special experimental station had been set aside in the hospital for the performance of malaria experiments under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling. Schilling performed his research for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria. Requests for prisoners were made by Schilling. One such request, which was admitted into evidence, stated that Polish prisoners were requested. A list of inmates was prepared in the camp physician’s office, the inmates being of all nationalities which were represented in the camp, and was sent to the labor office which made a copy of the list. There the list was confirmed by the Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer” — that is the SS Camp Commandant- “who sometimes made a few changes in the list.” These lists appeared about once every month since about 1943. None of the 1200 selectees ever consented or volunteered. Priests were often selected for these experiments. An inmate, a priest named Father Koch, related his experience in that connection. He was first X-rayed and then sent to the malaria station. He was put into a little room where he received a box with mosquitoes which he had to hold in his hands for about half an hour. That occurred every day for one week. Every afternoon another box of mosquitoes was put in between his legs while he was in bed. Each morning a blood smear was taken from his ear and his temperature was measured each day and night.
“He was given quinine. In about 17 days he left the hospital. After being released from the hospital he had to report back every Saturday. Eight months later he had an attack of malaria, which recurred, precisely every three weeks for six months. The symptoms he felt were high fever, chills and pains in the joints. Koch did not volunteer for the experiments, nor did the other prisoners who were mostly Poles and Russians, who underwent the treatment with him.
“The prisoners were infected with malaria by the injections of mosquitoes themselves or the injections of extracts of the mucous glands of the mosquitoes. After having contracted malaria, the prisoners were treated in different ways. Some, as Father Koch, were given quinine. Others were given neo-salvarsan, pyramidon antipyrin, a drug numbered 92516, and several combinations of these. Some people died as a result of these experiments. Schilling was present when autopsies were performed on some of these persons. Whenever anyone died who had been injected with malaria, a report of that death was made to the accused Schilling and the chief doctor. Some of the victims died from the intoxication of neo-salvarsan and pyramidon, for many individuals could not withstand large doses of these drugs. From the autopsy it could be determined that a patient died of neo-salvarsan since the reactions were similar to arsenic. In the beginning of 1944 three deaths resulted from the use of pyramidon. These people were brought directly from the malaria ward to the autopsy room. Two young Russian boys who were transferred from the Malaria ward to the general medical ward died within a day after their arrival because of overdoses of pyramidon. They had been sent to the general ward so that the official cause of death which would be stated would not be malaria. Pyramidon has toxis influence on the blood corpuscles which causes them to disintegrate. Malaria was the direct cause of thirty deaths and, as a result of complications, 300 to 400 more died. People who had died directly from malaria, had come straight from the malaria ward, while the 300 to 400 others had undergone the malaria experiment. These people who had been subjected to malaria may later have died of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or dysentery. Some of the patients whom Dr. Schilling used had had tuberculosis before undergoing the experiments. Fever type diseases have adverse effects on tuberculosis. An index of the malaria diseased people was kept in the hospital office.
“Schilling received various visitors such as Dr. Rabbit, who was a Reich SS physican at Oranienburg.
“A pre-trial affidavit of the accused Schilling executed in his own handwriting on 30 October 1945 before 2nd Lieutenant Werner Conn was admitted into evidence. This statement reads in pertinent part and in translation as follows:
“My name is Professor Dr. Klaus Schilling. I have already worked on tropical diseases for 45 years. I came to the experimental station in Dachau in February 1942. I judge that I innoculated between 900 and 1,000 prisoners. These were mostly innoculated for protection. These people, however, were not volunteers. The inmates whom I gave protective innoculations were not examined by me but by the present camp doctor. Before the innoculation there was usually an observation of several days. The last camp doctor was Dr. Hintermair. As well as I can remember, in three years there were 49 patients who died outside the malaria station. The patients were always released by me as cured only after one year.
“As remedy I used quinine, atabrine, and neo-salvarsan. I know for sure of six cases where I used pyramidon tablets to hold down the fever”.
W turn now to Section V of the Review of Trial, which is “Evidence for the Defense”, paragraph 15, in reference to Dr. Kurt Klaus Schilling:
“The accused Doctor Schilling elected to testify and made the following unsworn statement: He was 74 years old, married, had one son, and was a physician. He had specialized in tropical diseases, particularly malaria, since 1898. Dr. Schilling studied under Professor Koch of Berlin, and graduated from Munich as a physician in 1894. He did research work in Africa on malaria, sleeping sickness, and tsetse fly diseases. Dr. Schilling worked for the Rockefeller Foundation in Berlin, receiving a grant in 1911 for the study of various diseases and for a trip to Rome. In 1941, in Italy, Dr. Schilling met Dr. Conti, the Reich physician leader, who invited him to see Himmler. Schilling went to Himmler who gave him the order for him to continue his studies at Dachau. Schilling had selected Dachau because it was near his birthplace. The question of using prisoners for experiments was not discussed. In January 1942 Schilling went to Dachau. Schilling only accepted this commission at Dachau because the League of Nations, of which he was a member, told him of the importance of curing the seventeen million known cases of malaria. He believed it was his duty to humanity. He never became a member of the SS or the Nazi Party. He was a ‘free independent, research man’.
“Dr. Schilling infected thousands of prisoners with malaria ‘Benign Tertian’ which is not fatal. The purpose for this was to find a vaccination against malaria, and today there is no vaccination against malaria except the one discovered by Schilling. Dr. Schilling used mosquitoes and blood transfusions to infect the patients and received patients already infected. The patients were divided into groups and were constantly watched, one group for the purpose of keeping up the strain and another for immunization purposes. The latter were injected repeatedly to step up their immunity. Schilling reinfected about 400 to 500 patients and used quinine, atabrine, and neo-salvarsan, and a dye number 2516, which made the patients immune. To prove this, he had to test by infecting them again.
“Dr. Schilling could not work with animals because they are not receptive to malaria, and men are used throughout the world. He assumed that Admiral Stipp and Mark Boyd, two malaria authorities, used humans in their experiments. Infected malaria has been used to cure paralysis.
“Only about four or five of the patients refused to be immunized, but they consented after Schilling explained the importance of the work. The selections of the patients were made as follows: Berlin allowed him thirty patients a month and he would request them through the camp physician from the commandant who contacted the labor leader. The latter selected healthy prisoners and Schilling’s assistants chose the final names and sent them to Berlin, where the selection was approved. These patients were carefully inspected and could not be refused by Schilling by order of Himmler.
“The doses of neo-salvarsan were 1,54 grams and at no time failed. He used pyramidon to lower the boy temperature although the drug has a bad effect on the blood corpuscles. He used this drug only in fifteen cases and found that two grams were not harmful. This was important so the body could react without fever. Nobody died from pyramidon. Malaria has been used to cure syphillis, and neo-salvarsan can destroy parasites in a fever.
“Dr. Schilling never dealt with Dr. Blaha on any autopsies involving neo-salvarsan poisoning. Discharged patients were told to report back if they felt sick. Periodic checks were made of them and any patient was received back if there were signs of relapse. If Schilling were asked to resume his work, he would do so only [with] volunteers.
“Dr. Schilling was withdrawn as a witness at this point, but resumed the stand later and testified as follows: In death through neo-salvarsan all organs are affected. Blood cells may die, but nothing like this happened in his cases. It is impossible to determine death by malaria by a mere autopsy with out a microscope, especially where there may be other complications. Pyramidon is rarely the cause of death.
“Out of the 100 people infected by Dr. Schilling with malaria, not a single one of them died of uncomplicated malaria.
“Weight of the patients during experiments increased. Additional food was given and people suffering from contagious disease would be isolated. Dr. Schilling never stated the wrong cause of death.
Dr. Schilling stated he couldn’t experiment on himself because he had had malaria in 1933 and men like him cannot be reinfected in most cases, although malaria is a recurring disease. If there is chronic malaria, the heart muscles will suffer as in all chronic diseases. Malaria will increase the watery substance in the blood and the brain will suffer under chronic malaria. Chronic malaria will weaken the body to make it susceptible to other diseases and one may die of another disease while having malaria.
Schilling had SS doctors helping him and examined all patients personally and supervised the records. Schilling recognized Prosecution’s Exhibit No.131, which stated that nineteen cases were treated with pyramidon, three of whom died. He declared these patients were suffering from typhus and were removed from the ward.
“Although there was a typhus epidemic in November 1944 and he knew that people were dying, he continued his experiments. Everyone who was innoculated remained at the station. One patient was injected three times and later died of typhus. He was given neo-salvarsan, atabrine, and quinine.
“Pyramidon doses of three grams per day for five successive days were given. Dr. Blaha did not inform Schilling of the deaths due to pyramidon poisoning. If Schilling had been notified he would have stopped the experiment. An Italian named Calveroni was infected with blood and might have gotten typhus.
“If a man is suffering from malnutrition, a big dose of neo-salvarsan is not advisable. If it would save his life, Schilling would give it to him. It depended on the physical condition of the man and of what he was suffering; yet, Schilling gave the drug to Father Wicki who only weighed 50 kilos, but Schilling says that Wicki was not a sever[e] case.” — A kilo is approximately two pounds — Schilling gave three grams of neo-salvarsan in five days, which was the largest dose he ever gave over that period of time. He does not remember giving drugs to sufferers of dysentery.
“Schilling did not remember specific cases where he did not use caution. He recalled the priest Stachowski who died, but doesn’t remember that he died from neo-salvarsan.
“Dr. Schilling was not under the control of the SS. He heard rumors about beatings, but did not concern himself with ‘things that were not my business’. All his records had been burned. Schilling denied all accusations against him other than what he admitted as a part of his duty. He declared that his work was unfinished and that the court should do what it could to help him finish his experiments for the benefit of science and to rehabilitate himself.
“Mrs. Hubner, who knew Professor Schilling for thirty years, stated that she often saw him in Italy and in Germany and has known him to be of good reputation and of good veracity. He told her his only aim was to cure malaria. She believed his intentions at Dachau were good.
“Frau Durck, the wife of a university professor of the anatomical pathology who was interested in malaria research, knew Professor Schilling since 1924. Schilling was always regarded in his field as a serious scientist. She knew what he was doing at Dachau, but her husband would not have done it.
“Dr. Eisenberger, a lawyer for 52 years, knew Dr. Schilling for 30 years. He considered Schilling highly respectable and reliable, and said Schilling was seeking to benefit science and would never do anything wrong.
“Heinrich Storr, a male nurse at Dachau, testified it was known that Schilling worked on orders from Himmler. The camp’s physician and Schilling’s assistants examined the patients prior to the experimentation. Dr. Brachtel, an SS doctor and assistant to Schilling also performed atabrine experiments. If a patient had a relapse from malaria, he was treated by Dr. Schilling. Others were given quinine by some of the hospital staff.
“Max Kronenfelder worked in the malaria station under Schilling from February 1941 to June 1943. He knew about a Dr. Brachtel who also made private experiments on malaria without the knowledge of Dr. Schilling. Kronenfelder took blood smears and performed minor details such as cleaning up. Brachtel experimented with patients who had tuberculosis, being helped by a man named Adam. Adam was often in the morgue with Dr. Blaha.
“Father Rupieper had been subject to the malaria experiment in August 1942. Other priests who were also subjected were Peter Bower, Gustav Spitzick, Amon Burkhardt, Fritz Keller and Kasinemer Gasimer Rikofsky.”
We now turn to Section VI, which is Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence, paragraph 15, referring to Klaus Karl Schilling.
“When one of Dr. Schilling’s patients died, there were orders to report that fact to the malaria station, even though the man had died in another section of the hospital. Toward the end of 1942, Professor Schilling was personally present at the autopsy of a man who died of neo-salvarsan and he requested the brain, liver, kidneys, spleen and a piece of stomach. In that case, Dr. Schilling dictated part of the findings with respect to the cause of death. When the first three patients died from pyramidon in February 1945, a member from the malaria station and Dr. Hintermayer were present. Dr. Blaha stated that in his experience as a physician, the average patient could receive 3.3 p[y]ramidon a day, and that the largest dose would be 2 grams per day, but that of course assumed that the individual was healthy and strong. In Dr. Blaha’s judgment, the prison inmates could not be given more than one and a half to two grams for a few days. If those people were to receive three grams per day for three successive days, signs of poisoning would be revealed.
“Dr. Blaha stated that an autopsy revealed that death from pyramidon was the result of sudden suffocation, which was not true in the case of typhus. Death from typhus could be determined by certain indicia without a microscope.
“Dr. Blaha explained that the ordinary Midol tablet contained .3 p[y]ramidon and that it is sold over the open counter. If taken in moderate doses, it will not have any ill effects.
“A leaflet of I. G. Farben, Indiana, which held the neo-salvarsan, contained the following instructions: ‘In between the individual infections, spaces of time should be permitted to elapse, from three to several days’. These were instructions for syphillis. In paragraph five in the leaflet it read in part, ‘Such caution in the use of neo-salvar[s]an is recommended for undernourished and severe anemic patients, tuberculosis, diseases of the lungs, heart, kidneys, liver and intestines’.”
We turn now to Section X of the review: Merits and Defense, Paragraph 15, Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling.
“Dr. Schilling, at the call of Himmler, began conducting his malaria experiments at Dachau in February 1942. He continued these experiments until liberation of the camp. It was undisputed that the inmates upon whom Dr. Schilling used in his work were not volunteers. Dr. Schilling’s research was performed for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria. His requests for inmates were made about every month. These lists were prepared in the camp physician’s office and then sent to the camp commander and labor office. About 1200 selectees were thus chosen for subjection. Many of them were priests. The number of people who died from the malaria or from drugs such as pyramidon or neo-salvarsan is not known. Certainly some died. It is reasonable to infer that the deaths of many of the inmates from tuberculosis, dysentery, typhus, and other diseases were caused in part by the fact that those people had been subject to malaria. Although Dr. Schilling’s motive may have been simply and purely a scientific one, his activities exemplified the Nazi scheme which existed at Dachau. The part he played in that scheme is clear.”
Section XIV, Sentences.
“In many respects, the accused Schilling was the most reprehensible. He voluntarily came to Dachau fully cognizant of the nature of the work he intended to perform. Being educated and learned person that he was, Schilling undoubtedly must have realized the manner in which his work suited the needs of the Nazis. Although his personal motives may have stemmed from his desire to aid humanity, he permitted himself to utilize Nazi methods in contrast to other eminent German artists and scientists who either fled or refused to make themselves a part of the Nazi system. It is believed that the sentence of the court, who was aware of Schilling’s position in the scientific world, should be approved.”
Section XVI, Actions.
“A form of action designed to carry the foregoing recommendations into effect, should they meet with your approval, is submitted herewith. Charles E. Cheever, Colonel, Staff Judge Advocate.”
And the last page, which I will not read, is a confirmation of the Sentences by Lieutenant General L. K. Truscott, Jr., U. S. Army, Commanding.
I call to the attention of the Tribunal that the Dachau Board found as a fact that Dr. Schilling received his commission to carry out his criminal experiments from the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Heinrich Himmler. As is shown in all fields of this fiendish experimental program in Nazi Germany, the defendants charged with malaria experiments likewise had full knowledge of Schilling’s work, as he reported to them, conferred with them, received vital materials from them, and in some instances, they actively collaborated with the deceased Dr. Schilling.
At this time, I present to the Court, Document No. NO-721 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 126 [HLSL item 70] [HLSL item 1907]. This is a memorandum signed by the defendant Sievers. It reads as follows:
“Re: Consultation with Dr. May at Munich on 1 April 1942.
“1. A doctor and zoologist, Dr. Hilt, is at disposal.
“2. An entomologist, Dr. Braun.
“Both, however, are not presently employed in their specialities with the Wehrmacht, and would have to be assigned or released.
“3. Of the objects offered, the most favorable to date is a farmhouse at Holzkirchen. It is situated in the immediate vicinity of the railroad station near the Autobahn. The price is 75,000 Reichmark. It would have to be rebuilt for our purposes. To date, it has been used for the housing of soldiers. The Wehrmacht is interested in buying it in order, possibly, to use it as a food-stuffs factory. The fact that there are a sufficient number of living quarters speaks well for Holzkirchen.
“4. In this connection, I am wondering whether the experiments could not be started most quickly if the required space were provided at the Camp Dachau. The excellent medical arrangements there could be used for the examinations and furthermore the experiments would be considerably easier if observations could be made on prisoners.
“Another matter in favor of Dachau is the fact that Professor Schlink is carrying out his anopheles examinations there with regard to tropical malaria.” — Professor Schlink is a name similar to that of Schilling.
“5. At present, an extensive program is being prepared in Greece for the combatting of anopheles larvae. The luftwaffe is participating with the Air Defense Unit which is providing airplanes. The combatting is being carried out with arsenic preparations. The program is in the hands of Special Leader Dr. Dauberschmidt. The East Ministry has manifested its interest. It would be necessary that we join in by sending Dr. May. Service Pass and Travel Permit are requested.
“Signature: Sievers, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.”
It is obvious from this document, Wolfram Sievers at this point on 1 April 1942 or thereabouts was familiar with the work of Dr. Schilling at Dachau. This letter is a proposal for further experiments which are to be planned, which obviously shows that the distinguished Wolfram Sievers, in his capacity as Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe, had his finger in all these pies.
In order to substantiate the position of the defendant Sievers and his cultural society, the Ahnenerbe, I will now ask the Tribunal to turn to Document NO. —
THE PRESIDENT: At this time, the Tribunal will have a recess until 1:30 o’clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 13 December 1946.)
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, in order to substantiate the position of the defendant Sievers and his concern with the Ahnenerbe, I now ask the Tribunal to turn to page 12 in the Document Book, which is Doc. 3546-PS which has been previously introduced by Mr. McHaney as exhibit 123 [HLSL item 71] [HLSL item 2590]. I have put this document in the Document Book for the convenience of the Tribunal, the translation into English.
We will turn to page 14 of the Document Book under “22 February, 1330 hours to 1500 hours, Article 2, “Conference with Dr. Habil. Ed. May, b) Collaboration with Dr. Ploetner and Prof. Schilling.”
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring): Just a moment, sir. I haven’t located it. Will you repeat that again, sir.
MR. HARDY: Under date of 22 February, page 14.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring): Name the page.
MR. HARDY: 14 of your Honor’s Document Book. At the bottom of the page under the date of 22 February — two lines up from the bottom, number 2, “Conference with Dr. Habil. Ed. May, b) Collaboration with Dr. Ploetner and Prof. Schilling.”… Ploetner is one of the doctors who assisted Schilling in his work at Dachau. Now turn to page 19 of your Honor’s Document Book. Under the date of 31 May we see “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner. 1. Decree of Reichsarzt SS concerning collaboration with Prof. Schilling.”… Which indicates that not only Himmler personally was interested in Schilling’s works, but here Dr. Grawitz decrees that all shall collaborate with Prof. Schilling. Turn to the next page — top of the page. “3. Visit to Prof. Schilling: Discussion about limiting SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ploetner’s activities after his transfer to the AE”… Which is presumably Ahnenerbe. That is all the mention that is made to malaria experiments in Sievers’ diary in 1944 and these important bits of evidence will establish Sievers’ position in many murders of hundreds in experiments at Dachau.
A few days ago Prosecution pointed out the WVHA — that is Economic and Administrative Division under Oswald Pohl — also played a leading roll in this experimental plant in that they supplied fortunate [sic] victims placed at the disposal of various physicians and scientists conducting experiments at various concentration camps.
I now introduce document NO-065 which is an affidavit of Oswald Pohl and is offered in evidence as exhibit 127 [HLSL item 72] [HLSL item 1033].
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring): On what page is that?
MR. HARDY: That is page 26 of your Honor’s Document Book. This affidavit refers to several experiments which we will deal with its [i.e., in this (?)] presentation. At this time I will read the affidavit.
Medical experiments were conducted by order of Himmler. Representatives of the medical profession who knew how to sell him a medical problem as extremely important or had good friends to intervene for them,”…
DR. KARL HOFFMAN: (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny) Mr. President, I object to the reading of this affidavit as far as it has to do with my client. My client is mentioned in so far as experiments of Madaus are concerned. Pohl is here in the Nurnberg prison and is available at all times for testimony. His testimony on the subject of the experiments which concern my client is so unclear that I would like to cross examine him under all circumstances. I, therefore, request that this document be not read.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I would like very vigorously to object to his motion to exclude the affidavit secured from Oswald Pohl. In the first place Ordinance No. 7 clearly provides that affidavits are permissable before this Tribunal and the availability of the witness is not set up as a rule for determination of it. It is true that Pohl is now in the Nurnberg jail. However, this man will be indicted and tried in this same Court. Prosecution does not wish to call him as a witness. If the Defense Attorney wishes to call Pohl for cross examination to the extent he desires regarding the statement made hereby shown, that is his privilege. We may at a later stage of the trial bring Pohl to the stand to testify on other matters of a more general nature than set forth in this affidavit. However, we are not prepared to call him at this time and I would request the over-rule of this objection on the grounds of his availability here.
They ma[y] call Pohl for cross examination if they so wish as to any statement made in the affidavit but I do not see that runs against the admissibility of our document.
DR. KARL HOFFMAN: (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, if Pohl is available at another time then I will take back my motion.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please I do not wish to be understood as making any hard and fast committment that we will or will not call Pohl as a witness for the Prosecution. We may do so but we have not finally decided that matter. Any way the witness Pohl will be available for cross examination as to any matter contained in this affidavit at any time and if we do not call him then, of course, the Defense Attorney for the defendant Pokorny may avail himself of the right to call Pohl to the stand.
DR. KARL HOFFMAN (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, it will depend on the testimony of Pohl whether it can be ascertained that experiments were made with the medicament which is charged to my client or not. You will find in the document that Pohl does not express himself clearly. Thus I shall need Pohl in any circumstances and I shall take back my motion only if I have the right to call him as a witness at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection to the admission of the affidavit at this time is overruled. It will be understood, according to the statement by the Prosecution, that Pohl will be available to be called as a witness by the defendant.
MR. HARDY: I shall read the affidavit:
“General. Medical experiments were conducted by order of Himmler. Representatives of the medical profession who knew how to sell him a medical problem as extremely important or who had good friends to intervene for them, could easily arouse his interest, though Himmler himself did not possess any more medical knowledge than any educated layman. He had, however, an ample opportunity to talk about those problems with the doctors on his staff and in his immediate environment, and he probably did so. (Grawitz, Gebhardt, Brandt, Conti and others).
“When he was interested in a project he did all within his power to aid the medical men and kept in close contact with the problems and personally watched the progress of the project.
“When prisoners were provided for an experiment, the order usually was sent to the Inspection department, later also to me. But I don’t think it impossible that, in addition to the above, orders were sent directly to the camp commanders, otherwise I would have known of more experiments than those described below.
“After I protested in 1944 against the delivery of prisoners for this purpose as this prevented their use for work, Himmler made Grawitz his representative for the execution of medical experiments.
“From this time on it was Grawitz’ duty to supervise all the experiments ordered by Himmler and to report about them, but this does not mean that Himmler reduced his personal participation.
“Special. The following experiments because known to me in the period from April 1942 until the end of 1944, the time when the Inspection department belonged to the WVHA.
“1. Schilling: These projects are probably known for quite a while through the trial of Schilling. During one of my visits in Dachau, Schilling, whom I had not known before, had shown me his establishment and told me all sorts of things about malaria and malaria mosquitoes. I think this was the largest experiment. It was also on this occasion that I decided to send my protest to Himmler, because Schilling continuously asked for prisoners. I can not say the exact number that were sent to him.
“2. Rascher; I became aware of these experiments through the written orders of Himmler to me. The prisoners were sent to Dachau. The experiments also took place there. On the occasion of one of his visits to Munich, Himmler took me with him to watch one of these experiments. We saw an airplane cockpit and eventually a prisoner sat in it. Then the cockpit was put under the diminished air pressure and Rascher observed this through a glass window. Afterwards the person experimented upon was brought to Rascher’s study where he was asked questions by Rascher. The prisoner answered those first questions as if in a stupor until after a certain time his full senses of perception were restored. I did not see any other experiments of Rascher. Neither did I select the prostitutes for his cooling experiments. They probably came from Ravensbruck.
“3. Klauberg (or Glauberg). I met him at a dinner in the Fuehrerhaus in Auschwitz. He was introduced to me, but I did not speak with him about his experiments. I was not present at the organization of his experiments, but I had heard previously from Gluecks that Klauberg was working on sterilization.”
Gluecks was a subordinate of Oswald Pohl.
“I declined Klauberg’s invitation to see his experiments.
“4. Sievers (Ahnenerbe). I heard for the first time about it in Berlin on occasion of Sievers’ visit with me. Evidently at that time the experiments were finished. Sievers came to find out from me about the possibilities for manufacturing of medicine. I mentioned the Deutsche Heilmittel GMBH (German Medical Corporation, Ltd.) in Prag which belonged to the German plants, managed by Oberfuehrer Baier of my staff. I recommended Sievers to go to him. The medicine had been manufactured later in Schlachters (Black Forest). Sievers told me the following: The ‘Ahnenerbe’, whose manager was Sievers, had developed in Dachau a medicine which quickly brought coagulation of blood. It was enormously important for our army because it prevented continual bleeding.
It was the result of experiments in Dachau during which a prisoner was fired upon. A prisoner in Dachau, a specialist in the field, took an important part in the discovery of this medicine.
“5. Hassmeyer. An Oberarzt (head physician) in the medical institution in Hohenlychen, received from Himmler permission to carry out experiments with tuberculoses. I sent him to Gluecks who put the necessary persons to experiment upon at his disposal. He received about ten orphan children who probably came from Auschwitz. The experiments took place in Neuengamme. Later I saw a paper on these experiments which was written for Himmler. But it was written in such a scientific way that I did not understand a thing.
“6. Madaus. Worked in Radebeul on a sterilization drug. The Schweigrohr plant was needed for its preparation. As this plant grows mainly in North America, Himmler charged me to arrange for its cultivation in Germany. Himmler evidently meant the medical plants division of the Herb Garden in Dachau, which belonged to my administration.
“The contract with Madaus was made through the doctor at Lolling’s Inspection department.
“Madaus, assisted by Dr. Koch, considered Dachau unsuitable; therefore, he invited us to visit Radebeul and to start the cultivation there. During this visit we were shown the premises and experiments with animals in the laboratory. I am not sure that these were experiments with the Schweigrohr medicine, but I presume that this was the case. A hothouse was needed for the cultivation of this plant in Radebeul, and therefore Dr. Koch asked for my help in getting it. I promised him to report this business to Himmler, who granted his request.
“To what extent they were successful with the cultivation of the plant and whether it resulted in the mass production of the medicine and to experiments with human beings, I don’t know. Especially because from then on all further details were taken care of by Lolling alone.
“7. Lost. I can’t remember whether experiments took place in this case at all, because also, other offices were participating in such experiments. It is, of course, possible. I don’t know either whether the bombs which I saw during my visit in the I.G. Farben (Chemical Trust) factory Byrrenfurt near Breslau (I was invited there by Dr. Ambrose) were filled with gas made out of Lost.
“Conclusion: I have taken pains to do my best to describe what has stuck in my memory. I did not have any direct information about most of the experiments. The prisoners who were set aside (abgestellt) for the experiments appeared in the monthly reports from Lolling’s office as one number, and they were divided among 40 different experiments. I found this out in 1944 through Lolling. If I am not mistaken, the number of prisoners set aside for this purpose totalled about 350-400. I tried time and again to make this number lower; in the first place, I admit, because I wanted to use the prisoners for work. This brought about a personal intervention by Himmler who personally ordered the presentation of the prisoners, e.g., in the case of Schilling.
“My personal attitude toward the medical experiments with living human beings is the same as of any moral person. But I have not seen clearly the dimensions of these experiments — and being an outsider, I could not see the extent of their danger. In my heart I was against the method of Himmler.[“]
DR. SERVATIUS [(]Counsel for defendant Karl Brand[t]): Mr. President, I can not see if the document has been sworn to. The photostatic copy which I have received just now does not contain any note either that it has been sworn to. After Pohl’s signature there is a number, “14/7” which I understand to mean 14 July. In the copy has been added “Sworn to and signed 23. June.” Perhaps the Prosecutor could explain this to us. If the document has not been sworn to, then I ask that it be withdrawn.
MR. HARDY: I can fully explain the condition, Your Honor. This document was written by Oswald Pohl in his cell in his own handwriting, and when he finished writing it, it was 14 June. Then, after he had written the document, he waited several days before he was called for an interrogation, and at the time he was called for the interrogation he presented the document to Walter Rapp, Chief of our Evidence Division, and at that time Mr. Rapp took his oath and had the document sworn to.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I believe that this is a mistake. He has signed it in July, and supposedly he has sworn to it in June. Therefore, there must be a typographical error.
MR. HARDY; Pardon me. I did not notice that discrepanc[y]. It is obviously a typographical error. It was sworn to in July, the same date it was written. The reason for the difference between the 14th and 23rd was the time he was called from his cell.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, may I request that the original be presented.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is it your assertion that the words “Sworn to and signed before me this 23rd of June 1946 in Nurnberg, Germany” shoud read 23rd of July?
MR. HARDY: To comply with the actual affidavit, yes, sir. 23rd of July.
THE PRESIDENT: The original document as submitted to the Tribunal shows no jurat.
MR. HARDY: May I see the document, your Honor?
Obviously, your Honor, the jurat isn’t on the document and I request that we will retain the document and have it sworn to at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: The offer of the exhibit will be withdrawn at this time.
MR. HARDY: The question arose this morning — the defense counsel crossed Mr. McHaney’s presentation of the admission of Document 2428-PS. At this time I have another section of that document to present to the Tribunal which is the testimony of Marion Dobrowski and at this time I wish to present to the Tribunal the actual documents themselves which were presented in evidence to the IMT as Great Britain Exhibit 582 [HLSL item 73] [HLSL item 2584]. I must request that the Tribunal return them immediately as they are part of the original record of IMT and are being sent to the Library of Congress and I have signed for them only to be returned this evening. This is, you will see, an official report which has a cover sheet “Confidential Report of the Atrocities Committed at the Dachau Concentration Camp”. It is in three volumes — two of them were upstairs and were obviously put into evidence. These volumes are numbered 25 to 27 and was a report of War Crimes Investigation Team #6823. At this time I wish to call…
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. In connection with this exhibit which has just been offered. It may be admitted if a photostatic copy of the pertinent parts, including the confidential cover, will be substituted promptly.
JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, can you point out in these document books where the affidavits are that you now have.
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir, just a moment.
JUDGE SEBRING: Will you hand up the other book, please?
DR. FLEMMING (defense counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky): I have been informed that these are Volumes 2 and 3 and that there still is a Volume 1 it is stated in the introduction how the commission carried out these interrogations and how it was organized. This Volume 1 is, however, not available anymore to the Tribunal. I am therefore of the opinion that without the presentation of Volume 1 — without the possibility of determining how the commission was organized which carried out these interrogations and what was the assignment of the commission it cannot be determined any more if the affidavits contained in these two [v]olumes can be regarded as documents in accordance with the Charter. In addition to this, a large part of the documents have not been signed because those who were to have signed them were unable to sign the documents.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal. In this connection obviously the defense counsel knows what has happened to # 1. I sent up to the IMT Document Room and asked them to send down this exhibit. This is what they sent. I didn’t know #1 was not there. However, at this time I am only asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document and not admit it as an exhibit. Article 9 of Ordinance 7 states: “The tribunals shall not require proof of facts of common knowlege but shall take judical notice thereof. They shall all so take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of any of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations”. This says that “the tribunals shall . . .” Now, this particular report is an official report of an army investigation team for war crimes and I submit that to the Tribunal for consideration.
DR. FLEMMING: If the report is the report of an officially recognized committee it could only be determined if Volume 1 was available. Volume 1 several days ago does not exist. When Attorney Pelckmann wanted to look at it, it was not available either. However, he knows that the three volumes, as he informed me, were never submitted in their entirety before the IMT. I therefore request the Tribunal to also examine this question: If the three volumes were not submitted in their entirety to the IMT these two volumes, in my opinion, cannot be used without Volume 1 at this time.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, may I point out that it is my opinion in answer [to] the accusation that this is not an official committee I feel very strongly that the United States Army is an official organization and they set put [i.e., set up (?)] these investigation teams particularly for this purpose. These volumes are the result of their work. If you will read the top section of the affidavit you will see the amount of work that they went through to procure these affidavits and the caution they took. I also submit the fact that this has been introduced before the IMT, is in the evidence of IMT, and a record of IMT, and under Article IX I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection will be overruled. The certified copies may be filed before the Tribunal. The certified copies should carefully show the volume and page of each exhibit and also refer to the document book by appropriate number.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, your Honor. In due course I shall submit certified copies.
At this time I wish you would refer to Page 31 of your Honor’s document book in connection with this affidavit. This is an affidavit of Marion D[a]browski.
DR. FLEMMING [i.e., Hardy (?)]: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: As I understand it the affidavit appearing on page 29, is a true multigraphed copy of an excerpt taken from the confidential report of the Atrocities Committee at the Dachau Concentration Camp: is that true?
MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor, And certified by the Chief of our document center.
JUDGE SEBRING: That appears there as Exhibit 32, is that not correct?
MR. HARDY: Not, it is Great Britain Exhibit No. 582, Your Honor. Great Britain Exhibit 582.
JUDGE SEBRING: I do not mean the exhibit before the International Tribunal, but the exhibit as it now appears on the front of the document book.
MR. HARDY: Number 52; that’s correct, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal directs that it will take judicial notice of the exhibit as you had it on the first page this morning. After that it will be sufficient to take it in our notes.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, sir. May I read the section in this testimony of Marion Dabrowski that I want you to take particular notice of, Your Honor? On page 29, you will find that this is the testimony of Marion Dabrowski, taken at Dachau, Germany 13 May 1945. Question number 1; Marion Dabrowski was asked his name, and his answer — he was a Catholic priest. I now request the Tribunal to turn to page 31, the second question:
Q: Were you forced to submit to the malaria experiment while you were a prisoner at Dachau?
A: Yes, three times by mosquitoes and once by an injection of blood from a malaria patient.
Q: Did you volunteer or offer yourself in this experiment ?
Q: How did it happen that these experiments were performed upon you ?
A: It happened through the camp secretary’s office. At that station, prisoners who were communists were told to present the names of 100 prisoners for the malaria injections. These communists said that the priests are the most useless among the prisoners, so we priests were told that 100 of us had to go forward to get the malaria injections. The hundred names were finally chosen from amongst the priests by alphabet.
Q: Were 100 Catholic priests forced to submit to the malaria experiments?
Q: Were you given an opportunity to protest your being subjected to this experiment?
A: At the beginning a protest would have been like a death sentence. There was a sudden change at the end of the year 1943 in our general treatment. They were not officially allowed to lodge a protest. It was easier to have a word, and protest against further experiments.
Q: Did the protest do any good ?
A: In my own case, and that of one of my fellow priests, the protest was successful, and I escaped a fifth injection, after the fourth I had. I know, however, in many cases, a protest was useless even at that time.
Q: What result did this malaria injection have upon you, and the other priests who were subjected to malaria injections ?
A: At first we got a fever for about three hours. After three hours, we felt extremely cold and started shaking with cold. Then the fever started again, and the whole process continued sometimes for as many as nine days. My own brother, who is also a Polish priest, and is till in this camp, had, for nine days, daily higher fever, as high as 41 or 42 centigrade. Generally they were in a very bad state of health and there were several cases of death.
Q: Over what period of time were you subjected to these four experiments?
A: They began the experiment on me in December 1942 and the last was back in June of 1943.
Q: Who performed these experiments upon you and the other priests?
A: That was SS Obergruppenfuehrer, Professer Schilling.
Q: Did Dr. Schilling ever tell you by whose order he was making these experiments?
A: No, he never said anything to us. He treated us like dogs. When I protested to Dr. Schilling in person, I tried, at first, to talk French to him, because he knew that language; and it is easier for me than to talk German. He told me, in fact, he stopped me at once, and said, “In this camp we speak in German!” When, after that, I protested in German language against further experiments on my body, he said, “You have no right to protest, you are a prisoner here, and I shall report you to the Commander of this camp for your protest, and you will see how hard the consequences will be for you. Nevertheless, I kept on protesting. I had an order from the Camp Commander later on that, every time Dr. Schilling wanted me at the hospital, I had to appear without fail at the hospital at his disposal. I have witnesses that the facts I just related are exact.”
I will not read any more from this document, Your Honor. I merely introduce this to show that these men subjected to these experiments were by no means criminals or volunteers. At this time, I respectfully request the Tribunal to call the witness August Heinrich Vieweg to the witness stand.
AUGUST HEINRICH VIEWEG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q [Sebring] Will you 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.)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q [Hardy]: Witness, your name is August Heinrich Vieweg, is it not?
Q: When and where were you born?
A: On the 17th of September, 1895, at Hannover.
Q: What is your occupation?
A: I am a book printer.
Q Witness, will you kindly tell the Tribunal where you are presently living?
A: At the time, I am living at Bamberg.
Q: Witness, at this time — are you now a prisoner in one of the military government prison[s]?
A: For the time being, I am a prisoner.
Q: Would you kindly tell the Tribunal why you are now imprisoned?
A: From the Bamberg prison, I have been brought here in order to heard as a witness.
Q: Witness, you do not understand me. Why are you, or why were you, in the Bamberg prison? For what reason have you been placed or put into the Bamberg prison?
A: I have not yet been sentenced. I am in pre-trial confinement in the Bamberg prison.
Q: For what reason are you in pre-trial confinement?
A: The Bamberg police have accused me of engaging in black market activities and because of serious mischief.
Q: Thank you, witness. When were you first arrested by the Nazis and placed in a concentration camp?
A: I was arrested in May 1940 and taken to the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen.
Q: When were you transferred to the Dachau Concentration Camp?
A: I was sent to the concentration camp at the 16th of October 1940, coming from Neuengamme.
Q: While you were an inmate at the concentration camp, did you ever undergo any medical experiments?
A: The concentration camp at Dachau; I was used for malaria experiments by Professor Dachfinney.
Q: How many times were you subjected to the malaria experiments by Dr. Schilling?
A: On five occasions I received five cubic centimeters of malaria-bug infective and later, —
Q: Would you kindly tell the Tribunal what effect these experiments had on you; that is, did you have high fever, serious illness, and so forth?
Q: Quite often I ran a very high temperature. I reached a very exhausted condition, and after the injection I received large doses of medical drugs, quinine, ephedrine, and many others. I was in bed for weeks, and after one certain treatment in the course of 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946, there were 20 to 26 occasions when I had malaria attacks, so that, for a long time I was unable to work.
Q: At the present time, do you have re-occurrences of this malaria fever?
A: In this last year, I was in hospital from August 1st to 15th, again with malaria attacks.
Q: How many recurrences of malaria have you endured since you were experimented on by Dr. Schilling?
A: After my treatments in the experimental station had been concluded, I stayed with Dr. Schilling, and there were twenty occasions when I was treated for recurrences.
Q: Are you completely cured now, witness?
Q: After you had undergone the various experiments at the hands of Dr. Schilling, did you then become a worker in Dr. Schillings’ labratory?
A: After my first so-called immunization treatment had been concluded, the Chief Medical Officer of that Department sent me over to Dr. Schilling’s department for laboratory duties.
Q: On what date did you assume those duties?
A I am afraid I can’t tell you that exactly, but it must have been on or about August of 1942.
Q: What were your duties in Dr. Schilling’s experimental station?
A: In Dr. Schilling’s Department I was in charge of animals. In other words, I cultivated animals: white mice and canaries; in fact, I was in charge of that department.
Q: Did you have any other or additional duties, such as file clerk or typist, witness?
A: For a certain period, I substituted for the Clerk and I was in direct contact with Dr. Schilling on various occasions. I had a certain amount of contact with the Chemistry Department purchases from Dachau, and also I was in command of battle fields in the surrounding district of Dachau; and I dealt with work done by the commander.
Q: While with Dr. Schilling, did you have the opportunity to read any of Dr. Schilling’s correspondence?
A: I had frequent occasions to see the reports which Dr. Schilling sent in every three months, and sometimes I saw the answers which Dr. Schilling received from Berlin, as well as some other chemical manufacturers.
Q: Witness, can you recall t[o] whom those reports were sent, in Berlin?
A ; These quarterly reports which Dr. Schilling used to prepare, went to the Gruppenfuehrer or Obergruppenfuehrer, the Reich Medical Officer: Dr. Grawitz.
Q: You have referred to the fact, today, that you saw some of the answers Dr. Schilling received from Berlin; who was the originator of those letters that Dr. Schilling received from Berlin?
A: As far as I can recollect, these replies came to Prof. Schilling from Dr. Grawitz.
Q: Do you know where Dr. Schilling received his material to be used in this research, that is injected blood, in the malaria Experiments, fly eggs, and so forth?
A: I can remember that Dr. Schilling received malaria fly eggs, so-called eggs, from which he bred to other flies, from Duesseldorf; they came from an insane asylum, but I can’t remember the name, and some from Rome medical institute at Rome that used to receive eggs. In fact, his material used to come from Berlin. According to my memory, it came from Prof. Rose, and also from Athens; but I am afraid I can not recollect the name there.
Q: Do you know whether Prof. Rose had any correspondence with Dr. Schilling?
A: I remember in connection with the previous breeding we were not too successful, and subsequently a number of letters given to a stenographer by Dr. Schilling came before me, and they were addressed to Prof. Rose. He was making certain explanations in it, regarding certain types of insects, in connection with which my name was used. I am certain it went to Berlin and I am certain that answers were received on numerous occasions.
Q: Did Dr. Schilling ever send any reports of these experiments to Prof. Rose, to your knowledge?
A: Whether he sent reports about Malaria patients, I don’t know. At any rate, so far as about these fly breeding experiments are concerned, he had sent reports. I know that for certain.
Q: Witness, during the time you were with Dr. Schilling’s Laboratory Department, were there any visits from distinguished visitors from Berlin or other places?
A: I remember for certain only this: Dr. Grawitz, he came to see us on about three occasions, coming from Berlin. He came to see us first. A number of other visitors also came to see us, but I can not remember the details.
Q: Can you remember any of the names of the visitors that came to visit Dr. Schilling’s experimental station?
A: Unfortunately, I am unable to remember them. I only know that one of my assistants, a certain Dr. Kurt Ploettner, received visits from Standartenfuehrer Sievers, and he carried out negotiations with him. This man, Sievers had taken the so-called Block No. 3. He had a room in our Department, where he carried on his writings; and Standartenfuehrer Sievers visited him several times and he visited our department and went through it. As far as any other visitors who visited our department are concerned, I can not remember any.
Q: Doctor — Witness — We will now turn to Experiments on Sea Water. Do you know anything about experiments at Dachau with sea water?
DR. PELCKMANN: May I raise an objection, please? I beg not to admit that this witness should be examined about sea water experiment questions. Undoubtedly, we know about this witness for the last 24 hours. The document book of the prosecution on sea water experiments however has only reached me five hours ago.
On the basis of the affidavits which are contained in that document book, I shall have to put certain points to this witness, in order to examine, whether his statement is correct; because these affidavits which are contained in that document book are coming from people also who have seen something in connection with these sea water experiments. And it is possible, that certain contradictions may be made here, regarding this.
I must ask, therefore, that the questioning of this witness in reference to sea water experiments should be postponed until I have had an opportunity to see the documents in Document Book No. 5, and examine them together with defendant Schaefer. And, I should consider it as particularly suitable if the examination of this witness would not take place until the prosecution, too, have submitted the affidavits from this document book. Otherwise, you see, I should have to wait until after the presentation of these affidavits from Document Book No. 5, and then ask that this witness shall be called again. So that I could prove contradictions on the basis of this affidavit.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I have several answers to Defense Counsel. First of all, we filed General Secretary Document Books on sea water experiments within the requirements of the Tribunal; that is, twenty four hours within which we wished to present the document books on sea water. This should have been placed in the hands of defense counsel yesterday, so I presume it was delivered to the Defense Counsel Information Centre.
Secondly, as we explained in the procedure the first day of the trial, we said it would not be possible — pardon me — we said it would be necessary on several occasions for testimony of witnesses to over-lap: That is, when we called a witness on Malaria, that at the same time this witness can testify as to the sea water and other experiments.
It was necessary for us at that time for convenience and in order to save the Tribunal’s time here. We can not call the witnesses back daily as we arrive at each experiment.
JUDGE SEBRING: May I ask the Secretary-General’s office if he has a record which shows when these document books were placed in the Defense Counsel Information Center? I haven’t received it.
MR. HARDY: The Secretary-General has the document books in his hand now, your Honor.
DR. PELCKMANN: May I say something, your Honor? My colleagues and I myself received the document book with these three affidavits at 10:30 a.m. to day.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, at this time I want to impress upon the Tribunal that it will be next to impossible for the prosecution to call witnesses, as I said before, to testify from one experiment to an other and only call them after we have presented the documents on a particular experiment. In that case we would have to wait and hold the witnesses until the presentation of all documents and evidence has been completed because each witness that we will call can testify to more than one experiment. Furthermore, we have complied with the regulations of the Tribunal and filed the Document Book. However, as to what the witness can testify to now, I feel that the position the defense takes, that they have not had the document book, is immaterial at this time. These document books are placed in the Defense Information Center in boxes containing the defense counsels’ names. If they did not go to the Defense Information Center after recess last evening, then naturally they would not have the copy until this evening.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you say that they were in the boxes at that time?
MR. HARDY: I can not say that, Your Honor, inasmuch as it is not our duty to deliver them to the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but you can’t say that, can you?
MR. HARDY: No, I can’t, your Honor.
DR. PELCKMANN: This morning, after most of my colleagues had already entered this courtroom to participate in the session, I received this document book at 10.30. The document books for the other colleagues had just arrived. They were not in the shelves for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Examination of the witness may proceed at this time concerning sea-water experiments but the witness may be recalled at some later date soon, possibly Monday, for cross-examination upon those letters by the defendants.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Witness, do you know about the experiments conducted at Dachau with sea water?
A [Vieweg] In the year 1944, I do not remember the exact month any more, a department was created in the so-called Block 3, Stage # 1, which previously had been occupied by malaria patients. This department was prepared for so-called sea water experiments. Forty to sixty, I do not remember the exact number any more, gypsies were confined there and the door was locked. There was a nurse in this ward who had previously been a nurse with us, I can’t recall his name any more, and several Luftwaffe officers appeared, also some non-commissioned officers, and they took over the management of the whole project. This department in itself was isolated; none of us were allowed to enter there. However, from my section I was very well able to observe this department. These patients were confined there; they were also allowed to take some exercise in the yard during the first initial few days and then they told us that they were being nourished with Luftwaffe rations. As far as I can remember, this ration was continued for two weeks and then this nourishment was withdrawn. According to the stories we heard, because, after all, we wanted to know what was going on there, we were told that these people had been divided into three or four sections and that various methods of treatment were given to them. One part of them was to be given only pure sea-water; another part was to get distilled sea water; and the third group was to be given sea water mixed together with some tablets. I can only remember this because we were told about it. But I have seen the following: that in this ward a certain amount of unrest began to develop. [A] mutiny almost broke out there at one time. They beat up their nurse. One nurse then was released by other personnel. I can remember that from this ward on various occasions people were carried out on stretchers who seemed to be in a very excited condition. In part they were then brought to other sections in order to be treated there. What happened to them there I do not know. On two or three occasions, I believe to be able to remember to a certainty, a stretcher was carried out by the nurses with a cloth and a blanket over it and these stretchers were carried to the so-called morgue. The whole experiment, as far as I can remember, lasted approximately 8 weeks and then the whole section was cleared out again.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wil take a recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Witness, before the recess you were describing in detail sea water experiments. Do you have any more details to add?
Q: Witness, they conducted these sea water experiments in one of the rooms in the malaria station, is that correct?
A: No, this room officially belonged to the hospital, however, we had occupied this room with our patients and then had to clear this room in order to enable the sea water experiments to be carried through.
Q: Were you ever in that room where they were conducting the sea water experiments?
Q: Witness, you stated to the Tribunal that you observed various people being carried out of this room on a stretcher covered with a sheet and a blanket. Can you tell the Tribunal what position you were in to observe these people being carried out on a stretcher?
A: I could go about the hospital as freely as I liked, because we had the patients in a few barracks and the Laboratorium were in another barracks close by.
Q: Then you personally saw these people being carried out of the room in which the sea water experiments were taking place? Witness, did you hear the question?
A: Yes, these people were carried out of the room where the sea water experiments were conducted through the corridor and through the street, which led from one barracks to another.
Q: Would you say, from your observation, that these people being carried out on the stretcher from the room in which the sea water experiments had taken place — that these people were seriously ill or were they dead, witness?
A: According to my recollection, some of them were very exhausted and were carried out of the sea water experimental chamber to other departments of the hospital. In two or three cases, I can say with certainty that they were carried to the so-called hospital morgue.
Q: Witness, you also stated that you know about the details of the experiments that you know of the type of water given to the prisoners. Could you kindly tell the Tribunal how you gained that knowledge?
A: The knowledge regarding these details I gained from conversations, after the conclusion of these experiments, which were carried on with the nurses and some of the surviving patients.
Q: That is the nurses who worked in the room where the sea water experiments were taking place, witness?
Q: Witness, what nationality were the inmates that were used for these sea water experiments?
A: That I cannot say. Only gypsies were used for these experiments, coming from various concentration camps, Buchenwald, etc.
Q: Witness, we will go back to the malaria experiments for the moment. What was the nationality of the people used for the malaria experiments, what type of people were they?
A: The biggest part, approximately two hundred patients, used for the malaria experiments were Germans, another big part were Polish clergymen and the rest were partly Russians, some Yugoslovians and some Poles.
Q: Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?
A: Among the Russians, a great part of them were Prisoners of War.
Q: What was the total number of people used in these malaria experiments from your knowledge?
A: According to my knowledge, during the malaria experiments 1,084 experimental subjects were used.
Q: Will you kindly tell us, witness, how many of these subjects used in the malaria experiments died as a result of the experiments?
A: According to my knowledge there died directly at the malaria station — either directly or because of the treatment with drugs, seven or eight. I can describe the details if you like. The first case was an Austrian who afterwards became ill because of these malaria experiments. The assistant at that time, Dr. Bracktel, who was at the same time the deputy physician at the hospital, made a liver puncture and at that time he bled to death.
Q: Witness, then you state from your knowledge that seven or eight died from the experiments. Of that number who were dead, was that in the malaria station itself that they died?
A: This was the number of dead, who were not transferred by us to another department, but who died at our station or a few hours after they had been transferred to another station.
Q: Have you any knowledge as to what happened to some of the other experimenteee[s] who were transferred to some other station after they were experimented on? That is, did some others die after they were experimented on?
A: From our patients, during the course of the years since we had them come to us or observation, I can recollect that another sixty patients died. Whether they died of malaria or other consequences as a result of the experiments, I can not say with certainty.
Q: Witness, I want to back-track a bit and ask you why you were sentenced to the concentration camp or why you were placed in the concentration camp by the Nazis? For what reason?
A: No special reasons have been given to me. I was asked to appear at the Berlin Police station. I was there for several weeks and after that I was transferred to Sachsenhausen.
Q: What was your classification while you were in the concentration camp, that of political prisoner or what?
A: I came as a person that had to be safe-guarded by the police and as such was transferred to the concentration camp.
Q: You have no idea why you were arrested by the Nazis and sent to a concentration camp?
A: Nothing was told to me.
Q: When were you released from the concentration camp?
A: After the liberation by the Americans, I remained for another few weeks at the concentrations camp since there were a number of malaria patients at the concentration camp. Then on the 15th or 19th of July 1944 I left when all other nationalities were transported away from Dachau.
Q: Witness, let us go on. Do you have any other details to tell the Tribunal about other experiments that were conducted at Dachau?
A: I can testify something about the experiments which were carried out at the Aviation Institute with reference to this Ahnenerbe s[i]nce I often saw this Institute myself.
Q: Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal what you saw at this Institute of the Luftwaffe in the Concentration camp Dachau?
A: In February 1942 simultaneously with the opening of the Malaria Station at Block 5, a few blocks were opened for a series of experiments with reference to altitude. Ten inmates, so-called strong men, which had been selected for the malaria experiments by the Camp Administration were then transferred to this department. Later a so-called pressure chamber arrived and these ten patients were experimented upon with high-altitude experiments. I first gained knowledge about this at the time when I was yet in the hospital. On the second of April, 1942, I personally was transferred to the hospital for malaria cases and the ward where I was lying bordered on to the room where [the] chamber was. I can say that the minute the motors of this chamber started to rotate there was a death-like silence in the hospital since it had often happened that patients or even nurses, who at the time of the experiment, could be seen in the corridors of the hospital, and were immediately taken to the place of these experiments. These ten patients who were to be the official experimental subjects were really well-nourished, received smokes and as far as we know were the so-called exhibition patients but besides these ten patients a great number of people were chosen at random from the camp and they were always brought to this high-altitude experimental institute. Further, within the frame-work of this matter I remember that among others a block-leader who as far as I know was sent into the hospital –I think he had pneumonia — was also taken to this experimental station and a few days later was brought to the morgue. In our department where malaria patients were, one day a patient who for some reason had some difference with the Camp Leader Zill, was taken to this experimental station the following day. It was said at the time that he was transferred but next day I found him in the morgue. By rumor I found out that a number or patients on whom experiments were conducted died and were sent to the morgue. Following these high altitude experiments, at the rear chamber of this room a water basin was installed and there is where the water experiments were carried through. I personally saw this department. I saw the water basin and I talked with the nurses and the chemical personnel who was employed there and whatever I know about it I found out from them. I did not see one such experiment myself, but at one time Dr. Rascher told me on the occasion of a visit at that time I had to deliver a message from Prof. Schilling — and he asked me whether I felt the desire to take a cold bath. That was time they had brought a number of women from the Concentration Camp Ravensbruck to that place. By hearsay I know that the frozen patients were to be warmed by these women. Even with reference to these experiments I know partly from those who participated and partly from the nurses that four patients had died. I was told by a chemist who was working there — he said that one day Dr. Rascher came along and ordered that certain of the men were to be taken along. The personnel was afraid that he was going to carry on the experiments on their persons. He further said that he went with these men who tend to these camp and they took hold of a few people at his desk and went out to the crematorium and at that time out there tried these ten drugs on these persons and then determined whether these ten had a deadly effect on the persons. Later this department was turned over to our Assistant Doctor Kurt Ploettner and as far as I remember coagulating drugs were produced at Dachau. These drugs were tried out in the hospital at Dachau by surgeons but I don’t know what success they had. Dr. Kurt Ploettner, a few months before the liberation of the camp with 25 inmates and with the files of Ahnenerbe fled to the mountains where they wanted to produce this drug on a large scale.
Q: Witness, are there any other experiments that you know about at Dachau?
A: I know that at Block 1 in the hospital–that was the so-called Surgical Block — a number of biological experiments were carried out. That is, a certain number of Polish clergymen were infected with phlegmones in order to treat them biologically. A number of these experimental patients died as a result and others survived in the hospital but with amputations.
Q: Do you recall who conducted the phlegmones experiments?
A: I cannot say that exactly. I only know that a certain Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuetz, who worked with the camp doctor Dr. Hoffmann and I remember that the frequent occasions he came to the hospital and had carried on experiments from that department. I was present when Dr. Schuetz had a discussion with Dr. Brachtel about one such experiment with reference to gonorrhea drugs.
Q: Witness, in all these various experiments you have listed here today, how were the people or prisoners chosen for these experiments?
A: The patients for the malarial experiments were chosen by the SS Camp Administration and were transferred to Prof. Schilling at his request. How the other patients for Ahnenerbe and etc. were selected, I dont know. I believe, however, that Dr. Rascher or his employees chose these people in the camp on their own initiative.
Q: Were any of these people chosen for the malarial experiments or the other experiments, volunteers?
Q: Were any of thesepeople freed after they had endured the experiments?
Q: How did you happen to be picked for the malarial experiments?
A: In december of the year 1941, the camp personnel had to appear outside of the courtyard and Dr. Hoffmann, the Camp Leader, chose two or three hundred people from the ranks of the people there. We were the first patients.
Q: You mean, witness, that you were merely selected at random?
A: Yes. I don’t know what the directives were at the time but I think that the Camp Administration settled that question among themselves. I remember at the end of 1943 a directive came from Berlin that only Russians and Poles were to be used for the malarial experiments.
Q: When you were selected for these experiments did you consent to be experimented on?
A: No. We didn’t know what we were selected for. We were selected in December and a card index was made of our names. We were not allowed to leave our block and then from February 1942 onward we were sent to the Malarial Experimental Station and it was only then we knew why we were selected in December.
Dr. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter, counsel for defendants Blome and Ruff.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q [Sauter]: Witness, you have to answer a few questions for me, because from your answers so far I am not quite clear about your position. I should like to remind you that the answers which you are giving now are given under oath. You are clear about that, aren’t you?
A [Vieweg]: Yes.
Q: Witness, you have stated that you were brought into a concentration camp in the year of 1940?
Q: And up to the, — and up to the capitulation in 1945 you remained in the camp?
Q: Counsel for prosecution has already asked you repeatedly why you were sent to the concentration camp?
Q: And then I heard you say that you had no idea whatsoever why you were sent to the concentration camp?
Q: And if understood rightly you then said “nothing was told me”, is that right?
Q: But you must know why you were in that concentration camp?
A: I don’t know it. Nothing has been told me. I was called to the Berlin Police Headquarters. I remained there for several weeks. I was interrogated, and I was only interrogated about my personal data and then after several weeks one day together with several other men who was in prison there to I was transferred to Sachsenhausen.
Q: Witness, haven’t you ever received anything in writing as to why you were sent to the concentration camp?
A: Nothing in writing has been given to me.
Q: Now, you say that under oath, Witness.
A: Nothing in writing has been given me as to why I was sent to the concentration camp.
Q: And you assert under oath at this moment you can’t state why you were sent to that concentration camp?
A: I don’t know.
Q: Then you stated that you were regarded by the police as a man under police custody; how do you know that?
A: Because that was written on my card index which I received in Dachau, which was written on the PSV. It is in Germany polizeilich sicherheitsverwahrter, and then under police custody.
Q: And before your arrest in the year 1940 were you never punished?
Q: Perhaps you will tell the Tribunal why you were punished and what punishment you received and when it was? Under oath, I remind you, under oath.
A: In the year 1934 I was punished and under this punishment I was arrested, and was then sent to the concentration camp.
Q: In 1934?
A: In 1934, yes.
Q: Are you sure you said the right thing, 1934?
A: Yes, 1934.
Q: And how long did you remain in the camp?
A: No, — I was sentenced in 1934.
Q: Why, I am asking you?
A: In 1934 I was sentenced to 6 years prison because of falsification of documents and because of treason.
Q: 6 years?
A: Yes, 6 years prison.
Q: Up to 1940?
A: Yes, up to 1940.
Q: And after this sentence you were sent to a concentration camp?
A: I was to be pardoned and released, and I was told that —
The INTERPRETER: Will you speak a little slower, and make some pauses, so the translater can catch up.
A: (continued answer) After serving my sentence I was released, but shortly before my release was again arrested by the police and went over to Berlin and there it was said that I had to receive some lessons, edudational lessons in Berlin, and then in the Police Headquarters at Berlin I had one interrogation, and then I was told “you are going to be released now”. At the occasion of this interrogation my personal datas were established and I heard nothing further until one day I was transferred to Sachsenhausen.
Q: Witness, — Witness, in the sentence, on the strength of which you were convicted to 6 years, did you at that time say you were merely under police security?
Q: Was that a so-called protective custody?
A: Since it had often occurred that people who were released from the prison were sent to a concentration camp. A little while before my release from the prison I went to the Chief Prosecutor in Berlin and asked him what my situation was. He then wrote me saying that on[c]e my sentence was served, I think it was the 3d of May, 1940, I would be released and everything would be over and done with.
Q: I am sure that was not what was written in that letter.
A: Yes, I received that letter.
Q: I am sure that was not the contents of the letter. Witness, I am an experienced lawyer, and I know that some such a thing could not have been in that letter?
A: This was the contents of the letter.
The Interpreter: Speak a little slower. Speak just as slow as you spoke when the prosecutor was examining.
MR. HARDY: I object to defense counsel stating his opinion as to what was in the letter. The question is to the witness as to what was in the letter, and not the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may proceed.
Q: Witness, were these 6 years of prison the only sentence you received before being sentenced to the concentration camp, or did you before 1934 receive any other sentence?
A: I cannot remember that at the moment.
Q: So you cannot remember. In that case I should like you to refresh your memory. You are here under oath.
A: I cannot remember at the moment to what extent I was sentenced before 1934 to any punishment. I can only say at the occasion of this sentence in 1934 I was not put under protective custody and in 1940 I was to be released, to be released from the prison.
Q: And what was the date of your sentence?
A: May 1934
Q: And what was the name of the Court?
A: It was in Berlin.
Q: What kind of a Court?
A: I was sentenced by a special court. That was in May 1934.
Q: And what if the files were brought here and you would find a number of other sentence[s] which had been imposed on you?
A: Well, you could tell me that once you had the files, but at the moment I cannot remember. I can say that under oath.
Q: Witness, with reference to your testimony today you have been interrogated before, haven’t you?
A: I was interrogated once before.
Q: When was that?
A: A few days ago.
Q: A few days ago, did you say the very same thing at the time, the very same thing as today?
A: I believe I said the very same thing.
[Q]: In that case you had a very good memory with reference to the things you testified today?
A: In 1940 I was in a very sick state, and was sent from the concentration camp Neuengamme to Dachau, so that I can only remember the previous time if you refresh my memory.–
Q: No; you have to do that yourself, on the basis of your oath, and I think I am telling you that for the third time.
A: You cannot force me to make any statements if I cannot remember.
Q: During the experiments, — with reference to the experiments you witnessed in Dachau, had you seen a physician, Dr. Ruff, from the Luftwaffe?
A: That I cannot say. I saw many physicians come from the Luftwaffe. My recollection isn’t strong enough to mention any names.
Q: How about a physician, Dr. Blome?
A: I can only remember these names I have mentioned here, only.
DR. SAUTER: In that case I have no further questions. Thank you.
DR. VORWERK: Dr. Vorwerk, counsel for Romberg.
BY DR. VORWERK:
Q [Vorwerk]: Witness, what kind of experiments in the concentration camp of Dachau were, according to your knowledge, the first ones to be carried through?
A: In February 1942 the malaria experiments started, and at the same time the high altitude experiments of the Luftwaffe.
Q: You used the expression “exhibition patients” what do you mean by that?
A: I mean the very first chosen patients who participated, who were used in the high altitude experiments. They lived in a specially selected room and they were well nourished. They received cigarettes. They were always presented, and were once introduced to Himmler at the occasion of his visit, and Himmler made big promises to them in case they survived, and told them they would be released, and so on. And, in addition to these 10 patients a large number —
Q: I was only asking you about these 10 patients. Did you get into contact with these 10 patients, did you speak to them?
A: I visited them on several occasions.
Q: Was there a possibility for the other camp inmates to get into contact with these 10 inmates?
A: Not for the other inmates, but for such persons who were working in the hospital.
Q: So these 10 people told you about Himmler’s visit; do you know these 10 people were actually out to participate in experiments?
A: Yes, they were.
Q: But then you probably spoke to these persons about the experiments?
A: Yes. Shall I tell you something about that?
Q: Yes, if you will.
A: These people told me, — these people told me that they went into this high altitude chamber with a so-called protective installation. That they were placed under observation under 10, 12[,] 13 and 14 thousand meters; that they were very exhausted, but as far as I remember they all survived.
Q: Did you speak to them about the persons who were conducting the experiments?
A: No, as far as I know Dr. Rascher himself was the one who conducted them.
Q: Do you know whether anyone besides Dr. Rascher participated?
A: I saw how during the first few weeks, during the high altitude experiments, a number of officers of the Luftwaffe, or at any rate they were in Luftwaffe uniform were present there.
Q: You probably don’t remember the names?
A: No, I don’t.
Q: Would you recognize these persons if you did see them, today?
A: I hardly think so. It was too long time ago.
Q: Would you try to recognize someone in the defendants dock?
A: I tried that before, but it is impossible.
Q: You said that these 10 people were “exhibition patients;” beyond that you said that other experimental subjects were used in the low pressure chambers, but do you know anything positive about who experimented upon these persons?
A: Yes, Dr. Rascher.
Q: Except these 10 experimental subjects, did you discuss these experiments with them?
A: No, I cannot remember.
Q: Didn’t you speak to anyone who saw you; didn’t you speak to anyone except these 10 people?
A: I spoke to a number of the 10 people that I met.
Q: But other than that you didn’t speak with anyone?
Q: Then how do you know there were other experimental subjects in addition to the 10 people you mentioned?
A: Because on various occasions I saw that patients were lead to this station.
Q: How do you come to that conclusion? How could you conclude that these patients were used for these high altitude experiments? Did you actually see them led into the chamber?
A: No, I only arrived at that conclusion because at that period of time no other experiments were carried on.
Q: If I understood you correctly you did not observe that other experimental subjects were used in this chamber in addition to these ten people?
A: No, I did not see that.
Q: And nobody told you about it?
A: Yes, on repeated occasions I was told about it.
Q: Were you also told who the one was that was carrying on these Experiments? I am speaking of the others, not of the ten people.
A: Yes, the very same Dr. Rascher who had these ten patients.
Q: Do you know whether, in addition to Dr. Rascher, there was anyone else who participated in these experiments?
A: I have already said as far as I remember there were two physicians of the Luftwaffe who were active there.
Q: I should like to ask you to differentiate exactly between the Experiments with the so-called exhibition patients, to use your words, and the experimental subjects, who did not belong to these exhibition patients, and I now am speaking about these persons who were not such exhibition patients. Who was the one who carried on these experiments?
A: They were conducted by Dr. Rascher. I can only rely upon hearsay because I neither saw the experiments on the ten persons nor on the others. I only heard about this since we discussed the matter in the hospital.
Q: You heard about it? Then, if I understood you correctly, all the ten persons, after the conclusion of these experiments, were still living?
A: As far as I remember, yes.
Q: How often were you sentenced by a court in your life?
A: That I cannot tell you exactly.
Q: How often approximately?
A: In 1934 I was sentenced.
Q: You have already told that to the High Tribunal. I now ask you how often you were sentenced?
A: I was sentenced to six years in prison.
Q: I am now asking you whether you want to answer my question or not?
A: Yes, I have now answered your question.
Q: So you are still saying that you do not remember how often you were sentenced by a court?
A: I cannot remember what happened before 1934.
DR. VORWERK: Thank you.
DR. PELCKMANN: Dr. Pelckmann counsel for Defendant Schaefer.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q [Pelckmann]: Witness, you said that in the year of 1934 you were not sentenced to protective custody?
A [Vieweg]: No.
Q: Was a protective custody applied for by the Prosecutor at that time?
A: No, there was no talk about protective custody at all.
Q: You have said before that a special court sentenced you; is that correct?
A: Yes, a special fast court sentenced me. I was arrested. About ten days later I came into the courtroom and was then sentenced to six years prison. Rather, I was first sentenced to four years and then to six years.
Q: According to our practice of law there are special courts set up for political crimes, but you stated that you were sentenced because of falsifying documents and fraud?
A: Yes, because of falsifying documents and because of committing fraud, I was sentenced in a special court, but then the matter was brought up again and then subsequently an ordinary court sentenced me to six years.
Q: But that was not political court?
A: No, it was not political court.
Q: Now, witness, how does the Prosecutor who examined you previously know — how does he know about your experiences in the concentration camp?
A: Because I was interrogated about it at one time.
Q: Well, how could he know that you had such experiences in the concentration camp? Didn’t you tell anyone about it previously?
A: I don’t quite understand that.
Q: At the moment you are in Bamberg in confinement, did you in Bamberg tell the police or the prosecutor who was prosecuting there, did you tell him anything about your experiences in the concentration camp?
A: Yes, I talked about it.
Q: And did you subsequently report to anyone because you could tell something about these cruelties? Did you report that to anyone?
A: Yes, yes I reported about that. I wanted to make statements about it.
Q: When was that?
A: I cannot say that exactly.
Q: Well, approximately when was it?
A: Well, it was some time ago, a few weeks perhaps.
Q: You have stated that for the first time you told the prosecutor — you spoke to the prosecutor about four days ago?
A: Yes, a few days ago. I was interrogated here a few days ago.
Q: And before that you gave an indication that you could tell something about cruelties committed in concentration camps; is that correct?
Q: And approximately when was that?
A: That was a few weeks ago.
Q: Since when, Witness, are you in confinement in Bamberg?
A: Ever since the 14th of June.
Q: In that case I can assume that your report that you knew something about cruelties was only made at the time you were in confinement?
A: Yes, but I have spoken about that a long time before, that, but I only officially reported that I knew something about these cruelties, only since I was in confinement.
Q: You were in confinement since June; not before that?
Q: Did you read newspapers before that, and did you listen to the radio?
Q: Did you know that here in the trial and on the part of the prosecution, such cruelties were discussed and brought into the courtroom?
Q: There was the International Military Tribunal here that discussed these cruelties?
Q: And at that time you were a free man?
Q: And you didn’t put yourself at their disposal?
A: Yes, I was continuously available at the courtroom in Dachau. I transferred all the material of the Dachau Malaria Station which I could salvage and put it at the disposal of the court in Dachau.
Q: But you said that you only made a report regarding your knowledge a few weeks ago?
A: Yes, in this matter, because I now read that there was a trial against SS physicians and so on, and this is why I put myself at your disposal in order to testify.
Q: And when you were still a free man who was it that you gave this material to and when?
A: That was a year ago in Dachau.
Q: And whom did you report to?
A: Well, these were the investigation authorities in the Dachau Concentration Camps. There was an American Lieutenant Bauer or Lieutenant Cont, and at that time I gave them that material.
Q: Were you treated as a political inmate in the camp or as a criminal inmate?
A: Well, the treatment — well, how do you mean that?
Q: Well, did you have a green triangle or a red triangle?
A: I had a green triangle.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I should like to ask some more technical questions to the witness tomorrow so that I could have some more opportunity to study the document book. All I wanted to avoid now was that the witness could prepare himself to answer the questions which I had wanted to put now, and this is why I put these questions now.
THE PRESIDENT: You may continue the cross examination tomorrow morning. Pardon me, the adjournment will be until Monday morning.
DR. WEISGERBER: Dr. Weisgerber, counsel for the Defendant Sievers.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: Witness, where were you born?
Q: It is correct that you were sentenced because of fraud and falsifying document[s]?
MR. HARDING [i.e., Hardy (?)]: Your Honor, I object strenuously to any continuation of questions of this type. They have asked the witness questions of this type several times. I think they’ve got their answers now.
THE PRESIDENT: The same question should not be asked more than once but I do not know i[f] this is the same line of inquiry. You may proceed.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q: Were you sentenced before that time for fraud and falsifying documents?
A: That I don’t know at the moment.
Q: At the experimental station of Dr. Schilling you experienced quite a number of experiments?
Q: And you can not remember the names of the visitors?
Q: How did Standartenfuehrer Dr. Sievers come to your attention?
A: Only because of his negotiations with Dr. Ploetner. At that time Dr. Ploetner was to go from the malaria station to the Ahnenerbe and it was on this matter that Dr. Sievers was there on a few occasions and had some negotiations with Dr. Ploetner. This is why I remember Dr. Sievers and clearly recollect his name.
Q: He was to be included in the — did Ahnenerbe have anything to do with malaria experiments?
A: The Ahnenerbe had nothing whatsoever to do with malaria experiments. It was only Dr. Ploetner that continued to work on these matters.
Q: Since you are so well informed about the contents of the discussion between Sievers and Dr. Ploetner, do you perhaps also know that at that time there were pectin experiments in Dachau?
A: Yes, that is correct, I remember the name pectin.
Q: And who was charged to conduct these pectin experiments?
A: I remember, I think, that was Dr. Kunzengruber, a physician who was later released.
Q: Did Dr. Ploetner have anything to do with these matters?
A: Yes. I assume that at the time Dr. Ploetner took over the Ahnenerbe was carrying out pectin experiments.
Q: Did Sievers have any discussions with Dr. Schilling?
A: I know that he went to Dr. Schilling on two occasions.
Q: Were these just personal visits or were they business visits?
A: I can not say because I did not attend these visits.
Q: But since you were in a position to observe anything so well, you may perhaps tell me something about the duration of these visits?
A: I think they were short visits.
Q: And do you know whether there [was] a correspondence, an exchange of letters between Sievers and Schilling?
A: I only know that the Reich physician wrote to Professor Schilling stating that Dr. Ploetner was leaving us and was transferring to the Ahnenerbe and that Standartenfuehrer Sievers would settle the matter.
Q: Can you state the year approximately?
A: That must have been at the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944; I can not remember exactly.
Q: Well, that is the time when Sievers visited Ploetner?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: Were so-called exhibition patients presented to Sievers?
A: I only know that on various occasions they went to the hospital but I don’t know where they went to.
Q: Did they merely pass through the corridor or did Dr. Ploetner and Sievers actually remain in the hospital for any length of time?
A: At the office of Dr. Ploetner, an office which then belonged to the malaria station, they had conferences occasionally and I thin[k] subsequently they went to the station Ahnenerbe, but I can not remember that in detail.
Q: So if I understand you correctly, Dr. Ploetner and Sievers only went through the hospital when leaving the office of Dr. Ploetner and going to another part of the camp?
A: No, another part of the hospital, the so-called Ahnenerbe station.
Q: As far as you know, did Sievers have anything to do with malaria research?
A: Sievers had nothing to do with us.
Q: Do you know whether Sievers i[s] a physician?
A: I don’t know that.
Q: Now I am interested in how you found out about the name of Sievers?
A: I found that out because of the correspondence to Professor Schilling from Berlin, and it always was said that, for instance, today Standartenfuehrer Dr. Sievers would arrive, the one who is responsible for Ahnenerbe, and then we saw Dr. Sievers [w]hen he arrived.
Q: If you did not know the names of many other visitors, it is rather remarkable that you just remember the name of Sievers.
A: Between Professor Schilling and Dr. Ploetner, who was assigned to Dr. Schilling as an assistant from Berlin, between these two there was a strained relationship, and because Dr. Ploetner wanted to leave one way or a another, we were interested in the matter, and when finally the notice came from Berlin that Dr. Ploetner was to be removed, the name Sievers was mentioned in that connection; and that is the reason why I remember the name.
Q: Was Sievers present during any of the experiments?
A: That I don’t know.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have not further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o’clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 December 1946, at 930 hours.)
Learn about human freezing experiments https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/opzion-dachau-concentration-camp-experiments-on-removal-of-effects-due-to-freezing-of-parts-of-human-system-especially-the-extremities-women-were-supplied-to-rascher-and-that-they-were-used-to/
Learn more about human mutilations by alleged Extraterrestrials https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/ufoovni-eight-cases-of-human-mutilation-involving-ufos-same-mo-as-animal-mutilations/
Learn about NASA paedophiles being caught downloading child porn and being protected https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/optelltale-16-nasa-paedophile-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-from-site-which-showed-three-year-old-toddlers-being-sexually-abused-from-a-criminal-ring-in-eastern-europe-they-escape-prosecutio/
Learn more about the Skull & Bones gay Satanic rituals https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/opzion-margaret-thatchers-former-economics-advisor-christopher-story-the-skull-bones-a-multi-generational-gay-paedophile-cult-that-believes-in-the-power-of-death-to-bring-ab/
Learn about the Nazi origins of the European Union https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/opzion-margaret-thatchers-former-economics-advisor-christopher-story-hitlers-european-union-a-common-european-currency-a-pan-european-bank-called-europa-bank-and-thus/
Learn about Nazi UFOs https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/optelltale-nazi-flying-disk-prototypes-andreas-epp-testimony-eugen-lardy-testimony-adolf-hitler-hermann-gorings-gerti-vogt-maria-orsitsch-lothar-waiz-karl-haushofer-rudolf-von-sebottendo/
Learn more about Satanic/Luciferian bisexual paedophile Aleister Crowley https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/opilluminatuspiedpiper-33rd-degree-freemasonic-satanic-jew-aleister-crowley-the-bisexual-paedophile-who-wrote-paedophile-literature-discussing-the-sacrifice-of-children/
Learn more about paedophile child snuff rings https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/jewish-paedophiles-and-snuff-movies-the-london-tape-beat-meier-dmitri-vladimirovich-kuznetsov/
View pictures of paedophiles and the royal family https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/jimmy-savile-ted-heath-and-queen-elizabeth-ii-pictures/
Learn more about the British police https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/how-much-do-you-think-you-can-trust-the-british-police/
Learn more about people trying to murder you and your family https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/proof-someone-is-trying-to-damage-the-human-body-brain-and-cause-cancer-to-kill-people-slowly/
Learn more about Freemason paedophile rings https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/international-freemason-paedophile-rings-america-britain-france-holland-jersey/
Learn more about the paedophile ring thats been operating inside the British and American intelligence agencies https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/opilluminatuspiedpiper-northamptonshire-police-helping-cover-up-unitarian-paedosadist-with-satanic-royal-connections-mp-cyril-smith-scandal-because-of-his-royal-connections-force-said-secur/