1946-12-12, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
First prosecution witness, Wolfgang Lutz, testifies.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 12 December 1946, 0930-1630, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The honorable Judges of Military Tribunal k. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United Status of America and this honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of the defendants.
The prosecution will proceed.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I will ask that the witness Wolfgang Lutz be called to the stand.
WOLFGANG LUTZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Sebring will administer the oath to the witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING: Hold up your right hand and repeat the 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)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Your name is Wolfgang Lutz?
A: Yes
Q: You are a German national?
A: Yes
Q: You are now a prisoner of war held at Camp Marcus/W. Orr near Salzburg?
A: Yes.
Q: When and where were you born?
A: In Linz on the Danau on the 27th of May 1913.
Q: Have you studied medicine?
A: Yes
Q: Where and when?
A: 1913 to '37 in Vienna and Innsbruck.
Q: What branch of medicine have you specialized in?
A: Internal medicine.
Q: Were you a member of the Luftwaffe during the war?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you join?
A: On the 8th of May 1939.
Q: What rank did you attain during the war?
A: At the end I was Stabsarzt.
Q: That is a captain in the United States Army?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you stationed in Munich during the war?
A: Yes
Q: Do you know of a Luftwaffe installation called Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe in Munich?
A: Institute for aviation medicine, yes.
Q: What was that installation, what did it do?
A: To carry out scientific work in the field of aviation medicine.
Q: Do you know Georg August Weltz?
A: Yes.
Q: What was his relationship to that institute?
A: He was the head of the institute.
Q: Did the name of this institute of which Weltz was the commanding officer later change?
A: The institute resulted from an office for investigating high altitude effects.
To that extent the name was changed.
Q: To what was it. changed?
A: The name first was Research Office for Air Fleet 3 and afterwards Institute for Aviation Medicing, Munich.
Q: And you say that Weltz was the commanding officer of that institute?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you attached to Weltz's institute during the war?
A: Yes.
Q: When and for how long?
A: I came to Weltz in February 1940 and remained there until the end of the war.
Q: Did you do any high altitude research there?
A: Yes.
Q: With whom did you work in this high altitude research?
A: Primarily alone.
Q: Did you ever work with a scientist at the Weltz institute by the name of Wendt?
A: Yes. I wrote a scientific treatise with him, together with him.
Q: Were you considered to be something of an expert in high altitude research?
A: Yes, I understand the question. I believe so, yes.
A: And is the same true of Wendt who collaborated with you on this paper?
A: Not in that form I believe.
A: Do you know Doctor Rascher, witness?
A: Yes.
Q: When and where did you first meet him?
A: At the institute. I believe in the second half of 1941.
Q: And it was the institute of Weltz that you refer to?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Weltz ever offer you the opportunity to do high altitude rescar on human beings in the Dachau concentration camp?
A: Yes, Weltz asked Wendt and me whether we wanted to conduct such experiments.
Q: Did you accept or refuse this offer?
A: Both of us refused.
Q: Why did you refuse?
A: I personally primarily because I did not consider myself robust enough to conduct such experiments.
Q: Did you know that Dr. Rascher was going to make those high altitude experiments in Dachau?
A: It was discussed.
Q: You mean that it was known by various members of WELTZ's Institute that those experiments were going to be carried out by Dr. Rascher?
A: It was discussed in the Institute, whether such experiments were useful -- wore expedient.
Q: But I asked you if it was known in the Institute that Rascher was going to carry out these experiments.
A: I believe so; yes.
Q: And you state that you refused the offer of WELTZ, to work on human beings in Dachau because you were not ruthless enough; is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: I take it that this means that you knew that brutality and ruthlessness would be required to do the work in Dachau?
A: Yes, An experiment involving a certain danger for the experimental subjects, of course, to a certain extent, ruthless, shall I say.
Q: Now witness, do you recall when this offer was made to you by WELTZ?
A: I cannot say exactly.
Q: Did you ever see RUFF, and do you know a man by the name of RUFF, who was the head of the Department for Aviation Medicine in the DVL in Berlin -- Siegfried RUFF?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know a man by the name of Hans Wolfgang ROMBERG
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever see these two non in WELTZ's Institute in Munich?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you describe to the Tribunal the occasion on which you saw these two men there?
A: A short time after we had refused to conduct the experiments, RUFF and ROMBERG appeared at the Institute. WEHDT and I were in WELTZ's room, and WELTZ asked us to leave the room.
Q: Was it unusual for WELTZ to refuse you and WENDT admittance to conferences at the Institute?
A: Yes. That was something unusual.
Q: Do you know what was discussed between WELTZ and RUFF and ROMBERG, on tho occasion of their visit to WELTZ's Institute?
A: No; we were not informed.
Q: Do you know that RUFF and ROMBERG later worked in Dachau on these high altitude experiments with Dr. Rascher?
A: We know that; yes.
Q: Now I will ask you, witness, if you attended a certain conference on Aviation Medicine hold in the city of Nurnberg on the 26th and 27th of October, 1942?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember, on the occasion of that meeting, that a paper was read by a man by the name of HOLZLOEHNER?
A: HOLZLOEHNER -- yes, I remember that.
Q: And what was the subject of the paper which HOLZLOEHNER read?
A: The subject of the paper was experiments -- rather, experiences -- made on people whose body temperature had been greatly reduced by putting them in cold water.
Q: It was made clear at this conference by HOLZLOEHNER that experiments to study the effects of freezing had been made on living human beings?
A: Not the effects of freezing, but of general cooling.
Q: Did Rascher also have something to say at this meeting?
A: HOLZLOEHNER's report did not indicate that the experiments had been conducted on concentration camp inmates, and Rascher then rose and uttered a few sentences which indicated that the experiments had been instigated at the special suggestion of Himmler.
Q: And what did the statement that these experiments had been made with the support of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, mean to you?
A: That is difficult to say, I believe that those present, on the whole, were quite impressed by this information.
Q: I will ask you if it was not understood at this meeting that these experiments had, in fact, been conducted on concentration camp inmates?
A: I cannot judge that with great certainty, but I believe that must have been clear for most of them.
Q: Was it not also made clear, by the talks of HOLZLOEHN and Rascher, that a number of the experimental subjects had been killed during the course of these experiments?
A: One could at least assume that had been the case because HOLZLOEHNER mentioned certain observations of heart failure among the experimental subjects.
Q: Wasn't an important part of the clinical picture given to you and the rest of the meeting by HOLZLOEHNER, concerned with the causes of death from cold?
A: I cannot recall that.
Q: But you do state that it could have been easily assumed that people have died during the course of these experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, witness, I will ask you if, at a time after this meeting, you had a discussion with a certain army officer, concerning the freezing experiments in Dachau?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did this army officer tell you?
A: The man visited at our Institute in Munich, and we discussed some results of animal experiments which I had conducted, and he told no that it must be similar, or that it was similar with human beings. When I asked him how he know that, he told me that he had been in Dachau and that Rascher had demonstrated some experiments during that visit and had shown him what freezing to death looked like in human beings.
Q: In other words, it had been demonstrated to this army officer at Dachau, how people died from cold?
A: That was the impression that I had; yes.
Q: Do you remember the name of this army officer?
A: No.
Q: Now, witness, I will ask you if you have had a discussion with Becker-Freyseng since the end of the war, concerning the high altitude experiments in Dachau?
A: No.
Q: Did you not on one occasion see Becker-Freyseng in a prisoner of war camp?
A: I met him in Eibling, yes.
Q: And, did he tell you that Erhardt Milch knew all about the High Altitude Experiments conducted by Doctor Rascher in Dachau?
A: Becker-Freyseng told me that the Medical Inspectorate, that is, his office, in dealing with concentration camp experiments was by passed; and that the Medical Inspectorate frequently had to try to prevent disaster.
Q: Did not Becker-Freyseng tell you that Erhardt Milch knew about the High Altitude Experiments at Dachau?
A: I cannot remember that exactly.
Q: Did he say anything about Erhardt Milch?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did he say?
A: That Milch had negotiated directly with Himmler regarding the execution of such experiments without consulting the Medical Inspectorate.
Q: I will ask your witness whether or not High Altitude problems are a matter which concerns a department for the Aviation Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. That is an aviation medicine problem, is it not?
A: The High Altitude Experiments, yes, certainly.
Q: Is the same thing true of freezing problems?
A: Yes, certainly.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions at this time, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defense may cross examine the witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. WILLE:
Gentlemen of the Tribunal, may I request, in connection with this cross examination, that I may put a few questions to this witness within the frame work of the subject which has been opened up by the prosecution against Professor Weltz.
Q: Witness, Doctor Lutz, may I ask you to answer a few questions of mine which I would like to put in order to supplement and contradict the statements of the prosecution. Please answer these questions truthfully -- a few questions of a more personal nature. You were not only a collaborator of Professor Weltz in his Institute for Aviation Medicine, but also at the same time an assistant medical officer with him on certain occasions. You have assisted him in his x-ray activities in Munich, have you not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: May I now put this question to you. In connection with Professor Weltz's views about the medical profession, can you judge it generally? I mean to say, for instance, this: Are you aware of Professor Weltz's general attitude in respect to his profession: his spirit of humanitarianism? the consideration which he generally showed his patients? can you briefly deal with that. In other words, his general human ideas. Did you have any contact with him when you worked for Professor Weltz?
A: Yes, certainly.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the court, I cannot see that this question is material, and I would like to raise an objection to it. Whether or not Doctor Weltz exhibited a humanitarian attitude toward his patients has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and I submit the answer of this witness will not be material to the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. The counsel may proceed.
Q: Tell me what reputation Professor Weltz had with his colleagues, the other expert doctors in Munich? Let me put it this way, first of all with the doctors of Munich? As an x-ray expert he must have had his cases assigned to him from other doctors. In other words, he must have been a man who, day after day, I would almost say, must have been in constant touch with all the doctors in Munich. Do you know how he was judged by them? I do not mean his qualifications as a scientist, but his personal manners? his human qualities and his qualities as an individual or medical officer. Will you answer my question, please?
A: Professor Weltz had a very large practice in Munich. I do not know in any way that his reputation was not excellent.
Q: Even in his capacity as a doctor and also from a human point of view; do you mean?
A: Certainly.
Q: Now, I have a question here, which in a certain sense is verbatim. Do you know from whom the plans originated to carry out the human being experiments in Dachau?
A: I do not know, but certainly not from Doctor Weltz. I am Certain it was Rascher's idea.
Q: In that case I can follow with this question: Can you say whether Professor Weltz cooperated in the creation of this plan? Did he advance it in any way? To what extent did he participate in Rascher being allowed to do this? Was he responsible for it? Did he in any way talk to the Medical Institute authorities to get Rascher to this job?
A: I cannot answer that because in all this paper work I was not initiated I do not know how Rascher came to our Institute or when he came.
Q: In that case I have this question to put to you: Do you know whether Professor Weltz had overheard of Rascher being attached to the Institute?
A: I cannot say that either.
Q: Then this following question is connected with this problem. Are you aware whether Kottenhof had anything to do with Rascher being attached to the Institute in any way?
A: That is quite possible.
Q: You do not know any details about that, do you?
A: Perhaps, if you ask me about them.
Q: Do you know whether Doctor Kottenhof, later or earlier, had been connected with the so-called monkey experiments which he was supposed to have carried out together with Rascher?
A: I know he conducted experiments on monkeys. I do not know that he worked with Rascher.
Q: Do you know whether that was the reason for the fact that Kottenhof recommended Rascher's transfer to the Aviation Institute, and aimed at that?
A: That might be, yes.
Q: Now, then, a few questions regarding Professor Weltz's attitude torward Dachau. Do you know -- incidentally the previous examination has shown this quite clearly -- do you know how Professor Weltz, generally speaking, reacted to the meetings, the atmosphere in Dachau, and the experiments which were carried out there in connection with high altitude and freezing? What was his general attitude to these experiments at Dachau?
A: At that time, when the subject of Dachau came up for the first time, we, that is, Weltz, Wendt and I, discussed the problem basically; that is, we assumed that essential experiments for part of the work was being undertaker and the results of which we hoped to save the lives of soldiers; and that these experiments were being conducted on criminals who had been condemned to death by a regular court, and who were given an opportunity to be pardoned be participating in these experiments. We discussed this back and forth, but we did not come to any clear decision.
Q: Did you know or do you know that on the occasion of a visit of Professor Hippke in the spring of 1942, the question came up whether and to what extent experiments on human beings had to be made on behalf of the Air Force and then that question was discussed in great detail, not in an official discussion but in a private conference or discussion? And is it known to you that Professor Weltz on that occasion -- as, incidentally he had expressed himself to you at the Institute, as you said yourself--expressed his attitude clearly with reference to experiments on human beings? Can you tell me under what conditions Professor Weltz approved experiments on human beings?
A: I believe that Weltz, and Ruff and Romberg later, assumed the condition which I just mentioned, namely that the experiments were to be conducted only on criminals, I might almost say they were being done a favor.
Q: Was there not one other prerequisite--Weltz demanded clearly that these criminals should volunteer and that a certain amount of grace should be granted in compensation.
A: That was the tacit condition for our discussion. We were quite surprised afterwards that at least in the later stages of the experiments, as far as I know now, this question did not come up.
Q: Did Professor Weltz tell you at any time or did you have any clue that Professor Weltz was afraid to try these experiments in Dachau, or that he had turned down the whole idea because he on his part was afraid of objections on the part of the Medical Inspectorate? Did you think that that was the reason why Weltz was objecting to Rascher's experiments -- because he was afraid that his department heads would object?
A: Doctor, could you repeat that? I did not understand it.
Q: Yes, I will repeat it again. Did you have any clue indicating that the reason why Weltz objected to the experiments in Dachau was that in was afraid of objections from his superior department, the Medical Inspectorate, so to say? Or don't you feel, aren't you conscious of the fact that he on his part was energetically refusing to carry out those experiments?
A: I believe that Weltz was not at Dachau.
Q: I was just going to ask you. Do you know whether or how often Weltz has been to Dachau?
A: I do not know anything about that. Of course I was not Weltz' guardian angel, I was not informed about everything he did, but I did not hear about it.
Q: But never-the-less, you, as Stabsarzt, and as his adjutant and collaborator, you must have been well informed about practically everything that Weltz was touching in the case of aviation medicine?
A: In general, yes.
Q: Therefore you must have had knowledge of any visits Weltz made to Dachau?
A: Yes, I probably would have had to know about it.
Q: Can you give me further details about the conditions under which this joint work of Ruff and Romberg on one part and Rascher on the other, was brought about?
A: I know nothing about that, nothing important, I believe.
Q: Did Professor Weltz not report to you about it? Did he not tell you that on the occasion of a meeting at Adlerskof, near Berlin, he talked to Ruff and Romberg and that he informed then he was approaching them with a view to forming a joint working committee with them?
A: I had to assume so when I saw Ruff and Romberg at our office
Q: Are you also aware of the conditions for such a collab oration and were they told you by Professor Weltz either at the beginning or later?
A: No, I can't recall.
Q: Do you now know that these gentlemen, Ruff and Romberg based their work on the supposition that experiments which were to be carried out were first of all to be carried out on their own persons so that the danger, as such, was excluded by that means? Didn't you hear about that? Didn't Professor Weltz report that to you?
A: Please, it is possible, but I can't remember at the moment.
Q: Can't you remember that Professor Weltz said with reference to Rascher's qualities as a doctor and a scientist and as to his character that he showed the greatest possible distrust and that because of that he was, if I may say so, satisfied to find that for those experiments in Dachau Rascher came under the control of a reliable scientist?
A: I am convinced of that.
Q: But you yourself did not actually hear about that from Weltz?
A: As to the scientific and other qualities of Rascher, there is no use talking about that.
Q: I am extraordinarily interested in that question and your answer. May I follow it up with this question? You must have discussed these matters amongst yourselves at least, all of you. How did everybody judge the scientific qualities shown by Rascher?
A: There weren't any.
Q: Did you know that Professor Holtz shared that opinion?
A: I know for sure that Holtz did not have a high opinion of Rascher.
Q: Well then, let me return to a previous question. Do you consider it possible under these circumstances, possible at all, -- would you credit Professor Weltz with having told you and Dr. Wendt to collaborate with a medical officer, with a doctor whom you yourself have already stated was a scientific failure and who, in your opinion also inferior. Could you have reason to assume that such a collaborator to you could have been meant seriously?
MR. McHANEY: If Your Honors please, I must object to that question. I mean he is asking this man for his opinion as to whether or not he believes it is possible that Dr. Weltz could have collaborated with Rascher in any respect. That is the sense I got from his question and I cannot see that this man's opinion on that subject is material or has any probative value whatsoever. It is a question of fact whether or not Weltz did collaborate with Rascher and it is really not a matter of opinion to be passed by this witness. Now he can testify as to whether or not he knows whether or rat Holtz did in fact collaborate with him but clearly, putting the question in tho form of an opinion as to whether he thinks it is possible that Weltz could have done so, I just don't think is at all probative.
DR. WILLE: May I define my attitude in regard to that? I think, Your honors, that we are here concerned with a very serious statement of fact which only this witness can ascertain He alone must know whether under such circumstances as I have previously described, the question could have been taken seriously by Professor Weltz at all. As far as that is cancer we are definitely concerned with the statement of a fact which can only be made by this witness. I therefore beg you to admit this question as relevant and as admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: In this cross-examination the witness will be allowed considerable latitude. The objection will be overruled.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q: May I ask the witness then to answer this question?
A: Weltz, in the way in which he formulated the question, let it be seen that he expected that we would refuse. He called us in and he asked us " Do you want to conduct these experiments in Dachau?" And he continued to me: "Mr. Lutz, I do not believe that you want to do that because I know you are rather religious." These were his exact words, so that he neither forced us or urged us to agree. Rather, on the contrary, he made refusal easy for us.
Q: Then I have a further question to put to you which is directly connected with the Institute. Can you tell me if the program for experiments and that work carried out by that Institute had previously been discussed with all officials of that Institute so that Professor Weltz, if he had seriously wanted you to collaborate in these experiments would, according to custom, have discussed the entire program of experiments with all his collaborators to have them approve it?
A: It was generally usual that in joint discussions we settled our further work.
Q: So that in this case too, according to the custom which you just confirmed, a written statement regarding the plan would have had to take place in the records of the Institute because apparently these resolutions which you passed, these working programs, were put down in writing, weren't they?
A: Yes, that was what we usually did.
Q: And that didn't happen in this case, did it?
A: I can't say. No program was discussed.
Q: But after all, the execution of working programs was up for discussion. If Professor Weltz did make suggestions to you that you should collaborate, surely a discussion must have taken place as to what this work should deal with?
A: No, it was not discussed. We of course know from the whole background what it was about but no working program was set up.
Q: A further question which deals with Rascher's appointment, his being attached, shall we say? Do you know that Rascher, in the spring of 1942, at any rate before the 16th of March 1942, showed Weltz a telegram from Himmler, according to which experiments were to be kept secret from everybody, including Holtz? Did you have knowledge of that telegram?
A: There must have been something of that sort, I believe I recall that there were difficulties between Weltz and Rascher and this telegram seems somehow to be the climax of these difficulties.
Q: Did you perhaps gain knowledge of the fact that Professor Weltz, subsequent to that information being received regarding the Himmler telegraph and, I mean subsequent to Dr. Rascher's refusal to continue with the experiments in Dachau, Weltz immediately subsequent to these events had him transferred away from his institute, which was something he applied for to his superior at Dachau. Do you know any details about that?
A: Not really, as I had nothing to do with these matters.
Q: Let me put to you a question dealing with the subsequent developments of these experiments in Dachau. Do you have any knowledge of the fact that the institute of Weltz, or Professor Weltz personalle, did at any time deal with the details of these experiments in reporting cases of death to the meeting in Nurenberg?
A: Impossible, the whole thing had nothing to do with us at all.
Q: But was it safe to assume that Professor Weltz became acquainted with the subject when he was asked to be a collaborator?
A: He was not asked this.
Q: At any rate, he put it to you that he knew of these shattering revelations regarding the deaths.
A: What deaths?
Q: The deaths regarding the experiments in Dachau.
A: Personally I know nothing about that even now.
Q: Now then, do you have any clues showing that Professor Weltz might have tried to get a hold of this experimental work which Rascher made afterward, that he tried, to replace Rascher at Dachau when Rascher himself and his wife startet to complain? Would you consider that a possibility or a probability?
A: That Weltz wanted to get Rascher out?
Q: Yes, you know that was claimed by Mrs. Rascher.
A: I have no reason to believe so.
Q: I am through, My Lord.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER FOR DEFENDANT DR. RUFF.
BY DR. SAUTER :
Q: Witness, on behalf of Dr. Ruff, I should like to put a few questions to you. When did you meet the defendant, Dr. Ruff, for the first time? When
A: I believe in France in 1940.
Q: In 1940?
A: Yes in 1940 - excuse me, I mean in 1941.
Q: Was that before these experiments were conducted at Dachau?
A: Yes.
Q: In that case it must be 1941.
A: Yes.
Q: How did it happen that you met the defendant, Dr. Ruff? Did you meet him often? Did you make his acquaintance very well or just professionally?
A: I should like to say professionally and officially and we spoke to each other occasionally outside of business.
Q: Doctor, is it true to say that there were social contacts? Do you understand what I mean?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: That that consisted of working in a sub-pressure chamber and for four or five weeks you were together wit Dr. Ruff working in France?
A: Yes.
Q: So that there was a low pressure chamber, which was mobile and which was constructed very similar to that one which in 1942 was constructed in Dachau for the high altitude experiments?
A: I do not know the chamber in Dachau, but the chamber.......
Q: The chamber, which you operated, together with Dr. Ruff in France, that served for altitude experiments for the air force, did it not?
A: Yes.
Q: How long were you together with Dr. Ruff in France?
A: I believe for two or three week.
Q: But, Dr. Ruff says for four weeks.
A: Well, I believe Dr. Ruff came a little later, he came a little later.
Q: At any rate, it was a few weeks?
A: Yes.
Q: You already said that on that occasion you did not only meet on duty, but also off duty personally on social occasions?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, then, what did Dr. Ruff tell you at that tine regarding his attitude toward experiments on human beings, in particular with reference to the experiments which were carried out with your pressure chamber?
A: What chamber?
Q- The pressure chamber, which you had there.
AAt that time in France there were not experiments of the type conducted in Dachau. There was no question of such experiments.
Q: There was not question of it?
A: No.
Q: Then you did make experiments?
A: They were not even scientific experiments, they were only investigations and examinations of flowers.
Q: Surely that adds up to the same thing?
A: No, but if you say so yes. Flowers were tested for their suitability and after some time we gathered certain experiences.
Q: Do you know that at that time, when you were together with Dr. Ruff in France, Dr. Ruff himself was also making experiments, that is to say experiments in the chamber on his own person?
A: Yes, I believe so.
Q: Did he on these experiments on himself make the same demands on his own body, which later on he made on the experimental persons - that is to say the pilots which were picked up?
A: On the tests with the pilots, doctors were in the chamber with the pilot during the tests.
Q: Quite. Now, these experiments which Dr. Ruff made on himself were perfectly in order and orderly and these tests on the pilots, they were supposed to be pretty tough?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: For instance, it is supposed to have happened that during one of these experiments, the defendant, Dr. Ruff suffered paralysis of one arm?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: So that he himself, if I understand your answer correctly, was not exactly taking it easy?
A: No, he did not.
Q: Did you also discuss political circumstances with Dr. Ruff? I mean to say, if I may suppliment my question somewhat, did you talk about political conditions to such an extent or so much that you managed to gather a fair impression of the political attitude of Dr. Ruff? For instance, with regard to the National Socialist Party and particularly the SS?
A: I had the impression that Dr. Ruff was a very unpolitical person.
Q: Then, how did he express himself in regard to the SS? Doctor, I am putting that question you know because Dr. Ruff told me that in particular about the SS and that he had talked to you on the occasion of that stay in France quite frequently. That is why I want to know from you just how Dr. Ruff did talk about the SS at that time?
A: I an sorry, but I seem to have forgotten all about it. I am really sorry I cannot remember it.
Q: What did he say about the party? For instance, about Hitler, etc.?
A: The only thing that I can say is that I did not consider him a fanatical Nazi, but I cannot remember any specific details.
Q: During the four weeks - and this is something I want to ask at the end - during the three or four weeks, which you spent with Dr. Ruff in France what did you learn about his views about medical ethics? The conception he had of his profession, what impression did you gather about that? Would you say that he would be capable of committing crimes or was your impression different?
A: I beg your pardon. I had an absolute correct impression of Dr. Ruff and I never thought anything unfavorable of him.
Q: Thank you very much. In that case, Mr. president, I have no further questions. Thank you.
DR. MARX FOR THE DEFENDANT BECHER FREYSENG.
BY DR. MARX:
Q: Witness, a little earlier the subject of a conversation came up which you had with Dr. Becker Freyseng at Sibling?
A: Yes.
Q: And on that occasion, Dr. Becker Freyseng had told you that the medical inspectorate had frequently been by-passed; that for instance Field Marshall Milch had negotiated directly with the SS, or the command of the SS, with reference to questions which really concerned aviation matters?
A: yes.
Q: Do you recollect that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Then, he complained. Then Dr. Becker also told you something on that occasion about a film showing which went wrong, a film showing which Dr. Docker Freyseng was going to make for Milch, which dealt with the study made at Dachau. Do you remember that occasion? It was to happen in September of 1941 when Rascher in Berlin and the Ministry were supposed to show the film to Field Marshall Milch personally and Milch did not show up. Becker Freyseng had not known anything about this and had not been informed until the film was already in preparation; in fact until the showing was to start? Do you know anything about that?
A: Yes, I can't remember, but it seems quite plausible.
Q: Then, you can't remember? Well, then I have another question. There was a meeting in Nurnberg when some eighty advisory medical men, consulting medical men of high medical reputation were present, who were holding high positions. Do you remember?
A: I cannot give, any exact information, but that can doubtless be found out.
Q: Of course we have the record.
A: You can doubtless find out. I am sure there were many people of the medical profession present.
Q: Yes, the matter, of course, was planned under the heading of Sea and Winter Distress. Then Weltz and Professor Holzloehner were on the list, weren't they?
A: Yes.
Q: What did Professor Holzloehner say regarding the question of cooling of the freezing experiments, because the way it is put in this record, you see, is indicating that he expressed himself very, very carefully?
A: Yes.
Q: So that one could not draw the conclusion that he was getting out these experiments particularly in the concentration camps?
A: That's true. As for Holzloehner's statement one could not gather from then that they were experiments in concentration camps. Holzloehner apparently, in order to disguise the natter, had spoken of rescued persons, persons who were rescued, from distress at sea.
Q: Do you mean rescued from the water? That's what it says in the record, doesn't it?
A: Yes, that's how it was.
Q: Yes. Now, from Professor Holzloehner's statement one could net draw the conclusion, therefore, that we were concerned with experiments in Dachau or any other concentration camps?
A: No.
Q: I see. And you stated, previously that Rascher stammered, didn'd you A Yes.
Q: So that his speech wasn't very convincing, was it, because if someone stammers and stutters, then you say that he isn't very effective surely or that he might even make himself ridiculous?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Yes, I see. So that you want to say, don't you, that Dr. Rascher's statement could have been regarded more as a matter of wanting to make himself look important?
A: That might be, but the subject is a little ticklish
Q: It wasn't it possible to gather the impression that he wanted to show off his connections to Himmler?
A: Yes, one always had that impression with him, yes, certainly.
Q: Of course you see, I would like to point out to you that Rascher, shortly before this meeting, had written to Himmler and in that letter he expressly printed out that he wanted permission to deal with this matter as top secret; in other words, that he lid not wish to communicate to the assembly what he was really concerned with. Surely one could not intend that any other way; top secret was the word?
A: Yes, certainly.
DR. MARX: Yes, I see. In that case I have no further questions to put to this witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Attorney Servatius for the absent colleague, Dr. Nelte on behalf of Defendant Handloser.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY SERVATIUS:
Q: I only want to put a very brief question. Witness, as I remember, upon a question put by the Prosecutor, whether after this meeting in Nurnberg, you had talked to some officers regarding experiments on animals which were supposed to be transferred to human beings, that you had answered, " Yes, I had spoken to an officer." Now, my question, was that an officer from the medical Inspectorate or some other officer?
A: I cannot say.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have not further questions.
DR. VORWERK: Attorney Vorwerk for Dr. Romberg.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. VORWERK:
Q: Witness, you had mentioned that you knew Defendant Dr. Romberg. Do you see him in this courtroom?
A: Yes.
Q: Where is he?
A: (Indicating)
Q: In which row?
A: The fourth from the left in the back row.
Q: Did you consider that those altitude experiments, seen from the point of view of the Air Force, were really essential?
A: I was of the opinion that the experiments pave general insight into certain questions, that they could give insight.
Q: Night I remind you that at that time the type of aircraft at the disposal of the German Air Force went out of date and at that time the Air Force particularly were trying to develop new types, and let no then repeat the question. Is it your conviction that at that tine these experiments were essential seen from the Air Forces's point of view?
A: I believe that the experiments were important.
Q: But you do not adopt the view that they were absolutely essential, I take it?
A: Well, I can't -- that is a question that goes beyond my competence here.
Q: When did you see Remberg for the first time?
A: As far as I can recall, together with Ruff when we were in France.
Q: When was that, what year?
A: '41
Q: How long were you together with Romberg at that time?
A: A few weeks; about three weeks.
Q: What were you doing at the time during that journey through France?
A: We were conducting tests on fliers, about their resistance to altitudes.
Q: With a pressure chamber too, I take it?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was in charge of these tests?
A: I believe the responsibility was divided into military and medical responsibility. The latter belonged to Ruff.
Q: Did you over experience it that Romberg, during these tests, was proceeding, or acting recklessly?
A: No, not at all.
Q: Did you meet with any experiences with his political attitude? Did you discuss that with him?
A: I got to know Romberg quite well. I believe the same is true of him as of Ruff. He was in no way, let me say, a pronounced National Socialist.
Q: What I want to know is was he a Mazi at all; not pronounced, was he a Nazi?
A: I did not have that impression.
Q: You didn't have the impression?
A: That he was a National Socialist.
Q: Did you have an impression to the contrary about him?
A: I believe that I can answer that question with yes.
Q: Would you be surprised if you were to read in the press today that Romberg was a prominent Nazi?
A: Yes, that would not be true.
Q: If I understood you correctly then you said that both Professor Weltz, as well as you yourself, shared the view that Rascher was neither, according to character or knowledge, in any position to carry out those altitude experiments on his own. Briefly put, therefore, he was a charlatan in your eyes, wasn't he; is that approximately the truth?
A: Yes, that's true.
Q: When did Romberg first see Rascher at that time; do you know that?
A: I do not know.
Q: Then I will tell you. He saw Rascher for the first tine in the office of the Research Institute of Weltz shortly after you, as you say --
MR.McHANEY: If the Court please, I think that if the attorney for the Defendant Romberg wishes to testify, that he should take the stand.
DR. VORWERK: This last hint which I was giving.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection of counsel for the prosecution is sustained to that question.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. VORWERK:
Q: If you held the view then that Rascher was a charlatan, would it not have been your duty or Weltz's duty to draw Romberg's attention to that fact before he began his experiments?
A: That is hard to say.
Q: Did you ever state to Romberg at any time that you too had been asked to carry out these experiments, but that you had refused?
A: No, I don't know.
Q: But you were very well acquainted with Romberg, weren't you? Wouldn't it have been the duty of a comrade, since you were both serving in the Airforce, wouldn't it have been the duty of a colleague amongst doctors to discuss that subject?
A: Well, it was a subject which neither of us liked to talk about.
Q: What you want to say was that in your opinion Romberg too wasn't happy taking on this job, if I understand you rights that's what you want to say?
A: I am convinced of that.
Q: Well, why do you believe that he took it on at all?
A: I don't believe I can answer that question, but --
Q: It isn't known to you that Rascher was described as an excellent scientist to Romberg? Romberg made inquiries, you know, and that's what he was told. Did you know about that?
A: No.
Q: You know it the first time you saw him then?
A: That's quite possible.
Q: But at that time it was your and Weltz's view that Rascher was a charlatan, wasn't it?
A: If ether that was our opinion at that time, I can't say. I saw Rascher only once at that time. The opinion that he -- from the first moment on he made a very poor impression on me, but that he was such a complete zero I learned only in the course of time.
Q: Why did you believe that in connection with these experiments people only were to be used who had been sentenced to death previously?
A: It was discussed in that form.
Q: By whom?
A: Well, that was the general opinion.
Q: You say general opinion, so that, if I understand you correctly it was the opinion at the time when you, for the first time, were approached in the matter?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you also know whether Romberg was of the same opinion?
A: I am sure.
Q: But then this expression "general opinion" was then extended beyond the circle of the people who were immediately concerned? In other words, was that the opinion of all the medical officers of the German Air Forces?
A: They know nothing about it, but it was doubtless the opinion of all in informed circles; that is, of anyone who knew anything about it.
Q: Rascher too?
A: Rascher was doubtless the evil spirit in this matter. I don't knew what he thought.
Q: But you are firmly convinced that Romberg shared that view, are you?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the view also attached to that opinion at the time, connected with it, that the experimental persons weren't only going to be criminals sentenced to death but than they would also have to volunteer?
A: Yes, I believe so. Of course, I did not, but of course, that really is included.
Q: Well, if I understand you correctly then, you were convinced at the time that the victims of the experiments were only going to be people sentenced to death because they had committed crimes; and secondly, people who would volunteer in order to change their death sentence to prison sentence?
A: Yes, that was my opinion.
Q: And furthermore, you are convinced that Dr. Romberg shared that view, are you?
A: Yes
DR. VORWERK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:At this time the Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)