1947-05-02, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 2 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges, of Military Tribunal 1.

Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the Courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshall, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The secretary-general will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness, according to a note filed by the prison physician. The Secretary-General will file the note.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. HANS ROMBERG — Resumed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the Defendant Romberg):

Q: Mr. Romberg, yesterday you answered to my last question, why it was impossible for you by using force to oppose Rascher's experiments and to prove that there would have been no purpose in denouncing him to the Reich authorities. I would now like to ask you, assuming the case you would find yourself in a similar position today, would you take the same attitude as you did then?

A: That is, of course, extremely difficult because the conditions are different now. I know Rascher—I know the whole situation. I have of course, often thought about that point. If, my present knowledge, I were again put in the same situation, I am certain that I would act differently.

I would probably go to Berlin after the death and report it, and then I would go home, get a medical certificate saying that I was sick, and write to Dachau and say that I could not come back. What Rascher did then and how the experiments turned out the main thing would be I would be out of it, then I would probably save myself the one and half years in prison and the trial.

Q: Is that your true opinion?

A: If I think over what I said one of course often imagines that, but I really don't believe I would do that because one can't act against one's inner convictions. I would probably not take this cold calculating point of view and let everything take its course. I would probably go back just the way I did and carry out the experiments, see to it that the chamber could be take away. I would probably do everything just the way I did it then.

MR. HARDY: Your honor, I don't believe the Tribunal is particularly interested in what the Defendant Romberg thought he would have done under the same circumstances if they arose again. This is purely speculative.

THE PRESIDENT: Objections by counsel for the prosecution appears to be well taken. What have you to say counsel?

DR. VORWERK: The defendant has been asked what attitude he would take if he were faced with the same situation which he faced at the time. The Defendant has answered that question.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to pursue this line any further?

DR. VORWERK: No, he has answered the question.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Proceed.

BY DR. VORWERK (Continuing):

Q: Witness, in this court mention has been made that in the course of the high-altitude experiments several visits were paid by some SS officers; were you present in Dachau when these visits occurred?

A: The visits in Dachau that I remember are the visits of Grawitz the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] of the Police, and the visits of Sievers which Sievers has already mentioned here.

And I also know that Himmler was there, that was on Sunday and I was not there that day but later, of course, I was told all about it.

Q: Was that the only visit you can recall?

A: The only visit of Himmler's, or do you mean the only visit—

Q: The only visit by higher SS officers.

A: I do not remember any other visits.

Q: Your co-defendant Sievers testified here that while he was there he noticed that an experimental subject during the experiments pointed to his ear in order to indicate that the experimental subject suffered from pains in the ear, thereupon, you produced a different altitude. Do you recall that incident, and what have you to say about that?

A: It was a sign which we had agreed upon, that they should point to the ear there if they had earache, perhaps during the descent, and that was probably what happened during this visits of Sievers. We always made the descent slower or went up a little again in order to do away with the complaint.

Q: Why do you particularly remember that incident while Sievers was there?

A: Rascher wanted the descent to be rapid and I stopped it on purpose, and he told me later, when visitors are there that has to be done quickly and I said, "Whether we have visitors there, or Sievers or somebody else, that makes no difference, the experiments has to be carried out in the same way."

Q: At that time when this incident happened did Rascher reproach you for bad conduct or something like that?

A: He possibly held the point of view that when we had visitors I had to make the experiments faster so to say considering the fact that we had visitors at the experiments, but I refused to do so.

Q: What did he mean by you should do in taking the visitors into considerations?

A: The experiment was to be carried out as quickly as possible, while I held the point of view that the experiment is the main thing and the visitor has to look at the experiment and watch it in the form in which it is always carried out. After all, these were not demonstrations.

Q: Another subject now, what attitude did you take after the Dachau experiments, what was your position with the DVL after the Dachau experiments?

A: At first I was a scientific co-worker just as I had been before. Our department for aviation medicine was expanded gradually and became an institute, and in 1943 I became section chief in the section for high altitude.

Q: Today, do you still think that the experiments were at that time important?

A: Yes absolutely. Recently, I accidentally obtained proof that this opinion is still correct today. I read an article about a new aviation experiment of a plane with a rocket propeller.

Q: May it please the Court, at this point I would like to offer Romberg Document 5, Romberg Exhibit No. 5, an article from "Life" magazine under the heading, "Scientists Prepare to Fly Faster Than Sound." This is the issue of Life Magazine of 20 January 1947. This should serve as evidence for the fact that in aviation under post-war conditions similar problems are regarded as important, just as were the problems for which these experiments to rescue people from high altitude.

MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, it is my understanding that the evidence of this nature will be offered at a later date and will be acted on at that time by the Tribunal.

DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, may it please the court, in this case this is not an experiment made abroad and about which the court has already ruled. This is not an experiment at all; this is merely to show the fact that a certain problem exists.

MR. HARDY: That being the case, Your Honor, I strenuously object to the statements of the defense counsel and this Document as being absolutely immaterial.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of common knowledge of which the court will take judicial notice that the experiments in connection with planes to attain speed and velocity by machines heavier than air is being pursued by scientists everywhere. That is a matter of common knowledge of which the court will take judicial notice. Counsel may offer this exhibit, it will be received, but the court will take judicial notice of this, as it is common knowledge that everyone knows. The document offered will be submitted, but the exhibit should not be read, it should merely be an exhibit and placed in the record.

DR. VORWERK: I did not intend at all, sir, to read the Document.

Q: Dr. Romberg, what do you have to say about the fact of the importance of your experiments connected with this article in "Life?"

A: There is a similarity between this described new plane and the Me [Messerschmitt] 163, which was the main occasion for our experiments, since it is also a plane with a rocket drive and thus independent of altitude. It is characteristic that in these new planes, just as at that time with our Me 163 great hopes are set in the beginning for future accomplishments. The speed of up to 1,700 miles is mentioned and the pressure cabin, which is equipped and is built for an altitude of 80,000 feet too. The possibility to reach this altitude is already given and depends only on the supply of fuel. The American Aviation medicine has now reached the same point, which we reached at that time. The Me 163 for us was out of the experimental stage and the American experts on aviation medicine, if they have not already done so, will no doubt be studying the possibility of rescue from high altitude and high speed.

The necessity of rescue from high speed is mentioned specifically in this article and the difficulty involved.

Q: Dr. Romberg, the necessity to carry out such experiments, is that not shown also by the Prosecution Document No. 289, Exhibit 72?

THE PRESIDENT: What Document book is it?

DR. VORWERK: Prosecution Document bock 2.

THE PRESIDENT: On what page?

DR. VORWERK: It is on page 106 of the English version, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: This is the letter, which Hippke wrote to Himmler after the experiments were completed, in which he discusses the result. He emphasizes that the experiments were valuable and important in their results. He says, it is true, that cold was not considered in this matter, which involves an increased burden. We ourselves undertook these cold experiments later and further one of the most important results of our report was that in rescue from these high altitude one should prefer rescue with a closed parachute and for the same reason, it is suggested, or rather demanded, that the parachute be equipped with a blocking equipment for high altitude, so that it cannot be opened accidentally or intentionally after leaving the plane. In the second place, it is demanded in the case the parachuter becomes unconscious and does not regain consciousness in time, there will be an automatic device steered barometrically to open the parachute at an altitude between 4,000 and 6,000 meters. The matter of cold does not play any great role in this because the time speed in these high altitudes, where the temperature is very low, is very slow, 10 seconds per 1,000 meters. Aside for possible local freezing of the face, for example, no serious damage from the cold can be expected.

BY DR. VORWERK:

Q: Witness, a few questions on your reporting to Himmler during that conference.

Was there any reference made to those experiments which Rascher made on his own in Dachau?

A: No, at least not in my presence.

Q: Did Rascher have any other conferences with Himmler apart from the one where you were present?

A: Yes, on the next morning, Rascher talked to him again. I was not present.

Q: Do you know what problems or orders Rascher wanted Himmler to give him in the field of high altitude research?

A: When we visited the Headquarters, Himmler had spoken of the continuation of the high altitude experiments. What was intended and the details. One can no doubt see most clearly from this Document Exhibit 79, Document Bock 2, Document 1612-PS. That is the official assignment, which Himmler gave to Rascher to carry out a certain series of experiments.

It says among other things and I quote:

SS Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Dr. Rascher is being assigned by me to carry through the following experiments:

(1) Low pressure chamber experiments, to be carried out under conditions corresponding to those actually prevailing under normal operating conditions, for rescue from high and extremely high altitudes. Determination of changes in chemical equilibrium, as well as gas equilibrium of human body. Experiments are to be repeated until a scientifically incontestable basis for findings is established. Testing or pressure-proof protection garments for the highest altitudes to be carried out with the assistance of manufacturers of such protective suits.

This shows that Rascher performed very extensive assignments and Rascher no doubt intended to carry out the experiments. He, of course, did not know the details.

Q: Did Rascher ever tell you in what fields he was working? I mean as far as high altitude experiments were concerned.

A: While we were at Dachau?

Q: While you worked at Dachau on your experiments to rescue people from high altitudes.

A: No, he never said anything definite. He did say that in the case of Benz he wanted to clear up with KG but, of course, he did not give me any details about his answer.

Q: Witness, whom among your co-defendants did you know in 1945, at the beginning of 1945?

A: By name, Professor Brandt, Professor Handloser, Professor Rostock. Professor Schroeder I knew because he had visited us at the DVL once or twice. I did not know Dr. Genzken; Professor Gebhardt, Professor Blome by name; Dr. Mrugowsky a little; Poppendick not at all; Professor Rose by name, I met him at meetings. Dr. Ruff was my chief. I did not know Mr. Brack. Dr. Becker-Freyseng I knew from aviation medicine work which he did with Professor Strughold, and Professor Weltz I knew.

Of the other four and Dr. Oberheuser I knew no one.

Q: With whom did you have official relations?

A: I had official relations in aviation medicine with Dr. Ruff, of course; at times with Becker-Freyseng, also in the way of conversations. I didn't have direct official relations with Dr. Schroeder but he was on official business when he visited our institute, and I met Professor Weltz in 1942.

Q: Which of the experiments discussed here were known to you when you were arrested?

A: When I was arrested the high altitude experiments, of course, and the cold experiments.

Q: When you say the "cold experiments", do you mean to say that the fact that cold experiments were carried out was known to you, or do you want to say it was known to you to what extent and in what manner they were carried out?

A: As to the extent and exact manner I knew nothing. My knowledge is based on the conference in Nuernberg and on the fact that I had heard that cold experiments were to be carried out.

Q: So you took part in the Nuernberg conference, did you?

A: Yes, I spoke about that yesterday already.

Q: Did you take part in any other meetings in Berlin, St. Johann, Hohenlychen, or anywhere else?

A: No, I did not attend any meetings of consulting physicians or any meetings which have been discussed here. The other meetings were internal meetings of the Luftwaffe doctors which took place from time to time.

Q: Now, a final question. Why did you sign a report together with a man like Rascher?

A: I have been asked the very same question by Professor Alexander why I signed a report together with a criminal like Rascher. I may say several things on that. The picture of Rascher as a criminal is clear today. For me at the time Rascher's personality and his position, however, were not so clear from the legal and from a moral point of view.

We repudiated Rascher's experiments inwardly. What we did not like was the fact that he undertook human experiments on questions which in our opinion were not of the highest importance and not of decisive practical importance, and also in these experiments he did not proceed with the necessary care and caution, so that death occurred. Therefore, we not only repudiated the experiments inwardly, but we also repudiated them externally, that is, we refused to cooperate with Rascher any further. But this was merely our personal opinion and was also the basis of our private attitude toward him. According to knowledge of literature about experiments on human beings in all countries, I today have the personal opinion that in a number of cases the experiments were sometimes unnecessary and that some cases of death could have been avoided; that many a piece of work was not well enough prepared and was not limited to what was absolutely necessary. But from this subjective attitude to advance to the objective verdict that a certain scientist was a criminal, that was a great and decisive step, and so I signed the report together with Rascher. Ruff did not have any misgivings either against countersigning this scientifically correct report and making the results available for further developments. Today I am actually glad I did so for it is the clearest proof of the separation of the Rascher experiments from ours. It is very difficult if one has only the prosecution documents and prosecution witnesses with which to conduct one's defense, and if this report were not available one of the most important proofs against the serious charges would be missing.

DR. VORWERK: For the time being I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by defense counsel?

DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for the defendants Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Witness, in this trial you gave an affidavit which was submitted by the prosecution as evidence. It is contained in Document Book No. 2 on page 1 of the text. It is Document No. 476, Exhibit 40. Do you have the document at your disposal?

A: Yes.

Q: I would now ask you to look at figure 8 in this document. There you said:

After the low pressure experiments were completed, Dr. Rascher and I made a report which was approved by Ruff and signed by the three of us. This was circulated to all interested offices in the Luftwaffe. In my opinion, Dr. Anthony of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe must also have received a copy of this report. I do not remember if Becker-Freyseng was with the Medical Inspectorate at that time but if he was he certainly knew that these experiments were being conducted.

Now, of course, we know, witness, that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was in the Medical Inspectorate from 1941 on as an assistant expert. Therefore, it might be possible that from that affidavit the prosecution might draw the conclusion that Dr. Becker knew of these experiments and reports. Therefore, I would like to ask you, witness, do you have any factual proof and real knowledge of the fact that Dr. Becker-Freyseng in fact knew of these experiments and above all of this particular report?

A: No, I have no positive knowledge to that effect. In the interrogation I was asked whether the report — whether a copy of the report was sent to the Medical Inspectorate and I was convinced of this fact—

Q: May I interrupt you a moment, witness. You say you were "convinced" of that fact that this report was sent to the Medical Inspectorate, but did you actually positively know it?

A: No, I did not see the distribution list itself when it was finally approved by the Aviation Ministry and I want to say that if the report was sent to the Aviation Ministry then it was certainly sent to the Department for Aviation Medicine and the expert of this department would certainly have learned about it.

I said especially that Dr. Anthony probably received it. I do not remember whether Becker-Freyseng was in the Medical Inspectorate at that time. I did not remember at that time that Becker-Freyseng was working with Anthony, was Anthony's assistant in the Medical Inspectorate at one time. I thought that if this Anthony had been an expert he would have learned of it, but if Becker-Freyseng had been an expert he would have learned of it, but I knew that at that time he was an assistant expert while I had assumed that Dr. Anthony was not there at all.

Q: Therefore, you were saying, witness, that you merely assumed this fact here?

A: Yes.

Q: Then may I ask you in the same document and in the same paragraph under Figure 8; please look at the last sentence. There you say, Dr. Oskar Schroeder in 1942 was the second-highest ranking officer in the medical service of the Luftwaffe, and probably he also knew of these experiments, although I personally never talked to him about them.

I should say from this very formulation you have no positive knowledge of the fact whether or not Prof. Schroeder knew anything about this business. Is that correct?

A: Yes, what I meant to say by this formulation which I worked out after considerable discussion in the interrogation, I adopted this formulation on purpose. "He probably knew about these experiments" but in order to say that I had no positive personal knowledge— I said that I personally never talked to him about the matter, that I knew nothing positive.

Q: Thank you very much.

DR. TIPP: May it please the Court, the Defense Counsel for Weltz is not present today. He asked me to put the questions on behalf of his client, and I would like to obtain your permission for this.

THE PRESIDENT: The permission is granted.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Witness, on behalf of defendant Weltz I still would like to go into your affidavit. I would now like you to go back to the first page of your affidavit. I am interested here in Figure 2. There you speak first of all about the time when the experiments were conducted in Dachau, and what was their purpose.

Then you said, around the middle of the paragraph:

Dr. Ruff was first approached to assist in the high altitude experiments at Dachau by Dr. G.A. Weltz, Chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich. This was in December 1941 or January 1942. Dr. Weltz advised Ruff that Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a doctor in the Luftwaffe and also a member of the SS, was to perform the high altitude experiments. Weltz wanted an expert to work with Rascher on these experiments.

Witness, now we have heard your testimony and also that of Dr. Ruff. And Dr. Ruff, in particular, told us in detail about the conference between himself and Prof. Weltz. That conference, if I understood Ruff and you correctly, was aimed at Dr. Weltz's making the suggestion to have the second part of your experiments which you, yourself, had conducted in Aldershof as experiments on yourself; to transfer to Dachau, to experiment on inmates. And that that possibility was made available by Dr. Rascher.

In your testimony here it looks as though Weltz or Rascher had planned experiments for Dachau, and as though for those experiments which Weltz planned, you or Ruff respectively were called in as experts to assist in the experiments. May I now ask you, witness, to tell me which opinion is the correct one: first one which I have deduced from yours and Ruff's testimony—or the opinion which seems to become clear in your affidavit?

A: In the discussion with Weltz— that is, the discussion between Ruff and Weltz—I was not present, as Ruff has already said.

My knowledge of this discussion is based on what Dr. Ruff told me later, and as he explained it that within a general discussion about important questions of aviation medicine, the problem of rescue from high altitude came up, and this possibility of obtaining experimental subjects for those experiments because Dr. Rascher had the permission to use them, was also discussed. The formulation in the affidavit did not come from me personally. It was submitted to me in this form. If I did not object to this expression — "approached to assist" — as an expert, it was because my memory of what Dr. Ruff told me about the discussion with Weltz was not in contradiction to it. Some agreement on the experiments had been reached in this discussion.

Q: Now, today, witness, you know from Dr. Ruff's report how this discussion went, and surely you will agree with me that it would be more correct to say that some of your research program, the program of Dr. Ruff, or the DVL, had to be continued in Dachau?

A: Yes.

Q: Very well. Now, another question, witness. As we know, you collaborated for some time with Dr. Rascher in Dachau, and I may assume, that Dr. Weltz was mentioned in these experiments. On those occasions did Dr. Rascher ever tell you that he and Dr. Weltz differed very considerably in certain points?

A: Yes, he talked about that repeatedly.

Q: Can you give us more details of these differences? Were they concerned with the facts perhaps that Prof. Weltz, wished to supervise Dr. Rascher, who at that time, was still a member of his institute, whereas Dr. Rascher in his turn did not like that supervision?

A: Yes, that was said. The telegram from Himmler played an important role, saying that the experiments were to be kept secret.

Rascher took this telegram to Weltz, showed it to him, and he told him that he was not allowed to give him any reports because of this telegram.

Q: That telegram you saw yourself witness; did you?

A: Yes. Rascher showed it to me too, of course, to emphasize my own obligation to secrecy.

Q: Do you still recall the wording of that telegram?

A: I believe it was teletype; it was very short. It said only that the high altitude experiments in concentration camp Dachau were to be kept secret, absolutely secret to everyone. I am not sure; it might have said "Top Secret".

Q: And, as you said yourself, Rascher showed this telegram to Dr. Weltz, and thereby avoided Weltz's supervision. Is that correct?

A: Yes. I was not there, but he told me that he had showed it to Weltz.

Q: Yes — very well. Now, did Rascher, as far as you were concerned, make any remarks on Prof. Weltz's character?

A: Yes; he said that he was a strong Catholic, I believe he called him a "black" fellow, who collaborated with the circles of Catholic activists, and who, therefore, would not be suited to collaborate with such experiments or to learn about them.

Q: May I, therefore, understand you to the effect that Rascher did not like Prof. Weltz, and declined to have anything to do with him just because of his Christian attitude?

A: Yes.

Q: Very well. One final set of questions, witness. When, for the last time, did you talk to Prof. Weltz about the Dachau experiments?

A: I cannot remember the time exactly; it was certainly before the actual start of the experiments—when I talked to Prof. Weltz the last time.

Q: Do you, by any chance, know witness, whether your last conversation with Dr. Weltz took place before the teletype was shown to Weltz by Rascher— or afterwards?

A: My last talk to Prof. Weltz was before this teletype.

Q: Before the teletype. Now, do you have any indication, witness, for the fact that Prof. Weltz knew anything about the actual experiments themselves?

A: No.

Q: You said just now that you and Weltz saw each other for the last time before the actual experiments really started. That is correct, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know anything about the fact whether or not Prof. Weltz received any reports on the carrying out of the experiments?

A: He did not receive any from me. As far as I know he did not receive any at all.

Q: Can you tell us, witness, whether Rascher perhaps on some occasion reported to Weltz about the experiments, perhaps on the fatalities which occurred at the time too?

A: No; I considered that quite impossible on the basis of this telegram.

Q: Now, I should like to go back finally to your affidavit, in order to make it quite clear. This is Document NO-476 on page one of the, Document Book II; in Figure 10.

Once again you talk of Prof. Weltz, and you said, it is the second sentence:

Dr. Weltz certainly never expressed any moral scruples against these high altitude tests since it was he who originally asked Dr. Ruff and me to assist Dr. Rascher.

The question of any assistance given we have already discussed. I need not go into that now, only to clarify matters I would like you, witness, to tell us what experiments you are talking about here when you say that. After all, we know now that there were two experiments going on at Dachau; first, your experiments; that is to say, the experiments called "rescue from high altitudes", and second, the experiments made by Dr. Rascher alone. To what experiments do you refer here when you say these things in this paragraph?

A: Of course, the experiments for rescue from high altitude. This expression was originally not in the affidavit. I added it specifically in order to indicate that Weltz had no scruples against these experiments which he had previously discussed with Ruff.

Q: Now, since you told us, witness, that Professor Weltz was informed neither by you or by Rascher on the conduct of the experiments, you wish, therefore, to say, if I understand you correctly, that Professor Weltz had no scruples against the planning of the experiments for; after all, that was all he knew?

A: Yes, he could naturally only object to what he knew about the experiments.

Q: Thank you very much.

May it please your Honors, I have no further questions.

BY DR. HOFFMAN (Defense Counsel for the defendant Pokorny):

Q: Witness, after the end of the war were you a prisoner of war or an internee in some camp?

A: Yes, I was an internee for one year in camps in the British Zone.

Q: Did you, in those camps, ever hear any conversations about sterilization operations?

A: Yes, in the Camp Esterwegen, where I was last, there was a Dr. — Dr. Meyer. He told me, when I asked him why he was interned that he was charged with performing sterilization operations in Holland.

Q: Did he also tell you when these operations were carried out? In what year?

A: I am not sure of the year. I think that it was about 1941 or 1942.

DR. HOFFMAN: I see. I have no further questions.

BY DR. WEISGERBER (Defense Counsel for the defendant Sievers):

Q: Dr. Romberg, from what time onwards did you know the codefendant Sievers?

A: I met him for the first time when he came on a visit to Dachau during the high altitude experiments shortly before Raster, 1942.

Q: The high altitude experiments were in full swing at the time, were they not?

A: Yes.

Q: And prior to that time, you did not know him? How often did you see Sievers at Dachau?

A: Only this one time, at this visit.

Q: And on that occasion, you were present too?

A: Yes.

Q: How did it come about that Sievers took any part in those experiments? Was that because Rascher invited him?

A: I don't know exactly how that happened. Rascher only said that Sievers came from the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage]. I don't believe that he came especially for these experiments, but he was coming anyhow and that he would look at the experiments. Whether he was invited to do so, or why Sievers came, I don't know.

Q: And on that experiment Sievers was merely a spectator?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Sievers ever suggest that he had orders to be present in the experiments as an expert?

A: No, of course not.

Q: Therefore, the scientific side of the experiments was no concern of his?

A: No.

Q: Were they any fatalities in the experiments Sievers saw?

A: No.

Q: The tasks and functions of Sievers which he carried out in Dachau — did you know any details about that?

A: No, no details. I just know that Rascher told me that Sievers was the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe and had something to do with administration or personnel questions there.

Q: Do you know anything about the fact whether Sievers had anything to do with the selection of the experimental subjects?

A: No, he certainly had nothing to do with that.

Q: Now, to sum up. I come to the result that the experiments made would have been made just the same whether Silvers was there in some capacity or whether he would not?

A: Yes, the experiments had begun before he was there.

Q: In your direct examination, you mentioned that you reported to Himmler in his field headquarters. At that time, was Professor Wuest present?

A: Yes, he was there.

Q: And did you know who Professor Wuest was? What his functions were?

A: Yes, Rascher had told me that on the train on the way and when we met Professor Wuest. Rascher told me afterwards that Wuest was, I believe he said, the curator of the Ahnenerbe and Rector of the University of Munich, and that he was the superior of Sievers in the Ahnenerbe.

Q: Then you said that, on that occasion, reference was made to further experiments, that is to say, freezing experiments. You explained that, in those experiments, the rewarming with animal warmth was to be carried out. Can you tell us whose idea was this? The Prosecution described those things as though that method of rewarming was Sievers' brain child.

A: I believe that I was present at the birth of this idea, so to speak, when Himmler gave Rascher the assignment to go around the sea rescue stations in the North Sea — and inquire what remedies the people applied in such cases of rescue of frozen sailors, and he said that he could imagine that a fisherman's wife would simply take her half-frozen husband into her bed and warm him up that way. That was not a particularly striking suggestion at the time. I believe that this is done along the coast, but as I saw the suggestion turn up again here, I, of course, am horrified too.

Q: Can you recall whether Himmler, at that time, ordered Rascher to have these rewarming experiments carried out through using the body warmth of women?

A: No, he certainly did not give the assignment yet at that time. The matter was simply discussed in conversation about the possibilities for rescue.

Q: And, in that conversation, Professor Wuest was present, was he not?

A: Yes, Wuest was present.

Q: Now, did Wuest make any objection to such a proposition?

A: No, Wuest certainly made no objection.

Q: In that conversation on cold experiments and anything connected with cold experiments, did Sievers come into that at all.

A: No, his name was certainly not mentioned.

Q: Through the intimate contact between yourself and Rascher, which was the result of the experiments, you certainly heard him mention something about the fact that he wished to be transferred to the Waffen-SS?

A: Yes, he had spoken about that repeatedly. Perhaps during the high altitude experiments, but I don't believe so, but he certainly spoke about it when we were to report to Milch in the Aviation Ministry when we did not quite succeed.

Q: And did Himmler give any indication that he himself wished Rascher to be transferred to the Waffen-SS?

A: When I visited him? At that meeting?

Q: Yes, or did Rascher tell you anything of that description?

A: Rascher told me about it, but I don't believe it was mentioned during the discussion.

Q: At least, not while you were present still because you said before that there was another conference on the next day?

A: Yes, that's right.

Q: Now, my final question, Dr. Romberg, would you please take up once again your document book concerning high altitude experiments and, in particular, your affidavit which has been mentioned so often before. That is Document 476, Exhibit of the prosecution #40, on page 1 of Document Book 2. On Page 3, at the bottom:

Wolfram Sievers of the Ahnenerbe Society of the SS was also familiar with these experiments and was in Dachau several times when they were being conducted.

The word "familiar" — has it been put there at your request? Because, as I recall, Sievers has been there only once as a mere spectator and that he is not a scientist, I am rather surprised at that term "familiar".

A: That formulation of all these affidavits did not originate with me. I want to say that he know about these experiments and that at one occasion he had watched one in Dachau and I saw him personally at the experimental station.

Q: In other words, that he knew of the experiments — those things which he had seen himself?

A: Yes, apparently he knew that experiments were carried out and he knew what he had seen during the visit.

Q: My final question, any reports, oral reports or reports in writing, were they sent to Sievers or the Ahnenerbe, as far as you know?

A: Not to my knowledge. I do not know exactly, however, but I assume that one copy of the research report was sent to the Ahnenerbe

DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)