1947-05-06, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

BY DR. WILLE:

Q: Dr. Weltz, just before the recess I was about to give you Document NO-1602 PS, Prosecution Exhibit 44; and that is where were stopped at the recess. I shall now send the document up to you. I understand you have it already. Please refer to it. The prosecution maintains and I should like to hear your attitude about this—that you are the representative of the Air fleet physician mentioned in this letter here.

A: Rascher writes in this letter of the 15th of May 1941 first that he was assigned in Munich at the Luftgau Commando VII for a medical selection course. He also writes that high altitude research was important in this course because the English fighter planes had a somewhat higher ceiling. He alleged that it was mentioned in this course that unfortunately we had not been able to carry out experiments with human material yet since the experiments were very dangerous and no one volunteered.

He therefore seriously asks: Is it possible that two or three professional criminals be made available by you for these experiments? What Rascher writes here is very peculiar because it is likely to have been generally known at that time that in the Luftwaffe there was hardly a well known research worker who had not performed extensive experiments on himself. From the large number of names I should like to mention only a few here. Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Lutz have already been mentioned. Klamann, Frauenberger, Doehring, Benzinger, Luft, Fobeitz, Kottenhoff, Halbach, Sauer, those are only a few names which just occur to me. There were some heroic experiments, for example, Benzinger-Halbach experiments on explosive decompression up to 19,000 meters, centrifuge experiments by Doehlen. He stayed in the centrifuge until he had subcutaneous hemorrhages, that is, his whole skin by the centrifuge, which was a sensational thing at the time.

We knew of all these experiments, and there was hardly anyone familiar with aviation medicine who could have made such a remark. Now, this remark could only have been made at a report on high altitude aviation research. The three lectures which were held on altitude during this course I know.

I held one of them myself. I did not say that. Buechner made one and Kottenhoff the third; and I heard both lectures; and the other two lecturres did not contain this assertion either. We know from further developments that he means here Kottenhoff's lecture; and Kottenhoff certainly did not say that either, certainly not in this form; and he says the same thing himself in a affidavit.

Now, Rascher goes on the write that the experiments are made at the Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe [Test Center for High-Altitude Research of the Luftwaffe] in Munich. The head in this institute at the time was myself. Rascher did not come to me, although I was a lecturer at this course. I did not give him permission to perform these experiments at this institute; and I would not have been able to give him that permission to perform these experiments at this institute; and I would not have been able to give him that permission. That would have been something which would have absolutely required consultation with the Medical Inspectorate and the approval of the Medical Inspectorate. I consider it impossible that Kottenhoff gave him this permission because Kottenhoff was not at this testing station; he was with the Luftgau [Air District]. He was in charge of the department for therapy and care; and he could not and did not give Rascher this permission, I am convinced of that.

Now, if Rascher goes on to write: the experiments during which, of course, the subjects could die were to take place with my cooperation; that they are carried out on monkeys as hitherto because monkeys are of an entirely different test condition; as I said already he mentions monkeys because Kottenhoff's lecture referred to his experiments on monkeys. I have had a very confident talk on that matter with the representative of the air fleet physician who did make this research experiment, and he was also of the opinion that the problems involved can only be solved by experiments on human beings.

I know from what Kottenhoff has told me, that Rascher did talk to him at that time, and, after all, Kottenhoff says that too in his affidavit. On the other hand, Rascher himself writes that the conversation was absolutely confidential. This shows that he did not talk to me. As far as the representative of the air fleet physician is concerned, he was neither Kottenhoff nor myself. The air fleet physician was Paris, at that time. He had no representative in Munich. At least we two were not his representatives. One must, therefore, observe, that in this letter Rascher has made quite a lot of confusion with partly half-truths, mostly however completely untrue statements. These are apparently made for a very definite purpose, and, I imagine the purposes of this letter is for Rascher then to make Himmler believe that there was an urgent need for human experiments. He also wanted to make him believe that he has talked to some competent persons on the subject, which could not have been the case according to the state of affairs. He obviously expected that if Himmler gives him the permission, the other authorities involved, that is myself, the air gau, the medical inspector, and so forth, that is, if an order of permission from Himmler is presented, that we could not oppose his wishes.

I think that is rather clear in the contents of this letter of Rascher's.

I therefore, state once more that Rascher did no talk to me at all at the time. He certainly did talk to Kottenhoff. In his lecture Kottenhoff certainly did not make the statement which Rascher put in his mouth. He talked about the adjustment of monkeys and rabbits to high altitude, and I knew nothing at all of the whole developments at the time. It was quite impossible that during this course he obtained permission or assurance that these experiments would be carried out at the Luftwaffe Testing Station for altitude research. There was no one there who could have given him this permission.

DR. WILLE: May it please the court, I, pursuant to the testimony of Dr. Weltz, shall now submit the affidavit by Dr. Kottenhoff, which has already been referred to several times. This is contained in Document Book I of Weltz Document No. 2, and at the same time with this I submit here a publication by Dr. Kottenhoff which has the file: "Increase of endurance for high altitudes." This is contained in Weltz Document No. 2, Document No. 18, and both documents together will be Weltz Exhibit No. 3. From this affidavit I would like to make the following brief statements. On page 2 Kottenhoff states, at the top—

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wille, the documents being contained in separate document books, I suggest that they be marked separately as Exhibit No. 3 and Exhibit No. 3-A.

DR. WILLE: May it please the court, in accordance with your Honors ruling, I shall submit these documents as Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4. Perhaps I may briefly come back to what I was about to say. Kottenhoff said on page 2, first, that during the training course, he gave a lecture on high altitude as to the adaptability of rabbits and monkeys. He confirmed thereupon that after the lecture, that Rascher approached Kottenhoff, and that the two of them had a confidential discussion together. On page 3 of his affidavit Kottenhoff confirms that Rascher made the proposition to him to have high altitude tests made on professional criminals, and that they had to be volunteers. He also said in his affidavit, that is, Kottenhoff, and I shall quote the last paragraph on page 3:

Several weeks after our first discussion Rascher came to me, and informed me for the first time that he had approached Himmler for permission to conduct high-altitude adaptability experiments on professional criminals, and that he had received the written permission from him. Thereupon I expressed once more my scruples as stated under No. 12, promised him, however, to discuss the matter with Professor Weltz. In the subsequent discussion Weltz shared my scruples.

End of quotation.

I, therefore, come to the conclusion if your Honor pleases, that Professor Weltz, as far as all these matters are concerned, heard only many, many weeks later about them, and, as it has been proved, he is not the person who has had the conversation with Rascher.

Q: Dr. Weltz, I shall now come back once more to Rascher's letter to Himmler; will you tell me in a few brief words what did Rascher intend with these incorrect statements?

A: I believe I have already indicated that. I interpret the letter to be that Rascher, during Kottenhoff's lecture got the idea of performing experiments on human beings in Dachau; that without saying anything to Kottenhoff about it he got permission from Himmler that in order to obtain this permission he pretended to Himmler that he had talked to authorities and that there was urgent need for those experiments and then it seems to me that Rascher at that time already intended to qualify as a lecturer, because the fact that he mentioned the testing station for altitude research as the agency which was to carry out the experiments leads us to believe that at that time he was looking for a contact with the University which would have been possible through me, and the Physiological Institute with Testing Station 4.

Q: Dr. Weltz, I shall now hand to you an essay by Kottenhoff and by Frau Ruehl-Stanislaus. This essay is on experiments on monkeys. Your Honor, this essay is in Document Book 2 of Weltz, page 69 and 70. Dr. Weltz, will you please explain this paper?

A: This is a correction sheet of a paper which Kottenhoff later published in the journal for Aviation Medicine. It is No. 33 in the list of publications which has been submitted by my assistants.

DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, Document 17, I shall submit this paper which will become Weltz Exhibit 5.

Q: Dr. Weltz, what did Kottenhoff tell you when for the first time he talked to you about Rascher's plans?

A: Perhaps I may first comment briefly on this paper. It is headed "Increase of the degree of resistance to high altitudes through acclimatization in the case of Rhesus monkeys." And in the summary Kottenhoff describes how he tests the adaptation to altitude with monkeys, and how he succeeded, by making the ascent extremely slow, in reaching a higher altitude, and keeping the monkey alive longer than was possible through the quick ascent. These are the same changes which Kottenhoff and I had already previously determined in rabbits. There are a group of reactions which in aviation are called acclimatization to high altitude.

Q: Now, will you please answer the question which I put to you before and which you haven't answered yet. What did Kottenhoff tell you when he talked to you about Rascher's plans for the first time?

A: Kottenhoff said to me that Rascher was acquainted with Himmler — that Rascher had obtained permission from Himmler to perform experiments on human beings. He said that the subjects were to be professional criminals, that these people were to volunteer and then were to receive a reduction of their punishment and at that time Rascher had suggested to Kottenhoff that this effect of acclimatization to altitude which I just read about from Kottenhoff's paper, this effect should be tested. I said to Kottenhoff that these acclimatization tests were no doubt quite interesting physiologically but that for practical aviation medicine they were without any significance because this effect of adjustment occurred only when one delayed the ascent for hours; but since the times for descent during war-time do not become longer, but are radically shortened, and therefore the effect had no practical significance whatsoever.

Kottenhoff had misgivings against Rascher's suggestions for other reasons. He states the point in detail in his affidavit.

Q: As far as I know as to Rascher's plans there was a conversation between Kottenhoff and Hippke; you were present during this conversation, and what do you know about it?

A: This discussion was no doubt occasioned by what Rascher had said, but it was not really a conference for the execution of these experiments. On the occasion of a visit to Air Gau VII Hippke had invited us in the evening; there were about 15 men from the Air Gau. I was sitting at Hippke's left. Kottenhoff first was sitting at the lower end of the table. Then Kottenhoff came up, sat down between Hippke and myself and asked Hippke and later told Hippke what he had heard from Rascher, and he asked Hippke what his basic attitude towards these experiments was. Hippke and Kottenhoff debated the problem back and forth for a while. Kottenhoff said to Hippke that under these conditions one could perform experiments because in the last analysis these experiments were for the benefit even of criminals, and since the formulation which had been brought out seemed to me rather unfortunate I intervened toward the end of the conversation and tried to explain to Hippke my own opinion on this point. I had a rather clearly formulated opinion, because not too long before I had read De Kruif's book "Hunger Fighters". My friend Storm van Leeuwen had given it to me and Storm van Leeuwen had told me about De Kruif. He was an American of Dutch descent. He knew Storm van Leeuwen, and had visited him intending to write something about Storm's work.

DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, at this point may I ask the Court whether as an exhibit I would be allowed to submit extracts from the just mentioned book by De Kruif. I recall in this connection that a little time ago the Court ruled that the defense would be allowed to submit all material connected with the human material only at the end of the presentation of evidence. Now, this document I do not wish to submit in connection with the legal aspects of human experiments, but only to prove that in this conversation between Weltz and Hippke which dealt with the conditions of experiments, Weltz acted in good faith, and therefore I think this document has a different significance in this connection than just to explain the experiments to the court. May I submit it here?

MR. HARDY: May I inquire Your Honor more specifically what document he is referring to?

DR. WILLE: Your Honor, this is an extract from the book by De Kruif and it is only that part of the extract which deals with the experiments by Goldberger.

THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, which document is that?

DR. WILLE: It is in Document Book Weltz 13, and I would offer it if the court permits me, as Exhibit No. 6. May I mention here, Your Honor, that the book is in my possession.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I still make a sincere attempt to find out what document they are referring to?

THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document to which you refer?

DR. WILLE: In Document Book Weltz, as I told Your Honor, it is Document No. 13. May it please the Court, it is on pages 59 to 63 of the English Document book. May I offer this Document?

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I ask what the defense counsel is attempting to prove by using this Document. This fits clearly into the criterion of the other Documents wherein the Defense is making an attempt to show that experiments were being conducted in other countries and I think this should be delayed until the date, when the Tribunal can rule on this Document at the same time as it will rule on all other evidence of this nature. I don't see the connection of Weltz with this material.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the counsel for the defendant please state again what his purpose is in offering this Document, what probative value he thinks it has?

DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, as I said before, this Document, rather the Defendant Weltz referred himself to this Document, because he told the court at that time he explained his knowledge of the admissibility of human experiments to Hippke and he based himself on this book of De Kruif. Therefore, for Weltz in this case the question is not to explain the limitations of human experiments to the court, but only to make it credible to the court that at that moment Weltz was informed by an internationally well known book that such experiments were admissible. I do not wish to enter a debate on the limitations on human experiments.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that being the case, I would think a statement of counsel is all that is necessary here and the Document could be offered at a later date with the others.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Wille, you are referring to Document No. 13 in Weltz Document Book 1 at page 59? Witness, when did you first become familiar either with this excerpt in your Document book or the book itself, entitled "Hunger Fighters?"

THE WITNESS: The book "Hunger Fighters" belonged to Storm van Leeuwen and he gave it to me.

JUDGE SEBRING: When?

THE WITNESS: In 1933 he died and he must have given it to me before 1933.

JUDGE SEBRING: And what conclusion did you draw from the book at the time and particularly from this excerpt?

THE WITNESS: The experiences of Goldberger described in this book I considered the school model for what is permissible in accordance with international standards, and I told this to Hippke in this form.

JUDGE SEBRING: You believed in good faith that this represented the international medical standard in regard to the matter of experimentation upon human beings; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Wille, was that the purpose for which you were wanting to offer this exhibit at the present time?

DR. WILLE: Yes, it was.

JUDGE SEBRING: Then there is no particular necessity for your pursuing the matter further at this time.

DR. WILLE: No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Document then will be admitted for the purpose mentioned by counsel and limited to that purpose; that will be Exhibit 6, counsel, will it not?

DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, I offer it as Exhibit No. 6.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal assumes that counsel does not intend to read this Document into the record.

DR. WILLE: No, Your Honor, I do not intend to read the Document into the record, but only to offer it to the Court and to put a few brief questions to the defendant, Professor Weltz, following this discussion of the Document. I want to ask you this regarding the point Hippke; what caused you to quote a popular book or refer to a popular book between scientists and experts; don't you think in that conversation, it would have been more sensible for you, to refer to a really expert scientific work in this connection?

THE WITNESS: I have already said that the formulation, which Hippke and Kottenhoff had seemed to me rather unclear and that I felt a need to clarify my point of view and formulate it clearly. This example happened to occur to me and this was good because it shows very clearly the points which I was interested in and then I explained these points to Hippke. I said to him, first of all the experiments concern urgent matters which can not be clarified by animal experiments; secondly, the criminals must be volunteers and third, they must receive a reward. These were the conditions, which I dealt with in considerable detail. In this book, there is much more detail than is customary in scientific works. In scientific works in general one finds only brief technical statements performed by so many persons, such and such were the conditions, while here in De Kruif's book the human conditions are described in considerable detail and very clearly. That the statements made in the book are correct, I had no doubt. I said before that Storm van Leeuwen and De Kruif knew each other personally. I knew that De Kruif was one of the most popular and respected medical authors in the field of popular science.

This was for me guarantee enough to be able to mention the book to Hippke. Moreover the general popularity and the wide circulation of such a book is the best standard for what is considered permissible and what is not. Do Kruif's books were printed by the million and were translated into many languages. Even if the statements made in the book were incorrect, which there is no reason to believe, at least the book would be proof of what internationally the general public considers permissible. That, as I said, are the reasons which at the time made me to present this classic example to Hippke and I believe even today it was a very suitable example.

DR. WILLE: If Your Honors please, in Document Book Weltz No. 2 under No. 19-A to C, on pages 72 to 76 of the English document book, there are three documents which have the purpose of supporting the credibility and significance of De Kruif's books which the prosecution's medical expert has challenged. I intend to submit these documents formally at this point without reading them and taking up the Court's time with them, but since the first document has been admitted in this connection I believe it is logically necessary also to submit these three annexes at this point.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, during the course of this trial I believe I have objected to documents being admitted into evidence nearly a hundred times or better but for the first time I am lost for words. I have read these documents and to use the word immaterial might be fine but they are not even remotely connected with what is in issue here and I can't see why they should even be tendered. I object to their admission, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take this matter under consideration and announce its ruling at one thirty o'clock.

DR. WILLE: May I continue now?

BY DR. WILLE:

Q: Now once more I want to go back to the conversation with Hippke during that evening in the Preysing Palais. Please answer this question. You said that Hippke gave his agreement to the experiments under the conditions as you described: volunteers, pardons to a sensible degree, and adjusting the sentences of the experimental persons?

A: Yes, only Hippke wanted us, and Kottenhof and I agreed, to limit it to exceptional cases where animal experiments would not serve the purpose, that is, this was not to become a standard. It was to be limited to urgent, exceptional cases and under these conditions Hippke had no basic objection to experiments being carried out, and I have already said that this was not a concrete case of a program which was being discussed. Hippke was merely discussing basic questions. Kottenhoff did not even ask him to be allowed to expand any program.

Kottenhoff and I had already agreed that what Rascher had suggested to us so far was unimportant and it was quite out of the question.

Q: Was it a conversation which obligated you? Was a program decided on concerning your future handling in the institute of these things?

A: No, that was not the case. Rascher was not in my institute yet at that time. As I have said, it was a conversation without any definite practical intent. It was a theoretical conversation as to whether and to what extent experiments can be performed on criminals, etc.

Q: Did you talk to Hippke about experiments on non-volunteers?

A: No, we did not discuss that. In the last analysis the subject had been brought up by Rascher and Rascher himself spoke only of volunteer subjects.

DR. WILDE: May it please the Court, I now submit Document Weltz No. 3 and I offer it as Exhibit Weltz No. 6. I am so sorry, No. 7. This is a record of a statement made by Professor Hippke in the case against Milch. Professor Hippke gave his version of the conversation which he held in the evening in question.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, the Tribunal has ruled here that, whenever extracts from another trial are offered to the Tribunal to take judicial notice thereof, it was necessary and a regulation that said extracts be certified by the Secretary General either of the IMT or the Secretary General of the tribunal here. I won't object to this being offered in evidence but I suggest that it be offered provisionally and in order to follow the ruling of the Tribunal that the said certificate from the Secretary General be obtained in each case of this nature.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. When there is offered before this Tribunal what purports to be a transcript of the testimony before another tribunal, that should be offered in the form of a certificate by the Secretary General that it is an official record of the transcript of the testimony and when it is so offered the Court will take judicial notice of the testimony.

It may be numbered as an exhibit or not, that will be immaterial, but the Court will take judicial notice of it and this will be admitted provisionally subject to the signing of a proper certificate that it is a record of the testimony by the Secretary General.

DR. WILLE: If Your Honors please, may I explain this. Four or five days ago I took this extract to the Secretary General which I now offer, in order to act according to the Court's ruling. Unfortunately I did not receive the document back and therefore I am unfortunately not in a position to follow the Court's ruling immediately but I will take the liberty to hand in the document later on.

THE PRESIDENT: That will comply with the ruling of the Tribunal.

BY DR. WILLE:

Q: Witness, once again I come back to the subject which we originally discussed before we discussed the handling of document. This conversation with Hippke was caused by Rascher's intention to make the experiments in Dachau. Now, what was Rascher's own attitude toward these experiments? Did he himself not always refer to volunteers?

A: The first time when I heard from Kottenhoff about Rascher's suggestions, Kottenhoff was speaking of volunteers. Later, after the talk with Hippke I spoke to Rascher; Rascher also spoke only of volunteers. And then when we talked to Ruff-Romberg at my Institute, Rascher again spoke of volunteers. At the Nurnberg conference, in the remark which he made about Holzloehner's lecture, he again spoke of volunteers. He also spoke of volunteers on the way home from the Nurnberg conference to Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Kraemer from St. Johann, as I see from an affidavit here. In the letter of Rascher's uncle, which has been submitted, it was stated that Rascher had said the subjects were volunteers. I never heard Rascher say anything else but that the subjects would be volunteers and, as I have said, that was the reason for us not to discuss involuntary experimental subjects with Hippke.

DR. WILLE: If your Honor please, may I interpolate here briefly for your information that the affidavit mentioned here just now by Kraemer was submitted by Dr. Nelte on behalf of the Defendant Handloser and it is in that document book, Exhibit No. 18.

Q: Witness, will you now tell me what happened after the conversation with Hippke?

A: After the conversation with Hippke nothing happened. It was not expected that anything would happen. We had no assignment from Hippke to do anything. On the other hand Hippke had given his basic approval. I, in turn, had no occasion to do anything. I have already said that Rascher's suggestion of testing this slow ascent was rejected.

Q: Will you tell us in more detail what were Rascher's plans at the time?

A: Rascher's plans were to test how much higher one can take a human being if one takes him up slowly, compared, to the altitude which he could stand if he is taken up quickly. If I take a human being up quickly, then at a certain altitude he suffers from altitude sickness and the speed with which this sickness occurs depends on the speed of the ascent. Now, if I protract the ascent for several hours, which would have otherwise been accomplished in a few minutes, if I draw it out over four or five hours, then the body has an opportunity to adjust to the new situation.

There are reactions, adaptations, and these adaptations of the body mean that in this slow ascent a higher ceiling is reached than in the fast ascent. I believe that Rascher wanted to test this rather unimportant effect in order to substantiate a notion he had. I would assume that he was counting on Kottenhoff's and my vanity as research workers when he suggested that we perform experiments on human beings concerning an effect, which we ourselves had discovered, because, as I said, there was no practical necessity for testing this matter.

Q: Could you explain how Rascher did come to your Institute?

A: I cannot explain that. I know nothing about it. I know only that presumably in November, 1941, I received a written announcement from the Air Gau that Rascher was transferred to our Institute. I did not request him. I did know through Kottenhoff that Rascher wanted to come to my Institute. I did not do anything to get him there. Wendt brought me this letter from the Air Gau. He was present. I was surprised. I could only guess that Rascher had apparently convinced some authority at the Air Gau that he should be transferred to my Institute. He that was, I do not know.

Q: How did matters progress with Rascher in your Institute?

A: Rascher came to me. I refused to allow him to test this slow ascent and how he wanted to perform cold experiments. In the summer of 1941 I had been in France and I visited the Sea Distress Stations. I had been interested in the cold problem and I presume that Rascher deduced from this trip that we were interested in cold. Just as Rascher always took up all ideas that came within his grasp, he took up the problem of cold and he suggested to me that he should perform cold experiments on human beings.

Q: Did you approve of that intention to perform cold experiments?

A: I refused these experiments too. I saw no necessity for human experiments. The necessary preparatory animal experiments had not been concluded yet, and these animal experiments promised great success at the time, so that we had no reason whatever to perform any experiments on human beings, and I refused to let Rascher perform these experiments.

Q: Did you tell Rascher that Hippke could not be gotten for experiments in Dachau?

A: I told Rascher the point of view which Hippke had explained to me, that is, that Hippke, just like myself, was of the opinion that under certain conditions, which we considered correct, one can perform experiments on human beings, but that this must be reserved for really urgent cases, where nothing can be done in any other way. This was Hippke's point of view and I informed Rascher of this point of view of Hippke's

Q: How did you treat the whole Rascher matter towards your colleagues in the Institute?

A: Dr. Lutz has already testified here and has said that I discussed the questions on human beings with him too; that we spoke of it in the theoretical sense. Lutz did not have any new ideas on it. I told him about the discussion at the Preysing Palais. I told him what conclusion we had reached and Lutz had no new contributions.

Q: Now the question which has been gone into by various people before: did you ask one of your colleagues to make experiments with Rascher in Dachau?

A: No, I did not. There was no occasion to do this. I did not want to perform any experiments in Dachau at that time. I did not ask Wendt or Lutz, or Werz or any other one who was in my Institute to perform any experiments.

Q: But later on, you allowed Rascher to make experiments with Ruff-Romberg. Why in that case, did you not carry out those experiments in your Institute with Rascher?

A: In the experiments with Ruff-Romberg, we were dealing with completely different experiments. These were urgent at the time and Ruff-Romberg have already explained here why, and I gave my approval for these experiments, but these experiments were of a completely different degree of importance from the suggestions which Rascher had made.

Q: Did you not once seriously ask your colleague Lutz to make experiments with Rascher in Dachau?

A: I told Lutz that Rascher's suggestions would not divert us from the set program of the Institute, which was laid down in writing. Rascher was a man about whom we knew nothing in particular and I did not have the slightest reason to change my Institute's program which and been discussed at length and which was planned for the long range, just because a young unknown doctor came to us with certain suggestions. I told Lutz that. I said, "I will not perform any experiments in Dachau. Do you want to?" That "Do you want to?" was a purely rhetorical question and Lutz doubtlessly understood this rhetorical question in the way it was meant. Lutz has testified here, that he did not know that any program existed. Lutz testified falsely that I made a suggestion to Wendt. At this discussion, which can be the only one in question, Wendt was not even present and Wendt will testify here himself that I did not make any suggestion to him, nor did I make any suggestion to Lutz in his presence. Lutz also asserted that he answered me that he was not robust enough for such experiments. I do not believe that Mr. Lutz could have made any such an answer, because he would have made himself rather ridiculous. Of course, I know the opinions and habits and the life of my assistant, with whom I worked for four years, and I don't want to go into these things in too much detail here; but I can say that Mr. Lutz certainly had no reason at that time and no opportunity to say to me that he was not robust enough for these experiments. Otherwise, I would have reminded him that answer would have made him appear rather ridiculous. I did not tell Lutz that he was too religious for these experiments either, because that was not my opinion. This conversation has been presented quite incorrectly by Lutz. I repeat, I told Lutz, as I recall, that I would not let Rascher change our plans. I told him, "I will not perform any experiments in Dachau; would you like to?"

I do not doubt that Lutz understood this rhetorical question rightly at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 O'clock.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)