1947-05-07, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. GEORG WELTZ — Resumed

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. WILLE:

Q: Now, I have the following question to put to you; can you without immodesty say that your discovery of the effects of quick rewarding was important and significant?

A: May I correct your question? It was not a discovery it was a rediscovery. The fact that quick rewarming can save the lives of chilled people was discovered in 1888 by Lepschinsky. This work was ignored or forgotten, so that since that time the doctrine prevailed that rewarming was dangerous and might lead to collapse. We realized, of course, that this rediscovery was of great significance, especially in war time, when many people are exposed to chill. The Navy very soon reported to us that they had had good success with this method and if I understand this unofficial information correctly, then on the basis of this work hundreds of lives were saved during the war alone in the convoy destroyers in the North Sea and of course in the future it will be a blessing. It a very clear to us that we had had the real good fortune which a research worker seldom has, that we had discovered a measure which was very simple and cheap and could be applied everywhere. We had found something that would so many lives. It is known to me that in the American press this discovery was hailed as the greatest deed of German medicine during the war. I would especially like to disown such exaggerations. One cannot rank scientific work in different fields the way one can rank tennis players, that is impossible. Of course, it was clear to us that our discovery was important. Then, in the German press, I was subjected to attacks because of this work, it was maintained that I had killed many people in Dachau together with Rascher. I was called a beast in human form. I believe it would have been better if the German press had used this space which was devoted to these attacks, for an objective explanation of how treacherous death by cold is and how easy it is to save the lives of such people.

If I remember correctly, according to a newspaper report in the last cold period, 95 people died from cold. I also think that these 95 people might have been saved with a little hot water from the locomotive of the train they were in, but these 95 people died because there was no one in the train who knew what to do and knew how dangerous death by cold is. I only wish what we discovered may be spread and disseminated as soon as possible so that such things may be prevented in the future.

Q: Mr. President, to illustrate what the witness has just said, I would like to put in Weltz Document No. 20, Exhibit No. 9 from Document Book No. 2, an excerpt from a magazine, namely the "Reader's Digest" of January 1947. This says that the method of rewarming was used by America in the war against Japan and it is now a generally recognized method. This is page 77 of Document Book 2. Now, Professor Weltz, let me ask you; did you do what you did in order to see that your important discoveries were adequately publicized?

A: Two months after the Nurnberg conference, I published an extensive paper in the Muendhner Medizinsche Wochenschrift [Munich Medical Weekly], a German periodical with a large circulation. Of course, we did not keep our discoveries secret, we published them as widely as possible, so that not only the German Wehrmacht, but everyone who read it, including our enemies, could make full use of it, once they had read it.

However, within my field of work I saw to it that the knowledge was disseminated. I called together the doctors of the Sea Rescue Service, we delivered lectures in Paris. However, we collected the discoveries that had been made in Norway and on the West Coast so that we could work further in this field, and of course, there are a lot of problems involved here so that it is not possible at any one time to say that the problem is solved. There are many questions that must be worked on in the future.

DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I shall put in as Document 21, Exhibit No. 10, the paper that Dr. Weltz just mentioned that he had published. This is an expanded version of the lecture he delivered in Munich.

Q: Dr. Weltz, I have concluded my questioning on the freezing question and now come to the last charge against you, namely, the charge of conspiracy. First of all I should like to ask you whom of those in the dock you know. I shall read their names. Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, you don't know them?

A: No.

Q: Another question, did you have any relations with the Reich Research Council in your capacity as head of the Medical Military Institute in Munich?

A: No.

Q: Do you know Professor Schroeder?

A: Yes, I know him, of course. He was my immediate superior. Professor Schroeder has himself stated when and how often we spoke with each other. I may repeat it happened four times. First of all, 1938, at the X-ray Congress that I was chairman of; secondly, the second time in 1940. I remember very well that I delivered a lecture regarding the effects of altitude, and the duties of the aviation doctor who was in charge.

This was in Brussels. The third time I saw Dr. Schroeder in 1943, in autumn, when I was sick in the hospital. Dr. Schroeder has also described this meeting. Professor Schroeder was about to be appointed inspector and knew that, and this was the reason why I asked Professor Schroeder to say whether the policy I was following at the institute say should be continued. I reported to him briefly on our experimental work. Other things were not discussed, above all things that have anything to do with the matters in the indictment here. The last time I saw Professor Schroeder was in Bad Kolhub, 1945, in February. Here again I told him of the work we were doing in the institute, and nothing that bore any relation to the indictment here.

Q: Do you know Genzken?

A: No.

Q: Professor Gebhardt?

A: For a while I was with him at the Sauerbruch Clinic in the beginning of the 20's, but I certainly have not seen him since 1926.

Q: Dr. Kurt Blome?

A: Before the war I had dealings with him in matters concerning the German X-ray Association, but not since the war have I seen him or had anything to do with him.

Q: Mrugowsky?

A: Mrugowsky? Didn't know him either.

Q: Rudolf Brandt?

A: Didn't know him either.

Q: Poppendick?

A: Didn't know him either.

Q: Sievers?

A: Didn't know him either.

Q: Did you have any connections with Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage]?

A: No. Sievers has already said so.

Q: Did you know Professor Rose?

A: Professor Rose has also testified that we saw each other twice, once before the war in a glider contest, and the second time at the Nurnberg Conference.

Q: Ruff and Romberg have been clarified already. Did you know Brack?

A: No.

Q: Becker-Freyseng?

A: I knew him. He was the expert during the latter period. At the end I had continual official relations with him. I never spoke to him personally about Dachau. On the other hand, I know that my institute, namely, Lutz, was in touch with him at one time. Let me describe this. I recall it as follows: I have already said that our theories differed from Holzloehner's regarding the question of freezing death. Now, Lutz had submitted his papers for publication and in this paper this difference of opinion was brought to light. I believe a draft of this paper was sent to Holzloehner so that he could state his opinion on it. Then Holzloehner returned the paper and in substantiation of his opinion pointed out things in Holzloehner's report. We looked up this report since we were very interested in this particularly, particularly since at the Nurnberg Conference I had seen Holzloehner and it was ascertained that the report was not to be found at the Medical Inspectorate. Thus along this circuitous path we were not able to see the report either, much as it would have interested us.

Q: Did you knew any of the other gentlemen?

A: Schaefer, Hoven, Reiglboeck, Pokorny, Oberheuser, I did not know any of them.

Q: Now, I am not of the personal opinion that the conferences in Nurnberg and elsewhere were meetings of conspirators, but I should like to know whether you took part in any consulting conferences?

A: No.

Q: And what do you have to say about the Nurnberg Conference?

A: The Nurnberg Conference was not a consulting conference.

Q: What was it then?

A: It was a scientific conference, dedicated to a specific subject in which many people were interested, and consequently many people attended. I don't believe that any armed force in the world could get along without having such exchanges of opinion among their experts in certain fields. From a scientific point of view the Nurnberg Conference was certainly the most significant meeting that ever took place to consider this subject. I know the literature on freezing very well, and I know of no conference which devoted itself to medical freezing research so profoundly as the Nurnberg Conference.

Q: Did you consider your relations with Ruff and Romberg a conspiracy in the usual sense of the term?

A: I have said here in great detail that I consider my relations with Ruff as irreproachable. We do not have to reproach ourselves with the fact this was a war necessity. I believe that the agreements I had with Ruff can be measured against the strict criteria of peacetime. The purpose of our plan and agreement was to save human lives, and I do not believe that such an agreement can be characterized as a conspiracy.

Q: Now, answer me one last question. The Prosecutor has reproached all the defendants with violating the Hippocratic oath.

I should like to have your personal attitude as a physician toward this subject.

A: The Hippocratic oath which has become here a bone of contention is the professional oath of a certain profession which pledges allegiance to certain principles. It is an honorable historical document, which, however, does not altogether fit present times. If it is to be applied today its wording has to be changed very extensively, and in these reformulations a series of new oaths have been drawn up which have only a vague relation to the ancient Hippocratic oath.

At the University at which I studied it was not customary that persons take such an oath when they were being graduated, but these new formulations of the oath are based on the general principle of "nil nocere" [first do no harm], and I believe also that in discussions with laymen the same false opinions arise, at least the discussion here seems to have shown that a medicine based on the principle of "nil nocere" is a very impoverished medicine and we are unfortunately not in a position to carry on medicine on that simple principle today. It is a matter of course that we must recommend to our patients a number of measures of which we know in advance under certain conditions they can be harmful. The doctor who acts according to the principle of "nil nocere" is by no means a good physician if he gives too much weight to that principle. It is frequently the man who cannot decide, who is satisfied with inadequate methods. I believe that if the tasks and duties of a doctor are to be defined with a Latin formula, that could better be described by the principle "salus egroti suprema lex esto", meaning that the health of the patient shall be the highest law. I believe that this principle defines the tasks of the doctor than the principle "nil nocere" which can be misunderstood. All of these new formulations of the oath based on the Hippocratic oath make sense so far as the relations between the doctor and the patient are concerned, but they become entirely nonsensical where experimental medicine works on healthy subjects. I can see no connection between the Hippocratic oath which regulates the doctor's relation to a sick person, and the question of whether a criminal is to be executed and whether he is first to be asked whether he would like to subject himself to an experiment.

As I say, I can see no connection. When the Hippocratic oath was first formulated there was no such thing as experimental medicine. Experimental medicine is a new development within the last century. It has been highly successful. A medicine not based on the success of experimental medicine is inconceivable today. We would have no anesthetic and many other things which are very essential in medicine today. If there are individual doctors like Professor Leibbrandt here who repudiate all experimentation even voluntary experiments, then one must ask whether that is not a sort of double entry book keeping, if on the one hand these doctors avail themselves of what experimental medicine has discovered and on the other hand repudiate the methods through which these discoveries were made. I think this is essentially illogical. I personally am of the opinion that in experimental medicine of the innumerable papers and works that we use here only partially and accidentally totally a new international standard will be developed as to what is permissible, what is held to be of a dubious nature and what is to be forbidden. Now I personally have only considered permissible voluntary experiments on legally condemned criminals. I also said that this is not to become the general procedure or general rule but we discussed the fact with Hippke to experiment on ourselves, which is to be the basic rule and that these other experiments were to be reserved for a minimum number of problems where animal experimentation would not suffice and where experiments on one's self for one reason or another was impossible. As I said I believe that these principles correspond to an international standard and that they are acceptable. This is a very complicated problem and I don't have to touch it, when one speaks of experiments on minors or mentally ill persons and so forth, the problem would become very, very complicated, also whether or not the State makes these people legally available, all of these are matters with which I am not concerned myself, but as I said voluntary experiments on legally condemned criminals in cases where other means of experimentation are not available I consider permissible.

DR. WILLE: At the moment, Your Honors, I have no further questions.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Professor Weltz, I understand that prior to the time that the high altitude experiments were to begin in Dachau, you had a conference in Berlin with Ruff and Romberg concerning the possibility of conducting these high altitude experiments at Dachau concentration camp. Do I understand that correctly?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: I also understand that subsequent to the Berlin conference but prior to the time that the experiments began at Dachau, you had a conference in Munich, is that so?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: Who was present at that conference?

A: In the second conference, you mean? Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and myself. This was the conference at which Wendt and Lutz were previously in the room.

Q: So at that time you actually went into the details at this conference when you four men, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and yourself were present?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: Now at the meeting, the Berlin meeting and the Munich conference, what was the clear understanding concerning the men who were to be used as experimental subjects?

A: First, let me make a correction. It is not correct to speak of a conference in Berlin. It was simply a conversation between Ruff and myself and later on the discussion in Munich, we assumed regarding the experimental subjects what Rascher always told us, and which was to be read in the letter from Himmler, which he showed us at that time, our assumption was that these were legally condemned criminals, not political prisoners, that these persons were to volunteer, and that they should be rewarded in accordance with the extent to which they were used. That is what Rascher told us, and that is also in the Himmler letter.

Q: Was it to be understood that any distinction was to be made between German and non-German nationals?

A: We did not discuss this point in detail at that time because then the foreigner was not legally condemned by German Courts at all. That took place only later in the course of the war, namely, that German courts passed judgment on the forced labor in Germany. There was very little of that at that time.

Q: Did this latter phase take place during the period which had been set aside for your experiments, that is to say, did your relationship during that period of time change, to your knowledge did the German government ever pretend to exercise any judicial control over non-German nationals with the result that non-German nationals were incarcerated in the concentration camp at Dachau?

A: No, we were speaking of people who had been legally condemned by German courts and at that time only Germans were under the jurisdiction of German courts. The number of foreigners was very small at that time so that they played no role of any practical importance.

Q: Then you understood these were to be prisoners who were German nationals who had been tried and sentenced by a regularly constituted German Court in Germany?

A: Yes.

Q: That as a result of this trial, these German nationals who had been legally condemned by a German Court on German soil were serving terms in Dachau?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that the clear understanding of all those who were present?

A: I believe that these conditions were perfectly clear and were not misunderstood by any one because Hippke understood it correctly at our first discussion, and also the witness Lutz has said here that he understood it clearly and I do not believe there was any doubt on that point whatsoever.

Q: There certainly was no doubt in your mind about the matter?

A: No, Ruff, Romberg and myself did not doubt this at all because this was the cardinal point which had developed at the first conversation with Ruff in Berlin.

Q: Was any distinction to be made in regard to the type of sentence that these inmates had received?

A: No, we knew that persons imprisoned for preventive reasons were involved. That was made clear by the discussions with Prokowsky, but whether these were persons condemned to death or people with long terms there was no distinction drawn between them. I believe that it was the general notion that we just had to draw a distinction here in regard to the dangerousness of the experiment. I am referring now to the discussion with Hippke where there was only general discussion of the experiments and no specific discussion.

Q: Did you know, at that time, the type of prisoners who were in Dachau, that is to say, whether it was the camp which housed only criminals condemned to death and life timers, as we call it in America, or whether it also contained prisoners who were serving a much lesser sentence for much less dangerous or severe crimes or offenses? Do you understand the import of my question?

A: I believe so. In my direct examination I said that I knew that prisons and penitentiaries had been emptied into the concentration camps. Thus, all the inmates could be expected to be the same sort of prisoners that you would find in prisons or penitentiaries — from light terms to heavy ones.

Q: And you understood that you would expect to find the same type of prisoners at Dachau?

A: Yes, I knew from newspaper reports, as I said, that prisons and penitentiaries had been emptied of their contents into the concentration camps.

Q: During the course of any of your preliminary discussions or negotiations with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, or with any or either of them, did you gentlemen adopt any well defined policy as to the type of man — inmate — upon whom you were going to experiment; that is to say, did you develop a policy that you were going to conduct your experiments only upon prisoners who had been condemned to death or did you adopt a policy that you would conduct experiments on prisoners who had been condemned to death and also on prisoners who were serving long terms as habitual criminals, or did you say that any criminal who then was in Dachau who presumably had volunteered would be used during the course of your experiments?

A: This question was first discussed when we saw the camp commander in Dachau. There was discussion of the selection of the experimental subjects on the basis of the instructions that the camp commander had received via Schnitzler from Himmler and then people in preventive custody were taken.

Q: What class of people did you understand could come within the category of preventive custody?

A: I knew that protective custody was the sentence in the case of uncorrectable recidivism and were standard policies here. I happened to know this through a book that a well-known criminologist had read to me and had concerned himself with the theory of protective custody. The book is by Heindl and is entitled "The Habitual Criminal" and there is a statement of when and under what circumstances protective custody is permissible so that I had good knowledge of this as a layman.

Q: Generally speaking, then, you, Ruff, Romberg and Rascher understood that these experiments were to carried out either upon persons who had been condemned to death or upon the habitual criminal who was in protective custody? Is that correct?

A: Yes. As soon as we had spoken with the camp commander we knew that people in preventive custody were to be used.

Q: Was it known to you that, at the same time the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher high altitude experiments were being conducted at Dachau, that Rascher was also supposed to be carrying out separate high altitude experiments on his own account under some sort of separate order from Himmler?

A: I didn't know that no. As soon as the experiments began, I received no further news from Rascher. I believe I have stated that here in some detail.

Q: Did you receive any reports from any one else?

A: You mean regarding Rascher's second experimental series?

Q: Regarding any of Rascher's experimental series of regarding the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher series which was then taking place at Dachau?

A: No, I have already said, in direct examination, that as soon as Rascher showed me this telegram and from then on I heard nothing more. And this telegram was the reason why nothing more was told to me.

Q: Then I assume that you heard nothing from any one concerning the death of Rascher's experimental subject which was supposed to have occurred in the middle of April or the latter part of April, 1942?

A: I heard of these deaths only here in my interrogations.

Q: What you said in regard to the April death would also be true in regard to the two deaths that are supposed to have occurred in May, 1942, in what one of the witnesses said here was Rascher's separate experiments?

A: Yes.

Q: After the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiment was completed — the one in which Romberg was to act as a subordinate to Ruff — Rascher was to act as the subordinate to you — and you and Ruff were to collaborate, did you receive any unofficial reports as distinguished from official reports concerning the results of those experiments?

A: Rascher never worked under my direction. Rascher left at a time before the experiments had begun or after only a couple of experiments had been carried out about which I, however, knew nothing. I personally knew, at the moment when Rascher left, nothing about whether the experiments had begun or not in Dachau.

Q: Upon what date did you understand that Rascher's official connections with you or your institute was severed?

A: I figured out more or less as follows: On the 19th of February as it can be seen, from Frau Rascher's letter, an inquiry was directed to the Reichsfuehrer SS and, at this time or shortly thereafter, the experiments in Dachau were cut off. The telegram that was shown to me is presumably the answer to this inquiry of the 19th of February and it must have reached Rascher a few days later. Now, it appears that Rascher didn't show it to me immediately but carried it around for a few days in his pocket, and if this conjecture of mine is correct as is Schnitzler's file note of the 28th of February, then that was A Saturday, and on the Friday following I was in Berlin and reported to Anthony.

Then, according to this, Rascher must have left on the Tuesday, before the Friday I just mentioned. I should like to assume, on the basis of these dates, that Rascher left at the end of February or the beginning of March. It seems certain to me that on the 16th of February Rascher was already under a new command. That can be seen from Document No. 318, Exhibit 57. In this document, as of the 16th of March, Rascher is at another station with a new job. In the meantime, however, he was with the Luftgau [Air District] Medical Department. The interval here is not very great. Rascher must have left me during the first days of March.

Q: Did Ruff or Romberg ever tell you, or did you ever gain any information from them in any other manner that during the latter part of May 1942 a death had occurred at Dachau in high altitude experiments?

A: No, I never found that out.

Q: Neither did Ruff or Romberg ever tell you of the deaths which occurred in May, 1942?

A: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the defense counsel questions to be propounded to this witness?

DR. VORWERK: Vorwerk for Romberg.

JUDGE CRAWFORD: Just a minute. One moment, Counsel.

BY JUDGE CRAWFORD:

Q: Professor Weltz, you stated that you received permission to question persons who had been rescued from accidents at sea, persons who had been exposed to the cold. Who gave you that permission? From whom did you receive the permission?

A: From the Air Fleet Physician III, whose seat was in Paris and I drifted around in his area.

Q: Who directed you to question these people?

A: I looked for people of whom I knew that they had fallen into the sea and had been rescued. For instance, I knew that one such person was in Bordeaux and another in Boulogne, and I took these trips in order to look these people up individually and ask them what their experiences had been.

Q: You stated that you experimented on animals. Who gave you this permission, or who directed you to make these animal experiments?

A: Within the frame work of my general research work in connection with my tasks at the Institute I was able to carry out these animal experiments, and I did not need permission at all. I had general orders to carry out basic research and within the frame work of the program, I could do these experiments.

Q: As I understand it, if someone received permission or was directed to make animal experiments, he did not have to obtain permission from Himmler, but if the experiments were to be made on concentration camp inmates, Himmler's permission had to be obtained?

A: Yes.

Q: Then the only thing that Himmler had to do with these experiments was to give permission for the use of inmates of concentration camps?

A: Of course, we could not carry out any experiments in a concentration camp without Himmler's permission.

Q: But, as I understand, Himmler didn't do the planning of these experiments. He would just give the permission for the material to carry out those experiments.

A: Yes, we as members of the Luftwaffe needed in addition an order from the Luftwaffe, the medical inspector, for carrying out the experiments.

JUDGE CRAWFORD: No further questions.

BY DR. VORWERK:

Q: Professor Weltz, do you know that the Aviation Research Institute at Adlershof in fall, 1941, published a report under the number FA 1416, under the title, "Parachute Descent from Great Heights"?

A: This will be on the experiments up to 12,000 meters. Yes, I believe we received that.

Q: Then you knew that the Research Institute was working on the problem of rescue from great heights?

A: Yes, I knew that.

Q: In your discussion with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, was there ever mention of other experiments than the experiments concerned with the rescue from great altitude?

A: I believe that in my direct examination, I said that when I went to Berlin, Ruff had a predetermined program which he told me about and so far as I was concerned in this whole matter, nothing was changed in this program.

Q: Thus I understand you to say that you had supervisory control over these experiments in rescue from great altitudes. Before Rascher left you, you intended to supervise these experiments, is that so?

A: Not quite. It was very clear that the purpose of our collaboration was to carry out this program. Now, what would have happened if I would want to change this program I do not know, because I never discussed this with Ruff.

Q: Professor Weltz, you misunderstood me. I mean the following: If Rascher had not left you, you were to have supervisory control over Rascher in these experiments on rescue from great altitudes, because he then would still have belonged to your institute?

A: Yes.

Q: Through the fact that Romberg was to assist in these experiments, did this fact limit your supervisory powers?

A: No. These things were quite independent of one another. My supervisory control and duty over Rascher was a purely military matter and whether Romberg was there or not made no difference.

Q: You stated that you spoke with Hippke about the variety of the possible experimental subjects and that they were to be graded according to the dangerousness of the experiments. Did you ever discuss this question with Ruff or Romberg, or with Romberg and Ruff separately?

A: No. With Hippke when we discussed it — with Hippke the word murder was used a little bit too freely the first time and it was later ascertained that these persons did not always have to be murderers. These were merely theoretical considerations, which were not based on any concrete investigations.

DR. VORWERK: No further questions.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: After you and Rascher, Ruff and Romberg had your discussions at Munich, when was the next time you saw and talked either with Ruff or with Romberg?

A: Either on the next day or the day after that on our joint trip to Dachau.

Q: Subsequent to that time, when was the next time you talked with them?

A: After our joint trip to Dachau, I did not see Romberg for several years. Ruff visited me once. That must have been when he returned from his visit to Dachau. He came to my house. In the meantime I had gone on the basis of that telegram. Ruff told me that he already knew that Rascher had left and he said he couldn't tell me anything more about the experiments, because they were secret.

Q: Were the experiments that Ruff and Romberg were carrying out at Berlin in the same experimental series secret?

A: Yes, the fact that we went to Dachau did nothing to change the fact that these experiments were secret.

Q: Well, he discussed those with you, didn't he?

A: Yes, that was a different sort of a secrecy. Himmler's telegram was binding only on the people to whom Himmler had given permission to speak of these things. Military secrecy in general was of such a sort that other people could be excluded from the secret. For instance, I could have called Lutz and said, "You are a part of the question and from now on you must observe that secrecy." In these developmental assignments that Ruff mentioned which included the program from Dachau the situation was generally held secret only in the first steps when it was being developed. Then after the experiments were concluded, they were declared perfectly open, or parts of them were made public, because these results had somehow to be made generally known. That is why we had the experiments. In other words, at the beginning of the experiments there was a general obligation to maintain secrecy and later it was either partially or totally lifted.

Q: Now what date was it when Ruff came to see you at Munich on the occasion of your conversations you have just been telling us about?

A: My last meeting with Ruff after the experiment began, you mean?

Q: You said that after you went to visit Dachau, then at some subsequent period of time after you were no longer with the experiment, Ruff came to Munich and told you that he could not discuss the results of the experiment with you because you were no longer connected with the experiment. What date was that?

A: Ruff has already stated that date. That was shortly after Rascher left, as far as I can see. In the first half of March, I think Ruff said it was. I myself do not know the precise date for sure. I only knew that the visit took place after Rascher left.

Q: Subsequent to that time did you ever have a talk with Ruff or see Ruff?

A: Yes, I saw him several times; for example, at the Goerlitz conference or the conference in Freiburg; but we did not speak any more about Dachau.

Q: Then nothing was ever said between you and Ruff after the conversation in Munich concerning Dachau; and of the experiments at Dachau; any of the results at Dachau; or the fact that any of the tests had resulted fatally?

A: I only found out the results of the experiments when they were made public. I never discussed with Ruff the individual experiments and, specifically, so far as deaths were concerned.

Q: Did you ever see Ruff and have conversations with him after May 1942?

A: Yes, I have said that I met him, for example, in conferences at Goerlitz and Freiburg. I met him several times.

Q: All of those conferences were after the month of May 1942?

A: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of the witness by defense counsel?

DR. MARX: Dr. Marx for Becker-Freyseng.

EXAMINATION

BY DR. MARX:

Q: Professor, I gathered from your direct examination that regarding Rascher's plans for high altitude experiments in 1941 and 1942 you spoke both with Professor Hippke and Professor Anthony, the expert for aviation medicine in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe at that time. Let me ask you now to clear up this matter whether at this time you spoke with Professor Becker-Freyseng on these experiments.

A: No, I did not.

Q: You also said that from your institute inquiry was made at the medical inspectorate regarding the final report of Rascher and Hoelzlohner on these cold experiments.

Can you remember that?

A: Yes, Lutz told me about this; and I repeated it as I heard it.

Q: Then you could draw the conclusion that you or your institute were of the opinion that this report could be found at the Medical Inspectorate? Will you please make a statement on this subject? How did it happen that you or Lutz asked for this report from the Medical Inspectorate?

A: I believe I said that before. The report that Lutz sent in, the paper that was to be permitted to be published, contained opinions that differed from Holzloehner's; and in order to bring these differences into some sort of agreement, as far as I remember, the paper was sent to Holzloehner. Holzloehner for his part said that in order to substantiate his opinion, Becker-Freyseng should take a look at the report. Becker-Freyseng looked for the report and didn't find it. Consequently we didn't know how Holzloehner substantiated his opinion. That is how I remember it.

Q: But Becker-Freyseng did not say that he had received or seen the report?

A: On the contrary, the report, as I just said, was not found.

Q: Well, even if it wasn't found, he could still have seen it before; but he told you that he hadn't received it at all?

A: No, he didn't say that to me. This involved Lutz.

Q: Now, another subject. There has been frequent mention of the Nurnberg Luftwaffe conference regarding sea and winter rescue in October of 1942. From the material put in by the prosecution, it can be seen that Professor Anthony was chairman of this conference. I should like to ask you, was this the only such conference in which you took part, or were there several such conferences?

A: There were such conferences at regular intervals. I already mentioned the Goerlitz conference. Another conference was in Hamburg. There were also conferences of this sort during peacetime.

Q: Who was chairman of these conferences as long as Anthony was the expert, that is, until May of 1944?

A: The expert was chairman, I believe. Becker-Freyseng was chairman of the Goerlitz conference.

Q: Anthony was expert until May of 1944?

A: I don't know the precise date but that could be.

Q: After Anthony left, were there other conferences; and, if so, who was in charge of them?

A: I just told you the Goerlitz conference was under Becker-Freyseng. Otherwise I do not remember any further conferences after Anthony left.

Q: Professor, at the Nurnberg conference you read a paper. I may assume that you also spoke at the other conferences. Therefore, I want to ask you, did you have to show the manuscript of your paper to the Medical Inspectorate beforehand, or did you just tell them the subject and general contents?

A: If you wanted to read a paper at such a conference, you informed the Medical Inspectorate of the subject and gave them a one or two page precis [facts] of the contents. Often even that was omitted.

Q: In other words, the manuscript itself was not submitted?

A: No.

Q: Now, a final question about the Nurnberg conference. In your direct examination you said that you had concerned yourself with freezing research in your institute. Therefore, I can assume that you knew the people in the Luftwaffe who knew about freezing experiments very well. Now, so far as you know, was Becker-Freyseng one of those doctors who had practical experience in sea rescue or who had scientific knowledge of and had worked on freezing problems?

A: No, I can say pretty definitely that Becker-Freyseng did not have anything to do with freezing. His field lay elsewhere.

Q: Did Becker-Freyseng take part in the discussion at the Nurnberg conference, or did you happen to have talks of a scientific nature about the freezing problem with him?

A: That I cannot say for sure. It could be that in connection with some of our experiments with pigs we talked about matters that were related to this; but I really can't say for sure.

Q: You mean only animal experiments here?

A: Experiments on pigs.

Q: I refer you to Document 934 of the prosecution, Exhibit 458. This is a list of research assignments for 1944. You undoubtedly remember it?

A: I know that this list was submitted.

Q: It was put in during the direct examination of Professor Schroeder. Now, from this document it can be seen that you received a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate. Will you please say how it happened that you received this assignment, although you were the head of an institute belonging to the Luftwaffe and Professor Schroeder has said here on the witness stand that such research assignments were given only to civilian institutes as a general rule?

A: May I ask you what this research assignment was?

Q: Unfortunately I don't have the document available. Did you receive several research assignments?

A: Yes, we did.

Q: Can you not remember a research assignment of the year 1944?

A: The last research assignment that we received had a sort of peculiar origin. Because of bureaucratic difficulties we had no funds available. We couldn't settle things in cash; and we simply had to send bills. They were later paid, months later, by the Luftgau. Consequently, it was an unpleasant fact that we couldn't buy anything, not even a pencil or an eraser, but could only buy it on account. For this reason I had a research assignment given to me. This meant that we received some ready cash; and I chose as the subject for this research assignment any old subject that we were working on anyway.

Q: I am just told, Professor, that it was a research assignment regarding the gastro-intestinal channel under pressure.

A: Yes, that was a formal research assignment. Before I founded the institute, there were research assignments that were of some significance. Then at the beginning of my civilian institute, before the war, this research assignment was of some importance; but later, during the war, it had none. It became of no importance when the Institute for Air Medicine was founded; that is to say, it had no further scientific importance. It did have a financial importance.

Q: When you were given this assignment, did you receive any instructions regarding how you were to carry on your research?

A: No, and in general that was not possible.

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

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)