1947-05-07, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 7 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again session.
DR. GEORG WELTZ — Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
Dr. Marx does not seem to be present. He had not completed his examination.
DR. WILLE (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz): Mr. President, my colleague Dr. Marx asked me to tell you that he has no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Weltz, where were you at the end of the war?
A: At the end of the war I was in Iking, 25 kilometers south of Munich.
Q: Were you taken prisoner by the Allied Forces at the end of the war?
A: No, I remained in my small country house until on the 20th of July 1945, I was requested at my city home to report to the CIC in Munich in Mauerkirchstrasse. Up to that time I was free.
Q: When was the first time that you were placed under arrest and incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp or civilian internment camp by American authorities?
A: I was only arrested once, that is, I was asked to report on the 21st of July in Mauerkirchstrasse in Munich, the CIC. From there, I was sent to the prison at Freising for some time, then I was a prisoner in the hospital in Freising—I had become sick. Then on the 26th of September 1945, I believe it was, I went to the Moosburg Camp. I stayed in Moosburg until the 6th of December 1945. The 6th of December 1945, I was transferred to Dachau.
Q: What was the reason why you were placed under arrest at that time in July 1945?
A: I never learned that.
Q: Were you in the automatic arrest category because of your rank?
A: I was taken away from Freising in automatic arrest to Moosburg.
Q: Now, you had an institute in Munich. When did you first take charge of this institute in Munich?
A: You mean now the Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Luftwaffe?
Q: Yes.
A: This institute was assigned to me when it was founded. It was founded on paper in the fall of 1941.
Q: How long did you remain at the institute after it was founded, until the end of the war?
A: Until the end of the war, yes.
Q: Did the institute ever receive any bombings?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it severely damaged as a result to the bombings?
A: I have already said that in 1943-44 I moved the institute one section at a time. One department went to Freising, one went to the State Farm Hirshau near Freising. Nothing happened to these barracks, but the original two barracks which remained in Munich, and the laboratory that remained there, were completely burned out in 1944. They were wooden barracks and nothing remained of them.
Q: Well, now, when you moved your institute because of the bombings were you able to salvage your equipment, your files and furniture, and the necessary things, so that you could continue your work?
A: To Freising and to the State Farm at Hirschau, we moved almost all the scientific equipment which we neede, but the laboratory and the official files which did not refer to our research remained in the safe in Munich. We couldn't move the safe and besides, the laboratory was still working there. I have already said that the files of the Institute for Aviation Medicine and the files of the laboratory were taken care of together by Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Wendt, and Stabsarzt Wendt remained in Munich.
All the files which referred to transfers, assignments, secret records, they were burned in Munich in 1944. All the new records were kept at Freising. Our scientific records, the library, special publications, and so on, we had taken with us. That was partly at Hirschau and partly at Freising.
Q: Now, do you recall being interrogated in June, that is the 6th day of June 1945, that is before the time you were arrested—you were still a free man—by Major Alexander of the U.S. Army Medical Corps?
A: That was not an interrogation, at least I didn't realize that it was an interrogation. Professor Alexander came to us as a scientist who was interested in our work. He asked us about our work. We had previously been visited by some aviation medical commissions and we showed Professor Alexander what he was interested in. It was no interrogation. Professor Alexander did not represent himself as an investigator but he presented himself as a Doctor who was interested in our scientific work, and we discussed with him the future of the institute. I could not see that this was any legal examination or any such thing.
Q: Well, now, Dr. Alexander, that is the same Professor Alexander who appeared here as an expert witness, was interested in chatting with you, or interrogating you, concerning your work, or any work, on shock from exposure to cold on human beings. Did you inform him about your knowledge of experimental on animals?
A: Yes, I showed him our files.
Q: Did you inform him about the work of the German Navy and the German Air-sea rescue service in France?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you inform him about your knowledge of work on human beings?
A: No. Professor Alexander wanted to know about our work, and we had not performed any tests on human beings, and the tests on animals and pigs, I have described, and I showed Professor Alexander all these records.
Q: Did Professor Alexander ask you whether any work on human beings was being done, either by yourself or any one else whom you knew? Didn't he ask you that in June 1945?
A: Professor Alexander asked me how I knew that our methods had proved of value in regard to human beings, and the only thing I failed to tell Professor Alexander at that time was my attendance at the Nurnberg Conference, and what I knew about the Nurnberg Conference.
Q: Of course, you knew that Dr. Alexander was at that time working on what was called CIOS-Target, No. 24, Medical Investigation Team for the Combine of Intelligence Subjective Subcommittee G-2, Division of Shaef, and he wrote an extensive report as the result of his work, and this report I have a copy of here, which was written in the year of 1945, which was a considerable long time ago, that is, before he came here, and, that is before this trial, before the time you were indicted; he stated in that report on page 12 in reference to one Dr. Weltz, wherein I might add he gives you considerable credit, that you were asked whether you had ever done any work on human beings, and he had asked, and I quote what he said about you:
He —
referring to Weltz —
who was then asked whether any work on human beings was done either by himself or by any one else with whom he knew, and he was again quite positive in denying the question.
Now, what was your reason for not informing Dr. Alexander about your knowledge of work by Rascher?
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, may I object. I hear that Professor Alexander is here in the building, and he can appear as a witness. Since the Tribunal follows the principle that the best and shortest means of evidence is always to be applied, I ask the Tribunal that Professor Alexander be called to the stand personally, instead of reading a document.
MR. HARDY: That is not necessary, Your Honor. I am not calling Dr. Alexander to testify. I am merely asking this witness on the stand what he said in answer to questions two years ago. I am merely just searching the witness for information about how he felt about these matters two years ago, and if the witness denies what he said it may necessitate calling Dr. Alexander on the stand. I am introducing this report, which was an exhibit before the International Military Tribunal, and I can If I wish, request the Tribunal to take judicial notice thereof. I deem it unnecessary, I am merely probing the witness, and I am not relying on Dr. Alexander's testimony whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution may ask the witness if Dr. Alexander on the time and place mentioned propounded certain questions to the witness, and the witness has answered the same. If the record is preserved, the question propounded by that question can be taken from that record and propounded to the witness. With that understanding the objection is over-ruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Weltz, what was your reason for not informing the officials of the United States Army in this matter about all the activities at Dachau concerning experimentation on human beings, wherein you were fully aware of the activities, inasmuch as you had known the results of Professor Holzloehner's work at Nurnberg Conference. Was it because you thought you might be involved in some criminal activity, or, was it because you did not want to give the enemy further information?
A: I already said that Professor Alexander never in any way was recognizable as or presented himself to me, or to my associates, as an official investigator, and particularly not as an investigator of the American judicial or intelligence Service. He came as a scientist who was interested.
Q: I imagine the scientist was extremely interested in knowing whether or not the work as result of your research, and the research of Lepchinsky of the 1800, had been performed on human beings; not from a legal aspect, but from an scientific aspect. You had far more reasons to inform Dr. Alexander about that work on the human beings, didn't you?
A: I already said that I gave Professor Alexander all the files completely we had preserved except what were burned in Munich, which were not of interest to Dr. Alexander. I had reason not to tell anything unless I was asked directly for the following reasons: At that time there started a wave of arrests, which no one could then grasp. I remember a number of my acquaintances had been arrested, and we did not know for what reasons they were arrested, and we did not know where the people were being sent. Therefore, in order not to bring anyone in the danger of arrest I said no more than the things for which I was responsible. I gave Professor Alexander all the information about things for which I was responsible to do. I did add nothing, for reasons of comradeship. I did not consider I had any right to give any additional information, and put other people in danger of arrest, because we could not see how that information would be used.
Q: Then you were attempting to cover up Dr. Rascher?
A: I knew very little about Rascher's activity.
Q: You knew all about his activity. You were at the October meeting in 1942?
A: Yes, it became quite clear here how much I knew about Rascher. I know that he performed the experiments in Dachau together with Holzloehner.
I did not know that any deaths had occurred. I did not know to what extent these experiments were legal. I knew very little about them. Particularly of course, since my knowledge was so indefinite, I had no reason to talk about other institutes, and because it happened outside of my own institute, which was something about which I had no exact information to give.
Q: Doctor, this examination is going to take considerable length of time. During the remainder of the examination I want you to cooperate, and I want you to try to be consistent. You have introduced a document here this morning wherein you have attempted to show this Tribunal how important was this work on Shock From Exposure to Cold to the United States Navy and Armies in the Asiatic Area, which was written in the Readers Digest; and here you state now inconsistently that you yourself were violently opposed to volunteering any information on the experimental work conducted on human beings, and that the answer was available for the United States Medical services by virtue of your knowledge at the conference in October. Now, Doctor, we shall try to proceed from here and do so in a better manner than you have for the last half hour.
A: May I correct what you just said. Two expert commissions had visited us before that time, Aviation Medical experts, and I gave these two commissions all our studies published and what had not been published as yet. We showed these gentlemen all our films; we made all our files available to them, and also we gave them our separate prints. I drew up a report in five copies on the work which was being carried on, and made suggestions how to keep the institute going, and how our experience can be turned over to the hands of the American Armies. We made detailed suggestions.
Q: Did you also tell those investigating teams that experiments on human beings had been conducted at Dachau?
A: I said —
Q: That can be answered, yes or no, Doctor? Did you or did you not?
A: I told them about the work of my institute, and not of other institutes.
Q: That is what I understood. When did you join the NSDAP, Doctor?
A: I said, that was 1937.
Q: 1937. You were also a member of the National Socialist Physicians' Association?
A: Yes.
Q: You were a member of the National Socialistic Lecturers Association?
A: Yes.
Q: Now when did you come into the Luftwaffe? You say in your affidavit in August 1939. Now, what was the first rank you held in the Luftwaffe?
A: I was Stabsarzt. That is the same thing as a captain.
Q: And then when were you promoted to major?
A: I believe around the first half of 1940. I don't remember exactly.
Q: Did you rise any higher?
A: At the end of the war I was Oberfeldarzt. That is equivalent to lieutenant colonel.
Q: That was the last rank you held in the Luftwaffe?
A: That was the highest rank, yes.
Q: When your institute was first formed, in 1940, was it —
A: 1941.
Q: In 1941, what was the name of our institute at that time?
A: The institute was always called "Institute for Aviation Medicine, "Munich."
Q: What was Luftgau [Air District] Number 7?
A: The Luftgau 7 was the regional organization of the Luftwaffe. All Germany was divided into a number of Luftgaus, and Luftgau No. 7 was the one in the area around Munich.
Q: And were you under the jurisdiction of Luftgau No 7?
A: For economic and disciplinary purposes, I was under Luftgau 7. As head of the Institute, in scientific respects, I was under the Medical Inspectorate of Aviation Medicine, directly.
Q: That would be Anthony's office?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, now, in Luftgau No. 7, did they have a medical department?
A: Yes. They had a medical officer there. He was the Luftgau physician.
Q: Did they ever consult with you about any matters of research or things of that nature, between the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 and your Institute?
A: No. In scientific things we had nothing to do with the Luftgau, except in the rare cases when the Luftgau called upon us, for example, in the training course which Rascher writes of. In such cases we were called upon to help in the projects of the Luftgau, but the Luftgau had no influence on our research work. The research assignments, as I have already said, were in part according to directives which I received from the Medical Inspectorate, and sometimes I received definite assignments from the Medical Inspectorate.
Q: Well, now, did the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 have consultants or specialists on their staff; say, for instance, did the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 have internists, and things of that nature?
A: I would assume so, yes. All the doctors who worked at the Luftgau, had a certain field that they were in charge of.
Q: Suppose you wanted something done; suppose you were forming research, for a moment, and you wanted some particular work done for you in the course of your research which you could not do yourself because of the fact that you did not have a specialist in your organization to do it for you. Then who would you have referred to? Would you have referred to Luftgau No. 7 and asked them for an expert or asked them to take care of this particular situation that you wanted cleared up?
A: I can not imagine a case such as you are asking You assume that the Luftgau gives me a research assignment?
Q: No, no, what I am trying to get at is this: Do you recall one of our documents concerning freezing, wherein Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke and Dr. Singer were recommended to carry out—it is Document No 283, on Page 12. It is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, where he states that he has asked for permission—that is, Hippke has asked for permission—to carry out the cold water experiments in Dachau and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments. He says, one, Professor Dr. Jarisch, two, Professor Dr. Holzloehner, and then as well as the Luftgau pathologist, Dr. Singer of the Schwabing-Hospital. Well, now, what I am getting at is first, we must establish the position of Professor Dr. Singer. As you and I both know, he refused to do any work of that sort as soon as he discovered what it was, and how did the name of Professor Dr. Singer happen to be mentioned in this letter? Was he a consulting pathologist to your institute, or was he just a pathologist on the staff of the Schwabing-Hospital, or how did this occasion arise that Professor Singer was mentioned?
A: I'll answer your first question first. Professor Singer in his civilian position was a pathologist at Schwabing-Hospital. During the war he continued with this work, and at the same time he was a pathologist in Luftgau 7.
Q: In Luftgau 7?
A: In Luftgau 7. I personally had nothing whatever to do with Singer. My institute was quite independent in scientific respects. If I had ever had any pathological and anatomical work to do, which was not the case, then I could have gone to Singer and could have asked Singer, on the basis of his capacity as consulting pathologist, to help me in this work.
Q: Well, then actually Doctor, if you needed the services of Professor Dr. Singer, then you theoretically would go through the channel of Luftgau No. 7 and ask for his services as the pathologist in Luftgau No. 7; is that correct? He is a member of the Luftwaffe, so to speak. He is a part of your organization, the overall organization, and if you needed the services of a pathologist, then you would go to Singer; is that right? It would be because of the fact that he was in Luftgau No. 7, not a private physician in Schwabing-Hospital?
A: I personally could go to any pathologist who seemed suited, and in practice, in cases where I went to a pathologist at all, when I was interested in findings, for example, liver findings—what does the liver look like in people who have drowned in the cold, in such cases in practice I always went to Buechner because Buechner had specific experience in the field of cold, but theoretically I could have gone to Singer, too, or I could have gone to the Vienna pathologist, if I thought that he was especially qualified. I was quite unrestricted in that respect, but the routine pathological work went to Singer. Let's take an example. A man has been asphixiated from gasoline fumes at an airfield. The case is not clear. There is an autopsy. This autopsy would automatically have come under Singer, or in Luftgau 7 an airplane had made an emergency landing and there had been injuries. That would have been Singers work. That had nothing to do with my institute. I was directly under the Aviation Ministry scientifically, and in practice it did not happen that I ever called upon Singer for assistance.
Q: Well now, what kind of a man was Dr. Singer? He apparently was a substantial character, wasn't he?
A: May I ask what you mean exactly, in what respect?
Q: Well, it is apparent here from the evidence before as in this Tribunal that Dr. Singer had the opportunity to assist and to collaborate with Rascher and Holzloehner and Finke at Dachau, and apparently he refused to collaborate when he heard of the nature of the experiments, and being a pathologist, he must have known very well that deaths would occur or they wouldn't need his services, so consequently he would have no part of it. Now, I would like to now just want type of man Dr. Singer was. Was he a credible person? Was he a good physician, a good pathologist? Was he considered by yourself to be of good reputation, and so forth?
A: Yes, respecting his scientific capacity and his character, I never heard anything bad. In peacetime one of my internes, as you can see from my list of publications, wrote something on the heart and asthma bronchitis at Singer's institute. I never heard anything bad about Singer's character, and he had a good reputation as a scientist.
Q: Did you ever hear of a Stabarzt [Staff Physician] Onken, O-N-K-E-N, the adjutant of the medical department of Luftgau 7? Did you over hear of that name?
A: I do not remember him personally. I do remember the name, though, but I can't remember today in what connection I heard it.
Q: Well, now, being the adjutant of the medical department of Luftgau No. 7, he would have some sort of jurisdiction, perhaps disciplinary, over your institute, would he not?
A: The Luftgau physician did, not the adjutant.
Q: Well, that office would; the medical department would.
A: I just remember, Oken was adjutant of the Luftgau physician of Luftgau 7 for sometime.
Q: Well, now, who would be the superior of the medical department of Luftgau 7? Who did they in turn report their activities to?
A: All the Luftgaus were under the Medical Inspectorate.
A: Than that would go directly to Hippke or to Schroeder?
A: The Luftgaus and the Luftgau physicians were under the Medical Inspectorate. As to what section that went, that depended on the subject matter.
A: Well, now, would Becker-Freyseng, to your knowledge of these activities, have had any interest in same of the reports and work of the medical department of the Luftgau, or would he be merely interested in the work of organizations such as yours?
A: To what extent collaboration between Becker-Freyseng's department and the Luftgau physicians was carried out, I don't know; I can't say anything about this organization.
Q: Now, Doctor, what was your feeling toward the Fuehrer? Were you an ardent Nazi?
A: I have attempted to explain that. I will be glad to do so in more detail. In 1933 when the Revolution came and the National Socialism came to power, I was quite remote from any political activity and quite outside of any party. On the other hand, it was quite clear to most Germans at that time that it was a decisive struggle to decide which of the two armed parties would get control of Germany. In 1932, in Germany, we had three armed parties and these three armed parties all had their own party army, or their own party guard, and they fought each other. With power that surprised no, the National Socialists seized power. I was quite foreign to the ideas of the Party at that time. Because of the serious unemployment and the depression from 1930 to 1933, the party with an energy which again surprised me brought about an economic improvement which impressed very much not only me, but no doubt most people. I had the opportunity at the Olympic Games in 1936 to speak to quite a number of foreigners and there were quite a few people among then who were quite impressed by these economic improvements. I do not expect that a party fulfill all my personal ideas 100% in its program —
Q: Well, Dr. Weltz, I don't think it is necessary for us to go into all this background; what I want to know is were you in favor of the Fuehrer or were you perhaps, or were you like Wolfram Sievers, a member of the Resistance Movement?
A: No, I was not a member of a resistance movement and as far as my relations with the Fuehrer are concerned, I can only tell you that it changed a number of times according to my knowledge of things and persons.
Q: When did this attitude take place, in 1938, '39, '40, '41, '42, '43, '44, or '45, just when?
A: The year was 1939; for the first time I realized that the big line of policy which Hitler had promised had been wrecked. That was when the war broke out. Of course, then came successful campaigns, which I was glad to see as a German. Then very seen I realized that in spite of these successes the war was lost for Germany, because I know very well the American Air Force Construction program. I know a great many figures of them and I did not understand then, from the year 1941 on, that this danger was not clearly seen and that the people were so optimistic. Before Stalingrad, I realized that the whole campaign in the East was a failure. Perhaps I may mention something that helps my memory. Before Stalingrad, when we occupied Stalingrad, but when the offensive had not started yet, I bet Mr. Lutz a bottle of cognac, that we would have to leave Russia, while Lutz thought we could keep all Russia up to the Ural. I just happened to remember that. Now, as the war became more and more senseless, from 1941 on at the latest, my attitude toward the party became more hostile and in the last years it was definitely antagonistic. Now, for a man in my position without special connections, without special information, it was rather difficult to do anything, not only because things were dangerous — we experienced all kinds of dangerous things during the war — but the primary difficulty was that one should have a sensible goal. I tried to — please don't think this is a claim that I belonged to a Resistance Movement; I just want to tell you about it — I had a small group of officers who believed as I did; I gathered them around me. We discussed the situation in a way that was different from other officers of the hospital.
It was clear that the war was lost and all the talk of new weapons were nonsense and bluff, but none of us succeeded in setting up a sensible program which might have had any prospects of realization. They were extremely difficult things, because everyone realized that any Putsch [coup] at all would just mean the collapse of the war and above all that of the Eastern front and what that would mean we saw clearly. We thought about it a great deal, of course. We didn't like to see cities like Munich and Nurnberg suffering from one air raid after another, being slowly destroyed.
Q: Before you get into the later phase of the war, in 1938 when Germany started to invade countries, they invaded Austria and various other countries, from then on, what was your feeling then about the Fuehrer? Were you still willing to follow him when he was invading Austria?
A: We in Southern Bavaria experienced the invasion of Austria rather closely and the impression which we had then from all the Austrians coming over was not the impression that of a poor country being attacked. Before that I had been in Austria myself and as a neutral observer, I had an opportunity to meet people in Vienna. There was no doubt whatever that in Austria at that time there were a great many people in favor of the Anschluss [connection]. If there is an opinion to the contrary today, that is a distortion of history, undoubtedly.
Q: Then, didn't you see that when the Fuehrer was taking these forward stops that war was inevitable?
A: We hoped that through the Munich Conference, this danger of war would be eliminated and I was very happy about the agreement which was reached there.
Q: You were of the opinion, were you not, at that time that Adolf Hitler was the greatest man in the world for peace, weren't you?
A: At that time I considered Adolf Hitler an important politician who had the aim of the United States of Europe and was taking up against a tradition which had failed with Napoleon. We realized that the split of Europe into many small countries in relation to the large spaces of America and Russia was an intolerable situation and that we had to create a unified Europe in order to exist, and that was Hitler's aim, and that was an aim which I approved of.
Q: Now, Doctor, in 1941, we see the first evidence of experimentation on human beings, that is, the first thought about it, here before this Tribunal, by virtue of the Rascher Document 1602-PS, which is now in Document Book No. 2, that is a substitute for the one that is in the document book, Your Honor, which is dated the 15th of May, 1941. Now, you, in the course of your direct examination, have discussed the feasibility of Rascher's proposition here and I would like to know what was the first time that plans or thoughts or any scheme for experiments on human beings for high altitude research upon concentration camp inmates was brought home to you?
A: I believe, I said that in my direct examination as well as I can. Before the discussion with Hippke.
Q: Just a moment. The discussion with Hippke was when? When was that?
A: On one of the longest days of the year. I remember, that I drove Hippke home in my car and it must have been one of the longest days of the year since it was still light when we went home.
Q: That would have been in June or July?
A: I assume that it was the end of June, and Kottenhoff shortly beforehand had spoken to me for the first time about Rascher's plans and when Kottenhoff and Hippke were talking I already know that Rascher had approached Kottenhoff, and had made these suggestions to him. It was nothing now to me when Kottenhoff told Hippke about it. Kottenhoff had told me beforehand.
Q: It must have become known to you about the same time as Rascher's communication with the Reich Fuehrung, that is the 15th of May, 1941, is that the correct seeumption?
A: No, what Kottenhoff told me was considerably later. That was shortly before the talk with Hippke.
Q: Now, actually when this knowledge of the intention to use concentration camp inmates was brought home to you, that was perhaps the first of June 1941, not in May 1941, but in June, before the meeting with Hippke, is that right?
A: I can't give you any more exact information about it than I already have. It was shortly before the talk with Hippke that Kottenhof told me about it for the first time, but I certainly did not hear of it after. I assume that this was May when Rascher was taking this course. I knew nothing about it.
Q: Well, now where did Rascher take this course?
A: When?
Q: Where, where?
A: The course was in the building of the Luftgau Command in Prinzregentenstrasse.
Q: Was that near your institute?
A: No, my institute was in the west, in Pettenkoterstrasse, in the University quarter, and the Luftgau building is somewhere else.
Q: Who was giving this course? Was Kottenhof the instructor?
A: No.
Q: What were Kottenhof's duties?
A: Kottenhof's permanent function was an expert for therapy welfare with Luftgau Physician No. 7, I believe. Who gave this course Luftgau 7 was responsible for it. Who actually gave the course, — I don't know. In any case Luftgau 7 organized the course and had a number of lectures for this course, and set up a program for the lectures. I remember for example Buchner, Kottenhof and myself lectured there. I believe that Singer did too, and some neurologist, whatever lecturers were available to this Luftgau and the neighboring Luftgaus, they were asked to assist at this course, and it was rather an extensive program.
Q: Well, then Kottenhof had no connection with your institution?
A: Not at this time, not officially.
Q: Well, when did Kottenhof first have connection with your institute?
A: With my institute for aviation medicine, Kottenhof never had any official connection.
Q: You have introduced a lot of documents here about the knowledge of Kottenhof concerning these matters, and you mean to say Kottenhof had no connection whatever with the institute?
A: Kottenhof was at my civilian department at the University in 1938 before the war.
Q: Was he ever in your Luftwaffe Institute, did he ever come there and pay you a visit?
A: No.
Q: He never did?
A: He was not a member of it, but of course he did visit me once in awhile. He had no official relation with it.
Q: Well, then Kottenhof was the first one to inform you about the intentions to use concentration camp inmates, was he?
A: Yes.
Q: He got his knowledge from Rascher?
A: Yes.
Q: Then when Rascher referred to his confidential talk with a representative of the Luftgau physicians, do you assume he was referring to Kottenhof, in this Document 1602-PS?
A: I assume so for two reasons, first of all Kottenhof told me about it afterwards. That he had talked to Rascher. And secondly, it seems to me the letter indicates this, the remark about monkey experiments. I have already said that Kottenhof, as a visitor at my civilian section, had performed those experiments on monkeys and he had reported the results of these tests at this course at Luftgau 7.
Q: Well, now, let's go on. How did Hippke happen to come into the picture? What was this conference in June 1941 wherein the occasion arose for a discussion concerning experiments on inmates of a concentration camp; first of all where was the meeting?
A: It was in the Preysing Palais in Munich. It was not a conference, but as I said before, Hippke happened to be, for reasons I do not know, a visitor to Luftgau 7 and expressed the wish to see a few of us in the evening.
We were all in civilian clothes. We were perhaps 13, including the Luftgau physician and these 13 gentlemen gathered in the Preysing Palais, and we dined with Hippke.
Q: You were there?
A: Yes.
Q: Hippke was there?
A: Yes.
Q: Kottenhof was there?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Rascher there?
A: No, he was not.
Q: Was anyone else there whom we have mentioned here in this trial?
A: Nobody. Of the people mentioned here in this trial I do not remember anybody I don't believe.
Q: Was Lutz there?
A: No.
Q: Was Wendt there?
A: No.
Q: Now, will you kindly tell us how the discussion happened to arise concerning experiments on human beings in the concentration camps? Who brought up that subject?
A: I believe I reported this already. Early in the evening, Kottenhof was sitting at the top of the table, and I sat on Hippke's left. Kottenhof joined us and sat between Hippke and myself, and brought up this subject to Hippke. He asked him what he thought about all this and Kottenhof told Hippke that Rascher had approached him with these plans to experiment on criminals and this idea he reported to Hippke and asked him his opinion.
Q: Well, now at this time what did Hippke say, can you remember as nearly as possible just what Hippke said about it; what was his reaction to it?
A: At first Hippke was rather reserved. He didn't say very much. Kottenhof thereupon gave a few reasons, as I have said before. He said for instance this matter would be also to the advantage of the criminals and Hippke saw the point there — he also described that they said this and that. Hippke didn't say no, but he also emphasized that experiments by doctors on themselves must be the basis. However, the conversation was very unsatisfactory, and reached no conclusion, and as I said before the definition seemed a very unfortunate one. We talked past each one and at cross-purposes, and therefore I thought I should show by a practical example what I thought would be permissible and what would not be permissible.
Q: Now, did Hippke ask you, inasmuch as you had an institute and were an expert in this field, did Hippke ask you "Professor Weltz, is it necessary to resort to concentration camps in order to conduct these experiments?"
A: No, he didn't ask me that. The purpose of the conversation was the fact that Rascher had approached Kottenhof, had made this offer and the question of whether the offer should be approved or not was the topic of the conversation, and I said before no concrete experiment was being discussed at that point, that they should begin next month, and that they should be high altitude experiments. It was a theoretical conversation whether such things were permissible and under what conditions they would be permissible. That was the basis of such a conversation.
Q: From what you say it would have been possible for you and Kottenhof and Hippke to have nipped in the bud any experiments on human beings in Dachau at this meeting in May 1941, wouldn't it have?
A: Now today as I know the facts I am not inclined to think so, because the reason why experiments were carried out was the fact that Rascher had approached Himmler and Himmler had given permission.
Q: What was Rascher's rank in June 1941?
A: He was Oberarzt [Senior Physician] or Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, I am not sure.
Q: What kind of a uniform did he wear, the Luftwaffe or SS?
A: When he came to see me he wore a Luftwaffe uniform.
Q: Who was chief medical officer of the Luftwaffe?
A: That was Hippke at the time.
Q: Doesn't the chief medical officer of the Luftwaffe have authority to transfer any member of the medical services of the Luftwaffe subordinate in rank to him to another place?
A: Yes, he had that authority.
Q: Well, now, did you discuss at this meeting of June 1941 whether or not volunteers should be used?
A: Yes, as I said before that was the basis of the whole conversation.
Q: I see, and then you discussed the volunteers and then you discussed the necessity for the experiments, I presume?
A: Yes, and also all the points which Rascher kept bringing up as to professional criminals, volunteers. These points were reported to Hippke by Kottenhof, just as Rascher had told him himself, because these conditions were being discussed.
Q: Didn't it seem a little ridiculous to Hippke who was a rather well-educated man to have to resort to concentration camp inmates? After all, all you were going to use volunteers, you could perhaps get volunteers in Munich, when the low pressure chamber would be used in another place, rather than get men in the concentration camps and use men who were not well-fed and not up to standard, and you would have to bring them up to standard to use them? Didn't Hippke have something to say along those lines?
A: All I can say about that, Kottenhof asked Hippke to define his attitude about Rascher's offer. It wasn't that we were short of volunteers in the Luftwaffe. Rascher had made the offer to Kottenhof, and Hippke was, at Kottenhof's request, to define his attitude toward that offer. That was why we had our talk that evening.
Q: Did you define your attitude at the same time; you certainly must have given your attitude?
A: Yes, I certainly did. I did not interfere in the conversation at first, but when the definition seemed to be a little vague I expressed my attitude on the basis of the Goldberger de Kruif examples.
Q: Then you were in favor of instituting this experimentation on the human beings in the Dachau concentration camp after the qualifications you have outlined, namely volunteers and habitual criminals, and a pardon to be granted; that is, if those qualifications were to be carried out you were in favor of it, were you, at this time?
A: As far as I was concerned I never had the desire to make any experiments and the whole question would not have come up to me if I had not been faced with the necessity to define my attitude about the whole problem. The whole problem as to whether or not there would have been experiments in Dachau would not have arisen as far as I am concerned, if I had not been pushed into the whole thing by the fact that Rascher headed my institute, and I therefore had to define my attitude.
Q: What was your feeling when you went away from the meeting in June 1941, was it your feeling or Kottenhof's feeling, that Hippke would be agreeable to experimentation on human beings at Dachau?
A: I think I said this in detail, Hippke pointed out that the basis for research in the Luftwaffe must be experiment on ones self, except of course for certain experimental purposes when conditions which we could regard as impeccable, if those conditions prevailed then he could give his approval in those exceptional cases for those experiments to take place.
Q: Well, now, we will leave the meeting of June 1941 and go on. When did the occasion arise for action on your part to lay the groundwork for the experiments to be conducted at Dachau?
A: I believe I described all this.
Q: Describe it again. I am going to give you the opportunity. When or what date did Rascher approach you or you approach Rascher and did you meet with Hippke or did you meet with Himmler or whom did you meet to decide you would carry out experiments at Dachau that necessitated you inviting Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg to collaborate with Rascher and yourself, now when did this take place?
A: In the course of the summer Rascher himself came to me and proposed to me, as I have described, to try out this slow ascent. I also described how this proposition seemed to me not debatable. I turned it down for the reason which I said before, it was not necessary. Kottenhof did not like the offer very much, for different reasons.
Q: Now, why did Rascher come to you, he was not a member of your institute then?
A: No, he was not a member of my institute, and I can only assume, as I said before, I assume, and I can say it with certainly, because Rascher said so himself later on, at that time Rascher intended to qualify as a lecturer. And the only place where aviation medicine was dealt with in the Luftgau, and had any connection with the University was myself. There was no other agency there where Rascher could find connections with aviation medicine on the one hand and a university on the other. The testing station and I myself was the only agency and I think that must have been the reason why Rascher came to me.
Q: Now, did you have a low pressure chamber right in your own institute which was in the building, in the courtyard, in the building of Physiology of the University of Munich; didn't you have a low pressure chamber there?
A: Yes, we had a low pressure chamber of our own.
Q: Is that perhaps the reason Rascher came to you, because you had a low pressure chamber?
A: I am not quite clear on that point. Rascher didn't tell me this, and I cannot even today quite imagine whether Rascher knew we had a mobile low pressure chamber, or whether he thought the Dachau people would come to us in Munich.
I don't know what idea he had at that time.
Q: Will you kindly repeat slowly in German the official name of your institute?
A: Institute for Aviation Medicine, Munich.
Q: Well, now, Document 1602-PS; will you kindly turn to that document. That is the new version, the complete translation. In 1602-PS on page 1, Rascher refers to an institute, the name is in German. Due to my incapacity in the German language I am unable to pronounce the words. I will request the interpreter to repeat, in 1602-PS, it is about seven or eight lines up from the bottom in quotations, the name of the German institute; will you kindly read that to Dr. Weltz.
INTERPRETER: Bodenstandige Poufstelle fur Hohen forschung der Luftwaffe.
Q: Now is that your organization?
A: At that time, on 15 May the institute for aviation medicine had not come into existence. It was founded in the autumn. At that time I was the head of the Testing Station four, which I described in detail.
Q: This testing station here, that is referred to here, that is your organization?
A: That is quite obvious Rascher means here, I have no doubt —
Q: I am not concerned here with an explanation. I am not asking his organization, I am asking you was that the name of your organization; Lutz said it was, now do you say it is?
A: At that time I was the head of the Testing Station four, for high altitude effects.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have asked the witness three times whether or not this is the name of his organization. It only requires a yes or no answer, and I request the Tribunal to instruct the witness to answer my question.
A: I am about to say in this case that Rascher chose the title wrongly. My institute was called something else.
Q: Then this does not refer to your institute?
A: No, I wanted to say that although Rascher used the incorrect title, but that I myself have no doubt he means my institute.
Q: Then he means your institute?
A: Yes, there is no doubt at all.
Q: Well, then here on 15 May 1941 why is Rascher referring to your institute when he himself has not as yet contacted you concerning this problem, according to your testimony?
A: I know nothing about that, because I was not in contact with Rascher at that time. The letter became known to me only here, and I can only assume that Rascher imagined it like this and Himmler had to give him permission first, and then he assumed that we all of us would say as soon as he had Himmler's permission. One thing is certain I could not talk to him at the time because I would not have been in a position to give him permission. That would have been up to the Medical Inspector and I therefore did not give him permission.
Q: You had a low pressure chamber early in 1941, as a matter of fact you may have had it earlier?
A: Yes, since 1938, I believe.
Q: And that low pressure chamber was burned down in 1944 in your institute?
A: Yes.
Q: As a matter of fact the metal pots are still there, the pots that didn't burn?
A: I think so. I assume that.
Q: Now, when you moved your institute to your new location did you then build another low pressure chamber?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you begin work on this low pressure chamber?
A: In 1944, but that chamber was never completed, and was never used.
Q: However, from 1938 until 1944 you always had a low pressure chamber available?
A: For all practical purposes, there was only the Munich low pressure chamber which was used, and it was used since 1938, I believe, up to the point when it was burned.
Q: I see, and you have stated here a moment ago that you could have got plenty of volunteers through the Luftwaffe, didn't you, that is, that wasn't the question. You stated in the meeting of June 1941 wherein Kottenhoff told Hippke about Rascher's proposal, namely Rascher could get subjects and permission from Himmler to work in Dachau, you stated that the purpose of your discussion there was to merely extend to is proposal of Rascher's to Hippke for his consideration, and, they you stated, that of course the Luftwaffe could have gotten plenty of volunteers had they wanted to. Now do you wish to correct that statement or are gone of the same conviction, that you could have got plenty of volunteers without resorting to the proposal of Rascher?
A: I believe in my direct examination I spoke quite clearly about this. Of course, the extent of the task is very important whether I have enough volunteers or not, how many volunteers there were in the Luftwaffe, I already indicated, I gave a few names and in our case, in my immediate sphere, especially as we were concentrating on animal experiments on the whole, there was never any wish expressed to use inmates as experimental persons. Our program never lead us to this wish.
Q: Kindly answer my question. You have gone astray again. Could you have got, if you had wanted to, for any experiments in low pressure or whatever it may be, ten to fifteen volunteers without resorting to inmates of concentration camps?
A: That depended on the task, what the people were expected to do.
Q: The people were expected to go through these harmless high altitude experiments, now could you get ten or fifteen?
A: It depended entirely on what I wanted the people to do and how much time they had and how much I was justified to demand of their time. Surely, it is obvious that sometimes I could get students and sometimes I couldn't. In my sphere in any case, within my program there was no necessity to fall back on prisoners because we did not have a program which would make that necessary. Now is Ruff's case it was quite different —
Q: Just a moment Doctor; you have stated now when I asked you concerning the meeting in the summer of 1941, why this discussion arose, and Hippke was there, about these matters, and you have volunteered the information to us that it wasn't necessary to discuss it because we could have gotten all the volunteers we wanted to, but this was merely a manner in which Kottenhoff wanted to present this proposal to Hippke for consideration. Now you made the statement: We can get all the volunteers we want to. Could you get ten or fifteen volunteers if you, Dr. Weltz, had decided you would like to experiment in high altitude research on human beings, could you yourself have obtained these many volunteers you spoke about?
A: Probably not, I didn't try — but
Q: Then why did you say you could in defense to that other question here some hour ago?
A: I said the question would not have arisen as to experimental persons if Rascher had not brought up that subject and forced us to define our attitude toward that problem. That is what I said.
Q: Well then you had a low pressure chamber available in your institute in 1941, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: And volunteers could have been made available, could they?
A: It depends upon what for and to what extent.
Q: Well I am asking you specifically: Do you think at that time you could have got a volunteer to volunteer, a volunteer to volunteer for high altitude experiments as outlined by Ruff and Romberg and Rascher at the concentration camp Dachau?
A: Without any difficulty.
Q: Then you could have got ten or fifteen volunteers without any difficulty?
A: That is more difficult.
Q: Well, let's don't get involved, why in the world did you then enter into a conference with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher to go to Dachau and make all of these arrangements and spend all of this valuable time during war time when you could do other research, when all you had to do was to go oat and get ten or fifteen volunteers and say now Ruff here is the low pressure chamber and ten or fifteen volunteers, go to it? It was just as simple as that, wasn't it?
A: First of all I should correct here that the experiments could not have been made with our low pressure chamber because our model was a different one.
Q: It could have been made with your low pressure chamber couldn't it?
A: The experiments made by Ruff and Romberg could never have been made with my low pressure chamber.
Q: Couldn't you have made ten or fifteen subjects available to Ruff and Romberg to be used in their pressure chamber, bearing in mind, if course, that the low pressure chamber stopped in your institute overnight you could have merely held it there and said to them now here are ten or fifteen subjects, you make your experiments right here.
It would have avoided all this confusion, wouldn't it, and you could have seen what went on in these experiments, because you wouldn't have had to have a pass to get into a concentration camp, isn't that true?
A: No, this is not true, because first of all our low pressure chamber was unsuitable for these experiments, because it did not have sufficient capacity. Secondly, if I had had the experimental subjects in Munich, Ruff in Berlin would not have had any advantage of that, and thirdly, the situation as far as I was concerned was this; That I had to define my attitude to Rascher, and moreover Rascher had orders from Himmler, in which he was ordered to come to my institute to carry out the experiments.
Q: Just a moment now, Rascher wasn't in the SS, was he? Rascher was in the Luftwaffe. Let's straighten that out now. In 1941 at the time of these activities and this planning of the experiments at Dachau, Rascher was not in the SS, am I correct? Please correct me, doctor, if I am wrong.
A: At that time Rascher was in the SS and was also a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q: He was on active duty in the Luftwaffe, wasn't he? Don't we have a lot of correspondence here wherein they are bickering back and forth about Rascher?
A: He was an SS officer and in the Luftwaffe.
Q: In the Luftwaffe?
A: Yes in the Luftwaffe.
Q: I have to study the documents. This is news to me. Now in December 1941, you proceeded to Berlin to see Ruff?
A: Yes.
Q: Prior to that time you had discussed these experiments with Luts and Wendt, hadn't you?
A: No, that is not true.
Q: Lutz said you had.
Q: Yes, I had discussed it with Lutz and as I said in my direct examination I told Lutz about this conversation with Hippke and we carried on that conversation and discussed the possibilities for and against the problem. I did not speak in detail to Wendt. I don't recall at all having discussed it with Wendt.
Q: Well now Lutz testified you offered him an opportunity to collaborate with Rascher?
A: Well, I dispute that.
Q: It became apparent sometime before December 1941, or maybe in December 1941, that Rascher was to conduct experiments at the Dachau concentration came, didn't it?
A: Rascher wanted to carry out his experiments in Dachau. That became clear when Ruff accepted my proposition.
Q: Why would you have offered Ruff a proposition if there hadn't been some discussion about it before then?
A: I do not understand that question.
Q: You invited Ruff to collaborate with Rascher. How did you happen to have knowledge, how did you happen to know Rascher wanted somebody to collaborate with him, what did you go up there for? Did you have a vision suddenly and decide he wanted to have some experiments and say to Ruff: Do you want to collaborate with Rascher I will assign you to him? Didn't you have some sort of a meeting with Rascher beforehand and have some sort of a plan? You wouldn't have invited Ruff and Romberg to assist you if you didn't have some sort of a plan. It didn't just come out of thin air, did it?
A: I thought I had described this sufficiently. Probably in November 1941 Rascher was ordered to my institute without my doing anything about it, without my knowledge even, and now he was a member of my institute and he had an assignment from Himmler to carry out these experiments, and I did not know what to do with him, that was the situation.
Q: Now we are getting to it. In November, 1941, Rascher was assigned to your institute, wasn't he?
A: I assume that, yes.
Q: He became your subordinate in the Luftwaffe, didn't he?
A: As it was called technically he was ordered to work in my institute.
Q: And he was your subordinate? When you are in the Luftwaffe or any other branch of the Wehrmacht before you can put a man from one job to another it is necessary to order him, he has to have written orders, the same in the German Army as in the US Army or in the Navy or any other army, and so Rascher received orders wherein he was trans ferred, to the Institute Weltz, wasn't he, and he became your subordinate?
Let's not quibble about it, doctor.
A: Yes, that is his position.
Q: Then Rascher had an assignment wherein he could, if he so wished, use subjects of the concentration camp Dachau, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: He could have equally as well have accomplished his objective by using volunteers other than volunteers of inmates of Dachau concentration camp?
A: That depends on what Rascher's aim was. Rascher did not have an aim at that time. That was the difficulty. He proposed experiments to me for which Himmler wanted to use the experimental subjects, and I did not approve of Rascher's aim and that was how the unhappy situation, as far as Rascher was concerned, arose. On the one hand he had Himmler's permission and on the other he had no aim to do anything with that permission, and he proposed to me this slow ascent experiment, which I turned down.
Q: When was that, in November 1941?
A: That proposal he made to Kottenhoff when he met him for the first time.
Q: Now what proposals did he make to you after he became your subordinate in November 1941?
A: When in November 1941 he became my subordinate and when I had turned down his first proposal, he then, as I said before, he then made a proposal to me for the cold experiments to be carried out in Dachau, and that I also turned down, as I said before.
Q: Well then when did he propose that he wanted to use the low pressure chamber? He must have proposed it some time in November-when?
A: The use of the low pressure chamber?
Q: Yes.
A: His first wishes to make high altitude experiments were based on the fact that a low pressure chamber must be used, but we never reached that point in our conversation because, from the beginning, I said "We shall not make those experiments" and Rascher had no reason to ask me what low pressure chamber to use.
Q: Let me ask you a question. Did they perform some experiments in Dachau on high altitude from your knowledge, from sitting here in the dock for five months? Did they?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, now, who proposed them? In November, 1941, Rascher came to work for you, as your subordinate in your institute, ordered there by the Luftwaffe. It was only the Luftwaffe which could change his assignment because he was a member of the Luftwaffe. Now, when did he propose these experiments? If he didn't propose them, then Weltz proposed them and went to get Ruff and Romberg. Now, why did you ask Ruff and Romberg if somebody didn't propose these experiments? Who proposed them in November, 1941? You had rejected his other proposal earlier on the slow descent proposition. Now then, did he extend a new proposal to you in November, 1941, or by what token did you step forward and invite Ruff and Romberg down to Dachau and get those two men in all this trouble? Now, how did that happen?
A: I believe I described this in detail. I say once again that in November, 1941, that Rascher came to my institute. He made the new proposal to have cold experiments. I then told Rascher that "we are not interested in cold experiments. Our animals are quite sufficient here. There's no point to it." Then I described how, by chance, when I was on a trip to Berlin, I visited Ruff and Ruff told me of the difficulties of his own program and other difficulties which he had with experimental subjects. I, in turn, told Ruff that Rascher was hanging around my institute and I did not know what to give him to do; that Rascher had permission to make experiments in Dachau; and, thereupon, I proposed to Ruff to have his experiments carried out on the basis of Rascher's permission in Dachau. Surely I described this all in detail, and Ruff did too.
Q: Now, I have listened with great interest to what you have just said. Do you want to think for about one minute and confirm to the Tribunal that that is how the experiments started at Dachau? That is just the answer I wanted. Now, think about it a minute and will you confirm to the Tribunal that that's how the experiments started in Dachau.
A: The experiments came about that I said that on a trip to Berlin, I talked to Ruff, that I told Ruff that there was a possibility to have experiments carried out in Dachau and that Ruff, in turn, told me how short he was of experimental subjects. That, I think, is all I have to say in this connection.
Q: That's perfect, Doctor. We won't have to discuss that any further.
Now, after you talked to Ruff, then you set a date for a meeting, didn't you, in Munich, and this date for a meeting in Munich took place when? When was that date? When did it actually take place in Munich?
A: I cannot give you the date. I assume that it must have been in December. Perhaps the middle of December, 1941.
Q: That was also in December that they went to Munich? You went to Berlin in December and they came to Munich in December, is that right?
A: No, I'm sorry, I made a mistake here. I assume that the conversation in Munich took place in January. I slipped there.
Q: All right. Now, Ruff and Romberg were invited to participate in these experiments with Rascher by you because they were experts on the subject, is that right? You wanted some experts to work on this. If you were going to use inmates of the concentration camp, you decided you would like to have experts doing it; and that's your reason for asking Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with you and Rascher, is that it; because these men were experts in the field?
A: That is a distorted description and Ruff and Romberg's affidavits are on the basis of this; and in their cross examination they have corrected their affidavits. It is a distorted way of putting it to say that I had called in the experts Ruff and Romberg to my experiments. How it really happened was I offered to Ruff whether he wanted to make experiments with Rascher. Romberg, in turn, had decided on the program. The program was not my contribution. And on that basis, the collaboration occurred.
Q: And, in the event that you had not offered this to Ruff and Romberg; then Ruff and Romberg would not be in this dock today; would they?
A: I assume so.
Q: Well, now, the hurdle I am trying to get over is that Mr. Lutz says you offered it to him. Of course; you deny that. And he refused; and gives very elaborate reasons for his refusal in that he wasn't strong enough — that is, in his heart — to perform these experiments on human beings. And the hurdle I am trying to get over now is the statement you made on direct when you said that such a play oh words by Lutz was ridiculous; that you had never noticed Lutz to be religious or to have any misgivings about such things and you made a statement which has bothered me considerably wherein you state: "I would have reminded Lutz of things which make this answer ridiculous." Now, was Lutz mixed, up in something criminal? What was this here that would have made his answer ridiculous?
A: Lutz' reply would have been ridiculous according to the views held at the time by Lutz on the overall situation. Lutz, at that time, was an ardent advocate of total war with all means and his conception roughly was — I now speak of 1941 — he realized that the war would be a hard and severe one and he was of the opinion that this war must be fought with all means at our disposal.
At that time he used the following expression quite frequently, the expression: "If we are to win this war we, in Germany, must use shooting in the neck more frequently." I think Lutz didn't mean this literally. What he meant was perhaps this. He believed that we, in Germany, were sitting between two chairs. On the one hand, the democratic methods with which you could wage war successfully we had got rid of, and, on the other hand, he thought that the total warfare methods which we saw embodied in Russia had not been introduced 100%, and that was his opinion that he expressed in the words that "In Germany, we should shoot people in the neck more." Just at that time and just before, there were small differences between Lutz and myself on the point that Lutz used his elbows quite a bit. I tell these things which are not of vast importance — I am not very keen about telling these things about my assistants — but if it helps to clarify these things I have to tell these things. If ever I had small difficulties with my subordinates-it occurred rather rarely — it was always on the point that Lutz used his elbows too ruthlessly. Later on, he had a difference with our charwoman, and when I sent him on an assignment he had arguments when he misbehaved rather awkwardly with the Gauleiter [regional or district leader] and I had to rescue him from a very heavy difference of opinion with the Gauleiter which was not without considerable risk as far as I am concerned.
Q: So now, Doctor Weltz, these little incidents of Lutz' personality — what you refer to as making his refusal to participate in human being experiments in Dachau ridiculous — is that what you base it on? That slim evidence of his character? You base it on that?
A: A man who tells me that "more people should be shot in the neck in Germany" cannot tell me in the same breath "I am too softhearted. I am not robust enough." I must say I would have declared that ridiculous. I don't know that that is only my opinion.
Q: Well now, in this meeting in January, 1942, wherein Ruff and Romberg attended, who else was present at the conference?
A: Present were, at that conference, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and myself.
Q: Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and yourself, yes?
A: Yes.
Q: And Lutz was not there?
A: I described this. Rascher was late. Ruff and Romberg were present. Before the conference opened we talked in my room on different matters and when Rascher arrived — he had a car accident and made apologies and when Rascher finally turned up I told these gentlemen "Thank you very much. I wish to begin now" and began the conference, and the gentlemen left my room.
Q: I see. Then Lutz' testimony that you told him you were going to have a conference and that you didn't want him in the room is true, isn't it?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Defense counsel for defendant Brack): May it please the Court, may I ask the Court's indulgence for two minutes? In the courts of the trial the following witnesses have been proposed: Wolff, Dietrich, Seivert — I am defense counsel for Brack — Wolff, Dietrich, Seivert, Hederich and Pfannmueller. I have decided not to use Seivert and Hederich. Wolff was turned down as a witness. Now, there is a difference between myself and the Secretary General about the two remaining witnesses: Dietrich and Pfannmueller. They should be called into the witness stand as witnesses. I would be grateful for a ruling of the Court to allow me those two witnesses on the stand.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I may be able to help you here. I don't know the status of Pfannmueller right now. The Doctor does. But I turned Pfannmueller over to the German courts for trial some two months ago and I don't know whether he has departed from Nurnberg yet.
They are proceeding very rapidly. He may be here now I don't know that — but I assume that he is in Frankfurt awaiting trial. I don't know whether he will be available for this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if counsel for the defendant Brack and the prosecution will come to my office immediately upon this recess, we'll discuss the matter with them there.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 8 May 1947.)