1947-05-08, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

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

The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. GEORGE WELTZ — Resumed

CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. HARDY:

MR. HARDY: Dr. Weltz, it has been called to my attention during the recess that you and I are conducting our examination much too rapidly, and the court reporters are having considerable difficulty in taking down the testimony, so, if you will attempt to cooperate, I will do the same and see if we can slow down a bit.

Q: Doctor, we have heard here in this courtroom the opinion of various persons, namely, Professor Leibrandt, Rostock, Rose, Sievers, and several of the other defendants, concerning the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment. What is your attitude about the capacity of a prisoner to volunteer for medical experiments?

A: I believe that in this case one must clearly distinguish between the philosophical concept of free will and the legal free will on the one hand, and the natural, scientific determination of our actions. Every one of our actions is of course determined casually by circumstances which have preceded that action, by the nature of one's personality; and, therefore, any will is determined naturally, scientifically by innumerable causes. Quite independent of that consideration is another consideration which confronts me with a choice of whether to do something or not to do it. The poor person who volunteers because of a sum of money I have offered him is certainly not doing that of his own free will, in the other form; he is also being forced to accept money, because of his entire situation; that the other way of looking at it. If I have an opportunity either yes or no without being threatened directly because of my decision, one has to say that the prisoner has the same free right, to decide as is the case with any other human being. That obviously is the general opinion, because, otherwise, one could never submit an affidavit to a prisoner; he decides quite freely whether or not he is going to sign. He can make many other decisions, just as he can make that decision. I was asked in the camp whether I was willing to do a number of things which of course arose from the fact that I was imprisoned. Had I not been imprisoned, nobody would have thought of asking me these questions.

While imprisoned I was in a position to decide freely whether, for example, I wanted to do certain work, for an addition to my rations. This was a completely free decision. I really don't see why a prisoner basically is acting under different conditions than any other person. The prerequisite is, of course, that I am not threatened but am given an opportunity to make this decision freely.

Q: Then, in substance, Doctor, it is your opinion that a person even though incarcerated, can actually, in the true sense of the word, be a volunteer for a medical experiment?

A: Certainly.

Q: Well, now do you think that in the case of concentration camp inmates — wherein here in Germany we had a unique situation, that you had criminal prisoners and political prisoners — do you think that applies to either category equally as well?

A: There is no doubt in my mind that even in a concentration camp, volunteer decisions could be offered to the persons there in good faith, and that these persons were actually free in their decisions. If I am now subsequently told that did not happen in many cases, I can only say — and that has already been said by Mr. Lutz — that it was an enormous surprise for us at the end of the war to learn that these easy conditions of voluntariness were obviously not fulfilled, as we learned through the press. It would have been very easy for the State to comply with these conditions. No expense would have been incurred for the State, and everything could have been done absolutely irreproachably. For that reason, it was an enormous surprise for us that this condition which was so easy to fulfill, was obviously not fulfilled in so many cases.

Q: Well, now then, considering the over-all picture of the status of the prisoners in the camp, the only real issue is what the particular prisoner will be offered to undergo the experiment. For instance, a criminal will be offered a pardon, a commutation of his sentence; or a political prisoner could be offered a pardon or a commutation of his sentence; or a political prisoner could be offered better food, like, for instance, you state that you might have been offered additional rations if you did certain duties.

Well, now, when you had this meeting, and Rascher showed you the authority of Himmler to use criminals for experiments: didn't it occur to you that the pardon would be perhaps allowing a criminal who, as you say, was legally condemned, to then return to society and mingle therein?

Didn't that element crop up in your mind?

A: If one considers an atonement to society, I don't think that there is any difference whether this atonement takes the form of a certain among of time spent in a prison, or whether it is served by subjecting oneself to danger, in the interest of society. I don't know what the legal aspect is, and I never worried about it. Whether it was legally permissible or not was something for the State to consider. We were merely confronted with the fact than offer had been made to us to carry out experiments under certain conditions which we believed to be irreproachable. That was the situation we faced. It certainly was not our task to change these conditions in anyway. All we had to ask ourselves was this: Are these conditions objectionable, or are they not?

The conditions as they were told to me by Rascher, as they were contained in Himmler's letter, and as I agreed with Ruff, I consider and I want to repeat once more — to be irreproachable from an international standard, and measured against the strict standards of peace.

Q: Well now, were you familiar with the manner in which these subjects used in these experiments were approached?

A: How these persons were approached?

Q: Yes.

A: I already said that the conditions were discussed with Pyrokowsky. After that I didn't learn anything else about the further course of events.

Q: Well, now, before you talked — or, while you were talking with the concentration camp commandant, did you at that meeting — or did Ruff or Romberg or Rascher; one of your group — instruct the concentration camp commandant on how many subjects they thought they would need? Did they say, "we will need ten subjects, or twenty subjects, or thirty subjects -and you pick thirty volunteers or a hundred volunteers?"

A: Certainly. Naturally, Pyrkowsky would have to know about how many persons were needed.

Q: How many volunteers did they decide at that meeting would be necessary?

A: I can't remember now whether an exact figure was given.

Q: Well, they were supposed to come from certain blocks in the camp, weren't they? You started to name two or three blocks wherein they would go and select the volunteers. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: What did the concentration camp commandant say? Simply, "we will use them from two or three different blocks" — or just what was that conversation? Would you repeat it for me, please?

A: I remember the following: Schnitzler first informed Pyrkowsky about Himmler's general order. Then we explained the extent of the experiments to Pyrkowsky — what it was all about. And I am sure that he was given an approximate figure. Then Pyrkowsky considered from which blocks these persons were to be selected.

Q: Do you know how many inmates were housed or quartered in one block?

A: I know that now, after having lived in these blocks for a considerable period of time myself. Then, of course, I could imagine nothing by the expression "block".

Q: Would you tell the Tribunal from your experience in Dachau since the war ended how many people can be housed in one block?

A: We were up to 160 persons in a room; three beds, one above the other. There were six rooms.

Q: That consists of one block?

A: Yes, that was one barracks.

Q: Then, in other words, you had six rooms with 260 persons to each room?

A: Yes, that was the situation when the rooms were fully occupied, and that is what I experienced.

Q: And he set aside two blocks to be used — or two blocks from which they would select the volunteers?

A: That I don't know.

Q: I see. Well, you do know that they set aside one block to be used -or did the concentration camp commandant say, well, we will get our volunteers from Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4? Or did he say, we will get them from just Block No. 1?

A: The figures Pyrkowsky mentioned at that time didn't mean anything to me. He mentioned one block or the other. Therefore, I don't know whether he said that we shall get them from Block 24, or that he said 28, or any other block. I can't say that because these figures didn't mean anything to me.

Q: Now, Doctor, after the conference in January 1942, and then after the meeting in Dachau, which was a couple of days later, then the low pressure chamber was sent to Dachau via your Institute, and the experiments were to begin on February 22nd. Now you had your quarrel with Rascher?

A: May I correct something?

Q: Yes.

A: The experiments were not to start on the 22nd of February, that was not known to me. I know nothing about that. The only thing I learned was that the low pressure chamber arrived, but when the experiments were to start, or what else was arranged, I don't know.

Q: Well, now, when did you have your first disagreement with Rascher, approximately what date, in the month of January, or the month of February, or in the month of March, your first disagreement with him? Now, as of the time you left Dachau in January when you visited the concentration camp commandant and made arrangements for the performance of the experiments, that is, the technical arrangement at that time when you went to the concentration camp with Ruff and Romberg, that is, Ruff was Romberg's superior, and you said in the direct that you were Rascher's superior; now after that time when arrangements were being made, when did you have your first disagreement with Rascher?

A: We separated in Munich after this visit at Dachau. Rascher returned to Schongau, while Ruff and Romberg returned to Berlin; after that I heard nothing more.

Q: Well, now — then you say that Rascher was relieved in February, or in the beginning of March, on your direct examination, or, the latest would have been during the first week in March that you no longer had any connection with Rascher. Now just when did you have your disagreement with Rascher, and received this telegram, and so forth. I want to try to fix the date, Doctor, when Rascher pointed out to you about in a telegram that this was to be a secret, and he could not tell anything about it and so forth?

A: I am just clarifying that. After we had separated at Dachau, Rascher had returned to Schongau. He was at that time still residing there. It made no difference to me personally when the experiments would start. I had no interest in pushing them, so I did not bother about it. I was in Munich.

Q: You were in Munich?

A: Yes.

Q: But at this time before the experiments started on a date which was unknown to you at that time, you were still in the position as Rascher's superior, and Romberg was subordinate to Ruff, in the same position that you were when you left the camp at Dachau, after the arrangements had been made, is that right?

A: Rascher at that time was my subordinate. He had been detailed to my Institute. This assignment until that time had only been something on paper, inasmuch as Rascher had told me he still had work to do in Schongau, where he was doing something regarding the distant gauge, and I did not try to get Rascher quickly, because I did not need him for my purpose. I then heard accidentally that Rascher was staying in Munich, some one had seen him there. Then I was of the opinion that if he came to Munich anyhow, he may report to me. Thereupon I wrote him a letter saying that he would have to report to me twice a week, while he was residing there. I already described that.

Q: This happened when, what date, approximately the 1st of February?

A: I conclude from Document No. 284 that the last conversation took place at the end of February, or at the beginning of March; the two preceding times that Rascher came to see me were also a half a week earlier.

Q: Well, then you ordered Rascher to report to you twice a week, after you had discovered he was in Munich. Now, that was in February, is that right?

A: Yes, that was in February.

Q: Now he reported to you, did he, in compliance with the letter, or the order?

A: The first time Rascher came to see me and I asked him why he never looked me up, and he answered that he still had work at Schongau, and he said that after all the experiments at Dachau had not yet started.

Q: And did you at that time have a severe quarrel with him, or did you then see him at a later date?

A: I kept my calm during this first conversation; I could say there was a certain tension, and I made it clear to Rascher I wanted to preserve my status as his superior, and that tension was noted from the tone in which I wrote the letter to him. The letter was not addressed, "My dear Rascher," but was stated,

You are requested to report to me twice a week wearing your uniform.

He could have no doubts on account of that letter that I was not approaching him as some good acquaintance, or a friend of his, but that I was approaching him as his superior. He had no doubts on him.

Q: He came the first time?

A: Yes.

Q: That first time would be about the 1st of February, wouldn't it?

A: No, I don't believe so. That must have happened later.

Q: When would you say. Could you set some date about that?

A: If I had the last conversation when he showed me the telegram, about the end of February, or the beginning of March, I would say the first conversation took place one and a half weeks earlier.

Q: That would be about the 20th of February, approximately?

A: Yes, that could be.

Q: Well, now then the experiments began the 22nd of February unbeknown to you?

A: No, that was not known to me.

Q: Rascher reported to you again. When did he report to you the second time?

A: Half a week later, as I had ordered him.

Q: That was about the 1st of March, or about the 27th of February, or the 1st of March?

A: No, if I assume that the first report took place on the 18th or 20th of February, then the second report must have taken place three days later.

Q: Three days later. Well, then, he had started the experiments on 22nd of February, did he report to you the second time before or after he had started the experiments, do you know?

A: I never learned that. I can not tell you anything about that.

Q: He reported to you for the second time, about the 22nd of February, or the 23rd of February, around in there?

A: Yes.

Q: And what happened on that occasion?

A: In the meantime Anthony had telephoned me from the Medical Inspectorate, and had told me — rather had inquired from me how the experiments at Dachau were progressing, and how long they would continue; whereupon, I told Anthony, "I can not tell you anything about that." I said that I did not know anything about the Dachau experiments. When Rascher came, I asked him about Dachau. I told him that the Medical Inspectorate had rung me up, and that day wanted to know what was going on. Rascher insisted that he had yet to receive his instructions and only then would he be in a position to report to me. He would then know how much he would tell me, and I then said to Rascher that I would not enter in such dealings, either would not I be participating in the experiments, or else he would have to be eliminated from my agency. I imagined that the next time there would be a considerable quarrel between us because I had put Rascher before an alternative. I was quite prepared that Rascher would raise some other objections, and, therefore asked Wendt to attend the third conversation.

I already testified to that here. Rascher handed me Himmler's telegram, whereupon I told him that cleared this situation entirely, "You can no longer remain in my office." Rascher did not make any further remarks. The report had ended. I dictated a letter to Wendt addressed to the Luftgau [Air District], asking that Rascher be released. I then went to Berlin, wanted to report to Hippke. Hippke, however, was not there. Consequently I told the entire story to Anthony.

Q: And did Anthony approve the transfer of Rascher from your institute?

A: Yes, he approved it. He just accepted it as an accomplished fact and he said on his part that he would have to come to some other settlement with the Air Gau. He did not say what his final decision was because he probably could not do that. He probably had to report the matter either to his chief of staff or to Hippke or get into contact with the Air Gau. I don't know what he did.

Q: Well, now, this all happened about 1 March? That is the date?

A: I assume that the conversation with Anthony took place during the first days of March.

Q: After that period of time Rascher was no longer your subordinate?

A: No, that eliminated him very clearly.

Q: Then you were no longer connected with anything that Rascher did?

A: No.

Q: Well, now, you have drawn the Tribunal's attention to Document NO 264, which is dated 28 April 1942, in which you have offered the explanation that it is quite obvious from the turn of events, as you have explained them to the Tribunal, that this date of 28 April should read 28 February, rather than April.

This is on page 73 of Your Honors' document book number 2, Exhibit No. 60.

Now, Doctor, if we assume for the moment that your assumption that the date should be 28 February is correct, then it follows that herein it is requested that the assignment of Rascher must immediately be changed to the Aviation Test Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, Aussenstelle Dachau, and according to your testimony, because of your dispute with Rascher on 1 March you then went to the Luftgau and also reported to Hippke via Anthony that you were no longer assuming responsibility for Rascher and that Rascher was to be transferred from your institute. Now, that is the natural course of events if we assume that this date is 28 February, is that correct?

A: Yes, if my assumption is correct that Rascher was still in my office on 28 February, the date of this letter; however, he was certainly no longer at my office on 16 March, as can be seen from Document 318, Prosecution Exhibit 57.

Q: That is page 70 of your Honors' document book, 318, that the defendant is referring to. Do you have the document book there, Dr. Weltz?

A: I have those two documents.

Q: Will you kindly point out again to the Tribunal why you maintain that the document dated 16 April 1942, on page 70, shows that Rascher is no longer in your institute? What is there apparent in that document that shows that?

A: In Document NO 318 is says, and I quote:

The Stabarzt [Staff Physician] Dr. Rascher was detailed for special experiments, the execution of which together with the experimental establishment for air navigation was rendered possible by the Reichsfuehrer SS at Dachau, to the experimental establishment for aviation, branch office Dachau, from March 16 until April 16, 1942.

That is to say that Rascher during that time held a different assignment. Therefore, he could not have been working at my institute. I think that there can be no doubt about that.

Q: Well, now, what institute would he be at according to this letter? Who is he assigned to now?

A: Well, I can speak only of what is contained in this letter. There is mention made here of the branch office, Dachau, of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation. This is an agency which probably has not existed in this form, because I cannot imagine that there existed an experimental institute for aviation with a branch office at Dachau. Where this designation comes from and how it originated I of course don't know. For me it is important only to prove that Rascher had another assignment on 16 March and was no longer working with me. Whether this assignment was to a place which is designated correctly or incorrectly bears no importance for this case.

Werz then asked that this assignment be prolonged. The whole thing was intended to bring Rascher to Dachau.

Q: And Hippke, according to this letter, is well aware of the fact that you were no longer connected with Rascher, is that true?

A: I don't have the letter from Hippke before me. If you can tell me where it is—

Q: This letter of 16 April to which you referred is addressed to Hippke.

A: Yes, but there is another letter in existence, the reply letter of Hippke, which I can't remember at the moment. Hippke then in effect prolongs Rascher's assignment, as far as I can remember, but I haven't got the letter before me.

Q: Well, now, assume for the moment that the document on page 73, that is, 264, NO 264, Exhibit No. 60, assume for the moment that the date 28 April is correct, as it is on the document, actually is on the document — that that is correct. From this file note of SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Schnitzler it appears quite conclusively that Rascher is still the subordinate of Weltz on 28 April 1942, doesn't it, taking that letter on its face?

A: If we assume that the date on this note of Schnitzler is correct, then all the statements which Mrs. Rascher has made are not correct. The entire letter can then make no sense.

Q: Be that as it may, Doctor, I asked you a question. From this letter, in and of itself, disregarding any other letters, from this letter with the date 28 April thereon, it is apparent that Rascher is still your subordinate, isn't it? From this letter?

A: Yes, but that is not true.

Q: All right, Now, just a moment. Do you recall the name Anneliese Frick?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell the Tribunal who Anneliese Frick is — F-R-I-C-K?

A: Miss Frick was a technical assistant of our institute.

Q: She is the daughter, is she not, of Wilhelm Frick, who was a defendant before the International Military Tribunal?

A: Yes, she is Frick's daughter, and also the daughter of his wife who divorced him. I think that at the time she was at my institute they were already divorced.

Q: Well, when did Miss Frick join your institute?

A: That I can no longer tell you. I really don't know.

Q: If Miss Frick said that she joined your institute on 15 April 1942, would you assume that that was about right?

A: I can hardly check that. April 1942?

Q: Yes.

A: It is possible.

Q: Possible. Well, now, did Dr. Rascher ever come to visit you after you had your disagreement in March? You stated in direct that you only saw him accidentally a few times after you relieved him.

A: The statements are contradictory to that effect. As far as I remember, it was reported to me that Rascher had appeared several times in the institute, behind my back. On the other hand, Wendt did not know anything about these visits, which were reported to me by other people. Today I no longer know whether Rascher appeared several times at my institute during my absence or not. On the occasion of my first interrogation I stated that Rascher appeared at the institute behind my back because I thought that I could remember one such report.

Q: Did Rascher ever appear at your institute in late April or May to see you?

A: I don't know that.

Q: You don't remember that?

A: You mean, did Rascher once more visit me after the telegram?

Q: Yes.

A: I don't remember that.

Q: Do you recall a particular incident which occurred either the latter part of April or first of May or the middle of May or in that period of time, not in the month of March or first of April, wherein Rascher was coming to see you, and you were pretty busy and you didn't want to spend too much time with him because you were too busy? Do you recall any such thing as that?

A: No, I don't remember anything like that, but I always said that it is quite possible that Rascher appeared at the institute afterwards. I said already that I remember a report which I had that he was there once more. This, however, cannot be brought into conformity with Wendt's statement. That is, therefore, why I don't know what the correct situation is.

Q: I am not referring to Rascher's visiting you behind your back. I want to know now whether you can recall having had a visit from Rascher in late April or early May, or even sometime during the month of May, the whole month of May. Did Rascher ever visit you, yourself, go to your office to see you in April or May?

A: I don't remember that, but I wouldn't exclude that possibility at all.

Q: Now, let us try to refresh your recollection. As it so happened either in late April or early May you had broken your watch, or you didn't have a watch so that you could tell time, and do you recall asking Miss Frick for the loan of her watch so that when Rascher came you would be able to judge the time because you were so busy, and you were unable to spend too much time with him. Now, an incident like that must be one you can remember clearly, when you borrowed Miss Frick's watch upon a visit by Rascher so that you would be able to time him and allow him a specific amount of time for a conference with you.

Do you recall that?

A: No, I don't remember it, but if Miss Frick says so, I don't want to exclude that possibility.

Q: Well now, did you ever ask Rascher for an invitation to Dachau to attend the experiments?

A: Do you mean an invitation to Dachau to attend the experiments? After Rascher had shown me the telegram, it was quite clear that I —

Q: At any time. At any time, before or after.

A: Would you please repeat the question?

Q: Did you request that you be allowed to attend the experiments at Dachau before the telegram?

A: Before the telegram it certainly was my wish to attend the experiments.

Q: And did you tell Rascher that if you could not attend the experiments that Rascher would be withdrawn or you would relieve Rascher or request his transfer from your institute?

A: Certainly. That was the argument in the conversation.

Q: And you fully deny or exclude the possibility that you issued an ultimatum that Rascher would be withdrawn in case you were not invited to attend the experiments before the first day of May, not March, May?

A: That I asked Rascher, that I wanted to participate in the experiments, was really the core of my arguments with him, but I don't believe that that happened in May. As I can see from the documents, the entire affair took place at the beginning of March.

Q: Now, this Document 264 has a date on it, 28 April, 28 April. You maintain it may well be 28 February, and in that document it appears that you want to see then the whole arrangement at Dachau. Now, if that date is correct, then it might be correct that you could have asked Rascher that you wanted to go there and see what was going on, and that Rascher was still your subordinate, if that letter is correct, and you said that if you didn't see the experiment you were going to relieve him, as late as April 28, April that letter is dated.

Now, you exclude that possibility altogether, don't you?

A: The letter by Mrs. Nini Rascher dated the 24th of February could then hardly be explained.

Q: I didn't ask the letter to be well explained, Doctor. We will explain that in argument. I am now asking you to think again, did you relieve Rascher from your command in March, or did you relieve Rascher from your command in, say, June?

A: I cannot make any other statement than what appears from the document. I have tried to reconstruct the entire matter on the basis of what I have seen in the documents. I cannot interpret Mrs. Nini Rascher's letter dated 24th of February other than to mean that I was prohibited to attend the experiments, and that the entire discussions as to whether I was to participate or not must be placed into February, and that is the only indication that I have in these facts.

Q: Well now, Doctor, would you say that Milch would have been informed that Rascher was no longer associated with you when this break took place in March, or would Milch have been misled and been misinformed as late as 20 May, 1942?

A: I can tell you nothing about that. I don't know what happened between the Medical Inspectorate and Milch.

Q: Well, Milch did consider you and Rascher associated as late as 20 May, 1942, didn't he, according to Document 343-PS which is in German Document Book and Document Book No. 3, the freezing experiment document book, on Page 11, wherein Milch addresses Wolff in the "Dear Wolffy" letter, and Milch states:

In reference to your telegram of 12 May our sanitary inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished.

Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major Weltz will be charged with the execution and Capt. Rascher will be available until further orders in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps.

Now, it appears there that Mr. Milch still considers you and Rascher as associates and him being subordinate to you, doesn't it, as late as 20 May?

A: That does not seem to be the case. It becomes clearly apparent from Hippke's statement how this suggestion by Milch to Wolff has originated. Hippke testifies that there was a desire to carry out freezing experiments and that Hippke had made another suggestion completely independent of the high-altitude experiments, to ask me to attend these freezing experiments because I had already worked on that subject. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the high-altitude experiments and therefore does not prove whether I at that time worked together with Rascher or not. That was a suggestion that Hippke made to Milch on his own initiative and was entirely independent of whether Rascher was working at my office or not.

Q: It seems rather strange that Hippke would suggest you work with a man again with whom you had a severe disagreement, doesn't it, on experiments which are also going to be in a concentration camp wherein there is an alleged telegram that you were not allowed there, that they were secret and Himmler would not let you in. It seems rather strange now that they would sort of associate you with this man whom you have absolutely transferred from your organization and don't want any more association with, doesn't it?

A: That may be strange if I had later again worked with him, but from the fact that my name was dropped, and from the fact that throughout the entire later correspondence my name no longer appeared, it can be seen that this first suggestion by Hippke could not be executed for some reason or other, and I would assume that the reason was that at that time I no longer worked with Rascher, that I at that time had already quarreled with him.

I assume that Rascher said to Hippke, "You suggested Weltz, but he is not the man with whom I would like to collaborate." I don't really know the detail of that discussion, but the very circumstance that I was suggested and that this suggestion was not perfected afterwards seems to the contrary to prove that there must have been certain reasons not to carry out this plan of collaboration between Rascher and Weltz, and I must assume that this is because of the quarrel that I had had with Rascher beforehand. That Hippke was not informed on the 20th of May 1942 about my quarrel with Rascher would not be very surprising because from the point of view of the Medical Inspectorate such quarrels did not constitute any great event. I testified here that I didn't report that matter to Hippke but reported it to Anthony. Therefore it is quite possible that either Anthony did not inform Hippke about this matter in sufficient detail or it may also be that Hippke had forgotten the affair in the meantime. From Hippke's point of view the matter did not bear very much importance. I again refer to the telegram. May I explain why I assume from the files that this telegram was submitted to me after the 19th of February?

Q: Just a moment, Doctor. We have explained this sufficiently well enough, I think, and I want to give you another document to help you along so that you can explain it. Your name hasn't appeared in any other of these documents, you say, at this later date. Now, we are going to look at Document NO-1359, first offering it for identification as Prosecution's Exhibit 493, your Honors. Kindly read that document aloud, Doctor.

A: It is a note, signed "Sievers, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer":

SS-Untersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Dr. Rascher reported in Munich on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference with Uberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Dr. Weltz. Weltz requested, that Dr. Rascher be withdrawn in the case that he would not be invited to attend the experiment until Friday, 1st May 1942. The Reichsfuehrer SS was informed accordingly. He ordered SS Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff on 30 April 1942 to send a teletype to Field-Marshal Milch requesting Dr. Rascher's detail to the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, Dachau branch, and that at the disposal of Reichsfuehrer-SS.

Q: This appears in your Document 264, dated 28 April, and this document here dated May 3, refers to the date of 29 April, also refers to the fact that you requested that Rascher be withdrawn in the event he would not have you attend the experiments before the 5th of May, and then it is very likely ends telegram you referred to was also written about the last of April, isn't it?

A: Yes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If I had this file note of Sievers in addition to my other documents, I would have known that the notes of Schnitzler was correct, and that there must be another possibility to explain Mrs. Mini Rascher's letter. This letter, on the other hand, cannot be explained now. I can only try to reconstruct the dates from the documents which were available here, since I no longer know them today.

Q: Well, now, lets discuss the freezing experiments, Doctor; after this letter of Milch was issued wherein you were suggested with Rascher to conduct the freezing experiments and Milch suggested you were to handle the execution of the freezing experiments, did you become aware of the fact that Milch had made arrangements in this manner and bad suggested that such arrangements be made that you handle the execution of the freezing experiments?

A: I have already testified here that I never learned of this letter of Milch, dated 20 May 1942. These things were happening in Berlin and I never found out that I was to be involved. An order never reached me and I was never asked what my attitude was.

Q: Well, the freezing experiments were of considerable interest to you, weren't they?

A: Certainly, we had also worked in the field of cold, and I already said here that I reportedly had asked for Holzloehner's report, because I was interested in. what was going on.

Q: Well, now, were you conducting your animal experiments that are reported in your document book on which you reported upon at the Nurnberg conference in October; did you conduct your animal experiments at the same time Rascher and Holzloehner and Finke were conducting their experiments on human beings at Dachau, or had you completed your work some time before or after; can you please say just what time you were conducting your animal experiments as opposed to the human experiments if Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke?

A: We certainly carried out the animal experiments simultaneously, that was during the time the experimental series Holzloehner, Finke and Rascher was running at Dachau, we worked on the animal experiments at our institute on which I reported at Nurnberg. I think that is the way I have always described it.

Q: I see; well now, when you worked on animal experiments, were you working on larger animals at all or always small animals; I thought I understood you to say you were working on pigs, larger animals, is that true?

A: No, I didn't say that. We started to work on smaller animals and at first started to work on the basic problems using small animals. Once having established a certain basis we went over to large animals which were more expensive. We started with rats and guinea pigs and went over to rabbits and cats, and at last we worked on pigs.

Q: What type of equipment would you use in freezing experiments with small animals? Would there be a difference between the equipment used for small animals or large animals?

A: Certainly, for the large animals I need a big cage into which it could be run, where in the case of the small animal I only need a very small glass container. What else I need for my equipment depends upon what I am working.

Q: When did you send the equipment that you had used for your experiments with the large animals to Dachau?

A: That was never the case.

Q: What happened to the equipment?

A: You are speaking of equipment for large animals?

Q: Yes.

A: This equipment for large animals consists of two cages of oval cross-section.

Q: Two tubs?

A: Yes, two tubs.

Q: And what happened to those, what did you do with them; did you throw them away or have, them burned or were they bombed, or what happened to them?

A: Those two large tubs were at the Estate Hirschau, and if nobody took them away are still there.

Q: Is that where Major Alexander visited you at the end of the war in I believe, 1945?

A: Yes that is the place.

Q: Dr. Alexander was unable to find the large tubs, wasn't he?

A: Well, if Professor Alexander had told us that he was interested in seeing two large tubs I would have been glad to lead him into the pigsty where these two tubs were and shown them to him.

Q: What did you do with the thermometers and equipment you used on the large animals; was that still available?

A: Certainly, they were not removed, certainly not upon my order. We mostly measured the temperature by electricity, we also used thermometers, especially for measuring the temperature of the water. As far as I know nothing was ever removed from there. At any rate I never gave permission to do that. I think I said to Professor Alexander that I vaguely remembered that Wendt had reported to me that Munich, not Hirschau, had ordered something to be removed while I was absent, and somebody wanted to take something to Dachau. When I returned I heard about that and I prohibited any such practice. Wendt does not seem to remember that, so that I am not quite sure about it. I am sure that we refused to lend the colorimeter.

Q: Then according to Wendt, one of you witnesses, some of your equipment was sent to Dachau?

A: No, on the contrary Wendt says that nothing was sent to Dachau, that nothing was ever demanded. On the other hand remembered vaguely that I once returned from a vacation and Wendt had told me that something, was demanded.

At any rate I know for certain that I told Wendt that under no circumstances should anything be furnished to Dachau and I certainly remember this affair with the calorimeter. Nothing was over given away. What I am saying now refers to Munich, but I am quite sure that nothing was sent to Dachau from Hirschau. There was no connection between Dachau and Hirschau. I don't think that anyone would have thought of sending anyone to Hirschau from Dachau.

I can say for certainly not only I don't know of any such thing happening, but I am quite sure it didn't. As far as Munich I can say that nothing was removed without my approval. I am quite sure the oxygen meters were refused and that the calorimeter was also refused. Whether in my absence anything was furnished without my orders I cannot say.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, if the Tribunal will bear with me I can complete my examination in about 5 minutes, and thereby complete it before the noon recess.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Q: Doctor, were you of the opinion it was necessary to conduct freezing experiments upon human beings?

A: I don't know the extent of Holzloehner's freezing experiments, that results can be achieved by using human beings that cannot be achieved by using animals was quite clear to me. That is a matter of course.

Q: Then you were not completely opposed to conducting freezing experiments upon human beings?

A: Certainly not. I approved of the high altitude experiments which Ruff was carrying on and if freezing experiments had been used under the same clear conditions it would have been very illogical if I would have any moral misgivings. These matters always depend upon the execution. However, I must say that in the case of freezing experiments I could set up a much stronger measure, because they are connected with a great many more inconveniences to the experimental subject. These inconveniences can be adjusted by aesthetics.

Q: Then it is your opinion, as stated on page 36 of your Document Book, that is the second page 363 there are two pages 36, Your Honor. This is Weltz Document No. 5. You stated in your report which was a report before the October conference in Nurnberg, as follows:

Many people will certainly be reluctant to apply the above abrupt methods of warming to human beings without further consideration, since the former view has always been that this kind of treatment must lead to most severe collapse.

To have, as stated above, never observed such a collapse with our animals. At the beginning of the hot bath we even found a quick increase of the muscle tonus which according to Dr. Henderson, should counteract any tendency to collapse. One can, however, raise the objection that the whole process of regulating temperature by way of the skin is so different in the cases of humans and furred animals that one cannot-draw any binding conclusions. This objection is certainly worth attention and cannot be refuted by animal experiments.

Then it is your opinion, as stated here, that experiments upon human beings are justified for freezing?

A: May I ask you to go on reading and you will find my point of view, and I show that as this consideration, namely that there are differences between human beings and animals which can be circumvented by considering electrical re-warming and that no objection can be made in the case of electrical rewarming. If you go on reading you will see that one of the two forms of rewarming would have to be applied in the case of human beings.

Q: That is true. Now on page 37 of this same document, it states:

One more experience with short wave warming seems to us important. Following a suggestion made by Professor Holzloehner, we warmed the animals by way of comparison with small electrodes on the neck and head only in the region of the vital centers.

When did you get this suggestion from Holzloehner?

A: This suggestion was made to me by Holzloehner during the conference which I mentioned, which took place in Paris in the summer of 1941. Naturally, we discussed our mutual problems regarding the cause of death by cold. Holzloehner at that time in Paris in the summer of 1941 was of the opinion that the cooling of the vital centers of the medulla oblongata was the cause of death. During the Dachau experiments Holzloehner changed this opinion and looking at the Nurnberg report of Holzloehner you will find that it is his opinion that the cold death of a human being is caused by a defect in the heart.

From this change of opinion it is clearly evident that what I was investigating here and was at that time Holzloehner's opinion, was an old opinion of his and not the opinion which he held later as a result of his experiments.

Q: When did you first learn of the freezing experiments on human beings at Dachau?

A: I already said that when those people came to us and asked us to carry out oxygen examinations in the blood.

Q: What date was that approximately?

A: That must have been in the summer of 1942, two or three months before the Nurnberg conference.

Q: Did they ever ask you or send to you bodies to be sent on to Dr. Singer for autopsies?

A: No.

Q: And then the next time you heard about the experiments at Dachau was at the conference in October, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you perform these blood tests or these oxygen blood tests as requested?

A: No. Werz reviewed that and he reported it to me later. I didn't carry that out, but Werz did. I mean basically it was Werz' task to carry out oxygen tests and not mine.

Q: Who was Werz?

A: Werz was my oldest assistant. I told you that.

MR. HARDY: No further questions, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recess until 1:30.

(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)