1947-05-20, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 20 May 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the Defendant Hoven): Mr. President, I ask you to excuse the Defendant Hoven from tomorrow morning's and tomorrow afternoon's session in order to prepare his defense.

MR. HARDY: I have no comment in this regard, your Honor, but while the defense counsel for Hoven is here I have a question to put to him regarding the case of the Defendant Hoven. To date we have had two witnesses appear on behalf of Hoven. The prosecution is interested in whether or not the defense counsel intends to call other witnesses on behalf of the Defendant Hoven.

DR. GAWLIK: Three other witnesses have been approved, the witnesses Richard, Dorn, and Scheuble. I have received an affidavit from the witness Rickard which I am going to submit. Whether I shall call the witnesses Dorn and Scheuble to the witness stand, or whether I would prefer to get affidavits from them, I cannot say today, since I have to discuss that question with the witnesses as soon as they arrive in Nuremberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, as soon as you have discussed this matter with the witnesses, will you advise counsel for the prosecution as to whether they will be put on the stand or you will use an affidavit?

DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Hoven having requested that Defendant Hoven be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow in order that his counsel may consult with him concerning his defense, the request is granted. The Defendant Hoven will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow.

Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.

HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

DR. TIPP (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, with reference to the complex which I completed this morning concerning the research assignments and their treatment I said that I was going to submit a document from which I was going to quote, I already said, it is contained in Document Book No. which is not yet available to the Tribunal; however, I have just received the yet available to the Tribunal; however, I have just received the translation of that document from the Language Division, and the necessary amount of copies have been handed to the Secretary-General, with the request to hand them to the Tribunal.

The interpreters as well as Mr. Hardy have also received copies. If it please the Tribunal, I should like to quote a few passages from this document.

(Document handed to the Tribunal.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not yet received the copies of this document in the German language, but I assume they will be provided later.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. TIPP: This is Becker-Freyseng Document NO 64, contained in Document Book 4 on page 340. I offer it as Becker-Freyseng Exhibit No. 7. It is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Hans Schaefer, of Kerckhoff Institute, Bad Nauheim, dated 24 April 1947. After the customary introduction he says, under figure 1.

1) I, Prof. Dr. Dchacfcr, physiologist, department director of the William G. Kerckhoff Institute at Bad Nauheim since 1 January 1940, received in 1940 or 1941 from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe a research assignment on the subject of "research on the electrical by-effects of anoxemia and hyper-aeration". With reference to this assignment, two intermediate reports as well as 3 publications were issued. It was not yet completed by the end of the war.

2) The subject was selected and proposed by me. I had previously worked on similar subjects, although not on the effects of anoxia. The subject represents part of my special field i.c. the combination of electro-physiology and circulatory research, on which field I am still working today.

Under figure 3 the witness describes why he asked for this assignment — in order to obtain priorities and deferments and thus to be able to carry on his scientific activities.

DR. TIPP (Continuing): I quote from figure 4 on the 2nd page:

I did not subject myself to any supervision by the Medical Inspectorate by the assignment of the research commission and its acceptance. The research assignment gave me absolute latitude regard the method of execution and the choice of the means of research. I was only obliged to give reports on schedule and to account for the money spent.

5) There never was a check-up by the Medical Inspectorate, nor were there any requests. At one occasion, however, Prof. Anthony, the official in charge, paid me a private visit and was shown through the institute by me.

I shall skip figures 6 and 7; I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of them.

I quote again from paragraph 8:

No instructions regarding the execution of the commission were issued, and had they been, I should in any case have rejected them.

The rest of this paragraph is not relevant.

In figure 9 he says, and I quote:

I should not on principle have permitted any kind of control of our scientific results, even by experts. If controls are desired they are only possible in the form of new experiments by a second scientist.

I shall dispense with reading the rest of the document. There follows the signature and the customary certification by a notary.

This concludes the question of research assignments for the time being, and I now turn to the individual counts of the indictment.

Q: Witness, you have heard the desire of the Tribunal that the proceedings be shortened; for my part I shall strike out part of the questions which I intended to put to you, and I should like to ask you to limit your replies to what is absolutely necessary.

Witness, the Prosecution charges you with special responsibility for and participation in high-altitude and cold experiments. We know on the basis of numerous documents and the testimony of witnesses that in these groups of experiments Dr. Rascher played a very special role; for that reason I should like to ask you first about your relationship to Dr. Rascher. Tell me, when did you, for the first time, learn of a Dr. Rascher who was a Captain in the Medical Corps (Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon]) of the Luftwaffe?

A: I heard about Dr. Rascher for the first time at about the beginning of June 1942.

Q: And on what occasion was that?

A: At the beginning of June, Professor Anthony was on leave and as far as I remember he had to go on his vacation very quickly because the Chief Physician of his clinic had suddenly fallen ill. A few days later the department chief, Generalarzt [General Physician] (Martius?) sent some files back to me which Professor Anthony had given to him before his departure. Among those files there were the first proposals for the cold meeting which was planned for the fall of 1942, including the first proposals about the participants and the intended lectures. There were a number of changes made by the department chief on this list, and among them was an added sentence saying that a Dr. Rascher was to receive an invitation. This name, at that time, meant nothing to me, because I was neither working in the sphere of cold questions, nor did I have anything to do with the plans for the meeting. For that reason, I did not attach any particular importance to what the department chief said.

About one or two weeks later, at any rate while Professor Anthony was still on vacation, my department chief ordered me to go to the Medical Inspector, Professor Hippke, with part of these files, the papers pertaining to the proposed meeting. At Professor Hippke's office there was a Captain of the Medical Corps (Stabsarzt) of the Luftwaffe; I found out from his conversation with Hippke that he was Rascher. Professor Hippke wanted to speak to Anthony and asked me for the files and what information I could give him. This is the same conference of which Professor Hippke spoke when he was examined in the trial of Field Marshal Milch.

Q: Since this conference was mainly, concerned with cold questions as you say, we shall come back to it when we are discussing that problem. I do want to ask you now: What impression did Dr. Rascher make on you when you saw him for the first time?

A: On the whole, Rascher made quite a good impression on me at that time. I must add that I saw Rascher speaking to my higher superior who had received him without a department chief; Rascher spoke like an educated man; he was courteous, and seemed to be well versed in the fields which he discussed with Hippke.

Q: Would you please shortly tell us in a few words, witness, what this conversation was about?

A: When I entered the conversation Rascher was just informing Hippke that the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had ordered him to carry out cold experiments, and he asked for the support of a sea emergency expert from the Luftwaffe for that purpose.

Q: Of course, it became evident from the conversation that they were to be experiments on human beings?

A: Yes, that became evident.

Q: But, did Rascher say that he was going to use concentration camp inmates as experimental subjects, or how did he characterize the experimental subjects?

A: Rascher very clearly spoke about prisoners or convicted criminals who were at our disposal, on the basis of special permission given by Hitler and Himmler, if I remember correctly, and who had to volunteer. It was my impression at that time that we were only concerned with a very limited number of people and certain very specific cases.

Q: Then Rascher spoke of criminals who were to become experimental subjects?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he say anything about the type of criminals?

A: No, not in detail. It was very clear, however, that they were criminals. I remember that he mentioned that these people were to have the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves in some way by virtue of their participation in these experiments. He furthermore said that for that reason not every criminal who volunteered would be permitted to participate. I remember very clearly an example where a sexual criminal who had been convicted of a number of offenses against young children, had volunteered but was not permitted to participate in those experiments, where he would have had an opportunity to rehabilitate himself.

Q: How did this conversation end, witness?

A: I can say nothing about that. I was only called to attend the conference after it has begun, and I had to leave the conference before it was finished.

Q: In that case, you do not know what actually was agreed upon, do you?

A: What Rascher and Hippke discussed finally, I do not know.

Q: Now, witness, on this occasion you saw Dr. Rascher for the first time, and you heard for the first time that experiments were to be performed or could be performed on criminals in Germany; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: As you told us yesterday, you had informed yourself to a great extent about the experiments on human beings from the theoretical point of view and you had performed experiments on yourself; now tell us, what impression did you have when you heard that outsiders, criminals, were to be used for these experiments?

A: This announcement made a big impression on me. I had had sufficient experience with experiments on human beings in general and self-experiments in particular. Up to that point I had known about experiments on prisoners only from literature. I knew about them only as a result of my preparatory work for the State examination, when a few famous cases had to be known for bacteriology or surgery. These were Strang's famous plague experiments in Manilla, warning's leprosy experiment; and I knew of other examples from "Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif, which I had read like every other German medical student.

Q: After having already concerned yourself with that problem in theory, beforehand, may I now ask you, witness, whether you considered these experiments which were being planned legal experiments?

A: Yes, I considered them to be just as legal as all the others of which I already knew at that time. I knew that no objection had been raised to their legality or admissibility. In addition I was told that the criminals were to volunteer. I knew that a special examination was necessary, and that special permission would be given. Furthermore, I did not hear about this matter in some dark corner where a conspiracy was going on, but I heard about it in the office of my supreme superior, about whom I had to assume that he had known Rascher from before, and that he had already dealt with that question for some time.

Q: Well, witness, that was your attitude about this plan at that time, just as you have outlined it to us now. Witness, how do you judge the question of legality today?

A: In principle, just as then: today I have much more proof and many more examples for experiments on criminals, which were carried out in an absolutely legal and admissible way. I can not imagine that the criminals of other countries would be idealists and would out of pure idealism volunteer for those experiments in large numbers, while German criminals would not volunteer for such purposes. I don't actually believe that German criminals are prompted by idealism but because they expect certain improvements in their condition therefrom, and I think the same holds true in other countries. In order to prove that, I may quote a passage from the book "An American doctor's Odyssey" by Victor Heiser, from page 149 of the German authorized translation of the year 1946. It says there, and I quote:

As soon as a remedy for some disease had been suggested, the Institute established whether it was effective. The experiments were carried out on inmates of Bilibid, who earned a little money and, if the experiments were dangerous, could achieve a mitigation of their sentence.

The institute is the Worcester Institute in Manilla.

Similar proof from modern times can be found, for example, in the Journal of the American Medical association, 27 April 1946, volume 130, page 1256. I quote, under the heading, "Prisoners Used as Guinea Pigs for Medical Experiments," there follows the report:

Similar thereto is a report that experiments were carried out on some 77 inmates in a prison with hashish or marijuana. Mention has already been made here of a number of experiments on conscientious objectors, so I do not gave to go into all that.

All those examples, which do not originate from antiquity but from the last few years, seem to show very clearly that there is a possibility of finding enough volunteers among penitentiary inmates for such experiments, that there are always enough physicians who are ready to perform such experiments, and that apparently no one in the world raises any objections to such experiments.

Q: Let us now go back, witness, to Dr. Rascher; when did you see Dr. Rascher for the second time?

A: I saw Rascher for the second time on the occasion of the Nurnberg cold meeting in October 1942.

Q: On what occasion?

A: On the occasion of the famous cold meeting here in Nurnberg.

Q: Rascher, as can be seen from the documents, made some discussion remarks on the lecture of Professor Holzlochner. Without going into detail, I want to ask you whether you gained the impression from Rascher's remarks that what Rascher had been doing in Dachau was in any way criminal?

A: At that time it did not become evident to me from what Rascher said that what he had been doing in collaboration with Holzlochner was outside the law or outside the sphere of admissibility.

Q: But we do know, witness, that these discussion remarks made by Rascher during the Nurnberg cold meeting raised an occasion for some discussion among the participants in that meeting. How do you explain these discussions, part of which were rejecting Rascher's procedure?

A: One really can not speak of any discussion in the true sense of the word — a discussion at the meeting. I think there was only a purely private discussion after the lecture.

Q: That's what I mean.

A: If I can judge from my own case, the discussions did not refer to what Rascher said, but to the manner in which he said it. The manner in which he spoke about his experiments was somewhat sloppy, and not quite suited for the serious nature of the lecture.

Q: You said, witness, that you met Rascher in June in Berlin in Professor — Hippke's office and that you saw him again during the Nurnberg cold meeting?

A: Yes.

Q: Before this Nurnberg meeting, did any one warn you against Dr. Rascher?

A: No.

Q: Now let us turn to another problem, witness, in connection with Dr. Rascher. We knew from what Professor Weltz testified here and also from a number of documents, which were submitted by the Prosecution, that Dr. Rascher wanted to qualify as a lecturer by submitting a thesis in the field of aviation medicine. Rascher was in addition a medical officer of the Luftwaffe and it could be assumed that you, or the Medical Inspectorate, would have learned something about these plans of Rascher and as a result would also have found out what Rascher actually did in order to execute those plans. Witness, may I ask you whether you knew anything about Rascher's intention to qualify as a lecturer?

A: No, I knew nothing about that.

Q: I do not want to discuss all those documents with you, witness, which were submitted by the Prosecution in that connection; they show no connection with the Luftwaffe, apart from two exceptions. These two exceptions which I just mentioned are in connection with aviation medical research, and for that reason I must ask you about them.

The first document I should like you to look at can be found in Document Book 2. This is document NO-290, Exhibit 121, which can be found on page 166 in the German book and 156 in the English Document Book. I beg your pardon, this is in Document Book 3. It is a letter signed by Mr. Sievers, bearing the letterhead of the "Ahnenerbe" [Ancestral Heritage] Society, with the date 21 March 1944. It is addressed to Doctor Rudolf Brandt, on the personal staff of the Reichsfuchrer SS. I should like to discuss only one sentence in this document with you; it is the last sentence on the first page, and I quote:

The director of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Frankfurt, Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Professor Dr. von Diringshofen, who had already concented to take part in the presentation of the thesis in Marburg, would most certainly have been induced to favor admission to the faculty in Frankfurt.

Oberstarzt Professor von Diringshofen was a medical officer of the Luftwaffe, and in addition an Institute for Aviation Medicine is mentioned here. May I ask you, witness, do you know von Diringshofen, and do you know this Institute for Aviation Medicine of which Mr. Sievers is speaking here?

A: I know Professor von Diringshofen, but there was never an Institute for Aviation Medicine in Frankfurt. Professor von Diringshofen was the head of an institute for mechanical influences on the surroundings. This institute was founded by the city of Frankfurt on the Main and had nothing whatever to do with the Luftwaffe.

Q: In the same connection, witness, would you please look at another document in the same document book: this is Document NO-230, Exhibit 115, on page 153 of the German and 142 of the English document book. This is the course of Rascher's medical training, which he himself has written under the date of 17 May 1943; on the last page of this document, page 4, you will find the following passage, and I quote:

After the conclusion of this research work—

of which he has previously been speaking,

I intend, as agreed upon, to return to the University Institute for Aviation Medicine and Hygiene (Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Marburg) for my further scientific training.

Since aviation medicine matters were under the Medical Inspectorate, witness, I may ask you whether you knew of this institute, and whether through this institute you knew about Rascher's plans?

A: I can say that there was never an institute for aviation medicine at Marburg and that I knew nothing of Rascher's plans in this connection.

Q: Mr. President, in that connection I offer as an exhibit Becker-Freyseng document No. 21 on page 89 of document Book 1. This will become Exhibit No. 8. This is the affidavit —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you don't mean Document Book No. 1, do you?

DR. TIPP: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, Document Book No. 2.

THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign to that?

DR. TIPP: Exhibit No. 8. I may quote briefly; it is on page 89. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. med. Heinz von Diringshofen, Frankfurt on the Main, 7 February 1947. After the customary introduction I quote Figure I.

The Institute established by me with the assistance of the city of Frankfurt/Main in 1942, and which I directed, was called: Medical Research Institute for Mechanical Influences. This Institute was neither attached to the Inspectorate for Medical Affairs of the Luftwaffe, not did it work under its orders.

Under paragraph 2 the witness describes how this quotation which I have just put to the witness originated, namely that Professor Dr. Bach asked the witness von Diringshofen whether he would be prepared to give a scientific opinion on a thesis by the Luftwaffe Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, written for the purpose of qualifying as a lecturer. Professor von Diringshofen further states that he declared himself ready to do so but that he heard nothing further about that plan.

I quote again from page 2 of the document, the last paragraph:

I was never requested by the Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe Medical Service to cooperate with Dr. Siegmund Rascher on his habilitation paper, nor did I inform the Inspectorate as to the above mentioned discussion with Professor Bach.

There follows the signature and the customary certification.

As the next document in that connection I should like to offer Becker-Freyseng Document No. 22, which can be found on page 91 of the same document book. This will become Exhibit No. 9. It is an official certificate of the administrative director of Phillips University of Marburg, dated 10 January 1947; I should like to quote the first paragraph:

An Institute for Aviation Medicine and Hygiene never existed at Phillips University in Marburg not even during the years 1941 to 1943.

I shall now quote the last paragraph:

The above facts are taken from the files of the council (Kuratorium) of Phillips University.

Then follows the signature, the stamp and certification.

Witness, when you saw Rascher in Hippke's office and at the Nuremberg cold meeting, he was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you know anything about his membership in the SS, about which much mention has been made here?

A: No, I knew nothing in particular about that. I only knew, and I heard it during Hippke's conversation with Rascher, that Rascher was speaking about his good relations with Heinrich Himmler.

Q: How was it, witness, that a man who obviously had close connections with the Reichsfuehrer SS could have been a physician in the Luftwaffe and was not in the Waffen SS?

A: I don't know about Rascher's special case, but there were a number of similar cases. Before the war the Waffen SS had not yet existed as an independent Wehrmacht branch, so that a number of reserve officers who belonged to the General SS had performed their reserve service in ether branches, with the Army, Navy, or Luftwaffe. Then the war started these people were drafted into their respective Wehrmacht branches without their civilian membership in any Part formation being taken into consideration.

Q: As we know, Dr. Rascher concerned himself with two subjects, the subject of altitude and the subject of cold. Both of those subjects were problems of aviation medicine?

A: Yes.

Q: That it can be assumed, and the Prosecution obviously does assume, that negotiations and correspondence carried on with the Luftwaffe — in particular the Medical Inspectorate — about these subjects must have gone via the Referat for Aviation Medicine?

A: That could be assumed, yes, but from all of the documents of the Rasher complex I have found only two documents which even hint at any participation of the Referat, whereas all other documents show clearly that the Referat had nothing at all to do with it.

Q: And how do you explain that, witness? What I mean is, how do you explain that the majority of the correspondence with the Medical Inspectorate did not go over the Referat?

A: Well, this can no doubt partly be explained by the fact that the Medical Inspector, Prof. Hippke, very frequently dealt with such matters without the aid of his Referents. In addition, I think that this was probably because Rascher only dealt with the highest authorities personally.

A: Now, witness, in this connection I have to discuss several documents with you from which the Prosecution will probably infer a connection between Rascher and you. The first document in that connection can be found in Document Book No. 2, page 137 of the German and 113 in the English document book; it is Document NO-226, Prosecution Exhibit No. 55. It is a letter from the Ahnenerbe, again signed by Mr. Sievers, and it is dated 21 October 1942, addressed to SS-Obersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] Dr. Brandt, on the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Under the same document number there is attached the draft of a letter to Field Marshal Milch, and this supplement prompts me to discuss this document with you. In the original, it is said, that the high-altitude experiments are to be continued and Sievers writes that the low-pressure chamber will be required, and in the attached supplement to Field Marshal Milch, there is the following:

In addition to the report which I had submitted to me here by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg concerning the carrying out of high-altitude experiments, I had desired that a similar report be submitted to you, too. Although it was not possible for you to participate in the conference of 11 September 1942 and to convince yourself of the results, up to now, of those experiments, I beg you once more today to put at our disposal the low-pressure chamber, through the Aviation Experimental Institute. As the experiments are to be extended to greater altitudes, this time differential pumps would also have to be supplied.

Witness, we are here concerned with the low-pressure chamber, and you said that you had something to do with the administration of the low-pressure chambers in the Medical Inspectorate. Can you tell me whether you received knowledge of this letter and whether the Referat for Aviation Medicine had anything to do with this matter?

A: I had neither seen that letter before nor was the Referat for Aviation Medicine ever concerned with that matter. That can clearly be seen from two things in this letter. The assumption that the German Research Institute for Aviation Medicine should on its own initiative place a low-pressure chamber at their disposal is absolutely erroneous. If this letter had been previously discussed with the Referat for Aviation Medicine; the writer would have known that only the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe would have furnished any such chamber. In addition, if I had been asked about this point I would have told the person concerned that I know nothing of the so-called differential pumps and that none of the low-pressure chambers in the entire Luftwaffe were equipped with them.

Q: Now, witness, we come to another document in this connection. And this is again a matter of aviation medicine problems which were dealt with by Dr. Rascher — aviation medicine research. In that connection I should like to discuss with you the Prosecution Document 1612-PS, Exhibit 79. This can be found in Document Book II on page 136 of the German, and page 122 of the English Document Book. It is a letter, "the Reichsfuehrer-SS", and signed "by order, Brandt, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel]." It is addressed to a number of persons whom we shall discuss later.

This is a letter of the Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler, apparently, dated 13 December 1942, in which Rascher, who at that time was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe, is entrusted with the execution of realistic low-pressure chamber experiments. Furthermore, he is entrusted with experiments for re-warming after freezing. The other points are not important in this connection.

Since we are clearly here concerned, with aviation medical research questions, witness, the conclusion is likely that the Referat for Aviation Medicine or the Medical Inspectorate had gained knowledge of this assignment which was given to Rascher or in which Rascher was included. In that connection may I ask you whether you learned anything about this assignment given to Mr. Rascher?

A: No, I found out nothing about that assignment.

Q: As you say, no copy of this letter was acknowledged by the Referat of Aviation Medicine.

A: No, that can clearly be seen from the distribution list and I think it is a matter of argument to point to various other matters which clearly show a personal nature between Heinrich Himmler and Rascher.

Q: Now, witness, you are saying that the Referat For Aviation Medicine had nothing to do with this part of Rascher's work and the Medical Inspectorate was not concerned with these matters. In that connection I must put to you a document which does not seem to tally with what you are saying and which most probably was submitted by the Prosecution in order to prove your connection with Rascher's experiments.

This is the document NO-262 of the Prosecution, Exhibit No. 108, and is in Document Book No. 2 on page 130 of the English Document Book. The letterhead "The Institute of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe, dated 6 March 1943." It is directed to Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff, the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. This letter is signed by Mr. Hippke. As can be seen from its contents, it deals with Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, and the prosecution may well conclude from this letter that you participated in this matter because you are the only one of the defendants who was working in the Medical Inspectorate during the time in question. Would you please tell us, witness, whether you had any knowledge of this letter and of the points contained therein?

A: No, of that I knew nothing, as can be seen from the complete letterhead, moreover. Let me read the letterhead once again to show that —

The Inspector of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. File note none, No. 2299/43, secret

and the abbreviation for the word Inspector. The abbreviation INSP for Inspector means that this is a letter that the Inspector has worked on personally, because if a Referat had worked on this letter there would have been an appropriate file number to show that. Moreover, Professor Hippke speaks so unmistakably of himself in this letter that it is perfectly clear that he had personally worked on everything mentioned in this letter.

Q: Now, witness, in connection with Dr. Rascher, a further document, also from Document Book III, page 133 in the English. This is Rascher's letter to Brandt of 14 March 1943; it is Exhibit 110. In this letter Rascher reports on a conversation that took place on 12 March with your chief at that time, Professor Hippke. The entire report concerns itself with Rascher's high-altitude and freezing work, and as you say you knew nothing about these negotiations. Can you tell me something about that please, namely that you knew nothing of these negotiations of Rascher's?

A: I don't know about them either. Transfers were a matter that concerned the first department, the Personnel Referat, and consequently did not touch our Referat; but from Rascher's report it can be seen that the Personnel Referat did not participate in this, because Rascher certainly wouldn't have failed in this letter to make certain remarks about the Personnel Referent, had he been involved.

Moreover, I happily remember at this time I was not in Berlin, but in the first half of March 1943 I had my annual vacation which I spent in the Alps.

Q: In other words, witness, of these entire negotiations you knew nothing?

A: Correct.

Q: And the reason was mainly because in the first half of March you were not in Berlin. Now, Mr. President, let me put in Becker-Freyseng Document 23, also from Document Book Becker-Freyseng No. II, page 92 which I shall give Exhibit No. 10. This is an affidavit by Dr. med. Adolf Frank of Goettingen, dated 31 March 1947. The statement is very brief. After the formalities he says;

Early in March 1943, between the 1 and 15 March 1943, I took part in the course on adaptability to high altitudes conducted by Dr. Benzinger in Kutzbuehl. I definitely remember that Dr. Becker-Freyseng and his wife also took part in this course. As far as I can remember after 4 years, the course lasted from 3 to 13 March 1943.

And let me please bring to your attention again the discussion between Rascher and Hippke took place 12 March 1943. Witness, you say that with Dr. Rascher you simply had those two aforementioned contacts, the discussion between Rascher and Hippke in July 1942 and Rascher's remarks in discussing his freezing experiments at the freezing conference. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, did you have official relations of any sort to the SS aside from Dr. Rascher?

A: No.

Q: The general facts regarding Dr. Rascher have not been ventilated, witness.

However, I should like to bring up another question that is important in the whole question of experiments, to wit, those questions that concern concentration camps experiments. Let me ask first of all, did you ever visit concentration camps before May 1944?

A: No, nor did I visit one subsequently.

Q: As you know, witness, you were in the central office of the Luftwaffe Medical Service as Assistant Referent and than as Referent. In this position you undoubtedly had occasion to speak with a large number of people, Luftwaffe officers, research men, civilians, etc. On this occasion and in these discussions did you find out nothing more precise about conditions such as prevailed at that time in concentration camps? What, in brief, did you know at that time about concentration camps?

A: Dr. Horn and Dr. Hielscher have already spoken about this subject from the witness stand here. Had they not done so I should not answer that question here, not feeling it to be necessary. Of course, during the war I did discuss concentration camps with various people. I knew of Dachau and Oranienburg personally. That is to say, I knew the fact that there existed concentration camps there. Details regarding these concentration camps I knew as little as everybody else. I recall that I spoke to a number of people during the war who before the war in one way or another had inspected concentration camps. And the picture that these persons presented to us was one, one might say, of a large scale prison in camp form. If Dr. Horn had not stated here of his own knowledge as a political prisoner in a concentration camp how such visits and inspections were carried out, I should have had to assume that all these people — there were 2, 3, 4 of them who knew anything about this — I should have had to say that these people were lying when they spoke to me, but now I assume they did tell the truth as to what they actually had seen. It has been said here several times that it was possible to learn from foreign radio stations what conditions were. I should like to say that during the war I was a soldier, I had taken my oath of allegiance to the flag, and I kept this oath.

I had no connections with any resistance movement or any such circles. I heard a few persons who had heard the soldier's station Calais, the propaganda of which struck me as just as credible, or incredible, as our own propaganda; and I should like to say that in conclusion the picture that I had of concentration camps corresponded with the picture I had received from other sources, one from a school comrade who was a member of the Communist Party and was put in a concentration camp, namely Dachau, for a few years shortly after 1933 and after 1936 or 1937 was set free. He got another job and was inducted into the Army at the beginning of the War. Since he now again occupies a position in a political party I shall not state his name. The second description I received during the war was from Beiglboeck, regarding which he may speak here himself and from which it was not possible to say what actually went on behind the scenes, which no one could see who was not part of the staff of the concentration camp itself.

Q: You say, witness, that your impression of concentration camps was that of a large-scale prison in camp form, is that so?

A: That was what all of us imagined under the term "concentration camp".

Q: Were you able to see in any way who the inmates of concentration camps were?

A: I knew no details about this, of course, but I had heard that both political and criminal inmates were to be found in concentration camps, and I also knew that during the war those who were considered unworthy to bear arms were also put in concentration camps.

Q: You say those who were considered unworthy to bear arms, witness, now, you are a doctor, and before this court there has been a great deal said of a legal nature by doctors. Unfortunately, a great deal of it was wrong. Now let me ask you whence you know what you seem to know and what you understand by the term "unworthy to bear arms"?

A: I have my knowledge from my training at an air war school, in an officers' training course, specifically from the study of military discipline and military disciplinary law; at that time, I learned or heard that those members of the Wehrmacht who were condemned by a court martial for criminal actions while they were in the service were sentenced to penitentiaries and, in addition, were designated as "unworthy to bear arms" and, for the duration of the war, were put in a concentration camp, and that these persons served their sentence in a penitentiary only after the conclusion of the war.

Q: Very well, witness.

And now from a document one more question on this problem of the inmates of concentration camps. A document was put in by the prosecution. It is Document Book #2 on page 132 of the German, 118 of the English. It is document 1617-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 77, a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS to Field Marshal Milch. I want to put two words out of this document to you, from the second paragraph. The Reichsfuehrer SS writes here that he takes personal responsibility for the high altitude experiments and specifically takes responsibility for using asocial individuals and criminals who deserve to die from concentration camps for these experiments.

Now, witness, did you ever heard in connection with these experiments these words "asocial individuals who deserve to die"?

A: No, and even today I don't quite know what those terms are supposed to mean.

Q: To sum up then, you knew only of political prisoners and of legally convicted criminals who were inmates of concentration camps, and also those considered unworthy to bear arms, who had also been legally convicted?

A: Yes.

Q: The question of the voluntary consent of the experimental subjects of which Dr. Rascher spoke at that time has already been discussed by you, witness, and you have told us that you believed the fact that these persons could and would volunteer. Is that not what you testified?

A: I believed that and saw no reason not to believe it.

Q: I may recall to the Tribunal at this time that the witness Neff for the Prosecution corroborated the fact that the experimental subjects were voluntary on 18 December, 1946, page 705, 711 and 712 of the German record, 614 and 696 of the English record.

That concludes our dealings with general questions, and now I come to the next charge since we have dealt with conspiracy; to wit, your participation in the high-altitude experiments. You are accused in the indictment of participation in or special responsibility for these experiments which took place from February 1942, to May 1943, in Dachau. There is no document on hand that proves that you took an active part in these experiments, nor has the prosecution asserted that so far. Your personal responsibility, as can be seen from the general indictment, is based on your position as assistant Referent or Referent in the Referat Aviation Medicine.

Now, let me ask you then, for the sake of clarity, were the questions of high-altitude research among those fields which you, as assistant Referent, dealt with independently in 1941, 1942, and 1943?

A: No.

Q: These questions were treated by whom?

A: They were dealt with by Anthony so far as the Referat had anything to do with them at all.

Q: Witness, the Prosecution has put in a large number of documents all of which I should not like to discuss in detail. First of all, 1602 PS, Exhibit 44 the famous letter of Rascher of 15 May 1941, to the Reichsfuehrer SS, which is probably the indication of the beginning of this whole lamentable event. Then there is 1582-PS, Exhibit 45, also from Document Book #2, in which Dr. Brandt tells Rascher that the inmates are available for the high-altitude experiments. These letters have nothing to do with the Medical Inspectorate, consequently I should like to ask you, to keep things in order, whether you ever learned of these letters in any way at all?

A: No, and in May 1941 I didn't even belong to the Medical Inspectorate.

Q: Now, witness, there comes a letter that seems to indicate the connection of the Medical Inspectorate with the high-altitude experiments and also seems to indicate that you had some connection with them. This is Document NO 217, Exhibit 46, which is to be found in Document Book #2 page 58 of the German, and page 55 of the English. I put this document to you because the low-pressure chamber is mentioned here and because you said that you worked on the question of low-pressure chambers in the Medical Inspectorate. Rascher writes, let me quote briefly the third paragraph:

May I also ask that you grant soon the perhaps possible permission for carrying out the experiments (high altitude low-pressure) within the camp of Dachau itself. I forgot to mention to Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Faelschlein that a movable low-pressure chamber has been provided for this purpose out of the Research fund of the Reich Aviation Ministry.

In other words, Rascher asserts that a mobile low-pressure chamber was put at his disposal for these high-altitude experiments from the research fund of the Reich Aviation Air Ministry. Now, you worked on low-pressure chamber problems in the Medical Inspectorate and so I ask you, is this statement of Rascher's correct?

A: This assertion is wrong from beginning to end. First of all, there was no research fund of the Reich Aviation Ministry which could have paid for such a chamber. If they were paid for at all, the chambers were paid for by the Medical Inspectorate. Secondly, the four low-pressure chambers that the German Luftwaffe owned had been ordered before Rascher wrote his first letter to Heinrich Himmler. The last chamber was ordered on 28 April 1941. Rascher wrote his first letter to Himmler regarding this matter three weeks later; namely, on 15 May 1941. Moreover, this whole business, including the ordering of the four low-pressure chambers, lies almost half a year before I entered the Medical Inspectorate.

Q: Now, Mr. President, in order to corroborate what the witness has just said, let me put in Becker-Freyseng Document 24 which will be Becker-Freyseng Exhibit 11, on page 93 in Document Book II. This is an affidavit by the engineer, J. O. Zeusem, of 23 January 1947. Witness, first let me ask you, who is Mr. Zeusem?

A: Mr. Zeusem is the proprietor of the only firm in Germany that manufactured such low-pressure chambers.

Q: Let me quote briefly from this document:

I delivered a total of 4 mobile low-pressure chambers with machine equipment to the Reich Aviation Ministry, Medical Inspectorate, Berlin.

The first low-pressure chamber was commissioned on 1 December 1939, and delivered on 30 January 30 1940, to the German Experimental Institution for Aviation, Berlin Adlershof. The second Low-pressure chamber was commissioned —

(I am not quoting verbatim)

— on 15 June 1940 and delivered on 15 August 1940. Third and fourth low-pressure chambers were commissioned on 28 April 1941, and delivered in January 1942.

I shall return to this document later.

Witness, we continue now with the question of your participation in the high-altitude experiments. When Dr. Romberg was in the witness stand I discussed with him his affidavit in which you seemed to be incriminated. This is Document No. 476, Prosecution Exhibit 40, to be found in Document Book 2, page 1. I need not quote this. Let me, however, remind you that Romberg expressed his assumption that you knew of these experiments. When I asked him about this on the stand, page 6873 of the record, Mr. Romberg stated this was an expression purely of conjecture on his part. Now, witness, had you seen the concluding report on the high-altitude experiments of which Romberg spoke?

A: I saw that report for the first time here in Court.

Q: And when did you first hear of these experiments?

A: I heard of them for the first time or that they did experiments when Rascher and Romberg read their paper and showed their moving picture before Field Marshal Milch, and read when they wanted to do that. I found out about that as follows:

I was called up by telephone at the Referat either by Professor Kalck or his assistant, Dr. Buehl, and asked whether the Referent knew anything of his intended film showing before Field Marshal Milch. I answered that he would have my clerk get in tough with my superior personally about this matter to find out. From then on I had nothing more to do with this matter, and it has only been here in Court that I have been able to figure our what this whole thing was about.

Let me draw your attention also to the chief of staff of the Inspectorate, who had this matter brought to his attention and did attend the film.

Q: Then Dr. Wuerfle, who testified here for Handloser on 19 February 1947, and whose testimony on page 3135 of the English record—

A: That is the testimony to which you just referred?

Q: Yes, it is. Now, witness, as you know, there is another document put in by the Prosecution to-wit, No. 224, page 116 of the English Document book 2, Exhibit 76. This is a report by Romberg, undated, regarding reports that were to take place on the 11th of October before field Marshal Milch. This is apparently the report that you were talking about before?

A: Yes, it must be that.

Q: In this document, witness, at the beginning it was said that this film was to be shown in the course of a discussion of the way this work was being developed. Tell me, witness, who organized these departmental discussions, the medical inspectorate or somebody else?

A: The Medical Inspectorate did not order them, because this is a discussion of technical developments and in the Air Ministry and in the Technical Department of it there was one section that was entitled "Developmental Section". I presume that it was this section that arranged for this discussion of development, but I don't know.

I never participated and therefore know nothing of it.

Q: But witness, you can see that the Technical Inspection had nothing to do with arranging and calling these discussions of Medical Development?

A: Yes, that I can say.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Witness, you were present at the film showing?

A: No, I was not.

Q: You don't know what was shown there in the film, do you?

A: No, I do not know that.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: We know that Dr. Wuerfle, the Chief of Staff at that time said regarding what he himself knew about this matter; I have already quoted the passage from the record that pertains to this. Now, since you were active in the competent referat, did you discuss this whole occurrence with Dr. Wuerfle at all?

A: No, never. I Believe Dr. Wuerfle said that here himself.

Q: I have to correct an error by the interpreter. You said, witness, with regard to the telephonic conversation that introduced this whole question, that the person who talked this up presumably Dr. Kalck, and said that he would speak with your superior, is that correct?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: I have just been told that the interpreter translated that you would speak with your superior?

A: No. The person with whom I was telephoning concluded the conversation by saying that settled the matter for him,

Q: And that he would get in touch with your superior and that was probably Herr Kalck. That clears that up. Now, Witness, the Document 224, a number of Medical Inspectorate doctors were mentioned who apparently were present at this film showing; Dr. Wuerfle has already been discussed by us. Dr. Wuerfle came after the showing was concluded, but according to this document Professor Kalck and Stabsarzt Bruehl, in other words, two officers of the Medical Inspectorate were present and Kalck was the consulting internist with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, as we know.

Q: Did you in this way hear from Kalck and Bruehl anything about this discussion or about the contents of that film?

A: No, throughout the War I did not speak with Bruehl at all. I did not even know him. Nor can I hardly recall any conversation with Professor Kalck either, nor can I recall anything about this matter.

Q: Were these two medical officers members of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?

A: No.

Q: What office did they belong to?

A: Kalck was the consulting internist with the Medical Inspectorate, but was not subordinate to that office, the Medical Inspectorate, that is in any rate not in the way that he was there all the time. But Kalck and Bruehl so far as I know had close connections with Field Marshall Milch and were at this discussion in that capacity.

Q: Witness, this report has been put in by the Prosecutor which is the final report of saving rescue from high altitude and signed by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher.

This is clearly a report on aviation medical problems. Was this report sent to the Medical Inspectorate in toto as Dr. Ruff has already explained here, or just what can you tell us about this?

A: On my own knowledge I can tell you nothing about it. I can only tell you what I can deduce from the documents here before me. Whether this report was sent to Hippke, the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, I do not know, nor do I now whether Anthony saw it. I know I did not see it. It was according to the documents here not distributed by the Medical Inspectorate, but Milch drew up the list of persons who was to receive it, and as Ruff has explained it was distributed by the German Institute for Medicine.

Q: Now, witness you say you did not see the report at that time, and to make this perfectly clear it was not in the files that you know of, 44 as Referent took over?

A: That is perfectly clear. I never saw it.

Q: Did you find out nothing at all about these experiments or when did you find out about them for the first time?

A: I already said I found out that some sort of experiments had been made which were to be discussed at this developmental institute. I found out about it through this telephone call from Kalck or his Assistant Bruehl. Regarding the results of these experiments I read something in a reprint from the publications of the German Academy for Air Aviation Research which was sent to us where a report of Dr. Ruff on saving from high altitudes was reprinted.

Q: About this Dr. Ruff spoke already on 29 April 1947, page 6620 of the English record.

That, if I understand you correctly, concludes what you knew before this trial or before the end of the war, regarding these high altitude experiments?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, there is a document here that establishes a connection between the Air Ministry on Aviation Medicine your Referat, and Rascher's experiments. This is Document No 264, page 73 of the English Document Book 2, Exhibit 60. It is headed "File Note for SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler". It concerns itself essentially with Dr. Weltz, but one paragraph is interesting to us. Quote:

RLM asks Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Dr. Weltz how long the experiments will last and whether it is justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long a time. RLM demands from Weltz an opinion on the experiments, which he, however, can not give unless he is fully informed about them.

Did you call him up or did somebody else call him up?

A: I did not telephone him. I can only refer to what Professor Weltz said later, namely, that he had received the call from Professor Anthony.

Q: Now, witness, another question, namely, did the question of low pressure chambers — you have heard both Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg say that the low pressure chamber, when the high altitude experiments were interrupted at Dachau, was taken away from Dachau and was not returned thither. We also knew that Rascher made many efforts to get the chamber send back to Dachau. Now, since you worked on low pressure chamber problems, let me ask you what do you know from your own knowledge as to whether or not the chamber was ever returned to Dachau?

A: I know that from the Summer of 1942 on, no other Luftwaffe mobile pressure chamber was ever sent to Dachau. That is absolutely out of the question.

Q: How do you have this absolute certainty?

A: From the summer of 1942 on, all four low pressure chamber trains that the Luftwaffe owned were in constant use, and it is quite out of the question that the chamber should have been in Dachau even for a few days.

DR. TIPP: Your Honors, let me state that the statement that the chamber was only once in Dachau was also made by the prosecution's witness Neff on 18 December 1946, page 667 of the English record.

Q: As we know from the documents, Rascher made considerable efforts to have the chamber sent back to Dachau because he wanted to qualify as a lecturer through his work in this field.

Did Rascher ever turn to you, personally, as a specialist in the employment of low pressure chambers?

A: Yes, in October 1942, at the freezing conference in Nurnberg he met me; he must have found out in some way that I was working on this low pressure chamber question and he asked me in a rather insolent manner, to have the chamber sent to Dachau for him; he said that he was going to get it anyway, because Himmler would back him up. I told Rascher that was not something I could decide, and that I would submit his wish to my departmental chief, and did so, suggesting at that same time that if such an application came from Rascher he should be turned down because, after what Rashcer told me in the course of this same conversation, I did not have the feeling that Rascher experiments were in any way necessary. Above all, I asked him who his collaborators were, and he said they were things he would do alone. I know that in the course of the winter of 1942-43, such an application must have reached the Medical Inspectorate, of which, however, I did not see the original, but at the same time — I do not now recall the exact date — I was asked to state my opinion regarding the question of mobile low pressure chamber — to say whether any such chamber was available, and I did tell my chief what I thought. At about the same time Ruff had called me up and told me he had found out that Rascher intended to ask Himmler's permission to set up his own aviation medical institute, which neither Dr. Ruff nor I considered either necessary or expedient. At this time, I reported to my departmental chief and was ordered by him to tell the Zeuzem firm, which built our low pressure chambers and delivered them to us, that if any orders came from any other sources but Luftwaffe sources, he was to turn it down at first until he had the approval of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.

The grounds for this were that we could adopt such an attitude toward this firm, because the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe was just about this firm's only customer.

Q: To prove what the witness has just said, Mr. President, let me turn to document 24, Becker-Freyseng Document No. 24, the affidavit by the engineer of the Zeuzem firm that I have put in as Exhibit No. 11. Zeuzem writes here on page 2 at the bottom:

In winter 1941/42, I can not remember the exact date, and many times afterwards, Dr. Becker-Freyseng told me that under no circumstances was I to accept orders from other departments for the delivery of low-pressure chambers unless they had been approved by the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. Dr. Becker-Freyseng especially warned me repeatedly against making deliveries to the SS, because otherwise every single Luftwaffe order to my plant for the Medical Inspectorate would be stopped.

In the event of any such order, I was to inform the Medical Inspectorate immediately and to tell the department placing the order that my plant was fully occupied with the execution of Luftwaffe orders and that we were even in arrears.

Witness, that concludes the problem of the high-altitude experiments. I may sum up your testimony as follows: neither in the planning or carrying out of these experiments for the rescue from high altitude did you in any way participate and only after they were concluded did you hear about these experiments and then only in the most general terms; is that correct?

A: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 May 1947 until 0930 hours.)