Naturally, among my farther friends some had disappeared. Up until the end of the war I never had occasion to speak to a person who had come back directly from a concentration camp.
Q. Now I come back to your agreement at Adlershof which was the point of departure of everything that followed. You did not reach any final agreement at Adlershof that Hippke wanted to obtain Hitler's permission; was this done? You mentioned this before but please answer it definitely, the question whether a definite agreement was reached there.
A. No, no definite agreement was reached at Adlershof and Ruff already described that in detail. I made the suggestion to him and he wanted to consider it. During our second talk with Romberg and Rascher at Munich he told me that Hippke had given permission. I think that was already said here.
Q. Was this discussion which you mentioned at your institute the same one which the witness Lutz speaks of here?
A. It can only be that conversation because only one such conversation took place in my institute.
Q. The prosecutor has brought out in this discussion something which he says is rather unusual and which Lutz has confirmed, that at the beginning of the discussion you asked him to leave the room and he thinks that is unusual. Please comment on that?
A. The situation at the beginning was the following: I had to acquaint Ruff and Romberg with Rascher and that was the primary purpose of the conversation. Ruff and Romberg had come early and Rascher was not there. Since Ruff and Romberg knew the gentlemen of my institute to a greater or smaller extent, I called Wendt and Lutz into my room to give them an opportunity to converse up to Rascher's arrival. We conversed. There was a lot of professional talk and we waited until Rascher arrived. When Rascher finally came, I told my men that I was going to start the conference and I think it is a question of tact as to how clearly I would have to indicate that to anyone. Lutz had nothing to do in that conference.
I really didn't need the suggestions of my pupil Lutz. I was enough of an expert myself. Ruff and Romberg were also not in need of Lutz's opinions. The experiments were secret in the sense that they were described here by Ruff and Romberg. They were secret because they constitute an assignment from which the technical development of the airplane was recognizable. In other words, it could be recognized from the assignment that we were developing a high altitude airplane. If we had needed Lutz, however, this would have been a reason against his presence. Lutz would then have come under this order of secrecy, but on the other hand it is natural that whoever is not participating in the work would not have been asked to attend any such conference. If Lutz has stated here that he found it peculiar that he had to leave the room, then on the other hand I am of the opinion that this was natural. I may perhaps clarify this difference of the conception of these people if I speak about a small experience which I had during my recent imprisonment at Dachau. Lutz had been at Dachau shortly before me as a prisoner. When I arrived, he had already left. It then became known in Dachau that I had engaged in aviation medicine during the war and the camp physician there asked me in a surprised manner whether I had worked at that large institute under the famous Dr. Lutz. Dr. Schneider was very surprised when I told him that I was the chief of that institute and when I told him that the institute wasn't a large institute but in reality rather small I quite believe that Lutz was disappointed at not being able to participate in that conference. I must state, however, that his presence was not necessary.
Q But of course, if one was suspicious, one could get the idea that you attempted artificially to keep Lutz away from this conference and to conceal the subject of the discussion from him.
A That the subject of the assignment was secret, was not initiated by me, but that was an order. If I had personally wanted to keep anything secret from Lutz and Wendt, it would have been extremely bad tactics on my part, to have that conference in the institute, and furthermore to ask just these two gentlemen into my room, so that everyone would notice that Ruff and Romberg are there now, and than Rascher also joins them, etc. In this way, they really learned there was a conference If I had wanted to keep the fact of the conference itself secret, we could have met just as well in Ruff's hotel or in my private apartment or anywhere else and in that case no one in the institute would have known such a conference had taken place. I think one can see from that that I had not the slightest reason to keep the fact of the conference secret at all.
Q Now, about the conversation proper, on that occasion, was your common trip to Dachau agreed upon?
A Yes, this was arranged. Ruff, as well as Dr. Romberg, have already testified about the contents of that conference. They testified that Rascher displayed the letter, that is the letter by Himmler, they testified that the conditions were exactly detailed in that letter, professional criminals who volunteered, rewards, etc. The program was already determined, it needed no further discussion, all we had to do was to explain it to Rascher. And on the other hand, we had arranged with Rascher that we would go to Dachau together and Rascher on his part arranged that trip via the Munich Reichsleitung SS.
Q How often were you in Dachau altogether?
A I have been in Dachau once, I have already discussed that trip.
Q What happened?
A Ruff and Romberg have spoken about that also in detail. At first we went to the camp commander, we discussed the conditions with the camp commander and I may perhaps suppliment the testimony of Ruff and Romberg to the effect that Schnitzler brought an order by Himmler to the camp commander, saying what kind of experimental subjects were to be used, in other words the contents of the letter Rascher had shown to us.
I want to emphasize that, because, that way we were certain that the camp commander would have to comply with this order by Himmler therefore, we were not at all dependant on the "yes" or "no" of the camp commander, we regarded it as a matter of errors that the camp commander had with an order by Himmler. It was a matter of course that we assumed that he would in effect comply with this strict and clear order.
Q Then, why did you personally go to Dachau, would it not have been sufficient, if Ruff and Romberg had gone alone, to settle the technical details?
A This trip merely took place in order to discuss the technical preparations with the camp commander, to inform ourselves about technical details, about the current, about the entrance of the camp, the low chamber transport, etc. From that point of view, my presence would not have been necessary, because Ruff and Romberg, who knew all about that chamber, could have done that themselves. I went along because I attached value to being present during that conference with the camp commander and because I wanted to use the opportunity of obtaining some impression of a concentration camp, since I knew so little about them.
Q Did you have an opportunity to talk to prisoners there?
A No, that was forbidden.
Q And your general impression?
A My general impression was roughly the same as Ruff's and we discussed it later. The impression was absolutely favorable, we saw a tidy clean camp, the barracks were not overcrowded, only two beds were located above one another and sometimes there was only one level of beds. The hospital was already described in detail by Ruff. It was against all expectations a clean hospital, well equipped with all medical apparatus, patients were actually there with relatively slight illnesses, so that we had to assume that not only people in their death throngs were actually brought to the hospital, but people were there who were treated because of little things such as bronchitis or similar matters.
The fever charts were kept in a proper manner and we as medical men were naturally in a position to decide very quickly how well these medical matters were handled. I must say that I was surprised about the good impression I had of the hospital.
Q And what happened the; when did the low pressure chamber come?
A I cannot recall the date exactly, I think the low pressure chamber arrived at the beginning of February, although I cannot recall the exact date. Ruff already described that, he said that the chamber had been handed over to me. In other words, the keys and the documents of the chamber were given to me. The drivers arrived that night from Berlin and the next day the SS drivers came along to fetch the chamber. I don't believe I can add anything new to that question.
Q Now, Professor, the question which you have to answer in considerable detail; how was the responsibility distributed between yourself and Ruff at the time?
A I believe that I already said something about that. There was a clear arrangement existing between Ruff and myself that this was to be a joint undertaking, it was clear that Ruff exercised supervision over Romberg and I exercised supervision over Rascher.
Q In several preliminary interrogations, you pointed out that it was your duty to supervise Rascher; will you please tell the Tribunal what you did to fulfill this obligation?
Q My obligation to supervise Rascher was very clear. I was his disciplinary superior and I was naturally responsible for the scientific program to which I assigned him. The course of things was that Rascher, after my conversation at the institute with Ruff and Romberg and after our trip together to Dachau, did no show up again and I did not see him. Rascher was only detailed to me on paper, in fact, he was still active at Schongau in his old office and since I really did not need him, I did not urge him to come.
When, however, the arrangements had been made with Ruff and Romberg and when it was reported to me that Rascher was in Munich without reporting at my institute, I had a letter written to him by Wendt, written in a strictly official tone, telling him to report at my place twice a week and I designated two days, Tuesday and Friday. As a result of this letter, Rascher came to me and I asked him what the matter was and why he didn't show up. This first conversation took place approximately in the middle of February, 1942 and Rascher told me that the experiments had not even started yet at Dachau and that therefore he had nothing to report to me. He said he was still at Schongau; I told him that there was no change and that he had to report to me twice a week. On the second occasion, Berlin had telephoned me, it was in the meantime Anthony asking what the situation was as to Rascher, he said that Rascher wanted to be detailed to Dachau and asked, how the Dachau experiments were progressing I told Anthony that I could tell him nothing about the matter because nothing had been reported to me. When Rascher came the second time. I told him that this telephone call came through from Berlin and that I wanted to have some clarification how things stood and with Dachau. He did not want to report anything to me even at the second conversation. I told him on the occasion of that second talk that I was going to Berlin and I wanted a clear decision whether or not he would report to me. I told him that I would discuss this point with Hippke, these conversations took place once every half week, because I told him to report to me every Tuesday and Friday. On the occasion of the third talk, I expected a sharp argument and I therefore asked Wendt to come into the room. Before that, I confronted Rascher with the alternative either to report to me or he would have to leave the institute, But this third talk was very brief, Rascher showed me a telegram from Himmler, this telegram read: "Experiments are to be kept secret from everyone."
I said that this made the situation very clear. I told him he could no longer stay at my institute. Rascher said goodbye. I composed a letter together with Wendt, signed that letter and Wendt sent that letter the same day to the Air Gau. I wanted Rascher relieved, and that relief came back within a few days as was customary. We received the report that Rascher's assignment had ended. Rascher automatically thereby came back to his old agency, which was the Anti Aircraft Artillery School No. 4 at Schongau, that is the Air Gau Medical Department No. 7.
Q Would it not have been to your advantage, Professor, to go to Dachau yourself, when Rascher did not report to you on the first and second occasion? You might have been able to get information from the trip -- on the spot?
A I could not go to Dachau without having first received an express permission for that. I could only receive that permission through Rascher.
Q Professor, the Tribunal would like to have the dates set as accurately as possible; can you tell me when Rascher was relieved. You gave the time in general, but perhaps you can make it more exact?
A I can reconstruct that approximately on the basis of the documents. The telegram which Rascher showed me, must have been the reply telegram to the teletype which was mentioned by Frau Nini Rascher in her letter. May I, perhaps, indicate the number -- this is document No. 263 PS, Prosecution Exhibit 47.
Q I will come to that afterwards. Now, another question to determine this date. You are certain then that Rascher was relieved in February or at the beginning of March?
A Whether this happened in February, I cannot say, but at the latest, it must have happened during the first days of March. It is, however, evident from the further correspondence; that on the 16th of March, Rascher had already been detailed to another agency.
Q Then, did you inform the Medical Inspectorate that Rascher had left?
AAfter Rascher had shown me the telegram, I went to Berlin and wanted to speak to Hippke; Hippke was on an official trip. I telephoned Antony. He told me that Hippke was not there. Since I knew Antony rather well, we arranged to have supper together. Antony came to my hotel and we discussed the entire matter together. I reported to Antony that Rascher was no longer at my agency. I told him about the matter with the telegram and I also told him about something I had recently learned, namely, that Rascher had brought his father into the concentration camp. Antony reserved his decision. He said, I must get Rascher to Dachau in some other way. At any rate, Antony did not tell me definitely what he intended to do and how he was going to do it.
Q Please describe to the Tribunal the further developments, for example, with Rascher leaving your Aviation Medical Institute in Munich, did your contact with him seize then?
A Rascher's assignment finished with that, because of his relief, every connection with my institute had ended. Rascher no longer contacted us personally. And, my only subsequent connections with him was the fact that I saw him occasionally in Munich, which was really unavoidable. I saw him during the Nurnberg Congress. These were accidental meetings. We behaved correctly toward one another; we greeted, but there was no conversation.
Q After he left you, you did not talk to him any more about the visit to Dachau?
A No, Rascher did not even report to me, when I asked him to do that officially. Still more, he did not tell me anything, when I was no longer his superior, and when I had no right at all to know anything about it.
Q Did you not have other reasons to remove Rascher from your office. It was apparently a personality who was not very popular.
A Rascher was not unpopular, because he was not there. If Lutz says here, he did not like him from the very beginning, I can not judge that; but, this did not become externally obvious because Rascher did not stay with us at all; and, then, Wendt says he hardly knew him, and my own attitude toward him I have already defined.
At the end of February 1942, that was the time, I found out that Rascher had brought his father into the concentration camp; from that moment on, I rejected his personality very firmly. This, of course, had no influence in our official relationship. This relationship was very clean and later on forcibly interrupted when Rascher showed me that telegram.
Q Professor, please tell us, as accurately as you can, when you learned that Rascher sent his father to a concentration camp?
A That was at the end of February or the first of March.
Q After the talk at Adlershof?
AAfter the conversation at Adlershof, of course. If I had known that already at Adlershof, I would have thought carefully, whether I was going to offer Rascher the cooperation of Ruff.
Q Now, one question. Would it not have been right for you to report these facts to Hippke, that Rascher had sent his father to a concentration camp, in order to eliminate Rascher completely?
A I told Antony. Antony, at that time, was of the opinion that one could do little with that officially. Certainly, there were a number of people at that time who were ready to conceive of that attitude on Rascher's part as a Spartian kind of heroism. I, on my part, did not know what the closer connections were; I did not know for instance, whether Rascher's father had provoked him in any unusual manner. I had no information about all that. Anyway, this information was not suitable to be used officially.
Q Do you believe that with the elimination of Rascher, and your information given to Antony and Ruff, your responsibilities were finished in every respect.
A There is no doubt about the fact that with the elimination of Rascher every responsibility had ceased for me. I had no possibility of influencing Rascher any further.
I could not issue any orders to him, and I did not know what he was doings he did not report to me. And, it was quite clear that my official responsibility of him had stopped.
Q Now, in private, at least, your statement agrees with some documents which the Prosecution has submitted. I should like to ask you, however, to clear up a few contradictions. I shall have these documents handed to you so that you will be able to comment on them. There is first of all the letter from Dr. Rascher, signed by Frau Nini Rascher, of 24 February 1942.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, this letter is in the Prosecution document book 2 on page 36 in the English text.
(Continuing question.) This is document No. 263 of the Prosecution, Exhibit 47. This is, in fact a file note of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler of the 28th of March 1942. This document is also in document book 2 of the Prosecution, page 73 of the English; this is document NO. 264, Prosecution Exhibit 60.
The third letter in tho same book is signed by Wolff, the head of the Personnel Staff. It is addressed to Hippke. This is Document NO-318, Exhibit 57, Document Book 2 of the prosecution, page 70 of the English text. Now, will you please look at tho first document, the letter of Mrs. Nini Rascher and will you please explain it?
A Mrs. Rascher writes in tho second paragraph, and I quote, "On the 24th of June, the Reichsfuehrer SS authorized the experiments, at that time for Dr. Rascher, Dr. Kottenhoff, and Dr. Weltz. Dr. Kottenhoff was appointed Air Gau Physician for Rumania in August and thereby was excluded from the group." End of quote. Here, at first, I have to correct that Kottenhoff was not appointed Air Gau Physician for Rumania in August, but as, he says himself on the 1st of November, 1941. That Himmler authorized tho experiment I already stated and I also stated that Rascher got this authorization without first informing us. He neither informed Kottenhoff nor myself. No only found out about that subsequently. Frau Rascher goes on to say that nothing was done up to the time to support Kottenhoff. That is correct and I already stated that. Frau Rascher goes on to say that Dr. Weltz was to start the technical execution of the experiments. This is rather a quick remark, because I certainly wasn't the one to carry out technical preparations, but, rather, Rascher would have to do the work and I was only to supervise it. She goes on to say, "Since Weltz feared interference by General Oberstabsarzt Hippke" end of quote, and she goes on again, "As he was afraid of obstacles on the part of the Air Force Medical Inspector, Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Hippke, who described experiments of this kind as amoral, Weltz continued postponing the beginning of tho experiments, although he was thoroughly acquainted with their importance."
I already said that I feared no obstacles on the part of Dr. Hippke, but I was in complete agreement with him. We wanted to carry out important experiments but wanted not to tolerate unimportant experiments as they were suggested by Rascher. I told that to Rascher at that time and I said that Hippke would certainly not approve of his experiments. Therefore, the description as Frau Rascher was giving it must be incorrect. She goes on to say, "In December of 1941 he - that is Weltz - asked the Board of Directors of the Air Force Research Institute Berlin-Adlershof, if the bosses there, Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg could undertake the experiments with Dr. Rascher. Both of them immediately accepted, delivered the lowpressure chamber and came here." That again is obviously a false statement. Frau Rascher is trying to make it appear as if the experiments which I discussed with Ruff and Romberg were the same as the experiments which Rascher had suggested to me before. In reality these were two different kinds of experiments. What Rascher suggested to me at first was an ascent with a particularly slow speed; by a slow ascent lasting for hours the compatibility of the persons for high altitude was to be tested. It has been explained in detail what the Ruff program was. It was to the contrary an experimental arrangement where especially quick changes of pressure took place. It was entirely different from what Rascher had suggested to me. One couldn't at all confuse those two series of experiments and Rascher must have been very clear in his mind about that. On the other hand, Rascher was in a dilemna. In his letter dated the 15th of May he had written to Himmler that urgent experiments were to be carried out and asked him at that time for professional criminals. Rascher or Mrs. Rascher can not suddenly say that the experiments which were considered at that time to be so urgent, are no longer urgent today, but on the other hand we wanted to carry out quite a different experimental program, namely the program of Ruff and Romberg.
Frau Rascher moved by her dilemma is confusing these two series of experiments, although they really can not be confused at all.
Frau Rascher goes on to say, and I quote, "It was clearly determined that the experiments were only to be authorized in collaboration with Dr. Rascher."End of quote. The permission to work at Dachau, naturally, depended upon the person of Rascher. We never considered carrying out the experiments without Rascher, because that would have been impossible. None of us had access to Dachau. Neither Ruff nor Romberg, nor I, if Rascher didn't care to agree. If Mrs. Rascher
JUDGE SEBRING: On several occasions you have reiterated that the possibility of carrying out experiments at Dachau depended entirely upon Dr. Rascher. Isn't that the effect of what you have said from time to time?
WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGn SEBRING: What do you mean by that? I don't quite understand. In what way was it solely dependent upon Rascher, and apparently if it was solely dependent upon Rascher, from what you say you knew that from the outset. Will you please explain what you mean by that?
WITNESS: Rascher could refuse us ingress to Dachau at any time. We could only enter Dachau if Rascher had obtained permission before hand, as it was done in the case of our journey to Dachau, or, if, as it was the case with Romberg, Romberg received a permanent pass. Rascher, however, felt himself to be so powerful that, as Romberg has already said yesterday, he could threaten Romberg with having this permanent pass made invalid for the period of time he was in the camp.
This would have meant that Romberg couldn't have gotten out of the concentration camp. On the other hand, we could never prevent Rascher from going to Dachau. When I was Rascher's superior, I also didn't have the possibility to prohibit Rascher's going to Dachau apart from his hours of official duty. But if Rascher had told me that "during my free time, I'm going to Dachau," I certainly couldn't have prevented his doing so.
JUDGE SEBRING: When did you first learn that he had this tremendous authority to gain ingress and egress into Dachau that you did not have? Did you know that at the time that you originally talked about this proposition and the collaboration with Ruff? Did you know then that Rascher was such a powerful individual so far as Dachau was concerned?
WITNESS: That Rascher exercised a great influence on Himmler we certainly knew, because he had received the authority to carry out the experiments. What the real connections were only became clear to us or, at least, became clear to me, when I went to Dachau for the first and only time. I thought that the whole thing was much easier and entailed much less red tape. At any rate, I thought that there was a much closer collaboration between the various branches of the Armed Forces and I didn't think that the concentration camp and what was connected with it would be such an isolated complex into which one could only penetrate when you had received permission which was bureaucratically controlled. I didn't know that before my visit to Dachau.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, then you and Ruff collaborated in the high altitude experiments.
Rascher was your subordinate. Romberg was Ruff's subordinate. Yet, after Rascher had gone to Dachau you, his superior, could not go there, and in Dachau, Ruff, who was Romberg's superior, could not go there and Romberg, who was Ruff's subordinate, could stay there only at the will of Rascher? Is that what you mean to say?
WITNESS: I could assume after the camp commander had received the order from Himmler that we were to carry out those experiments and certainly I couldn't assume that Himmler would suddenly recall the permission that was given me originally. Himmler's telegram constituted the opposite to what he had said before, for Rascher says that in a letter by Himmler of the 24th of July he had received permission to carry out those experiments together with Kottenhoff.
This certainly had bean arranged with the camp commander, and this entire situation had been overthrown by this telegram of Himmler which came as a complete surprise to me. It was clear to me that I could not get into Dachau as a visitor, but I could expect, on the basis of Himmler's order, that whenever the experiments would necessitate it I could go to Dachau at any time.
Perhaps I may continue to discuss the letter.
Frau Rascher goes on to say:
"Weltz gave the assurance that he would take care of the corresponding authorization of Dr. Rascher. He was only able, however, to obtain one assignment, which would enable Rascher to carry out the preparatory work at Dachau, and stated in reply to a question on the subject by Dr. Rascher, 'The authorization can be extended at any time.'" I don't know what Frau Rascher means by these assignment difficuites.
Rascher was always talking about these assignment difficulties in detail but such difficulties didn't really exist. I would have given him the order to work at Dachau to report to me at regular intervals and from that point of view this assignment was perfectly in order because, as far as I am concerned the assignment was unlimited power. Whether Mrs. Rascher here means that he only had to report to me twice a week, and she thought this meant interruption in his assignment, I don't know; but at any rate, me thinks from this entire statement that she tries to make it appear that I wanted to push out Rascher... and I really think an intrigue is going on here with the intention of eliminating me. He presents the master to Himmler in such a way that I wanted to eliminate him. In reality, however, it was his intention to push me out of the way, and he actually succeeded in doing that through that telegram.
And now I come back to the telegram. I find it here on page 2 of the letter:
"As a result thereof Rascher conferred with Obersturm-fuehrer Schnitzler on the 19th (Teletype to Reich Administration SS)." I think that the telegram that was shown to me was the reply to the teletype which is mentioned in the letter. Frau Rascher goes on to write:
"Experiments of Romberg-Rascher began at Dachau, a clear pronouncement by both, that Weltz was not needed any more, Romberg was also surprised that Rascher was now to be chucked overboard in spite of his firm agreements. Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler has for the time being stopped the continuation of the experiments without Rascher until the decision of the Reichsfuehrer has been obtained." End of quote.
I never learned anything about the stoppage of the experiments. Rascher didn't tell me that. These experiments were stopped behind my back. The fact that they were stopped I only learned here from the document. "Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler", Frau Rascher goes on to write, "has been asked by Rascher to obtain an immediate authorization either from the Chief of Staff LJN 14, or Staff Medical Officer Dr. Schmidt, likewise LJN 14."
I may point out in this connection that the very same Mrs Rascher who wrote at the beginning of the letter, that Rippke was rejecting the experiments and considering them to be immoral, writes here that she is turning to LJN 14-- which is again Hippke's agency, trying to get immediate authorization from Hippke. Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler no doubt telephoned Berlin, and this was the occasion that antony on his part telephoned me, as I described it before.
At the end of the letter, at the end - Rascher says that he wanted to participate under all conditions as a member of the "Ahnenerbe". And obtain an immediate assignment from Rippke. Belonging to this document is File Note Schnitzler, Document No. 284, Exhibit 73. This bears the date of 28th of April 1942. I am sure that this date is wrong.
I think it should, be 28 February 1942. I think that this is so for two reasons: At first Mrs. Rascher writes here in the third paragraph:
"The assignment of Dr. Rascher must immediately be changed to 'Assignment to aviation Test Institute Berlin - Adlershof, Aussenstelle Dachau' (Branch Office Dachau) - not Institute Weltz, because Weltz, as he stated, intends to cancel the assignment immediately, if he is not to participate in it."
Rascher on the 16th of March 1942 had been detailed to the Branch Office Dachau. This can be seen from Document No. 318, Prosecution Exhibit No 47. In this letter it reads very clearly that Rascher, from the 16th of March to the 16th of April had been detailed to the Branch Office Dachau. Whether this a Branch Office Dachau ever existed, I don't want to discuss.... I don't think it did existed in reality. But no doubt it becomes apparent from this letter that on the 13th of March Rascher was no longer at my office. Therefore, Frau Rascher cannot possibly ask, on the 28th of April, that a change should be made which has already taken place one month earlier. This is the first reason why I believe this date should read the 28th of Fe-bruary. The second reason is that in this letter mention is made that I was going to Berlin and was to speak to Hippke. I went to Berlin, naturally, immediately after Rascher had given me the telegram. And I certainly didn't wait for two months. In addition, from this file note, Document No. 264, the following remark has to be made: "Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz still insists in taking part in these experiments and be fully responsible for them. If not, the assignment of Dr. Rascher to the Institute Weltz must be changed." This refers quite clearly to the second talk between Rascher and myself during which I threatened him to have him removed from my Institute if he didn't report to me.
And the next sentence; "Weitz personally does not care about the experiments," "Not" is underlined. From that sentence it can be seen that I didn't want to participate in these experiments myself but that I only wanted to exercise supervision over Rascher. I am saying that because is accusing me of having pushed myself prompted by scientific ambition, that I wanted to remove him. The very same Mrs. Rascher who made this assertion says here, using her own words, that I was not personally interested in these experiments. The next thing refers to the conversation with Antony about which I already told. If I may shortly point to the last paragraph:
"Dr. Weltz confidentially informed Dr. Rascher that there is great mistrust against him in the RLM because of the experiments; -SS membership- there is also animosity in the Air Gau command Munich for this reason."
I think that this sentence refers to my having told Rascher on various occasions that he should not always mention Himmler. If something didn't run as quickly or as smoothly as Rascher wanted it to run he always mentioned Himmler, he always said, "I have to report that to Himmler". I replied to that that he would hardly make friends either with the medical inspectorate or with the Air Gau if he continuously referred to Himmler in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock to-morrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours 7 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 7 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WILLE (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz):
Q. May I remind you, witness, that you are still under oath. Yesterday, we finished when I asked you about the three documents. Any I now ask you to tell me what you maintain as a result of those three documents?
A. Those are NO 263, NO 264 and NO 316. Those documents without doubt belong together and deal with the some matters. The letter of Mrs. Rascher, Document 263, is a rather confusing mixture of half-true and untrue statements, so that at first it was not easy -- even for me -- to recognize the real purpose of this letter. I do believe, however, that I can now say that the assertion that I wanted to depose Rascher and the other, the assertion that there were difficulties with the assignment, that those two statements are not correct and were merely made for a certain purpose.