A Either on the next day or the day after that on our joint trip to Dachau.
Q Subsequent to that time, when was the next time you talked with them?
AAfter our joint trip to Dachau, I did not see Romberg for several years. Ruff visited me once. That must have been when he returned from his visit to Dachau. He came to my house. In the meantime I had gone on the basis of that telegram. Ruff told me that he already knew that Rascher had left and he said he couldn't tell me anything more about the experiments, because they were secret.
Q Were the experiments that Ruff and Romberg were carrying out at Berlin in the same experimental series secret?
A Yes, the fact that we went to Dachau did nothing to change the fact that these experiments were secret.
Q Well, he discussed those with you, didn't he?
A Yes, that was a different sort of a secrecy. Himmler's telegram was binding only on the people to whom Himmler had given permission to speak of these things. Military secrecy in general was of such a sort that other people could be excluded from the secret. For instance, I could have called Lutz and said, "You are a part of the question and from now on you must observe that secrecy. In these developmental assignments that Ruff mentioned which included the program from Dachau the situation was generally held secret only in the first steps when it was being developed. Then after the experiments were concluded, they were declared perfectly open, or parts of them were made public, because these results had somehow to be made generally known. That is why we had the experiments. In other words, at the beginning of the experiments there was a general obligation to maintain secrecy and later it was either partially or totally lifted.
Q Now what date was it when Ruff came to see you at Munich on the occasion of your conversations you have just been telling us about?
A My last meeting with Ruff after the experiment began, you mean?
Q You said that after you went to visit Dachau, then at some subsequent period of time after you were no longer with the experiment, Ruff came to Munich and told you that he could not discuss the results of the experiment with you because you were no longer connected with the experiment. What date was that?
A Ruff has already stated that date. That was shortly after Rascher left, as far as I can see. In the first half of March, I think Ruff said it was. I myself do not know the precise date for sure. I only knew that the visit took place after Rascher left.
Q. Subsequent to that time did you ever have a talk with Ruff or see Ruff?
A. Yes, I saw him several times; for example, at the Goerlitz conference or the conference in Freiburg; but we did not speak any more about Dachau.
Q. Then nothing was ever said between you and Ruff after the conversation in Munich concerning Dachau; and of the experiments at Dachau; any of the results at Dachau; or the fact that any of the tests had resulted fatally?
A. I only found out the results of the experiments when they were made public. I never discussed with Ruff the individual experiments and, specifically, so far as deaths were concerned.
Q. Did you ever see Ruff and have conversations with him after May 1942?
A. Yes, I have said that I met him, for example, in conferences at Goerlitz and Freiburg. I met him several times.
Q. All of those conferences were after the month of May 1942?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of the witness by defense counsel?
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx for Becker-Freyseng.
EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q. Professor, I gathered from your direct examination that regarding Rascher's plans for high altitude experiments in 1941 and 1942 you spoke both with Professor Hippke and Professor Anthony, the expert for aviation medicine in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe at that time. Let me ask you now to clear up this matter whether at this time you spoke with Professor Becker-Freyseng on these experiments.
A. No, I did not.
Q. You also said that from your institute inquiry was made at the medical inspectorate regarding the final report of Rascher and Hoelzlohner on these cold experiments.
Can you remember that?
A. Yes, Lutz told me about this; and I repeated it as I heard it.
Q. Then you could draw the conclusion that you or your institute were of the opinion that this report could be found at the Medical Inspectorate? Will you please make a statement on this subject? How did it happen that you or Lutz asked for this report from the Medical Inspectorate?
A. I believe I said that before. The report that Lutz sent in, the paper that was to be permitted to be published, contained opinions that differed from Holzloehner's; and in order to bring these differences into some sort of agreement, as far as I remember, the paper was sent to Holzloehner. Holzloehner for his part said that in order to substantiate his opinion, Becker-Freyseng should take a look at the report. Becker-Freyseng looked for the report and didn't find it. Consequently we didn't know how Holzloehner substantiated his opinion. That is how I remember it.
Q. But Becker-Freyseng did not say that he had received or seen the report?
A. On the contrary, the report, as I just said, was not found.
Q. Well, even if it wasn't found, he could still have seen it before; but he told you that he hadn't received it at all?
A. No, he didn't say that to me. This involved Lutz.
Q. Now, another subject. There has been frequent mention of the Nurnberg Luftwaffe conference regarding sea and winter rescue in October of 1942. From the material put in by the prosecution, it can be seen that Professor Anthony was chairman of this conference. I should like to ask you, was this the only such conference in which you took part, or were there several such conferences?
A. There were such conferences at regular intervals. I already mentioned the Goerlitz conference. Another conference was in Hamburg. There were also conferences of this sort during peacetime.
Q. Who was chairman of these conferences as long as Anthony was the expert, that is, until May of 1944?
A. The expert was chairman, I believe. Becker-Freyseng was chairman of the Goerlitz conference.
Q. Anthony was expert until May of 1944?
A. I don't know the precise date but that could be.
Q. After Anthony left, were there other conferences; and, if so, who was in charge of them?
A. I just told you the Goerlitz conference was under BeckerFreyseng. Otherwise I do not remember any further conferences after Anthony left.
Q. Professor, at the Nurnberg conference you read a paper. I may assume that you also spoke at the other conferences. Therefore, I want to ask you, did you have to show the manuscript of your paper to the Medical Inspectorate beforehand, or did you just tell them the subject and general contents?
A. If you wanted to read a paper at such a conference, you informed the Medical Inspectorate of the subject and gave them a one or two page precis of the contents. Often even that was omitted.
Q. In other words, the manuscript itself was not submitted?
A. No.
Q. Now, a final question about the Nurnberg conference. In your direct examination you said that you had concerned yourself with freezing research in your institute. Therefore, I can assume that you knew the people in the Luftwaffe who knew about freezing experiments very well. Now, so far as you know, was Becker-Freyseng one of those doctors who had practical experience in sea rescue or who had scientific knowledge of and had worked on freezing problems?
A. No, I can say pretty definitely that Becker-Freyseng did not have anything to do with freezing. His field lay elsewhere.
Q. Did Becker-Freyseng take part in the discussion at the Nurnberg conference, or did you happen to have talks of a scientific nature about the freezing problem with him?
A. That I cannot say for sure. It could be that in connection with some of our experiments with pigs we talked about matters that were related to this; but I really can't say for sure.
Q. You mean only animal experiments here?
A. Experiments on pigs.
Q. I refer you to Document 934 of the prosecution, Exhibit 458. This is a list of research assignments for 1944. You undoubtedly remember it?
A. I know that this list was submitted.
Q. It was put in during the direct examination of Professor Schroeder. Now, from this document it can be seen that you received a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate. Will you please say how it happened that you received this assignment, although you were the head of an institute belonging to the Luftwaffe and Professor Schroeder has said here on the witness stand that such research assignments were given only to civilian institutes as a general rule?
A. May I ask you what this research assignment was?
Q. Unfortunately I don't have the document available. Did you receive several research assignments?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Can you not remember a research assignment of the year 1944?
A. The last research assignment that we received had a sort of peculiar origin. Because of bureaucratic difficulties we had no funds available. We couldn't settle things in cash; and we simply had to send bills. They were later paid, months later, by the Luftgau. Consequently, it was an unpleasant fact that we couldn't buy anything, not even a pencil or an eraser, but could only buy it on account. For this reason I had a research assignment given to me. This meant that we received some ready cash; and I chose as the subject for this research assignment any old subject that we were working on anyway.
Q. I am just told, Professor, that it was a research assignment regarding the gastro-intestinal channel under pressure.
A. Yes, that was a formal research assignment. Before I founded the institute, there were research assignments that were of some significance. Then at the beginning of my civilian institute, before the war, this research assignment was of some importance; but later, during the war, it had none. It became of no importance when the Institute for Air Medicine was founded; that is to say, it had no further scientific importance. It did have a financial importance.
Q. When you were given this assignment, did you receive any instructions regarding how you were to carry on your research?
A. No, and in general that was not possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 7 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again session.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
Dr. Marx does not seem to be present. He had not completed his examination.
DR. WILLE (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz): Mr. President, my colleague Dr. Marx asked me to tell you that he has no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Weltz, where were you at the end of the war?
AAt the end of the war I was in Iking, 25 kilometers south of Munich.
Q Were you taken prisoner by the Allied Forces at the end of the war?
A No, I remained in my small country house until on the 20th of July 1945, I was requested at my city home to report to the CIC in Munich in Mauerkirchstrasse. Up to that time I was free.
Q When was the first time that you were placed under arrest and incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp or civilian internment camp by American authorities?
A I was only arrested once, that is, I was asked to report on the 21st of July in Mauerkirchstrasse in Munich, the CIC. From there, I was sent to the prison at Freising for some time, then I was a prisoner in the hospital in Freising--I had become sick. Then on the 26th of September 1945, I believe it was, I went to the Moosburg Camp. I stayed in Moosburg until the 6th of December 1945. The 6th of December 1945, I was transferred to Dachau.
Q What was the reason why you were placed under arrest at that time in July 1945?
A I never learned that.
Q Were you in the automatic arrest category because of your rank?
A I was taken away from Freising in automatic arrest to Moosburg.
Q Now, you had an institute in Munich. When did you first take charge of this institute in Munich?
A You mean now the Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Luftwaffe?
Q Yes.
A This institute was assigned to me when it was founded. It was founded on paper in the fall of 1941.
Q How long did you remain at the institute after it was founded, until the end of the war?
A Until the end of the war, yes.
Q Did the institute ever receive any bombings?
A Yes.
Q Was it severely damaged as a result to the bombings?
A I have already said that in 1943-44 I moved the institute one section at a time. One department went to Freising, one went to the State Farm Hirshau near Freising. Nothing happened to these barracks, but the original two barracks which remained in Munich, and the laboratory that remained there, were completely burned out in 1944. They were wooden barracks and nothing remained of them.
Q Well, now, when you moved your institute because of the bombings were you able to salvage your equipment, your files and furniture, and the necessary things, so that you could continue your work?
A To Freising and to the State Farm at Hirschau, we moved almost all the scientific equipment which we neede, but the laboratory and the official files which did not refer to our research remained in the safe in Munich. We couldn't move the safe and besides, the laboratory was still working there. I have already said that the files of the Institute for Aviation Medicine and the files of the laboratory were taken care of together by Stabsarzt Wendt, and Stabsarzt Wendt remained in Munich.
All the files which referred to transfers, assignments, secret records, they were burned in Munich in 1944. All the new records were kept at Freising. Our scientific records, the library, special publications, and so on, we had taken with us. That was partly at Hirschau and partly at Freising.
Q Now, do you recall being interrogated in June, that is the 6th day of June 1945, that is before the time you were arrested--you were still a free man--by Major Alexander of the U.S. Army Medical Corps?
A That was not an interrogation, at least I didn't realize that it was an interrogation. Professor Alexander came to us as a scientist who was interested in our work. He asked us about our work. We had previously been visited by some aviation medical commissions and we showed Professor Alexander what he was interested in. It was no interrogation. Professor Alexander did not represent himself as an investigator but he presented himself as a Doctor who was interested in our scientific work, and we discussed with him the future of the institute. I could not see that this was any legal examination or any such thing.
Q Well, now, Dr. Alexander, that is the same Professor Alexander who appeared here as an expert witness, was interested in chatting with you, or interrogating you, concerning your work, or any work, on shock from exposure to cold on human beings. Did you inform him about your knowledge of experimental on animals?
A. Yes, I showed him our files.
Q. Did you inform him about the work of the German Navy and the German Air-sea rescue service in France?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you inform him about your knowledge of work on human beings?
A. No. Professor Alexander wanted to know about our work, and we had not performed any tests on human beings, and the tests on animals and pigs, I have described, and I showed Professor Alexander all these records.
Q. Did Professor Alexander ask you whether any work on human beings was being done, either by yourself or any one else whom you knew? Didn't he ask you that in June 1945?
A. Professor Alexander asked me how I knew that our methods had pproved of value in regard to human beings, and the only thing I failed to tell Professor Alexander at that time was my attendance at the Nurnberg Conference, and what I knew about the Nurnberg Conference.
Q. Of course, you knew that Dr. Alexander was at that time working on what was called CIOS-Target, No. 24, Medical Investigation Team for the Combine of Intelligence Subjective Subcommittee G-2, Division of Shaef, and he wrote an extensive report as the result of his work, and this report I have a copy of here, which was written in the year of 1945, which was a considerable long time ago, that is, before he came here, and, that is before this trial, before the time you were indicted; he stated in that report on page 12 in reference to one Dr. Weltz, wherein I might add he gives you considerable credit, that you were asked whether you had ever done any work on human beings, and he had asked, and I quote what he said about you, "He" referring to Weltz, "who was then asked whether any work on human beings was done either by himself or by any one else with whom he knew, and he was again quite positive in denying the question." Now, what was your reason for not informing Dr. Alexander about your knowledge of work by Rascher?
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, may I object. I hear that Professor Alexander is here in the building, and he can appear as a witness. Since the Tribunal follows the principle that the best and shortest means of evidence is always to be applied, I ask the Tribunal that Professor Alexander be called to the stand personally, instead of reading a document.
MR. HARDY: That is not necessary, Your Honor. I am not calling Dr. Alexander to testify. I am merely asking this witness on the stand what he said in answer to questions two years ago. I am merely just searching the witness for information about how he felt about these matters two years ago, and if the witness denies what he said it may necessitate calling Dr. Alexander on the stand. I am introducing this report, which was an exhibit before the International Military Tribunal, and I can If I wish, request the Tribunal to take judicial notice thereof. I deem it unnecessary, I am merely probing the witness, and I am not relying on Dr. Alexander's testimony whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution may ask the witness if if Dr. Alexander on the time and place mentioned propounded certain questions to the witness, and the witness has answered the same. If the record is preserved, the question propounded by that question can be taken from that record and propounded to the witness. With that understanding the objection over-ruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Weltz, what was your reason for not informing the officials of the United States Army in this matter about all the activities at Dachau concerning experimentation on human beings, wherein you were fully aware of the activities, inasmuch as you had known the results of Professor Holzloehner's work at Nurnberg Conference. Was it because you thought you might be involved in some criminal activity, or, was it because you did not want to give the enemy further information?
A. I already said that Professor Alexander never in any way was recognizable as or presented himself to me, or to my associates, as an official investigator, and particularly not as an investigator of the American judicial or intelligence Service. He came as a scientist who was interested.
Q. I imagine the scientist was extremely interested in knowing whether or not the work as result of your research, and the research of Lepchinsky of the 1800, had been performed on human beings; not from a legal aspect, but from an scientific aspect. You had far more reasons to inform Dr. Alexander about that work on the human beings, didn't you?
A. I already said that I gave Professor Alexander all the files completely we had preserved except what were burned in Munich, which were not of interest to Dr. Alexander. I had reason not to tell anything unless I was asked directly for the following reasons: At that time there started a wave of arrests, which no one could then grasp. I remember a number of my acquaintances had been arrested, and we did not know for what reasons they were arrested, and we did not know where the people were being sent. Therefore, in order not to bring anyone in the danger of arrest I said no more than the things for which I was responsible. I gave Professor Alexander all the information about things for which I was responsible to do. I did add nothing, for reasons of comradeship. I did not consider I had any right to give any additional information, and put other people in danger of arrest, because we could not see how that information would be used.
Q. Then you were attempting to cover up Dr. Rascher?
A. I knew very little about Rascher's activity.
Q. You knew all about his activity. You were at the October meeting in 1942?
A. Yes, it became quite clear here how much I knew about Rascher. I know that he performed the experiments in Dachau together with Holzloeh ner.
I did not know that any deaths had occurred. I did not know to what extent these experiments were legal. I knew very little about them. Particularly of course, since my knowledge was so indefinite, I had no reason to talk about other institutes, and because it happened outside of my own institute, which was something about which I had no exact information to give.
Q. Doctor, this examination is going to take considerable length of time. During the remainder of the examination I want you to cooperate, and I want you to try to be consistent. You have introduced a document here this morning wherein you have attempted to show this Tribunal how important was this work on Shock From Exposure to Cold to the United States Navy and Armies in the Asiatic Area, which was written in the Readers Digest; and here you state now inconsistently that you yourself were violently opposed to volunteering any information on the experimental work conducted on human beings, and that the answer was available for the United States Medical services by virtue of your knowledge at the conference in October. Now, Doctor, we shall try to proceed from here and do so in a better manner than you have for the last half hour.
A. May I correct what you just said. Two expert commissions had visited us before that time, Aviation Medical experts, and I gave these two commissions all our studies published and what had not been published as yet. We showed these gentlemen all our films; we made all our files available to them, and also we gave them our separate prints. I drew up a report in five copies on the work which was being carried on, and made suggestions how to keep the institute going, and how our experience can be turned over to the hands of the American Armies. We made detailed suggestions.
Q. Did you also tell those investigating teams that experiments on human beings had been conducted at Dachau?
A. I said......
Q. That can be answered, yes or no, Doctor? Did you or did you not?
A. I told them about the work of my institute, and not of other institutes.
Q. That is what I understood. When did you join the NSDAP, Doctor?
A. I said, that was 1937.
Q. 1937. You were also a member of the National Socialist Physicians' Association?
A. Yes.
Q. You were a member of the National Socialistic Lecturers Association?
A. Yes.
Q. Now when did you come into the Luftwaffe? You say in your affidavit in August 1939. Now, what was the first rank you held in the Luftwaffe?
A. I was Stabsarzt. That is the same thing as a captain.
Q. And then when were you promoted to major?
A. I believe around the first half of 1940. I don't remember exactly.
Q. Did you rise any higher?
A. At the end of the war I was Oberfeldarzt. That is equivalent to lieutenant colonel.
Q. That was the last rank you held in the Luftwaffe?
A. That was the highest rank, yes.
Q. When your institute was first formed, in 1940, was it ----
A. 1941.
Q. In 1941, what was the name of our institute at that time?
A. The institute was always called "Institute for Aviation Medicine, "Munich."
Q. What was Luftgau Number 7?
A. The Luftgau 7 was the regional organization of the Luftwaffe. All Germany was divided into a number of Luftgaus, and Luftgau No. 7 was the one in the area around Munich.
Q. And were you under the jurisdiction of Luftgau No 7?
A. For economic and disciplinary purposes, I was under Luftgau 7. As head of the Institute, in scientific respects, I was under the Medical Inspectorate of Aviation Medicine, directly.
Q. That would be Anthony's office?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, in Luftgau No. 7, did they have a medical department?
A. Yes. They had a medical officer there. He was the Luftgau physician.
Q. Did they ever consult with you about any matters of research or things of that nature, between the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 and your Institute?
A. No. In scientific things we had nothing to do with the Luftgau, except in the rare cases when the Luftgau called upon us, for example, in the training course which Rascher writes of. In such cases we were called upon to help in the projects of the Luftgau, but the Luftgau had no influence on our research work. The research assignments, as I have already said, were in part according to directives which I received from the Medical Inspectorate, and sometimes I received definite assignments from the Medical Inspectorate.
Q. Well, now, did the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 have consultants or specialists on their staff; say, for instance, did the medical department of Luftgau No. 7 have internists, and things of that nature?
A. I would assume so, yes. All the doctors who worked at the Luftgau, had a certain field that they were in charge of.
Q. Suppose you wanted something done; suppose you were forming research, for a moment, and you wanted some particular work done for you in the course of your research which you could not do yourself because of the fact that you did not have a specialist in your organization to do it for you. Then who would you have referred to? Would you have referred to Luftgau No. 7 and asked them for an expert or asked them to take care of this particular situation that you wanted cleared up?
A. I can not imagine a case such as you are asking You assume that the Luftgau gives me a research assignment?
Q. No, no, what I am trying to get at is this: Do you recall one of our documents concerning freezing, wherein Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke and Dr. Singer were recommended to carry out---it is Document No 283, on Page 12. It is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, where he states that he has asked for permission--that is, Hippke has asked for permission--to carry out the cold water experiments in Dachau and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments. He says, one, Professor Dr. Jarisch, two, Professor Dr. Holzloehner, and then as well as the Luftgau pathologist, Dr. Singer of the Schwabing-Hospital. Well, now, what I am getting at is first, we must establish the position of Professor Dr. Singer. As you and I both know, he refused to do any work of that sort as soon as he discovered what it was, and how did the name of Professor Dr. Singer happen to be mentioned in this letter? Was he a consulting pathologist to your institute, or was he just a pathologist on the staff of the Schwabing-Hospital, or how did this occasion arise that Professor Singer was mentioned?
A. I'll answer your first question first. Professor Singer in his civilian position was a pathologist at Schwabing-Hospital. During the war he continued with this work, and at the same time he was a pathologist in Luftgau 7.
Q. In Luftgau 7?
A. In Luftgau 7. I personally had nothing whatever to do with Singer. My institute was quite independent in scientific respects. If I had ever had any pathological and anatomical work to do, which was not the case, then I could have gone to Singer and could have asked Singer, on the basis of his capacity as consulting pathologist, to help me in this work.
Q. Well, then actually Doctor, if you needed the services of Professor Dr. Singer, then you theoretically would go through the channel of Luftgau No. 7 and ask for his services as the pathologist in Luftgau No. 7; is that correct? He is a member of the Luftwaffe, so to speak. He is a part of your organization, the overall organization, and if you needed the services of a pathologist, then you would go to Singer; is that right? It would be because of the fact that he was in Luftgau No. 7, not a private physician in Schwabing-Hospital?
A. I personally could go to any pathologist who seemed suited, and in practice, in cases where I went to a pathologist at all, when I was interested in findings, for example, liver findings--what does the liver look like in people who have drowned in the cold, in such cases in practice I always went to Buechner because Buechner had specific experience in the field of cold, but theoretically I could have gone to Singer, too, or I could have gone to the Vienna pathologist, if I thought that he was especially qualified. I was quite unrestricted in that respect, but the routine pathological work went to Singer. Let's take an example. A man has been asphixiated from gasoline fumes at an airfield. The case is not clear. There is an autopsy. This autopsy would automatically have come under Singer, or in Luftgau 7 an airplane had made an emergency landing and there had been injuries. That would have been Singers work. That had nothing to do with my institute. I was directly under the Aviation Ministry scientifically, and in practice it did not happen that I ever called upon Singer for assistance.
Q. Well now, what kind of a man was Dr. Singer? He apparently was a substantial character, wasn't he?
A. May I ask what you mean exactly, in what respect?
Q. Well, it is apparent here from the evidence before as in this Tribunal that Dr. Singer had the opportunity to assist and to collaborate with Rascher and Holzloehner and Finke at Dachau, and apparently he refused to collaborate when he heard of the nature of the experiments, and being a pathologist, he must have known very well that deaths would occur or they wouldn't need his services, so consequently he would have no part of it. Now, I would like to now just want type of man Dr. Singer was. Was he a credible person? Was he a good physician, a good pathologist? Was he considered by yourself to be of good reputation, and so forth?
A. Yes, respecting his scientific capacity and his character, I never heard anything bad. In peacetime one of my internes, as you can see from my list of publications, wrote something on the heart and asthma bronchitis at Singer's institute. I never heard anything bad about Singer's character, and he had a good reputation as a scientist.
Q. Did you ever hear of a Stabarzt Onken, O-N-K-E-N, the adjutant of the medical department of Lufgau 7? Did you over hear of that name?
A. I do not remember him personally. I do remember the name, though, but I can't remember today in what connection I heard it.
Q. Well, now, being the adjutant of the medical department of Luftgau No. 7, he would have some sort of jurisdiction, perhaps disciplinary, over your institute, would he not?