A. The Luftgau physician did, not the adjutant.
Q. Well, that office would; the medical department would.
A. I just remember, Oken was adjutant of the Luftgau physician of Luftgau 7 fur sometime.
Q. Well, now, who would be the superior of the medical department of Luftgau 7? Who did they in turn report their activities to?
A. All the Luftgaus were under the Medical Inspectorate.
A. Than that would go directly to Hippke or to Schroeder?
A. The Luftgaus and the Luftgau physicians were under the Medical Inspectorate. As to what section that went, that depended on the subject matter.
A. Well, now, would Becker-Freyseng, to your knowledge of these activities, have had any interest in same of the reports and work of the medical department of the Luftgau, or would he be merely interested in the work of organizations such as yours?
A. To what extent collaboration between BeckerFreyseng's department and the Luftgau physicians was carried out, I don't know; I can't say anything about this organization.
Q Now, Doctor, what was your fooling toward the Fuehrer? Were you an ardent Nazi?
A I have attempted to explain that. I will be glad to do so in more detail. In 1933 when the Revolution came and the National Socialism came to power, I was quite remote from any political activity and quite outside of any party. On the other hand, it was quite clear to most Germans at that time that it was a decisive struggle to decide which of the two armed parties would get control of Germany. In 1932, in Germany, we had three armed parties and these three armed parties all had their own party army, or their own party guard, and they fought each other. With power that surprised no, the National Socialists seized power. I was quite foreign to the ideas of the Party at that time. Because of the serious unemployment and the depression from 1930 to 1933, the party with an energy which again surprised me brought about an economic improvement which impressed very much not only me, but no doubt most people. I had the opportunity at the Olympic Games in 1936 to speak to quite a number of foreigners and there were quite a few people among then who were quite impressed by these economic improvements. I do not expect that a party fulfill all my personal ideas 100% in its program -
Q Well, Dr. Weltz, I don't think it is necessary for us to go into all this background; what I want to know is were you in favor of the Fuehrer or were you perhaps, or were you like Wolfram Sievers, a member of the Resistance Movement?
A No, I was not a member of a resistance Movement and as far as my relations with the Fuehrer arc concerned, I can only toll you that it changed a number of times according to my knowledge of things and persons.
Q When did this attitude take place, in 1938, '39, '40, '41, '42, '43, '44, or '45, just when?
A The year was 1939; for the first time I realized that the big line of policy which Hitler had promised had been wrecked. That was when the war broke out. Of course, then came successful campaigns, which I was glad to see as a German. Then very seen I realized that in spite of these successes the war was lost for Germany, because I know very well the American Air Force Construction program. I know a great many figures of them and I did not understand then, from the year 1941 on, that this danger was not clearly seen and that the people were so optimistic. Before Stalingrad, I realized that the whole campaign in the East was a failure. Perhaps I may mention something that helps my memory. Before Stalingrad, when we occupied Stalingrad, but when the offensive had not started yet, I bet Mr. Lutz a bottle of cognac, that we would have to leave Russia, while Lutz thought we could keep all Russia up to the Ural. I just happened to remember that. Now, as the war became more and more senseless, from 1941 on at the latest, my attitude toward the party became more hostile and in the last years it was definitely antagonistic. Now, for a man in my position without special connections, without special information, it was rather difficult to do anything, not only because things were dangerous - we experienced all kinds of dangerous things during the war - but the primary difficulty was that one should have a sensible goal. I tried to - please don't think this is a claim that I belonged to a Resistance Movement; I just want to tell you about it - I had a small group of officers who believed as I did; I gathered them around me. We discussed the situation in a way that was different from other officers of the hospital.
It was clear that the war was lost and all the talk of new weapons were nonsense and bluff, but none of us succeeded in setting up a sensible program which might have had any prospects of realization. They were extremely difficult things, because everyone realized that any Putsch at all would just mean the collapse of the war and above all that of the Eastern front and what that would mean we saw clearly. We thought about it a great deal, of course. We didn't like to see cities like Munich and Nurnberg suffering from one air raid after another, being slowly destroyed.
Q Before you get into the later phase of the war, in 1938 when Germany started to invade countries, they invaded Austria and various other countries, from then on, what was your feeling then about the Fuehrer? Were you still willing to follow him when ho was invading Austria?
A We in Southern Bavaria experienced the invasion of Austria rather closely and the impression which we had then from all the Austrians coming over was not the impression that of a poor country being attacked. Before that I had been in Austria myself and as a neutral observer, I had an opportunity to meet people in Vienna. There was no doubt whatever that in Austria at that time there were a great many people in favor of the Anschluss. If there is an opinion to the contrary today, that is a distortion of history, undoubtedly.
Q Then, didn't you see that when the Fuehrer was taking these forward stops that war was inevitable?
A We hoped that through the Munich Conference, this danger of war would be eliminated and I was very happy about the agreement which was reached there.
Q You were of the opinion, were you not, at that time that Adolf Hitler was the greatest man in the world for peace, weren't you?
AAt that time I considered Adolf Hitler an important politician who had the aim of the United States of Europe and was taking up against a tradition which had failed with Napoleon. We realized that the split of Europe into many small countries in relation to the large spaces of America and Russia was an intolerable situation and that we had to create a unified Europe in order to exist, and that was Hitler's aim, and that was an aim which I approved of.
Q Now, Doctor, in 1941, we see the first evidence of experimentation on human beings, that is, the first thought about it, here before this Tribunal, by virtue of the Rascher Document 1602-PS, which is now in Document Book No. 2, that is a substitute for the one that is in the document book, Your Honor, which is dated the 15th of May, 1941. Now, you, in the course of your direct examination, have discussed the feasibility of Rascher's proposition here and I would like to know what was the first time that plans or thoughts or any scheme for experiments on human beings for high altitude research upon concentration camp inmates was brought home to you?
A I believe, I said that in my direct examination as well as I can. Before the discussion with Hippke.
Q Just a moment. The discussion with Hippke was when? When was that?
A On one of the longest days of the year. I remember, that I drove Hippke home in my car and it must have been one of the longest days of the year since it was still light when we went home.
Q That would have been in June or July?
A I assume that it was the end of June, and Kottenhoff shortly beforehand had spoken to me for the first time about Rascher's plans and when Kottenhoff and Hippke were talking I already know that Rascher had approached Kottenhoff, and had made these suggestions to him. It was nothing now to me when Kottenhoff told Hippke about it. Kottenhoff had told me beforehand.
Q It must have become known to you about the same time as Rascher's communication with the Reich Fuehrung, that is the 15th of May, 1941, is that the correct seeumption?
A No, what Kottenhoff told me was considerably later. That was shortly before the talk with Hippke.
Q Now, actually when this knowledge of the intention to use concentration camp inmates was brought home to you, that was perhaps the first of June 1941, not in May 1941, but in June, before the meeting with Hippke, is that right?
A I can't give you any more exact information about it than I already have. It was shortly before the talk with Hippke that Kottenhof told me about it for the first time, but I certainly did not hear of it after. I assume that this was May when Rascher was taking this course. I knew nothing about it.
Q Well, now where did Rascher take this course?
A When?
Q Where, where?
A The course was in the building of the Luftgau Command in Prinzregentenstrasse.
Q Was that near your institute?
A No, my institute was in the west, in Pettenkoterstrasse, in the University quarter, and the Luftgau building is somewhere else.
Q Who was giving this course? Was Kottenhof the instructor?
A No.
Q What were Kottenhof's duties?
A Kottenhof's permanent function was an expert for therapy welfare with Luftgau Physician No. 7, I believe. Who gave this course Luftgau 7 was responsible for it. Who actually gave the course, - I don't know. In any case Luftgau 7 organized the course and had a number of lectures for this course, and set up a program for the lectures. I remember for example Buchner, Kottenhof and myself lectured there. I believe that Singer did too, and some neurologist, whatever lecturers were available to this Luftgau and the neighboring Luftgaus, they were asked to assist at this course, and it was rather an extensive program.
Q Well, then Kottenhof had no connection with your institution?
A Not at this time, not officially.
Q Well, when did Kottenhof first have connection with your institute?
A With my institute for aviation medicine, Kottenhof never had any official connection.
Q You have introduced a lot of documents here about the knowledge of Kottenhof concerning these matters, and you mean to say Kottenhof had no connection whatever with the institute?
A Kottenhof was at my civilian department at the University in 1938 before the war.
Q Was he ever in your Luftwaffe Institute, did he ever come there and pay you a visit?
A No.
Q He never did?
A He was not a member of it, but of course he did visit me once in awhile. He had no official relation with it.
Q Well, then Kottenhof was the first one to inform you about the intentions to use concentration camp inmates, was he?
A Yes.
Q He got his knowledge from Rascher?
A Yes.
Q Then when Rascher referred to his confidential talk with a representative of the Luftgau physicians, do you assume he was referring to Kottenhof, in this Document 1602 PS?
A I assume so for two reasons, first of all Kottenhof told me about it afterwards. That he had talked to Rascher. And secondly, it seems to me the letter indicates this, the remark about monkey experiments. I have already said that Kottenhof, as a visitor at my civilian section, had performed those experiments on monkeys and he had reported the results of these tests at this course at Luftgau 7.
Q Well, now, let's go on. How did Hippke happen to come into the picture? What was this conference in June 1941 wherein the occasion arose for a discussion concerning experiments on inmates of a concentration camp; first of all where was the meeting?
A It was in the Preysing Palais in Munich. It was not a conference, but as I said before, Hippke happened to be, for reasons I do not know, a visitor to Luftgau 7 and expressed the wish to see a few of us in the evening.
We were all in civilian clothes. We were perhaps 13, including the Luftgau physician and these 13 gentlemen gathered in the Preysing Palais, and we dined with Hippke.
Q You were there?
A Yes.
Q Hippke was there?
A Yes.
Q Kottenhof was there?
A Yes.
Q Was Rascher there?
A No, he was not.
Q Was anyone else there whom we have mentioned here in this trial?
A Nobody. Of the people mentioned here in this trial I do not remember anybody I don't believe.
Q Was Lutz there?
A No.
Q Was Wendt there?
A No.
Q Now, will you kindly tell us how the discussion happened to arise concerning experiments on human beings in the concentration camps? Who brought up that subject?
A I believe I reported this already. Early in the evening, Kottenhof was sitting at the top of the table, and I sat on Hippke's left. Kottenhof joined us and sat between Hippke and myself, and brought up this subject to Hippke. He asked him what he thought about all this and Kottenhof told Hippke that Rascher had approached him with these plans to experiment on criminals and this idea he reported to Hippke and asked him his opinion.
Q Well, now at this time what did Hippke say, can you remember as nearly as possible just what Hippke said about it; what was his reaction to it?
A At first Hippke was rather reserved. He didn't say very much. Kottenhof thereupon gave a few reasons, as I have said before. He said for instance this matter would be also to the advantage of the criminals and Hippke saw the point there -- he also described that they said this and that. Hippke didn't say no, but he also emphasized that experiments by doctors on themselves must be the basis. However, the conversation was very unsatisfactory, and reached no conclusion, and as I said before the definition seemed a very unfortunate one. We talked past each one and at cross-purposes, and therefore I thought I should show by a practical example what I thought would be permissible and what would not be permissible.
Q Now, did Hippke ask you, inasmuch as you had an institute and were an expert in this field, did Hippke ask you "Professor Weltz, is it necessary to resort to concentration camps in order to conduct these experiments?"
A No, he didn't ask me that. The purpose of the conversation was the fact that Rascher had approached Kottenhof, had made this offer and the question of whether the offer should be approved or not was the topic of the conversation, and I said before no concrete experiment was being discussed at that point, that they should begin next month, and that they should be high altitude experiments. It was a theoretical conversation whether such things were permissible and under what conditions they would be permissible. That was the basis of such a conversation.
Q From what you say it would have been possible for you and Kottenhof and Hippke to have nipped in the bud any experiments on human beings in Dachau at this meeting in May 1941, wouldn't it have?
A Now today as I know the facts I am not inclined to think so, because the reason why experiments were carried out was the fact that Rascher had approached Himmler and Himmler had given permission.
Q What was Rascher' s rank in June 1941?
A He was Oberarzt or Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, I am not sure.
Q What kind of a uniform did he wear, the Luftwaffe or SS?
A When he came to see me he wore a Luftwaffe uniform.
Q Who was chief medical officer of the Luftwaffe?
A That was Hippke at the time.
Q Doesn't the chief medical officer of the Luftwaffe have authority to transfer any member of the medical services of the Luftwaffe subordinate in rank to him to another place?
A Yes, he had that authority.
Q Well, now, did you discuss at this meeting of June 1941 whether or not volunteers should be used?
A Yes, as I said before that was the basis of the whole conversation.
Q I see, and then you discussed the volunteers and then you discussed the necessity for the experiments, I presume?
A Yes, and also all the points which Rascher kept bringing up as to professional criminals, volunteers. These points were reported to Hippke by Kottenhof, just as Rascher had told him himself, because these conditions were being discussed.
Q Didn't it seem a little ridiculous to Hippke who was a rather well-educated man to have to resort to concentration camp inmates? After all, all you were going to use volunteers, you could perhaps get volunteers in Munich, when the low pressure chamber would be used in another place, rather than get men in the concentration camps and use men who were not well-fed and not up to standard, and you would have to bring them up to standard to use them? Didn't Hippke have something to say along those lines?
AAll I can say about that, Kottenhof asked Hippke to define his attitude about Rascher's offer. It wasn't that we were short of volunteers in the Luftwaffe. Rascher had made the offer to Kottenhof, and Hippke was, at Kottenhof's request, to define his attitude toward that offer. That was why we had our talk that evening.
Q Did you define your attitude at the same time; you certainly must have given your attitude?
A Yes, I certainly did. I did not interfere in the conversation at first, but when the definition seemed to be a little vague I expressed my attitude on the basis of the Goldberger de Kruif examples.
Q Then you were in favor of instituting this experimentation on the human beings in the Dachau concentration camp after the qualifications you have outlined, namely volunteers and habitual criminals, and a pardon to be granted; that is, if those qualifications were to be carried out you were in favor of it, were you, at this time?
AAs far as I was concerned I never had the desire to make any experiments and the whole question would not have come up to me if I had not been faced with the necessity to define my attitude about the whole problem. The whole problem as to whether or not there would have been experiments in Dachau would not have arisen as far as I am concerned, if I had not been pushed into the whole thing by the fact that Rascher headed my institute, and I therefore had to define my attitude.
Q What was your feeling when you went away from the meeting in June 1941, was it your feeling or Kottenhof's feeling, that Hippke would be agreeable to experimentation on human beings at Dachau?
A I think I said this in detail, Hippke pointed out that the basis for research in the Luftwaffe must be experiment on ones self, except of course for certain experimental purposes when conditions which we could regard as impeccable, if those conditions prevailed then he could give his approval in those exceptional cases for those experiments to take place.
Q Well, now, we will leave the meeting of June 1941 and go on. When did the occasion arise for action on your part to lay the groundwork for the experiments to be conducted at Dachau?
A I believe I described all this.
Q Describe it again. I am going to give you the opportunity. When or what date did Rascher approach you or you approach Rascher and did you meet with Hippke or did you meet with Himmler or whom did you meet to decide you would carry out experiments at Dachau that necessitated you inviting Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg to collaborate with Rascher and yourself, now when did this take place?
A In the course of the summer Rascher himself came to me and proposed to me, as I have described, to try out this slow ascent. I also described how this proposition seemed to me not debatable. I turned it down for the reason which I said before, it was net necessary. Kottenhof did not like the offer very much, for different reasons.
Q Now, why did Rascher come to you, he was not a member of your institute then?
A No, he was not a member of my institute, and I can only assume, as I said before, I assume, and I can say it with certainly, because Rascher said so himself later on, at that time Rascher intended to qualify as a lecturer. And the only place where aviation medicine was dealt with in the Luftgau, and had any connection with the University was myself. There was no other agency there where Rascher could find connections with aviation medicine on the one hand and a university on the other. The testing station and I myself was the only agency and I think that must have been the reason why Rascher came to me.
Q Now, did you have a low pressure chamber right in your own institute which was in the building, in the courtyard, in the building of Physiology of the University of Munich; didn't you have a low pressure chamber there?
A Yes, we had a low pressure chamber of our own.
Q Is that perhaps the reason Rascher came to you, because you had a low pressure chamber?
A I am not quite clear on that point. Rascher didn't tell me this, and I cannot even today quite imagine whether Rascher knew we had a mobile low pressure chamber, or whether he thought the Dachau people would come to us in Munich.
I don't know what idea he had at that time.
Q Will you kindly repeat slowly in German the official name of your institute?
A Institute for Aviation Medicine, Munich.
Q Well, now, Document 1602 PS; will you kindly turn to that document. That is the new version, the complete translation. In 1602 PS on page 1, Rascher refers to an institute, the name is in German. Due to my incapacity in the German language I am unable to pronounce the words. I will request the interpreter to repeat, in 1602 PS, it is about seven or eight lines up from the bottom in quotations, the name of the German institute; will you kindly read that to Dr. Weltz.
(Interpreter reads: Bodenstandige Poufstelle fur Hohen forschung der Luftwaffe.)
Q Now is that your organization?
AAt that time, on 15 May the institute for aviation medicine had not come into existence. It was founded in the autumn. At that time I was the head of the Testing Station four, which I described in detail.
Q This testing station here, that is referred to here, that is your organization?
A That is quite obvious Rascher means here, I have no doubt...
Q I am not concerned here with an explanation. I am not asking his organization, I am asking you was that the name of your organization; Lutz said it was, now do you say it is?
AAt that time I was the head of the Testing Station four, for high altitude effects.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have asked the witness three times whether or not this is the name of his organization. It only requires a yes or no answer, and I request the Tribunal to instruct the witness to answer my question.
A. I am about to say in this case that Rascher chose the title wrongly. My institute was called something else.
Q Then this does not refer to your institute?
A No, I wanted to say that although Rascher used the incorrect title, but that I myself have no doubt he means my institute.
Q Then he means your institute?
A Yes, there is no doubt at all.
Q Well, then here on 15 May 1941 why is Rascher referring to your institute when he himself has not as yet contacted you concerning this problem, according to your testimony?
A I know nothing about that, because I was not in contact with Rascher at that time. The letter became known to me only here, and I can only assume that Rascher imagined it like this and Himmler had to give him permission first, and then he assumed that we all of us would say as soon as he had Himmler's permission. One thing is certain I could not talk to him at the time because I would not have been in a position to give him permission. That would have been up to the Medical Inspector and I therefore did not give him permission.
Q You had a low pressure chamber early in 1941, as a matter of fact you may have had it earlier?
A Yes, since 1938, I believe.
Q And that low pressure chamber was burned down in 1944 in your institute?
A Yes.
Q As a matter of fact the metal pots are still there, the pots that didn't burn?
A I think so. I assume that.
Q Now, when you moved your institute to your new location did you then build another low pressure chamber?
A Yes.
Q When did you begin work on this low pressure chamber?
A In 1944, but that chamber was never completed, and was never used.
Q However, from 1938 until 1944 you always had a low pressure chamber available?
A For all practical purposes, there was only the Munich low pressure chamber which was used, and it was used since 1938, I believe, up to the point when it was burned.
Q. I see, and you have stated here a moment ago that you could have got plenty of volunteers through the Luftwaffe, didn't you, that is, that wasn't the question. You stated in the meeting of June 1941 wherein Kottenhoff told Hippke about Rascher's proposal, namely Rascher could get subjects and permission from Himmler to work in Dachau, you stated that the purpose of your discussion there was to merely extend to is proposal of Rascher's to Hippke for his consideration, and, they you stated, that of course the Luftwaffe could have gotten plenty of volunteers had they wanted to. Now do you wish to correct that statement or are gone of the same conviction, that you could have got plenty of volunteers without resorting to the proposal of Rascher?
A. I believe in my direct examination I spoke quite clearly about this. Of course, the extent of the task is very important whether I have enough volunteers or not, how many volunteers there were in the Luftwaffe, I already indicated, I gave a few names and in our case, in my immediate sphere, especially as we were concentrating on animal experiments on the whole, there was never any wish expressed to use inmates as experimental persons. Our program never lead us to this wish.
Q. Kindly answer my question. You have gone astray again. Could you have got, if you had wanted to, for any experiments in low pressure or whatever it may be, ten to fifteen volunteers without resorting to inmates of concentration camps?
A. That depended on the task, what the people were expected to do.
Q. The people were expected to go through these harmless high altitude experiments, now could you get ten or fifteen?
A. It depended entirely on what I wanted the people to do and how much time they had and how much I was justified to demand of their time. Surely, it is obvious that sometimes I could get students and sometimes I couldn't. In my sphere in any case, within my program there was no necessity to fall back on prisoners because we did not have a program which would make that necessary. Now is Ruff's case it was quite different......
Q. Just a moment Doctor; you have stated now when I asked you concerning the meeting in the summer of 1941, why this discussion arose, and Hippke was there, about these matters, and you have volunteered the information to us that it wasn't necessary to discuss it because we could have gotten all the volunteers we wanted to, but this was merely a manner in which Kottenhoff wanted to present this proposal to Hippke for consideration. Now you made the statement: We can get all the volunteers we want to. Could you get ten or fifteen volunteers if you, Dr. Weltz, had decided you would like to experiment in high altitude research on human beings, could you yourself have obtained these many volunteers you spoke about?
A. Probably not, I didn't try - but
Q. Then why did you say you could in defense to that other question here some hour ago?
A. I said the question would not have arisen as to experimental persons if Rascher had not brought up that subject and forced us to define our attitude toward that problem. That is what I said.
Q. Well then you had a low pressure chamber available in your institute in 1941, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And volunteers could have been made available, could they?
A. It depends upon what for and to what extent.
Q. Well I am asking you specifically: Do you think at that time you could have got a volunteer to volunteer, a volunteer to volunteer for high altitude experiments as outlined by Ruff and Romberg and Rascher at the concentration camp Dachau?
A. Without any difficulty.
Q. Then you could have got ten or 15 volunteers without any difficulty?
A. That is more difficult.
Q. Well, let's don't get involved, why in the world did you then enter into a conference with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher to go to Dachau and make all of these arrangements and spend all of this valuable time during war time when you could do other research, when all you had to do was to go oat and get ten or fifteen volunteers and say now Ruff here is the low pressure chamber and ten or fifteen volunteers, go to it? It was just as simple as that, wasn't it?
A. First of all I should correct here that the experiments could not have been made with our low pressure chamber because our model was a different one.
Q. It could have been made with your low pressure chamber couldn't it?
A. The experiments made by Ruff and Romberg could never have been made with my low pressure chamber.
Q. Couldn't you have made ten or fifteen subjects available to Ruff and Romberg to be used in their pressure chamber, bearing in mind, if course, that the low pressure chamber stopped in your institute overnight you could have merely held it there and said to them now here are ten or fifteen subjects, you make your experiments right here.
It would have avoided all this confusion, wouldn't it, and you could have seen what went on in these experiments, because you wouldn't have had to have a pass to get into a concentration camp, isn't that true?
A. No, this is not true, because first of all our low pressure chamber was unsuitable for these experiments, because it did not have sufficient capacity. Secondly, if I had had the experimental subjects in Munich, Ruff in Berlin would not have had any advantage of that, and thirdly, the situation as far as I was concerned was this; That I had to define my attitude to Rascher, and moreover Rascher had orders from Himmler, in which he was ordered to come to my institute to carry out the experiments.
Q. Just a moment now, Rascher wasn't in the SS, was he? Rascher was in the Luftwaffe. Let's straighten that out now. In 1941 at the time of these activities and this planning of the experiments at Dachau, Rascher was not in the SS, am I correct? Please correct me, doctor, if I am wrong.
A. At that time Rascher was in the SS and was also a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q. He was on active duty in the Luftwaffe, wasn't he? Don't we have a lot of correspondence here wherein they are bickering back and forth about Rascher?
A. He was an SS officer and in the Luftwaffe.
Q. In the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes in the Luftwaffe.
Q. I have to study the documents. This is news to me. Now in December 1941, you proceeded to Berlin to see Ruff?