But I see clearly that my dislike of this matter was used to block this matter.
Q The East was the Russian front at that time, was it not?
A The east was the Russian front which at that time was in particular danger. May I add that I believe I was in East at that time, because when I wrote the letter to Himmler, I had just returned. This must be around the same time, so I knew nothing of the events that took place at this time, nor could I have been informed of them.
Q When were the experiments concluded so far as you know?
A In October.
Q What was the date? The Meeting was on the 27th or 28th, I believe here in Nuernberg?
A Under any event, the first half of October.
Q The first half?
A I should say the 10th of October. After being informed of the Holzloehner report, I believe that was the deadline for the experiments, the 10th of October, 1942. They must have been done by then or a few days previously.
Q In your letter of October 8, 1942 to Himmler, Document Number 289, Exhibit Number 95, you said there, "Sub-freezing experiments in another direction are in part still being made at Dachau."
A May I see that letter? I believe the first refers to
DR. BERGOLD: Which Exhibit number is that?
MR. DENNEY: Exhibit Number 95. That is at Page 33 of Your Honors' Document Book 5A.
Q You wrote the letter, did you not?
A Yes. I did write the letter. I can tell you about it immediately, if you wish.
I ask your permission to do so.
A The letter concerns the results of the high-altitude experiments. In the next to the last paragraph is the first mention of anything new. There the subject changes to sub-freezing experiments. That was the other direction that was 852 a meant here in contradistinction of the altitude experiments.
A These experiments were still going on because on the 10th of October I could not yet know that they had already been concluded. As a matter of fact, they were concluded simultaneously, more or less. At that time, I did not know that, otherwise I should have mentioned it, and I should not have had to write another letter of thanks to Himmler in February.
Q Do you recall being interrogated by Dr. Amexander of the American Prosecution Staff here in Nurnberg?
A Yes. Doctor Alexander interrogated me.
Q Do you recall that you suggested that a pathologist be assigned to the freezing experiments? Do you recall it? Just answer whether or not you recall it.
A The answer is yes.
Q Did you ask that a pathologist be assigned to altitude experiments?
A No. Only with the sub-freezing experiments.
Q You suggested freezing experiments, but not altitude experiments?
A I dispensed with the high-altitude experiments because they were not dangerous enough to make the use of a pathologist necessary.
Q They were dangerous enough when you first considered them in 1941, so you racked your soul to determine whether or not they ought to go on. Finally, you were so reluctant you thought it would be better for the soldiers of the Wehrmacht if some poor people from Dachau, who had been condemned to death could be experimented upon. You thought there might be deaths there. Why did you have a pathologist assigned to freezing experiments?
A Because I said to myself in the case of the freezing experiments, it was possible that one of the experimental subjects might die. I called upon a pathologist because Dr. Holzloebner did not consider the danger so great. He did not need a pathologist. He wanted Dr. Finke as his assistant. The pathologist from Munich, Dr. Singer, the pathologist I had chosen was therefore not called in.
Q I am sorry, Your Honor, I have lost my place here. Do you remember the admonition that you gave following the talk that you had in the Summer 1941 to Kotenhoff, and other of whom I believe one or two of them were Zueckner and Weltz, I believe, and met them in a restaurant in Munich; do you remember telling them, "Please, children go carefully,"?
A Yes. I said that at the conclusion "Children go carefully," because I was interested in seeing to it that no fatalities occurred in the experiments. We had theretofore had none, and I wanted none in the future.
Q All the experiments were not dangerous, so why was there any reason for you to be concerned whether fatalities occurred?
A In such experiments accidents can happen. You mentioned previously, shock. There are people who have a shock reaction precisely under conditions of lack of oxygen, I menion them all as fainting types, and there could be such a person in these experiments who would be then likely to die. From this, therefore, we had no fatalities, consequently it was very important to me to be as careful as possible to avoid fatalities. I also believed in my case of freezing experiments, that by very careful dosing fatalities could have been avoided.
Q So you had a pathologist assigned in the freezing experiment, but you did not have any assigned in the altitude experiment?
AAlso I did not appoint a pathologist for the freezing experiments; he was suggested to me but was not taken into the experimental group.
Do you recall your letter of 21 November -- or rather the letter from Wolf to Milch, dated 21 November 1942? We talked about that.
Yes, I remember this letter. I answered it in March.
Q That is right. Do you recall seeing in there that Wolf said to the defendant, "We are able to perform this work with special effect because the Reichsfuehrer SS assumes personal responsibility 855 a for these experiments on our Socials and Criminals deserving deaths from the concentration camps?
A On this occasion at that time it was my conviction that the strict conditions that I had laid down were being observed, because both Holzloebner and Hans Rascher had obliged themselves to do so. I had such confidence in these physicians, particularly in Holzloebner, who was an university professor at Kiel, and had a very high reputation as a serious researcher, that I relied on his word that all my strict policies were being carried out. Now to be sure when I had seen this letter here, I am greatly surprised regarding the concept of a Social and a Criminal, because of that one fact, we had found out about these terrible crimes and only then did we associate the word "concentration camp" with crimes. At that time that was not then the case, because Rascher told me explicitly that civilian criminals who were interned there were sentenced to death and only such persons would be chosen.
Q Did you ever go to a concentration camp?
A No, I never visited a concentration camp, and regarding a concentration camp in detail, there was no discussion at my office. I was mostly interested --
Q Did you know who were being sent to concentration camps? You knew that Dachau existed?
A Yes.
Q You knew that Oranienburg existed?
A Oranienburg?
Q That was an old one.
A No, I did not know Oranienburg.
Q You did not know about Oranienburg?
A No.
Q Just answer the question yes or no?
A No.
Q Did you know about Buchenwald?
A No.
856 a
Q Belsen?
A No.
Q Auschwitz?
A No.
Q The only one you knew about was Dachau?
A No. I knew besides Dachau there were other concentration camps.
Q How many others do you think there were?
A I assumed that there were at least ten. Even if only for the sake of concentrating of those who had been taken prisoners, there was a great group of those who were Jews.
Q You knew they were taking Jews, for instance?
A Where they were, I did not know. I said to myself that their number was so great that they must be assembled into camps. I didn't know who was in Dachau, whether any Jews there at all. I knew of Rascher, that there were some civilian criminals there, and I assumed that political prisoners were much more important to the Party than other criminals, so they were in prisons rather than in concentration camps, but that in these concentration camps less important prisoners would be kept.
Q On last Friday, you were asked the question by Dr. Bergold, when he was talking about your conversation with Rascher, that you had in May 1941, and you concluded a reasonably short answer thereto, saying that final decision on this question remained open at that time, "because I was against such experiments under this limitation", the limitation, of course, being the prisoners under sentence of death, "I have so much in opposition that I could not make up my mind to say yes."
And then Dr. Bergold asked you this, "Did you report to your superior officer, Ruedel, or Herr Milch, on this conversation with Rascher?" and then you said, "No, not at that time, but only a little later." Now, when was that? When was a "little later" after May 1941?
A. I reported only afterwards on the basis of a discussion with Weltz and with Kotenhoff in Munich. Only when I had come to the conclusion that such experiments with this limitation could be carried out, then the whole plan took a more reality what theretofore had only been preliminary discussions. I had said, "Yes, you can with this narrow limitation carry on these experiments." Only then did I report. In other words, it can only have been after the summer, because in the summer my trip to Munich took place and the discussion in the so-called Freysingpalais.
Q. You went to Munich in the summer of 1941 to talk with Buechner, Weltz and Kotenhoff, and then after that you reported to Milch?
A. Yes, only then did I report further to Milch.
Q. Just answer the question yes or no. Dr. Bergold a little later on Friday asked you that? I am trying to find out what you told, and will you stop giving all this voluntary information. You had a chance to say everything you wanted to about it.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I must object. The witness must have the right to answer the question with a more than just answer yes or no. He was asked whether he had reported to Milch. In Germany the cross examination is unusual. No one here is familiar with it, and no one in Germany knows that a question should be answered with a "no", and there is a one-hundred per cent certainty in itself that our witness is to give a correct answer here, and that is to be taken into consideration from a psychological point of view here. We are not in America. We are examining German witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will admonish the witness to answer the questions as simply as possible, and the Tribunal also admonishes Mr. Denney to watch his rising blood pressure.
MR. DENNEY: Mr. Denney apologizes to the Tribunal for the rising blood pressure.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q The report on the experiments which were made in Nurnberg in October 1942 was put out under your direction, was it not?
A. In the year 1943, the report was drawn up in my office. By the middle of February, it was not yet ready when I wrote to Himmler.
Q. On the printed report it states, "Published by the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and Sponsored by the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe."
A. Under my direction, on my responsibility, the report -- the meeting was held.
MR. DENNEY: This is Document NO-288, which will bear the Exhibit No. 130. Letter dated 6 November 1942, signed by Sievers. He writes, "To the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe." And it has to do with the transfer of Dr. Rascher to the Waffen-SS.
"The various experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau in connection with the 'Ahnenerbe' show that:
"1) the fact that he has to be detailed from the Luftwaffe in each instance;
"2) the fact that, in addition, the assistance of the Luftwaffe has to be requested "cause increasing difficulties.
It can really be called a regular tug of war, through which, it is true, we have so far always succeeded in carrying out the experiments ordered by the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Recent developments show, however, that this situation is unbearable, and it appears more and more that the competent offices of the Luftwaffe do not like the experiments, the importance of which is at once obvious, to be carried out by the SS. This attitude appears clearly in the letter of 10 October 1942 from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Hippke, to the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Further evidence: During the conference, 'Hardships of the Sea and Winter' of the 26 and 27 October 1942 in Nurnberg, the report was delivered mainly by the Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Holzlohner, who was absolutely opposed to human experiments, but who tried to claim for himself the credit for the SS experiments in Dachau.
"The chief of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation Research (that's the DVL), Captain Dr. Ruff, delivered the report on the high altitude experiments before the German Academy for Aviation Research on 6 November 1942 860 A 'because persons who were not members of the Academy could not report' and 'in order to make up for the poor report given at General Field Marshal Milch's.'"As has already been demonstrated, new questions continuously arise from the experiments carried out so far by Dr. Rascher, the solution of which is in the interests first of the conduct of the war, and then of the nation's health in general.
In order to carry out those experiments free from all hindering influences, it would be best to transfer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher to the Waffen-SS, to put him in the Staff Department of the Waffen-SS with the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, and to assign him to the Institute for Military Scientific Research."
Signed: Sievers; dated: Berlin, 6 November 1942.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Witness, the Tribunal understood you to say that only condemned prisoners, that is, those who were condemned to death were used in any of these experiments at Dachau, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever go to Dachau and see what subjects they were using for these experiments?
A. No, I did not do that myself because both the leaders of the experiments and Rascher, so far as I knew then, were sticking to their obligations in this regard. The situation in which I might have interfered, at the time at which I might have, was only a maximum of three weeks, because the letter to extend these experiments--the letter to Wolff--was written at the end of April, and by the middle of May, Ruff had already told me that the experiments were over. Consequently, I had only a period of roughly three weeks, but I did not go there during that time, nor did I hold it to be necessary since I thought that these experiments were not all dangerous, so there was nothing new about them.
Q. I understood you to say that these prisoners were promised to be pardoned or their lives saved if they went into these experiments voluntarily
A Yes, that was one of the basic conditions.
Q Were any of then ever pardoned?
A Yes. It was told me. How many, I don't know, but it was told me that the prisoners were pardoned and were permitted to take service on the front -- something which they wanted particularly to do. My collaborators told me that.
I, myself, was never in Dachau.
Q. Do you know the names of any prisoners who were pardoned, who went through any of these experiments?
A. No, I don't. Wolff would probably be able to tell you that. He was conducting these experiments.
Q. That is all.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Dr. Hippke, who determined which inmates in the concentration camps were death-deserving and asocial?
A. That must have been decided by the SS. The direction of these experiments lay in Himmler's hands; whom he had commissioned to choose these who volunteered, that I cannot say. I assumed that it was Rascher and the Director of the experiments who knew that.
Q. Well, then, whichever inmates were designated by Himmler as death deserving and asocial were proper subjects for these experiments?
A. No, of those decided on by Himmler, Rascher and the experimental leaders could only make a choice; namely, they could choose volunteers who were condemned to death. The choice was made by Rascher and the man in charge of the particular experiment.
Q. Well, Rascher and his associates merely picked out any men that Himmler had designated as death deserving and asked them to volunteer for these experiments?
A. They haad to ascertain whether they really met the conditions that I set. IF they did, then they could take a necessary number of these people for the experiments. They had to be in a good state of physical health. They couldn't be people who were in any way weak or who were not appropriate for these experiments. They had to be such people, otherwise there would have been no parallel with pilots. Their nature had to be like that of pilots.
Q. They had to be good specimens?
A. Normal, average, but no really sick people because then the results of those experiments would be fallacious.
Q. Is it your belief today that in all these experiments, only one possible death resulted and that one was denied by Rascher?
A. No. Now I know that there were a great number of fatalities which because of secret-private experiments on the part of the SS-- came about. There was a lot of double dealing here. On the one hand, there were perfectly ordinary and regular experiments carried out on which reports were given to me and then there was a second secret experimental group which Rascher carried on within the framework of the SS and which was strictly kept from our knowledge. This double dealing was car ried on by Rascher, who was not only of a pathological nature but also of a criminal nature. That is the explanation.
Q. Then, your eyes are open today?
A. Today, my eyes are open, yes; and I am horrified by what I found out.
THE PRESIDENT: The court is about to recess until one-thirty. Will you have another witness ready at that time?
DR. BERGOLD: I wanted to read a few documents this afternoon and then first ball my witness. However, I still have a few questions to direct to the witness here.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is recessed until onethirty this afternoon.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal Number 2 is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, the document which was last referred to, which is Document Number NO 401, the report of the conference in Nurnberg--I was under the impression that Dr. Bergold had offered that, and the only reason that we didn't have it was because it has not come down from the document room, and hence I did not offer it because there is no sense in getting it in twice. I just want to make sure that if Dr. Bergold does not plan to offer it, why then, of course, we do, but he questioned the witness about it, and I just wanted to have that on the record because we don't have it in shape to present it now.
THE PRESIDENT: It was merely referred to; it was not handed to the Court, was it?
MR. DENNEY: I did not hand it to the Court, no, Your Honor, but I thought Dr. Bergold was going to.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, may it please the Tribunal, I intend introducing it. I have completed Document Book 2, which I have already had since Monday of last week. That is, I turned it in for translation, but unfortunately it is not yet finished. I just heard that it will be ready within twenty or thirty minutes and will then be introduced.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I w,as not in any way quarreling about it. I just wanted it to appear on the record why we had not and to make it clear.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
ERIC HIPPKE -- Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, the Prosecutor today mentioned the conferences during 1941. He asked you if at the time they spoke about high altitude and freezing experiments.
I want you to clarify the fact if in 1941 freezing 865a experiments were being discussed.
A. No. In 1941 we spoke about high altitude questions only.
Q. Witness, the Prosecution also showed you this morning the letter of the defendant of 20 May 1942 and in this connection mentioned your statement concerning the conference of 31 August, during which conference Milch asked you concerning the freezing experiments and their significance. Do you remember that?
A. Yes. I do.
Q. Now, I would like to submit to you, or read to you, from the letter of the defendant Milch of 20 May 1942: "On the other hand," it says, "the execution of other experiments, the sea-distress for instance, is of importance. These are carried out by that office." Do you believe that the defendant Milch, who is not a physician, by the expression concerning sea-distress, had to know that these were chilling experiments?
A. No, it was clear that it was just a cooperation between them and the Luftwaffe, between the SS and the Luftwaffe.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait just a minute. I did not get anything from that answer. I did not get any meaning out of that answer. What was it again, please?
DR. BERGOLD: I had asked the witness, Your Honor-
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) No, it is the translation which wasn't clear to me.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Would you repeat your answer?
A. It could only be seen that a cooperation between the Luftwaffe and the SS was taking place. The sea-distress questions concerned such experiments, and cannot be seen from this fact.
Q. You were also under the impression that the word "chilling" was hoard by Milch on 31 August for the first time?
A. Yes, it was heard by him for the first time on that day because this term did not exist prior to that date.