Milch then asked me what sort of experiments these were; I answered high altitude experiments, and freezing experiments. He then asked me what the term freezing meant. I was prepared for that question as it was a new term which even among medical men was not used frequently. I explained to him this term. That it is connected with cooling, which is suffered by pilots who have bailed out in the sea, if and when the temperature of water is 810a very low, and the bodies would quickly go rigid and this would be followed quickly by death; and, therefore, a quick rescue was a very urgent matter, to be done at once; and treatment on the part of the doctor required emergency and special measures, because the pilots who were rescued, often died; that the old methods of life saving were inadequate; the wrapping up in blankets and other methods of keeping them warm, it was therefore necessary to work on this problem in order to find out how pilots who were rescued could be kept alive.
That was the subject of the present experiments of cooling and freezing with the SS.
I added also, that the work done here did not meat my sympathy but were important matters and seemed to me highly necessary. He wanted to know if I had any special reason to be opposed to collaboration of the SS; whether I had any objections. I replied to him "No" but because this work was not explained to me and because of the collaboration of two different government departments, resulting in confusion in the execution of orders, it was undesirable and secondly the SS did not seem to me competent or expert, because the question of cooling were matters of the Navy and Luftwaffe and the question of high altitude was purely a matter of the Luftwaffe. Therefore, I did not give them back the high pressure chamber which the requested; he told me that he agreed to that. The chamber should not be given back to them. I believe it was mentioned that it was then already used somewhere else. It was brought to the territory in the area of GROSSGLOCKNER. Then, I referred again to the contents of those reports and explained that it concerned experiments by our avaiation doctors and also by the SS; experiments by the SS on men who had been sentenced to death----murders---men who had volunteered and who were promised a pardon,(pause) who were promised to be pardoned from the Execution.
We then discussed the results of the experiments briefly, that they had been concluded, that is, altitudes up to 20 kilometers. And that a number of other important technical questions had been settled at the 811a same time.
I believe to remember that I mentioned automatic openings of parachutes on that occasion.
Then the form of letter was decided on because, my draft was very extensive; since I wished to explain to Himmler why further experiments need not be made. Milch thought this was too comprising, he corrected it and had it rewritten. This also included orders of Rascher and Ruff to report to him. Whether he sent the letter off or not I do not know. He probably coped with the matter. That is my conversation with Milch at the end of August, I think, probably, by the 31st of August-
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, did you on that occasion--
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. The 31st of August of what year?
A. 1942.
Q. How long did these experiments continue: over what period of time were they being carried out.
A. They probably began at the end of February or the beginning of March, and should have been concluded by the end of May.
Q. When were they concluded?
A. The date when the results were concluded I do not know, all I know is what Dr. Ruff tells me, that he withdrew the chamber and later on-
Q. Witness, and you tell the Tribunal the first time that the defendant Milch knew of these experiments was when you had this conversation with him. About the 31st day of August 1942?
A. Personally yes, in a written letter on the 20th of May?
Q. Did he know of them my way except personally?
A. I cannot answer that but I saw him on the 31st of August and I had the impression that this matter was knew to him, nor did I think that he had worked on this report himself because otherwise he wouldn't have asked me to tell him about the report.
Q. You were his subordinate, and considered these experiments so important; why didn't you tell him about it before they were completed?
A. I didn't think it important enough for me to go to Milch and report to him. They were the same type of experiments which were made by ourselves; this was purely a supplementary experiment, and the only knew element in it was that other people took part in it; and I did not come across any danger element in the experiment.
Q. I understood you to say that these were experiment of the utmost importance to the Luftwaffe.
A. The results were very important to the Luftwaffe, but I say that the danger element is very small.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. In that conversation on the 31st of August 1942, did you tell Milch 813a That there had been fatalities?
A. I mentioned in the report that nothing had happened because it said so. I mean we did not refer to it.
Q. Did you tell him about these suspicions Ruff passed on to you that Rascher had one fatality---one casualty?
A. No. I was convinced that this matter had been settled by Rascher's report to me. I saw Rascher's report and therefor looked upon this matter as settled; and therefor did not report to Milch about it; I did not do so?
Q. Thank you. Witness, do you know if Milch according to the letter of 31st August 1942 asked Rascher or Romberg or Ruff to report to him and did he receive them?
A. I know nothing of such a report. I only saw it from the files at which period they came to see him, but I did probably later hear about this oral report because I expressed my indignation that those two Doctors when they appeared at Milch's office did not see me, who was concerned as a Doctor; but went directly to Milch; and even afterward they did not see me, but only in the Ministry showed a film without me being present. Therefore I was amazed that I was not included in this business.
Q. Should you, according to the rules, have been invited to this oral report?
A. As it was in my field of activity that I should have been referred to. Why it did not happen I cannot say. I was amazed that I was not present. Later on I formed the opinion that the whole thing was or must be the result of vanity that the SS with its achievements of their own wished to take the floor and make the impression on Milch from whom there was a direct channel to Goering, whereas an oral report to me would have found it a final settlement.
I say that the vanity is the strongest motive.
Q. Witness, after the report on high altitude experiments had been submitted, what did you hear about the freezing experiments?
814a
A. As I said before Holzloehner came to see me; I wanted to first clear up one point in the experiments, one particular point, and that is as to what they should be confined. I was not present at the beginning of the report, at the start of the experiments, but I heard its conclusion by calling a meeting in Nurnberg on the cooling and freezing questions and it concerned the Luftwaffe; and on that meeting, which was held on the 26 and 27 of October, 1942, in Nurnberg, on that occasion Prof. Holzloehner reported on animal experiments and Prof. Hirta explained his experiences in the Sea Rescue Service in the North Sea area, but also Dr. holzloehner gave us his results of the Dachau experiments.
Q. Witness, I shall now show you the final report on freezing experiments of 10 October 1942. This is Exhibit No. 106, Document No. 428. I am unable to give you English page No. I had it in my book but it fell out. Perhaps Mr. Denney can help me.
MR. DENNEY: Page 83, in Document Book 53.
Q. Witness, please go to the last page and look at the report. Have you got the right page?
A. Yes.
Q. This report is dated 10 October 1942. Is that correct?
A. The report is dated as having been concluded on 10 October 1942.
Q. Witness, were you ever given that report either directly or again via Himmler and Milch?
A. This report was never passed on to at all.
Q. Before I showed you this report, did you ever see it?
A. I saw it for the first time here during my arrest in Nurnberg.
Q. May it please the Court, may I ask you once again to see the last Document in my Document book, the chronological index, which is sort of a time table, from which you can see that on 10 October 1942 there is an entry freezing experiments concluded. Witness, did you up to that date hear anything that in freezing experiments there were fatalities?
A. No, up to that date I heard nothing at all about the details about freezing experiments. Therefore I know nothing about the question of 815a possible fatalities.
Q. Did you ever report to Milch prior to that date, apart from the conversation of 31 August 1942?
A. Apart for the oral report on 31st August 1942 and apart from the memorandum of 20 May, I told him nothing.
Q. Witness, I now submit to you your own letter of 10 October 1942, Exhibit No. 95, Document No. 289 in the German Document Book, page 57, page 32 of the English document Book, 32 5A. Will you please show the witness this letter, but don't read it allowed. Have you read it?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness when you wrote this letter of 10 October 1942 did you know that the freezing experiments had been concluded?
A. No, I had not been informed about this. I assumed the freezing experiments had been going on.
Q. Can you see this from your letter?
A. Yes, the last paragraph I see there says, "Freezing experiments are still being made at Dachau and high altitude experiments."
Q. Witness, will you please explain why you addressed it to Himmler?
A. I wanted to convince him of the fact that future experiments need not be made because all of the questions which were settled there had been settled and that knew questions which were still acute were not urgent enough and needed not to be worked on. Therefore, I said that we must build a much bigger low pressure chamber although I knew that during the war the chamber could not be completed because its construction had been forbidden. All I wanted to achieve was that this question should be left alone now and Rascher had already been interested in his scientific work and therefore he pressed things onward that concerned a completely different matter but I didn't know they were still going on in Dachau and I was not very clear that on the day when I wrote the letter these things were going on in Dachau. I didn't know that.
Q. Witness, at the beginning of this letter you referred to the letter of 25 August 1942 to Milch which Milch had replied to in this letter of 31 August 1942 that becomes clear from such letter 1309, 1242, of 25 August 1942, to State Secretary Milch concerning ---
A. I think that was the last time that a letter was written on this affair and therefore I pointed to this letter to Himmler.
The connection between the two is very obvious to me because at that time I was aware of what I said here by negative attitude on "altitude experiments" and I had mentioned it and explained it in my letter of August and that was crossed out my Milch. That was easy to understand that I saw a connection between the two documents. I established for myself a connection between this letter and that of 10 October 1942.
817a
Q. Did you inform Milch of this letter? Or did you write on your own initiative?
A. I believe that I wrote on my own initiative. I was always very keen to point out to the SS that the continuation of high altitude experiments was not necessary from the stand point of Luftwaffe needs and I made use of every opportunity to point out time and again because in that respect I was opposed to the SS in that connection. They always wanted us to supply another chamber. I could not see any reason for this.
Q. May it please the Court. After the witness has been interrogated I shall produce a document on Tuesday which will show that the SS has received the letter dated 10 October 1942 and considered it negative and a refusal. Witness, then there was the freezing meeting in Nurnberg, were you present in that meeting?
A. No, I wasn't present at the meeting and I have sent my expert Anthony. He had orders to preside over the meeting. I, myself, was very busy on the front which seemed to be more urgent and I had no time to deal with these details in the home country.
Q. Did Anthony report to you about the meeting?
A. Yes. As soon as after the meeting he came to me and reported to me orally on the meeting. I asked, particularly on Holzloehner's speech. He described to me that in Holzloehner's speech he had used the experiences of the Sea Rescue Service on the North Seacoast but also he mentioned a few things about his research work in Dachau. I asked him about the questions of fatalities. He explained to me the fatalities had been mentioned but that from the way he spoke, it became quite clear that these fatalities were fatalities in the actual sea rescue service and not fatalities in Dachau experiments and I then said "a report should be put together of which each one of the professors had to submit a copy to his collaborators."
The report on the Nurnberg meeting was then put together. Later on, after the results which were important to us in my opinion, for the development of high altitude clothes had been discussed with the Government departments concerned, a number of important results were achieved. In particular Anthony reported on this to me, namely, that what the animal experiments had led us to believe had been confirmed that 818a the immediate use of hot water was the most important element in the rescue service.
That other experiences in the animal experiments were not confirmed such as the favorable use of a special type of electric artificial sun, the use of medicaments similarly as in the animal experiments was a very uncertain thing and one could not rely on them. That is practical results on the medical field and the practical experience for improved production of protective clothing were carried into practice together with the corresponding offices, some of whom were medical some technical. The report itself was then published; there were at that time already great printing difficulties so that the report was certainly only issued in 1943. In any case, as I also wrote to Himmler in my final report on this matter this report did not appear until February 1943. I do not know when it actually did.
Q. Witness, why did you on that occasion ask Anthony about fatalities?
A. Because in these experiments I had to expect the possibility of fatalities. I had asked expressly to avoid the fatalities if possible and to increase the extent of experiment so carefully that, if possible, fatalities would be avoided. For that reason I had ordered that experiments made by doctors on themselves should be made because I assumed that the doctor who experiments on himself and exposed himself to the pain coming from extreme cold would be careful enough in using the experimental material, that he would avoid fatalities if possible, and so I thought that every possible safeguard had been arranged. In addition there were means for the mitigation of pain, however in the form of narcosis and it seemed to me not necessary because without full narcosis you can also fight pain.
In any case the possibility that fatalities would occur, I took into consideration for two reasons first, that the animal experiments and practical experiments led us to believe that medicaments were not certain in their effects.
819a Second, that after a man had been rescued from the water, his life is still in danger which increased to the point that the man concerned dies afterwards.
Therefore special precautions seemed indicated to me, and these special precautions I asked of both experts Rascher as well as Holzloehner. That is what made my question understandable why I asked whether there had been fatalities.
Q. Witness, did you tell Milch about the report of Anthony?
A. I know that later on I only spoke orally about the freezing questions as I talked about all the other essential things at these monthly meetings with the air defense chief and that I talked to the chief in particular about the questions of practical importance for us, improvement of protective clothing, treatment with hot water which seemed to me the most important questions in the medical field just because of the treatment with hot water I personally tried to improve the methods of the treatment as far as possible since I told myself that application of hot water had to be carried out quickly as otherwise these frozen wrecked will die even after rescue. Thus treatment had to set in immediately after rescue.
THE PRESIDENT: This is all in answer to the question Did you tell Milch-----
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, if I understand you correctly, and please be brief this time if possible, did you report to the Chief of Air Defense Foerester?
A. Yes, I reported to Foerester.
Q. Did you report to Milch directly or did Foerester report to Milch? Do you know that?
A. That I don't know in detail. All I know is that on several occasions Foerster and I reported to Milch together.
Q. On the question of cooling experiments or generally?
A. Generally. I can't say for certain how the experiments were reported.
Q. I shall clear this up by the witness Foerster himself, if the court pleases. Witness, I now show you Document Exhibit 119--sorry, my mistake--118, Exhibit 118, which is number 269 letter from Wolff to Milch of November 820a 1942.
That is on Page 179, Your Honors, of the English Document Book Volume 5--- Number 5, Volume 2, Your Honors. Please read the letter and tell me whether you know it. Do you know this letter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was this letter passed on to you by Milch for you to write an answer?
A. Yes, I wrote the answer to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff.
Q. When did the letter of 27 November 1942 pass on to you?
A. I couldn't say. I can only see that it was answered rather late.
Q. Will you look at the next document, Exhibit No. 119, Is that your reply? A letter of 6 March 1943.
A. I expressed in this letter that State Secretary Milch gave me at the end of February a letter of 21 November of the previous year. I conclude from this notice that it wasn't in my office all that time, but with the State Secretary.
Q. Can you explain to us what this document was doing for a whole quarter of a year in Milch's office?
A. I can only think that Milch perhaps was not in Berlin at the time and that this letter, which is very personal in character, which can be seen from the address, should not be worked on by anybody else. It seems to me that it reached me only at the end of February, and that I answered on the 6th of March.
Q. You said just not that this letter should not be worked on by anybody else, but it had been worked on by you, and you are somebody else than Milch, aren't you?
A. Perhaps I didn't put it very skillfully. It shouldn't be worked in his office by anybody else, or by another official in his office.