But even if you no longer belong to my officers, you will always have my full support. I wish that even later on we will continue to work together. For instance I would like to see that you carry out together with Romberg the rescue from the highest altitudes and that you go even higher than 21,000 meters. For this case some two-stage device should be procured some way for the low-pressure car. Furthermore, I would desire that in your experiments on human beings you would combine the altitude experiments with the cold experiments.
"Rascher: I proposed this to you already in July of last year and the Reichsfuehrer SS for his part has also submitted this proposal to Marshal Milch. Unfortunately nothing resulted from intervention so far.
"Hippke: How embarrassing this question must have escaped my notice at that time (he takes down some notes) as already said you see there are numerous problems and you are going to be really overburdened with scientific matters. I do not let you go readily and this I emphasize again. Would you not think it over again for four weeks?
"Rascher: For this it was too late, I asked for my part to be transferred.
"Hippke: This could be cancelled. I call your attention to the fact that with the Luftwaffe, I can offer you very good possibilities for your promotion. You do not yet know your advancement with the SS, do you already know in which capacity you are going to be taken over? You are now Hauptsturmfuehrer, I suppose?
"Rascher: I do not know how I am going to be taken over, but I have full confidence in my future with the SS where efficiency is what matters.
"Hippke: But this is certainly the case with us too, think it over whether you go, I request you again to stay here.
"Rascher: When I told Hippke during the further course of the conversation how the work is done at my place, he was very surprised and said, 'Well, you built up an independent institute for yourself and so you are Head of the Institute.'
"Hippke mentioned also that Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz did not want to furnish a substitute for me, no, nobody at all, not to speak of a medical officer trained in scientific matters.
"In conclusion Professor Doctor Hippke said, well, if you persist in your decision I ask you then to report to me before leaving when you are transferred. Most friendly dismissal.
"Postscript: Professor Hippke offered me the possibility of publishing the results hitherto obtained in a Luftwaffe periodical.
It was certainly not clear whether the SS could make accessible to me a periodical in which I could publish. He was afraid I could suffer from the competition between physicians of the Luftwaffe and SS physicians.
"I would like to mention that in connection with hostility to be expected on the part of genuine Luftwaffe physicians Professor Hippke said, 'In this case you have of course the SS behind you, and this is a powerful factor.'" This is signed by Sigmund Rascher.
It does not sound as if you were anxious to get rid of Rascher.
A May I enter into a discussion of the individual points brought out here?
Q I think you said enough on direct examination about it. I do not see why we have to go into it now. The document speaks for itself.
A The document that I see now is merely a combination of the talk at my place and the conversation outside with the experts. It was all consolidated here. The conversation did not last anywhere near as long as it is here set down. There is no question of my wanting to hold him for the Luftwaffe. I was glad to get rid of him because we had difficulties with him because of his continual wishes to carry on experiments. For that reason we did not want him. I must mention one thing in particular. He says here something about an independent institute being built up with Rascher as head of it. This institute was ordered by Himmler in October. In other words, it was long after this discussion. Rascher then became head of it.. From a purely objective point of view, this could not be true. It could not be true that I said this from the start. I could not have stated it. I also mentioned that there was a discussion of an institute, but in a different context. It was a question of the future. I mentioned the idea that he could not become the leader of the institute in his early years. That was the real context. In other words, this is not true. What is set down here is not true. There was possibility of its being true, because the institute was ordered in autumn of 1943 by Himmler.
This discussion took place in March of 1943. In other words, these were future plans which he here mentions as facts. However, they were not facts.
846-A Then, there is one other point.
He reconstructed this one point. I mentioned that we were to make supplementary experiments in order to make clear to him that he would play no role, but that we would be doing it. He pretends that he was to be used here. This question of 21 kilometers was brought up. At that time we were not in a position to rise about 21 kilometers. We did not have the apparatus, so that is also false. I can say as regards these individual points that this must be a letter that is here under discussion. That could have been the case; if it were the letter from Wolfe which was written in November to Milch, but had been answered by me a few days previous, that is probably what he is referring to, because in the meantime he at least acknowledged the answer. That is the possibility I see.
Q When did you first get the letter from Milch which was written to him by Wolfe regarding Rascher's transfer?
A I would say that was in February.
Q When in February?
A I saw that from -
Q All you have to do is give me a date. When in February did you get the letter?
A It must have been the last days of February.
Q All right, Witness. Just answer the question. I am not interested in any speeches you may have to make. You were very anxious to get rid of Rascher. Is that right?
A He made too much trouble and he was too vain.
Q You wanted to get rid of him?
A For scientific reasons.
Q You wanted to get rid of him?
A Yes. I wanted to get rid of him.
Q You received a letter from Wolfe to Milch in February?
A Yes. I received a letter and I answered that I must first hear what Rascher had to say. Then I was willing to release him.
Q Then on March 6, you wrote saying he could go?
A That was not the 6th. That was the date of my answers to Wolff. It was about the middle of March.
Q Do you know a Doctor Daniel?
A I believe there is an "s" at the end of his name, Daniels.
Q Daniels?
A He was a physician under me.
Q Did Dr. Rascher work for him?
A I knew of no connection between Daniels and Rascher.
Q But you know all about what Rascher had been doing prior to the time you let him go?
A No, Unfortunately, I know nothing of it. I trusted him. I had confidence that the work was being done according to my policy. Otherwise I should have been only too happy to interfere. I am most unhappy that I did not know of it.
Q You never told Doctor Daniels that Rascher's experiments ought to be stopped?
A Tell me more precisely what Daniels' connection was with this?
Q Do you recall telling Doctor Daniels that Rascher's experiments ought to be stopped?
A No. I cannot remember any connection with Doctor Daniels.
Q Did you know a man named Sievers, "Standartenfuehrer Sievers," S-i-e-v-e-r-s?
A I have just found out about him, from the documents; I found out that he was a Standartenfuehrer who, as far as I know, was the liason man with the SS in Munich. But previously, I had known nothing of him personally, nor had I even known his name.
Q Did you ever hear of the Ahnenerbe Society?
A I knew that there was an Ahnenerbe Society. I knew that it represented the party in all questions of that nature. But since I had as little to do as possible with party matters because they were alien to me, and I believed that during the war, we soldiers had other tasks. For this reason I did not concern myself with these problems, but I do know the concept or the term, "Ahnenerbe."
Q I have here a memorandum which Doctor Sievers made on 4 February 1943. If Your Honors please, we will give this the number, 129. It is Document No. 238. It is dated "Berlin-Dahlem, 4 February 1943, Secret, Ahnenerbe, Reich Business Manager." I might say that Wolfram Sievers who is the author of this document was the business manager, a Standartenfue hrer in the SS, and presently upstairs.
"Subject: SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher.
"Out letter of 12-1-43 to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General of Waffen-SS, Wolff.
"File Number 19/10/43g.
"Conversation on 29-1-43 with SS-Oberstrumbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt.
"The Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke asked the SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher through his superior, Oberfeldarzt Doctor Daniels, for an immediate report about what he had been working on since he had been made available for new assignment. The Oberfeldarzt, Dr. Daniels, permitted SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Doctor Rascher to continue his experiments in Dachau. I suggested that SSHauptsturmfuehrer Doctor Rascher give a report approximately like this:
"'I am continuing the experiments which were assigned to me by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I considered my position as the first stop to the transfer to the Waffen-SS which was discussed by the Reichsfuehrer-SS and General Field Marshal Milch.'
"As I learned (Dr. Rascher knows nothing about this) Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Hippke said over the telephone (so that he probably could not be pinned down)-
They probably had the same trouble in those days.
"--when requesting the report; 'Rascher's experiments ought to be stopped now. It is impossible to go on like that. Now we will remove him very quickly to the East.' As SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher cannot continue his experiments at Dachau for the time being for well-known reasons it was agreed that he should go on 7 February 1943 to SS-Sturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel in Marburg. Due to the interference of Generaloberstabarzt Professor Doctor Hippke the process of admittance has become doubtful.
"1. Records.
"2. SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt.
"Personal Staff RESS with the request that measures be taken on the basis of the situation described in my letter of 12.1.43.
Sig. "Sievers "SS-Standartenfuehrer."
You can see there is a variance here.
A Oberfeldarzt Daniels was a medical officer in the staff to which Dr. Rascher belonged. There must have been discussions there. I myself, knew that after the report from Holzloehner and Finke, that Rascher was done with his experiments at the beginning of October. So at the time the conference took place in Nurnberg, all the experiments were concluded.
If there is mention here of subsequent experiments, then I know nothing about it because so far as I know, there were no further experiments. That I said at this time that experiments should be carried out only insofar as they were needed, and that can be substantiated. I did not give any instructions that he be transferred to the East. This is not the case because I know of no such plan to transfer him to the east. If that took place, it must have been a plan on the part of the Luftgau or perhaps by my personnel deputy who took care of such questions.
At any rate, it did not come to me, nor did I know anything about going to Marburg in connection with Pfannenstiel. That was entirely 851-A unknown to me.
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.