A. I cannot say; I can only say that at the conclusion I received the pay for group 1-A. wags seals 1927. That was 12,600 marks par annum.
Q. What kind of marks, blocked marks, Reichsmarks, travel marks?
A. The regular German marks.
Q. 12,600 marks a year?
A. Yes.
Q. Was your office adjoining the defendants?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone who entered his office have to come through your office?
A. Yes.
Q. The defendant could not got out of his office without going through your office?
A. Well, there was one other door, but it was locked and never used.
Q. Well, there was another way that ho could get out without going through your office?
A. Yes, but I would have noticed that anyway because I went into bis office very often.
Q. And if ho could got out through another way, maybe somebody could got in that way, too?
A. No, because I had the key to the door.
Q. He had to come and see you and got tho key if he wanted to go out? Is that right?
A. That would have been possible, and I would have given it to him.
Q. I assume that you would have.
A. Under no circumstances. But he is speaking of a person trying to get in, add we are talking about somebody trying to get out.
Q. Did you ever go to meetings of the Central Planning Board?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever go to the meetings of tho Jaegerstab?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever go on trips with the defendant?
A. No. Whenever the Fieldmarshal was away, I was at home.
Q. Did you overuses him outside of the office?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to his home?
A. Once when the Fieldmarshal was sick, I visited him.
Q. So you wore at his home once in 25 years approximately?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you over in tho army with him?
A. In the army? As a soldier? In 1896.
Q. No, I mean a little more recently than that -- world war 1 or the present war.
A. I have always been a soldier; that is, not an active soldier but an active member of the Wehrmacht who belonged to the Wehrmacht.
Q. Were you a member of the Party?
A. I was a Party member, yes.
Q. I believe you told Dr. Bergold that you used to pay tho defendant's dues for him.
A. Yes.
Q. And you were reimbursed, I assume, by the defendant for the payment?
A. Please don't understand it that way. I had a little sum from which I settled the defendant's obligations.
Q. Well, you had a cash box that the defendant left me money in, and when it was empty it was replenished.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know a Dr. Staffer--S-T-E-F-F-E-R?
A. No, I never board of him.
Q. Did you over see a film shown in the Air Ministry, having to do with medical experiments which were performed?
A. No.
MR. DENNEY: No further questions.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions to the witness. He may be dismissed. I ask also that the Court rule whether or not he can go home to Darmstadt.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. What was Sauckel's rank in comparison with the defendant's rank?
A. Sauckel was a Reichsleiter. There can be no ready comparison between the two positions because the Fieldmarshal was a soldier and Sauckel was a civilian.
Q. Sauckel was a civilian; and who did ha got his authority from?
A. So far as I know, ho received his orders either from Goering or from Hitler.
Q. And you say that the defendant Milch did not have power to have anyone shot or killed?
A. No.
Q. What authority does a Fieldmarslal in the German army have?
A. This power lay with Goering. He signed all such verdicts and also reached all decisions on such matters.
Q. I understood you to say that it was impossible for Goering to give Milch the authority contained in tho Document NOKW-247, Document Bock No. 20. Page 99. Why couldn't Goering give Milch this power and authority?
A. Goering, did not give such authorizations.
Q. He had no power to delegate that authority to the defendant at all?
A. No; he head the power, but for egotistical reasons ho did not do it.
Q. Do you understand the document I was asking you about?
A. I assume that it's the document that I saw here Previously.
898-a
Q. Well, now, do you say now that Georing did not give the defendant Milch the authority contained in that document?
A. So far as I remember I was asked if I had seen this authorization.
Q. You were asked by the counsel for the defendant, "Did Goering give Milch this authority contained in this document?" I understood you to say that it was impossible for him to do that.
A. I don't believe that he did, sir. It's my firm conviction that that did not take place. I did not see this authorization.
Q. Well, do you now say that he did not give him this authority contained in this document ?
A. That's what I wish to say; yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I could perhaps explain this here -- the word "impossible" was used in connection with the date. The witness wished to say that in the year 1944 in June, the squabble between the defendant and Goering was so acute and had reached such a point that for this reason he thought it was impossible that Goering should have given the defendant this authorization. Otherwise, no further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Just one question. Was Goering accustomed to putting up with people that he didn't like?
A. No; hardly ever.
Q. Why did he put up with Milch for so long?
A. Of course I can't say, but there were always difficulties.
Q. But those difficulties Goering cheese to endure, did he, in Milch's case?
A. Yes, he just put up with them.
Q. He kept him although he didn't like him?
A. That's what I should like to say; yes.
Q. That wasn't Goering's usual procedure, was it?
A. In general, no. In general, ho simply withdrew himself from those people that he didn't like.
Q. You mean he withdrew the people from him?
A. Yes; he pushed them on to some other office. At any rate, he got them out of his presence.
DR. BERGOLD: May the witness now go home to Darmstadt, or does the prosecution wish him further? I personally do not.
MR. DENNEY: No, Your Honor; I do not.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness is excused and is at liberty to do whatever he wishes.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I shall now take up the reading of a few documents. I turn first -- I should like to read from Document Book No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the defense document book?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. Defense Document Book No. 1. This is Document No. 221, a letter, Sievers' letter to Brandt, 26 August 1942, page 93, I believe, the next to last document in my book. Through an error on the part of my secretary, the list of my exhibits was not submitted to me and could I please know which was the last exhibit number that I put in?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: 27.
DR. BERGOLD: Then this is Exhibit No. 28. I shall now read it.
"Ahnerbe Reich business leader 26 August 1942, Berlin Dalehn SS Obersturmbannfuehrer. Dr R Brandt Personal Staff Reichsfuehrer SS Berlin SW 11 Prinz Albert Strasse 8.
"Dear Comrade Brandt, Dr Rascher writes to me: on the 14 7 the Reich fuehrer SS ordered me to send my report about the Low Pressure Chamber Experiments to a ObersturDibannfuehrer Brandt and to remind Dr Brandt at the same time that the Reichfuehrer SS had ordered to send this report together with an accompanying letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS to Milch the last mentioned letter stating that Milch should call Romberg and myself to his office so that we might report to him. I carried out this order on the 20 7. As I have not heard about the matter again to date and was also not asked to Milch or to General Staff doctor Hippke I assume that this report was been submitted without me. Could you ascertain that?--I do not share this suspicion of Raschers, for who but Rascher would report on this matter? I assume that you have sent this report to Milch but that Milch has not yet found the time to set a time for the report. Have you heard anything of this matter? Dr Rascher further gave me the approval for the publication of the purely scientific results. I shall ask him again in what form he would imagine this publication to appear, how comprising T think that we can then give our approval if the publication will be in the due form ... I am very truly yours, Heil Hitler, Siever."
DR. BERGOLD: I have submitted this document, your Honor, because in the Prosecution Book at Exhibit 95 --- correction, Exhibit 10$ -Document 222, 222 a letter of October 29th, 1942 was submitted, in which one Brandt, namely the Brandt who was a witness here, writes back to Siever stating that Himmler had not yet sent the report on the high altitude and freezing experiments to Milch. It is in Document Book No. 2 of the Prosecution, under the date of October 29th 1942. It appears that this is a report on the "Freezing Experiments" but this is erroneous.
This letter of October 29, 1942 is the supplemental letter to this letter here of the 26th of August. I read this letter. It is Exhibit 109. It is in $B document No. 222, page 161. It is page 141 of the English Document Book. I read: "To: SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer SIEVERS. It relates to the document I just read. "Berlin-Dahlen, Puecklerstrasse 16", and it reads further as follows: "Dear Comrade SIEVERS: SS Unterstrumsfuehrer RASCHER's supposition is not correct. The letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS by which he transmitted the report to General Field Marshal Milch was only signed and sent off a few days ago...I assume that the General Field Marshal will in the near future take the necessary steps on his own initiative and send a short note about it to the Reichfuehrer SS....I enclose a copy of the Reichfuehrer SS's letter dated 23 August 1942 for your information."
In other words, it is quite correct that the date of 29th of October can not be correct. Therefore I inspected the photostatic copy of this letter and it is my opinion that the number on this photostat copy is not a "10" for the tenth month, but an "8" for the eighth month:
AUGUST!
It was unclear in the document, but the whole contents show that 901 A document 222 was written in August, and that this report therefore is not a matter of freezing experiments but only a matter of high altitude, which was discussed in this writing of the 29th of August 1942.
Therefore this letter of the 29th of August was the only letter of the Reichfuehrer SS with a report on these high altitude experiments to Milch. There was not another report made in October.
I read now from my Document Book No. 2. This book has been given to the Court. I read the excerpt 7/43 from the Conference on the 26th and 27th of October 42, the Freezing Conference. This is Exhibit No. Ml 29. It is from page 39 of the German Document Book; it has no document number. It is immediately subsequent to Document No. 288. This report reads: "Restricted 188, Airforce Medicine, By the Secretary of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe". Report on session 7/43 Report on a scientific discussion on the 26-27 October 42 in Nuernberg, on medical questions of distress at sea called by the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe and presided over medical specialist Dr. Anthony.
From the Document No. 39, I read: "The warming up after freezing to the danger point" etc.
Your Honor, my secretary made a mistake here. The reports were made by the man Mr. Hippke conferred with, Weltz, apparently had not been written into the report. I ask that he please be so kind as to add. it. This is a report of Dr. Prof. Weltz: "We asked ourselves the question: which are the best physical conditions for the saving of persons who had been cooled to such an extent as being in danger of life. Experiments were carried on at our institute together with H I Wende and M Rodin and the experimental animals were rabbits, rats and guinea-pigs. In order to establish the negative or positive value of a particular treatment we first had to know their normal uninfluenced behaviour with respect to cooling.
Your Honors you see all this is concerned with animal experiments. I now come to the actual report that matters here. On page 4 of the original a lecture by Professor Dr E Holzlooner.
.. Prevention and treatment of cooling in water..Observations sea-distress have shown that at water temperatures below 15 degrees the body temperatures of the distressed persons decreases rapidly. After a few hours already loss of consciousness or death can result. Further observation of catastrophics at sea such as sinking of transports or warships have shown that sometimes danger to life exists even after rescue. Death has occurred oven after warming up which has not been explained so far. Up to now cooling experiments have been carried out on animals in order to watch vacu-motoric and chemical counter regulations. Experiments in correspondence with the low temperatures common during sea distress have been lacking so far" Your Honor, you see that here only general experiences in the experiments were being reported on:
experiments which took place during the War, during the Catastrophe.
902 A Preliminary investigations were carried out by Dr. Shuster showing that animals could only be expected to exist for a very short time in water under twenty degrees.
I skip now to the next page omitting those animal experiments on page 33. "It was now possible to carry out a series of experiments on human beings who had been saved after having spent considerable time in cold water. Your Honors, if the defendant had ever read these lines ho could never deduce from them that those were experiments on healthy people, but that they were experiences on men who had been rescued from a long stay in cold water. In other words, men who were rescued, who wore saved. Corresponding citations, arc duo to the cooperation of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finger, they refer to exposure in water of from two to twelve degrees centigrade, the speed with which stiffness sots in is remarkable. It was observed that already five or ten minutes after falling into the water - I am not sure that the word here is actually ten -my copy is poor.
I continue: "An increasing rigor of the skeleton muscular system sets in which makes the moving of the arms increasingly difficult. It affects also the respiratory system, the inhaling deepens, exhaling is delayed. Furthermore, a strong discharge of siliva takes place. When planning and developing rescue equipment, these facts must be considered. Thus, for instance, it is very difficult to even at the beginning of the rigor to climb into a rubber dinghy, to inflate a oneman dinghy, rubber, or to operate signals equipment; for instance, to give hand signals or to shout, rigor is caused by reflex, and not, as many assumed by a contraction through cooling of the respective muscles. It stopped suddenly when death occurs. This shows that apparently dead people, who still show obvious rigor offer possibilities for resuscitation." A lay person cannot sec from here either that human beings were killed through experiments. We now know of the truth concerning the experiments, but a lay person could not at that time. I continue:
"Irregularly in the heart beat is to be found on experimenting on animals this, however appears, seems to be only in 903 A lower temperatures.
According to that, the human heart would be endangered more than that of experimental animals. The impairment of the heart is caused by the following circumstances: 1. The strong increase of the viscosity necessitates a strong additional exertion of the heart. 2. The throttling of the vessels causes a flooding of the central areas. Autopsy reports concerning death caused by freezing in water after sea rescue uniformly shows a strong flooding of tho heart." Your Honors, autopsy reports, after distress in sea, indicate that laymen must road and understand that under discussion are people who had been rescued and cut open. It reads hero: "Autopsy after rescue work, but not after experiments." The lay-observer Milch could not recognize from this that it was dealing with experiments, If he had read the report, I have proved however that he has not even read it.
I continue: "There are indications that not only the supply of blood to tho skin and sceleton muscular system is choked during the strong and fast cooling, but also that in contrast to the law of gastrymorath there is a reduction of the blood supplies to kidney and intestines tales places that there is even a strong contraction of the spleen. All of this will increase the total resistance to the blood circulation and pumping of tho blood to the heart. 3. It is to be taken into account that under the influence of the low blood temperature, the heart itself will become strongly hypodynamic. In animal experiments it has long been proved that by overloading and cooling of the isolated heart pulsation of tho auricles can be produced." Your honors, here again the lay observer must say since tho first sentence contains only conjecture and not an expression of certainty; ho must only assume that those are not human experiments, and there is a series of scientific matters which probably will be unduly unintelligible to him.
I continue then: "The examination of tho heart enables us to make a statement as to the question of the rescue collapse. We had heard previously that the 904 A rescue collapse occurred in mass catastrophes."
In other words, here a lay observer would not draw any connection with an experiment that was fatal.
I continue: "It occurs when the temperature of the animals falls below a critical point or if extreme physical effort has proceeded the cooling." In this connection it should be pointed out that the rescue collapse has appeared mainly in accidents in which some people swam toward and objective f r a long period without the necessary floating equipment, as for example life jackets. In such cases after heart damage is indicated by pulsation, the strain on the heart has caused a failure after the rescue." Your Honors, a lay observer could not relate this last sentence as a fatal experiment, but only to the conditions that prevail in mass catastrophes in which the people swam toward some goal. This too did not happen in experiments.
I continue: "The symptoms of speedy cooling are therefore the negative of a collapse when there is bleeding on the surface. Such a collapse has previously been feared to set in during warming up and therefore, frequently a slow warming up has been advised or proscribed, for such death after warming had been tied to such bleeding. Since it has been shown that here too direct damage to the heart is in the foreground, these theoretical doubts will be eliminated. It can be seen that as a. result expedience of the speeding up of warming up "with animals, the results obtained, have encouraged a corresponding procedure with human beings." You can see "with What care this is being expressed here. As a result of the animal experiences, have encouraged a corresponding procedure with human beings. No lay man observer could think that human beings were being slaughtered by the thousands.
I continue: "It was shown that water baths, not exceeding forty degrees centigrade not only speeded up the return to normal temperature but could also save lives when heartfailure set in. persons treated by that method have never been observed to be in danger." These are the main points of Holzloeners report.
I road now: "Discussion Lecture of the infamous Dr. Rascher, page 47 in addition to Holzloehner's statements, there is a report on observation according to which cooling of the neck region alone, even if it lasts for several hours results only in slight, up to ton degree, centigrade drops of the body temperature without a change of the supply of blood, or of the functioning of the heart. Temperature of the rectum was measured in the stomach whereby complete agreement was obtained. After taking cold shower it was revealed that the whole body temperature dropped more quickly. Temperature drops more quickly after drinking alcohol." On taking Dextropure, a sugar compound, the temperature sinks at a lower rate than in the sober starts or that produced by alcoholic intoxication. Hot infusions of ten percent solutions of dextrose, medical sodium chlorine solutions had only temporary affect.
That is all that is to be found in this report, that concerns Rascher. If the defendant, a lay person, had read this report he could not deduce that there had been any cruelties or fatal experiments. He could never suspect that men wore killed in this fashion.
On page h8 of this report there is a statement by one Doctor Wetzler which is interesting because he too experimented on human beings and no prosecution over held the opinion that these wore illegal and Dr. Wetzler and his collaborators were not charged by any tribunal. I road: "In the course of the climate chamber test described earlier, I started together with Dr. Sauer on a series of experiments with rewarming human beings after cooling. The statement by Holzloehner and Weltz cause me to make a brief remark. In doing so I am over-coming my misgivings to present to you questions concerning the series of experiments that had to be interrupted for the time being because a large cooling machine is being installed." These too were experiments on human beings absolutely harmless in nature. Concluding page 48, I read: A statement by a Mr. Grosse Prokop. It roads "The elucidations of Dr. Holzloehner anew make it appear debatable how far we are justified to transfer the experience of animal experiments to human beings but all the same close agreement is evident.
Even if quantitative differences exist in many respects, fundamental differences are not found, we believe that also in men the decisive cause for death is the progressive inactivation cf the heart and the medulla oblongata. Those changes in the reaction of vital organs can also be seen in the encephalogram recorded by Mr. Palme." Also this Gentlemen apparently did not notice that experiments on men were being carried out but thought that one had gone to experiments to human beings in a harmless way after experimenting on animals.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will suspend until tomorrow morning at 0930, 12 February 1947.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 0930, 12 February 1947.
906 (a) Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 12 February 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 2. Military Tribunal 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: I have arranged with Judge Beals of Tribunal number one that any defendants in that case who are to be witnesses in this case can be called on Friday and Monday. That court will not be in session on Friday or Monday, and therefore the defendants in that case will be available on those two days as witnesses in this case.
DR. BERGOLD: I thank the Court for its kind efforts. Your Honors, before I call the next witness I should like to read first from document book 5-B, Exhibit No. 122, NOKW-419, at page 188 of the German document book.
Your Honors, this document is not complete in your collection. What is missing from this document I have had written out and it is now being translated. However, since the Translation Branch is very overburdened, particularly in putting together the document books for Tribunal number one, I have not been able to receive this. I ask permission to read it now and shall submit, as I have done before, a copy to you later and to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I shall read, then, from page 1 of this document 419 which I have before me. This is the interrogation of Dr. Weltz by Mr. M. Koch:
"Question: Have you ever thought when this talk with Hippke took place?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: When was it?
"Answer: That must have been the summer of 1941.
"Question: 1941?
"Answer: Yes. We were in the period 1941-1942, second half. It was a social evening in the Freising Palace, and during this evening Kottenhof informed us that this permission could be expected for Rascher. I believe--I don't know precisely whether or not I knew Rascher at that time; he was not yet a part of my office, and I cannot say that for sure. There was a discussion between Kottenhof and Hippke regarding the justification of such experiments. At first I was present as a listener only; later I took part in the conversation. Hippke then expressed his opinion very sharply that experiments on other persons and criminals could not be considered, but only experiments by physicians on themselves. Kottenhof expressed the opinion that now during the war we were obliged to make use of this other means also, and that in the final analysis criminals who volunteered also had an advantage from it.
"Hippke stuck to this point of view very tenaciously. I informed them, so to speak, of the opinion of international literature on this question, and expressed it as my opinion, that the basis of all experiments must always be experiments on themselves, but in special cases, first in my personal opinion and secondly, in the predominant opinion of the entire world literature, experimenting on criminals is justified.
"The discussion went back and forth in this way for quite a while, and finally they agreed on my point of view. Hippke then departed and said, 'Children, be careful.'
"Hippke was very reticent, and Kottenhof was somewhat more so, but neither of them was aggressive, if I may so express myself."
I read now from the German document, page 184:
"Let me ask an intermediate question. What reason did you give to the Luftgau physician in order to justify Rascher's transfer?
"Answer: The telegram that he gave me stating that experiments in Dachau were to be kept secret from everyone.
"Question: You interpreted this telegram as a falsification?
"Answer: It was a telegram from the Reich Postal Office. I do not believe that Himmler telegraphed via the Reich Post, and I explained that.