.. 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.
"Question: Just a moment. If you had the impression that this telegram was a forgery, why then did you not, as a superior, take legal action against Rascher or at least disciplinary action?
"Answer: Because Rascher would immediately have been able, through his connections with Schnitzler, who was an SS Fuehrer, to got a true telegram for himself from Himmler.
Question: And moreover you were afraid of the SS? Answer: It was clear that because of Rascher's dislike I was in danger of entering a concentration camp myself." Some three pages further at the bottom: "Answer: The final commission he probably received or could have received from Milch. Milch could give direct orders to everyone. I have the impression that up to the time of my departure, that is to say, until Rascher left me, there wasn't any such commission and that those matters were only later clarified by Ruff. Question: Some sort of order must come to have the low-pressure chamber to Dachau. Answer: Ruff could send it himself. Question: Did the order come from above? Answer: The difficulty in answering your question lies in the fact that these relations, as I said in the beginning, changed. There were various rival struggles because in the "C" Office all wanted to keep all of its physicians for itself and Hippke assumed that all physicians were subordinate to him even if they belonged to the "G" Office. This subordination relationship was not entirely clear." Then another few pages: "That is not the question. I have only the vague idea of Hippke. Why did not Weltz say that Rascher was no longer wanted? Why did not Weltz inform his immediate superior, a man with whom he seemed to be on pretty good terms? Answer: The difficulty was -- well, how shall I put it? Question: Permit me, doctor, in this case you could have said it quite well. You could have mentioned the telegram. You could have mentioned it even to Hippke. Answer: Yes, that would have seemed to me an interference in the cooperation between Ruff and Romberg which I initiated myself. If, on the other hand, I bring them together tomorrow and go to Hippke tomorrow Rascher will not be agreeable to that action. Question: I believe that Hippke would have said to himself that Weltz is an honorable man. On the other hand, he would have called Ruff back through the "O" Office. At the moment where Romberg complained about Rascher and, as I understand it, that Rascher had even turned himself into a murderer in the high-altitude experiments. He would have appealed then to Ruff. Ruff would have gone to Hippke and brought it about that the low-pressure chamber be used elsewhere."
I skip now.
"You have the following objection to Rascher of a personal nature? Answer: He put his father in a concentration camp."
Now, the second question.
"This second reason alone would have sufficed to have convinced Hippke that the SS wanted such experiments made it should have made them itself. Why did you not speak to Hippke as a physician? That, in my opinion, would have been your bounden duty and why did you not for all of these reasons inform Hippke ? I can't understand that because of any fear of eventual consequences from the SS, Answer: That could not have played any role. Question: But explain to me your sin of omission, why you didn't inform Hippke. If you went to Hippke you could never have stepped in the back of Ruff, Answer: I didn't know that."
It's to be seen from this that Weltz whom Hippke appointed knew nothing of all of these things that were going on. The very conclusion of this document:
"To sum up, you did not inform Hippke of these experiments at Dachau? Answer: No. Question: are you absolutely sure? Answer: I am entirely certain. Question: And the reason? Answer: Because I had left. Question: Because you had left then and had just dropped the matter? Answer: There were not to be experiments on the part of my institute on the part of Ruff. Wherever I had achieved a right to supervise Rascher was part of my office. Otherwise, I wasn't interested in these experiments at all. Question: Now, one last question. One thing I cannot explain that you didn't find out that there were no fatalities in these high altitude experiments. No, I never found that out. Question: You didn't see the final report? Answer: No, I did not receive it. Let me add, Stabsarzt Lutz, who worked with me, did not know of this thing even in the year 1944 although he was well acquainted with Romberg and although he had travelled around extensively.
That's how secret it was."
That's what I wish to read from this document. I now read from my Document Book No. 1. The chronological summary at the conclusion of the book in order to show the Tribune what, in view of Hippke's statements, what can be seen even from the available documents, to show that Milch really knew nothing about these matters. Exhibit 87, dated 15 May 1941, Rascher to Himmler. This was Rascher's first proposal to Himmler that experiments be made on human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, doctor. What exhibit number, please?
DR. BERGOLD: This is simply a chronological listing and I have just mentioned Exhibit No. 78. If I want to give this exhibit a number I give it the number 30. I continue. Exhibit No. 80, dated 24 July 1941, Himmler to Rascher, gives his consent to this proposal. Then the talk between Weltz, Kottenhof and Hippke took place in which the gentlemen agreed on their procedure. Hippke was not able to state here that Milch ever knew anything about that. Exhibit 81, 5 April 1942, Rascher to Himmler, first report on high altitude experiments. It was secret. You will remember Hippke's testimony and the document according to which Rascher could not give any reports without Himmler's permission. Exhibit 82, 16 April 1942, Wolf to Hippke, requests for extension of Rascher's assignment. Hippke did this without bringing in Milch. Then on the same day 16 April 1942, Rascher's second report to Himmler on the high altitude experiments. Exhibit 83, 27 April 1942, a letter from Brandt to Rascher in which the entire report for Himmler was to be forwarded to Milch. Of the same day, Exhibit 84, 27 April 1942, Hippke to Himmler, in which it is stated that the forwarding of the request to extend Rascher's assignment is under way, this too remained unknown to Milch. Exhibit 85; 1 May 1942; Rascher to Himmler, third report on high altitude experiments was secret. Exhibit 87, letter of 20 May 1942, Milch to Wolf requesting the return of the high pressure chambers after the conclusion of the high altitude experiments.
The report that Weltz has been assigned to experiments with ship-wrecked persons.
912-A Hippke stated here on Friday that he gave no oral report of this to Milch, but only a short memorandum when he visited him.
This, then, concluded those experiments. Thus, in my opinion, no proof has yet been brought that Milch knew anything of what went on in the experiments.
I continue. Exhibit 89, 4 June, 1942, Milch to Hippke, proposal requesting further keeping of low-pressure chambers and extension of Rascher's assignment. Hippke stated regarding this that this was not an order, but simply a proposal.
Exhibit Number 90, 15 June 1942, Rascher to Himmler. Rascher reports on his talk with Hippke. He reports also that Hippke did not receive any further reports in view of Himmler's refusal to approve.
Exhibit Number 114, 28 July 1942, final report on high-altitude experiments.
Exhibit 95, 25 August 1942, Himmler to Milch, transmission of the report on high-altitude experiments.
Then comes the letter from Sievers to Brandt of 26 august 1942, request as to whether the report of the high-altitude experiments is to be submitted to Milch. I submitted this yesterday as Exhibit 28 Ml.
Then Exhibit 109 of the Prosecution, 29 August 1942, Brandt to Sievers, report on the transmission of the high altitude reports to Milch. This is the exhibit, which as we mentioned yesterday, was erroneously dated.
Exhibit 115, 31 August, 1942, Milch to Himmler, acknowledgment of receipt of the report on high-altitude experiments. You will remember Hippke testified that this was the first time that Milch was given more precise details on the experiments; but Hippke did not tell him of any fatalities.
Exhibit 91, 1 September 1942, Rascher to Himmler, report on the freezing experiments.
Exhibit 123, 11 September 1942, a film about altitude experiments was shown to the staff of Milch, whereby as has been proved that Milch was not present then.
Exhibit 93, 22 September 1942, Himmler to Rascher, acknowledgment of the interim report on freezing experiments.
10 October 1942, final report on tho freezing experiments. The witness Hippke testified he never received this. Please enter the Exhibit number on this which is 114.
This concludes the freezing experiments without Defendant Milch's finding out about the cruelties taking place in connection with them.
Number 95, 10 October, 1942, Hippke's letter of thanks to Himmler. In this connection let me point out and draw attention to an exhibit of the Prosecution which was submitted yesterday. It is Exhibit 130, 6 November 1942. Sievers characterizes this letter to be a refusal. I can quite understand that people not accustomed to German usage would have thought this letter was an acceptation. But from this note of 6 November 1942, it can be seen that in the language that was used was the language used in German at that time. This was a refusal. It is very well understood that this was a refusal and not an acceptance.
Exhibit 104 of the 16 October 1942, the final report of Rascher to Himmler on freezing experiments. Hippke said that this was never sent to him, nor could he have told Milch of it. There is no proof that final report of Rascher's was ever shown to Milch.
Exhibit 110, 21 October 1942, Sievers to Brandt, announcement of new low-pressure experiments which the SS carried out independently because as Hippke said yesterday, he never had the low-pressure chamber put at their disposal again.
Then comes this freezing conference in Nuernberg on the 26-27.10. 42. I read the report yesterday which lay persons could not understand. It was probably published only during March or February 1943 for when Hippke wrote to Himmler on the 19 February 1943 it was not yet ready.
Then comes Exhibit 111 of November 1942. It is a draft of a letter from Himmler to Milch. It has never been proved that this was sent off.
Exhibit 118. The letter from Wolff to Milch corresponds with this draft. It is a request to release Rascher from his work. The defendant will prove that he was at this time not in Berlin at all. The letter was not sent.
Exhibit 120 of 19 February 1943 is an independent letter from Hippke to Himmler, thanks for SS cooperation.
Then we have exhibit 119, the answer to Wolff's letter by Hippke, 6 March 1943. This was also done independently by Hippke and then on 14 March 1943, there is a talk between Hippke and Rascher on the letters released. This is Prosecution Exhibit 126. I think you will be so good to let me add that it can be seen from this that the defendant could not have known of it.
I now ask that the Witness Foerster be called.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will please bring in the Witness Foerster.
BY JUDGE SPEIGHT:
Q. Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I ask you not to speak too rapidly because of the mechanical set-up here. I ask you, also, to pause after every question I ask so that the translation of the question can be concluded before you begin your answer.
DY DR BERGOLD:
Q Witness, state your first and last names?
A Hellmuth Foerster.
A When were you born?
A 19 April 1889.
Q What was your last position in the German Army?
AAs a General of the airforce I was Chief of the Airforce Ministry. Before I answer further, I should like to make a statement. Is it not a fact I am called a prisoner of war, and under the protection of the Geneva Convention, which is recognized by the American Army. I was chained and brought here under a guard. Since I am neither a defendant, nor belong to the criminal organization, nor to war criminals, I regard this treatment as a personal insult, and ask for the protection of this Tribunal against a repetition of this behavior.
DR BERGOLD: I have nothing to add to that myself. I wish to point out to the Tribunal I have heard that in case number one the Prosecution has already objected to the bringing here of witnesses in chains. I have not objected to it here because I want to await the decision of Tribunal No. 1. I appeal to the generosity of the Court that I should not have to do anything about it here.
BY DR BERGOLD:
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Milch?
A Yes.
Q Can you recognize him in the room, and if so, will you point to him as to where he is?
A (witness points to the defendant Milch)
DR BERGOLD: I ask that the record show the witness has identified the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The record shall so show.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, when did you have and how long have you had relations of an official nature within the Reich Air Ministry with Milch?
A Since the Autumn of 1939.
Q In what capacity with Milch?
AAs General -- or Inspector General of the Luftwaffe, and as General for the Special Task.
Q Were you Chief of the Luftwehr of the Air Ministry?
A No, after my office, or my services as General for Special Task, I went to various other offices as a member of the German-French Commission in Weisbaden, as Military Commander in Serbia, as Commander General of First Air Corps, and then from the Autumn of 1942 on I was Chief of the Air Defense in the Air Ministry.
Q In your last capacity was Hippke, Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, subordinate to you?
A Yes, he was subordinate to me in his person, and with my office in his business.
Q Witness, what report did Hippke make to you regarding experiments at Dachau?
A None.
Q Was it his duty to do so, as a matter of fact?
A No.
Q Was Hippke then in this respect independent of you?
A Yes, he was the Chief Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, and was in the purely technical field independent. He was subordinate to me only in respect to any military matters.
Q Witness, did you ever know anything about results of experiments that took place in Dachau?
A I saw or knew nothing of experiments in Dachau itself. The Medical Inspector gave me a report on the basis of the medical conference that took place in Nurnberg, telling me that new ways had been developed for the treatment of persons who had been frozen, and he explained this therapy to me in detail without, however, telling me how it had been discovered. The matters did not interest me either. I was interested only in results of military matters.