Q Do you know whether or not they had deaths in the freezing experiments at Dachau?
A Yes, I do now, of course.
Q Did you know it at the time?
A During that discussion, during that oral report that I heard at Nurnberg, it could be clearly understood.
Q That they had had deaths at Dachau during the experiments?
A Yes, in any case it became clear to me; that is, I could understand from these remarks that Rascher made at the time at Nurnberg that these experiments had taken place in the concentration camp and on the other hand they spoke of measurements which were registered at the very end or after the death of the experimental subject so that it became very evident to me that deaths had occurred.
Q Did you tell anybody about it?
A Well, I think I spoke to Dr. Ruff concerning this matter. I don't remember if I ever spoke to anybody else about it.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, there are no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Witness, after the subjects had died as a result of the experiments in Dachau, did you and Rascher perform an autopsy upon one of the persons of any of these victims?
A I was present during one of the autopsies. I did not carry out the autopsy myself.
Q Did you assist in it?
A No, I just watched them.
Q Was that the first one or the second one or the third one that you saw done?
A I can't tell you that with certainty.
Q. Did you make a report on the autopsy?
A No.
Q Why didn't you put in your report of these experiments that you made on the 15th of June that you had seen three people die?
A These were experiments which were absolutely outside the framework of our experiments; in other words, experiments which were not in the interest of the Luftwaffe and which I carried out personally. They were experiments which, as Rascher said, had been ordered by Himmler personally and which only concerned him and nobody else.
Q Would it be important to the Luftwaffe to know the extreme altitudes and pressure that these people could go through with before they died?
A No, that was of no importance. Our task was absolutely clear. The problem was if from pressurized planes people could be saved from an altitude of twenty kilometers, and this task was a series of the experiments which we had carried out before on ourselves.
Q What was the nationality of the subjects?
AAs far as I can remember they were all Germans.
Q Any Jews?
A Yes, among the experimental subjects there were also a few Jews.
Q German Jews?
A Well, at least they all spoke German.
Q What were the nationalities of the ones that died from the experiments?
A They were also Germans.
Q Jews?
A I can't tell you that exactly, I believe that one of the two was Jewish.
Q What was the critical limit of these experiments? You spoke of that.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please this Tribunal, this translation was really wrong.
The witness did not say, "I think he was a Jew", but he said he was possibly a Jew. That is a difference.
Q (By Judge Phillips) You spoke of the critical limit of those experiments. What was the critical limit of these experiments?
A Of what experiments are you talking? You mean these high altitude experiments?
1046A
Q Yes.
A They were twenty kilometers, twenty to twenty-one kilometers.
Q That was the extreme limit?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our recess, Dr. Bergold.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I return to the experiments that lead to the death of the experimental subject. You stated to the Tribunal that those were experiments that did not take place for the Luftwaffe, or at any rate, did not fall within the framework of the Luftwaffe experiments, except for these three persons. Did Rascher otherwise carry out special experiments on a special commission from Himmler with their leading cadets, without these leading to death?
A Yes.
Q Is it true in regard to these special experiments that he said to you: "That has nothing to do with you?"
A Yes, but let me add that was specifically said to me. He turned me aside from these experiments.
Q You also stated that you told Rascher your opinion of the other two fatalities. Was this after the return of the low pressure chamber to Adlershof, or before then?
A That I reported it to him, I know. But I do not know any longer whether I did so by phone at the time that I thought the chamber should be removed and then told him more explicitly after my return to Berlin, or whether in the meantime I was once in Berlin and told him face to face then.
Q You said that Colonel Pendele had called you up and had informed you of the time that the film was to be shown.
A Yes.
Q Did you then meet Colonel Pendele personally later on the 11th of October?
A Yes, I did speak with him.
MR DENNEY: If your Honor please, the translation came through, "the 11th of October." I believe it should be the "11th of September."
THE INTERPRETER: Correction; 11th of September.
BY MR BERGOLD:
Q You have stated that you made a memorandum about this; is that correct?
A Yes. I have to tell how this memo came about. After this film was shown, since things had been going along a little too rapidly here, and on so large a scale, Rascher was outraged and immediately called Sievers of the Ahnenerbe up and told him this, but Sievers was about to go on a trip and had no time, did not think the matter so important anyway. But he did ask to sec Rascher at the station, I think it was the Lehrter station from where he was about to leave. I spoke with Rascher and also with Sievers. Sievers didn't take the situation as seriously as Rascher portrayed it and said that Romberg should draw up some report as to how this had actually been, and that should be sent to me. Then I did so later, and that is the memo.
randum that I gave Sievers for his orientation.
Q Witness, you spoke previously of new fatalities that Rascher had on his conscience -- nine deaths. Your answer did not make it entirely clear at what time you found out about these. Was that during the experiments or only later?
A No, as I said, that was during the breakup of the work with the chamber.
Q Then the prisoners told you of these nine deaths?
A They told me that they were- glad that that chamber was out of the way finally, because all sorts of things had happened in connection with it. I asked what they meant and they told me, without however telling me the number precisely. I think they said something like five to ten casualties.
Q You then spoke of the freezing conference in Nurenberg and said that to you it was apparent that casualties had occurred in these experiments. That expression "to you" does that mean that others less informed could not have recognized that at first sight?
A The situation was that Holzloehner spoke in his report of human beings who had been saved at sea and on whom measurements could be carried out. That seemed like an innocent matter externally, because it was generally known that in sea distress cases that there were many fatalities. No one paid too much attention to that, and only after Rascher rose after the report and spoke in a rather disconnected fashion of these experiments, that Himmler, namely, had approved them and that these were to be regarded as top military secret, or top secret, then it must have become clear to many that these were experiments on prisoners, or at least experiments authorized by Himmler. But to what extent the connection with the previous report was drawn, that I do not know. I can only speak of what I know personally.
Q In other words you mean that Holzloehner's report did not allow it to be clearly seen without further ado?
A No, I do not believe it could be seen from his report.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you. Your Honors, I should just like to remind you that this report of Holzloehners was submitted to you by me as an exhibit and I pointed out to the Court at that time that a lay person could not deduce from that report, particularly from the words "saved at sea" that these were experiments with fatal consequences.
No further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions, Mr. Denney?
MR. DENNEY: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal may remove this witness.
DR. BERGOLD: I ask that I be permitted to call the witness Sievers.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will bring to the Tribunal the witness Wolfram Sievers.
WOLFRAM SIEVERS: A witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will advise this witness that he may refuse to answer any question if that answer would tend to incriminate or degrade him.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, speak slowly please, and furthermore I ask you to pause after every question of mine before beginning your answer, so that the interpreters will be able to translate my questions fast.
Witness, please state your first and last name.
A Wolfram Sievers.
Q When were you born?
A 10 July, 1905, in Hildesheim.
Q What was your last position and rank in Germany?
A I was the Reich business manager of the Ahnenerbe Forschungs and Lehrgemeinschaft and SS Standartenfuehrer of the General SS.
Q Witness, do you know Milch personally?
A I only knew his name.
Q Witness, the Ahnenerbe Forschungs and Lehrgemeinschaft, was this ever subordinate to the Reich Air Ministry, or was it an institute that belonged only to the SS?
A No, it had no connection with the Reich Air Ministry.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I come now to the witness' affidavit, Exhibit 106, NOKW 264 of 19 November 1936. It is in my document book 5b of the prosecution.
MR. DENNEY: Page 131 of the English Document Book 5b, if your Honor please.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, in this affidavit you stated the following: A Fuehrer decree forbade the use of German soldiers for high altitude experiments. When was this decree issued, and to whom?
A I refer here to a communication from Himmler at Easter of 1932 which he made to me at his field headquarters. I myself am not familiar with that Fuehrer decree, but Himmler spoke to me of it.
Q Witness, you then stated in this affidavit, Milch must have been informed of Dr. Rascher's experiments. This is evident from the correspondence between Milch and Wolf. My first question now: When did you first hear of this correspondence between Milch and Wolf?
AAt the time it began, that is, 1942-1943.
Q When you now say that Milch must have known of Rascher's experiments, you come to this statement simply from knowing of the correspondence?
When I make this explanation that is what I say, yes, and when I was asked about it on the witness stand I also stated that before the IMT trial that I from personal experience do not know to what extent Milch knew of these experiments because regarding the correspondence between Milch and Wolf we do not know of it at first hand, when, but I do know how Milch knew. When I found out this fact, the official who put this statement before me said it can be seen from this correspondence that Milch must have known of these experiments, and in the form of this statement it said that according to your best knowledge and conscience Milch did make this statement. Consequently, there can be no doubt about this, if you made that statement in this form, for this reason I have no hesitation either of signing this statement.
Q But you can now say that from your own experience you had no knowledge of that?
A Exactly, as I said before, also when I said it on the stand.
Q Witness, I now submit two documents to you, Your Honor. It is Exhibit 109, Document No. 222, Brandt to Sievers, described as - or dated 29 October, by the prosecution as Document Book 5b of the prosecution.
MR. DENNEY: Page 141 of the Document Book 5B.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Furthermore the document Exhibit No. 28, Document No. 221, letter from Sievers who is now here in court to Brandt on 25 August 1942, that is in Document Book No. 5A. Please read those two letters so I can ask questions regarding them.
MR. DENNEY: That is Milch's exhibit.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, it is the only exhibit in his Document Book No. 1.
MR. DENNEY: No. 28 in his Document Book No. 1, Your Honor.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Please read first Brandt's letter to you and then your answer. Page 93 of Defense Document No. 1.
A Yes, I have read these letters.
Q Witness, do you consider that the date, 29 October, is correct, of Brandt's letter to you, or rather, is the letter that you read in answer to Brandt's letter. Is that not what it is?
A The letter of mine of 26 August to Brandt precedes letters to me, because in Brandt's letter to me he refers up at the top, "To your letter of 26 August 1942", meaning my letter.
Q Could this really be the letter of 29 October, this letter of Brandt or did it really come immediately after yours? You must have received this letter?
A Yes, I did. I can no longer say that for sure what the date was, but down at the bottom to the right there is a stamp "31 August 1942".
Q Is that stamped when the letter was received?
A It is possible. I can only say so, however, when I see the photostatic copy.
Q Unfortunately I do not have that available. May I please have those documents back?
A Yes.
Q Witness, I now show you Exhibit No. 130 of the prosecution. It was a memorandum of 8 November 1942. Please read this note.
MR. DENNEY: It is not in any book, if Your Honor please. That is one of the loose ones.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, in this memorandum you make a mark regarding Hippke's letter of 10 October 1942. Is it still your opinion today that this letter of Hippke, dated 10 October 1942, was a refusal, although couched in rather flowery terms? Would you care to see that letter?
A That is not necessary because I have the following to say about this. The question of taking Rascher from the SS to the Luftwaffe played an important role from the very beginning and Rascher pursued that goal as stubbornly as Himmler did himself. This file note was taken up by myself immediately in connection with the address in the Academy for Luftwaffe Research on 6 February 1942.
Rascher was present at that address. I was not present, nor was I at the freezing congress in Nuernberg, which is briefly mentioned previously, in this file note. After this meeting in the Academy Rascher told me these things. I drew up a summary about what he had told me in the form of 1055a this file note and at the same time I put down what Rascher told me about Hippke's letter on 10 October 1942.
Consequently, this note is not a statement of anything that I know of of my own experience as I was not present but what I heard, so consequently I cannot really state what Hippke said in that letter.
Q. So that was simply Rascher's opinion?
A. Yes, it was simply Rascher's opinion and I myself cannot say anything about it because in the course of a whole year tense relations had developed between the office of the Luftwaffe and Rascher and Himmler's opinions.
DR. BERGOLD: That concludes my questions regarding this affidavit of the witness, Your Honor. I make him now available to the prosecution.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY HR.
DENNEY:
Q. When did you join the Party?
A. At the end of 1929.
Q. When did you join the SS?
A. In the end of 1935.
Q. And at the end of the war you were a Standartenfuehrer?
A. Yes.
Q. That is like a colonel, or an Oberst in the army?
A. So far as a Standartenfuehrer, I was a member of the Luftwaffe. However, I was only a member of the General SS.
Q. You were in the Allgemeine SS, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know Himmler very well?
A. I had known him since 1935 because he was president of the Ahnenerbe, of which I was the Reich Business Manager.
Q. Did you see him often?
A. One can't say that. I used to sec him when I was ordered to report to him on official matters.
Q. You say you never knew Milch?
A. No, I only know his name and that he was Staatssekretair in the Air Ministry.
1056-a
Q. Do you know what else he did?
A. No. I do not.
Q. You knew he was a Fieldmarshal?
A. Yes. I knew that.
Q. Do you know what the relationship between Himmler and Milch was?
A. No. I cannot say.
Q. You were aware of this controversy between the SS and the Luftwaffe about Rascher?
A. I have already said that there was tension because of the personnel question regarding his transfer. That is the transfer that was brought up in 1943.
Q. He was in the Luftwaffe, and the SS wanted to get him. By "get" him I do not moan they wanted to do anything to him. I mean they wanted him to transfer into the SS.
A. He was to be taken over into the Waffen-SS.
Q. He was finally transferred to the Waffen-SS when?
A. That was the end of 1943.
Q. The end of 1943?
A. Yes. It was the end of 1943 that he was really taken over into the Waffen-SS.
Q. Do you remember the date?
A. No.
Q. How do you remember that it was at the end of 1943?
A. Because at the beginning of 1944, Rascher was taken prisoner, and at that time, his transfer had not been long enforced because negotiations were still being carried on with the personnel main office regarding his transfer which had boon ordered but was still at the state of being carried out and because of his rank assimilation discussions regarding his rank were carried on with the Chief of the main-office von Berg. For this reason, I recall the transfer really took place only at the end of 1943.
A. Dr. Hippke said he was transferred in March of 1943. He was wrong, is that right?
1057-a
A. I said before that the negotiations regarding the transfer of Rascher had been going on since 1942 and that it had led to several direct correspondence between Himmler and Wolff and the Air Ministry.
Q. Why did the SS want him?
A. Such transfers from one branch of the Wehrmacht to another frequently took place.
Q. Did he go into the Waffen-SS or the Allgemeine-SS?
A. The Waffen-SS.
Q. You considered them part of the armed forces?
A. The Waffen-SS was considered a part of the armed forces; the Wehrmacht, yes.
Q. About this affidavit that you wrote, about which Dr. Bergold questioned you, did anybody make you sign it?
A. No. I was not forced.
Q. Nobody held a gun against your head or anything?
A. No. By no means, nor did I say anybody had.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness has not repudiated the affidavit, has he?
MR. DENNY: I do not think he has.
THE PRESIDENT: Neither do I. Do you see any use spending time on it?
MR. DENNY: I do not think so.
THE PRESIDENT: He affirms what ho said now.
MR. DENNY: I just wanted to make sure. I have no more questions.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no more questions either to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove this witness.
(Witness excused)
DR. BERGOLD: I wish to call the Witness Oskar Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will bring into the courtroom, the Witness Oskar Schroeder.
OSKAR SCHROEDER, a Witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Raise your right hand, Witness, and repeat after me I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The Witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I ask you to speak slowly. I ask you, further, to pause after every question of mine. The reason for this is that we want the interpreter to interpret my question to its conclusion before you start with the answer.
Witness, please state your first and last name.
A. Oskar Schroeder.
Q. When were you born?
A. On the 6th of February, 1899.
Q. What position and rank did you have in the German Wehrmacht at the conclusion?
A. I was in the end Chief of the Medical Inspection and a General Staff Physician.
Q. Witness, do you know Milch?
A. Yes.
Q. Personally?
A. Yes.
Q. Please point to him.
A. (Indicating)
DR. BERGOLD: I ask that the record show that the witness identified the Defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so show.
Q. Witness, until September, or rather January, 1944, you were subordinate to General Hippke?
