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?
A. Until 31 December 1943.
Q. After that date, were you Chief of the Medical Section of the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes.
Q. To whom were you subordinated in your capacity Chief of the Medical Section of the Luftwaffe?
1059 -a
A. At the time that I took over that office, there was a change in the order of subordination. For one or two months, I cannot say precisely, the old relationships exist ed. That is to say, I was subordinate to Foerster direct. Then, however, the change took place that I mentioned and I was subordinated to the Chief of the General Staff. So, in general, during my turn of office I was immediately subordinated to the Chief of the General Staff.
Q. General Foerster, was, at that time, subordinated to Milch?
A. Yes.
Q. When you were subordinated to the Chief of the General Staff, wore you not indirectly subordinated to Milch?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that the Chief of the General Staff was immediately subordinated to Goering?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, at the time when you were still subordinated to General Foerster, did you, at that time, also report to Milch about any experiments that were under way?
A. No.
Q. No?
A. No. the time was so short, I did not even have opportunity during this first period to report even to Fieldmarshall Milch. I did not see him at all during that time.
Q. In the time from February 1, 1940 until December 31, 1943, what position did you have?
A. I was the physician for the Luftfleet 2.
Q. In this position, did you have anything to do with Hippke?
A. Yes. He was my superior in Medical Inspection, while I was physician.
Q. Where did you have your office as Air Fleet Physician?
A. This Fleet was lead by Kesselring in the first year, that is from the beginning of the French campaign to the beginning of the Russian Campaign we were in the West. Then for a few months we were in the East. And from December, 1941, until I resigned from that Fleet, we were in the Mediterranian Area, Italy, Sicily and Africa.
Q. In other words, in the first period, during which the Dachau high-altitude experiments were being carried out, in 1942, and the freezing experiments from June until October, 1942, you were not really present in Berlin?
A. No. In 1942 we were in Sicily, Africa respectively.
Q. Did you hear anything about these experiments at all during this time?
A. No.
Q. Witness, I come now to your affidavit, which you submitted.
Your Honors, this affidavit, according to my notes, was not offered. I have no note of it. If the Tribunal does not have it, then I ask your pardon. And I am all through with this witness. It was in my document book; since it was, I assumed it was in yours. I ask your pardon. I could not know that the court did not have it. I have no English copy of it. Unfortunately I can dispense with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the witness has nothing to explain now?
PRESIDENT: You mean the witness has nothing to explain now?
DR. BERGOLD: I wanted to cross-examine him on this affidavit, tut if it has not been submitted in evidence, I need not to do so. I again ask the Court's pardon for having caused this trouble.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshal will remove this witness.
DR. BERGOLD: I ask permission to call the witness, Becker-Freyseng.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring the witness. Hermann Becker-Freyseng to the court room.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG: a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q You will raise your right hand. 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 PHILLIPS: You will have a seat.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I ask you to speak slowly, I ask you further to pause after every question I ask before you answer so that the translation of my question can be concluded.
Witness, please state your first and last names.
A Hermann Becker-Freyseng.
Q When were you born?
A On the 18th of July 1910.
Q What was your last position in the German Army?
A In the end I was the Expert for Luftwaffe Medicine with the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luft waffe.
Q Do you know Milch personally?
A No, but I know now who he is; but then I did not know him.
Q Witness, I come now to your affidavit that you submitted. Your Honors it is the affidavit, Exhibit 121, Document No. 448 of the 24th of October 1946.
1062 a MR. DENNEY: That is page 185, Document Book 5, please.BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, you state here: "Dr. Kalk told me that he had seen Rascher in Milch's office at the RLM, and we were both very surprised at this." Would you please tell me exactly what statement Kalk made? "Dr. Kalk told me that he had seen Rascher in Milch's office at the RLM, and we were both very surprised at this."
A I have no precise recollection of this telephone conversation any longer because first of all it was almost five years ago; secondly, it was an event that I attached no importance to at that time. For that reason, I do not remember it - remember the precise wording. I do know that in connection with a planned or actual address of Rascher's in the RLM, I was called by phone and that is I was called as a representative of the expert that time, Dr. Anthony; and was asked whether regarding this - whether this address and the events connected with it were known to me. I was told that a Dr. Rascher was at the RLM, or that he had been there, who was to make an address or had made one, I do not know precisely whether this was before or after the address, and I denied there upon that I had known anything of this event.
Q. Was it Kalk who called you up?
A I think I can definitely remember that is was Kalk, but there is the possibility that it was Mr. Ruehl who called up on behalf of Kalk, anyhow, I associate the name Kalk with this telephone conversation now in my recollection.
Q Did the person speak only of the fact that Rascher was in the RLM or did he also say that he was in Milch's office?
A I can say the following to that: when this affidavit was submitted to me to sign, I pointed out that I could not state under oath that Rascher had been in Milch's office. It was then pointed out to me that the English expression "Milch's office" does not mean that it was the question of Milch's personal office, that is to say, as we would interpret it inside the office of Milch; but that the word "office" simply meant the whole office building in general, and that that was what was meant in this case - that the RIM was the office in which the Field Marshal Milch was active at that time. On this basis, I then had no misgivings about signing the 1063 a affidavit.
Q But in the affidavit, the words are "In Milch's office in the RLM", and as you are stating now you only know that he was somewhere in the RLM.
A That is right. I still don't know what room Rascher visited or went to.
Q Your Honor, that is all I have to ask the witness because I have now clarified that affidavit to my satisfaction CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Witness, you have told Dr. Bergold that the words "In Milch's office at tho RLM" were explained to you as meaning some place in the building.
A Not somewhere in the building, but generally it just meant the office; not somewhere in the building, but just in general the division, the Amt.
Q Somewhere in the division; well, is a division bigger than a building or is a building bigger than a division?
A I think these are two concepts that have nothing to do with each other. A division can take up several buildings or on the other hand many divisions can be in one building.
Q Well, what was the case?
A I didn't mean when I said "Milch's office" his actual room, but I simply meant that this event had taken place in connection with the official business of Milch at that time. I had no idea where Rascher went to or in what rooms Milch stayed at that time.
Q The office building in which Milch's office was in, you know where that was?
A. That 1064
A That was the Reich Air Ministry, yes.
Q How many divisions were there in the Reich Air Ministry?
A How many divisions?
Q Well, you used the term "divisions"; I didn't. I don't know what it means.
A Yes, I do know. I know the Technical Office, the Personnel Office, the administrative Office. I can't remember any more at the moment.
1064 a
Q Well, anyway, there were several divisions in the building, in the Reichs Air Ministry in Berlin, right?
A The situation was this: a great many of these divisions had offices outside the actual office building of the Reichs Air Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn't this inquiry be directed to Kalk or at least to what he said?
MR. DENNEY: Well, if Your Honor please, I am getting to that.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Now, what did Kalk tell you?
A. I stated before that neither can I recall the precise wording that he spoke nor precisely what he said -- the meaning. I still remember the following: Xalk called up the division for Luftwaffe Medicine and told them that either a Stabsarzt Rascher was going to, or had, delivered a speech about some Luftwaffe medical field and asked me whether he knew anything about this speech or anything about it. I denied knowing anything and that was all there was to it.
Q. And then you put in your affidavit "we were both very surprised at this". What were you surprised at, the fact that Rascher, an officer in the Luftwaffe was seen in the building occupied by the Air Ministry?
A. No, that wasn't surprising, but it was surprising that a Luftwaffe medical speech should be delivered of which an expert for such things didn't know anything at all.
Q And who was the expert on these matters?
A. That was in the first line the person dealing with that subject at that time, Stabsarzt Professor Anthony and in the second line it was I; I was at that time his assistant expert.
Q. Were you Anthony's assistant?
A. Yes I was his assistant in that department. The expression assistant was not used at that time.
Q. What did you know about these experiments at Dachau?
A. Of the high altitude experiments I knew nothing.
Q. How about the freezing experiments?
A. Of those experiments I heard generally about this for the first time in June 1942 in the presence of the Medical Inspector at that time. I had no more to do with it. At the conference in Nurnberg I read about it again.
Q. But you didn't know anything about the low pressure experiments at Dachau that were conducted by Ruff and Romberg?
A. Of those experiments I heard about after they had been brought to complete conclusion, namely, in connection with the speech that Rascher delivered.