Q. I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, to clear this once and for all; did you have any reason or basis to assume that Rascher know Milch personally?
A. I do not assume so, nor have I ever stated that.
Q. Witness, is it correct that Kalk was the medical advisor of Milch. Do you know that, or don't you?
A. I didn't know that he was medical adviser. I only knew that it was, so to say, generally known that he was the main physician. In how far this went as to adviser, I do not know.
Q. Did you get from this conversation with Kalk the impression that he did not know either how this speech had come about?
A. I did get that impression for if Kalk had known about this there was no necessity for him to ring me up.
Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may lead the witness away.
DR. BERGOLD: May I ask to be permitted to call the witness Weltz. I don't know whether he is available yet. We have proceeded so rapidly and because Brandt was left out my chronological plan has been upset, since practically Schroeder was also left out.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of the witness?
DR. BERGOLD: George August Weltz.
GEORGE AUGUST WELTZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will the witness raise his 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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I ask you to speak slowly. I ask you furthermore to pause after each question of mine before you answer so that the translation of the given question can be concluded.
Please tell me what is your first and last name?
A. George August Weltz.
Q. When were you born?
A. 16 March 1898.
Q. What was your last position in Germany?
A. During the war I was leader of the Institute for Luftwaffe Medicine in Munich.
Q. Do you know Milch personally?
A. Only after the war I saw him briefly.
Q. In April 1945 you didn't know him.
A. No, I never saw him prior to April 1945.
Q. Witness, however, you do know Professor Dr. Hippke.
A. Yes.
Q. You talked with him once about the conditions under which the so-called foreign experiments should apply?
A. Yes.
Q. What conditions were laid down at that time at the conclusion of the discussion?
A. It was our pre-assumption that the experiments should take place, first on volunteers; secondly, that these volunteers should have been criminals orderly sentenced by German courts; and the third condition was that the experimental subjects or theme must be particularly important and a problem that could not be solved by animal experiments.
Q. Were the conditions also made that such experiments were to be carried out with every precaution?
A. That was a matter of course.
Q. Was there also a condition that, in so far as possible, it should avoid pain?
A. That of course was understood.
Q. Then, did you supervise these high altitude experiments in Dachau or who did that?
A. Do you want to know that in detail or just briefly?
Q. Just briefly.
A. Briefly then, I withdrew before the experiments began in Dachau and along with Ruff who had tried out the experiments I wanted to take over supervision of Dachau. But this was made impossible for me through a telegram of Himmler's. Therefore, before the experiments began I withdrew, and can there state nothing regarding the actual experiments at Dachau.
Q. Before you withdrew did you have any suspicion against Rascher which you communicated to Hippke?
A. At that time I had no reason at all to consider Rascher a criminal.
Q. Then during the course of the experiments did you hear of death cases?
A. No.
Q. Nor did you send any report on same to Hippke?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever inquire about these experiments?
A. From the above mentioned telegram from Himmler it was evident that the experiments in Dachau were to be kept secret. For that reason from the time on I withdrew, I did not ask about the experiments because I know people carrying out the experiments wore sworn to secrecy.
Q. Witness, I come now to your interrogation. Your Honors, it is exhibit 122, document NOKW - 419. In this interrogation, witness, you say that you became suspicious of Rascher. Of what sort was the suspicion - you just said you did not consider him a criminal?
A. Could I ask, please, what suspicion is there - at what time?
Q. The question is here of the telegram which you considered a forgery. According to that you say in this interrogation.
A. As regards the forgery of the telegram, it turned out later that my suspicion was wrong. From the correspondence shown to me now is to be soon that this telegram was a real one. The suspicion does refer to something different. I had heard that Rascher put his father in a concentration camp and that led to a personal tension between Rascher and myself and I took lot's say strict official forms against Rascher for that reason -- but that had nothing to do with that I had a suspicion Rascher was a criminal. From my point of view at that time he appeared to me as an unsympathetic matter, not a nice characteristic -- nothing you could consider criminal.
Q. Apparently this matter of putting his father in a concentration camp -- that was based on the fact that his father was opposed to National Socialism?
A. I found out nothing about that.
Q. You regarded Rascher as an exaggerated Nazi?
A. Yes.
Q. 125% Nazi.
A. Yes.
Q. But you had no suspicion of crime?
A. At that time, so far as I know, Rascher had nothing on his score yet.
Q. Your Honors, I wanted to clarify that question. I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross examine?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Witness, were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
A. I became a member in 1937.
Q. When did you discover that Rascher had put his father in a concentration camp?
A. I was told this approximately in February 1942.
Q. '32?
A. '42. 1942.
Q. Was this before the experiments at Dachau were started?
A. Simultaneously with the beginning of those experiments at Dachau. My agreements with Ruff were before that time.
Q. And the experiments started in Dachau when in '42?
A. At the beginning of March 1942, as far as I know.
Q. Were you ever out there during the experiments?
A. Yes. Once with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, I went to visit the camp to find out what the general state of affairs was at the camp and particularly to ascertain whether political and criminal prisoners were segregated clearly.
Q. And, given the conditions that you spoke to Dr. Hippke about, you said that they must be people who had been condemned by German courts. What did you mean by that?
A. We said in our conversation that under no circumstances did we want to have political prisoners to get experimented upon.
Q. Well, what must they have been condemned to by a German court, excluding the political prisoners?
A. May I say, this conversation with Hippke was conditioned by what Rascher had told us previously. Rascher had previously told us that habitual criminals who had been condemned to death were to be used. And under this condition, Kottenhof asked Hippke what his opinion on his matter was.
The above mentioned, conversation was not an official conversation but simply a discussion on one evening to which Hippke had invited us, and at the end of the conversation -I didn't take part in it -- I said that these concepts were defined according to international usage, and in the 1071 a course of this conversation these conditions were developed.
This was not official but more a theoretical discussion of the conditions under which these experiments would be permissible. As I have already mentioned, this conversation was inspired by Rascher's statement that the experiments should take place in Dachau on people who had been orderly sentenced to death by a German court. Thus, they could take place only on most serious criminals.
Q. As far as you know, all the experiments that were carried out were on people who had been condemned to death by German courts and who were not political prisoners?
A. I have found out now because of the evidence submitted in Court that Rascher apparently used other persons for those experiments, as well but the conditions that I laid down with Ruff were the same that Rascher had told us, namely, that these were to be people condemned orderly to death in German courts.
Q. And did you ever do anything to find out whether or not the conditions which had been established were, in fact, being carried out?
A. I wont to Dachau with Ruff and Romberg in order to talk this over with the camp commander, and we did agree on this specifically with the camp commander. The camp commander heard what we had to say and thought over the question of who should be used for these experiments and told us that he would take care of this matter; that they should got special food, they should be separated from the rest, and these conditions we discussed specifically and explicitly with the camp commander.
MR. DENNY: No further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I have one more question. You said that you were familiar with the right to use such persons who were sentenced to death from international literature.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that stated generally in scientific books?
A. At that time I was under the influence of a book that is very widely known, namely De Kruif's "Hunger Fighters". It was published in America, 1072 - a translated into German, and in it is described in detail how Goldberger, an official in Washington in the Department of Health, carried out experiments on twelve prisoners in Kansas under very specific conditions, and since Dr. De Kruif had published this in a book which was thought of as propaganda, it was clear that ho was not thinking of any crime or wished to describe a crime but that he was thinking of it as something which was entirely, permissible and the conditions under which those experiments were carried out in Kansas wore completely in agreement with many other investigations which are known to me from international literature.
I believe , therefore, that one can speak of an international standard which makes such experiments permissible, and only shortly previous to that I remembered this bock of Do Kruif's.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I don't know what purpose we are serving by going in and comparing what happened in Dachau and what happened in a book he read of what happened in the United States. I think the Court is aware of the testimony of the first witness that there is certainly no comparison between the experiments, and this apparently is the beginning of a long parade of witnesses who arc going to testify that experiments are conducted on human beings in other places. We do not deny that, but we certainly do deny that they were conducted the way these were conducted.
THE PRESIDENT: I can not anticipate what the next witness will testify to. At the moment, this witness is merely stating that this is the reason that he set up certain standards in his talk with Hippke. To that limited extent, it seems to be proper.
DR. BERGOLD: No further questions/
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove this witness.
(Witness excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: What is your program now, Dr. Bergold? Have you other witnesses who have been called for today?
DR. BERGOLD: I had intended certain things for Monday, but there is still the witness Ruff, and I had asked for Dr. Alexander of the American Division as a witness for Monday. That was my Monday program, but perhaps we can do it today. If however, Dr. Alexander is not accessible, I could read the rest of my 1073 a documents before hearing Dr. Ruff.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, I have some testimony of a witness that was given before Military Tribunal I which I can read in at some tine. It is only about 10 or 12 pages. I am just trying to give your Honors an idea of what the work at hand is, if it will help Dr. Bergold out. It will probably take half an hour or so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Ruff to be called?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he here?
DR. BERGOLD: Not at the moment. It is one o'clock already.
MR. DENNEY: The Marshal says Dr. Ruff is outside.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right, then we will start at 2:30 with the witness Ruff.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is recessed until 1430 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1430 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHALL: All persons in the Court, please secure your seats. Tribunal Number II is again in session.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please this Tribunal, I would like to ask for permission to bring Dr. Alexander, instead of Ruff. Dr. Alexander asked me to do so because he has a very important conference later on. I hope it doesn't matter in what sequence we bring them in.
THE PRESIDENT: Whichover witness you like. Whom do you want?
DR. BERGOLD: I would appreciate it if Dr. Alexander could come in.
THE PRESIDENT: Call Dr. Alexander.
DR. LEO ALEXANDER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Will you repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, that the evidence which I shall give in this court will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
(The witness reported the oath.)
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I would appreciate it not to speak too fast and furthermore I'd appreciate it if you could make a short pause between my questions and your answers, because of the translators.
A Yes, sir.
Q Witness, would you tell the Tribunal your name -- your first name and last name?
A Leo Alexander. No middle initial. Born October 11, 1905.
Q Doctor, what is your profession?
A Doctor of Medicine; specialist in neurology and psychiatry.
Q Thank you. Doctor, as far as I know, you are in charge of the experiments under indictment in case 1?
A Yes; I have been.
Q Doctor, I shall now come to the first experiments, namely, high altitude experiments in Dachau. Today we had a witness hero, Romberg, who testified to the effect that, within the framework of the German Research Institute for Aviation, there were no death cases, but that the death cases occurred within the framework of other experiments carried out by Dr. Rascher. Could you affirm the fact, if between those two experiments, which are in the report of the 28th of July 1942, and those other experiments which were carried out by Dr. Rascher?
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, I don't understand what he's talking about -- asking this witness to confirm the fact that Romberg said this morning that nobody died in any Luftwaffe experiments conducted at Dachau. Certainly the witness wasn't at Dachau then.
DR. BERGOLD: No. There must be some sort of misunderstanding, Mr. Denney. I asked him, as an expert, if during the series of experiments which are in the report of the German Research Institute, and all other experiments which became known to him, of Rascher, if there is a difference between the two experiments? I thought that this was an expert question.
DR. DENNEY: I still don't understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the important thing is this: Does the witness understand it? Do you, Dr. Alexander?
THE WITNESS: Frankly speaking, not quite. I don't write know what is being driven at.
DY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, is the report of the 23th of July 1942 of the DVL known to you?
A Yes
Q Is there a difference between these experiments as defined in this report and the special experiments which Rascher carried out upon Himmler's orders in Dachau?
A Well, there's that difference -- that fatal experiments are not mentioned in the report.
Q No. I'm sure that those are certain experiments in favor of the Luftwaffe, which are laid down in this report; is that correct or not?
A Yes.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I think the report speaks for itself. If he wants him to say anything about the report, let him take it, look at it and ask him his questions, but Dr. Bergold is now trying to read into the record the fact that this report doesn't mention any deaths.
DR. BERGOLD: Not quite.
MR. DENNEY: And therefore he says that this is the only thing that had anything to do with the Luftwaffe, and all the other experiments that were carried on down there, when somebody else was concerned, and died, he says these are all Himmler's. Now that's obviously his contention, but it doesn't help the Tribunal any.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold is assuming that Dr. Alexander is familiar with this report.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And then he asks him a question which, I dare say, the Tribunal could answer just as well. What does the report say?
DR. BERGOLD: No, not quite. This morning we spoke of two different series of experiments. Romberg seated that the first experimental series was the one for the Luftwaffe, for the benefit of the Luftwaffe, as it is described in this report. Furthermore, Rascher, carried out a second serial of experiments upon Himmler's orders, with its own goals.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that. Now what is your question of this witness?
DR. BERGOLD: Well, now I wanted to know from this export if he could tell us what difference exists between the two different experimental series.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you are assuming that he knows the details of both experiments?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, your honor.
BY THE PRESIDENT: And, regardless of Romberg's testimony, you want him to distinguish between the two?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, your Honor. I take it, that he knows, because Dr. Alexander was in charge of the examination of these experiments. That is how I understood it, anyway. I was informed thus.
MR. DENNY: You can ask him anything, I submit, your Honor, about the report that he wishes, but I have never seen any other report like this, based on these other experiments he is talking about, which was certainly not going to accept as SS experiments; but, if he wants to say that I have this group and this group, because Romberg said so, and will you tell me how this group of which he has the report, differs from the experiments that Romberg said, were conducted for the SS and Himmler. I don't see hour this witness is competent to testify about that.
DR. BERGOLD: On the basis of the examination that he made, I assume.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Examination of what?
DR. BERGOLD: Your honor, Dr. Alexander, as export, examined all the experiments which were carried out at Dachau. I don't know that is correct. Maybe, I have not been informed correctly.
BY THE WITNESS: That is correct. As a matter of fact, I was the first medical officer who saw the report on the altitude experiments. The report is an exhibit, I presume; and I saw it in Himmler's collection of books.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn't here.
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the report.
BY THE PRESIDENT: That is the document which Dr. Bergold now has?
BY THE WITNESS: The document, which I assume, if Dr. Bergald will show it to me, I can recognize.
(The witness is shown the document)
BY THE WITNESS: (perusing the document) This is a photpstat of the report which I found in Himmler's files, which were captured (pause) -shortly after their capture in late (pause) -- that was in early June of 1945.
This is the report, as I recognize the signature, and the general arrangement of the papers. And this report is included in the photostat of the CIX report which I wrote.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Well, does this report cover the experiments alleged to have been conducted by Rascher?
BY THE WITNESS: This report is signed -- (pause) -- may I have it again, please?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. (Hands document to the witness)
BY THE WITNESS: (perusing document) This report is signed by Ruff (pause) and Romberg (pause) and it says (examining) in Rascher's name: "Unterzeichnet im original". Which means in the original signed by Rascher.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Now, all the material which the witness has been asked to pass upon is in this exhibit?
DR. BERGOLD: No, your Honor, it isn't.
BY THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, that's the document which the witness holds in his hand?
MR. DENNY: That's what I want to be sure about, because Dr. Bergold keeps asking him about his theory of the Himmler experiments, where death occurred.
BY THE PRESIDENT: All right, this report will be admitted.
Q In the report which you have in your hand, doctor, are there two kinds of experiments indicated?
BY THE WITNESS: In this report, there are several kinds of experiments. There are experiments which are called "sinking" experiments.
BY TIE PRESIDENT: -- No, no; you misunderstand me. I do not mean scientific experiments, but two different experiments under two separate, series, divisions or heads? Is there anything in that report, which so indicates?
A I would have to refresh my memory. (Examines document) I do not think this (pause) -- the report is addressed, as you see, on the left hand corner, to the Reichsfuehrer SS and to the -BY THE PRESIDENT:
--- let me put the question this way:
Q. Is there anything in the report which indicates that one series of experiments was conducted by Romberg and Rascher for the SS and. for the Luftwaffe and another series conducted by Himmler for the SS?
A. In this report there is nothing to indicate that the Luftwaffe itself had any part. This report in written on the letter head of the "Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fur Luftfahrt", the German experimental institute for Aviation, "EV", I think it stands for "registered concern", which really is not governmental but private. It is addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS, to the Realm leader SS, which is Heinrich Himmler. There is nothing in this report to indicate that the Luftwaffe, officially, had any part in it, except for the fact (pause) --- which we know from other sources, namely; that Romberg and Rascher were Luftwaffe Officers.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only source of information which you have, you derived from this report?
A. No, I had my information from many more sources. On the basis of this report now there is nothing to indicate (pause) -- from this report there is nothing shown that the Luftwaffe had any part in it, unless we knew that Romberg and Rascher were Luftwaffe Officers. There is nothing in this report to indicate that this is a Luftwaffe report.
BY THE PRESIDENT: All right. Go ahead, Dr. Bergold.
BY DR. BERG0LD: Witness you said just now that Romberg was a Luftwaffe physician, are you sure about that? This morning, he said he was a civilian.
A. I don't know, I will agree with you (pause) -- at the time he was described to me, at the time of my investigation, when I saw this report.
I looked it over. And, of course, I saw the names, and I was then told that Dr. Ruff was the Director of this private concern, while Rascher and Romberg were described to me as Luftwaffe officers. I have since learned that Romberg was a civilian employee of the Luftwaffe. He had some Luftwaffe connections, because we knew about the fact that he had examined some Luftwaffe in France. He had some Luftwaffe connection. He may be a civilian employee of the Luftwaffe--
DR. BERGOLD: -- I think not --, Doctor, he was an employee of the CVL.
BY THE WITNESS: (continuing) My investigation at the time brought forward -
DR. BERGOLD: I only wanted to, make sure that you do not know it with certainty.
BY THE WITNESS: He was not in uniform, but Ruff wore a Luftwaffe uniform at the time. And after I found this report I went to Dachau to find out what went on there; and I then interrogated numerous witnesses and asked than about what happened. And then I received the information which has been embraced in various reports, and which I am sure has been submitted to this and the other courts.
BY DR. BERGOLD: Q. Concerning the Luftwaffe, and the high altitude experiments, was there any other secret report, or was there another secret report by Rascher made to Himmler?
A. This report preceded a number of reports which are called "interim reports", which are proceeding reports, and I think the most elaborate one is the one if I recall rightly of April 5th, 1942, which is the report which contains the famous data concerning vivisection of beating hearts and so forth, which I think is well known to this court. These reports, these intermediary reports are not signed by Romberg and Ruff. They were signed only by Rascher.
Q. Witness, in this report which you are holding right now, an experiment was described as a "sinking" experiment from an altitude of fifteen kilometers --correction, "from an altitude of fifty kilometers -- still, correction, "15", and near the end it says: "React to pain stimuli" -
BY THE FITNESS: -- on which page let me see it. (examining document) Oh, yes.
DR. BERGOLD: -- Witness, -
BY THE PRESIDENT: -- Dr. Bergold, to shorten the proof, the Tribunal is satisfied that the reference to pain is a reference merely to sensation, and does not indicate suffering. And so you needn't ask the witness about that.
