A He assured me that it was impossible at that time in Germany to get 'hold of apes for this experiment, consequently the planning of such experiments took the same course in high-altitude experiments, only these here, experiments in rather cold water. The preliminary discussions had reached the point where I could submit the plan to the ministry and since I could not report personally this is the explanation for the memorandum, which in the middle of May I presented to the State Secretary namely, Milch. Rascher personally at this time had not reported to me. I do, at any rate, not recall any report by Rascher. That is, in the middle of May.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I have a request. I ask that -- from my document book, the last page -- I ask that you look at the last page of my document book, the chronological list of the prosecution documents so that the Tribunal will see how far this matter has progressed. We have reached that point in my interrogation of the witness that I have indicated by the intermediate title "High-altitude Esperiments Terminated." I do that in order to point out to the bench that I believe that I have proved that up to this time Milch knew nothing more precisely of these experiments. Witness, please proceed. Rascher then came to you because as you said before, you asked him to?
A Before Rascher turned up at my office I received a second request from Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf that tho lowpressure chambers and Dr. Rascher should be retained for further experiments. This was in the first days of June. This annoyed me considerably. This pressure on the part of tho SS which I could only explain to myself by believing that Rascher on his own initiative had urged this because he was interested in it -- in the direction of his professership at the University it interested him to carry out certain experiments.
Now, at the time when after the previous experiments under Ruff and Romberg he had found out so much in this field, that he could now work and carry out experiments alone. I think he must have laid a great deal of importance on this because the scientific individual was 793A important to him and to prove he must function not only as an assistant but as his own boss and to prove that he had solved such medical problems himself.
Q. Witness, how did you receive this letter from Wolf?
A. Again it was a letter that was submitted to me through Statesecretary Milch.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I ask you now to turn to the Prosection's Exhibit No. 89, 1st Prosecution Document Book 5-A, page 24 of the Document Book. Milch letter to Hippke of 4 June 1942. 24 in my Document your Honor. Document No-261. Page 24. I ask permission to show this document to the witness so that he may see it. Can you recall ever having received such a communication, witness?
A. Yes, I did receive such a letter.
Q. Was this accompanied by Wolff's telegram or request?
A. That I do not know.
Q. How did you understand Wolff's communication to you? I ask your opinion of what - did you understand it as an order or as a - - ?
A. No, it wasn't an order. It was a proposal because the German word "soll" which means "shall". It could have been phrased as a command but in the German phraseology here it isn't phrased as a command. At any rate, I always construed it as a proposal and suggestion.
Q. Witness, then did you do what Milch suggested? To give Rascher further orders or then did you send the low-pressure chamber back to Dachau?
A. No, I did not carry that out because my point of view was that for the Luftwaffe no further work of this sort was necessary in this field. At any rate, not at this time, for this reason I did not carry it out. I certainly under no case should have done it before Rascher had reported to me because we were not sure whether this was or was not really a new proposition or whether it was simply a warning in connection with the previous suggestion that the length of time is between the two is so short that that could have simply been a second supplement to the first proposal -794(a) so first of all, I waited.
It was clear to me that the needs of the Luftwaffe had been met and so there was no reason for us to give them a chamber which was only there for our own purposes but not to satisfy the scientific efforts and special interests of Rascher.
Q. Witness, when did Rascher come to you?
A. In the first days of June, that is when it must have been. Shortly after I asked Rascher to appear, he did.
Q. Please describe this talk with Rascher.
A. It probably started in this fashion. I said to him, "Rascher, Dr. Ruff tells me that you have begun to make experiments on your own with the low pressure chamber without Dr. Romberg, and he also suspected you had a case of death during those experiments. Did you carry out experiments on your own intitiative with that chamber and did you have a fatality?" He answered, me, "Yes, I did want to make a few supplementary experiments, but at that time the chamber was taken away from me." I asked him, "Did you have fatalities or a fatality?" He replied, "No." Then I asked him, "Did really nothing happen?" He answered this question with, "No." Then I said, "Rascher, then everything went off very well?" I can remember my very words, "Everything went off very well?" And he answered with a very military "Yes, indeed." This military affirmation I regarded as an official report from him, and I believe that I could rely on it. Then I immediately asked, "Did you bring your report with you?" Whereupon he replied, "The report is not yet completed; moreover, the Reichsfuehrer So had orders that the report should first be shown to him because he had made these people available, and it was under direction." Thereupon I said that it was very well with me, but I must have the report. "To what height did you then proceed?" That was important from the practical point of view. Whereupon he replied, "Up to 21 Kilometers." And then I asked him, "That is the full height of the chamber, why do you still want the low pressure chamber?"
There were others who wanted the chamber. He said, "The experiments at utmost heights don't seem to have been completed yet." Whereupon I said, "But Dr. Ruff told me they were sufficient. You are not going to get that chamber again." Thereupon we went into a discussion of the question of freezing, and he said that he had been ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS to begin the freezing experiments. This question was already under consideration. Now it had become pressing, and they wanted a practical solution of it. I was also clear as to the necessity. In other words, I had to 796a Decide at this moment, and in view of the importance of the question, I called on my expert and spoke with him and Rascher together, discussing this question, whom we should put in scientific direction of these experiments.
I personally was thinking of Professor Weltz, who had made the animal experiments. But in the discussion that then took place ----- I believe that it was BeckerFreyseng who was working on this question---- the expert said that it wasn't important to have a theoretician like Weltz in charge of these experiments, but rather a practical person; because my point of view in all these freezing experiments was to ascertain the effectiveness of protective clothing and affording warmth to the fliers who were it and which was then being tested to ascertain whether the experiences we had already had from the animal experiments, namely that the rapid application of heat was, if not the only, at any rate the best means. He wanted to find out whether these experiences also applied to human beings. A researcher who filled both of these prerequisites, namely, both regarding protective clothing --- it was a question here of gas pockets built into the clothing, which developed a foam-----and also a man who had the practical experience in treating sea distress where shipwrecked persons or fliers were treated and taken care of. Professor Holzloehmer seemed to be the best person for this, because he was the most experienced worker in both these fields. As my expert had explained to me on this occasion, he had taken part in the development of protective clothing and had an experimental station that had worked on this, and moreover had practical experience in saving shipwrecked persons in the North Sea--- in other words, j797 practical experience.
I readily perceived that Professor Holzloehner was particularly good for the direction of these whole experiments, and as a supervisor of them better than Professor Weltz, who was simply a laboratory man and a theoretician. Consequently I took Rascher to Holzloehner. Other names were also mentioned. At any rate we decided on Holzloehner and instructed him to get in touch with him in order to find out if he wanted this task. After some length of time Holzloehner visited me and received his statement of policy from me, the same general directive that had been issued in the case of former experiments, with one exception, namely, the easing of 797a pain.
I was of the opinion that people, even if they were dressed and were put in cold water and their muscles became rigid, slowly but inevitably they must feel pain, and it was important for me to combat that. Here to I demanded selfexperiment as well of Rascher as also of Holzloehner.
Q. Were you also using prisoners condemned to death here under the condition they would be pardoned?
A. The other conditions were exactly the same as I said with this exception regarding reducing pain. I was not thinking of nercosis at that time, but as I told Holzloehner, I was thinking of easing pain with medicents which did not affect the heart or breathing as a wrong experimental result would have occured otherwise.
Q. In this discussion with Rascher was Dr. Jarish of Innsbruck University also proposed?
A. On this occasion I did not mention Professor Jarish. He was a Pharmacologist. In his case there was only a question of how far the medicants would go in regard to the heart action. It turned out from the very beginning, however, that this was not an important question because the animal experiments had already demonstrated that the application of drugs was uncertain and that would also be the case in experimenting with human beings. That is why we did not place any particular weight on that particular problem, or at least, why I did not.
Q. Did you also suggest Professor Dr. Singer for this work?
A. I remember that the name singer did come up. Singer was, in my opinion, the pathologist in Munich who worked on our research. That included the entire Munich area as a pathologist for the Luftgau. This man was the closest one to deal with pathological problems should they arise, but this work, too, was not of perticular importance to me; that is, that aspect of the work.
Q. Witness, I shall show you that in a report of Rascher, he asked Himmler whether the Gestapo was satisfied with Jarish, Singer and Holzloehner.
A. No. The Gestapo was never discussed with me.
Q. In other words Rascher told an untruth here?
A. I believe that it is the case here, particularly since I have seen other later letters where he frequently very serious lies in his letters.
Q. Witness, after this discussion with Rascher, when did you hear something farther about the experiments?
A. Professor Holzloehner was appointed for these experiments by directives from my personnel office. Whether it was from there or through some other way, I cannot say precisely, but Holzloehner was assigned to the region 799a of Gau 7. He worked there in the Dachau vicinity.
Consequently, orders for this man had to be issued by the Luftgau. Singer never visited me personally. I do not know him personally nor can I recollect what he looks like. In any event it was an appointment on the part of the Luftwaffe. They wanted to be assured orders were carried out allng the lines they wished. Holzloenher received this task from me in writting.
Q. Repeat the sentence in which you mentioned Dachau.
A. I do not know if I can remember. Holzloehner did not belong to the Luftgau 7 so far as I know, but he belonged to another Luftgau. Consequently he had to be expecially assigned to Luftgau 7 in order to be able to work in Dachau. He was to carry on supervisory activities in Dachau and these activities must be approved by us.
Q. Witness, after all of this happened, when did you again hear something about these experiments?
A. I did not hear about the beginning of the freezing experiments in Dachau. No report about it came to me so I do not know whether these experiments began at a certain time. I know when they ended because Holzloehner was then assigned to other jobs.
Q. Witness, did you then in August, the end of August, hear something about the experiments as a whole, those altitude and freezing experiments?
A. Yes, sir. At the end of August, finally, the report on high altitude experiments came in. They came from Himmler to Milch and from Milch to me. It was to be worked on by us. I went to see him.
Q. Then did you read this report which is of the 28th of July?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, you will find it in your Document Book. It is Exhibit No. 114. It is appended to the letter of the 26th of September. It is addressed to Himmler. You will see that the page is dated 28th July 1942.
Q. Did you read this report when it was sent to you?
A. If it is the report signed by Rascher, Ruff and Bromberg I did read it; yes. The State Secretary Milch sent it to me. I worked over it because it was of greatest importance to me.
800a
Q. It can be seen from this report, which is in a special document book of its own --
MR DENNEY: It is page 155 of Document Book 5.
DR. BERGOLD: I have just been informed your Honor that the copy you have is unfortunately not complete. We can copy the pages I shall present to the witness and submit them to you later. I regret that this important part was not submitted to the Court in total.
MR DENNEY: If Your Honor please, Dr. Bergold is misinformed. I think He was looking to see if we had a photostat of it. Obviously we do not have a photostat because the photostat is in German.
DR. BERGOLD: I understand.
MR. DENNEY: The copy we have is complete. I am informed we do have a complete copy.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court has complete copy.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. BERGOLD: That is good. Then everything is in order.
Q. Witness, in this report, on page 13 of the original, a descendence experiment at 15 kilometers is described. The prosecution read this passage into the record. In regard to this description of 15 kilometers height, did you get the idea that the experimental people were tortured?
A. No. By no means. There can be no talk of torture, nor can you find any evidence of it in this report. As it is stated here, it is a perfectly ordinary one. They show the reactions of a person after there is lack of oxygen and the way the brain progessively improves.
From the remarks "screams loudly", "keeps on screaming", yells spasmodically", you cannot decide the person felt pain.
When you are confused, you often shout or scream without having pain. It can be compared to what people do when they are drunk. There is no question of pain. It connects with what I previously said. Also the trembling of muscles is painless.
801a CORRECTION SHEET The following portion on page 802 is corrected to read as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: May the Court interrupt. Will you have this witness to explain what is clonic convulsion?
THE WITNESS: Tonic convulsions are rigid convulsions, in counter distinction, clonic convulsions are twitchings. May I show you by demonstrating with my hand, that is a clonic convulsion (demonstrating with his hand a motion). That is a very typical symptom of lack of oxygen, This we even may find out as a controlling sympton in order to recognize whether there was an actual lack of oxygen.
Q Will you also explain the word "Opisthotonus"?
A "Opisthotonus" is the bending backward of the head to a firm position. It is a result of a clonic or rigid contraction of the back of the neck which pulls the head back.
Q Then does this convulsion, that is, when convulsive and clonic, biting the tongue, or convulsive yelling, does that indicate pain?
Q. I wish to show now another page.
THE PRESIDENT: May the Court interrupt. Will you have this witness to explain what is a clonic convulsion?
THE WITNESS: Tonic convulsions are rigid convulsions, in distinction, Clonic convulsions are twitchings. May I show you by demonstrating with my hand, that is a clonic convulsion (demonstrating with his hand a motion). That is a very tipical symptom of lack of oxygen. This we even may find out as a controlling symptom in order to recognize whether there was an actual lack of oxygen.
Q. Will you also explain the words "Opisthotonus."
A. Opisthotonus is the bending backward of the head to a firm position. It is a result of a tonic or rigid contraction of the back of the neck which pulls the head back.
THE PRESIDENT: Then its your contention that neigher convulsions nor biting of the tongue nor convulsive yelling indicate pain?
A. Yes, this is muscular twitching, and convulsions are not painful, but they take place without the possesion of pain in the skin where they are an exercise of pain but using an expression of muscular function which is not the same thing as a stomach convulsion, which is associated with pain. This is a muscular cramp without pain. Thousands of researchers have proved this again and again. I also know from my personal experience on my own body that there are no pain in association with this muscular convulsion as a result of lack of oxygen. That we have had so many examinations, and we have had so many experiments by air experts here, that they could tell you of their own experience and I need not report of my own experience. This was generally known, and it is also known from medical literature and from reports.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, as the original plan does the witness have the report which we are considering?
THE WITNESS: I have it.
Q. I would like to draw his attention to the bottom of the page 169 that is the English report, and to have him explain-- that was 24 802a of the original, and have him explain it.
Witness, you have stated several times that the subject, they had no pain. Will you explain to the Court what is meant by the entry "Reacts to pain stimuli?"
A. Let me first find it, I have not as yet found it.
Q. Page 164 here, at the bottom, under grafic account of the subject, and "reaction" shown there.
A. I believe I can explain without having that before me. I can say this means that they are taking the examination of the person whether he is in full possession of his faculties, and they are conducting the examination by either pricking him with a pin, or by touching him in some other way, and attempting to find whether he reacts to it, in other words, it is another way of proving whether or not he is in control of his faculties. This is a test in order to find out whether he can judge his envirements correctly, or whether that is not the case. A little pain is put to him for this purpose. That probably was doing the sort of thing we do in our pathological tests, otherwise, to account whether they react to sharpness or bluntness, or, hardness, or softness, and in order to find that out it was done.
Q. When you say he reacts to pain stimuli, you necessarily mean that he feels pain, do you not?
A. Please repeat the question Your Honor.
Q. Yes I shall. I have this here, that the subject reacts to pain stimuli. Do you mean that he feels pain, do you not?
A. To be sure that is not what we would call pain. We take a needle and touch his skin with it to see whether he reacts to it as a conscious person would, in removing it with his hand, that is not pain, but that is positively a touch to discover whether he is fully conscious or not.