as between March 1, 1944 and August 1, 1944. The success with which the Jaegerstab accomplished its task is shown by the last document 358A in this Jaezerstab series, which the Prosecution wishes to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us that date again, that is, was it April?
MR. KING: March 1st, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: March 1st.
MR. KING: To August 1st, 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: That covers the life of the Jaegerstab.
MR. KING: That is right.
We will locate this document in a moment, Your Honor. It's again part of our 124, Prosecution Exhibit No. 48-F, the report on tho conference of June 3 to 5, 1944 with the Fuehrer. The document is on Page 85 of tho English Document Book, Page 88 of the German, and shows the effectiveness of tho Jaegerstab as an-operating party. I will road paragraph No. 20 on Page 85 of the prepared notes on the Fuehrer's conference:
"In this connection, I explained to the Fuehrer that the opinion of the Reich Marshal, that the Army equipment for which I was responsible had kept back Air Force equipment in the last two years, was contradicted by the fact that since the beginning of the Fighter Staff in three months in spite of air attacks, aircraft production had doubled and this was not achieved in a short space of time by newly introduced production potentials from the Army equipment industry, as the Reich Marshal assumes, but solely by reserve which originated from the Air Force equipment industry itself."
This concludes at this time the presentation of documentary evidence concerning the Jaegerstab.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I am afraid we have run out of document books again. We have one more phase of the case: the medical experiments; and I believe, Dr. Bergold, you had a copy of the German book served on you, did you not? The next book? You haven't received one as yet?
DR. BERGOID: No, sir.
MR. DENNEY: We hope to get it soon this afternoon. It's the same story we have had before. We have worked so long on it. This will be our last document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, if you got the next document book this afternoon, will you be ready to proceed tomorrow morning then? Will that be sufficient time?
DR. BERG0LD: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will then be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine thirty.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is recessed until nine thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 Jan 1947 at 0930 hours.)
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 14 January 1947, 1105-1700. Justice Toms presiding.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denny, before you proceed with the presentation of further proof, we would like to take up with you and Dr. Bergold the application for some witnesses.
The Defense has filed with the Tribunal applications for the production of several witnesses. The first one is Lester Gauss, who is a prisoner of war now in this city, and to which the Prosecution offers no objection. The Court will later enter an order permitting the production of that witness.
The next one is Kerkhoven van Denterghem, Belgian Ambassador in Berlin, to which the Prosecution does object upon the ground that the matters to which he would testify have to do with waging aggressive war, and that there is no count in the Indictment charging that offense.
Do you wish to be heard, Dr. Bergold, on that?
DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for defendant Milch): May it please the Tribunal, I ask for this witness for the following reasons; Namely because the Prosecution in their preliminary speech said that the defendant Milch know in advance or used his position under Goering to promote rearmament and that in advance he agreed with all the aims and goals of National Socialism. In my opinion, that is rather an important point in order to understand this matter which is before you whether he agrees on a full understanding between Belgium, France and Germany for a full cooperation and whether he actually tried to secure peace for Europe and forever. If he did that and if later on this thing did not succeed for reasons which are not his fault, this must be considered when trying to understand this man and his character, and in my opinion it can be a mitigating circumstance. I also refer to the fact, for instance, that the International Military Tribunal regarded it as a mitigating circumstance with the Defendant Speer that he opposed the destructive orders given by Hitler, although they referred to the German people only.
I must be able to prove that Milch was not the Nazi who is depicted by the Prosecution. That is the reason for my application in the case of Kerkhoven, Van Zeeland, Cot, and Delbos.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, Your Honor mentioned the first point, the fact that Milch is not made the defendant against the subsequent charge of waging aggressive war. As to the statement by Dr. Bergold that Speer's opposition was considered as a mitigating circumstance, the Doctor will certainly agree that that opposition took place late during the period of the war.
Third, the time in question, about which Count Kerkhoven van Denterghem is to be called is all prior to 1939, and I remind Your Honors that at the time of the invasion of the Low Countries, irrespective of what private statements to anyone may have been, this man was a general in the Luftwaffe and later a Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe, and it seems to me that his record, even as far as we are, is completely inconsistent with the matters that Dr. Bergold seeks to establish by producing this and other witnesses for whom he has asked.
The statement made in the opening was merely an outline of the defendant's career. The Court has his own statement that he was a soldier during the last war, that with some exception ho has been in the army ever since. The position which he held at the conclusion of the war, Field Marshal, irrespective of whether or not he had been shown of some of his posts, is clearly indicative of his attitude, at least between 1939 and 1945, whatever it may be now and whatever he may have expressed privately prior to those years.
I submit that the witness in question is not one who could cast any light for the benefit of the Court in these proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: The applications submitted by the DEFENSE for the production of the following witnesses, will be denied by an appropriate order which will be entered:
Pierre Cot, French Air Minister of 1937; and KREIPE (FLIGHT GENERAL) GAUSS, the Defendant's Adjutant in 1937; VAN ZEELAND, Belgian Prime Minister in 1937; COUNT Kerkhoven van Denterghem, Belgian Ambassador in Berlin, and DELBOS, FRENCH Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1937.
Largely, because of the date, indicated, these applications will be denied.
Now, Mr. Denny, the Defense proposes to produce Von Neurath. I direct your consideration to the particular portion of the applications which says: "Soviet Russia denounced all treaties of the Czar Government, including the Geneva Convention and The Hague Agreement. Therefore, at the time of the acts indicated in the indictment, there was no agreement regarding the treatment of prisoners of war and the civilian population between Germany and Russia." Do you regard that as in issue.
MR. DENNY: Sir, we do not regard that as an issue, due to the fact that we maintain that it makes no difference whether the Soviet Union was a party to the Geneva and The Hague conventions. GERMANY was!
By the same token, if they had been engaged in war against some colony of a country the people of which had never heard of the GENEVA CONVENTION, then it would seem the force of their logic would be that in view of the fact that just because these people had never been subscribers to it, they would not be entitled to proper treatment as prisoners of war!
And, it is submitted, that has no bearing on this matter, whatsoever! There was a document which was submitted in CASE NO. 1, which we propose to produce at the proper time, an opinion by Admiral CANARIS. I believe it is document No. EC 338, in which he states that the custom of chivalrous treatment of prisoners of war was a custom that had grown up through the ages; it was only CODIFIED at GENEVA and at the HAGUE; and he indicates that the policy which was planned by the WEHRMACHT at that time placed it in a position where it had knowledge of all of the standards of chivalry which had grown up as regards treatment of prisoners of war and Civilian people in time of combat.
Of course, if your Honor please, conceding that the testimony of von Neurath would be that the U.S.R.R. had withdrawn from that: The Hague Agreement and the Geneva Convention; still, even if the man can come in and testify to it, I submit, it has no bearing at all on this case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court gets your point, Hr. Denny, that had there been no Treaty, yet anyone who acts as complained of here would, nevertheless, have boon CRIMINAL; but it does indicate that you can not rely on the breach of treaty obligations as far as the Russians are concerned, perhaps you may rely on something else; and there was at least no contractual obligation, if I nay put it that way, to treat the RUSSIAN prisoners of war and the civilian population in any given way.
MR. DENNY: I think, if your Honor please, that it might be true that the Russians are, in the nature of an incidental beneficiary; perhaps, they were not specifically mentioned because they weren't party to the contract; but even if they were initially a party to the contract and then withdrew our point is that GERMANY had to abide by those prisoner of war rules which other countries had set up and of which she ha.d become a subscribing member. But, if for reasons known to the SOVIET UNION they intended to withdraw from them, GERMANY would still be bound to treat their prisoners of war according to the contract.
THE PRESIDENT: Docs that mean, that your position taken here is in effect, that the SOVIET having withdrawn, that GERMANY would still have to abide by and could not withdraw from the contract, even after it becomes unilateral?
MR. DENNY: That is for your Honors to determine. I think, having boon a signatory to the THE HAGUE AGREEMENT and THE GENEVA CONVENTION, they can not withdraw the contract, already entered into.
THE PRESIDENT: The TRIBUNAL will hear Dr. Bergold on this point.
DR. BERGOLD: Hay it Please your Honors and The TRIBUNAL, I disagree with Mr. Denny in this matter, The contractual obligations existed between Germany and all the other countries which joined the GENEVA Agreement and The HAGUE Convention.
The contract still would hold good for these countries. However, it did not apply to RUSSIA which had explicitly withdrawn because, if so, this would be a contradiction as to all contracts. When a contract is concluded between two persons or powers and one of the two parties says: "I RESIGN"! then, of course, surely, he can't ask the second party to keep its part of the contract! The point in question we are trying to prove here, is that the Defendant MILCH was told explicitly by the competent people! The HAGUE Convention and The GENEVA Convention did not apply to RUSSIA because they had withdrawn from all of these treaties and they never stick to any of their treaties, and have never made a statement to the effect that they would stick to these treaties in the future. The witness von Neurath can make statements to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Prosecution will pass on this matter later. I mis-spoke. I should have said the "TRIBUNAL"!
This leaves before us the question of the introduction of testimony of Admiral Raeder impeaching certain documents purporting to be a transcript of a speech by HITLER.
Dr. Bergold, was this same proof presented at the INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it not be possible to present the proof that you wish to offer, by means of the transcript of the proceedings at that TRIBUNAL?
MR. DENNEY: We are willing to concede that as to any document offered, that proof if it is genuine is proper proof. We are concerned with the method of offering that proof.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, concerning this record, we have spoken a. lot about THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. It is quite correct that on that day there was a speech by Hitler. The Defendant Milch we wasn't asked concerning this matter in the first trial, now tells me about certain points in Case No. 1, which was the case before the International Tribunal. And we understand that the Schmundt memorandum was set up only after the outbreak of war, which was much later. This viewpoint before THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL was never put forth by any of the interested defendants; therefore, I must be given an opportunity to bring forth this new point of view, by interrogating RAEDER!
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, the document under discussion, was offered in evidence before the INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. Present at the Conference in HITLER'S headquarters on May 23, 1939, were: GAUSS, RAEDER, MILCH, the defendant here, Keitel, von Neurath, and GOERING!
That trial took ten months; and it's beyond belief, that GRAND ADMIRAL RAEDER who was a defendant at that trial, this defendant, (who was called as a witness), Von Neurath (who was here in jail), and GOERING, (who was in the docks) could not remember that that memorandum was made at a much later time, and did not offer it, at that time!It seems to me inconceivable, that that case could have gone on, with these men present, without it having been mentioned that Schmundt's notes on the Conference were later revised!Dr. Bergold said it wasn't offered, in the first case! Yet Admiral Raeder took the stand in the first case.
There was a man fighting for his LIFE! And yet he never mentioned that Schmundt's notes on the conference of May 23rd, 1939 were later revised; never mentioned the fact that those notes were compiled after the beginning of hostilities!
THE PRESIDENT: Your argument, Hr. Denney, goes to the weight to be attached to the proposed testimony, does it not?
MR. DENNEY: My argument goes to the weight to be attached to the proposed testimony; and, also, the International Tribunal comment on this document, its opinion; and I would be glad to get your Honors that opinion, and read it to your Honors!
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Hr. Denney, what Dr. Bergold states is that the proposed document does not contain anything which HITLER said on that day, and it is obvious, that it does not, because he spoke for a couple of hours and several pages indicate that! Now, what Dr. Bergold proposes, is to have the Defendant indicate other things which HITLER said, which do not appear in this document. So, therefore, -- at least to me -- that would appear to be relevant.
MR. DENNEY: If Dr. Bergold wants to lay the foundation to admit it, and then call Admiral RAEDER to corroborate what he says, we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then; no opposition on the DEFENDANT'S testimony being offered that the SCHMUNDT transcript does not contain a complete record, or a true record, the TRIBUNAL will authorize the production of the witness RAEDER, to corroborate the Defendant's testimony if, and when, it is offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denny, the court has also permitted to allow the production of witness Von Neurath.
MR. DENNY: If your Honor Please, we now come to the proof of the defendant's responsibility for the medical experiments performed upon human beings against their will and in disregard of their well-being and their lives. We concern ourselves with high altitude experiments conducted in low pressure chambers and with freezing experiments which were carried out by exposing experimental subjects to cold water and to extreme degrees of dry cold, following which various methods of reviving the victims were tried. The high altitude experiments began about the middle of March and lasted into June in the year 1942. The cold water experiments were initiated about the middle of August 1942 and were completed during October. The dry cold experiments were conducted during, the period from February through April 1943. During this time Milch was Inspector General of the Air Force, State Secretary in the Air Ministry and General Luftzeugmeister. In the former position he was in command of the office which authorized research and medical experiments conducted in behalf of the Air Force. General Hippke who was the physician in change of the Luftwaffe medical Department was directly subordinate to the defendant. As General-luftzeugmeister, head of Air Ordnance, Milch had charge of the development of technical experiments for the Luftwaffe. It may well within the provinces of the defendant in the capacities stated above to encourage scientific experiments conducted for the purpose of developing better equipment for the protection of German fliers against low pressure hazards at high altitude and for the purpose of determining the best method of reviving fliers brought down over cold water. It was a characteristic vice of the Nazi movement that not even scientific projects could be carried out lawfully, so it was with these experiments. The essence of the crime charged in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Count II and paragraph 11 of Count III of the indictment is that human beings, without their consent, were subjected to experiments which put them in danger of injury and death. Positive proof will be offered that many victims were forced to undergo these experiments - for others of whom no detailed information is available - the prosecution will rest on the proposition that the conditions of concentration camp privation and persecution out of which experimental subjects were drawn, precluded the possibility of free consent as it is known to the law.
This defendant was in a position of responsibility. Evidence will be offered to prove that Milch was in control of experimental equipment, that he had, authority over at least one notorious experimenter and that he exercised his jurisdiction over both. We will show that the defendant was put on notice that the experiments were being conducted in a criminal manner, and that this information came to him under conditions which made it absolutely incumbent upon him to fully inform himself concerning the method of conducting the experiments. The Court will see that the defendant was treated by all concerned as a fully informed and officially responsible person. Our evidence will show that this defendant was either an informed criminal or an authorizing principal who closed his ears to unpleasant details and thus he was equally culpable. This then will be the pattern of our proof - that experiments were conducted for the benefit of the Luftwaffe - which were brutal, criminal and fatal - with which the defendant was officially connected - and which received his knowing authorization. At the outset of this part of our case we would ask the Court's attention to two points: first, Milch could have avoided culpability by expedients as simple as refusing to authorize the use of experimental equipment, or by ordering the withdrawal of this equipment - he could have put himself on record as opposing the experiments by refusing to allow Doctor Rascher and others to participate in them. We did none of these single honorable acts. Instead we find him extending the period during which the equipment might be used and we find him expressing an approving interest in the work of the infamous Rascher. Second, we would remind the Court that this is the same man who hardened his heart against the plight of thousands of foreign workers who were oppressed slaves of the Nazi war effort. Nothing could be more in character than that this zealot of total conquest should be callous as well to the right to life of the anonymous hundreds who became victims of Nazi Pseudo-science.
The documents in this case will be presented to your Honors by Mr. McMahon.
MR. McMAHON: May it please this Honorable Court, the first document which the prosecution will introduce is Number 418 which will be Prosecution's Exhibit Number 77. This is a chart showing the organization of the Luftwaffe Medical Corps. It was confirmed and signed by Dr. Oskar Schroeder, representative Chief of Dr. Hippke in the Medical Inspection in 1940. Later in 1944 Dr. Schroeder succeeded Hippke as head of the Medical Inspection. Throughout the chart which represents a portion of the original there has been changed only in a few respects, so that this larger version could be presented for illustrative purposes. We do not contend that it includes every office or person in the Medical Corps, but it does give a general idea of the organizational picture. Defendant Milch appears at the top of the chart. His position as Inspector General of the Luftwaffe is not indicated, yet the fact is that he did occupy this office throughout 1942, as well as being Secretary of State in the Air Ministry, General Field Marshal and General Luftzeugmeister. The later position he was named to in 1941. A chain of command in organization and technical matters runs from Milch to Hippke, Chief of the Medical Inspection, and on the right hand side the line runs through various offices to the DVL, the Berlin Research Institute to which Doctors Ruff and Romberg were attached. All the medical institutes and luftwaffe Medical men were subordinate to the Medical Inspection Chief Dr. Hippke. The black line, representing technical matters only, which runs from Hippke's office to the DVL illustrates this. The DVL was subordinate to Hippke's office in technical matters, at the same time being subject to Milch through the brown line in organizational and technical matters. Dr. Weltz's Institute in Munich is in the lower left-hand corner - the brown line which stops at the edge of the chart continues on, finally running to Hippke, thence to Milch. Dr. Rascher's position is indicated by the brown arrows. Here at Dachau the experiments took place. He was temporarily assigned to work with the SS, but still retained his status as a Luftwaffe physician and rose from Second Lt. to Captain in the Luftwaffe. At all times during the low pressure and the freezing experiments, Dr. Rascher was under the command of the Luftwaffe.
The next document to be introduced in evidence will be 1602-PS and is to be found on page two of the English Document and Page 2 of the German. This will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 78. This document is a letter from. Dr. Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer Himmler and is his original request for professional criminals and feeble-minded people to be used in high altitude research. It is dated 15 May 1941.
"Dear Reichsfuehrer:
-- Going down to the second paragraph -- for the time being, I have been assigned to the Luftgaukommando VII, Munich, for a medical course. During this course, where researches on high-altitude flights play a prominent part (determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes), considerable regret was expressed at the fact that no tests with human material had yet been possible for us, as such experiments are very dangerous and nobody volunteers for them. I put, therefore, the serious question: can you make available two or three professional criminals for these experiments? The experiments are made at Permanent Luftwaffe Testing Station for Altitude Research (Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe) in Munich. The experiments, from which the subjects can, of course, die, would take place with my cooperation. They arc essential for researches on high-altitude flight and cannot be carried out, as has been tried, with monkeys, who offer entirely different testconditions. I have had a very confidential talk with a representative of the air forces Surgeon who makes these experiments. He is also of the opinion that the question could only be solved by experiments on human persons. (Feeble-minded could also be used as test material). I hope sincerely highly esteemed Reichsfuehrer that, in spite of the immense burden of work you carry, you are in the best of health. With my heartiest wishes, I am with Heil Hitler your gratefully devoted. Signed S. Rascher."
The next document the prosecution will offer in evidence will be Prosecution Exhibit No. 79. This is a letter from Rudolf Brandt, Himmler's adjutant, replying to Rascher's letter. It will be found on Page 3 of the English book and 4 of the German book. In this case it is document(Book No. 1) 1582 PS, Document Book 5A is the correct number. In this letter from Brandt, he says that prisoners will be made available for the experiments. The letter reads: "Dear Dr. Rascher: Shortly before flying to Oslo the Reichsfuehrer SS gave me your letter of 15 May 1941, for partial reply. I can inform you that prisoners will of course be gladly made available for the height-flight researches.
I have informed the Chief of the Security Police of this agreement of the Reichsfuehrer SS. and requested that the competent official be instructed to get in touch with you. I want to use the opportunity to extend my cordial wishes to you on the birth of your son. I shall refer as soon as possible to the second part of your letter. Heil Hitler. By order (initials) R. Br.", which is the initials of Rudolf Brandt.
The next document which we will offer in evidence is 400-PS. which will be Prosecution Exhibit No. 80. This will be found on page 4 of the document book 5-A, and 5 of the German copy. This document is the report made by a major -- Major Alexander, U.S. Army Major, who investigated these experiments and drew up a report on them which has been documented. It is entitled, "The Treatment of Shock from Prolonged Exposure to Cold, Especially in Water." Now reading, "It is indeed a curious irony of fate that Himmler, who may have killed his friends the Rascher, for the purpose of keeping secret their experiments, has indeed become -- after his own death -our best source of information concerning every detail and result of these experiments, since, while ordering others to destroy papers and evidence, he, a man of such obviously obsessive qualities found himself unable to dispose of a single scrap of paper.
He preserved all in his special cave hideout, where it was discovered later by American troops. Dr. Rascher obviously was a prodigious letter writer and self-advertiser, which is helpful now, in that it provides information concerning every detail of his work and activities. His interminable preliminary reports, his many letters telling Himmler and his underlings what important work he is doing -- he sometimes sent off more than one letter a day -- have indeed become a most interesting social and historical document, which, however, concerns us only partly for the purpose of this report.
"The idea to start the experiments with human beings in Dachau was obviously Dr. Rascher's. He first proposed it in a letter to Himmler dated 15 May 1941. Dr. Rascher states that while attending a course in aviation medicine at the Luftgaukommando VII in Munich, he began to feel that the problems of human physiology at extreme height should be studied in experiments "in human material". He requested that Himmler place "professional criminals" at his disposal for this purpose, since it was expected that nobody would volunteer for such experiments in which 'the experimental subjects might, die.' He added that the 'Prufostollo for Hobenforschung der Luftwaffe', the organization headed by Dr. Weltz (mentioned above) would be ready to carry out these experiments. On 24 July 1941, Himmler authorized the experiments to be carried out by Dr. Rascher, Dr. Kottenhoff, and Dr. Weltz. A letter from Mrs. Rascher to the Reichfuehrer S.S., dated 24 February 1942, gives further details concerning the progress of the arrangement. This letter was written by Mrs. Rascher 'under my husband's orders' because by that time Dr. Rascher, who was commissioned in the S.S. as well as in the Luftwaffe, had been given to understand that he would have to do all his writing through Luftwaffe channels.
Dr. Kottenhoff had left the team because he was transferred to Roumania. Dr. Weltz was supposed to initiate all technical aspects of the experiments in Dachau, but because he sensed some difficulties in terms of possible objection from higher Luftwaffe authorities, who he heard might consider such experiment's as 'amoral', he delayed the start of the experiments until the Director of the Luftfahrtferschugsansfalt Berlin-Adlershof, Dr. Ruff, and his assistant, Dr. Romberg, joined forces and arrived in Dachau with a low pressure chamber which they supplied. Thereupon a conference was held at Dachau in which Dr. Weltz, Dr. Rascher, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Ruff took part, and in which technicalities were arranged with Obersturmfuehrer Piorkawski and Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler of the Dachau Concentration Camp. Dr. Weltz agreed to supply the necessary orders for Dr. Rascher. The actual experiments were begun by Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher at the concentration camp in Dachau in March 1942. Dr. Rascher was given an additional stipend from the Research Institute 'Ahnenerbe'. Additional instructions were given by S.S. authorities that Dr. Rascher should personally take an active part in all the experiments on human beings in Dachau, at the request of Mrs.
Rascher, who felt that the other members of the group wanted to have him removed. Mrs Rascher felt that Dr. Weltz particularly wanted to retain ail control of and responsibility for, the experiments and that he wanted to push Dr. Rascher aside; for that reason, in a personal interview with one of Himmler's adjutants, she suggested that Dr. Rascher be attached to the Luftfabrtferschungsansfelt Berlin Adlorhof, in order to make it impossible for Dr. Weltz to transfer him elsewhere. Himmler's office then asked Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke for the transfer, but Dr, Hippke merely prolonged the orders detailing Rascher to Weltz's organization in Munich. The final report, however, was not published until 28 July 1942. (The full report of these organizations on 'Salvage from highest altitudes', in which the effects of cold were not studied, will be referred to in another report on miscellaneous aviation-medical matters).
"The cold experiments in human beings were authorized on 20 May 1942, in a letter stamped secret and addressed by Generalfelsmarschall Milch to S.S. Obergruppfuehrer Welff in Himmler's office. In this letter, Generalfeldmarschall Milch acknowledges receipt of a telegram of 12 May 1942. He states that the experiments on the effects of great heights have been concluded, but that other important experiments concerning air sea-rescue problems arc regarded as important and desirable. He status that the necessary orders had been given; that Oberstabsarzt Weltz had been ordered to carry them out and that Rascher had been placed at Dr. Weltz's disposal on a part-time basis. He goes on to thank the S.S. for their cooperation with the Supreme Command of the Luftwaffe. Of particular interest is a letter from Rascher to Himmler, dated 15 June 1942. In this report -- in this he reports a conversation with Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke concerning the cold experiments in human beings. Dr. Hippke is said to have requested these cold-water experiments."