Please try to find another field for your activities."
JUDGE MASMANNO: Doctor Bergold, may I interrupt you. Don't you think that we would proceed a little more expeditiously, and perhaps a little more logically if you propounded the questions, and had the witness answer directly to you, rather than to allow him all of this latitude, or of repeating in interminable conversations, some bits of which are relevant, but most of which have nothing to do so far as I can see with regard to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
DR. BERGOLD: You are quite right, Your Honor, at least at first sight. however, there is this: Rascher has made a report concerning this discussion with Hippke which the Prosecution has not submitted as yet, which, however, I presume will be submitted, and it is carried in his vest pocket; it was here a question of the credibility of the witness, and I want him to tell about this conversation, which through his entire attitude, is important, so Your Honors can have an uninfluence picture of the whole situation. This is a discussions, Your Honor, in which I could not possibly make any progress without leading questions. In other words, I can only ask general questions, and to let him talk as long as he wants to.
MR. DIXON: Not as long as he wants to.
DR. BERGOLD: No, not as long as he wants to. Everything he has said so far is very important, because Rascher reported the whole matter in a different way, but he said he is almost finished now.
THE WITNESS: Would you hear one more question in this connection. I think there was much concern about the whole question because I think there was conceit behind it, and I said that probably do you think you are getting promotion much easier in the SS because young people are always very anxious to get promoted, and I think that promotion in the Luftwaffe also was rather too fast than too slow.
I asked you officially, "Do you want to be transferred to the SS," and he said, "Yes, indeed". Then I said, "I shall apply for your transfer to the SS with the personnel division." I added a few more words 829 (a) which are irrelevant at this point.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Rascher stated that during those conferences, that you indicated you wanted to keep him all the time and at any price?
A. No, there was no such question that I was to keep him. Rascher at all times to me was a very unrestful person for me, who, in his conceit, followed up his personal interest, and I wanted to release him personally, and I did not keep him.
Q. Witness, during the end of 1943 you were dismissed from your job. What was the reasons as known to you?
A. At the time no reasons were stated to me. I was simply told to resign my job on 31 December 1943, and I left without being thanked. After nine years of activity and no reasons why I was being released were given.
THE RESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, was not that 1943?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, indeed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness said "1942."
THE WITNESS: 1943, Your Honor.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Did you later on find out -- didn't you find out later on upon investigation that Himmler was behind your release?
A. At the time I sort of reasoned why I was being released, and that I was not thanked for my work. I only could think that there was a campaign against me, and saw the only reason in my resistance against Himmler, and later on I concluded that must be the reason for my release.
Q. Thank you. Witness, concerning the freezing experiments conferences, which took place in October 1942, did you report to the defendant?
A. No, according to my opinion I did not report to the defendant. I reported to my immediate supervisor, to the chief of the Luftwehr, General Foerster, for the purpose of pointing out the practical views which could be used for the Luftwaffe.
Q. Concerning the general framework, I should like to ask a few more questions. Witness, when yon heard that Rascher was with the help of the -830a SS to carry out experiments together with Ruff and Romberg, did you know of any cruelties on part of Himmler, of the Gestapo, and of the SS?
A. No, neither at that time nor later atrocities were known to me in the work of the SS. Only during the last days of the war, in other words when the collapse was imminent, I, as a civilian, was told that during the transfer from one camp to another horrible scenes resulted, which were due to the fact that during the transportation many people died.
Q. Thank you. When at the time you agreed that further experiments for high altitude experiences should be carried out, in other words, in May 1941, were there applications for respective experiments at that time from the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, there was an application on the fact that there should be clarity as to the altitude to be reached when developing cabins of the pressurized planes.
Q. Which division applied for this, or demanded these experiments?
A. The technical development, so far as I can remember, from the technical office, as well as from the doctors who worked in these branches.
Q. That was also Professor Stuckhold and Dr. Ruff?
A. Yes.
Q. It is known to you that at the time in May 1941 Ordnance Master General -- or rather, who was the Ordnance Master General in 1941? Was it the defendant or Udet?
A. I cannot recall that because I do not remember the date at which Udet died because that is when the transfer happened.
Q. If I tell you that that was in November 1941 that Udet died, would you remember then what office had ordered that?
A. I believe this must have come from the office of Udet.
Q. Didn't it strike you that Rascher, who was an officer of the Luftwaffe, always sent his report to Himmler only and that only Himmler gave the permission to report to you and that Himmler was the one that gave the decorations to his comrades, and not you?
A. I didn't know of reports. I neither knew of reports from Rascher to Himmler, of which I just heard here during my captivity, or of anything concerning decorations of Rascher in this field.
Q. Witness, on 20 May 1942, or early in June 1942, when Rascher was at your office and told you that he could not give you any further detailed reports because he had to have Himmler's permission in order to do that, weren't you surprised?
A. I could understand that Himmler had to have these reports first for the very simple reason that the supervision of these experiments was in Himmler's hands and that Rascher was under his supervision. Of course, then I could understand that Himmler had the right to get the reports first.
Q. Witness, were you not under the impression that Rascher felt rather like an SS member, or did he feel like a member of the Luftwaffe?
A. I was under the impression that first of all he felt himself to be an SS member and only in second place a Luftwaffe member, because of the war.
Q. Witness, I shall come back to the DVL. Is it correct that this institute was an incorporated organization of the Citizen Law?
Were Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg the sanitary officers, or were they civilian 832 a doctors?
A. They were both civilian doctors.
Q. In other words, they did not have any disciplinary powers, did they?
A. No. Dr. Ruff was a flight captain.
Q. Apart from Dr. Ruff and Rascher, did anybody else report to you concerning these high altitude experiments? Did Dr. Weltz or Dr. Romberg, for instance?
A. No. I received the written report via Milch which was addressed to Himmler.
Q. Did you ever ask Milch for his permission on if and where you were to use the high altitude chamber or the low pressure chamber?
A. No, I cannot remember that. Such questions were mentioned during the current oral reports. For instance, that the low pressure chamber was used in the Grossglockner Gebiet.
Q. But you were the only one to make a decision, were you not?
A. For the low pressure chambers which were under our direct supervision, yes; because if they were assigned to somebody else, then he had the supervision over them.
Q. There is a statement here where it says that Milch had direct discussions with Himmler concerning these experiments, without asking the sanitary inspection, and apparently ordered the experiments. Have you heard of such a thing?
A. No, I never received an order. I only remember the second request of Wolf, and that was more of a directive, and we considered it as a directive.
Q. Between Himmler and Milch himself?
A. No, I know nothing of the sort.
Q. Then I shall refer to the letter of 25 November. Was there an objective doctor between Milch and Himmler as liaison man? Was there such a doctor?
A. No, he wanted to show that way that he was against Milch's activities, and also against Holzlochner, and perhaps also against Weltz, and that he would rather have somebody else, another doctor rather than those mentioned.
Q. Do you know that Dr. Ruff himself tried out altitudes up to 17 kilometers before the experiments had been started?
A. Yes. In single experiments, yes.
Q. Do you know Goering?
A. Yes, I know him from sight.
Q. Did you ever receive direct orders from him concerning these experiments, or what kind of official business did you have with him?
A. I was never up for an oral report before Goering, in spite of my attempts. Perhaps the reason was that Goering did not like me, which I could realize from the fact that there were many little things. He always disregarded me. Only once was I asked to come and see him during my whole activity, but I believe that this has no bearing on the case.
Q. It has nothing to do with the experiments?
A. It has nothing to do with the experiments, and at that time I did not ever see Goering, although I asked to. He was not very nice to me, and I understood that he did not want to have anything to do with me.
Q. Witness, within the frame of the sea-distress experiments, there were also dry freezing experiments, in which naked people were put outside all night long in winter. Did such experiments have anything to do with sea-distress experiments?
A. No. Sea-distress only referred to exposure to cold water in normal airman's suit. I never heard anything concerning these other experiments; I heard about them here for the first time.
Q. You never gave an order to carry out these experiments?
A. No. This would not have touched my field of work or activity anyway.
Q. Then, I have a last question to you. Witness, how was your official position to the defendant? Did it rest on mutual trust or distrust?
A. I had a feeling of trust for the defendant, because he was the man who gave me the best support in all my questions and who could understand me best.
DR. BERGOLD: I am through with the witness, and he is now at the disposal of the Prosecution for cross examination.
MR. DENNY: Your Honors; I wonder if we could have a few moments' recess before I start on cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT: You would like to?
MR. DENNY: Could we, if Your Honors please?
THE PRESIDENT: Ten minutes?
MR. DENNY: Yes, sir.
THE MARSHALL: This Tribunal, is recessed for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: All persons please take your seats. All persons, rise. Tribunal No. II is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Witness, where did you study medicine?
A. I studied medicine at Berlin, at the Berlin University, as a member of the Kaiser William Academy.
Q. When did you start practicing medicine?
A. In 1913.
Q. You've heard of Hippocrates?
A. I did not understand the question, Your Honor. Yes, I've heard of Hippocrates. May I add something to that?
Q. No. Answer my questions. Did you take the Hippocratic Oath?
A. Yes; I know the Oath of Hippocrates.
Q. Witness, answer the question. Did you take the Hippocratic Oath?
A. According to my opinion, I did not have to swear to it. I did not take the oath.
Q. You did not take it?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Are you familiar with its principles?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Do you believe that medicine should be practiced in accordance with those principles?
A. Yes; I even supported that, with my personal power. I had a report and I helped the Professor Buechner during the war concerning a lecture on the Oath of Hypocrates, on this oath. Later on he had difficulties because of that. However, I saw to it that no trouble arose for him. That concerned -
Q. All right, witness; I'm not interested in you and Professor Buechner. The less speeches we have from you, the faster we'll get along. You answer the questions that I ask you; do you understand me?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Are you familiar with that portion of the Hippocratic Oath which says:
"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous"? You know that appears in the Hippocratic Oath?
A. Yes, -
Q. That is enough. You've said that the Luftwaffe doctors always performed experiments on themselves; that you had performed experiments on yourself?
A. Yes, I carried out experiments on myself too.
Q. And some of the doctors in the Luftwaffe who were under you experimented on themselves, you told the Tribunal?
A. Yes; that is correct.
Q. Did you ever hear of Dr. Rascher, Dr. Ruff, or any other Luftwaffe doctor getting in a tank of cold water and staying in it for three hours?
A. No. I've never heard about that, and I don't believe they did that, either.
Q. I'm quite certain they didn't too. You were very concerned, early in 1941 when you first heard about these medical experiments, particularly those having to do with altitude and freezing? Just answer the question. You were concerned; you were a doctor, and it bothered you; you thought someone might die; you thought that someone might die in these experiments?
A. Yes. Yes; I saw the danger that that could happen.
Q. You wouldn't consent to them right off, would you?
A. Not right from the beginning, because of my natural feeling against these experiments.
Q. Yes; it's not nice to kill people.
A. There was no question of killing people, but, according to my principles, I wanted to save lives, Your Honor, and not kill them.
Q. Don't refer to me as "Your Honor". Well, if there wasn't any question of killing people, why did you look for concentration camp inmates from Dachau for your experiments? You rejected the soldiers because they had to work in the fields that had to do with things purely military. You wouldn't take the civilians because you were afraid that some information might get out about them, and you wouldn't get monkeys but you would take concentration camp inmates.
(No response)
Q. But you would take concentration camp inmates, wouldn't you?
(No response)
Q. Just answer the question.
A. No. I did not consider them as concentration camp inmates. I considered them as people who had been condemned to death, who in this case had been given a chance to prove their loyalty to the Reich and thus given an opportunity to save their lives. It was a great experience for these people to do something for their Fatherland since they could not do anything on the front to do something at home. But not with the idea to die but to be saved. We never had a case of death. Why should there be a death now?
Q. Now, I assume that none of the doctors ever died and the witness Neff's testimony was to the effect that several of the experimental subjects died.
A. But this is quite a different instance or experiment.
Q. Don't make speeches. You made speeches for several hours and I don't propose to listen to any of them. In answer to a question by Dr. Bergold you stated that when you first discussed the matter of the experiments with the defendant in August of 1942, which you said was the first time you ever talked to him about that, he expressed considerable interest in the cold water experiments, that he had known nothing about them, and that you went into them in some detail because you were wanting to apprise him of it and because apparently from what you gathered by talking to the defendant he had never had any information on these experiments prior to the time of your conversation. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do remember that we discussed this meeting of the 31 August at the last session. Yes, indeed.
Q. And is that your recollection of what you told the Court at that time 838-A
A. This complex had been discussed long ago and now again. And, therefore, it is very difficult for me to remember all of the details, but the whole complex was brought up again. I can't tell it to you in detail.
Q. Well, I will read your testimony to you to refresh your recollection.
THE PRESIDENT: Which trial?
MR. DENNEY: In Dr. Bergold's examination it appears at page 810 of the records of February 8th, in Friday's testimony: "Milch then asked me what sort of experiments these were. I answered, 'High altitude experiments and freezing experiments.' He then asked what the term 'freezing' meant. I was prepared for that question."
THE WITNESS: May I correct that? I didn't mean freezing experiments but chilling experiments. This is something different than freezing experiments. Here it says "chilling."
MR. DENNEY: Here it says "freezing." "He then asked what the term 'freezing' meant. I was prepared for that question because it was a new term; even among medical men it wasn't often used."
DR. BERGOLD: Concerning that, I want to point out that the translation is never exact. He always say "freezing" for the word "cold", and the German word "cold" is a lower temperature than the normal temperature. There is an extremely radical difference between the two terms. One cannot use both terms "chilling" and "freezing" because they lack clarity, and the statement of the witness will not be exact.
THE WITNESS: In other words they were always speaking about the "chilling" and that is the only term that is new and for that reason I have to explain to you what it means. The word "cold" is not new and therefore there should not be an explanation for it.
THE PRESIDENT: The difference between "chilling" and "freezing" is a matter of degrees. I don't think there is any misunderstanding. Let us call it "chilling" but if pursued long enough it results in "freezing."
THE WITNESS: No, is something entirely different because through cold there is a freezing of the vessels which never takes place here.
The extreme temperature remains, no matter how cold it is, as the temperature of the skin remains 15 - 16 degrees.
839-A the inside of the body, that remains in the blood, is about 30 degrees instead of about 15 or 16.
In other words there will never be a freezing which actually takes place and, therefore, they are two different things.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. In any event, you were talking about the cold water experiments?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. This has to do with pilots who were compelled to bail out in the sea?
A. Yes, who had crashed.
Q. Just answer the question.
A. Yes.
Q. You weren't trying to indicate to the Court that this is the first time that the defendant ever knew anything about the problem of pilots bailing out in the cold water?
A. No.
Q. He knew about this before, didn't he?
A. He knew about the rescueing of pilots at sea prior to this conversation.
Q. Did you know that the defendant wrote a letter to Wolf mentioning cold water experiments as early as in May of 1942; that's Obergruppenfuehrer SS?
A. I had given him a note stating that such experiments would be prepared, on 20th of August, when he asked me for those notes.
Q. So he could have known considerably about these experiments, much earlier than in August of 1942?
A. In reference to the point of time, yes, if he had read those notes.
Q. At least you submitted them to him?
A. Yes, I did.
Q Have you heard of the term "shock" in connection with medicine?
A Shock? Yes. I have heard the term "shock" and it is known to me.
Q Shell-shock, bombing shock?
A Yes, this is clearly a medical term to me.
Q Shock that happens to any one after they had an accident?
A Yes.
Q Such as a man hit over the head?
A Yes. We have heard a lot of that, and many officers worked on that and there was a conference concerning shock and collapse.
Q About this conversation that you had with Dr. Rascher -- which took place some time in March of 1943 -- the document which Dr. Bergold referred to as being in my vest pocket, and which he has through the courtesy of Tribunal I; where is Rascher?
A Where is Rascher?
Q Where is Rascher?
A I don't know. I have never seen Rascher since that date.
Q You don't know what happened to him?
A I heard that he was dead.
Q So that any version that we get, that is, from his side of the conversation will of necessity have to come from the record.
A I think so; as he is dead, I don't believe he could appear as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denny, we will interrupt for a recess now; it is Judge Mussmano's tea time, and we will recess for ten minutes.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Court will please find their seats. Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Before recess we were talking about a letter from Rascher to Dr. Rudolf Brandt, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, dated 14 March 1943. You have seen this letter since you have been here?
A. That letter has been discussed several times and the fact that such a letter was written, I have not seen it and studied it in detail.
Q. You talked with counsel in the medical case upstairs?
A. Yes, it was there that the letter was mentioned.
Q. You have told the Court about your version of the meeting you had with Rascher. I understand that we must offer our exhibits when we get around to the rebuttal side so we can mark this exhibit 128. This is a letter from Dr. Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 14 March 1943:
"Dear Obersturmbannfuhrer:
"On 12 March I was ordered to a conference with Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke. The inspector was extremely friendly, I had the impression that the whole affair was painful to him. For your information I enclose a short description of the conversation. This description is by no means a complete one despite the fact that I took down notes immediately after the conference. I would like to emphasize the inspector's unusual amiability and caution in all expressions concerning the SS.
"May I respectfully ask you to inform the Reichsfuhrer SS of the report in as far as this appears necessary to you.
"May I also ask you, if you do not mind, to inform Hauptsturmfuehrer Heckenstaller since as far as I know he worked on my transfer by order of Obergruppenfuehrer Self.
"With obedient regards and Heil Hitler Your most grateful Sigmund Rascher" On the next page, we have the same date.
"Report on the conference between Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Doctor Hippke and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher on 12 March 1943 in Berlin.
"The course of the discussion can be described in its meaning only, not literally, since the conference lasted for 3/4 of an hour:
"Very friendly welcome by Professor Hippke. Immediately after that the question, who desired the transfer to the Waffen- SS and who suggested it.
"Rascher: Suggested and desired by the Reichsfuehrer-SS as well as by myself. I, too, have submitted a transfer request through the official Luftwaffe channels.
"Hippke: So then it is true. Why do you really want to leave the Luftwaffe? I give you every opportunity to work in the scientific field, and with us you will be backed by the solidarity of the entire medical officer's corps of the Luftwaffe. Beside we have the necessary experience in treating medical problems connected with aviation. The SS cannot possibly be interested in these questions.
"Rascher: But the Reichsfuehrer-SS does not desire at all to have those tasks carried out for the benefit of the SS alone, he expressed himself to that effect that the tasks shall be accomplished and the results shall be really made available to all interested agencies in the most rapid way.
"Hippke: We can maintain this connection with the SS also if you stay with the Luftwaffe. I hereby request you to stay with the medical corps of the Luftwaffe.
"Rascher: I beg to submit respectfully that inasfar as I am concerned, the decision about this has already been taken.
"Hippke: But in this case you must realize that the medical officers' corps of the Luftwaffe will no longer solidly back you up and that you have to expect scientific enmities and perhaps even a bitter fight in the scientific field with individual gentlemen, especially reservists, who brought along from private life their scientific manners.