The purpose was to eliminate me from control over Rascher. In order to understand why that seemed desirable to Rascher, perhaps I may briefly sum up the situation in which Rascher was when this letter was written by Mrs. Nini Rascher. Rascher, against my will, without my assistance, came to my office in November 1941. He was in Schongau at that time and I did not urge that he be assigned to my office. I did not need him. Rascher said that he still had things to do at Schongau and I was satisfied with that. But when the agreement had been reached with Ruff and Romberg when the work was to start in Dachau, Rascher still did not come to my office but I learned that he was in Munich. I have already said that. This was the occasion for me to write a letter to him, an official letter, which I still remember very well. This letter was in a rather military form. It said about as follows: You are to report to me; twice a week at ten in the morning on Tuesday and Friday. Signed Weltz.
The tone of this letter was unusual at my office. We were not very military in our behavior. I generally were civilian clothes at the institute and this letter to Rascher forced me to go to the institute in uniform twice a week. That is why I remember it. After this letter Rascher could have no doubt that I emphasized my relationship of Military superiority towards him, and that I did not desire to grant him the special position which he claimed as a friend of Himmler. Rascher's conduct toward his superiors has been described here repeatedly. I remember his meeting with Grawitz for instance. Rascher formally submitted this order, he actually appeared three times. There is no doubt that the form in which I managed the relationship of military subordination was unpleasant to him.
I treated him like a subordinate. Medically, I treated him as an assistant who was to follow instructions. And I have no doubt that this was particularly unpleasant to him and that these relationships finally led to the conflict, the core of which is Mrs. Rascher's letter of the 24th of February 1942.
As I have said, Rascher then showed me the telegram which he had received from Himmler. The form in which I was eliminated by this telegram was so unusual and was such a violation of good military form, such as we were used to, that I was very indignant about it and of course, for my part. drew the obvious conclusions from it. I have already said that I told Rascher that he could not stay in my office, then I dictated a letter to Weltz demanding his dismissal and then he was actually dismissed. My relationship with Rascher was thereby finally finished and I, for my part, wanted to have nothing more to do with Rascher in any form if possible and I also wanted not to have any more contact with any SS agency, because it was extremely inconsiderate of Himmler to have my own subordinate, without any explanation, give me a telegram eliminating me from investigations in which I declared myself willing to participate, merely in order to permit an order of Himmler to be carried out.
Q May I take it from your description that Rascher was relieved of his work in your institute by your request before you heard anything of the Dachau experiments; is that correct?
A Yes, referring to this telegram Rascher had refused to give me any report.
Q A few more questions on the altitude problems. After Rascher's resignation, did you talk to Ruff or Romberg on the Dachau experiments?
A I did not talk about the experiments either with Ruff or with Romberg, because I knew that the secrecy order was in effect and of course we had to respect this order.
Q Did you receive any more communications about the experiments?
A No, I did not receive any communications.
Q So, therefore, you did not know the final report of Ruff, Rascher and Romberg?
A No, I did not know about it.
Q So therefore you did not know of the fatalities that happened at Dachau?
A No. I did not hear of any of them.
Q Now what is your position to what the Prosecution charges that you succeeded at the time in overcoming the resistance put up by the Medical Inspectorate against the Dachau experiments?
A This charge does not affect me. I exerted no influence on Hippke. After this talk at the Preysing Palais where we had both expressed our basic attitude, I did not talk to Hippke about it at all. Hippke had given permission for the experiments, according to Ruff's report. I already said that I deliberately avoided exerting any influence on Hippke, because Hippke was to reach his decision independently and since I not knowing the construction program of the Luftwaffe, could not decide how urgent the experiments were and of course Hippke had more insight in the matter. I in no way tried to influence Hippke's attitude.
Q Now, about the freezing and cold experiments; what were your relations toward the cold experiments at Dachau?
A I had no relations at all to the cold experiments at Dachau.
Q But you yourself worked a great deal in the entire field of the cold program; would you like to tell us how you were led to this work and what your work consisted of in these problems?
A My attention was called to the cold problem in the winter of 1940-1941 by a report which I had been sent by the Airfleet physician 3. This report summed up a number of experiences of aviators who had fallen into the channel during that winter, some had been rescued successfully,some had been rescued after they had died and some had died after they had been rescued. There were in particular very moving experiences which these men had gone through. From the medical point of view, I realized how little we knew about death from freezing. In particular, there was sometimes a mysterious death after the people had been rescued, after they were already in safety in the hospital. They died and very little was known about the cause of their death. The doctrine prevailed at that time that such persons who had been exposed to cold could be rewarmed only very carefully.
We thought that perhaps they had been rewarmed too quickly. It was not clear what role alcohol was to play in these rescues, should the people be given alcohol or should they not be given alcohol. The basic questions were astonishingly unclear. It was not clarified whether the person should keep still in the water to save his strength or whether he should move in order to create warmth. It was not clear whether he should keep his clothes on, his shoes and gloves, or whether he should take his clothing off -- in order to move more easily. All those questions had not been clarified. Thereupon, I received permission to visit all aviators, who had fallen into the sea and been rescued - most of them had gone back to their units- and question them about their experiences. I also visited the sea rescue stations along the channel and the French coast. As I said yesterday, I also visited the military hospitals in Cherbourg and Boulogne where sometimes some such rescued people were treated. This work was carried out partly in the winter of 1940 and 1941, partly when I was in France for a longer period in about August of 1941. Then, simply by questioning these rescued persons we learned a number of important facts and were able to draw up a memorandum containing certain instructions. This formed the first basis for instructions on conduct during water landings.
Q This work you are talking about, was that connected in any way with the experiments at Dachau?
A No, there was no connection as I have already said. This work was more or less completed in the summer of 1941 and there was no question of any odd experiments in Dachau yet.
Q. Now, the Prosecution has submitted Document No. 343A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, in order to prove that you had been detailed for the freezing experiments in Dachau. This is the well known "Wolffy" letter. This Document is in the Prosecution Book No. 2 on page 77 of the English text. You. Dr. Weltz, among others are mentioned as being in charge to work on sea rescue problems; please explain this to us.
A I never had any knowledge of this letter. I learned of it only here. I was not asked what my opinion was on such an assignment and I never received any order, which would have brought about the execution of this plan. If the suggestion of 20 May, 1942, which Milch makes here was put into action, I would have had to be given an order to that effect. I never received any such order and I never learned anything of this letter.
Q Well, do you know perhaps how this letter was drawn up and who were proposed for these experiments?
A How the letter was drawn up, I do not know. These things happened in Berlin and we in Munich knew nothing about them. I only know what Hippke himself said in his testimony in the Milch trial, otherwise I know nothing of it.
DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, the records of Milch's statement, that is to say, Hippke's testimony in the Milch trial, I will submit to the Court as soon as it has been certified by the Secretary General. As I mentioned yesterday, I've asked for this to be done. Hippke says in the record that he had earmarked Weltz for those Dachau experiments because he had made animal experiments about cold problems before. When he had a conversation with Rascher about this, he remembered that Weltz was a man who was purely interested in the theoretical aspect and was not really suitable for this task. He therefore suggested Prof. Holzloehner instead of Weltz because he had already worked practically on these problems. Thereupon, Holzloehner was sent to Dachau officially.
Q Dr. Weltz, nevertheless, I should like to ask you to comment on another two documents which I shall now hand to you. This first document, NO-233, Exhibit Number 82, from the Prosecution Book III, Page 12 of the English text, is the report by Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
A Rascher reports here about a talk he had with Hippke; and he says, "At the same time he asked for permission to carry out the cold and water experiments in Dachau and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments: Prof. Dr. Jarisch, of the University of Innsbruck, Prof. Dr. Holzloehner, of Kiel, and the Luftwaffe pathologist Prof. Dr. Singer, of Schwabing Hospital." On the 15th of June 1942 the plan that I was to carry out these experiments had already been dropped; and other names were mentioned.
The next letter, NO-286, Exhibit 88, was addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS. It comes from L. 1. 14, and it says that Holzloehner has received a research assignment on the effect of freezing of warmblooded subjects; that to carry out these investigations a research group "Hardships at Sea" is to be set up; that this group consists of Prof. Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke; and that it is intended to dissolve the research group at the latest by 13 October 1942.
Here again the experiments are reported on, and my name is not mentioned. I believe that the documents submitted by the prosecution show that I had nothing to do with the cold experiments in Dachau.
Q I remember here that you mentioned before to me that Rascher proposed to you earlier that cold experiments be carried out in Dachau, that is to say, after you had turned down his altitude experiments with a slow ascent. Please explain this to us.
A That is true. I said that yesterday. When I rejected Rascher's first suggestion, high altitude experiments with slow ascent, he came to me with a new suggestion. That was about November 1941. This new suggestion was that cold experiments should be carried out in Dachau.
Q Now, why did you decline to take part in the freezing experiments whereas you approved the low pressure experiments of Ruff?
A First of all there would not have been a possibility of carrying out these cold experiments in Dachau under good conditions. But these experiments did not seem to me to be necessary at that time. At least they seemed too early. At our institute animal experiments were still going on; and this series of animal experiments which we had begun was very successful at that time. So that there was no need for us to perform human experiments. We were making good progress with our animal experiments; and it was just the other way around in this field which we were working on. In the field of basic research it is much simpler and more comfortable, realizing our other considerations, to work with small animals than to work with human beings. We had no reason to want to carry out human experiments.
Q As far as I know, you carried out cold experiments on pigs. Perhaps you can comment on those.
A Later, in 1943, because of the air war, I moved the institute to Freysing to an estate eight kilometers away from Freysing. The transfer was effected with consideration of the point of view that pigs were bred there and that in this way we would be able to get pigs as experimental animals, which of course were not available otherwise during wartime.
The pig was desirable as an experimental animal because experiments with small animals, of course, are limited wherever dimensions, weight, and fur are important. In the case of the pig one comes much closer to the conditions of the human being. The pig is not only relatively close to the human metabolism; it has also dimensions corresponding to those of human beings; and it does not have a great deal of fur so that in the pig we saw an ideal experimental animal as a substitute for a human being for experiments which were relatively close to reality; and we succeeded in finding a series of facts we believed were important.
Q So do I understand yon correctly if I take it that you made experiments on pigs in order not to have to perform experiments on human beings, and also because your experiments on pigs were so satisfactory that you had no need to use human beings? Is that how I should understand you?
A Yes.
Q When did you hear for the first time that cold experiments were being carried out at Dachau?
A In the summer of 1942 a few months before the Nurnberg conference, two delegates turned up sent by Holzloehner who asked my associate Weltz to carry out oxygen tests with certain apparatus which we had at the institute. Weltz asked the men why they needed it. They said that they were not allowed to give any details about the experiments. Weltz refused to determine the oxygen content, he informed me; and I approved of his refusal. Shortly afterwards, the two men came back and asked that we send the machine, the chorolometer, to Dachau, loaning it to them. Weltz brought the two men in to my office to see me and said that we would not give up the machine and that he did not want to have anything to do with Dachau. I was present. I approved what he said. It was absolutely in accord with my feelings and on my orders that he refused to give up this machine. I did not want to have anything more to do with Rascher under any conditions.
Q Will you please give us the date as precisely as possible as to when these people from Holzloehner turned up to see you?
A I cannot say anything more definite than that it must have been in the summer of 1942. I cannot give the date any more accurately.
Q This apparatus of which you talk, was that perhaps the same apparatus which Rascher mentioned in his letter to Himmler of 9 October 1942? I am handing you this letter now. It is in Document Book of the prosecution II, Page 108 of the English version, and Document NO-1610-PS of the prosecution and Exhibit Number 73. Please comment on this letter.
A Rascher writes, "The Weltz Institute does not want to give me apparatus simply because they are afraid that I will have good results on human experiments more quickly than is possible in years of animal experiments. Weltz, instead of now admitting that we reached our goal more quickly in the freezing problems through experiments on human beings and need the apparatus, makes the excuse that at the present time he is conducting freezing experiments on shaved cats and needs the apparatus for this purpose." This is the machine of which I spoke. I should like to refer to this enormous impudence with which Rascher simply demands from me that I must give him a machine which belongs to my institute, a machine on which he has not the slightest claims and he said that I made the excuse that I needed it myself. He expects that I should apologize to him for needing my own machine and for not being willing to give it to him. I just wanted to mention that as an illustration of Rascher's attitude.
Then he writes, "Through the OKW Weltz is trying to get captured Russians as subjects for his experiments. Human experiments conducted outside of camp do not seem expedient to me." How Rascher comes to make this assertion that we were trying to get captured Russians through the OKW I don't know. The never even considered that. I don't know how Rascher imagined that, how he thought that we were opening a private concentration camp.
I can't understand what this suggestion means. We never even thought of it. I said that just about this time we were having a great deal of success with our animal experiments and that later we went on and experimented on pigs.
Q Did Rascher make more lies and untruthful statements like this?
A Yes, he made very many untrue statements, so far as I can check here. I remember that he told Romberg as well as Sievers, that I was a person of Catholic orientation. I never belonged to the Catholic Church, and I never participated in Catholic politics. That was also an untruth which he had purely invented. I was on very distant terms with Rascher and certainly never talked to him on ideology. This remark which Rascher made to Romberg, as well as Sievers about the "black robed brother" well, that is pure invention.
Q Coming back to Holzloeher, do you not think it was dangerous for you not to fulfill Rascher's wishes. Therefore, you agree with the defendant Sievers, inasmuch as he said on cross examination that you were one of the traitors who declined to make experiments on human beings, that you preferred to have German soldiers die instead of carrying out experiments?
May it please the Court, this passage was taken from the letter of 24 October 1942, which has been referred to before. This letter may coincide so far as the date is concerned with the period of time with which we are concerned here. It is Document NO-1609-PS, Exhibit No. 92, from Document Book 3 of the Prosecution, page 77 of the English text.
Professor Holtz, do you still remember my question I asked you? Whether it was dangerous for you not to comply with Rascher's wishes?
Q According to what I see here in the correspondence I would have to assume so. However, at the time I did not know it. I did not know how dangerous Rascher was.
I did not imagine then of course, that he would report every detail to Himmler personally. On the contrary I thought that the relations with Himmler, which he was always talking about was just boasting, but I see now from the correspondence that he actually had a very strong influence, and that he informed Himmler about every detail. I believe that Rascher would have been just the man to use that authority which he had been given in this Document 1609-PS; similarly he is supposed to have done something against his father, but I don't know the details about that.
Q Apart from the fact that Holzloehner's delegates came to see you in order to collect the Caloriemeter from you, afterwards, were you given any other indication of conducting the cold experiments at Dachau?
A Certainly before the Nurnberg conference, a week or two before, Holzloehner came to see me at the Institute, and suggested that we should compare the results. We both know that there were to be lectures at Nurnberg, because we had received the agenda for the Nurnberg conference in the meantime. Then Holzloehner came to me and suggested we should compare our experiments, should discuss them with each other, and should clear up any differences beforehand, so that we would not contradict each other during the conference. Such discussions between two exports is in general quite useful, and it is quite understandable that Holzloehner made this suggestion. Then I said to Holzloehner that under no conditions would I have anything more to do with Rascher and Dachau, after the experience I had. I told Holzloehner exactly what had happened to me in connection with Rascher, I refused to tell Holzloehner what success I had, and I refused to listen to what he had discovered.
Consequently I learned of Holzloehner results only what he reported at the Nurnberg conference.
Q. Rascher said you had done all of this because of scientific jealousy?
A Well, that was a matter of course. Rascher can not say that I repudiated him for reasons of character. He has to give a different reason, but the suggestion which Holzloehner made would have been to my advantage, too, since a formula could easily have been found in order to preserve the priority rights of each individual. In such discussions one could have exchanged records, and impartial expressions, something like that. There would have been nothing against it, and in general it is quite useful for two men working in the same field to compare their results beforehand so that they do not surprise each other at the conference. That is to the advantage of both parties, but in this case I refused because I wanted to make it quite clear to the outside that I would not have anything more to do with Rascher.
Q. About the results of the Dachau experiments you had heard for the first time in Nurnberg?
A I heard in Nurnberg Holzloehner's report and no more. Like all the other persons at the conference, I listened to Holzloehner's lecture, and Rascher additional remark subsequently, but to nothing else.
Q Now could one deduce from Holzloehner's lecture that there were fatalities in the Dachau experiments?
A Of course I listened carefully to Holzloehner's lecture and one could read between the lines that Holzloehner had reported about at least one death case but it could not be determined whether this one death was from the sea-rescue service, or whether it was a death which had occurred at Dachau.
In a very unclear way Holzloehner had mixed up the experiments from the searescue service, and what he had discovered at Dachau, so even a person well informed about the details could not easily distinguish in the first place how many deaths there had been, and, in the second place, whether the one death, which they said existed, had been in the searescue service, or in an experiment at Dachau.
Q Did you and Holzlechner talk together after this lecture?
A I talked to Holzloehner after we both gave lectures, and discovered that practically we had come to the same results, but that in the theoretical interpretation of death of persons we had different opinion. I told Holzloehner, of course, I would be very interested in knowing how he explained his opinion, and I said that I would give him my records about the animal experiments, but I asked that he give me his records in turn, and to send them through official channels. I know that Holzloehner was not in a position without agreement to give me any details. Rascher had said after Holzloehner's lectures that those experiments were secret, and, in effect, were top secrets, and that I, therefore, asked Holzloehner to send me his records through official on channels to explain his theoretical opinion, and I would place my own record at his disposal in turn. Holzloehner promised to do it but I heard nothing more about it. I never received the records.
Q Now it would be interesting to know how Rascher behaved after the lecture?
A. Lutz has already described that here. After Holzloehner had finished, Rascher added a few rather unimportant scientific remarks, and then in a very unfortunate form, he made the statement which has been discussed here repeatedly that the experiments had been made possible by the Reichsfuehrer-SSl that they were secret, that they had been performed on volunteers, criminals who had been regularly condemned--the remark which has been discussed here repeatedly.
Q. Did you discuss those two lectures with other participants of the meeting?
A. Yes, of course, we talked about it. For example, I talked to Knothe and Buechner-Freiburg about it. We were all of the opinion that the form in which Rascher had made his remark was extremely illchosen. He made that in a trifling form, which we all considered a serious lack of tact.
DR. WILLE: If it please the Court, may I point out here briefly that there is an affidavit at the disposal of the Court of Professor Knothe which refers to the discussion which these people had after Rascher's and Holzloehner's lectures.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q. Dr. Weltz, what did you think of Rascher's statements? Did you, after Holzloehner's lecture and subsequent to Rascher's somewhat strange behavior, feel that Rascher was probably a criminal or a demoralized character?
A. That is probably not quite the right term. I can say that the manner in which Rascher made this remark was extremely disagreeable to me, and Rascher made another remark to me after the lecture. He went past me and said, laughingly, that once the reputation is ruined, one can live very well. The role which he played there apparently pleased him very much, and that is what we found unpleasant.
I must say that Holzloehner's attitude was quite different.
Holzloehner presented the matter seriously, and of course we talked about it. Buechner and Knothe thought that Holzloehner had not contributed much that the animal experiments had not already shown and did not think that Holzloehner's experiments were valid for that reason.
Q. Did none of the participants of the meeting do anything against Rascher? Some of these gentlemen were obviously indignant about the lecture and Rascher's conduct, and it would nave been the obvious thing to do for those people to take action.
A. It is perhaps too much to say that the gentlemen were very indignant. I did not near any opinions from must of them at all. I can speak only of the people who were near me and to whom I talked about the matter. Knothe and Buechner and Werz were three people who repudiated the matter. To what extent the others realized it at all, I do not know. In such a congress, when one is stuffed with lectures and science, one is not so receptive that one listens carefully to every lecture if one is not especially interested in it. I could very easily imagine that people did not hear it at all, aid not notice anything special about it. One was out always initiated. It is very hard to judge how far people understand things in such a big meeting.
Q. Now, you yourself lectured at the Nurnberg meeting. On the basis of that lecture you were charged, when the Prosecution made its opening statement, with something very special. I shall now hand you a photostatic copy of that lecture.
If it pleases the Court, this is document Weltz No. 5, and it will be Weltz Exhibit No. 8.
Dr. Weltz, will you please tell the Court what is significant, and now far the charges of the Prosecution are justified?
A. The lecture deals with re-warming after dangerous cooling. May I point jut once more that "cooling" or "chilling" means the general chilling of the body, for example, in cold water. This does not mean local freezing, perhaps of the ears or the feet or the fingertips or the nose, such as occurs rather frequently. This lecture deals only with the chilling of the entire body.
It reports on animal experiments. There is no doubt whatever that the lecture deals only with animal experiments. I shall read the third sentence:
"Our experimental animals were rabbits, rats, and guinea pigs." We tested several measures to rescue these animals, and we discovered that quick re-warming was an extremely effective measure. In order to give a figure, we were able in a case of animals of which 23 percent died -- or rather, were 85 percent died, we were able to show that the massive introduction of warmth is the most effective. We showed that it makes no great difference in which form the warmth is introduced, whether by short waves or by hot baths. We also gave the reasons why we believed that results which we had found on animals here were valid for human beings as well. For us it was quite clear that these results did apply to human beings, and we expressed this assumption clearly in the paper. This was because the pathological and anatomical conditions in death from cold, which have long been known in the case of human beings of course and which Buechner had dealt with in the preceding lecture, were the same in human beings and in animals. Then, if there is any difference between human beings and animals, it can concern only the skin.
In short waves we and found a means which could be replied in case the skin of the human being should react differently from the skin of the animal, which was not necessarily the case.
For quick rewarming, for therapy in those conditions, we had worked out a formula of mathematical precision. It re as: One must apply as much warm on as possible, as quickly as possible, to as great a volume of the body as possible. That is the essential contents of the paper.
Q. So, if I understand you correctly, as far as the practical possibilities of rescuing people were concerned, you achieved the same results as Holzloehner.
Q. We come to the same practical results, but we believed that in theory we gave a better explanation. Holzloehner was of the opinion--I'll deal with this only briefly--that cold damages the organs, that the heart is affected mainly, that the human being dies because the heart is affected by the cold. Our opinion, which we believe has been proved in the meantime, is that we could snow that cold does not damage the organs, the cold merely paralyzes the organs and makes them inactive. Lutz had shown that for the heart of the guinea pig, and I had shown it from the intestines of the rabbit. The organs are not damaged if one sees to it that there is enough oxygen, but this oxygen supply in cold becomes extremely difficult because the transport of oxygen by the red corpuscles no longer functions, so that in the last analysis the decisive factor is hemoglobin and the fact of whether there is enough oxygen available or not.
Q. Were you quite certain that the results which you achieved with animals would also apply to human therapy?
A. We were certain and that was very fully expressed in this lecture, that at least one form of the application of heat is applicable to human beings too, warm water of electricity. At least one would be effective. Now we know that both forms are equally effective. It is only a question of technical facility, as to which way reaches the body quicker.
Q. Now, if you were to give a final statement on all this, now your and Holzloehner's experiments are in relation to each other, this would emerge, I take it: As far as the practical handling was concerned, you both achieved the same results. As far as theories and explanations are concerned, you found the better solution. Do you think that Rascher's and Holzloehner's Dachau experiments were completely useless?
A. No, one can not be of this opinion. If I speak only of the technical and scientific aspects and ignore the moral aspects completely, one can see very clearly from the two reports in what each man deos his main task. We were interested in the sector which one might best describe as basic research. We were interested primarily in showing basically how animals can be saved from death by cold, and secondly we were interested in why an animal dies from cold at all.
Holzloehner was interested in more practical questions. Holzloehner was trying to find out whether warmth can be applied by a hot bath, by a sand bath, or by a light cradle, whether one can prevent cooling by special suits. Holzloehner investigated a number of such questions and solved some of them, which were absolutely necessary and important in practice. One can not say that Holzloehner's experiments were in vain. He came to quite a number of conclusions which we had not investigated at all and which we could not have investigated because these conclusions could be drawn only from experiments with human beings and not with animals.