Q. Did you ever report to Milch prior to that date, apart from the conversation of 31 August 1942?
A. Apart for the oral report on 31st August 1942 and apart from the memorandum of 20 May, I told him nothing.
Q. Witness, I now submit to you your own letter of 10 October 1942, Exhibit No. 95, Document No. 289 in the German Document Book, page 57, page 32 of the English document Book, 32 5A. Will you please show the witness this letter, but don't read it allowed. Have you read it?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness when you wrote this letter of 10 October 1942 did you know that the freezing experiments had been concluded?
A. No, I had not been informed about this. I assumed the freezing experiments had been going on.
Q. Can you see this from your letter?
A. Yes, the last paragraph I see there says, "Freezing experiments are still being made at Dachau and high altitude experiments."
Q. Witness, will you please explain why you addressed it to Himmler?
A. I wanted to convince him of the fact that future experiments need not be made because all of the questions which were settled there had been settled and that knew questions which were still acute were not urgent enough and needed not to be worked on. Therefore, I said that we must build a much bigger low pressure chamber although I knew that during the war the chamber could not be completed because its construction had been forbidden. All I wanted to achieve was that this question should be left alone now and Rascher had already been interested in his scientific work and therefore he pressed things onward that concerned a completely different matter but I didn't know they were still going on in Dachau and I was not very clear that on the day when I wrote the letter these things were going on in Dachau. I didn't know that.
Q. Witness, at the beginning of this letter you referred to the letter of 25 August 1942 to Milch which Milch had replied to in this letter of 31 August 1942 that becomes clear from such letter 1309, 1242, of 25 August 1942, to State Secretary Milch concerning ---
A. I think that was the last time that a letter was written on this affair and therefore I pointed to this letter to Himmler.
The connection between the two is very obvious to me because at that time I was aware of what I said here by negative attitude on "altitude experiments" and I had mentioned it and explained it in my letter of August and that was crossed out my Milch. That was easy to understand that I saw a connection between the two documents. I established for myself a connection between this letter and that of 10 October 1942.
817a
Q. Did you inform Milch of this letter? Or did you write on your own initiative?
A. I believe that I wrote on my own initiative. I was always very keen to point out to the SS that the continuation of high altitude experiments was not necessary from the stand point of Luftwaffe needs and I made use of every opportunity to point out time and again because in that respect I was opposed to the SS in that connection. They always wanted us to supply another chamber. I could not see any reason for this.
Q. May it please the Court. After the witness has been interrogated I shall produce a document on Tuesday which will show that the SS has received the letter dated 10 October 1942 and considered it negative and a refusal. Witness, then there was the freezing meeting in Nurnberg, were you present in that meeting?
A. No, I wasn't present at the meeting and I have sent my expert Anthony. He had orders to preside over the meeting. I, myself, was very busy on the front which seemed to be more urgent and I had no time to deal with these details in the home country.
Q. Did Anthony report to you about the meeting?
A. Yes. As soon as after the meeting he came to me and reported to me orally on the meeting. I asked, particularly on Holzloehner's speech. He described to me that in Holzloehner's speech he had used the experiences of the Sea Rescue Service on the North Seacoast but also he mentioned a few things about his research work in Dachau. I asked him about the questions of fatalities. He explained to me the fatalities had been mentioned but that from the way he spoke, it became quite clear that these fatalities were fatalities in the actual sea rescue service and not fatalities in Dachau experiments and I then said "a report should be put together of which each one of the professors had to submit a copy to his collaborators."
The report on the Nurnberg meeting was then put together. Later on, after the results which were important to us in my opinion, for the development of high altitude clothes had been discussed with the Government departments concerned, a number of important results were achieved. In particular Anthony reported on this to me, namely, that what the animal experiments had led us to believe had been confirmed that 818a the immediate use of hot water was the most important element in the rescue service.
That other experiences in the animal experiments were not confirmed such as the favorable use of a special type of electric artificial sun, the use of medicaments similarly as in the animal experiments was a very uncertain thing and one could not rely on them. That is practical results on the medical field and the practical experience for improved production of protective clothing were carried into practice together with the corresponding offices, some of whom were medical some technical. The report itself was then published; there were at that time already great printing difficulties so that the report was certainly only issued in 1943. In any case, as I also wrote to Himmler in my final report on this matter this report did not appear until February 1943. I do not know when it actually did.
Q. Witness, why did you on that occasion ask Anthony about fatalities?
A. Because in these experiments I had to expect the possibility of fatalities. I had asked expressly to avoid the fatalities if possible and to increase the extent of experiment so carefully that, if possible, fatalities would be avoided. For that reason I had ordered that experiments made by doctors on themselves should be made because I assumed that the doctor who experiments on himself and exposed himself to the pain coming from extreme cold would be careful enough in using the experimental material, that he would avoid fatalities if possible, and so I thought that every possible safeguard had been arranged. In addition there were means for the mitigation of pain, however in the form of narcosis and it seemed to me not necessary because without full narcosis you can also fight pain.
In any case the possibility that fatalities would occur, I took into consideration for two reasons first, that the animal experiments and practical experiments led us to believe that medicaments were not certain in their effects.
819a Second, that after a man had been rescued from the water, his life is still in danger which increased to the point that the man concerned dies afterwards.
Therefore special precautions seemed indicated to me, and these special precautions I asked of both experts Rascher as well as Holzloehner. That is what made my question understandable why I asked whether there had been fatalities.
Q. Witness, did you tell Milch about the report of Anthony?
A. I know that later on I only spoke orally about the freezing questions as I talked about all the other essential things at these monthly meetings with the air defense chief and that I talked to the chief in particular about the questions of practical importance for us, improvement of protective clothing, treatment with hot water which seemed to me the most important questions in the medical field just because of the treatment with hot water I personally tried to improve the methods of the treatment as far as possible since I told myself that application of hot water had to be carried out quickly as otherwise these frozen wrecked will die even after rescue. Thus treatment had to set in immediately after rescue.
THE PRESIDENT: This is all in answer to the question Did you tell Milch-----
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, if I understand you correctly, and please be brief this time if possible, did you report to the Chief of Air Defense Foerester?
A. Yes, I reported to Foerester.
Q. Did you report to Milch directly or did Foerester report to Milch? Do you know that?
A. That I don't know in detail. All I know is that on several occasions Foerster and I reported to Milch together.
Q. On the question of cooling experiments or generally?
A. Generally. I can't say for certain how the experiments were reported.
Q. I shall clear this up by the witness Foerster himself, if the court pleases. Witness, I now show you Document Exhibit 119--sorry, my mistake--118, Exhibit 118, which is number 269 letter from Wolff to Milch of November 820a 1942.
That is on Page 179, Your Honors, of the English Document Book Volume 5--- Number 5, Volume 2, Your Honors. Please read the letter and tell me whether you know it. Do you know this letter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was this letter passed on to you by Milch for you to write an answer?
A. Yes, I wrote the answer to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff.
Q. When did the letter of 27 November 1942 pass on to you?
A. I couldn't say. I can only see that it was answered rather late.
Q. Will you look at the next document, Exhibit No. 119, Is that your reply? A letter of 6 March 1943.
A. I expressed in this letter that State Secretary Milch gave me at the end of February a letter of 21 November of the previous year. I conclude from this notice that it wasn't in my office all that time, but with the State Secretary.
Q. Can you explain to us what this document was doing for a whole quarter of a year in Milch's office?
A. I can only think that Milch perhaps was not in Berlin at the time and that this letter, which is very personal in character, which can be seen from the address, should not be worked on by anybody else. It seems to me that it reached me only at the end of February, and that I answered on the 6th of March.
Q. You said just not that this letter should not be worked on by anybody else, but it had been worked on by you, and you are somebody else than Milch, aren't you?
A. Perhaps I didn't put it very skillfully. It shouldn't be worked in his office by anybody else, or by another official in his office.
Q. Please give me back my Document Book. In that letter did you promise to release Rascher from the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, I had the intention to comply with this regulation of the SS, only I had to order him, as we followed the principle that before you transferred from one service to another --- in this case it was the Waffen SS --- the person concerned should be asked if possible and the whole thing should be arranged as an exchange.
821a
Q Witness, I now give you -- shall we stop here, if it please the Court? This would take a quarter of an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The court will recess until Tuesday morning at ninethirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 11 February 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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 11 February 1947, 0930, Justice Tems presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2. Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
ERIC HIPPKE (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)
DR. BERGOLD: Witness. May I continue, Your Honor? May I continue with the examination of the witness, Your Honor? Witness, I shall come back to the letter of the Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf of the 27th of November 1942, Document No. 269, Exhibit No. 118.
MR. DENNEY: Page 179 of the English Document Book 5-D, your Honor.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, in this letter Wolf writes the following sentence after he had previously mentioned the difficulties concerning the experiments which had arisen and which existed between Rascher and the other doctors. He writes the following sentence: "I do not want that you and he get crossed about this development." He furthermore says in the next to last paragraph of his letter. "If Dr. Rascher had stayed with the Luftwaffe, then I am sure there would have been a lot of trouble because the Reichsfuehrer SS then would have to bring matters to you which have occurred so far and will also occur in the future. Professor Holzloehner especially plays a role here in order to save you and him a lot of trouble, The Reichsfuehrer SS requests you to transfer Dr. Rascher to the Waffen SS as quickly as possible." Witness, how did you understand these messages in the letter, particularly in the language used at that time in Germany?
A. This tension was clear to me. It consisted in the fact that I was of the opinion that experiments are only to be carried out within the framework of the practical necessity. In other words, to be limited while I was of the impression that the SS upon Rascher's insistance had carried out these experiments to their scientific end in the interest of scientific research work.
Such scientific work I didn't think at the time was necessary and I was of the opinion that only the practical necessities of the present should be the deciding factor for the experiments. This was the controversy at which we were.
Q. Witness, I shall proceed to Exhibit 120, Document No. 268. This is your letter of 19 February 1943 to Himmler and it's on page 178 in the German Document Book. I shall give you this document book and I would appreciate it if you would read it.
A. I know this document.
Q. Witness, why did you, on the 19th of February, without any previous grounds for that, why did you write to Himmler?
A. I can explain that. During the winter, I was at the southeastern front in the Black Sea territory where there were quite a lot of transports or difficulties in transportation. When I returned, the person who was responsible for Professor Anthony told me -- according to my knowledge this was Physician General Martinis -- he submitted this prepared letter for my signature as a reason for the necessity, I was told that Professor Helzloehner had asked that this letter be sent, namely, a letter where Himmler should be thanked at the end, and he should also give this to the Commandant at Dachau for billeting him and Finke, and he also mentioned there that Himmler was against me and Holzloeher because of our limitation of the extent of these experiments. That is how this letter was sent, after the experiments had already been completed early in October. The report at that time was not ready. I mean, the report concerning the Nurnberg conference which I called in October and at which Anthony presided. It is clear that about 20 people lectured there, and of course it took quite a while until all these documents were ready and could be printed.
Q. Witness, were the thanks that were sent to the Commandant, wasn't that, thanking him for the fact that inmates were used for the experiments?
A. No, that is the way I was told that we should thank the Commandant for his billeting of our two doctors. That is how the letter was written and I signed it that way. It had been written by that particular department or by General Doctor Martius.
Q. Witness, do you know from your military career that usually in such cases where transfers took place to other camps, that later on one should the commander should be thanked for his assistance?
A Yes, that is usual. I didn't know the camp commander personally and I still don't know who the man was.
Q Witness, on the 6th of March 1943, you answered to the 825 a letter of the 21st of November 1942.
What was the value of this letter? Do you want to read this letter? This is Document 119, Your Honors, Document 262. That is just before the document we used right now of this letter of the witness to Himmler.
(Document Book is given to witness.)
A. Yes, I believe I know this letter. I believe it was presented to me in one of the previous sessions. This is the last letter that was sent out concerning that matter. I'd appreciate if you could ask me questions with respect to the contents.
Q. Witness, is your letter to be understood in that way that you told Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher that he was released from the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, I had the intention to release him from the Luftwaffe. However, formally, I had to ask him because it was usual that only with the approval of the person to be released, the release could be signed or approved.
Q. In this letter you state, "If Rascher wants to build up his own research institute within the framework of the Waffen-SS, I have no objection. All research work within the field of aviation medicine-that is, altitude--moreover, is under my scientific supervision in my capacity as director of German aviation medicine. This institute would then be under the supervision of the Reich Physician of the SS, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz."
Witness, does that mean that concerning this new institute, you are the chief concerning the scientific supervision?
A. This should mean that I, in case there should be an institute by the SS, I would have the possibility -- concerning questions of air aviation medicine, concerning the many questions -- could have answered them. I wanted to show in this matter that there was a possibility for me concerning questions of the air aviation medicine that I could work here and assist them in their work in order that Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff could see in advance that even then he would not have to work under his own decisions; in other words, that this was a superfluous research work for me and that then it was to have the possibility concerning questions of practicality and of the necessity of the Luftwaffe, and to point out these necessities.
May I continue?
Q. Yes, please.
A. Finally, I wanted to prevent that the questions of high altitude experiments which seemed sufficient to me should be planned any longer.
Q. In the following paragraph, "Momentarily, however, this work cannot be carried on because its continuation would require a low pressure chamber in which not only the altitude of the stratosphere, but also the stratospheric temperature can be established, but there is no such chamber available in Germany as yet." What did you mean by those remarks?
A. I wanted to show my objection against these other experiments and I wanted to explain the technique. If I told that the technique was in no position whatsoever to solve these questions, then it is not necessary to touch these problems.
There was not only my disapproval concerning the experiments but for the Luftwaffe further research work was not necessary. That furthermore, I wanted to prove that the technical part of it was also impossible.
Q. Witness, may I ask something further, please?
A. At the time I knew that a new institute, the Air Aviation Method Institute was to be established, and that one of them was being built at Berlin Tempelhof, and within the immediate surroundings of my own office, and that this research institute could not be built. The whole planning was cut short during the war. In reality, I knew in other words that this institute could not be completed, and I am telling him that here, and I availed myself of the opportunity in order to decline.
Q. Witness, what happened after that concerning that part in this letter?
A. In the middle of March Dr. Rascher came to see me. I had asked him to come because I had to have his statement that he wanted to get to the SS. Shall I go on with that concerning this conference.
Q. Yes, what did you discuss with him during this conference?
A. I cannot read it to you verbatim, of course, but the conference was on the following matter. I told him, in other words, if he wanted to go back to the SS as he applied for it, all right, and he answered, "Yes, indeed, I would like to go back to the SS. I am a member -- a SS member." Whereupon I told him the reason for that I can state. I said, "You think that Rascher, you would be able to be more independent, for you are vain," and he evaded a direct answer. The answer to my question directly, I will state he was very interested in the scientific work; and that later on he wanted to get into the university, and he would like to be the manager of the Institute. I laughed at that, and I told him "I think there is plenty of time on that for you."
"Now what do you want to work on now," and he answered, "That the high altitude questions would seem very interesting". I kept kind of cross because I was sick and tired of his persistency about these high altitude questions, and I told him to forget that, and "for the time being you are no longer concerned with this. Furthermore you are beginning to trouble me doing that, because I still have something to say on the question of air aviation medicine. Besides that 828 (a) all these questions I am talking about are on the condemnation of high altitude and freezing experiments, and they will be carried on by Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg.