Q Did Rascher ever appear at your institute in late April or May to see you?
A I don't know that.
Q You don't remember that?
A You mean, did Rascher once more visit me after the telegram?
Q Yes.
A I don't remember that.
Q Do you recall a particular incident which occurred either the latter part of April or first of May or the middle of May or in that period of time, not in the month of March or first of April, wherein Rascher was coming to see you, and you were pretty busy and you didn't want to spend too much time with him because you were too busy? Do you recall any such thing as that?
A No, I don't remember anything like that, but I always said that it is quite possible that Rascher appeared at the institute afterwards. I said already that I remember a report which I had that he was there once more. This, however, cannot be brought into conformity with Wendt's statement. That is, therefore, why I don't know what the correct situation is.
Q I am not referring to Rascher's visiting you behind your back. I want to know now whether you can recall having had a visit from Rascher in late April or early May, or even sometime during the month of May, the whole month of May. Did Rascher ever visit you, yourself, go to your office to see you in April or May?
A I don't remember that, but I wouldn't exclude that possibility at all.
Q Now, let us try to refresh your recollection. As it so happened either in late April or early May you had broken your watch, or you didn't have a watch so that you could tell time, and do you recall asking Miss Frick for the loan of her watch so that when Rascher came you would be able to judge the time because you were so busy, and you were unable to spend too much time with him. Now, an incident like that must be one you can remember clearly, when you borrowed Miss Frick's watch upon a visit by Rascher so that you would be able to time him and allow him a specific amount of time for a conference with you.
Do you recall that?
A No, I don't remember it, but if Miss Frick says so, I don't want to exclude that possibility.
Q Well now, did you ever ask Rascher for an invitation to Dachau to attend the experiments?
A Do you mean an invitation to Dachau to attend the experiments? After Rascher had shown me the telegram, it was quite clear that I -
Q At any time. At any time, before or after.
A Would you please repeat the question?
Q Did you request that you be allowed to attend the experiments at Dachau before the telegram?
A Before the telegram it certainly was my wish to attend the experiments.
Q And did you tell Rascher that if you could not attend the experiments that Rascher would be withdrawn or you would relieve Rascher or request his transfer from your institute?
A Certainly. That was the argument in the conversation.
Q And you fully deny or exclude the possibility that you issued an ultimatum that Rascher would be withdrawn in case you were not invited to attend the experiments before the first day of May, not March, May?
A That I asked Rascher, that I wanted to participate in the experiments, was really the core of my arguments with him, but I don't believe that that happened in May. As I can see from the documents, the entire affair took place at the beginning of March.
Q Now, this Document 264 has a date on it, 28 April, 28 April. You maintain it may well be 28 February, and in that document it appears that you want to see then the whole arrangement at Dachau. Now, if that date is correct, then it might be correct that you could have asked Rascher that you wanted to go there and see what was going on, and that Rascher was still your subordinate, if that letter is correct, and you said that if you didn't see the experiment you were going to relieve him, as late as April 28, April that letter is dated.
Now, you exclude that possibility altogether, don't you?
A The letter by Mrs. Nini Rascher dated the 24th of February could then hardly be explained.
Q I didn't ask the letter to be well explained, Doctor. We will explain that in argument. I am now asking you to think again, did you relieve Rascher from your command in March, or did you relieve Rascher from your command in, say, June?
A I cannot make any other statement than what'appears from the document. I have tried to reconstruct the entire matter on the basis of what I have seen in the documents. I cannot interpret Mrs. Nini Rascher's letter dated 24th of February other than to mean that I was prohibited to attend the experiments, and that the entire discussions as to whether I was to participate or not must be placed into February, and that is the only indication that I have in these facts.
Q Well now, Doctor, would you say that Milch would have been informed that Rascher was no longer associated with you when this break took place in March, or would Milch have been misled and been misinformed as late as 20 May, 1942?
A I can tell you nothing about that. I don't know what happened between the Medical Inspectorate and Milch.
Q Well, Milch did consider you and Rascher associated as late as 20 May, 1942, didn't he, according to Document 343-PS which is in German Document Book and Document Book No. 3, the freezing experiment document book, on Page 11, wherein Milch addresses Wolff in the "Dear Wolffy" letter, and Milch states: "In reference to your telegram of 12 May our sanitary inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished.
Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major Weltz will be charged with the execution and Capt. Rascher will be available until further orders in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps." Now, it appears there that Mr. Milch still considers you and Rascher as associates and him being subordinate to you, doesn't it, as late as 20 May?
A That does not seem to be the case. It becomes clearly apparent from Hippke's statement how this suggestion by Milch to Wolff has originated. Hippke testifies that there was a desire to carry out freezing experiments and that Hippke had made another suggestion completely independent of the high-altitude experiments, to ask me to attend these freezing experiments because I had already worked on that subject. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the high-altitude experiments and therefore does not prove whether I at that time worked together with Rascher or not. That was a suggestion that Hippke made to Milch on his own initiative and was entirely independent of whether Rascher was working at my office or not.
Q It seems rather strange that Hippke would suggest you work with a man again with whom you had a severe disagreement, doesn't it, on experiments which are also going to be in a concentration camp wherein there is an alleged telegram that you were not allowed there, that they were secret and Himmler would not let you in. It seems rather strange now that they would sort of associate you with this man whom you have absolutely transferred from your organization and don't want any more association with, doesn't it?
A That may be strange if I had later again worked with him, but from the fact that my name was dropped, and from the fact that throughout the entire later correspondence my name no longer appeared, it can be seen that this first suggestion by Hippke could not be executed for some reason or other, and I would assume that the reason was that at that time I no longer worked with Rascher, that I at that time had already quarreled with him.
I assume that Rascher said to Hippke, "You suggested Weltz, but he is not the man with whom I would like to collaborate." I don't really know the detail of that discussion, but the very circumstance that I was suggested and that this suggestion was not perfected afterwards seems to the contrary to prove that there must have been certain reasons not to carry out this plan of collaboration between Rascher and Weltz, and I must assume that this is because of the quarrel that I had had with Rascher beforehand. That Hippke was not informed on the 20th of bay 1942 about my quarrel with Rascher would not be very surprising because from the point of view of the Medical Inspectorate such quarrels did not constitute any great event. I testified here that I didn't report that matter to Hippke but reported it to Anthony. Therefore it is quite possible that either Anthony did not inform Hippke about this matter in sufficient detail or it may also be that Hippke had forgotten the affair in the meantime. From Hippke's point of view the matter did not bear very much importance. I again refer to the telegram. May I explain why I assume from the files that this telegram was submitted to me after the 19th of February?
Q Just a moment, Doctor. The have explained this sufficiently well enough, I think, and I want to give you another document to help you along so that you can explain it. Your name hasn't appeared in any other of these documents, you say, at this later date. Now, we are going to look at Document NO-1359, first offering it for identification as Prosecution's Exhibit 493, your Honors. Kindly read that document aloud, Doctor.
A. It is a note, signed "Sievers, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.
"SS-Untersturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Jr. Rascher reported in Munich on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference with Uberstabsarzt Jr. Weltz. Weltz requested, that Dr. Rascher be withdrawn in the case that he would not be invited to attend tho experiment until Friday, 1st May 1942. The Reichsfuehrer SS was informed accordingly. He ordered SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff on 30 April 1942 to send a teletype to Field-Marshal Milch requesting Dr. Rascher's detail to the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, Dachau branch, and that at the disposal of Reichsfuehrer-SS."
Q. This appears in your Document 264, dated 28 April, and this document here dated May 3, refers to the date of 29 April, also refers to the fact that you requested that Rascher be withdrawn in the event he would not have you attend the experiments before the 5th of May, and then it is very likely ends telegram you referred to was also written about the last of April, isn't it?
A. Yes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If I had this file note of Sievers in addition to my other documents, I would have known that the notes of Schnitzler was correct, and that there must be another possibility to explain Mrs. Mini Rascher's letter. This letter, on the other hand, cannot be explained now. I can only try to reconstruct the dates from the documents which were available hero, since I no longer know them today.
Q. Well, now, lets discuss the freezing experiments, Doctor; after this letter of Milch was issued wherein you were suggested with Rascher to conduct the freezing experiments and Milch suggested you were to handle the execution of the freezing experiments, did you become aware of the fact that Milch had made arrangements in this manner and bad suggested that such arrangements be made that you handle the execution of the freezing experiments?
A. I have already testified hero that I never learned of this letter of Milch, dated 20 May 1942. These things were happening in Berlin and I never found out that I was to be involved. An order never reached me and I was never asked what my attitude was.
Q. Well, the freezing experiments were of considerable interest to you, weren't they?
A. Certainly, we had also worked in the field of cold, and I already said here that I reportedly had asked for Holzloehner's report, because I was interested in. what was going on.
Q. Well, now, were you conduction your animal experiments that are reported in your document book on which you reported upon at the Nurnberg conference in October; did you conduct your animal experiments at the same time Rascher and Holzloehner and Finke were conducting their experiments on human beings at Dachau, or had you completed your work some time before or after; can you please say just what time you were conducting your animal experiments as opposed to the human experiments if Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke?
A. We certainly carried out the animal experiments simultaneously, that was during the time the experimental series Holzloehner, Finke and Rascher was running at Dachau, we worked on tho animal experiments at our institute on which I reported at Nurnberg. I think that is the way I have always described it.
Q. I see; well now, when you worked on animal experiments, were you working on larger animals at all or always small animals; I thought I understood you to say you wore working on pigs, larger animals, is that true?
A. No, I didn't say that. We started to work on smaller animals and at first started to work on the basic problems using small animals. Once having established a certain b sis we wont over to large animals which were more expensive. We started with rats and guinea pigs and went over to rabbits and cats, and at last we worked on pigs.
Q. What type of equipment would you use in freezing experiments with small animals? Would there be a difference between the equipment used for small animals or large animals?
A. Certainly, for the large animals I need a big cage into which it could be run, where in the case of the small animal I only need a very small glass container. What else I need for my equipment depends upon what I am working.
Q. When did you send the equipment that you had used for your experiments with the large animals to Dachau?
A. That was never the case.
Q. What happened to the equipment?
A. You are speaking of equipment for large animals?
Q. Yes.
A. This equipment for large animals consists of two cages of ovale cross-section.
Q. Two tubs?
A. Yes, two tubs.
Q. And what happened to those, what did you do with them; did you throw them away or have, them burned or were they bombed, or what happened to them?
A. Those two large tubs were at the Estate Hirschau, and if nobody took them away are still there.
Q. Is that where Major Alexander visited you at the end of the war in I believe, 1945?
A. Yes that is the place.
Q. Dr. Alexander was unable to find the large tubs, wasn't he?
A. Well, if Professor Alexander had told us that he was interested in seeing two large tubs I would have been glad to lead aim into the pigsty where these two tubs were and shown them to him.
Q. What did you do with the thermometers and equipment you used on the large animals; was that still available?
A. Certainly, they were not removed, certainly not upon my order. We mostly measured the temperature by electricity, we also used thermometers, especially for measuring the temperature of the water. As far as I know nothing was ever removed from there. At any rate I never gave permission to do that. I think I said to Professor Alexander that I vaguely remembered that Wendt had reported to me that Munich, not Hirschau, had ordered something to be removed while I was absent, and somebody wanted to take something to Dachau. When I returned I heard about that and I prohibited any such practice. Wendt does not seem to remember that, so that I am not quite sure about it. I am sure that we refused to lend the colorimeter.
Q. Then according to Wendt, one of you witnesses, some of your equipment was sent to Dachau?
A. No, on the contrary Wendt says that nothing was sent to Dachau, that nothing was ever demanded. On the other hand remembered vaguely that I once returned from a vacation and Wendt had told me that something, was demanded.
At any rate I know for certain that I told Wendt that under no circumstances should anything be furnished to Dachau and I certainly remember this affair with the Colorimeter. Nothing was over given away. What I am saying now refers to Munich, but I am quite sure that nothing was sent to Dachau from Hirschau. There was no connection between Dachau and Hirschau. I don't think that anyone would have thought of sending anyone to Hirschau from Dachau.
I can say for certainly not only I don't know of any such thing happening, but I am quite sure it didn't. As far as Munich I can say that nothing was removed without my approval. I am quite sure the oxygen meters were refused and that the Colormeter was also refused. Whether in my absence anything was furnished without my orders I cannot say.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, if the Tribunal will bear with me I can complete my examination in about 5 minutes, and thereby complete it before the noon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q Doctor, were you of the opinion it was necessary to conduct freezing experiments upon human beings?
A I don't know the extent of Holzloehner's freezing experiments, that results can be achieved by using human beings that cannot be achieved by using animals was quite clear to me. That is a matter of course.
Q Then you were not completely opposed to conducting freezing experiments upon human beings?
A Certainly not. I approved of the high altitude experiments which Ruff was carrying on and if freezing experiments had been used under the same clear conditions it would have been very illogical if I would have any moral misgivings. These matters always depend upon the execution. However, I must say that in the case of freezing experiments I could set up a much stronger measure, because they are connected with a great many more inconveniences to the experimental subject. These inconveniences can be adjusted by asthetics.
Q Then it is your opinion, as stated on page 36 of your Document Book, that is the second page 363 there are two pages 36, Your Honor. This is "Meltz Document No. 5. You stated in your report which was a report before the October conference in Nurnberg, as follows:
"Many people will certainly be reluctant to apply the above abrupt methods of warming to human beings without further consideration, since tho former view has always been that this kind of treatment must lead to most severe collapse.
To have, as stated above, never observed such a collapse with our animals. At the beginning of the hot bath we even found a quick increase of the muscle tonus which according to Y. Henderson, should counteract any tendency to collapse. One can, however, raise the objection that the whole process of regulating temperature by way of the skin is so different in the cases of humans and furred animals that one cannot-draw any binding conclusions. This objection is certainly worth attention and cannot be refuted by animal experiments." Then it is your opinion, as stated here, that experiments upon human beings are justified for freezing?
A May I ask you to go on reading and you will find my point of view, and I show that as this consideration, namely that there arc differences between human beings and animals which can be circumvented by considering electrical re-warming and that no objection can be made in the case of electrical rewarning. If you go on reading you will see that one of the two forms of rewarming would have to be applied in the case of human beings.
Q That is true. Now on page 37 of this same document, it states:
"One more experience with short wave warming seems to us important. Following a suggestion made by Professor Holzloehner, we warmed the animals by way of comparison with small electrodes on the neck and head only in the region of the vital centres." When did you got this suggestion from Holzloehner?
A This suggestion was made to me by Holzloehner during the conference which I mentioned, which took place in Paris in the summer of 1941. Naturally, we discussed our mutual problems regarding the cause of death by cold. Holzloehner at that time in Paris in the summer of 1941 was of the opinion that the cooling of the vital centers of the medulla oblongata was the cause of death. During the Dachau experiments Holzloehner changed this opinion and looking at the Nurnberg report of Holzloehner you will find that it is his opinion that the cold death of a human being is caused by a defect in the heart.
From this change of opinion it is clearly evident that what I was investigating here and was at that time Holzloehner's opinion, was an old opinion of his and not the opinion which he held later as a result of his experiments.
Q When did you first learn of the freezing experiments on human beings at Dachau?
A I already said that when those people came to us and asked us to carry out oxygen examinations in the blood.
Q What date was that approximately?
A That must have been in the summer of 1942, two or three months before the Nurnberg conference.
Q Did they ever ask you or send to you bodies to be sent on to Dr. Singer for autopsies?
A No.
Q And then the next time you heard about the experiments at Dachau was at the conference in October, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did you perform these blood tests or these oxygen blood tests as requested?
A No. Werz reviewed that and ho reported it to me later. I didn't carry that out, but Werz did. I mean basically it was Werz' task to carry out oxygen tests and not mine.
Q Who was Werz?
A Werz was my oldest assistant. I told you that.
MR. HARDY: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 8 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for defense any further examination of the witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. WILL (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz):
Q Dr. Weltz, I return to the question first of all that were discussed yesterday, namely, the questions that the prosecutor directed to you during the course of yesterday's session, and I ask you, first of all, to answer the following question: Would it not have been possible to confirm the experimental series, that were discussed by Ruff and Romberg in Adlershof, outside of concentration camps? The prosecutor feels that experimenting in concentration camps could have been avoided. Now, give me a clear answer and tell me, would you have received the necessary number of experimental subjects, namely, 15, from the Luftwaffe?
A It was difficult to find that number of volunteers for such a length of time, for the reasons Ruff has already set forth. People were not released from their officials duties so that we could have them available. So far as they were employees of the Institute, they had to continue doing their daily work so that for this reason they were not really available, at least practically not. Now, I was asked whether enough volunteers would have volunteered. There were always plenty of Luftwaffe volunteers for high altitude experiments, so far as it depended on the will of the volunteers. If we asked squadrom, "who of you wishes to volunteer for high-altitude experiments?", and if we had been able be tell this squadrom, "You will be relieved of your other duties for the period daring which these experiments are carried out,"then, of course just about every one in that squadron would have applied, because for these people high altitude experiments were something that they were familiar with. They knew that they involved no pain or unpleasantness, and the conditions brought about by these experiments were conditions which they already knew.
That we could not proceed in this way was determined by quite other factorsm namely the fact that during the war everyone had more work to do than he could do, that the individual offices thought it was very important that their employees should not lose a single hour from their regular work. And we had the same sort of troubles with students. If we asked what student wanted to volunteer, then a lot of students would have been ready to, but if we proceeded to the practical angle and said:"Tomorrow I want you here for a whole day," then the difficulties arose, because all these students had other obligations. This time was not a t their disposal. They, of themselves, would have liked to volunteer and this apparently the difference, if one says that on the one hand, there were plenty of people in the Luftwaffe who wanted to volunteer, and, on the other hand, it turned out to be impossible, in the practical field, to got them.
Q Now, let us assume that you had received the people from the Luftwaffe. Could Rascher have been restrained from carrying out his own experiments in Dachau?
A Certainly not, because at the moment when on the 15th of May 1941 Rascher asked Himmler whether he could permit such experiments, and from the moment on when Himmler permitted those experiments, Rascher had the duty as SS-man towards Himmler to make use of this permission that Himmler had accorded him. Reseller always occupied a dual position. On the one hand he was a Stabsarst of the Luftwaffe, and in this capacity stood in a clearly defined military subordination and commission, and on the other hand, Rascher was a member of the General-SS, and in this capacity he was subordinate to Himmler, and only in this capacity did he turn at the time to Himmler in order to receive permission to carry out these experiments.
Thus it was quite clear that at the moment when Himmler gave permission for the experiments Rascher certainly did take advantage of that permission.
Q. Now anot her question relating to your examination of yesterday. The Prosecutor among other charges accused you of being guilty of the fact that Ruff and Romberg who carried out the experiments and are in the dock today and you answered this question in the affirmative. I assume therefore that this is an admission of guilt for your person in the judicial or even moral sense, or am I wrong in that. Will you please explain your position again.
A. I can say to that that if Rascher had not been assigned to my office against my will and without my intent that then I wouldn't be in the dock here either. In the last analysis the whole indictment has come about because Rascher, contrary to our program, without our knowledge, did things that are charges in the indictment here. Neither I, nor Mr. Ruff nor Romberg are in any way responsible for that.
Q. Now I have a few questions regarding this morning's cross examination. This morning the Prosecutor suddenly showed you a new document in order to prove that Rascher did not leave on the 20th of February because of the Himmler telegram but left only later. Now I ask you first of all on the basis of what data did you determine the time for the individual occurrences, particularly the time when Rascher left your office?
A. Of course, today I do no longer have in mind the dates for occurrences that happened five years ago. I did try on the basis of the documents here in evidence to reconstruct the chronology of the dates and I believe I said very clearly in my direct examination just how I came to for on the dates that I did fix on. It was my point of departure that two dates are most certainly incompatible. In the document NO-316 it says that Rascher on the 16 of March 1942 had already been assigned to the Dachau field station of Air Research Institute, and in the Schnitzler file note, which is document 264, it says:
Rascher's assignment to Dachau must be immediately changed to an assignment to Air Research Institute Berlin-Adlershof, Dachau Field Station. In parenthesis: In Weltz' institute, since as Wentz tells us he will have the assignment cancelled immediately unless he takes a part. Now one of these documents has to be erroneous, that is to say, it must be wrong because Frau Rascher cannot on the 28th of April ask for an assignment somewhere, which according to the other document had already been given to Rascher a month earlier. This was my point of departure and I thought I could by assuming that the Schnitzler file note, namely NO.264, has a false date on it, and that the date should not be the 28th of April but the 28th of February of 1942. Now through the submission of the new document, NO. 1359, the file note of Sievers, seems to make it clear to me that the Schnitzler file note really does bear the correct date, namely the 28 of April 1942. I must therefore confess that I cannot clarify this contradiction. Therefore, there really is the contradiction in the two documents NO. 264 and NO. 318. From the material I have available here I cannot clear up this contradiction. Purely objectively speaking this fact does nothing to change what I have said here except as to my conjecture regarding the dates which I now withdraw. Particularly it changes nothing in my statement that nothing of the Dachau experiments was reported to me. On the contrary, Sievers Document NO. 1359 corroborated anew that I asked Rascher to report to me and I placed before him the alternative of either remaining in my institute and reporting to me or leaving. It can also be seen from the Sievers document that there was no report to me on the Dachau experiments and that just was the reason for my quarrels with Rascher.
Q. I have one last question to clarify this contradiction. Now which of the two sides of this contradiction do you think is the more likely? We have the letter from Wolff on the 10 March which is a sort of official document, whereas Rascher's reputation for veracity after all I heard about him was not very great, now which do you think is correct?
A. Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to taught I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.
DR. WILLE: No further questions in re-direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there no further questions to the witness?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for Becker Freysing.
THE PRESIDENT: The re-examination of this witness at this time must be limited to matters which were elicited from the witness, statements which he made on cross examination.
DR. TIPP: Very well, Mr. President, I will out only that sort of questions.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Professor, in the cross examination in answer to a question by the Prosecutor regarding the chain of command in your institute you said the following: Economically and disciplinarily I was subordinate to the Luftgau in Munich but in scientific respects to the medical inspectorate. Mr. Hardy whereupon asked you whether that was Anthony's office and you said "yes", and from this it could be deduced that you received your orders and directives in research matters or in all scientific matters from Anthony's office, that is to say, the office for Luftwaffe medicine, for aviation medicine in the medical inspectorate or by the man in charge of those matters. Is that what you meant to say, professor, or how can you explain this remark?
A. It is as I said: Namely in the scientific respect I was subordinate to the medical inspectorate, and the medical inspectorate was represented for me either by the inspector himself or by the Chief of Staff; the technical export did not give any orders. That went on through the inspector or the Chief of Staff. I simply wanted to say that Anthony was the department expert at the same office of the medical inspectorate from which I also received my orders from it's chief.
Q. In the cross examination you also said that in the Luftgaus there were consulting physicians. Under the term "consulting physicions" one understands that you also know the doctors who advised the various commandants, that is the Air Fleet physicians, or the medical chiefs themselves. Now, Professor, do you mean by that that there were consulting physicians in that technical sense to the Luftgaus or their institutes. Did you say that from your personal knowledge or was what you said yesterday singly a conjecture?
A. Whether the Luftgaus had advisers that I do not know. We were concerned then with Professor Singer and I only meant that the technical experts in the various fields were also the advisers to the Luftgaus. Whether they held title of consulting physicians I do not know. Professor Singer, with whom we were then concerned, was, I believe, called "Luftgau Pathologist" or something of the sort. His official title had nothing about an adviser in it. But regarding these matters I have only partial knowledge because I had not very much to do with that.
Q. Now another question. It refers to to is Luftgau pathologist, Dr. Singer. The prosecutor said yesterday in cross-examination that from the documents it could be seen that Dr. Singer refused to collabchecked through the documents and I can find no such document. Since you were interrogated yesterday about this document, I want to ask you whether you know what the reference was.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, the last question of defense counsel, I don't understand what he means. I can't get the import of the question or what he is referring to. I can't understand it at all. Will you have him rephrase the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel repeat the question?
DR. TIPP: I asked Professor Weltz the following: The crossexamination yesterday, Mr. Hardy quoted a document and drew from this document the conclusion that the Munich pathologist, Dr. Singer, refused to work with Holzloehner and Finke in the Dachau experiments for ethical reasons. I could find no document from which that could be seen, and, therefore, I asked Dr. Weltz just that document it was.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is an erroneous assumption on the part of the defense counsel. I didn't refer to a document. I merely asked Dr. Weltz from the documents in evidence was it apparent that Dr. Singer withdrew from the experiments and, if he did withdraw, was it for ethical reasons. I didn't state that such a document existed.
DR. TIPP: Then that settles that question. Now a final question.
Q. In the cross-examination you have said that the Luftgau physicians were subordinate to the medical Inspectorate. For many years you were a member of the Luftwaffe and know how it was organized as well as I do. Now, please tell the Tribunal whether the Luftgau doctors were directly subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate or was there an intermediary office?
A. The Luftgau doctors were subordinate most of the time to the Air fleet Doctors and thus only indirectly subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate.