Q. Well, how did this foundation of the Military Institute for Aviation Medicine come about?
A. Continuing the tradition of my civilian department, we carried out a number of scientific examinations at the test station No. 4. That possibly was the reason for Hippke's suggesting to me in the summer of 1941 that a larger institute should be created in Munich. This institute had been planned on a large scale. It was to be connected with an Ordinariat at the university and a number of new buildings were provided. I had misgivings about this large-scale project because in the final analysis I wanted to remain an X-ray physiologist. All these large-scale plans were dropped anyway because of aerial warfare, and a similar institute was founded which essentially continued the traditions of my civilian department.
Q. Then you were designated as the head of that institute when it was founded?
A. Yes.
Q. What tasks did the Military Institute for Aviation Medicine have?
A. The Military Institute for Aviation Medicine, as I already said, continued the tradition of the civilian department, that is to say, it mainly concerned itself with basic research, animal experiments, whereby particular attention was given to problems with which we had dealt earlier, which was a lack of oxygen and general physiological questions, for instance, collapse.
Q. Was the research program prescribed, which you were ordered to carry out as a certain plan?
A. I discussed the broad outline with Hippke, upon which the institute was to be active, but by and large I had a free hand. There were a few exceptions. The Reich Aviation Ministry and Medical Inspectorate commissioned me with a number of questions which we had to solve, but these were relatively rare cases and the tasks had no particular importance.
Q. What was your relationship to the Reich Research Council?
A. We had no relationship to the Reich Research Council.
Q. You say that you had a free hand. Is it to be attributed to you then, that your institute specialized in the rescue of fliers?
A. Yes, we specialized in finding methods for the rescue of fliers, and this according to my plan; but this plan was worked out in agreement with the intentions of the Medical Inspectorate.
Q. Did the Military Institute also deal with questions of extermination, killing, or the effect of offensive weapons?
A. No, no such questions were ever worked upon by us.
Q. Would you please indicate who your collaborators were?
A. My oldest collaborator was Dr. von Werz. Werz came to me during the beginning of the war because he had reason to change his residence.
He was being looked for by the Gestapo, was persecuted for racial reasons, and for that reason decided to give up his position as a chief pharmacologist in a larger pharmaceutical institution. I was in a position to engage him in my institute through a civilian contract and he succeeded in staying with me throughout the entire war without any interference. There was some question about that from Berlin which threatened his position but Becker-Freyseng managed to save the situation. Werz was a pharmacologist. He originally wanted to qualify as a lecturer but that did not materialize and he came to me afterwards. My second collaborator was Lutz, L u t z. I took Lutz from an ack-ack battalion. At that time he was a rather unknown man, but while working with me developed very quickly into a very good and significant scientist. My third collaborator was Wendt, who was an X-ray physiologist, and mostly worked upon the X-ray questions. He took care of the entire correspondence of the Institute and simultaneously was head of the test station after I had become head of the Institute. Later, on under a civilian contract, we employed a physiological chemist, Dr. Sehlkopf, who also came from the pharmaceutical industry. This was the basic staff of the Institute. Then we had a number of collaborators who, however, came and went, and who only became temporary members of the Institute. These were Dr. Ranten, who came from the front and wanted to do his doctor's thesis. And there were a number of people who for other reasons wanted to do scientific work for a time. I had no influence in the selection of these fluctuating and changing collaborators, but in many instances they were just assigned to my Institute without my ever knowing them.
Q. Now would you please briefly describe what your tasks were as head of the Institute?
A. As chief of the Institute I at first reserved for myself a field of work, for my own research work, and in addition it was my duty to establish the policy of the entire Institute. As a rule we had discussions once a week during which we exchanged our experiences. Everybody reported what he had worked upon and a future program was determined. Since we were rather small and since we didn't have enough collaborators, a danger existed that we would disintegrate and go different ways, and for that reason I attached value to the continuity of the whole task being preserved. I wanted to see that a number of essential problems were selected and that we should concentrate our entire energy upon these problems. At the very beginning, particularly, there was an inclination to follow up every idea which was considered to be good, and in this manner a number of tasks were started which were never finished. New ideas originated which meant that old work was put aside. Finally, we drafted a program which had to be observed rigidly and which represented our exact line of work.
Q. I shall now turn to the individual counts of the indictment. You were charged with having participated in a conspiracy. I shall deal with this point only when all of the other points have already been clarified. The next count and almost the only count which is to be taken seriously is your connection with the high altitude experiments at Dachau. They are all centered around the name of Rascher. I therefore ask you at first, when did you first hear of Rascher?
A. I heard of Rascher for the first time in the summer of 1941. I heard of him through Kottenhoff. Kottenhoff at that time told me that Rascher had approached him and had suggested that he carry out the high altitude experiments at Dachau. Kottenhoff, I may explain, was at that time an Oberfeldarzt with the Air Gau Command. Kottenhoff in the years 1938 to 1939 had already been with my civilian department.
He received his specialists training at the Physiological Institute at Munich. Later he qualified as a lecturer at my Institute and worked in my department as a guest whenever he visited Munich. Among other matters, he at one time started a series of experiments with a monkey.
Q. Dr. Weltz, I shall now have the letter of Rascher to Himmler, dated 15 May, 1941, handed to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Before starting on that phase of the examination the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Dr. Weltz, just before the recess I was about to give you Document NO-1602 PS, Prosecution Exhibit 44; and that is where were stopped at the recess. I shall now send the document up to you. I understand you have it already. Please refer to it. The prosecution maintains and I should like to hear your attitude about this--that you are the representative of the Air fleet physician mentioned in this letter here.
A Rascher writes in this letter of the 15th of May 1941 first that he was assigned in Munich at the Luftgau Commando VII for a medical selection course. He also writes that high altitude research was important in this course because the English fighter planes had a somewhat higher ceiling. He alleged that it was mentioned in this course that unfortunately we had not been able to carry out experiments with human material yet since the experiments were very dangerous and no one volunteered.
He therefore seriously asks: Is it possible that two or three professional criminals be made available by you for these experiments? What Rascher writes here is very peculiar because it is likely to have been generally known at that time that in the Luftwaffe there was hardly a wellknown research worker who had not performed extensive experiments on himself. From the large number of names I should like to mention only a few here. Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Lutz have already been mentioned. Klamann, Frauenberger, Doehring, Benzinger, Luft, Fobeitz, Kottenhoff, Halbach, Sauer, those are only a few names which just occur to me. There were some heroic experiments, for example, Benzinger-Halbach experiments on explosive decompression up to 19,000 centrifuge experiments by Doehlen. He stayed in the centrifuge until he had subcutaneous hemorrhages, that is, his whole skin by the centrifuge, which was a sensational thing at the time.
We knew of all these experiments, and there was hardly anyone familiar with aviation medicine who could have made such a remark. Now, this remark could only have been made at a report on high altitude aviation research. The three lectures which were held on altitude during this course I know.
I held one of them myself. I did not say that. Buechner made one and Kottenhoff the third; and I heard both lectures; and the other two lecturres did not contain this assertion either. We know from further developments that he means here Kottenhoff's lecture; and Kottenhoff certainly did not say that either, certainly not in this form; and he says the same thing himself in a affidavit.
Now, Rascher goes on the write that the experiments are made at the Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe in Munich. The head in this institute at the time was myself. Rascher did not come to me, although I was a lecturer at this course. I did not give him permission to perform these experiments at this institute; and I would not have been able to give him that permission to perform these experiments at this institute; and I would not have been able to give him that permission. That would have been something which would have absolutely required consultation with the Medical Inspectorate and the approval of the Medical Inspectorate. I consider it impossible that Kottenhoff gave him this permission because Kottenhoff was not at this testing station; he was with the Luftgau. He was in charge of the department for therapy and care; and he could not and did not give Rascher this permission, I am convinced of that.
Now, if Rascher goes on to write: the experiments during which, of course, the subjects could die were to take place with my cooperation; that they are carried out on monkeys as hitherto because monkeys are of an entirely different test condition; as I said already he mentions monkeys because Kottenhoff's lecture referred to his experiments on monkeys. I have had a very confident talk on that matter with the representative of the air fleet physician who did make this research experiment, and he was also of the opinion that the problems involved can only be solved by experiments on human beings.
I know from what Kottenhoff has told me, that Rascher did talk to him at that time, and, after all, Kottenhoff says that too in his affidavit. On the otherhand, Rascher himself writes that the conversation was absolutely confidential. This shows that he did not talk to me. As far as the representative of the air fleet physician is concerned, he was neither Kottenhoff nor myself. The air fleet physician was Paris, at that time. He had no representative in Munich. At least we two were not his representatives. One must, therefore, observe, that in this letter Rascher has made quite a lot of confusion with partly half-truths, mostly however completely untrue statements. These are apparently made for a very definite purpose, and, I imagine the purposes of this letter is for Rascher then to make Himmler believe that there was an urgent need for human experiments. He also wanted to make him believe that he has talked to some competent persons on the subject, which could not have been the case according to the state of affairs. He obviously expected that if Himmler gives him the permission, the other authorities involved, that is myself, the air gau, the medical inspector, and so forth, that is, if an order of permission from Himmler is presented, that we could not oppose his wishes.
I think that is rather clear in the contents of this letter of Rascher's.
I therefore, state once more that Rascher did no talk to me at all at the time. He certainly did talk to Kottenhoff. In his lecture Kottenhoff certainly did not make the statement which Rascher put in his mouth. He talked about the adjustment of monkeys and rabbits to high altitude, and I knew nothing at all of the whole developments at the time. It was quite impossible that during this course he obtained permission or assurance that these experiments would be carried out at the Luftwaffe Testing Station for altitude research. There was no one there who could have given him this permission.
DR. WILLE: May it please the court, I, pursuant to the testimony of Dr. Weltz, shall now submit the affidavit by Dr. Kottenhoff, which has already been referred to several times. This is contained in Document Book I of Weltz Document No. 2, and at the same time with this I submit here a publication by Dr. Kottenhoff which has the file: "Increase of endurance for high altitudes." This is contained in Weltz Document No. 2, Document No. 18, and both documents together will be Weltz Exhibit No. 3. From this affidavit I would like to make the following brief statements. On page 2 Kottenhoff states, at the top-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wille, the documents being contained in separate document books, I suggest that they be marked separately as Exhibit No. 3 and Exhibit No. 3-A.
DR. WILLE: May it please the court, in accordance with your Honors ruling, I shall submit these documents as Exhibits Nos.
3 and 4. Perhaps I may briefly come back to what I was about to say. Kottenhoff said on page 2, first, that during the training course, he gave a lecture on high altitude as to the adaptability of rabbits and monkeys. He confirmed thereupon that after the lecture, that Rascher approached Kottenhoff, and that the two of them had a confidential discussion together. On page 3 of his affidavit Kottenhoff confirms that Rascher made the proposition to him to have high altitude tests made on professional criminals, and that they had to be volunteers. He also said in his affidavit, that is, Kottenhoff, and I shall quote the last paragraph on page 3: "Several weeks after our first discussion Rascher came to me, and informed me for the first time that he had approached Himmler for permission to conduct high-altitude adaptability experiments on professional criminals, and that he had received the written permission from him. Thereupon I expressed once more my scruples as stated under No. 12, promised him, however, to discuss the matter with Professor Weltz. In the subsequent discussion Weltz shared my scruples." End of quotation.
I, therefore, come to the conclusion if your Honor pleases, that Professor Weltz, as far as all these matters are concerned, heard only many, many weeks later about them, and, as it has been proved, he is not the person who has had the conversation with Rascher.
Q Dr. Weltz, I shall now come back once more to Rascher's letter to Himmler; will you tell me in a few brief words what did Rascher intend with these incorrect statements?
A I believe I have already indicated that. I interpret the letter to be that Rascher, during Kottenhoff's lecture got the idea of performing experiments on human beings in Dachau; that without saying anything to Kottenhoff about it he got permission from Himmler that in order to obtain this permission he pretended to Himmler that he had talked to authorities and that there was urgent need for those experiments and then it seems to me that Rascher at that time already intended to qualify as a lecturer, because the fact that he mentioned the testing station for altitude research as the agency which was to carry out the experiments leads us to believe that at that time he was looking for a contact with the University which would have been possible through me, and the Physiological Institute with Testing Station 4.
Q Dr. Weltz, I shall now hand to you an essay by Kottenhoff and by Frau Ruehl-Stanislaus. This essay is on experiments on monkeys. Your Honor, this essay is in Document Book 2 of Weltz, page 69 and 70. Dr. Weltz, will you please explain this paper?
A This is a correction sheet of a paper which Kottenhoff later published in the journal for Aviation Medicine. It is No. 33 in the list of publications which has been submitted by my assistants.
DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, Document 17, I shall submit this paper which will become Weltz Exhibit 5.
Q Dr. Weltz, what did Kottenhoff tell you when for the first time he talked to you about Rascher's plans?
A Perhaps I may first comment briefly on this paper. It is headed "Increase of the degree of resistance to high altitudes through acclimatization in the case of Rhesusmonkeys." And in the summary Kottenhoff describes how he tests the adaptation to altitude with monkeys, and how he succeeded, by making the ascent extremely slow, in reaching a higher altitude, and keeping the monkey alive longer than was possible through the quick ascent. These are the same changes which Kottenhoff and I had already previously determined in rabbits. There are a group of reactions which in aviation are called acclimatization to high altitude.
Q Now, will you please answer the question which I put to you before and which you haven't answered yet. What did Kottenhoff tell you when he talked to you about Rascher's plans for the first time?
A Kottenhoff said to me that Rascher was acquainted with Himmler -- that Rascher had obtained permission from Himmler to perform experiments on human beings. He said that the subjects were to be professional criminals, that these people were to volunteer and then were to receive a reduction of their punishment and at that time Rascher had suggested to Kottenhoff that this effect of allimatization to altitude which I just read about from Kottenhoff's paper, this effect should be tested. I said to Kottenhoff that these acclimatization tests were no doubt quite interesting physiologically but that for practical aviation medicine they were without any significance because this effect of adjustment occurred only when one delayed the ascent for hours; but since the times for descent during war-time do not become longer, but are radically shortened, and therefore the effect had no practical significance whatsoever.
Kottenhoff had misgivings against Rascher's suggestions for other reasons. He states the point in detail in his affidavit.
Q As far as I know as to Rascher's plans there was a conversation between Kottenhoff and Hippke; you were present during this conversation, and what do you know about it?
A This discussion was no doubt occasioned by what Rascher had said, but it was not really a conference for the execution of these experiments. On the occasion of a visit to Air Gau VII Hippke had invited us in the evening; there were about 15 men from the Air Gau. I was sitting at Hippke's left. Kottenhoff first was sitting at the lower end of the table. Then Kottenhoff came up, sat down between Hippke and myself and asked Hippke and later told Hippke what he had heard from Rascher, and he asked Hippke what his basic attitude towards these experiments was. Hippke and Kottenhoff debated the problem back and forth for a while. Kottenhoff said to Hippke that under these conditions one could perform experiments because in the last analysis these experiments were for the benefit even of criminals, and since the formulation which had been brought out seemed to me rather unfortunate I intervened toward the end of the conversation and tried to explain to Hippke my own opinion on this point. I had a rather clearly formulated opinion, because not too long before I had read De Kruif's book "Hunger Fighters." My friend Storm van Leeuwen had given it to me and Storm van Leeuwen had told mo about De Kruif. He was an American of Dutch descent. He knew Storm van Leeuwen, and had visited him intending to write something about Storm's work.
DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, at this point may I ask the Court whether as an exhibit I would be allowed to submit extracts from the just mentioned book by De Kruif. I recall in this connection that a little time ago the Court ruled that the defense would be allowed to submit all material connected with the human material only at the end of the presentation of evidence. Now, this document I do not wish to submit in connection with the legal aspects of human experiments, but only to prove that in this conversation between Weltz and Hippke which dealt with the conditions of experiments, Weltz acted in good faith, and therefore I think this document has a different significance in this connection than just to explain the experiments to the court. May I submit it here?
MR. HARDY: May I inquire Your Honor more specifically what document he is referring to?
DR. WILLE: Your Honor, this is an extract from the book by De Kruif and it is only that part of the extract which deals with the experiments by Goldberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, which document is that?
DR. WILLE: It is in Document Book Weltz 13, and I would offer it if the court permits me, as Exhibit No. 6. May I mention here, Your Honor, that the book is in my possession.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I still make a sincere attempt to find out what document they are referring to?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document to which you refer?
DR. WILLE: In Document Book Weltz, as I told Your Honor, it is Document No. 13. May it please the Court, it is on pages 59 to 63 of the English Document book. May I offer this Document?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I ask what the defense counsel is attempting to prove by using this Document. This fits clearly into the criterion of the other Documents wherein the Defense is making an attempt to show that experiments were being conducted in other countries and I think this should be delayed until the date, when the Tribunal can rule on this Document at the same time as it will rule on all other evidence of this nature. I don't see the connection of Weltz with this material.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the counsel for the defendant please state again what his purpose is in offering this Document, what probative value he thinks it has?
DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, as I said before, this Document, rather the Defendant Weltz referred himself to this Document, because he told the court at that time he explained his knowledge of the admissibility of human experiments to Hippke and he based himself on this book of De Kruif. Therefore, for Weltz in this case the question is not to explain the limitations of human experiments to the court, but only to make it credible to the court that at that moment Weltz was informed by an internationally well known book that such experiments were admissible. I do not wish to enter a debate on the limitations on human experiments.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that being the case, I would think a statement of counsel is all that is necessary here and the Document could be offered at a later date with the others.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Wille, you are referring to Document No. 13 in Weltz Document Book 1 at page 59? Witness, when did you first become familiar either with this excerpt in your Document book or the book itself, entitled "Hunger Fighters?"
THE WITNESS: The book "Hunger Fighters" belonged to Storm van Leeuwen and he gave it to me.
JUDGE SEBRING: When?
THE WITNESS: In 1933 he died and he must have given it to me before 1933.
JUDGE SEBRING: And what conclusion did you draw from the book at the time and particularly from this excerpt?
THE WITNESS: The experiences of Goldberger described in this book I considered the school model for what is permissable in accordance with international standards, and I told this to Hippke in this form.
JUDGE SEBRING: You believed in good faith that this represented the international medical standard in regard to the matter of experimentation upon human beings; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Willw, was that the purpose for which you were wanting to offer this exhibit at the present time?
DR. WILLE: Yes, it was.
JUDGE SEBRING: Then there is no particular necessity for your pursuing the matter further at this time?
DR. WiLLE: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document then will be admitted for the purpose mentioned by counsel and limited to that purpose; that will be Exhibit 6, counsel, will it not?
DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, I offer it as Exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal assumes that counsel does not intend to read this Document into the record.
DR. WILLE: No, Your Honor, I do not intend to read the Document into the record, but only to offer it to the Court and to put a few brief questions to the defendant, Professor Weltz, following this discussion of the Document. I want to ask you this regarding the point Hippke; what caused you to quote a popular book or refer to a popular book between scientists and experts; don't you think in that conversation, it would have been more sensible for you, to refer to a really expert scientific work in this connection?
THE WITNESS: I have already said that the formulation, which Hippke and Kottenhoff had seemed to me rather unclear and that I felt a need to clarify my point of view and formulate it clearly. This example happened to occur to me and this was good because it shows very clearly the points which I was interested in and then I explained these points to Hippke. I said to him, first of all the experiments concern urgent matters which can not be clarified by animal experiments; secondly, the criminals must be volunteers and third, they must receive a reward. These were the conditions, which I dealt with in considerable detail. In this book, there is much more detail than is customary in scientific works. In scientific works in general one finds only brief technical statements performed by so many persons, such and such were the conditions, while here in De Kruif's book the human conditions are described in considerable detail and very clearly. That the statements made in the book are correct, I had no doubt. I said before that Storm van Leeuwen and De Kruif knew each other personally. I knew that De Kruif was one of the most popular and respected medical authors in the field of popular science.
This was for me guarantee enough to be able to mention the book to Hippke. Moreover the general popularity and the wide circulation of such a book is the best standard for what is considered permissable and what is not. Do Kruif's books were printed by the million and were translated into many languages. Even if the statements made in the book were incorrect, which there is no reason to believe, at least the book would be proof of what internationally the general public considers permissable. That, as I said, are the reasons which at the time made me to present this classic example to Hippke and I believe even today it was a very suitable example.
DR. WILLE: If Your Honors please, in Document Book Weltz No. 2 under No. 19-A to C, on pages 72 to 76 of the English document book, there are three documents which have the purpose of supporting the credibility and significance of De Kruif's books which the prosecution's medical expert has challenged. I intend to submit these documents formally at this point without reading them and taking up the Court's time with them, but since the first document has been admitted in this connection I believe it is logically necessary also to submit these three annexes at this point.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, during the course of this trial I believe I have objected to documents being admitted into evidence nearly a hundred times or better but for the first time I am lost for words. I have read these documents and to use the word immaterial might be fine but they are not even remotely connected with what is in issue here and I can't see why they should even be tendered. I object to their admission, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take this matter under consideration and announce its ruling at one thirty o'clock.
DR. WILLE: May I continue now?
BY DR. WILLE:
Q. Now once more I want to go back to the conversation with Hippke during that evening in the Preysing Palais. Please answer this question. You said that Hippke gave his agreement to the experiments under the conditions as you described: volunteers, pardons to a sensible degree, and adjusting the sentences of the experimental persons?
A. Yes, only Hippke wanted us, and Kottenhof and I agreed, to limit it to exceptional cases where animal experiments would not serve the purpose, that is, this was not to become a standard. It was to be limited to urgent, exceptional cases and under these conditions Hippke had no basic objection to experiments being carried out, and I have already said that this was not a concrete case of a program which was being discussed. Hippke was merely discussing basic questions. Kotten hoff did not even ask him to be allowed to expand any program.
Kottenhoff and I had already agreed that what Rascher had suggested to us so far was unimportant and it was quite out of the question.
Q. Was it a conversation which obligated you? Was a program decided on concerning your future handling in the institute of these things?
A. No, that was not the case. Rascher was not in my institute yet at that time. As I have said, it was a conversation without any definite practical intent. It was a theoretical conversation as to whether and to what extent experiments can be performed on criminals, etc.
Q. Did you talk to Hippke about experiments on non-volunteers?
A. No, we did not discuss that. In the last analysis the subject had been brought up by Rascher and Rascher himself spoke only of volunteer subjects.
DR. WILDE: May it please the Court, I now submit Document Weltz No. 3 and I offer it as Exhibit Weltz No. 6. I am so sorry, No. 7. This is a record of a statement made by Professor Hippke in the case against Milch. Professor Hippke gave his version of the conversation which he held in the evening in question.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, the Tribunal has ruled here that, whenever extracts from another trial are offered to the Tribunal to take judicial notice thereof, it was necessary and a regulation that said extracts be certified by the Secretary General either of the IMT or the Secretary General of the tribunal here. I won't object to this being offered in evidence but I suggest that it be offered provisionally and in order to follow the ruling of the Tribunal that the said certificate from the Secretary General be obtained in each case of this nature.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. When there is offered before this Tribunal what purports to be a transcript of the testimony before another tribunal, that should be offered in the form of a certificate by the Secretary General that it is an official record of the transcript of the testimony and when it is so offered the Court will take judicial notice of the testimony.