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.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Now, I have the following question to put to you; can you without immodesty say that your discovery of the effects of quick rewarding was important and significant?
A May I correct your question? It was not a discovery it was a rediscovery. The fact that quick rewarming can save the lives of chilled people was discovered in 1888 by Lepschinsky. This work was ignored or forgotten, so that since that time the doctrine prevailed that rewarming was dangerous and might lead to collapse. We realized, of course, that this rediscovery was of great significance, especially in war time, when many people are exposed to chill. The Navy very soon reported to us that they had had good success with this method and if I understand this unofficial information correctly, then on the basis of this work hundreds of lives were saved during the war alone in the convoy destroyers in the North Sea and of course in the future it will be a blessing. It a very clear to us that we had had the real good fortune which a research worker seldom has, that we had discovered a measure which was very simple and cheap and could be applied everywhere. We had found something that would so many lives. It is known to me that in the American press this discovery was hailed as the greates deed of German medicine during the war. I would especially like to disown such exaggerations. One cannot rank scientific work in different fields the way one can rank tennis players, that is impossible. Of course, it was clear to us that our discovery was important. Then, in the German press, I was subjected to attacks because of this work, it was maintained that I had killed many people in Dachau together with Rascher. I was called a beast in human form. I believe it would have been better if the German press had used this space which was devoted to these attacks, for an objective explanation of how treacherous death by cold is and haw easy it is to save the lives of such people.
If I remember correctly, according to a newspaper report in the last cold period, 95 people died from cold. I also think that these 95 people might have been saved with a little hot water from the locomotive of the train they were in, but these 95 people died because there was no one in the train who knew what to do and knew how dangerous death by cold is. I only wish what we discovered may be spread and disseminated as soon as possible so that such things may be prevented in the future.
Q Mr. President, to illustrate what the witness has just said, I would like to put in Weltz Document No. 20, Exhibit No. 9 from Document Book No. 2, an excerpt from a magazine, namely the "Reader's Digest" of January 1947. This says that the method of rewarming was used by America in the war against Japan and it is now a generally recognized method. This is page 77 of Document Book 2. Now, Professor Weltz, let me ask you; did you do what you did in order to see that your important discoveries were adequately publicized?
A Two months after the Nurnberg conference, I published an extensive paper in the Muendhner Medizinsche Wochenschrift, a German periodical with a large circulation. Of course, we did not keep our discoveries secret, we published them as widely as possible, so that not only the German Wehrmacht, but everyone who read it, including our enemies, could make full use of it, once they had read it.
However, within my field of work I saw to it that the knowledge was disseminated. I called together the doctors of the Sea Rescue Service, we delivered lectures in Paris. However, we collected the discoveries that had been made in Norway and on the West Coast so that we could work further in this field, and of course, there are a lot of problems involved here so that it is not possible at any one time to say that the problem is solved. There are many questions that must be worked on in the future.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I shall put in as Document 21, Exhibit No. 10, the paper that Dr. Weltz just mentioned that he had published. This is an expanded version of the lecture he delivered in Munich.
Q Dr. Weltz, I have concluded my questioning on the freezing question and now come to the last charge against you, namely, the charge of conspiracy. First of all I should like to ask you whom of those in the dock you know. I shall read their names. Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, you don't know them?
A No.
Q Another question, did you have any relations with the Reich Research Council in your capacity as head of the Medical Military Institute in Munich?
A No.
Q Do you know Professor Schroeder?
A Yes, I know him, of course. He was my immediate superior. Professor Schroeder has himself stated when and how often we spoke with each other. I may repeat it happened four times. First of all, 1938, at the X-ray Congress that I was chairman of; secondly, the second time in 1940. I remember very well that I delivered a lecture regarding the effects of altitude, and the duties of the aviation doctor who was in charge.
This was in Brussels. The third time I saw Dr. Schroeder in 1943, in autumn, when I was sick in the hospital. Dr. Schroeder has also described this meeting. Professor Schroeder was about to be appointed inspector and knew that, and this was the reason why I asked Professor Schroeder to say whether the policy I was following at the institute say should be continued. I reported to him briefly on our experimental work. Other things were not discussed, above all things that have anything to do with the matters in the indictment here. The last time I saw Professor Schroeder was in Bad Kolhub, 1945, in February. Here again I told him of the work we were doing in the institute, and nothing that bore any relation to the indictment here.
Q Do you know Genzken?
A No.
Q Professor Gebhardt?
A For a while I was with him at the Sauerbruch Clinic in the beginning of the 20's, but I certainly have not seen him since 1926.
Q Dr. Kurt Blome?
A Before the war I had dealings with him in matters concerning the German X-ray Association, but not since the war have I seen him or had anything to do with him.
Q Mrugowsky?
A Krugowsky? Didn't know him either.
Q Rudolf Brandt?
A Didn't know him either.
Q Poppendick?
A Didn't know him either.
Q Sievers?
A Didn't know him either.
Q Did you have any connections with Ahnenerbe?
A No. Sievers has already said so.
Q Did you know Professor Rose?
A Professor Rose has also testified that we saw each other twice, once before the war in a glider contest, and the second time at the Nurnberg Conference.
Q Ruff and Romberg have been clarified already. Did you know Brack?
A No.
Q Becker-Freysing?
A I knew him. He was the expert during the latter period. At the end I had continual official relations with him. I never spoke to him personally about Dachau. On the other hand, I know that my institute, namely, Lutz, was in touch with him at one time. Let me describe this. I recall it as follows: I have already said that our theories differed from Holzloehner's regarding the question of freezing death. Now, Lutz had submitted his papers for publication and in this paper this difference of opinion was brought to light. I believe a draft of this paper was sent to Holzloehner so that he could state his opinion on it. Then Holzloehner returned the paper and in substantiation of his opinion pointed out things in Holzloehner's report. We looked up this report since we were very interested in this particularly, particularly since at the Nurnberg Conference I had seen Holzloehner and it was ascertained that the report was not to be found at the Medical Inspectorate. Thus along this circuitous path we were not able to see the report either, much as it would have interested us.
Q Did you knew any of the other gentlemen?
A Schaefer, Hoven, Reiglboeck, Pokorny, Oberhauser, I did not know any of them.
Q Now, I am not of the personal opinion that the conferences in Nurnberg and elsewhere were meetings of conspirators, but I should like to know whether you took part in any consulting conferences?
A No.
Q And what do you have to say about the Nurnberg Conference?
A The Nurnberg Conference was not a consulting conference.
Q What was it then?
A It was a scientific conference, dedicated to a specific subject in which many people were interested, and consequently many people attended. I don't believe that any armed force in the world could get along without having such exchanges of opinion among their exports in certain fields. From a scientific point of view the Nurnberg Conference was certainly the most significant meeting that ever took place to consider this subject. I know the literature on freezing very well, and I know of no conference which devoted itself to medical freezing research so profoundly as the Nurnberg Conference.
Q Did you consider your relations with Ruff and Romberg a conspiracy in the usual sense of the term?
A I have said here in great detail that I consider my relations with Ruff as irreproachable. We do not have to reproach ourselves with the fact this was a war necessity. I believe that the agreements I had with Ruff can be measured against the strict criteria of peacetime. The purpose of our plan and agreement was to save human lives, and I do not believe that such an agreement can be characterized as a conspiracy.
Q Now, answer me one last question. The Prosecutor has reproached all the defendants with violating the Hippocratic oath.
I should like to have your personal attitude as a physician toward this subject.
A The Hippocratic oath which has become here a bone of contention is the professional oath of a certain profession which pledges allegiance to certain principles. It is an honorable historical document, which, however, does not altogether fit present times. If it is to be applied today its wording has to be changed very extensively, and in these reformulations a series of new oaths have been drawn up which have only a vague relation to the ancient Hippocratic oath.
At the University at which I studied it was not customary that persons take such an oath when they were being graduated, but these new formulations of the oath are based on the general principle of "nil nocere", and I believe also that in discussions with laymen the same false opinions arise, at least the discussion here seems to have shown that a medicine based on the principle of "nil nocere" is a very impoverished medicine and we are unfortunately not in a position to carry on medicine on that simple principle today. It is a matter of course that we must recommend to our patients a number of measures of which we know in advance under certain conditions they can be harmful. The doctor who acts according to the principle of "nil nocere" is by no means a good physician if he gives too much weight to that principle. It is frequently the man who cannot decide, who is satisfied with inadequate methods. I believe that if the tasks and duties of a doctor are to be defined with a Latin formula, that could better be described by the principle "salus egroti suprema lex esto", meaning that the health of the patient shall be the highest law. I believe that this principle defines the tasks of the doctor than the principle "nil nocere" which can be misunderstood. All of these new formulations of the oath based on the Hippocratic oath make sense so far as the relations between the doctor and the patient are concerned, but they become entirely nonsensical where experimental medicine works on healthy subjects. I can see no connection between the Hippocratic oath which regulates the doctor's relation to a sick person, and the question of whether a criminal is to be executed and whether he is first to be asked whether he would like to subject himself to an experiment.
As I say, I can see no connection. When the Hippocratic oath was first formulated there was no such thing as experimental medicine. Experimental medicine is a new development within the last century. It has been highly successful. A medicine not based on the success of experimental medicine is inconceivable today. We would have no aenesthetic and many other things which are very essential in medicine today. If there are individual doctors like Professor Leibbrandt here who repudiate all experimentation even voluntary experiments, then one must ask whether that is not a sort of double entry book keeping, if on the one hand these doctors avail themselves of what experimental medicine has discovered and on the other hand requdiate the methods through which these discoveries were made. I think this is essentially illogical. I personally am of the opinion that in experimental medicine of the innumerable papers and works that we use here only partially and accidentally totally a new international standard will be developed as to what is permissible, what is held to be of a dubious nature and what is to be forbidden. Now I personally have only considered permissible voluntary experiments on legally condemned criminals. I also said that this is not to become the general procedure or general rule but we discussed the fact with Hippke to experiment on ourselves, which is to be the basic rule and that these other experiments were to be reserved for a minimum number of problems where animal experimentation would not suffice and where experiments on one's self for one reason or another was impossible. As I said I believe that these principles correspond to an international standard and that they are acceptable. This is a very complicated problem and I don't have to touch it, when one speaks of experiments on minors or mentally ill persons and so forth, the problem would become very, very complicated, also whether or not the State makes these people legally available, all of these are matters with which I am not concerned myself, but as I said voluntary experiments on legally condemned criminals in cases where other means of experimentation are not available I consider permissible.