I never participated and therefore know nothing of it.
Q. But witness, you can see that the Technical Inspection had nothing to do with arranging and calling these discussions of Medical Development?
A. Yes, that I can say.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Witness, you were present at the film showing?
A. No, I was not.
Q. You don't know what was shown there in the film, do you?
A. No, I do not know that.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. We know that Dr. Wuerfle, the Chief of Staff at that time said regarding what he himself knew about this matter; I have already quoted the passage from the record that pertains to this. Now, since you were active in the competent referat, did you discuss this whole occurrence with Dr. Wuerfle at all?
A. No, Never. I Believe Dr. Wuerfle said that here himself.
Q. I have to correct an error by the interpreter. You said, witness, with regard to the telephonic conversation that introduced this whole question, that the person who talked this up presumably Dr. Kalck, and said that he would speak with your superior, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. I have just been told that the interpreter translated that you would speak with your superior?
A. No. The person with whom I was telephoning con cluded the conversation by saying that settled the matter for him,
Q. And that he would get in touch with your superior and that was probably Herr Kalck. That clears that up. Now, Witness, the Document 224, a number of Medical Inspectorate doctors were mentioned who apparently were present at this film showing; Dr. Wuerfle has already been discussed by us. Dr. Wuerfle came after the showing was concluded, but according to this document Professor Kalck and Stabsarzt Bruehl, in other words, two officers of the Medical Inspectorate were present and Kalck was the consulting internist with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, as we know.
Q. Did you in this way hear from Kalck and Bruehl anything about this discussion or about the contents of that film?
A. No, throughout the War I did not speak with Bruehl at all. I did not even know him. Nor can I hardly recall any conversation with Professor Kalck either, nor can I recall anything about this matter.
Q. Were these two medical officers members of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A. No.
Q. What office did they belong to?
A. Kalck was the consulting internist with the Medical Inspectorate, but was not subordinate to that office, the Medical Inspectorate, that is in any rate not in the way that he was there all the time. But Kalck and Bruehl so far as I know had close connections with Field Marshall Milch and were at this discussion in that capacity.
Q. Witness, this report has been put in by the Prosecutor which is the final report of saving rescue from high altitude and signed by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher.
This is clearly a report on aviation medical problems. Was this report sent to the Medical Inspectorate in toto as Dr. Ruff has already explained here, or just what can you tell us about this?
A. On my own knowledge I can tell you nothing about it. I can only tell you what I can deduce from the documents here before me. Whether this report was sent to Hippke, the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, I do not know, nor do I now whether Anthony saw it. I know I did not see it. It was according to the documents here not distributed by the Medical Inspectorate, but Milch drew up the list of persons who was to receive it, and as Ruff has explained it was distributed by the German Institute for Medicine.
Q. Now, witness you say you did not see the report at that time, and to make this perfectly clear it was not in the files that you know of, 44 as Referent took over?
A. That is perfectly clear. I never saw it.
Q. Did you find out nothing at all about these experiments or when did you find out about them for the first time?
A. I already said I found out that some sort of experiments had been made which were to be discussed at this developmental institute. I found out about it through this telephone call from Kalck or his Assistant Bruehl. Regarding the results of these experiments I read something in a reprint from the publications of the German Academy for Air Aviation Research which was sent to us where a report of Dr. Ruff on saving from high altitudes was reprinted.
Q. About this Dr. Ruff spoke already on 29 April 1947, page 6620 of the English record.
That, if I understand you correctly, concludes what you knew before this trial or before the end of the war, regarding these high altitude experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, there is a document here that establishes a connection between the Air Ministry on Aviation Medicine your Referat, and Rascher's experments. This is Document No 264, page 73 of the English Document Book 2, Exhibit 60. It is headed "File Note for SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler". It concerns itself essentialy with Dr. Weltz, but one paragraph is interesting to us. Quote:
"RLM asks Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz how long the experiments will last and whether it is justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long a time. RLM demands from Weltz an opinion on the experiments, which he, however, can not give unless he is fully informed about them."
Did you call him up or did somebody else call him up?
A I did not telephone him. I can only refer to what Professor Weltz said later, namely, that he had received the call from Professor Anthony.
Q Now, witness, another question, namely, did the question of low pressure chambers - you have heard both Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg say that the low pressure chamber, when the high altitude experiments were interrupted at Dachau, was taken away from Dachau and was not returned thither. We also know that Rascher made many efforts to get the chamber send back to Dachau. Now, since you worked on low pressure chamber problems, let me ask you what do you know from your own knowledge as to whether or not the chamber was ever returned to Dachau?
A I know that from the Summer of 1912 on, no other Luftwaffe mobile pressure chamber was ever sent to Dachau. That is absolutely out of the question.
Q How do you have this absolute certainty?
A From the summer of 1942 on, all four low pressure chambertrains that the Luftwaffe owned were in constant use, and it is quite out of the question that the chamber should have been in Dachau even for a few days.
DR. TIPP: Your Honors, let me state that the statement that the chamber was only once in Dachau was also made by the prosecution's witness Neff on 17 December 1946, page 667 of the English record.
Q As we know from the documents, Rascher made considerable efforts to have the chamber sent back to Dachau because he wanted to qualify as a lecturer through his work in this field.
Did Rascher ever turn to you, personally, as a specialist in the employment of low pressure chambers?
A Yes, in October 1942, at the freezing conference in Nurnberg he met me; he must have found out in some way that I was working on this low pressure chamber question and he asked me in a rather insolent manner, to have the chamber sent to Dachau for him; he said that he was going to get it anyway, because Himmler would back him up. I told Rascher that was not something I could decide, and that I would submit his wish to my departmental chief, and did so, suggesting at that same time that if such an application came from Rascher he should be turned down because, after what Rashcer told me in the course of this same conversation, I did not have the feeling that Rascher experiments were in any way necessary. Above all, I asked him who his collaborators were, and he said they were things he would do alone. I know that in the course of the winter of 1942-43, such on application must have reached the Medical Inspectorate, of which, however, I did not see the original, but at the same time - I do not now recall the exact date - I was asked to state my opinion regarding the question of mobile low pressure chamber - to say whether any such chamber was available, and I did tell my chief what I thought. At about the same time Ruff had called me up and told me he had found out that Rascher intended to ask Himmler's permission to set up his own aviation medical institute, which neither Dr. Ruff nor I considered either necessary or expedient. At this time, I reported to my departmental chief and was ordered by him to tell the Zeuzem firm, which built our low pressure chambers and delivered them to us, that if any orders came from any other sources but Luftwaffe sources, he was to turn it down at first until he had the approval of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
The grounds for this were that we could adopt such an attitude toward this firm, because the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe was just about this firm's only customer.
Q To prove what the witness has just said, Mr. President, let me turn to document 24, Becker-Freyseng Document No. 24, the affidavit by the engineer of the Zeuzem firm that I have put in as Exhibit No. 11. Zeuzem writes here on page 2 at the bottom:
"In winter 1941/42, I can not remember the exact date, and many times afterwards, Dr. Becker-Freyseng told me that under no circumstances was I to accept orders from other departments for the delivery of low-pressure chambers unless they had been approved by the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. Dr. Becker-Freyseng especially warned me repeatedly against making deliveries to the SS, because otherwise every single Luftwaffe order to my plat for the Medical Inspectorate would be stopped.
"In the event of any such order, I was to inform the Medical Inspectorate immediately and to tell the department placing the order that my plant was fully occupied with the execution of Luftwaffe orders and that we were even in arrears."
Witness, that concludes the problem of the high-altitude experiments. I may sum up your testimony as follows: neither in the planning or carrying out of these experiments for the rescue from high altitude did you in any way participate and only after they were concluded did you hear about these experiments and then only in the most general terms; is that correct?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 May 1947 until 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present with the exception of the Defendant Hoven who was excused from the Tribunal yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Hoven who was excused pursuant to a request by his counsel that Defendant Hoven might be excused today in order to consult with his counsel.
Counsel may proceed.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng):
Q Doctor, Becker, yesterday we closed the charge regarding high-altitude experiments and I come now to the next charge, your responsibility and participation in the freezing experiments. Here also it is not asserted by the prosecution that you are an active participant. The prosecution bases its charges mainly on your position as an assistant referent or referent in the medical inspectorate. The first question regarding this then is, from 1941, 1942 and 1943 did you deal with the problems involved in freezing research in your position as assistant referent in your referent?
A No.
Q From a document put in by the Prosecution it can be seen that discussions of sea-distress problems were discussed. This is from Document Book No. 3, English, page 10, Exhibit 42, Document number 343. That is a letter from General Milch of the 20th of May 1942 addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, and it is headed "Dear Wolffy!" It refers to the high-altitude experiments, saying that they are concluded, and continues, "on the other hand, the carrying out of experiments of another sort, namely, those on sea distress are necessary and preparations have already been made for them by our office." Now, under this word "office" you can understand only the SS office or, on the other hand, the competent office in the medical inspectorate. Do you know that before the 20th of May 1942 any such discussions were carried out?
A No. I did not.
Q Now, witness, you told us that you heard of Rascher's experiments for the first time during the discussion between Professor Hippke and Rascher in June of 1942. A document has been put in by the prosecution regarding this discussion. It is in Document Book 3, page 12, Document number 283, Exhibit 82. This is a letter from Dr. Rascher of 15 June 1942 and headed "Esteemed Reichsfuehrer!" In other words, this letter is addressed to Himmler. You know this document, witness. Is this the discussion to which Hippke ordered you to attend at that time?
A Since I was ordered to attend only one such discussion between Hippke and the Reichsfuehrer, this must be the one but let me make a small correction. I found out for the first time about this think not on the occasion of this discussion but from my superior, Dr. Martius.
Q Yes, thank you, you have already said that. Now, you were present at the discussion on this letter, consequently.
I may discuss a few points of this letter with you. The first paragraph concerns itself with the high-altitude experiments. Let me ask you were you present during that part of the discussion?
A No, I was called into the discussion in the middle of it, consequently, I don't know what was discussed beforehand or how long it had been lasting.
Q The second paragraph concerns itself with the freezing problem. Let me quote briefly: "At the same time, he asked for permission to carry out the cold and water experiments in Dachau, and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments: Professor Dr. Jarisch, Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Professor Dr. Singer. The Inspector designated the experiments as extraordinarily important, as we must count on another winter in the East."
Witness, were these points taken into consideration during the discussion, and what can you say by way of supplementation of what you said yesterday regarding this matter?
A These points were touched on yesterday but I remember very definitely that at least when I was present it wasn't as if Hippke requested something, but it was that he was going to carry out freezing experiments and to do so he needed a sea distress specialist from the Luftwaffe. So far as the names quoted here are concerned, I remember Professor Jarisch and Holzloehner. I recall both names in connection with the sea distress discussions planned for the late fall or winter. The whole plan was already under consideration and it also had been put before Hippke as something he should deal with. Professor Singer, the Luftwaffe pathologist in Munich, is completely unknown to me in this connection, neither was he included in the plan conceived of at that time nor did he take part in the confer ence here in Nurnberg.
I do not know him personally and whether or not I even knew his name at that time I don't know, but it is possible that later Hippke named him to Rascher.
Q Now, witness, you described what was said in this discussion briefly yesterday but there is one point that should be mentioned again, what problems were these experiments intended to solve?
A So far as I can still recall today the propositions that Rascher made to Hippke at that time were rather devious and not very precise. Professor Hippke clearly emphasized two specific problems, one was the testing of the foam suit that Holzloehner had developed and the other was the problem of the so-called rapid rewarming.
Q In that part of the discussion when you were present, was there any discussion of the dangerousness of the experiments?
A That was mentioned to the extent that Rascher mentioned the paper by Smith and Fay, which had been published shortly theretofore, I think in 1941, and in which it was stated for the first time that it had been found possible to reduce human temperature 24 degrees centigrade, the temperature taken rectally, without killing the subject. I took particular note of this because I found that very surprising; I had never concerned myself before theretofore with freezing experiments, and I had supposed until then that the reduction of temperature of just a few degrees below normal were very dangerous and then in July, 1942, there appeared in the German Clinical Weekly, the paper by a Danish physician named Dr. Eltorm, who had checked on Smith and Fay's article and also reported on numerous reductions of temperature for the purpose of treating cancer.
Q Then your answer to my question as to whether or not the dangerousness was discussed is that Rascher declared that they were not dangerous and referred to scientific periodicals and papers to prove this?
A Yes. He did in that connection.
Q Now witness, when did you again hear of these intended experiments?
A In Nurnberg, at the freezing conference.
Q In the meantime did you see any letters of any sort either that came to the referat or that came to it?
A In the meantime I had nothing to do with this matter.
Q Now let me put to you another prosecution document, document book 3, page 22, document No. 286, exhibit 88.
This is a letter from the Medical Inspectorate to the Reichsfuehrer SS. Below the heading, there is the file note 55, and for the referat in question there is the indication L I M 14, Arabic 2, Roman 2 B, that is the referat for Aviation Medicine. How does it happen that you didn't see this letter?
A Let me refer to the signature. It says: "Draft signed by order of Wullen", who was the chief of staff, and certified 2 copies, signature Anthony. On the 28 February 1947; Augustinok, a witness, on page 3730 of the English record, stated that in view of our regular office procedure it was obvious that this letter had been worked on by Anthony.
Q Now, witness, though you didn't concern yourself personally with this letter, - can you nevertheless, on the basis of your general knowledge of the work in the referat for aviation medicine, give us some information about this. This is a letter regarding freezing and in the first part Anthony writes that Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner on the 24 February 1942, was given a research assignment on the effect of freezing on warm blooded subjects. In connection with this research assignment was there any mention of any further intention of carrying out experiments on human beings? Could you give us some general information on this?
A I myself know nothing more precisely about this research assignment, but first of all the subject of the research assignment, the effect of freezing on warm blooded subjects, makes use here of a scientifically perfectly usual expression for experiments on animals. In the list of the 97 research assignments the Prosecution put in, Document No. 934, Exhibit 458, we find under IX, two research assignments to other men, using almost identical terminology, to wit, experiments on warm blooded subjects, and also in foreign scientific papers, for instance that by the Americans Dill and Forbes, you find the same expression in English. If experiments on human beings had been intended that would have been expressed in the definition of the research assignment. More over, it says verbatim in this letter and I quote:
"On the proposal of Stabsarzt, Dr. Rascher, appropriate examinations were made on human beings," that meaning that at first at least the assignment was limited entirely to animal experiments.
Q I want to ask you one more question, namely, about the next to the last paragraph on the first pages; "The research documents and extensive documents will be presented to Reichsfuehrer SS by Dr. Rascher at his request, that the original and copy of the report of the documents be put at the disposal of the inspectorate of the medical service of the Luftwaffe." According to the Prosecution assertion this is an experiment which was carried out on the initiative of the Luftwaffe. How is it that the Luftwaffe on the 8 October 1942, in other words, after the conclusion of the experiments, has to ask for the first time from the Reichsfuehrer SS?
A Since I know nothing about this directly or personally I can only draw the deduction regarding a point that was, it seems, quite clear, that the office which ordered these experiments and the office determined when the results were to be made public, was the Reich Fuehrer SS alone. Let me say also that in the experiments which the Luftwaffe really carried out by itself, for instance the sea water experiments, it never occurred to any one to ask the Reichsfuehrer SS or any one else to permit the publication of the findings.
Q With that, I can leave that document, and I can ask you the following: You said before that until the Nurnberg freezing conference you saw no further reports on this matter. However, the witness Neff, who was Rascher's collaborator in Dachau, said on the 18 December, 1946, on page 681 of the English record, that Rascher dictated interim reports on his freezing experiments in Dachau, which went through as top secret material, and that the reports went to the aviation office 7 in Munich in the Prinzregenten Strasse. Now this was certainly a Luftwaffe office that received these reports, and I want to ask you whether these reports were sent from Munich to the Medical Inspectorate?
AAll I can say is that they never reached me, but I can point out the following: A Luftgau Medical Office (Amt) No. 7 did not exist. This can only be a confusion in my opinion with the Luftgau Medical Department No. 7, of which Dr. Daniels was in charge and Exhibit 104, document NO-283, mentions him as his superior as the man who approved Rascher's further experiments in Dachau. Then, witness, Neff said that he remembered very clearly that these reports were top secret, but it was prescribed in the case of top secret matters that they could only be sent to those offices to which they were addressed. That is to say, top secret matters were not sent through the regular channel through all intermediary stages but were sent directly. Concerning the many letters that Rascher sent to his office in the SS, namely, Himmler, it can be seen that he had no scruples about sending such a top secret matter to the Medical Inspectorate. In summing up, I can say I never saw any such top secret report, nor later when I took a referat did I see any such top secret report in the files.
Q. You have stated now that you did not see this report that Rascher sent on the 10 September 1942 to Himmler mentioned in 234, Exhibit 83, page 13 of Document Book III. Now, witness, first of all let me ask you one thing based on your general knowledge of the usual office procedure in Germany. Rascher speaks here of the Nurnberg Freezing Conference and papers to be read there and says therein, last paragraph: "I will take care that the report is submitted in an appropriate manner due to its top secret nature." Now, duo to your basic knowledge of prescriptions regarding such matters how is a report to be made if it is concerned with something designated with top secret at such a conference?
A. That can only mean that at the Nurnberg Freezing Conference the results are to be reported on only so far as it is absolutely necessary for an understanding of the results. After I had heard Holzloehner's report in Nurnberg, and now again in Nurnberg after seeing a part of the records of the experiments, I can judge the difference between the way the experiments were really carried out and what we who attended the conference heard at that time. In other words, Rascher made known no details at all.
Q. Witness, then interim reports did not reach you. Now, how about the final report which the Prosecution has put in as document NO-428, Exhibit 91, page 27 of Document Book III? I don't want to read anything to you from this report. I simply want to know if you knew of it?
A. I heard about it the first time here in the trial.
Q. Then you didn't see this report in your referat, that's what you mean?
A. Yes, that is so. Let me point out one thing which is perfectly clear to those who know how German correspondence is carried on. In the copy of this report put in by Prosecution it can clearly be seen that this is copy # 2. It was prescribed in the case of top secret matters they state how many copies of top secret matters had been made and on each copy or on each page of each copy; the number of the copy has to be printed.
Since this copy is copy no. 2 there is also the copy that Rascher sent to Himmler. It must be assumed that Rascher kept copy no. 1 in his own private files and sent copy no. 2 to his Chief, who had given the assignment, Heinrich Himmler. It is unlikely that, in addition, he sent off several other copies elsewhere because Rascher wanted to qualify as a lecturer through this work and it is a prerequisite that in order to do so the applicant come through with new results. Consequently, Rascher would have no reason to spread these matters. That would prevent him from receiving the recognition that would qualify him as a lecturer.
Q. The report was not in the files of the Medical Inspectorate. Let me recall to you Professor Weltz's testimony on the stand, page 7146 of the English record. Professor Weltz stated he made inquiries to find this report and was unable to do so. Let me now put in Becker-Freyseng Document 25, Document Book II, page 96. This will be Exhibit 12. This is an affidavit by Professor Knothe of Goslar of 8 March 1947. Let me ask you, first of all what job did Professor Knothe have at this time?
A. He was Commader of the Medical Experimental Department in Jueteborg.
Q. May I quote then this document which is very brief.
"At the request of defense counsel, I wish to state the following: I recall that during the summer or fall of 1944. Dr. Becker-Freyseng telephoned me from Saalow, the sanitary experimental and lecture section and inquired whether I know anything about a final report by Holzloehner on his low temperature experiments at Dachau, or whether such a report was to be found in my section. He stated that he himself knew nothing of such a report. I thereupon explained to Dr. Becker-Freyseng on the telephone that I knew nothing about such a report either and that it could therefore not be at my section."
There follows the signature and the usual certification. Now, witness, it isn't entirely clear from this document why it was Professor Knothe that you called up. Were there any closer connections between Rascher, Holzloehner, Hippke or anybody else and Professor Knothe?
A. It was very natural for me to call up Knothe because Holzloehner's Military Planning Agency was this Sanitary Experimental and lecture section in Jueterborg.
Q. Now we come to Document 286, Exhibit C from Document Book III, page 127 of the English Document Book. It has the same code letters as those which the prosecution uses as basis for its charges against you. Now, let me ask you whether or not you know this letter which went to Reichsfuehrer-SS from Hippke on 19 February 1943?
A. I cannot recall this letter and certainly didn't draft it myself at that time because this was Anthony's affair. I did not know it then. But let me point out one thing which can be seen very clearly from this letter, that, also on the 19 February 1943, neither the Medical Inspector himself, namely Hippke, nor Prof. Anthony were in possession of this final report signed by Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke. In this letter the Medical Inspector thanks that the freezing experiments have been carried out and states explicitly and I quote: "The result was reported upon by those who worked on them during a conference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardships on 26 and 27 October 1942 at Nurnberg." I am convinced that if the written report were also available then the fact that a report was to be made at the conference would not have been mentioned but thanks would have been given for the written report.
Q. Now, we come to the Nurnberg Conference which has been repeatedly mentioned by the Prosecution here. Professor Holzloehner spoke at this conference. Now, first a few preliminary questions. This conference was organized by the Medical Inspectorate. Was this the only conference of this kind or were there several such?
A. There were 12 such conferences throughout tho course of the War from 1941 to 1944.
Q. This conference, witness, concerned itself with the freezing problem in contradistinction with tho consulting conference of the Wehrmacht which treated numerous subjects at the same conference. Was it customary for such Luftwaffe conferences to discuss only one problem. Otherwise the impression could be that the only reason this conference was called was to hear Holzloehner's report.
A. The conference was called by the Medical Inspectorate for scientific discussion where in contradistinction to the consulting conferences of the Wehrmacht consulted only one theme at a time and this theme was illuminated in all its facetson one or two days of the conference. I might name one or two other themes that occupied the other 12 conferences. The most important was the one a year previous to that in the summer of 1942 in Paris which concerned itself with sea distress problems in which I did not participate because I didn't belong to the Medical Inspectorate at that time. And in the summer of 1942 a second medical conference regarding night sight and space sight, and then in 1943 a conference regarding medical air raid protection measures, and in 1944 a conference on the use of the so-called efficiency increasing drugs such as caffeine, benzedrine, ephedrine, and so on.