It may be numbered as an exhibit or not, that will be immaterial, but the Court will take judicial notice of it and this will be admitted provisionally subject to the signing of a proper certificate that it is a record of the testimony by the Secretary General.
DR. WILLE: If Your Honors please, may I explain this. Four or five days ago I took this extract to the Secretary General which I now offer, in order to act according to the Court's ruling. Unfortunately I did not receive the document back and therefore I am unfortunately not in a position to follow the Court's ruling immediately but I will take the liberty to hand in the document later on.
THE PRESIDENT: That will comply with the ruling of the Tribunal.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q. Witness, once again I come back to the subject which we originally discussed before we discussed the handling of document. This conversation with Hippke was caused by Rascher's intention to make the experiments in Dachau. Now, what was Rascher's own attitude toward these experiments? Did he himself not always refer to volunteers?
A. The first time when I heard from Kottenhoff about Rascher's suggestions, Kottenhoff was speaking of volunteers. Later, after the talk with Hippke I spoke to Rascher; Rascher also spoke only of volunteers. And then when we talked to Ruff-Romberg at my Institute, Rascher again spoke of volunteers. At the Nurnberg conference, in the remark which he made about Holzloehner's lecture, he again spoke of volunteers. He also spoke of volunteers on the way home from the Nurnberg conference to Stabsarzt Kraemer from St. Johann, as I see from an affidavit here. In the letter of Rascher's uncle, which has been submitted, it was stated that Rascher had said the subjects were volunteers. I never heard Rascher say anything else but that the subjects would be volunteers and, as I have said, that was the reason for us not to discuss involuntary experimental subjects with Hippke.
DR. WILLE: If your Honor please, may I interpolate here briefly for your information that the affidavit mentioned here just now by Kraemer was submitted by Dr. Nelte on behalf of the Defendant Handloser and it is in that document book, Exhibit No. 18.
Q. Witness, will you now tell me what happened after the conversation with Hippke?
A. After the conversation with Hippke nothing happened. It was not expected that anything would happen. We had no assignment from Hippke to do anything. On the other hand Hippke had given his basic approval. I, in turn, had no occasion to do anything. I have already said that Rascher's suggestion of testing this slow ascent was rejected.
Q. Will you tell us in more detail what were Rascher's plans at the time?
A. Rascher's plans were to test how much higher one can take a human being if one takes him up slowly, compared, to the altitude which he could stand if he is taken up quickly. If I take a human being up quickly, then at a certain altitude he suffers from altitude sickness and the speed with which this sickness occurs depends on the speed of the ascent. Now, if I protract the ascent for several hours, which would have otherwise been accomplished in a few minutes, if I draw it out over four or five hours, then the body has an opportunity to adjust to the new situation.
There are reactions, adaptations, and these adaptations of the body mean that in this slow ascent a higher ceiling is reached than in the fast ascent. I believe that Rascher wanted to test this rather unimportant effect in order to substantiate a notion he had. I would assume that he was counting on Kottenhoff's and my vanity as research workers when he suggested that we perform experiments on human beings concerning an effect, which we ourselves had discovered, because, as I said, there was no practical necessity for testing this matter.
Q. Could you explain how Rascher did come to your Institute?
A. I cannot explain that. I know nothing about it. I know only that presumably in November, 1941, I recieved a written announcement from the Air Gau that Rascher was transferred to our Institute. I did not request him. I did know through Kottenhoff that Rascher wanted to come to my Institute. I did not do anything to get him there. Wendt brought me this letter from the Air Gau. He was present. I was surprised. I could only guess that Rascher had apparently convinced some authority at the Air Gau that he should be transferred to my Institute. He that was, I do not know.
Q. How did matters progress with Rascher in your Institute?
A. Rascher came to me. I refused to allow him to test this slow ascent and how he wanted to perform cold experiments. In the summer of 1941 I had been in France and I visited the Sea Distress Stations. I had been interested in the cold problem and I presume that Rascher deduced from this trip that we were interested in cold. Just as Rascher always took up all ideas that came within his grasp, he took up the problem of cold and he suggested to me that he should perform cold experiments on human beings.
Q. Did you approve of that intention to perform cold experiments?
A. I refused these experiments too. I saw no necessity for human experiments. The necessary preparatory animal experiments had not been concluded yet, and these animal experiments promised great success at the time, so that we had no reason whatever to perform any experiments on human beings, and I refused to let Rascher perform these experiments.
Q. Did you tell Rascher that Hippke could not be gotten for experiments in Dachau?
A. I told Rascher the point of view which Hippke had explained to me, that is, that Hippke, just like myself, was of the opinion that under certain conditions, which we considered correct, one can perform experiments on human beings, but that this must be reserved for really urgent cases, where nothing can be done in any other way. This was Hippke's point of view and I informed Rascher of this point of view of Hippke's
Q. How did you treat the whole Rascher matter towards your colleagues in the Institute?
A. Dr. Lutz has already testified here and has said that I discussed the questions on human beings with him too; that we spoke of it in the theoretical sense. Lutz did not have any new ideas on it. I told him about the discussion at the Preysing Palais. I told him what conclusion we had reached and Lutz had no new contributions.
Q. Now the question which has been gone into by various people before: did you ask one of your colleagues to make experiments with Rascher in Dachau?
A. No, I did not. There was no occasion to do this. I did not want to perform any experiments in Dachau at that time. I did not ask Wendt or Lutz, or Werz or any other one who was in my Institute to perform any experiments.
Q. But later on, you allowed Rascher to make experiments with Ruff-Romberg. Why in that case, did you not carry out those experiments in your Institute with Rascher?
A. In the experiments with Ruff-Romberg, we were dealing with completely different experiments. These were urgent at the time and Ruff-Romberg have already explained here why, and I gave my approval for these experiments, but these experiments were of a completely different degree of importance from the suggestions which Rascher had made.
Q. Did you not once seriously ask your colleague Lutz to make experiments with Rascher in Dachau?
A. I told Lutz that Rascher's suggestions would not divert us from the set program of the Institute, which was laid down in writing. Rascher was a man about whom we knew nothing in particular and I did not have the slightest reason to change my Institute's program which and been discussed at length and which was planned for the long range, just because a young unknown doctor came to us with certain suggestions. I told Lutz that. I said, "I will not perform any experiments in Dachau. Do you want to?" That "Do you want to?" was a purely rhetorical question and Lutz doubtlessly understood this rhetorical question in the way it was meant. Lutz has testified here, that he did not know that any program existed. Lutz testified falsely that I made a suggestion to Wendt. At this discussion, which can be the only one in question, Wendt was not even present and Wendt will testify here himself that I did not make any suggestion to him, nor did I make any suggestion to Lutz in his presence. Lutz also asserted that he answered me that he was not robust enough for such experiments. I do not believe that Mr. Lutz could have made any such an answer, because he would have made himself rather ridiculous. Of course, I know the opinions and habits and the life of my assistant, with whom I worked for four years, and I don't want to go into these things in too much detail here; but I can say that Mr. Lutz certainly had no reason at that time and no opportunity to say to me that he was not robust enough for these experiments. Otherwise, I would have reminded him that answer would have made him appear rather ridiculous. I did not tell Lutz that he was too religious for these experiments either, because that was not my opinion. This conversation has been presented quite incorrectly by Lutz. I repeat, I told Lutz, as I recall, that I would not let Rascher change our plans. I told him, "I will not perform any experiments in Dachau; would you like to?"
I do not doubt that Lutz understood this rhetorical question rightly at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be inrecess until 1:30 O'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 6 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection interposed to the admission into evidence of Defendant's Document No. 19a, and the following documents, is sustained. The document will not be received in evidence.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WILLE (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz):
Q Defendant Weltz, you have not yet completely answered my question 59 which I asked you, the very important question about Lutz and the offer which you are supposed to have made to him. I mean, that you have not yet touched upon the following point: Lutz allegedly referred to the gentleness of his nature, and also allegedly said that he would not be able to look a dog in the eye without becoming soft-hearted. Do you remember any such statements?
A No, there isn't much I can say about that. I heard for the first time in this courtroom about certain scruples which Lutz had about his experimental animals. Lutz always complained toward me that he had too little experimental animals. He used a few hundred of them, but he never told me that he had any scruples in using them. I don't know why he is talking about that particular subject here.
Q Have you made enough remarks about his religious attitude? I don't remember that exactly at the moment.
A I don't want to go into that at great length. At that time it was not my opinion that Lutz was in any way particularly religious. Naturally, we had some imagination as to what his religious attitude was, but I never saw Lutz go into church. I never saw a religious book on his desk and I don't know how I could arrive at the opinion that Lutz was particularly religious and would give such a reply.
Q Now, when did Rascher for the first time approach you with his plan, with his suggestion to perform experiments under you?
A I learned about that for the first time through Kottenhoff who told me about these suggestions. Then I was once together with Rascher and Kottenhoff. At that time he already spoke about his qualifying as a lecturer. I rejected that because he was an entirely unknown newcomer to this work. It is customary in Germany that before the thesis to qualify as a lecturer one would have to complete a number of other works. Rascher had completed some papers about the crystallization of salts, and the study as to whether one could exploit salts for cancer diagnosis or endocrine diagnosis. These papers, however, were not of such a nature that would have warranted his being suggested for qualifying as a lecturer. In addition, it would have been a matter of course for me to give preference to my own people, who had been working on that subject for a longer period of time. Later, when Rascher was detailed to my institute, which was approximately in November 1941, he made the suggestion to carry out cold experiments, as I already said. I also rejected that proposal.
Q Then in general, I understand you to say that up to about December 1941 there was no practical work of Rascher's at your institute at all?
A No.
Q Was that result of your antagonism, your rejection of his suggestions?
A Certainly. Had I approved, the experiments in Dachau would have begun immediately.
Q Now, the prosecutor assumes that in this time you attempted to overcome Hippke's alleged resistance to experiments in Dachau. Did you do anything in this direction?
A I already described in detail what Hippke's attitude was on the occasion of this mutual conference in the summer of 1941 at the Preyseng Palace. At that time our attitude was quite clear. My opinion tallied with Hippke's. There was no reason to remove Hippke in any way, but, on the contrary, I agreed with him fully.
I didn't discuss this point with Hippke later, and I certainly didn't try to change his opinion in any way. There was no occasion for that.
Q Then from your answer I can note that the assumption of the prosecutor is incorrect that you attempted during this time to promote Rascher's plans in the Inspectorate? On the contrary, you actually prevented them?
A Yes. Up to that point I prevented Rascher's starting the experiments. I didn't suggest anything at all to Hippke and consequently nothing was done.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I have no objection to raise at this time; but for the Tribunal--and I'm sure for myself-it would be much easier to follow this examination if both defense counsel and the defendant would refer to the specific dates more often than they are at the present time doing. I think we could follow the chronological order and the sequence of events more thoroughly if they used the dates a little bit more often.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel's suggestion is well taken; and it would be helpful if counsel and the witness would refer to the dates or approximate dates on which certain events occurred.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I would like to say the following to this suggestion of the prosecutor. I shall, in accordance with the suggestion of the Tribunal, endeavor to give the dates as accurately as possible; but I may point out that on the whole these are events which did not happen on definite dates, definite days, for example, I say that Rascher until the end of December 1941 was without any practical work.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it is my intention to convey the idea to you to use probably only approximate dates just in order to preserve some orderly sequence so that it can be more easily followed, both as we hear the evidence and when the record is read.
DR. WILLE: Thank you.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Now, Dr. Weltz, please answer the questions about collaboration with Dr. Ruff. How did you get into contact with Dr. Ruff in December 1941?
A May I catch up with a few dates beforehand in order to clarify what perhaps has been unclear up to now? I know that Kottenhoff spoke to me for the first time before the conference with Hippke. Hippke's conference with Kottenhoff and me took place in the summer of 1941. I remember that this was a long day and that it remained light very long. Afterwards I was in France, active in sea rescue work. I traveled around France and examined the aviators who had crashed into the water and who had been rescued from the seas. I visited the hospitals in Cherbourg and Boulogne and the sea rescue stations, and subsequently had a conference in Paris with the fleet physician, in which Holzloehner and the chief physician of the Sea Rescue Service were present.
On this occasion we drafted a circular about rescue from the high seas. I cannot state exactly whether the first talk with Rascher took place before or after this journey. At any rate, the first talk with Rascher and the second talk with Kottenhoff regarding that subject still took place in the summer of 1941. Rascher could not have been detailed to my institute before the 1st of November 1941 because Kottenhoff states that he didn't find out anything about that. Kottenhoff then traveled to Rumania; and that was on the 1st of November 1941. In the course of November, another talk took place with Rascher. On this occasion, he suggested to me that I start the cold work. I think that these are the dates which I can mention in this connection.
In December of 1941, I accidentally went to Berlin on another matter; I also visited Ruff on this occasion. We discussed the work which was being done at the two institutes. All the rest is known essentially from the descriptions given by Ruff and Romberg. I told Ruff that Rascher was at my place. I told him that Rascher intended to carry out experiments at Dachau. Ruff on his part told me that he intended to continue his old series of experiments, the parachute descent from high altitudes, up to 12,000 meters, which was known to me already, but that he could proceed only very slowly because of his difficulties.
Not only did he have difficulties because of the experimental subjects being active during the day but also because of the fact that he was limited to a very small number of experimental subjects. Then, if those subjects adapted themselves very slowly to high altitudes in that case, they could no longer be considered normal experimental subjects, they would have to be eliminated.
The situation at that time for me was the following: Rascher, without any of my doing, had been detailed to the institute. It was quite clear that he was going to execute the order which he had received from Himmler. The conditions under which Rascher told us that he would execute the experiments were such that one could take the matter into consideration. Nothing originated at my place because Rascher's plans could not be tallied with our plans. It was different, however, in the case of Ruff. Neither Ruff nor I changed the plans of our institute because of Rascher, who was relatively unknown at that time, but the fact was that Rascher's plans to carry out experiments at Dachau seemed to fit into Ruff's experimental program and at the same time an easy solution was offered to him regarding experimental subjects, whereas in my institute Rascher's plans did not fit into the general plan of the institute.
I rejected Rascher's qualifying as a lecturer; but at that time I had no reason to believe that Rascher would not be in a position to fulfil the tasks assigned to him within the framework of the program which I had arranged with Ruff. Rascher, considered from the point of view of an assistant, was a well-trained physician. He had nearly completed his surgical training. At the Schittenhelm Clinic, which was one of the first clinics in Germany, he had been active in Munich where he made his doctorate. He had published a few papers, which speaks of a certain scientific interest. He had a quick mind and knew about the basical concepts of aviation medicine. That is in effect why he took part in that course. He had worked out his own procedure regarding the distance measurements which he learned at Schoengau.
Then, considering that one made demands to Rascher to fulfil the job of an assistant, one could well imagine that he was well up to it. Of course, the matter is entirely different if you consider Rascher as an independent researcher.
Rascher came to me with the demand that he qualify as a lecturer and start the career of a lecturer. For that his qualifications were not quite sufficient for me at that time. Today my judgment about Rascher in that regard is even more severe. Rascher, during the entire period, which I can overlook, did not have one original idea. He always claimed the ideas of others without any scruples and represented them as his own ideas. He started to work upon these ideas but he didn't carry out a single one of these ideas with any consequences. He always acted like a parasite and clung to someone else who had expert knowledge in any particular field. That may be the case with Ruff and Romberg, Holzloehner or Feix.
Rascher had no personal qualifications in the auxiliary sciences, such as chemistry and physics, and I want to make a clear differentiation here that it is quite different for me to judge someone simply as an assistant or to judge someone simply as an independent researcher. Of course, there is another judgment which is the moral judgment. Perhaps I may mention in this connection how my opinion developed in that regard. When I made Rascher's acqaintance for the first time in the summer of 1941, he was a captain of the medical corps of the Luftwaffe about whom I knew very little. He displayed the customary manners and I had to reason to become suspicious in that regard. Why should I have become suspicious? He was the same captain in the medical corps as any other captain I have seen. My moral judgment about Rascher, however, changed, when in February or March, 1942, I was told by my assistant Wendt and assistant Borgschmidt that Rascher had gotten his father into a concentration camp. My judgment became even more rejecting when I had this quarrel with Rascher about which I am going to speak later. Of course, my judgment became really negative when I saw his behavior during the Nurnberg Congress. To sum up, I must state that, from a moral point of view, my judgment about Rascher changed considerably according to the knowledge which I had about him.
If I now revert to that arrangement with Ruff - Ruff only attached value to see to it that these experiments were to be a mutual undertaking of both the institutes and that Rascher was to be employed as an assistant. As I said before his knowledge for that was sufficient in every way. During the entire further course of events nothing happened which could have been the result of the fact that Rascher had not been sufficiently trained.
Q Professor Weltz, then, during the time which you called your first period, you learned nothing against Rascher and his personality or his scientific ability. Now, I should like to come back to a point which is of decisive importance for you. That is the following: At that time, did you go to Adlershof for the specific purpose of offering your collaboration to Dr. Ruff or, in the vital sense, Rascher's assistance, or did this whole matter arise because you happened to be there, in the course of conversation?
A Yes, Ruff had been a collaborator. In a closer sense, we had been friends. We had collaborated in the field of aviation medicine and knew each other very well. As I stated before, I went to Berlin in order to visit Ruff and, at that time, I didn't know what Ruff was doing or what his work was. I didn't know at all that Ruff had intended to continue the final part of the first series of experiments. When I went to Berlin, I couldn't know that Ruff had started a series of experiments during which he had difficulties with the experimental subjects. Consequently, it only resulted accidentally during the conversation at Adlershof that these two institutions had mutual interests. Naturally, he **** Ruff nor I did anything in any way which would have deviated from this originally intended program. Every one of us could only follow the interests of our respective institutes. It was my interest to see that Rascher, who was unemployed with me, would receive some reasonable occupation. I wanted to see that this unfortunate order or permission by Himmler, of which I knew that it would be carried out under all circumstances, would be exploited and used for an objective which was worthy. I wanted to see to it that the experiments were to be carried out under proper expert leadership.
As I say, that was my interest. It was Ruff's interest, on the other hand, to get experimental subjects. None of us deviated in any way from the program or the interests of our institutes. It was an accidental meeting of our mutual interests. We clearly arranged how we were to go about it. This was to be a mutual undertaking during which Ruff was to detail Romberg and I was to detail Rascher. Ruff naturally was to be the chief of Romberg and I, as a matter of course, was to be Rascher's chief. Ruff couldn't give any orders to Rascher. Rascher was a captain in the medical corps and Ruff was a civilian. I couldn't give any orders to Romberg because Romberg was a civilian while I was a soldier. Naturally, this is how the distribution was. It had to be that way. Furthermore, it was clear that I couldn't, in any way, retire. I couldn't just leave Rascher to Ruff. It was quite clear that I had to participate in these experiments by exercising supervision but not by actively participating. The program had already been determined. Nothing was changed in the program. It was clear that I was not to collaborate personally. If any publication had emerged from that work it would have been provided with the title: From the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, from the Aviation Institute at Munich, and it would probably have listed Romberg and Rascher as the authors. There was no personal cooperation on my part. There was no change of the program carried out by me. The program had already been determined when I came to Adlershof.
Q Do you still today, looking back on these things, do you take the responsibility for the agreements which you reached with Ruff at that time?
A It is my opinion that this arrangement to which I came with Ruff was unobjectionable in every way. I take full responsibility for it.
Q Now, please explain to me and to the Tribunal - did you immediately on the spot in your first meeting with Ruff reach a final agreement to the effect that experiments were to take place in Dachau?
A No, Ruff has already described that. Ruff wanted to consider that and he couldn't come to any arrangement with me immediately. At least not to any binding arrangement. Ruff himself needed Hippke's permission. The basis permission by Hippke or rather the fact that Hippke had no objections of any basic nature against these experiments I know and this is what I told Ruff.
Q Now, would it not have been a natural thing; at the time, to negotiate personally with Hippke for his approval of the experiments? You had talked to Hippke in Munich in general about experiments on condemned persons.
A I didn't do that intentionally. I knew what Hippke's opinion was. In the case of the now series of experiments we were concerned with a plan which had been drafted at Adlershof. Its necessity could be founded at Adlershof in a much better way than at my place, Adlershof was in connection with the technical circles whereas I had no such connection. I know that Hippke would only approve important experiments and I wanted Hippke to decide, without my influencing him at all, whether this series of experiments was in compliance with his conditions and whether he considered it to be important or not. I wanted Hippke to make his decision without any influence and that is exactly what he did. He gave Ruff the permission to carry out the experiments.
Q Professor, you have already told us a little about your opinion with regard to Reseller's personality and qualifications, his scientific and non-scientific characteristics which he had at the time. Now, will you please tell us what you told Dr. Ruff in this respect?
A. At that time I naturally told Ruff everything I knew. I said in detail what I knew when I went to Adlershof. I knew nothing about the moral side of the matter. On the other hand I knew what I have already testified here about the medical training. Since Rascher at first had no permanent task assigned to him in connection with these experiments and since Romberg was to be the permanent man, it really didn't play any particular part whether Rascher had progressed further or not in his training. I am sure that he could do what he was supposed to do there and I already emphasized that no difficulty arose because of the fact that Rascher had not been sufficiently trained. Naturally, as Ruff and Romberg have already described, I told Rascher the exact conditions under which this matter was to be carried out, that these were to be professional criminals sentenced by ordinary courts; that they were to receive awards, etc. All of that has been described here frequently in detail.
Q. Now, I refer to your agreement with Ruff, a question which, in my opinion, is of the greatest importance to the Tribunal. Did you not have misgivings against the experiments being carried out in concentration camps? What did you know at that time, at the end of 1941, about concentration camps?
A. From my point of view I didn't really think that experiments were to be carried out in the concentration camps. From the outside I had been impressed with the necessity to face that problem. At that time I knew little about concentration camps. I knew, just as many others, that there were two camps, one at Dachau and one at Oranienburg. I only heard of Buchenwald later when Thaelmann had been killed because of an air attack. I knew that political and non-political prisoners were kept in concentration camps. I knew that at the beginning of the war all the old prisons and penitentiaries had been vacated and had been transferred to the concentration camps. Consequently, I was not surprised that experiments, which in literature are always described as having taken place in prisons, were now being carried out in concen tration camps.
That didn't surprise me because I knew that prisoners in penitentiaries had been transferred to the concentration camps. Naturally, I knew that a number of Jews from Munich had disappeared into the concentration camps for a certain period of time. I remember a colleague of mine who came back after approximately four months. I didn't speak to him personally but I heard from other colleagues that he reported that he had been treated quite correctly. In addition I may remind yourself, Dr. Wille, that you told me about an acquaintance, the president of the Bavarian Automobile Club, who at that time as a Jew was also sent to Dachau, who reappeared after a few months and of whom it was reported among circles of the Automobile Club that he had been normally treated there. Of course, there was some excitement in our circles about the fact of his arrest.
Q. You hadn't heard any news from foreign radio broadcasts?
A. News from foreign radio broadcasts were not easily obtainable. We had rented a house and there were a number of boarders there who could easily denounce us. The whole thing would be punished by a death sentence and it wasn't as simple as that. However, I did listen to foreign broadcasts and tried to form a judgment. I must say that this was not quite so simple. A great number of these foreign broadcasts was biased and false. I must recall now that three times I heard the false report of Goering's death, once from the Strassbourg broadcasting station, and once from a southern English broadcasting station, and I have forgotten the third source. The reports from the foreign broadcasting station were naturally easily recognizable to us as propaganda and the character of propaganda lies in the fact that one mixes true and false reports to such an extent that they are no longer recognizable by the recipient. At any rate these foreign broadcasts were in no way a source of information to us which could have given us a clear picture of the true situation. Naturally, I know today that the persons who had come back from concentration camps had every reason not to say anything, but at that time I didn't know that, and nobody from my proximity had dis appeared into a concentration camp, and I am talking about my close proximity.