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.
Naturally, among my farther friends some had disappeared. Up until the end of the war I never had occasion to speak to a person who had come back directly from a concentration camp.
Q. Now I come back to your agreement at Adlershof which was the point of departure of everything that followed. You did not reach any final agreement at Adlershof that Hippke wanted to obtain Hitler's permission; was this done? You mentioned this before but please answer it definitely, the question whether a definite agreement was reached there.
A. No, no definite agreement was reached at Adlershof and Ruff already described that in detail. I made the suggestion to him and he wanted to consider it. During our second talk with Romberg and Rascher at Munich he told me that Hippke had given permission. I think that was already said here.
Q. Was this discussion which you mentioned at your institute the same one which the witness Lutz speaks of here?
A. It can only be that conversation because only one such conversation took place in my institute.
Q. The prosecutor has brought out in this discussion something which he says is rather unusual and which Lutz has confirmed, that at the beginning of the discussion you asked him to leave the room and he thinks that is unusual. Please comment on that?
A. The situation at the beginning was the following: I had to acquaint Ruff and Romberg with Rascher and that was the primary purpose of the conversation. Ruff and Romberg had come early and Rascher was not there. Since Ruff and Romberg knew the gentlemen of my institute to a greater or smaller extent, I called Wendt and Lutz into my room to give them an opportunity to converse up to Rascher's arrival. We conversed. There was a lot of professional talk and we waited until Rascher arrived. When Rascher finally came, I told my men that I was going to start the conference and I think it is a question of tact as to how clearly I would have to indicate that to anyone. Lutz had nothing to do in that conference.
I really didn't need the suggestions of my pupil Lutz. I was enough of an expert myself. Ruff and Romberg were also not in need of Lutz's opinions. The experiments were secret in the sense that they were described here by Ruff and Romberg. They were secret because they constitute an assignment from which the technical development of the airplane was recognizable. In other words, it could be recognized from the assignment that we were developing a high altitude airplane. If we had needed Lutz, however, this would have been a reason against his presence. Lutz would then have come under this order of secrecy, but on the other hand it is natural that whoever is not participating in the work would not have been asked to attend any such conference. If Lutz has stated here that he found it peculiar that he had to leave the room, then on the other hand I am of the opinion that this was natural. I may perhaps clarify this difference of the conception of these people if I speak about a small experience which I had during my recent imprisonment at Dachau. Lutz had been at Dachau shortly before me as a prisoner. When I arrived, he had already left. It then became known in Dachau that I had engaged in aviation medicine during the war and the camp physician there asked me in a surprised manner whether I had worked at that large institute under the famous Dr. Lutz. Dr. Schneider was very surprised when I told him that I was the chief of that institute and when I told him that the institute wasn't a large institute but in reality rather small I quite believe that Lutz was disappointed at not being able to participate in that conference. I must state, however, that his presence was not necessary.
Q But of course, if one was suspicious, one could get the idea that you attempted artificially to keep Lutz away from this conference and to conceal the subject of the discussion from him.
A That the subject of the assignment was secret, was not initiated by me, but that was an order. If I had personally wanted to keep anything secret from Lutz and Wendt, it would have been extremely bad tactics on my part, to have that conference in the institute, and furthermore to ask just these two gentlemen into my room, so that everyone would notice that Ruff and Romberg are there now, and than Rascher also joins them, etc. In this way, they really learned there was a conference If I had wanted to keep the fact of the conference itself secret, we could have met just as well in Ruff's hotel or in my private apartment or anywhere else and in that case no one in the institute would have known such a conference had taken place. I think one can see from that that I had not the slightest reason to keep the fact of the conference secret at all.
Q Now, about the conversation proper, on that occasion, was your common trip to Dachau agreed upon?
A Yes, this was arranged. Ruff, as well as Dr. Romberg, have already testified about the contents of that conference. They testified that Rascher displayed the letter, that is the letter by Himmler, they testified that the conditions were exactly detailed in that letter, professional criminals who volunteered, rewards, etc. The program was already determined, it needed no further discussion, all we had to do was to explain it to Rascher. And on the other hand, we had arranged with Rascher that we would go to Dachau together and Rascher on his part arranged that trip via the Munich Reichsleitung SS.
Q How often were you in Dachau altogether?
A I have been in Dachau once, I have already discussed that trip.
Q What happened?
A Ruff and Romberg have spoken about that also in detail. At first we went to the camp commander, we discussed the conditions with the camp commander and I may perhaps suppliment the testimony of Ruff and Romberg to the effect that Schnitzler brought an order by Himmler to the camp commander, saying what kind of experimental subjects were to be used, in other words the contents of the letter Rascher had shown to us.
I want to emphasize that, because, that way we were certain that the camp commander would have to comply with this order by Himmler therefore, we were not at all dependant on the "yes" or "no" of the camp commander, we regarded it as a matter of errors that the camp commander had with an order by Himmler. It was a matter of course that we assumed that he would in effect comply with this strict and clear order.
Q Then, why did you personally go to Dachau, would it not have been sufficient, if Ruff and Romberg had gone alone, to settle the technical details?
A This trip merely took place in order to discuss the technical preparations with the camp commander, to inform ourselves about technical details, about the current, about the entrance of the camp, the low chamber transport, etc. From that point of view, my presence would not have been necessary, because Ruff and Romberg, who knew all about that chamber, could have done that themselves. I went along because I attached value to being present during that conference with the camp commander and because I wanted to use the opportunity of obtaining some impression of a concentration camp, since I knew so little about them.
Q Did you have an opportunity to talk to prisoners there?
A No, that was forbidden.
Q And your general impression?
A My general impression was roughly the same as Ruff's and we discussed it later. The impression was absolutely favorable, we saw a tidy clean camp, the barracks were not overcrowded, only two beds were located above one another and sometimes there was only one level of beds. The hospital was already described in detail by Ruff. It was against all expectations a clean hospital, well equipped with all medical apparatus, patients were actually there with relatively slight illnesses, so that we had to assume that not only people in their death throngs were actually brought to the hospital, but people were there who were treated because of little things such as bronchitis or similar matters.
The fever charts were kept in a proper manner and we as medical men were naturally in a position to decide very quickly how well these medical matters were handled. I must say that I was surprised about the good impression I had of the hospital.
Q And what happened the; when did the low pressure chamber come?
A I cannot recall the date exactly, I think the low pressure chamber arrived at the beginning of February, although I cannot recall the exact date. Ruff already described that, he said that the chamber had been handed over to me. In other words, the keys and the documents of the chamber were given to me. The drivers arrived that night from Berlin and the next day the SS drivers came along to fetch the chamber. I don't believe I can add anything new to that question.
Q Now, Professor, the question which you have to answer in considerable detail; how was the responsibility distributed between yourself and Ruff at the time?
A I believe that I already said something about that. There was a clear arrangement existing between Ruff and myself that this was to be a joint undertaking, it was clear that Ruff exercised supervision over Romberg and I exercised supervision over Rascher.
Q In several preliminary interrogations, you pointed out that it was your duty to supervise Rascher; will you please tell the Tribunal what you did to fulfill this obligation?
Q My obligation to supervise Rascher was very clear. I was his disciplinary superior and I was naturally responsible for the scientific program to which I assigned him. The course of things was that Rascher, after my conversation at the institute with Ruff and Romberg and after our trip together to Dachau, did no show up again and I did not see him. Rascher was only detailed to me on paper, in fact, he was still active at Schongau in his old office and since I really did not need him, I did not urge him to come.
When, however, the arrangements had been made with Ruff and Romberg and when it was reported to me that Rascher was in Munich without reporting at my institute, I had a letter written to him by Wendt, written in a strictly official tone, telling him to report at my place twice a week and I designated two days, Tuesday and Friday. As a result of this letter, Rascher came to me and I asked him what the matter was and why he didn't show up. This first conversation took place approximately in the middle of February, 1942 and Rascher told me that the experiments had not even started yet at Dachau and that therefore he had nothing to report to me. He said he was still at Schongau; I told him that there was no change and that he had to report to me twice a week. On the second occasion, Berlin had telephoned me, it was in the meantime Anthony asking what the situation was as to Rascher, he said that Rascher wanted to be detailed to Dachau and asked, how the Dachau experiments were progressing I told Anthony that I could tell him nothing about the matter because nothing had been reported to me. When Rascher came the second time. I told him that this telephone call came through from Berlin and that I wanted to have some clarification how things stood and with Dachau. He did not want to report anything to me even at the second conversation. I told him on the occasion of that second talk that I was going to Berlin and I wanted a clear decision whether or not he would report to me. I told him that I would discuss this point with Hippke, these conversations took place once every half week, because I told him to report to me every Tuesday and Friday. On the occasion of the third talk, I expected a sharp argument and I therefore asked Wendt to come into the room. Before that, I confronted Rascher with the alternative either to report to me or he would have to leave the institute, But this third talk was very brief, Rascher showed me a telegram from Himmler, this telegram read: "Experiments are to be kept secret from everyone."
I said that this made the situation very clear. I told him he could no longer stay at my institute. Rascher said goodbye. I composed a letter together with Wendt, signed that letter and Wendt sent that letter the same day to the Air Gau. I wanted Rascher relieved, and that relief came back within a few days as was customary. We received the report that Rascher's assignment had ended. Rascher automatically thereby came back to his old agency, which was the Anti Aircraft Artillery School No. 4 at Schongau, that is the Air Gau Medical Department No. 7.
Q Would it not have been to your advantage, Professor, to go to Dachau yourself, when Rascher did not report to you on the first and second occasion? You might have been able to get information from the trip -- on the spot?
A I could not go to Dachau without having first received an express permission for that. I could only receive that permission through Rascher.
Q Professor, the Tribunal would like to have the dates set as accurately as possible; can you tell me when Rascher was relieved. You gave the time in general, but perhaps you can make it more exact?
A I can reconstruct that approximately on the basis of the documents. The telegram which Rascher showed me, must have been the reply telegram to the teletype which was mentioned by Frau Nini Rascher in her letter. May I, perhaps, indicate the number -- this is document No. 263 PS, Prosecution Exhibit 47.
Q I will come to that afterwards. Now, another question to determine this date. You are certain then that Rascher was relieved in February or at the beginning of March?
A Whether this happened in February, I cannot say, but at the latest, it must have happened during the first days of March. It is, however, evident from the further correspondence; that on the 16th of March, Rascher had already been detailed to another agency.
Q Then, did you inform the Medical Inspectorate that Rascher had left?
AAfter Rascher had shown me the telegram, I went to Berlin and wanted to speak to Hippke; Hippke was on an official trip. I telephoned Antony. He told me that Hippke was not there. Since I knew Antony rather well, we arranged to have supper together. Antony came to my hotel and we discussed the entire matter together. I reported to Antony that Rascher was no longer at my agency. I told him about the matter with the telegram and I also told him about something I had recently learned, namely, that Rascher had brought his father into the concentration camp. Antony reserved his decision. He said, I must get Rascher to Dachau in some other way. At any rate, Antony did not tell me definitely what he intended to do and how he was going to do it.
Q Please describe to the Tribunal the further developments, for example, with Rascher leaving your Aviation Medical Institute in Munich, did your contact with him seize then?
A Rascher's assignment finished with that, because of his relief, every connection with my institute had ended. Rascher no longer contacted us personally. And, my only subsequent connections with him was the fact that I saw him occasionally in Munich, which was really unavoidable. I saw him during the Nurnberg Congress. These were accidental meetings. We behaved correctly toward one another; we greeted, but there was no conversation.
Q After he left you, you did not talk to him any more about the visit to Dachau?
A No, Rascher did not even report to me, when I asked him to do that officially. Still more, he did not tell me anything, when I was no longer his superior, and when I had no right at all to know anything about it.
Q Did you not have other reasons to remove Rascher from your office. It was apparently a personality who was not very popular.
A Rascher was not unpopular, because he was not there. If Lutz says here, he did not like him from the very beginning, I can not judge that; but, this did not become externally obvious because Rascher did not stay with us at all; and, then, Wendt says he hardly knew him, and my own attitude toward him I have already defined.
At the end of February 1942, that was the time, I found out that Rascher had brought his father into the concentration camp; from that moment on, I rejected his personality very firmly. This, of course, had no influence in our official relationship. This relationship was very clean and later on forcibly interrupted when Rascher showed me that telegram.
Q Professor, please tell us, as accurately as you can, when you learned that Rascher sent his father to a concentration camp?
A That was at the end of February or the first of March.
Q After the talk at Adlershof?
AAfter the conversation at Adlershof, of course. If I had known that already at Adlershof, I would have thought carefully, whether I was going to offer Rascher the cooperation of Ruff.
Q Now, one question. Would it not have been right for you to report these facts to Hippke, that Rascher had sent his father to a concentration camp, in order to eliminate Rascher completely?
A I told Antony. Antony, at that time, was of the opinion that one could do little with that officially. Certainly, there were a number of people at that time who were ready to conceive of that attitude on Rascher's part as a Spartian kind of heroism. I, on my part, did not know what the closer connections were; I did not know for instance, whether Rascher's father had provoked him in any unusual manner. I had no information about all that. Anyway, this information was not suitable to be used officially.
Q Do you believe that with the elimination of Rascher, and your information given to Antony and Ruff, your responsibilities were finished in every respect.
A There is no doubt about the fact that with the elimination of Rascher every responsibility had ceased for me. I had no possibility of influencing Rascher any further.
I could not issue any orders to him, and I did not know what he was doings he did not report to me. And, it was quite clear that my official responsibility of him had stopped.
Q Now, in private, at least, your statement agrees with some documents which the Prosecution has submitted. I should like to ask you, however, to clear up a few contradictions. I shall have these documents handed to you so that you will be able to comment on them. There is first of all the letter from Dr. Rascher, signed by Frau Nini Rascher, of 24 February 1942.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, this letter is in the Prosecution document book 2 on page 36 in the English text.
(Continuing question.) This is document No. 263 of the Prosecution, Exhibit 47. This is, in fact a file note of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler of the 28th of March 1942. This document is also in document book 2 of the Prosecution, page 73 of the English; this is document NO. 264, Prosecution Exhibit 60.