The third letter in tho same book is signed by Wolff, the head of the Personnel Staff. It is addressed to Hippke. This is Document NO-318, Exhibit 57, Document Book 2 of the prosecution, page 70 of the English text. Now, will you please look at tho first document, the letter of Mrs. Nini Rascher and will you please explain it?
A Mrs. Rascher writes in tho second paragraph, and I quote, "On the 24th of June, the Reichsfuehrer SS authorized the experiments, at that time for Dr. Rascher, Dr. Kottenhoff, and Dr. Weltz. Dr. Kottenhoff was appointed Air Gau Physician for Rumania in August and thereby was excluded from the group." End of quote. Here, at first, I have to correct that Kottenhoff was not appointed Air Gau Physician for Rumania in August, but as, he says himself on the 1st of November, 1941. That Himmler authorized tho experiment I already stated and I also stated that Rascher got this authorization without first informing us. He neither informed Kottenhoff nor myself. No only found out about that subsequently. Frau Rascher goes on to say that nothing was done up to the time to support Kottenhoff. That is correct and I already stated that. Frau Rascher goes on to say that Dr. Weltz was to start the technical execution of the experiments. This is rather a quick remark, because I certainly wasn't the one to carry out technical preparations, but, rather, Rascher would have to do the work and I was only to supervise it. She goes on to say, "Since Weltz feared interference by General Oberstabsarzt Hippke" end of quote, and she goes on again, "As he was afraid of obstacles on the part of the Air Force Medical Inspector, Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Hippke, who described experiments of this kind as amoral, Weltz continued postponing the beginning of tho experiments, although he was thoroughly acquainted with their importance."
I already said that I feared no obstacles on the part of Dr. Hippke, but I was in complete agreement with him. We wanted to carry out important experiments but wanted not to tolerate unimportant experiments as they were suggested by Rascher. I told that to Rascher at that time and I said that Hippke would certainly not approve of his experiments. Therefore, the description as Frau Rascher was giving it must be incorrect. She goes on to say, "In December of 1941 he - that is Weltz - asked the Board of Directors of the Air Force Research Institute Berlin-Adlershof, if the bosses there, Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg could undertake the experiments with Dr. Rascher. Both of them immediately accepted, delivered the lowpressure chamber and came here." That again is obviously a false statement. Frau Rascher is trying to make it appear as if the experiments which I discussed with Ruff and Romberg were the same as the experiments which Rascher had suggested to me before. In reality these were two different kinds of experiments. What Rascher suggested to me at first was an ascent with a particularly slow speed; by a slow ascent lasting for hours the compatibility of the persons for high altitude was to be tested. It has been explained in detail what the Ruff program was. It was to the contrary an experimental arrangement where especially quick changes of pressure took place. It was entirely different from what Rascher had suggested to me. One couldn't at all confuse those two series of experiments and Rascher must have been very clear in his mind about that. On the other hand, Rascher was in a dilemna. In his letter dated the 15th of May he had written to Himmler that urgent experiments were to be carried out and asked him at that time for professional criminals. Rascher or Mrs. Rascher can not suddenly say that the experiments which were considered at that time to be so urgent, are no longer urgent today, but on the other hand we wanted to carry out quite a different experimental program, namely the program of Ruff and Romberg.
Frau Rascher moved by her dilemma is confusing these two series of experiments, although they really can not be confused at all.
Frau Rascher goes on to say, and I quote, "It was clearly determined that the experiments were only to be authorized in collaboration with Dr. Rascher."End of quote. The permission to work at Dachau, naturally, depended upon the person of Rascher. We never considered carrying out the experiments without Rascher, because that would have been impossible. None of us had access to Dachau. Neither Ruff nor Romberg, nor I, if Rascher didn't care to agree. If Mrs. Rascher
JUDGE SEBRING: On several occasions you have reiterated that the possibility of carrying out experiments at Dachau depended entirely upon Dr. Rascher. Isn't that the effect of what you have said from time to time?
WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGn SEBRING: What do you mean by that? I don't quite understand. In what way was it solely dependent upon Rascher, and apparently if it was solely dependent upon Rascher, from what you say you knew that from the outset. Will you please explain what you mean by that?
WITNESS: Rascher could refuse us ingress to Dachau at any time. We could only enter Dachau if Rascher had obtained permission before hand, as it was done in the case of our journey to Dachau, or, if, as it was the case with Romberg, Romberg received a permanent pass. Rascher, however, felt himself to be so powerful that, as Romberg has already said yesterday, he could threaten Romberg with having this permanent pass made invalid for the period of time he was in the camp.
This would have meant that Romberg couldn't have gotten out of the concentration camp. On the other hand, we could never prevent Rascher from going to Dachau. When I was Rascher's superior, I also didn't have the possibility to prohibit Rascher's going to Dachau apart from his hours of official duty. But if Rascher had told me that "during my free time, I'm going to Dachau," I certainly couldn't have prevented his doing so.
JUDGE SEBRING: When did you first learn that he had this tremendous authority to gain ingress and egress into Dachau that you did not have? Did you know that at the time that you originally talked about this proposition and the collaboration with Ruff? Did you know then that Rascher was such a powerful individual so far as Dachau was concerned?
WITNESS: That Rascher exercised a great influence on Himmler we certainly knew, because he had received the authority to carry out the experiments. What the real connections were only became clear to us or, at least, became clear to me, when I went to Dachau for the first and only time. I thought that the whole thing was much easier and entailed much less red tape. At any rate, I thought that there was a much closer collaboration between the various branches of the Armed Forces and I didn't think that the concentration camp and what was connected with it would be such an isolated complex into which one could only penetrate when you had received permission which was bureaucratically controlled. I didn't know that before my visit to Dachau.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, then you and Ruff collaborated in the high altitude experiments.
Rascher was your subordinate. Romberg was Ruff's subordinate. Yet, after Rascher had gone to Dachau you, his superior, could not go there, and in Dachau, Ruff, who was Romberg's superior, could not go there and Romberg, who was Ruff's subordinate, could stay there only at the will of Rascher? Is that what you mean to say?
WITNESS: I could assume after the camp commander had received the order from Himmler that we were to carry out those experiments and certainly I couldn't assume that Himmler would suddenly recall the permission that was given me originally. Himmler's telegram constituted the opposite to what he had said before, for Rascher says that in a letter by Himmler of the 24th of July he had received permission to carry out those experiments together with Kottenhoff.
This certainly had bean arranged with the camp commander, and this entire situation had been overthrown by this telegram of Himmler which came as a complete surprise to me. It was clear to me that I could not get into Dachau as a visitor, but I could expect, on the basis of Himmler's order, that whenever the experiments would necessitate it I could go to Dachau at any time.
Perhaps I may continue to discuss the letter.
Frau Rascher goes on to say:
"Weltz gave the assurance that he would take care of the corresponding authorization of Dr. Rascher. He was only able, however, to obtain one assignment, which would enable Rascher to carry out the preparatory work at Dachau, and stated in reply to a question on the subject by Dr. Rascher, 'The authorization can be extended at any time.'" I don't know what Frau Rascher means by these assignment difficuites.
Rascher was always talking about these assignment difficulties in detail but such difficulties didn't really exist. I would have given him the order to work at Dachau to report to me at regular intervals and from that point of view this assignment was perfectly in order because, as far as I am concerned the assignment was unlimited power. Whether Mrs. Rascher here means that he only had to report to me twice a week, and she thought this meant interruption in his assignment, I don't know; but at any rate, me thinks from this entire statement that she tries to make it appear that I wanted to push out Rascher... and I really think an intrigue is going on here with the intention of eliminating me. He presents the master to Himmler in such a way that I wanted to eliminate him. In reality, however, it was his intention to push me out of the way, and he actually succeeded in doing that through that telegram.
And now I come back to the telegram. I find it here on page 2 of the letter:
"As a result thereof Rascher conferred with Obersturm-fuehrer Schnitzler on the 19th (Teletype to Reich Administration SS)." I think that the telegram that was shown to me was the reply to the teletype which is mentioned in the letter. Frau Rascher goes on to write:
"Experiments of Romberg-Rascher began at Dachau, a clear pronouncement by both, that Weltz was not needed any more, Romberg was also surprised that Rascher was now to be chucked overboard in spite of his firm agreements. Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler has for the time being stopped the continuation of the experiments without Rascher until the decision of the Reichsfuehrer has been obtained." End of quote.
I never learned anything about the stoppage of the experiments. Rascher didn't tell me that. These experiments were stopped behind my back. The fact that they were stopped I only learned here from the document. "Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler", Frau Rascher goes on to write, "has been asked by Rascher to obtain an immediate authorization either from the Chief of Staff LJN 14, or Staff Medical Officer Dr. Schmidt, likewise LJN 14."
I may point out in this connection that the very same Mrs Rascher who wrote at the beginning of the letter, that Rippke was rejecting the experiments and considering them to be immoral, writes here that she is turning to LJN 14-- which is again Hippke's agency, trying to get immediate authorization from Hippke. Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler no doubt telephoned Berlin, and this was the occasion that antony on his part telephoned me, as I described it before.
At the end of the letter, at the end - Rascher says that he wanted to participate under all conditions as a member of the "Ahnenerbe". And obtain an immediate assignment from Rippke. Belonging to this document is File Note Schnitzler, Document No. 284, Exhibit 73. This bears the date of 28th of April 1942. I am sure that this date is wrong.
I think it should, be 28 February 1942. I think that this is so for two reasons: At first Mrs. Rascher writes here in the third paragraph:
"The assignment of Dr. Rascher must immediately be changed to 'Assignment to aviation Test Institute Berlin - Adlershof, Aussenstelle Dachau' (Branch Office Dachau) - not Institute Weltz, because Weltz, as he stated, intends to cancel the assignment immediately, if he is not to participate in it."
Rascher on the 16th of March 1942 had been detailed to the Branch Office Dachau. This can be seen from Document No. 318, Prosecution Exhibit No 47. In this letter it reads very clearly that Rascher, from the 16th of March to the 16th of April had been detailed to the Branch Office Dachau. Whether this a Branch Office Dachau ever existed, I don't want to discuss.... I don't think it did existed in reality. But no doubt it becomes apparent from this letter that on the 13th of March Rascher was no longer at my office. Therefore, Frau Rascher cannot possibly ask, on the 28th of April, that a change should be made which has already taken place one month earlier. This is the first reason why I believe this date should read the 28th of Fe-bruary. The second reason is that in this letter mention is made that I was going to Berlin and was to speak to Hippke. I went to Berlin, naturally, immediately after Rascher had given me the telegram. And I certainly didn't wait for two months. In addition, from this file note, Document No. 264, the following remark has to be made: "Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz still insists in taking part in these experiments and be fully responsible for them. If not, the assignment of Dr. Rascher to the Institute Weltz must be changed." This refers quite clearly to the second talk between Rascher and myself during which I threatened him to have him removed from my Institute if he didn't report to me.
And the next sentence; "Weitz personally does not care about the experiments," "Not" is underlined. From that sentence it can be seen that I didn't want to participate in these experiments myself but that I only wanted to exercise supervision over Rascher. I am saying that because is accusing me of having pushed myself prompted by scientific ambition, that I wanted to remove him. The very same Mrs. Rascher who made this assertion says here, using her own words, that I was not personally interested in these experiments. The next thing refers to the conversation with Antony about which I already told. If I may shortly point to the last paragraph:
"Dr. Weltz confidentially informed Dr. Rascher that there is great mistrust against him in the RLM because of the experiments; -SS membership- there is also animosity in the Air Gau command Munich for this reason."
I think that this sentence refers to my having told Rascher on various occasions that he should not always mention Himmler. If something didn't run as quickly or as smoothly as Rascher wanted it to run he always mentioned Himmler, he always said, "I have to report that to Himmler". I replied to that that he would hardly make friends either with the medical inspectorate or with the Air Gau if he continuously referred to Himmler in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock to-morrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours 7 May 1947.)
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 7 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 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. WILLE (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz):
Q. May I remind you, witness, that you are still under oath. Yesterday, we finished when I asked you about the three documents. Any I now ask you to tell me what you maintain as a result of those three documents?
A. Those are NO 263, NO 264 and NO 316. Those documents without doubt belong together and deal with the some matters. The letter of Mrs. Rascher, Document 263, is a rather confusing mixture of half-true and untrue statements, so that at first it was not easy -- even for me -- to recognize the real purpose of this letter. I do believe, however, that I can now say that the assertion that I wanted to depose Rascher and the other, the assertion that there were difficulties with the assignment, that those two statements are not correct and were merely made for a certain purpose.
The purpose was to eliminate me from control over Rascher. In order to understand why that seemed desirable to Rascher, perhaps I may briefly sum up the situation in which Rascher was when this letter was written by Mrs. Nini Rascher. Rascher, against my will, without my assistance, came to my office in November 1941. He was in Schongau at that time and I did not urge that he be assigned to my office. I did not need him. Rascher said that he still had things to do at Schongau and I was satisfied with that. But when the agreement had been reached with Ruff and Romberg when the work was to start in Dachau, Rascher still did not come to my office but I learned that he was in Munich. I have already said that. This was the occasion for me to write a letter to him, an official letter, which I still remember very well. This letter was in a rather military form. It said about as follows: You are to report to me; twice a week at ten in the morning on Tuesday and Friday. Signed Weltz.
The tone of this letter was unusual at my office. We were not very military in our behavior. I generally were civilian clothes at the institute and this letter to Rascher forced me to go to the institute in uniform twice a week. That is why I remember it. After this letter Rascher could have no doubt that I emphasized my relationship of Military superiority towards him, and that I did not desire to grant him the special position which he claimed as a friend of Himmler. Rascher's conduct toward his superiors has been described here repeatedly. I remember his meeting with Grawitz for instance. Rascher formally submitted this order, he actually appeared three times. There is no doubt that the form in which I managed the relationship of military subordination was unpleasant to him.
I treated him like a subordinate. Medically, I treated him as an assistant who was to follow instructions. And I have no doubt that this was particularly unpleasant to him and that these relationships finally led to the conflict, the core of which is Mrs. Rascher's letter of the 24th of February 1942.
As I have said, Rascher then showed me the telegram which he had received from Himmler. The form in which I was eliminated by this telegram was so unusual and was such a violation of good military form, such as we were used to, that I was very indignant about it and of course, for my part. drew the obvious conclusions from it. I have already said that I told Rascher that he could not stay in my office, then I dictated a letter to Weltz demanding his dismissal and then he was actually dismissed. My relationship with Rascher was thereby finally finished and I, for my part, wanted to have nothing more to do with Rascher in any form if possible and I also wanted not to have any more contact with any SS agency, because it was extremely inconsiderate of Himmler to have my own subordinate, without any explanation, give me a telegram eliminating me from investigations in which I declared myself willing to participate, merely in order to permit an order of Himmler to be carried out.
Q May I take it from your description that Rascher was relieved of his work in your institute by your request before you heard anything of the Dachau experiments; is that correct?
A Yes, referring to this telegram Rascher had refused to give me any report.
Q A few more questions on the altitude problems. After Rascher's resignation, did you talk to Ruff or Romberg on the Dachau experiments?
A I did not talk about the experiments either with Ruff or with Romberg, because I knew that the secrecy order was in effect and of course we had to respect this order.
Q Did you receive any more communications about the experiments?
A No, I did not receive any communications.
Q So, therefore, you did not know the final report of Ruff, Rascher and Romberg?
A No, I did not know about it.
Q So therefore you did not know of the fatalities that happened at Dachau?
A No. I did not hear of any of them.
Q Now what is your position to what the Prosecution charges that you succeeded at the time in overcoming the resistance put up by the Medical Inspectorate against the Dachau experiments?
A This charge does not affect me. I exerted no influence on Hippke. After this talk at the Preysing Palais where we had both expressed our basic attitude, I did not talk to Hippke about it at all. Hippke had given permission for the experiments, according to Ruff's report. I already said that I deliberately avoided exerting any influence on Hippke, because Hippke was to reach his decision independently and since I not knowing the construction program of the Luftwaffe, could not decide how urgent the experiments were and of course Hippke had more insight in the matter. I in no way tried to influence Hippke's attitude.
Q Now, about the freezing and cold experiments; what were your relations toward the cold experiments at Dachau?
A I had no relations at all to the cold experiments at Dachau.
Q But you yourself worked a great deal in the entire field of the cold program; would you like to tell us how you were led to this work and what your work consisted of in these problems?
A My attention was called to the cold problem in the winter of 1940-1941 by a report which I had been sent by the Airfleet physician 3. This report summed up a number of experiences of aviators who had fallen into the channel during that winter, some had been rescued successfully,some had been rescued after they had died and some had died after they had been rescued. There were in particular very moving experiences which these men had gone through. From the medical point of view, I realized how little we knew about death from freezing. In particular, there was sometimes a mysterious death after the people had been rescued, after they were already in safety in the hospital. They died and very little was known about the cause of their death. The doctrine prevailed at that time that such persons who had been exposed to cold could be rewarmed only very carefully.
We thought that perhaps they had been rewarmed too quickly. It was not clear what role alcohol was to play in these rescues, should the people be given alcohol or should they not be given alcohol. The basic questions were astonishingly unclear. It was not clarified whether the person should keep still in the water to save his strength or whether he should move in order to create warmth. It was not clear whether he should keep his clothes on, his shoes and gloves, or whether he should take his clothing off -- in order to move more easily. All those questions had not been clarified. Thereupon, I received permission to visit all aviators, who had fallen into the sea and been rescued - most of them had gone back to their units- and question them about their experiences. I also visited the sea rescue stations along the channel and the French coast. As I said yesterday, I also visited the military hospitals in Cherbourg and Boulogne where sometimes some such rescued people were treated. This work was carried out partly in the winter of 1940 and 1941, partly when I was in France for a longer period in about August of 1941. Then, simply by questioning these rescued persons we learned a number of important facts and were able to draw up a memorandum containing certain instructions. This formed the first basis for instructions on conduct during water landings.
Q This work you are talking about, was that connected in any way with the experiments at Dachau?
A No, there was no connection as I have already said. This work was more or less completed in the summer of 1941 and there was no question of any odd experiments in Dachau yet.
Q. Now, the Prosecution has submitted Document No. 343A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, in order to prove that you had been detailed for the freezing experiments in Dachau. This is the well known "Wolffy" letter. This Document is in the Prosecution Book No. 2 on page 77 of the English text. You. Dr. Weltz, among others are mentioned as being in charge to work on sea rescue problems; please explain this to us.
A I never had any knowledge of this letter. I learned of it only here. I was not asked what my opinion was on such an assignment and I never received any order, which would have brought about the execution of this plan. If the suggestion of 20 May, 1942, which Milch makes here was put into action, I would have had to be given an order to that effect. I never received any such order and I never learned anything of this letter.
Q Well, do you know perhaps how this letter was drawn up and who were proposed for these experiments?
A How the letter was drawn up, I do not know. These things happened in Berlin and we in Munich knew nothing about them. I only know what Hippke himself said in his testimony in the Milch trial, otherwise I know nothing of it.
DR. WILLE: May it please the Court, the records of Milch's statement, that is to say, Hippke's testimony in the Milch trial, I will submit to the Court as soon as it has been certified by the Secretary General. As I mentioned yesterday, I've asked for this to be done. Hippke says in the record that he had earmarked Weltz for those Dachau experiments because he had made animal experiments about cold problems before. When he had a conversation with Rascher about this, he remembered that Weltz was a man who was purely interested in the theoretical aspect and was not really suitable for this task. He therefore suggested Prof. Holzloehner instead of Weltz because he had already worked practically on these problems. Thereupon, Holzloehner was sent to Dachau officially.
Q Dr. Weltz, nevertheless, I should like to ask you to comment on another two documents which I shall now hand to you. This first document, NO-233, Exhibit Number 82, from the Prosecution Book III, Page 12 of the English text, is the report by Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
A Rascher reports here about a talk he had with Hippke; and he says, "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: Prof. Dr. Jarisch, of the University of Innsbruck, Prof. Dr. Holzloehner, of Kiel, and the Luftwaffe pathologist Prof. Dr. Singer, of Schwabing Hospital." On the 15th of June 1942 the plan that I was to carry out these experiments had already been dropped; and other names were mentioned.
The next letter, NO-286, Exhibit 88, was addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS. It comes from L. 1. 14, and it says that Holzloehner has received a research assignment on the effect of freezing of warmblooded subjects; that to carry out these investigations a research group "Hardships at Sea" is to be set up; that this group consists of Prof. Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke; and that it is intended to dissolve the research group at the latest by 13 October 1942.
Here again the experiments are reported on, and my name is not mentioned. I believe that the documents submitted by the prosecution show that I had nothing to do with the cold experiments in Dachau.
Q I remember here that you mentioned before to me that Rascher proposed to you earlier that cold experiments be carried out in Dachau, that is to say, after you had turned down his altitude experiments with a slow ascent. Please explain this to us.
A That is true. I said that yesterday. When I rejected Rascher's first suggestion, high altitude experiments with slow ascent, he came to me with a new suggestion. That was about November 1941. This new suggestion was that cold experiments should be carried out in Dachau.
Q Now, why did you decline to take part in the freezing experiments whereas you approved the low pressure experiments of Ruff?
A First of all there would not have been a possibility of carrying out these cold experiments in Dachau under good conditions. But these experiments did not seem to me to be necessary at that time. At least they seemed too early. At our institute animal experiments were still going on; and this series of animal experiments which we had begun was very successful at that time. So that there was no need for us to perform human experiments. We were making good progress with our animal experiments; and it was just the other way around in this field which we were working on. In the field of basic research it is much simpler and more comfortable, realizing our other considerations, to work with small animals than to work with human beings. We had no reason to want to carry out human experiments.
Q As far as I know, you carried out cold experiments on pigs. Perhaps you can comment on those.
A Later, in 1943, because of the air war, I moved the institute to Freysing to an estate eight kilometers away from Freysing. The transfer was effected with consideration of the point of view that pigs were bred there and that in this way we would be able to get pigs as experimental animals, which of course were not available otherwise during wartime.
The pig was desirable as an experimental animal because experiments with small animals, of course, are limited wherever dimensions, weight, and fur are important. In the case of the pig one comes much closer to the conditions of the human being. The pig is not only relatively close to the human metabolism; it has also dimensions corresponding to those of human beings; and it does not have a great deal of fur so that in the pig we saw an ideal experimental animal as a substitute for a human being for experiments which were relatively close to reality; and we succeeded in finding a series of facts we believed were important.
Q So do I understand yon correctly if I take it that you made experiments on pigs in order not to have to perform experiments on human beings, and also because your experiments on pigs were so satisfactory that you had no need to use human beings? Is that how I should understand you?
A Yes.
Q When did you hear for the first time that cold experiments were being carried out at Dachau?
A In the summer of 1942 a few months before the Nurnberg conference, two delegates turned up sent by Holzloehner who asked my associate Weltz to carry out oxygen tests with certain apparatus which we had at the institute. Weltz asked the men why they needed it. They said that they were not allowed to give any details about the experiments. Weltz refused to determine the oxygen content, he informed me; and I approved of his refusal. Shortly afterwards, the two men came back and asked that we send the machine, the chorolometer, to Dachau, loaning it to them. Weltz brought the two men in to my office to see me and said that we would not give up the machine and that he did not want to have anything to do with Dachau. I was present. I approved what he said. It was absolutely in accord with my feelings and on my orders that he refused to give up this machine. I did not want to have anything more to do with Rascher under any conditions.
Q Will you please give us the date as precisely as possible as to when these people from Holzloehner turned up to see you?
A I cannot say anything more definite than that it must have been in the summer of 1942. I cannot give the date any more accurately.
Q This apparatus of which you talk, was that perhaps the same apparatus which Rascher mentioned in his letter to Himmler of 9 October 1942? I am handing you this letter now. It is in Document Book of the prosecution II, Page 108 of the English version, and Document NO-1610-PS of the prosecution and Exhibit Number 73. Please comment on this letter.
A Rascher writes, "The Weltz Institute does not want to give me apparatus simply because they are afraid that I will have good results on human experiments more quickly than is possible in years of animal experiments. Weltz, instead of now admitting that we reached our goal more quickly in the freezing problems through experiments on human beings and need the apparatus, makes the excuse that at the present time he is conducting freezing experiments on shaved cats and needs the apparatus for this purpose." This is the machine of which I spoke. I should like to refer to this enormous impudence with which Rascher simply demands from me that I must give him a machine which belongs to my institute, a machine on which he has not the slightest claims and he said that I made the excuse that I needed it myself. He expects that I should apologize to him for needing my own machine and for not being willing to give it to him. I just wanted to mention that as an illustration of Rascher's attitude.
Then he writes, "Through the OKW Weltz is trying to get captured Russians as subjects for his experiments. Human experiments conducted outside of camp do not seem expedient to me." How Rascher comes to make this assertion that we were trying to get captured Russians through the OKW I don't know. The never even considered that. I don't know how Rascher imagined that, how he thought that we were opening a private concentration camp.