DR. WILLE: At the moment, Your Honors, I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Professor Weltz, I understand that prior to the time that the high altitude experiments were to begin in Dachau, you had a conference in Berlin with Ruff and Romberg concerning the possibility of conducting these high altitude experiments at Dachau concentration camp. Do I understand that correctly?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. I also understand that subsequent to the Berlin conference but prior to the time that the experiments began at Dachau, you had a conference in Munich, is that so?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Who was present at that conference?
A. In the second conference, you mean? Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and myself. This was the conference at which Wendt and Lutz were previously in the room.
Q. So at that time you actually went into the details at this conference when you four men, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and yourself were present?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Now at the meeting, the Berlin meeting and the Munich conference, what was the clear understanding concerning the men who were to be used as experimental subjects?
A. First, let me make a correction. It is not correct to speak of a conference in Berlin. It was simply a conversation between Ruff and myself and later on the discussion in Munich, we assumed regarding the experimental subjects what Rascher always told us, and which was to be read in the letter from Himmler, which he showed us at that time, our assumption was that these were legally condemned criminals, not political prisoners, that these persons were to volunteer, and that they should be rewarded in accordance with the extent to which they were used. That is what Rascher told us, and that is also in the Himmler letter.
Q. Was it to be understood that any distinction was to be made between German and non-German nationals?
A. We did not discuss this point in detail at that time because then the foreigner was not legally condemned by German Courts at all. That took place only later in the course of the war, namely, that German courts passed judgment on the forced labor in Germany. There was very little of that at that time.
Q. Did this latter phase take place during the period which had been set aside for your experiments, that is to say, did your relationship during that period of time change, to your knowledge did the German government ever pretend to exercise any judicial control over non-German nationals with the result that non-German nationals were incarcerated in the concentration camp at Dachau?
A. No, we were speaking of people who had been legally condemned by German courts and at that time only Germans were under the jurisdiction of German courts. The number of foreigners was very small at that time so that they played no role of any practical importance.
Q. Then you understood these were to be prisoners who were German nationals who had been tried and sentenced by a regularly constituted German Court in Germany?
A. Yes.
Q. That as a result of this trial, these German nationals who had been legally condemned by a German Court on German soil were serving terms in Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the clear understanding of all those who were present?
A. I believe that these conditions were perfectly clear and were not misunderstood by any one because Hippke understood it correctly at our first ciscussion, and also the witness Lutz has said here that he understood it clearly and I do not believe there was any doubt on that point whatsoever.
Q. There certainly was no doubt in your mind about the matter?
A. No, Ruff, Romberg and myself did not doubt this at all because this was the cardinal point which had developed at the first conversation with Ruff in Berlin.
Q. Was any distinction to be made in regard to the type of sentence that these inmates had received?
A No, we knew that persons imprisoned for preventive reasons were involved. That was made clear by the discussions with Prokowsky, but whether these were persons condemned to death or people with long terms there was no distinction drawn between them. I believe that it was the general notion that we just had to draw a distinction here in regard to the dangerousness of the experiment. I am referring now to the discussion with Hippke where there was only general discussion of the experiments and no specific discussion.
Q Did you know, at that time, the type of prisoners who were in Dachau, that is to say, whether it was the camp which housed only criminals condemned to death and life termers, as we call it in America, or whether it also contained prisoners who were serving a much lesser sentence for much less dangerous or severe crimes or offenses? Do you understand the import of my question?
A I believe so. In my direct examination I said that I knew that prisons and penitentiaries had been emptied into the concentration camps. Thus, all the inmates could be expected to be the same sort of prisoners that you would find in prisons or penitentiaries - from light terms to heavy ones.
Q And you understood that you would expect to find the same type of prisoners at Dachau?
A Yes, I knew from newspaper reports, as I said, that prisons and penitentiaries had been emptied of their contents into the concentration camps.
Q During the course of any of your preliminary discussions or negotiations with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, or with any or either of them, did you gentlemen adopt any well defined policy as to the type of man - inmate - upon whom you were going to experiment; that is to say, did you develop a policy that you were going to conduct your experiments only upon prisoners who had been condemned to death or did you adopt a policy that you would conduct experiments on prisoners who had been condemned to death and also on prisoners who were serving long terms as habitual criminals, or did you say that any criminal who then was in Dachau who presumably had volunteered would be used during the course of your experiments?
A This question was first discussed when we saw the camp commander in Dachau. There was discussion of the selection of the experimental subjects on the basis of the instructions that the camp commander had received via Schnitzler from Himmler and then people in preventive custody were taken.
Q What class of people did you understand could come within the category of preventive custody?
A I knew that protective custody was the sentence in the case of uncorrectable recidivism and were standard policies here. I happened to know this through a book that a well-known criminologist had read to me and had concerned himself with the theory of protective custody. The book is by Heindl and is entitled "The Habitual Criminal" and there is a statement of when and under what circumstances protective custody is permissible so that I had good knowledge of this as a layman.
Q Generally speaking, then, you, Ruff, Romberg and Rascher understood that these experiments were to carried out either upon persons who had been condemned to death or upon the habitual criminal who was in protective custody? Is that correct?
A Yes. As soon as we had spoken with the camp commander we knew that people in preventive custody were to be used.
Q Was it known to you that, at the same time the RuffRomberg-Rascher high altitude experiments were being conducted at Dachau, that Rascher was also supposed to be carrying out separate high altitude experiments on his own account under some sort of separate order from Himmler?
A I didn't know that no. As soon as the experiments began, I received no further news from Rascher. I believe I have stated that here in some detail.
Q Did you receive any reports from any one else?
A You mean regarding Rascher's second experimental series?
Q Regarding any of Rascher's experimental series of regarding the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher series which was then taking place at Dachau?
A No, I have already said, in direct examination, that as soon as Rascher showed me this telegram and from then on I heard nothing more. And this telegram was the reason why nothing more was told to me.
Q Then I assume that you heard nothing from any one concerning the death of Rascher's experimental subject which was supposed to have occurred in the middle of April or the latter part of April, 1942?
A I heard of these deaths only here in my interrogations.
Q What you said in regard to the April death would also be true in regard to the two deaths that are supposed to have occurred in May, 1942, in what one of the witnesses said here was Rascher's separate experiments?
A Yes.
Q After the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiment was completed - the one in which Romberg was to act as a subordinate to Ruff - Rascher was to act as the subordinate to you - and you and Ruff were to collaborate, did you receive any unofficial reports as distinguished from official reports concerning the results of those experiments?
A Rascher never worked under my direction. Rascher left at a time before the experiments had begun or after only a couple of experiments had been carried out about which I, however, knew nothing. I personally knew, at the moment when Rascher left, nothing about whether the experiments had begun or not in Dachau.
Q Upon what date did you understand that Rascher's official connections with you or your institute was severed?
A I figured out more or less as follows: On the 19th of February as it can be seen, from Frau Rascher's letter, an inquiry was directed to the Reichsfuehrer SS and, at this time or shortly thereafter, the experiments in Dachau were cut off. The telegram that was shown to me is presumably the answer to this inquiry of the 19th of February and it must have reached Rascher a few days later. Now, it appears that Rascher didn't show it to me immediately but carried it around for a few days in his pocket, and if this conjecture of mine is correct as is Schnitzler's file note of the 28th of February, then that was A Saturday, and on the Friday following I was in Berlin and reported to Anthony.
Then, according to this, Rascher must have left on the Tuesday, before the Friday I just mentioned. I should like to assume, on the basis of these dates, that Rascher left at the end of February or the beginning of March. It seems certain to me that on the 16th of February Rascher was already under a new command. That can be seen from Document No. 318, Exhibit 57. In this document, as of the 16th of March, Rascher is at another station with a new job. In the meantime, however, he was with the Luftgau Medical Department. The interval here is not very great. Rascher must have left me during the first days of March.
Q Did Ruff or Romberg ever tell you, or did you ever gain any information from them in any other manner that during the latter part of May 1942 a death had occurred at Dachau in high altitude experiments?
A No, I never found that out.
Q Neither did Ruff or Romberg ever tell you of the deaths which occurred in May, 1942?
A No.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any of the defense counsel questions to be propounded to this witness?
DR. VORWERK: Vorwerk for Romberg.
JUDGE CRAWFORD: Just a minute. One moment, Counsel.
BY JUDGE CRAWFORD:
Q Professor Weltz, you stated that you received permission to question persons who had been rescued from accidents at sea, persons who had been exposed to the cold. Who gave you that permission? From whom did you receive the permission?
A From the Air Fleet Physician III, whose seat was in Paris and I drifted around in his area.
Q Who directed you to question these people?
A I looked for people of whom I knew that they had fallen into the sea and had been rescued. For instance, I knew that one such person was in Bordeaux and another in Boulogne, and I took these trips in order to look these people up individually and ask them what their experiences had been.
Q You stated that you experimented on animals. Who gave you this permission, or who directed you to make these animal experiments?
A Within the frame work of my general research work in connection with my tasks at the Institute I was able to carry out these animal experiments, and I did not need permission at all. I had general orders to carry out basic research and within the frame work of the program, I could do these experiments.
Q As I understand it, if someone received permission or was directed to make animal experiments, he did not have to obtain permission from Himmler, but if the experiments were to be made on concentration camp inmates, Himmler's permission had to be obtained?
A Yes.
Q Then the only thing that Himmler had to do with these experiments was to give permission for the use of inmates of concentration camps?
A Of course, we could not carry out any experiments in a concentration camp without Himmler's permission.
Q But, as I understand, Himmler didn't do the planning of these experiments. He would just give the permission for the material to carry out those experiments.
A Yes, we as members of the Luftwaffe needed in addition an order from the Luftwaffe, the medical inspector, for carrying out the experiments.
JUDGE CRAWFORD: No further questions.
BY DR. VORWERK:
Q Professor Weltz, do you know that the Aviation Research Institute at Adlershof in fall, 1941, published a report under the number FA 1416, under the title, "Parachute Descent from Great Heights"?
A This will be on the experiments up to 12,000 metres. Yes, I believe we received that.
Q Then you knew that the Research Institute was working on the problem of rescue from great heights?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q In your discussion with Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, was there ever mention of other experiments than the experiments concerned with the rescue from great altitude?
A I believe that in my direct examination, I said that when I went to Berlin, Ruff had a predetermined program which he told me about and so far as I was concerned in this whole matter, nothing was changed in this program.
Q Thus I understand you to say that you had supervisory control over these experiments in rescue from great altitudes. Before Rascher left you, you intended to supervise these experiments, is that so?
A Not quite. It was very clear that the purpose of our collaboration was to carry out this program. Now, what would have happened if I would want to change this program I do not know, because I never discussed this with Ruff.
Q Professor Weltz, you misunderstood me. I mean the following: If Rascher had not left you, you were to have supervisory control over Rascher in these experiments on rescue from great altitudes, because he then would still have belonged to your institute?
A Yes.
Q Through the fact that Romberg was to assist in these experiments, did this fact limit your supervisory powers?
A No. These things were quite independent of one another. My supervisory control and duty over Rascher was a purely military matter and whether Romberg was there or not made no difference.
Q You stated that you spoke with Hippke about the variety of the possible experimental subjects and that they were to be graded according to the dangerousness of the experiments. Did you ever discuss this question with Ruff or Romberg, or with Romberg and Ruff separately?
A No. With Hippke when we discussed it -- with Hippke the word murder was used a little bit too freely the first time and it was later ascertained that these persons did not always have to be murderers. These were merely theoretical considerations, which were not based on any concrete investigations.
DR. VORWERK: No further questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q After you and Rascher, Ruff and Romberg had your discussions at Munich, when was the next time you saw and talked either with Ruff or with Romberg?
A Either on the next day or the day after that on our joint trip to Dachau.
Q Subsequent to that time, when was the next time you talked with them?
AAfter our joint trip to Dachau, I did not see Romberg for several years. Ruff visited me once. That must have been when he returned from his visit to Dachau. He came to my house. In the meantime I had gone on the basis of that telegram. Ruff told me that he already knew that Rascher had left and he said he couldn't tell me anything more about the experiments, because they were secret.
Q Were the experiments that Ruff and Romberg were carrying out at Berlin in the same experimental series secret?
A Yes, the fact that we went to Dachau did nothing to change the fact that these experiments were secret.
Q Well, he discussed those with you, didn't he?
A Yes, that was a different sort of a secrecy. Himmler's telegram was binding only on the people to whom Himmler had given permission to speak of these things. Military secrecy in general was of such a sort that other people could be excluded from the secret. For instance, I could have called Lutz and said, "You are a part of the question and from now on you must observe that secrecy. In these developmental assignments that Ruff mentioned which included the program from Dachau the situation was generally held secret only in the first steps when it was being developed. Then after the experiments were concluded, they were declared perfectly open, or parts of them were made public, because these results had somehow to be made generally known. That is why we had the experiments. In other words, at the beginning of the experiments there was a general obligation to maintain secrecy and later it was either partially or totally lifted.
Q Now what date was it when Ruff came to see you at Munich on the occasion of your conversations you have just been telling us about?
A My last meeting with Ruff after the experiment began, you mean?
Q You said that after you went to visit Dachau, then at some subsequent period of time after you were no longer with the experiment, Ruff came to Munich and told you that he could not discuss the results of the experiment with you because you were no longer connected with the experiment. What date was that?
A Ruff has already stated that date. That was shortly after Rascher left, as far as I can see. In the first half of March, I think Ruff said it was. I myself do not know the precise date for sure. I only knew that the visit took place after Rascher left.
Q. Subsequent to that time did you ever have a talk with Ruff or see Ruff?
A. Yes, I saw him several times; for example, at the Goerlitz conference or the conference in Freiburg; but we did not speak any more about Dachau.
Q. Then nothing was ever said between you and Ruff after the conversation in Munich concerning Dachau; and of the experiments at Dachau; any of the results at Dachau; or the fact that any of the tests had resulted fatally?
A. I only found out the results of the experiments when they were made public. I never discussed with Ruff the individual experiments and, specifically, so far as deaths were concerned.
Q. Did you ever see Ruff and have conversations with him after May 1942?
A. Yes, I have said that I met him, for example, in conferences at Goerlitz and Freiburg. I met him several times.
Q. All of those conferences were after the month of May 1942?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of the witness by defense counsel?
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx for Becker-Freyseng.
EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q. Professor, I gathered from your direct examination that regarding Rascher's plans for high altitude experiments in 1941 and 1942 you spoke both with Professor Hippke and Professor Anthony, the expert for aviation medicine in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe at that time. Let me ask you now to clear up this matter whether at this time you spoke with Professor Becker-Freyseng on these experiments.
A. No, I did not.
Q. You also said that from your institute inquiry was made at the medical inspectorate regarding the final report of Rascher and Hoelzlohner on these cold experiments.
Can you remember that?
A. Yes, Lutz told me about this; and I repeated it as I heard it.
Q. Then you could draw the conclusion that you or your institute were of the opinion that this report could be found at the Medical Inspectorate? Will you please make a statement on this subject? How did it happen that you or Lutz asked for this report from the Medical Inspectorate?
A. I believe I said that before. The report that Lutz sent in, the paper that was to be permitted to be published, contained opinions that differed from Holzloehner's; and in order to bring these differences into some sort of agreement, as far as I remember, the paper was sent to Holzloehner. Holzloehner for his part said that in order to substantiate his opinion, Becker-Freyseng should take a look at the report. Becker-Freyseng looked for the report and didn't find it. Consequently we didn't know how Holzloehner substantiated his opinion. That is how I remember it.
Q. But Becker-Freyseng did not say that he had received or seen the report?
A. On the contrary, the report, as I just said, was not found.
Q. Well, even if it wasn't found, he could still have seen it before; but he told you that he hadn't received it at all?
A. No, he didn't say that to me. This involved Lutz.
Q. Now, another subject. There has been frequent mention of the Nurnberg Luftwaffe conference regarding sea and winter rescue in October of 1942. From the material put in by the prosecution, it can be seen that Professor Anthony was chairman of this conference. I should like to ask you, was this the only such conference in which you took part, or were there several such conferences?
A. There were such conferences at regular intervals. I already mentioned the Goerlitz conference. Another conference was in Hamburg. There were also conferences of this sort during peacetime.
Q. Who was chairman of these conferences as long as Anthony was the expert, that is, until May of 1944?
A. The expert was chairman, I believe. Becker-Freyseng was chairman of the Goerlitz conference.
Q. Anthony was expert until May of 1944?
A. I don't know the precise date but that could be.
Q. After Anthony left, were there other conferences; and, if so, who was in charge of them?
A. I just told you the Goerlitz conference was under BeckerFreyseng. Otherwise I do not remember any further conferences after Anthony left.
Q. Professor, at the Nurnberg conference you read a paper. I may assume that you also spoke at the other conferences. Therefore, I want to ask you, did you have to show the manuscript of your paper to the Medical Inspectorate beforehand, or did you just tell them the subject and general contents?
A. If you wanted to read a paper at such a conference, you informed the Medical Inspectorate of the subject and gave them a one or two page precis of the contents. Often even that was omitted.
Q. In other words, the manuscript itself was not submitted?
A. No.
Q. Now, a final question about the Nurnberg conference. In your direct examination you said that you had concerned yourself with freezing research in your institute. Therefore, I can assume that you knew the people in the Luftwaffe who knew about freezing experiments very well. Now, so far as you know, was Becker-Freyseng one of those doctors who had practical experience in sea rescue or who had scientific knowledge of and had worked on freezing problems?
A. No, I can say pretty definitely that Becker-Freyseng did not have anything to do with freezing. His field lay elsewhere.
Q. Did Becker-Freyseng take part in the discussion at the Nurnberg conference, or did you happen to have talks of a scientific nature about the freezing problem with him?
A. That I cannot say for sure. It could be that in connection with some of our experiments with pigs we talked about matters that were related to this; but I really can't say for sure.
Q. You mean only animal experiments here?
A. Experiments on pigs.
Q. I refer you to Document 934 of the prosecution, Exhibit 458. This is a list of research assignments for 1944. You undoubtedly remember it?
A. I know that this list was submitted.
Q. It was put in during the direct examination of Professor Schroeder. Now, from this document it can be seen that you received a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate. Will you please say how it happened that you received this assignment, although you were the head of an institute belonging to the Luftwaffe and Professor Schroeder has said here on the witness stand that such research assignments were given only to civilian institutes as a general rule?
A. May I ask you what this research assignment was?
Q. Unfortunately I don't have the document available. Did you receive several research assignments?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Can you not remember a research assignment of the year 1944?
A. The last research assignment that we received had a sort of peculiar origin. Because of bureaucratic difficulties we had no funds available. We couldn't settle things in cash; and we simply had to send bills. They were later paid, months later, by the Luftgau. Consequently, it was an unpleasant fact that we couldn't buy anything, not even a pencil or an eraser, but could only buy it on account. For this reason I had a research assignment given to me. This meant that we received some ready cash; and I chose as the subject for this research assignment any old subject that we were working on anyway.
Q. I am just told, Professor, that it was a research assignment regarding the gastro-intestinal channel under pressure.
A. Yes, that was a formal research assignment. Before I founded the institute, there were research assignments that were of some significance. Then at the beginning of my civilian institute, before the war, this research assignment was of some importance; but later, during the war, it had none. It became of no importance when the Institute for Air Medicine was founded; that is to say, it had no further scientific importance. It did have a financial importance.
Q. When you were given this assignment, did you receive any instructions regarding how you were to carry on your research?
A. No, and in general that was not possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 7 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again session.
DR. GEORG WELTZ - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
Dr. Marx does not seem to be present. He had not completed his examination.
DR. WILLE (Counsel for the Defendant Weltz): Mr. President, my colleague Dr. Marx asked me to tell you that he has no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Weltz, where were you at the end of the war?
AAt the end of the war I was in Iking, 25 kilometers south of Munich.
Q Were you taken prisoner by the Allied Forces at the end of the war?
A No, I remained in my small country house until on the 20th of July 1945, I was requested at my city home to report to the CIC in Munich in Mauerkirchstrasse. Up to that time I was free.
Q When was the first time that you were placed under arrest and incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp or civilian internment camp by American authorities?
A I was only arrested once, that is, I was asked to report on the 21st of July in Mauerkirchstrasse in Munich, the CIC. From there, I was sent to the prison at Freising for some time, then I was a prisoner in the hospital in Freising--I had become sick. Then on the 26th of September 1945, I believe it was, I went to the Moosburg Camp. I stayed in Moosburg until the 6th of December 1945. The 6th of December 1945, I was transferred to Dachau.
Q What was the reason why you were placed under arrest at that time in July 1945?
A I never learned that.
Q Were you in the automatic arrest category because of your rank?
A I was taken away from Freising in automatic arrest to Moosburg.
Q Now, you had an institute in Munich. When did you first take charge of this institute in Munich?
A You mean now the Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Luftwaffe?
Q Yes.
A This institute was assigned to me when it was founded. It was founded on paper in the fall of 1941.
Q How long did you remain at the institute after it was founded, until the end of the war?
A Until the end of the war, yes.
Q Did the institute ever receive any bombings?
A Yes.
Q Was it severely damaged as a result to the bombings?
A I have already said that in 1943-44 I moved the institute one section at a time. One department went to Freising, one went to the State Farm Hirshau near Freising. Nothing happened to these barracks, but the original two barracks which remained in Munich, and the laboratory that remained there, were completely burned out in 1944. They were wooden barracks and nothing remained of them.
Q Well, now, when you moved your institute because of the bombings were you able to salvage your equipment, your files and furniture, and the necessary things, so that you could continue your work?
A To Freising and to the State Farm at Hirschau, we moved almost all the scientific equipment which we neede, but the laboratory and the official files which did not refer to our research remained in the safe in Munich. We couldn't move the safe and besides, the laboratory was still working there. I have already said that the files of the Institute for Aviation Medicine and the files of the laboratory were taken care of together by Stabsarzt Wendt, and Stabsarzt Wendt remained in Munich.
All the files which referred to transfers, assignments, secret records, they were burned in Munich in 1944. All the new records were kept at Freising. Our scientific records, the library, special publications, and so on, we had taken with us. That was partly at Hirschau and partly at Freising.
Q Now, do you recall being interrogated in June, that is the 6th day of June 1945, that is before the time you were arrested--you were still a free man--by Major Alexander of the U.S. Army Medical Corps?
A That was not an interrogation, at least I didn't realize that it was an interrogation. Professor Alexander came to us as a scientist who was interested in our work. He asked us about our work. We had previously been visited by some aviation medical commissions and we showed Professor Alexander what he was interested in. It was no interrogation. Professor Alexander did not represent himself as an investigator but he presented himself as a Doctor who was interested in our scientific work, and we discussed with him the future of the institute. I could not see that this was any legal examination or any such thing.
Q Well, now, Dr. Alexander, that is the same Professor Alexander who appeared here as an expert witness, was interested in chatting with you, or interrogating you, concerning your work, or any work, on shock from exposure to cold on human beings. Did you inform him about your knowledge of experimental on animals?