Q. You say that you don't know much about the field of explosive decompression, that you perhaps never specialized in it and never conducted any experiments in it, then what in what in the world were you doing by arranging for Rascher to conduct experiments if you don't know anything about it, you don't know whether a man can go over 12,000 feet or not and not suffer...
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, you keep referring to 12,000 feet. I think if you will look at the record you will find it is 12,000 meters. I think you will find also when you referred to the Dachau experiments that over the period of time of two months or perhaps a little longer, that is to say from about 10 or 11 March until 20 May when the chamber was supposed to have been removed, there were between 200 and 300 experiments, with about 50 per cent of them made about 14 or 15 kilometers, which would be 14,000 or 15,000 meters not 15,000 feet.
Q. That's what I meant, Your Honor, in as much as Judge Sebring has got to the point for us, would you kindly tell me, Doctor, whether it would be feasable from the 10th of March to the 20th of May? -- Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg maintains that the first experiment took place on the 22nd of February 22 they discontinued until Rascher came back from Schongau. He returned from Schongau and Romberg returned from Berlin where he was visiting his wife, about 10 March, and they started the experiments 10 March, from 10 March to 31 March, you have approximately 20 days, the month of April which is approximately 30 or 31 days, and you have 20 days in May, so you have there a total of some 70 days, which is less than two and a half months, in a period of two and a half months you performed nearly 300 experiments on 7 to 12 subjects; doesn't that seems to be quite a number of experiments to require one man to endure during a period of two and a half months?
You divide 12 into 300 and then divide 7 into 300; that is undergoing a considerable number of experiments, isn't he?
A. Yes, are you talking about the effects on their general health, or are you talking about the effects as regards adaptation to high altitude?
Q. No, I am not, I am not talking about the effect on their general health. I am referring to their adaptability to high altitude, and whether or not they would continue to be useful in the experiments as experimental subjects, and bearing in mind of course, as Judge Sebring pointed out, that these men are going 50 per cent of the time above 14,000 meters.
A. Big figures seem to make a great impressions on you, but I and Ruff have already told you that the ultimate altitude is not alone important, but just as much depends on the time. Whether the subjects adapt themselves or not in a certain experiment, that I can see; in the program that Romberg drew up, I believe there was serious adaptation to high altitude.
Q. You have stated that it is possible that a person could be adaptable to one height in a period of three or four or five experiments; now, suppose you were experimenting and as soon as you saw he was adapted, would you drop him out?
A. I didn't say that after three or four experiments the subjects adapt themselves. I said that if you are trying to achieve adaptation to high altitude and arrange the experiments so that a high degree of acclimatization will result, then you can start seeing results after two or three ascents, that is what I said.
Q. Well, as soon as you see the result, then you would not use the man in further experiments, would you?
A. If in the course of an experimental series I see that the subject is becoming adapted and disrupting the experiment, then of course I don't use that subject any further.
Q. Well, the other angle, what about the health of the subject undergoing we will say such a large number of experiments in the course of a month as 25, or 20 experiments in two months, would that have anything to do with it?
A. Let me clear this up. Adaptation to high altitude is not an injury to one's health, but it is a reaction which is sometimes deliberately induced, by sending people to the mountains, for example. It has nothing to do with damage to one's health. It is a perfectly normal condition, one that results naturally in high altitudes in the mountains, and a condition which a person voluntarily brings about if he is going to spend his vacation in a high mountain terrain. No injuries to the person's health are to be expected, I can think of no case, except for one or two cases where there was some question of tuberculosis having resulted after a large number of experiments. As I say, except for those cases in the course of perhaps millions of ascents I know of only two cases where TB resulted, in doubtful connection with high altitude. In other words, for all this is of no consequence, because it is much too rare.
For all practical purposes damage to health is non-existent in high-altitude experiments.
Q. Well, now, Doctor, going back to the subjects used at Dachau, did you ever personally talk to one of the subjects used?
A. No, from what I have said it must be pretty clear that I didn't. I was in Dachau only at this one discussion before the beginning of the experiments, and never again.
Q. I see, and the discussion that you had at Dachau was merely the preliminary meeting, and the inmates were selected at a later date; you didn't even see the inmates?
A. The principles were discussed, according to which the subjects were to be selected. They were of course actually chosen later. I know nothing more about all these events, because I was no longer informed of what was going on.
Q. Now, you didn't see the subjects, and you now testify before this Tribunal under oath from your own knowledge that the subjects used were volunteers?
A. Since I never saw them, I can't testify on that subject at all. I can only say that it was agreed with the camp commander what the nature of these experimental subjects was to be. That is the extent of my knowledge on the matter. After that I know nothing.
Q. Well, now, after that meeting, can you tell us whether or not you discussed the nature of the subjects, that is the character of the subjects with anyone; did anyone afterwards tell you where they got the volunteers?
A. I told you in my direct examination how things continued as far as I was concerned.
I heard nothing more about the progress of the experiments. Rascher was in Schongau and that was the reason why I asked Rascher through the letter him to report on what was going on. Rascher told me that he was still in Schongau, that the experiments in Dachau hadn't started yet.
MR. HARDY: At this time I would like to ask the court reporters to clarify the record wherein I have referred to figures, namely 8,000, 10,000, 14,000, or 15,000, if I have used the word feet, kindly strike that and include the word meters. I used the word feet erroneously.
This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Weltz, it has been called to my attention during the recess that you and I are conducting our examination much too rapidly, and the court reporters are having considerable difficulty in taking down the testimony, so, if you will attempt to cooperate, I will do the same and see if we can slow down a bit.
Q Doctor, we have heard here in this courtroom the opinion of various persons, namely, Professor Leibrandt, Rostock, Rose, Sievers, and several of the other defendants, concerning the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment. What is your attitude about the capacity of a prisoner to volunteer for medical experiments?
A I believe that in this case one must clearly distinguish between the philosophical concept of free will and the legal free will on the one hand, and the natural, scientific determination of our actions. Every one of our actions is of course determined casually by circumstances which have preceded that action, by the nature of one's personality; and, therefore, any will is determined naturally, scientifically by innumerable causes. Quite independent of that consideration is another consideration which confronts me with a choice of whether to do something or not to do it. The poor person who volunteers because of a sum of money I have offered him is certainly not doing that of his own free will, in the other form; he is also being forced to accept money, because of his entire situation; that the other way of looking at it. If I have an opportunity either yes or no without being threatened directly because of my decision, one has to say that the prisoner has the same free right, to decide as is the case with any other human being. That obviously is the general opinion, because, otherwise, one could never submit an affidavit to a prisoner; he decides quite freely whether or not he is going to sign. He can make many other decisions, just as he can make that decision. I was asked in the camp whether I was willing to do a number of things which of course arose from the fact that I was imprisoned. Had I not been imprisoned, nobody would have thought of asking me these questions.
While imprisoned I was in a position to decide freely whether, for example, I wanted to do certain work, for an addition to my rations. This was a completely free decision. I really don't see why a prisoner basically is acting under different conditions than any other person. The prerequisite is, of course, that I am not threatened but am given an opportunity to make this decision freely.
Q Then, in substance, Doctor, it is your opinion that a person even though incarcerated, can actually, in the true sense of the word, be a volunteer for a medical experiment?
A Certainly.
Q Well, now do you think that in the case of concentration camp inmates -- wherein here in Germany we had a unique situation, that you had criminal prisoners and political prisoners -- do you think that applies to either category equally as well?
A There is no doubt in my mind that even in a concentration camp, volunteer decisions could be offered to the persons there in good faith, and that these persons were actually free in their decisions. If I am now subsequently told that did not happen in many cases, I can only say -- and that has already been said by Mr. Lutz -- that it was an enormous surprise for us at the end of the war to learn that these easy conditions of voluntariness were obviously not fulfilled, as we learned through the press. It would have been very easy for the State to comply with these conditions. No expense would have been incurred for the State, and everything could have been done absolutely irreproachably. For that reason, it was an enormous surprise for us that this condition which was so easy to fulfill, was obviously not fulfilled in so many cases.
Q Well, now then, considering the over-all picture of the status of the prisoners in the camp, the only real issue is what the particular prisoner will be offered to undergo the experiment. For instance, a criminal will be offered a pardon, a commutation of his sentence; or a political prisoner could be offered a pardon or a commutation of his sentence; or a political prisoner could be offered better food, like, for instance, you state that you might have been offered additional rations if you did certain duties.
Well, now, when you had this meeting, and Rascher showed you the authority of Himmler to use criminals for experiments: didn't it occur to you that the pardon would be perhaps allowing a criminal who, as you say, was legally condemned, to then return to society and mingle therein?
Didn't that element crop up in your mind?
A If one considers an atonement to society, I don't think that there is any difference whether this atonement takes the form of a certain among of time spent in a prison, or whether it is served by subjecting oneself to danger, in the interest of society. I don't know what the legal aspect is, and I never worried about it. Whether it was legally permissible or not was something for the State to consider. We were merely confronted with the fact than offer had been made to us to carry out experiments under certain conditions which we believed to be irreproachable. That was the situation we faced. It certainly was not our task to change these conditions in anyway. All we had to ask ourselves was this: Are these conditions objectionable, or are they not?
The conditions as they were told to me by Rascher, as they were contained in Himmler's letter, and as I agreed with Ruff, I consider and I want to repeat once more -- to be irreproachable from an international standard, and measured against the strict standards of peace.
Q Well now, were you familiar with the manner in which these subjects used in these experiments were approached?
A How these persons were approached?
Q Yes.
A I already said that the conditions were discussed with Pyrokowsky. After that I didn't learn anything else about the further course of events.
Q Well, now, before you talked -- or, while you were talking with the concentration camp commandant, did you at that meeting -- or did Ruff or Romberg or Rascher; one of your group -- instruct the concentration camp commandant on how many subjects they thought they would need? Did they say, "we will need ten subjects, or twenty subjects, or thirty subjects -and you pick thirty volunteers or a hundred volunteers?"
A Certainly. Naturally, Pyrkowsky would have to know about how many persons were needed.
Q How many volunteers did they decide at that meeting would be necessary?
A I can't remember now whether an exact figure was given.
Q Well, they were supposed to come from certain blocks in the camp, weren't they? You started to name two or three blocks wherein they would go and select the volunteers. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What did the concentration camp commandant say? Simply, we will use them from two or three different blocks" -- or just what was that conversation? Would you repeat it for me, please?
A I remember the following: Schnitzler first informed Pyrkowsky about Himmler's general order. Then we explained the extent of the experiments to Pyrkowsky -- what it was all about. And I am sure that he was given an approximate figure. Then Pyrkowsky considered from which blocks these persons were to be selected.
Q Do you know how many inmates were housed or quartered in one block?
A I know that now, after having lived in these blocks for a considerable period of time myself. Then, of course, I could imagine nothing by the expression "block".
Q Would you tell the Tribunal from your experience in Dachau since the war ended how many people can be housed in one block?
A We were up to 160 persons in a room; three beds, one above the other. There were six rooms.
Q That consists of one block?
A Yes, that was one barracks.
Q Then, in other words, you had six rooms with 260 persons to each room?
A Yes, that was the situation when the rooms were fully occupied, and that is what I experienced.
Q And he set aside two blocks to be used -- or two blocks from which they would select the volunteers?
A That I don't know.
Q I see. Well, you do know that they set aside one block to be used -or did the concentration camp commandant say, well, we will get our volun teers from Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4? Or did he say, we will get them from just Block No. 1?
A The figures Pyrkowsky mentioned at that time didn't mean anything to me. He mentioned one block or the other. Therefore, I don't know whether he said that we shall get them from Block 24, or that he said 28, or any other block. I can't say that because these figures didn't mean anything to me.
Q Now, Doctor, after the conference in January 1942, and then after the meeting in Dachau, which was a couple of days later, then the low pressure chamber was sent to Dachau via your Institute, and the experiments were to begin on February 22nd. Now you had your quarrel with Rascher?
A May I correct something?
Q Yes.
A The experiments were not to start on the 22nd of February, that was not known to me. I know nothing about that. The only thing I learned was that the low pressure chamber arrived, but when the experiments were to start, or what else was arranged, I don't know.
Q Well, now, when did you have your first disagreement with Rascher, approximately what date, in the month of January, or the month of February, or in the month of March, your first disagreement with him? Now, as of the time you left Dachau in January when you visited the concentration camp commandant and made arrangements for the performance of the experiments, that is, the technical arrangement at that time when you went to the concentration camp with Ruff and Romberg, that is, Ruff was Romberg's superior, and you said in the direct that you were Rascher's superior; now after that time when arrangements were being made, when did you have your first disagreement with Rascher?
A We separated in Munich after this visit at Dachau. Rascher returned to Schongau, while Ruff and Romberg returned to Berlin; after that I heard nothing more.
Q Well, now -- then you say that Rascher was relieved in February, or in the beginning of March, on your direct examination, or, the latest would have been during the first week in March that you no longer had any connection with Rascher. Now just when did you have your disagreement with Rascher, and received this telegram, and so forth. I want to try to fix the date, Doctor, when Rascher pointed out to you about in a telegram that this was to be a secret, and he could not tell anything about it and so forth?
A I am just clarifying that. After we had separated at Dachau, Rascher had returned to Schongau. He was at that time still residing there. It made no difference to me personally when the experiments would start. I had no interest in pushing them, so I did not bother about it. I was in Munich.
Q You were in Munich?
A Yes.
Q But at this time before the experiments started on a date which was unknown to you at that time, you were still in the position as Rascher's superior, and Romberg was subordinate to Ruff, in the same position that you were when you left the camp at Dachau, after the arrangements had been made, is that right?
A Rascher at that time was my subordinate. He had been detailed to my Institute. This assignment until that time had only been something on paper, inasmuch as Rascher had told me he still had work to do in Schongau, where he was doing something regarding the distant gauge, and I did not try to get Rascher quickly, because I did not need him for my purpose. I then heard accidentally that Rascher was staying in Munich, some one had seen him there. Then I was of the opinion that if he came to Munich anyhow, he may report to me. Thereupon I wrote him a letter saying that he would have to report to me twice a week, while he was residing there. I already described that.
Q This happened when, what date, approximately the 1st of February?
A I conclude from Document No. 284 that the last conversation took place at the end of February, or at the beginning of March; the two preceding times that Rascher came to see me were also a half a week earlier.
Q Well, then you ordered Rascher to report to you twice a week, after you had discovered he was in Munich. Now, that was in February, is that right?
A Yes, that was in February.
Q Now he reported to you, did he, in compliance with the letter, or the order?
A The first time Rascher came to see me and I asked him why he never looked me up, and he answered that he still had work at Schongau, and he said that after all the experiments at Dachau had not yet started.
Q And did you at that time have a severe quarrel with him, or did you then see him at a later date?
A I kept my calm during this first conversation; I could say there was a certain tension, and I made it clear to Rascher I wanted to preserve my status as his superior, and that tension was noted from the tone in which I wrote the letter to him. The letter was not addressed, "My dear Rascher," but was stated, "You are requested to report to me twice a week wearing your uniform." He could have no doubts on account of that letter that I was not approaching him as some good acquaintance, or a friend of his, but that I was approaching him as his superior. He had no doubts on him.
Q He came the first time?
A Yes.
Q That first time would be about the 1st of February, wouldn't it?
A No, I don't believe so. That must have happened later.
Q When would you say. Could you set some date about that?
A If I laid the last conversation when he showed me the telegram, about the end of February, or the beginning of March, I would say the first conversation took place one and a half weeks earlier.
Q That would be about the 20th of February, approximately?
A Yes, that could be.
Q Well, now then the experiments began the 22nd of February unbeknown to you?
A No, that was not known to me.
Q Rascher reported to you again. When did he report to you the second time?
A Half a week later, as I had ordered him.
Q That was about the 1st of March, or about the 27th of February, or the 1st of March?
A No, if I assume that the first report took place on the 18th or 20th of February, then the second report must have taken place three days later.
Q Three days later. Well, then, he had started the experiments on 22nd of February, did he report to you the second time before or after he had started the experiments, do you know?
A I never learned that. I can not tell you anything about that.
Q He reported to you for the second time, about the 22nd of February, or the 23rd of February, around in there?
A Yes.
Q And what happened on that occasion?
A In the meantime Anthony had telephoned me from the Medical Inspectorate, and had told me --- rather had inquired from me how the experiments at Dachau were progressing, and how long they would continue; whereupon, I told Anthony, "I can not tell you anything about that." I said that I did not know anything about the Dachau experiments. When Rascher came, I asked him about Dachau. I told him that the Medical Inspectorate had rung me up, and that day wanted to know what was going on. Rascher insisted that he had yet to receive his instructions and only then would he be in a position to report to me. He would then know how much he would tell me, and I then said to Rascher that I would not enter in such dealings, either would not I be participating in the experiments, or else he would have to be eliminated from my agency. I imagined that the next time there would be a considerable quarrel between us because I had put Rascher before an alternative. I was quite prepared that Rascher would raise some other objections, and, therefore asked Wendt to attend the third conversation.
I already testified to that here. Rascher handed me Himmler's telegram, whereupon I told him that cleared this situation entirely, "You can no longer remain in my office." Rascher did not make any further remarks. The report had ended. I dictated a letter to Wendt addressed to the Luftgau, asking that Rascher be released. I then went to Berlin, wanted to report to Hippke. Hippke, however, was not there. Consequently I told the entire story to Anthony.
Q. And did Anthony approve the transfer cf Rascher from your institute?
A. Yes, he approved it. He just accepted it as an accomplished fact and he said on his part that he would have to come to some other settlement with the Air Gau. He did not say what his final decision was because he probably could not do that. He probably had to report the matter either to his chief of staff or to Hippke or get into contact with the Air Gau. I don't know what he did.
Q. Well, now, this all happened about 1 March? That is the date?
A. I assume that the conversation with Anthony took place during the first days of March.
Q. After that period of time Rascher was no longer your subordinate?
A. No, that eliminated him very clearly.
Q. Then you were no longer connected with anything that Rascher did?
A. No.
Q. Well, now, you have drawn the Tribunal's attention to Document NO 264, which is dated 28 April 1942, in which you have offered the explanation that it is quite obvious from the turn of events, as you have explained them to the Tribunal, that this date of 28 April should read 28 February, rather than April.
This is on page 73 of Your Honors' document book number 2, Exhibit No. 60.
Now, Doctor, if we assume for the moment that your assumption that the date should be 28 February is correct, then it follows that herein it is requested that the assignment of Rascher must immediately be changed to the Aviation Test Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, Aussenstelle Dachau, and according to your testimony, because of your dispute with Rascher on 1 March you then went to the Luftgau and also reported to Hippke via Anthony that you were no longer assuming responsibility for Rascher and that Rascher was to be transferred from your institute. Now, that is the natural course of events if we assume that this date is 28 February, is that correct?
A. Yes, if my assumption is correct that Rascher was still in my office on 28 February, the date of this letter; however, he was certainly no longer at my office on 16 March, as can be seen from Document 318, Prosecution Exhibit 57.
Q. That is page 70 of your Honors' document book, 318, that the defendant is referring to. Do you have the document book there, Dr. Weltz?
A. I have those two documents.
Q. Will you kindly point out again to the Tribunal why you maintain that the document dated 16 April 1942, on page 70, shows that Rascher is no longer in your institute? What is there apparent in that document that shows that?
A. In Document NO 318 is says, and I quote:
"The Stabarzt Dr. Rascher was detailed for special experiments, the execution of which together with the experimental establishment for air navigation was rendered possible by the Reichsfuehrer SS at Dachau, to the experimental establishment for aviation, branch office Dachau, from March 16 until April 16, 1942."
That is to say that Rascher during that time held a different assignment. Therefore, he could not have been working at my institute. I think that there can be no doubt about that.
Q. Well, now, what institute would he be at according to this letter? Who is he assigned to now?
A. Well, I can speak only of what is contained in this letter. There is mention made here of the branch office, Dachau, of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation. This is an agency which probably has not existed in this form, because I cannot imagine that there existed an experimental institute for aviation with a branch office at Dachau. Where this designation comes from and how it originated I of course don't know. For me it is important only to prove that Rascher had another assignment on 16 March and was no longer working with me. Whether this assignment was to a place which is designated correctly or incorrectly bears no importance for this case.
Werz then asked that this assignment be prolonged. The whole thing was intended to bring Rascher to Dachau.
Q. And Hippke, according to this letter, is well aware of the fact that you were no longer connected with Rascher, is that true?
A. I don't have the letter from Hippke before me. If you can tell me where it is--
Q. This letter of 16 April to which you referred is addressed to Hippke.
A. Yes, but there is another letter in existence, the reply letter of Hippke, which I can't remember at the moment. Hippke then in effect prolongs Rascher's assignment, as far as I can remember, but I haven't got the letter before me.
Q. Well, now, assume for the moment that the document on page 73, that is, 234, NO 264, Exhibit No. 60, assume for the moment that the date 28 April is correct, as it is on the document, actually is on the document - that that is correct. From this file note of SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler it appears quite conclusively that Rascher is still the subordinate of Weltz on 28 April 1942, doesn't it, taking that letter on its face?
A. If we assume that the date on this note of Schnitzler is correct, then all the statements which Mrs. Rascher has made are not correct. The entire letter can then make no sense.
Q. Be that as it may, Doctor, I asked you a question. From this letter, in and of itself, disregarding any other letters, from this letter with the date 28 April thereon, it is apparent that Rascher is still your subordinate, isn't it? From this letter?
A. Yes, but that is not true.
Q. All right, Now, just a moment. Do you recall the name Anneliese Frick?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal who Anneliese Frick is - F-R-I-C-K?
A. Miss Frick was a technical assistant of our institute.
Q. She is the daughter, is she not, of Wilhelm Frick, who was a defendant before the International Military Tribunal?
A. Yes, she is Frick's daughter, and also the daughter of his wife who divorced him. I think that at the time she was at my institute they were already divorced.
Q. Well, when did Miss Frick join your institute?
A. That I can no longer tell you. I really don't know.
Q. If Miss Frick said that she joined your institute on 15 April 1942, would you assume that that was about right?
A. I can hardly check that. April 1942?
Q. Yes.
A. It is possible.
Q. Possible. Well, now, did Dr. Rascher ever come to visit you after you had your disagreement in March? You stated in direct that you only saw him accidentally a few times after you relieved him.
A. The statements are contradictory to that effect. As far as I remember, it was reported to me that Rascher had appeared several times in the institute, behind my back. On the other hand, Wendt did not know anything about these visits, which were reported to me by other people. Today I no longer know whether Rascher appeared several times at my institute during my absence or not. On the occasion of my first interrogation I stated that Rascher appeared at the institute behind my back because I thought that I'could remember one such report.