Among the men to be mentioned here was Prof. Buechner, who was the leader of the Pathological Institute in Freiburg and I had put up the Research Station with him for Luftwaffe pathology. I think I also should mention Prof. Rein in Goettingen, who was advisor in Physiology to me and in whose institute work on many aviation medical questions was done. This institute was as a matter of form attached to the Strughold Institute in Berlin. Personally Rein was immediately subordinated to me as advisor in Physiology.
Q. Witness, do you know that at the time of Udet the "C" office of Udet within the framework of the Generalluftzeugmeister, head charge of Rechlin via Mr. Baeunke.
A. Yes, that I knew at the time, much of the organization was changed later, so that I am not informed and I can no longer remember what the latest relations were. Many changes did not come to our official attention. I know the the development at this time were confused and that re-organizations were very frequent.
Q. But you know that Baeumker was in the "C" office of the Air Ministry at the time of Udet?
A. Yes, he was in the Ministry and also encountered difficulties because Baeumker also wanted to combine the Luftwaffe Medical Research with his other technical research, while I endeavered to keep the medical question under my control, no definite clarification of this matter ever took place during my time, because despite all my efforts it couldn't be carried out that all medical questions went through me. Instead the tendencies of the individual groups to independent were strong enough that this desire of mine could not be realized in practice.
Q. Mr. Witness, do you know that this "C" office was then reorganized when Milch took over the Office of General Luftzaugmeister?
A. I do know that there was a reorganization at that time. What sort of reorganization there was, I cannot say in detail.
Q. Do you know that Baeamker resigned from this "C" Office and took another Office?
A. I know that he later resigned and went to Munich.
Q. What did he do in Munich? Did he have his own institute there or construct one, or what did he do?
A. I had the impression that in Munich he wanted to create a new research organization. I never heard that he was chief of an institute.
Q. Here is a plan that Prof. Dr. Oskar Schroeder drew up, and on the wall you see a summary of it. We have just talked in retail about matters of organization, can you ascertain that these two charts, of which you have the original in your hand and of which there is a short version on the wall, are correct?
A. This chart that I have, I can only see the chart in my hand because I am short sighted and I cannot see the one on the wall at all without my glasses which have been taken from me. In this chart there are a number of small errors. They concern, for example, the subordination of the advisory physicians who, according to the chart, seem to be subordinated to each other, whereas actually they were immediately subordinate to me.
Q. Are the institutes shown in the right order of authority?
A. The institutes of the Luftwaffe are also not arranged here correctly, because as I have already mentioned the subordination concerned only the Stuckhold Research Institute.
Q. Is Rechlin correctly placed on the chart?
A. It says here only technical subordination. That is already saying too much, because the subordination of the institute was not under me in a technical respect either.
Q. The DVL, is that placed correctly?
A. To the extent that according to the lines on this chart there was a technical subordination, to that extent which is wrong. But this concept of technical subordination is not entirely correct. The situation was this, the 767a Luftwaffe institutions, with the exception of the Buechner Institute, which was headed by Benzinger, were under my complete technical charge.
On the other hand, the other institutes, Rechlin and the medical department in Adlershof, only received directives or policies from me, and then if they received them, of course, had to carry them out. But they were in no other respect subordinate to me above all not under my authority for inspection, which I would imply by technical subordination.
Q. You could not check and examine if I understood you correctly, and only gave orders for various research?
A. Not only orders for research. I could also establish individual policies. If I knew that there was a particular pressing question concerning centrifugal force that had to be solved, or questions of cold or high altitude or so, I had the right if I knew that this was a pressing question, to tell them to make this the center of research, and they, in turn, had to do this. As far as I gave them orders to carry out research which did not happen with the institutes, in view of the enormous amount of other work in that field, then as I say I gave orders and they were obliged to work on this research that I had ordered, and to send the report to my office telling the results of their experiment so that I could then fulfill my real task, namely to examine the results of this research and to find out what could be used for the fliers in actual practice.
Q. I understand you to say ---
A. Let me supplement my remarks. Besides the institutions on this chart here, there were also a number of smaller research --- civilian researchers. There were a lot of low pressure chambers mass produced . These were used in the individual universities, mostly for research on pilots and their endurance.
This was an important chapter. In addition, these men as physicians and researchers often carried on independent research. For example, in the Charite in Berlin there was such a low pressure chamber. I remember also that at Bonn there was a rather large chamber always at work. Within the framework of the university, and these problems were worked on there. I gave research orders, and the exports there were obliged to send a report to my office LIM 14. The Inspections were numbered. Mine was number 14. They had to report to me as I said. My work was ascertaining 768a what could be used from the results of this research for the protection of fliers.
Q. Thank you. that suffices. Then if I understand you correctly you said that you merely gave general directives and policies to the DVL?
A. This is true, yes.
Q. Did you determine then what sort of work the DVL was to do, or was it in that regard independent?
A. It was independent because there was in the DVL, for instance, a department within the actual framework of the DVL which was a technical institute, and it gave its technical problems to its own physicians. And I know, for instance that on the question of shock, Dr. Ruff did a lot of work since this question was of great importance in the development in airplane construction, particularly altitude questions. On the part of the Avaiation Ministry there was a low pressure chamber, a mobile chamber given in charge of Dr. Ruff. He, in fact, developed it technically
Q. Witness, I come now to the actual events. When did you first find out that Rascher wanted to carry out high altitude experiments?
A. Let me go into this some lengths if I have the. time.
Q. Please do so.
A. At that time, high altitude experiments, that is the question to what height man could climb and still function, were particularly important and particularly pressing for us for the development of airplanes and the development of air combat indicated or brought it about that it was practically of ever increasing importance to be able to climb higher and higher. Consequently in this whole period of development, 1940 to 1941 the problem of altitude was always in the foreground whereas previously we had concerned ourselves with many other questions.
We knew now not only that at an altitude of 7,000 to 8,000 meters and oxygen breathing set had to be carrier. We also knew now that an altitude of 12,000 meters oxygen was not sufficient, which of coarse, will be strange to any lay observer. However, the air pressure, and I emphasize air pressure, was so slight at this height that the oxygen apparatus is no longer effective. The oxygen was dispersed too rapidly.
769a also because all the mixture of water vapor in the lung and of oxygen contents----
Q. These are very technical matters, and you must speak slowly?
A. The relation between water vapor in the lung and oxygen became quite different at these altitudes. It became clear that from 12,000 meters on the air pressure had to be increased so that the oxygen apparatus could still work. This seemed to set a limit at which the pilots and crews could breath. The one way would have been to give them an air-tight suit, but that didn't interest us very greatly. The main question was, the aircraft body itself would have to be made airtight and that was the so-called cabin plane that had to be used, in which the crew was in a position to create the necessary air pressure which was necessary or was sufficient for breathing perhaps with the assistance with the oxygen apparatus. Then there was the further question of what might happen at these deadly altitudes if it should be punctured, either by enemy action or because of the enormous cold up there. Could the crew stand the sudden difference in pressure from a reasonable air pressure, to this sudden lethal reduction in pressure, or would the crew die of this immediately? We as physicians embraced the point of view that unless we knew the answer to this, we were not morally able to send crews to these heights. We wanted some assurance to anticipate the probable future of the cabin plane. The first question was, can the human being stand such a sudden reduction of pressure at all, or does he die of it? The second question was, how much time is there in which he can be saved? In bailing out at this level what happens when he gets into a zone lower down where his oxygen apparatus, which is taken with him, begins to work, that is to say; an altitude of 12,000 meters, or where he reaches an altitude of which he can live without oxygen apparatus, in other words, the height of about 7,000 to 8,000 meters.
It was in this direction and precisely by Dr. Ruff in Adlershof, in order to clarify such question that specially constructed low pressure chambers were set up, although only a few experiments, I should say "spot tests" were carried out from which it could be seen that human beings actually could withstand such enormous and sudden drops in pressure.
770a
Q. May I ask a question? On whom were these experiments made?
These were all experiments on themselves that Dr. Ruff and his assistants, Dr. Romberg, carried out on themselves, I believe also using his own working personnel there, because there were always other doctors or physicians who took part in these experiments. These experiments were, however, insufficient to determine fundamentally which height was the safety limit, for the cabin plane. And we were confronted with the decision, what group of experimental persons could now be used.
It was always my point of view that such experiments should be carried out on Doctors themselves. We had a number of such very dangerous partly even dangerous to life experiments which were made on our researchers. They included altitude experiments and also experiments on centrifugal force . Doctors, through self experimentation have been working on questions of pressure as in the Avaiation Medical Institute, Professor Strughold.
I saw only one difficulty confronting us: The circle of Doctors working in avaiation medicine was so small, that each was heavily burdened with his own special task, so that we had to enlarge our circle in other ways. Something of a technical nature had to be added. The researchers, because of the many experiments carried out upon themselves, had developed such a tolerance for altitude, and that is possible and even at a high degree, that the results of the tests carried out upon themselves, were too favorable. They could not be applied to general conditions.
A. Pilots, being confronted, for the first time, with lack of oxygen, would find that previous statistics would not apply to him. The result of tests on researchers gave a false and too favorable picture.
This was the situation in which we found ourselves, and about which every one who was definitely concerned knew about. This was the situation when Dr. Rauscher, in May, 1941, came to me. It was a question of a doctor who previously belonged to the SS and who had now become a reserve medical inspector of the Luftwaffe. As such, he became involved in this entire problem of high-altitude experimentation.
He proposed to me in a discussion that he brought about, and I did not even know him previously, that for this purpose penal prisoners should be used, that is those who had already been condemned to death, in other words, those who were to die anyway.
Q. Witness, one question. Should these men volunteer?
A. I believe I said that already, sir. It was always to be a volunteer. There were only volunteers.
Q. Which prospects were given them in the event that they did volunteer?
A. I discussed that later with Rauscher, but even here, his point of view was predominant, that they should be pardoned if they volunteered. That 772a was promised to them in the very beginning.
In this way they had a chance through these experiments to save their lives which otherwise they could not do. I asked him how he would be able to obtain such persons for experimentation. and he explained himself by saying that he had connections with the SS who had charge of such penal prisoners. There were such penal prisoners in Dachau, and he would be in a position to obtain them for these purposes. I, myself, because of my inner personal feelings on the matter, was very much against these experiments, even in the event that I should say yes it would be against my principle namely that such experiments should in the first place always be taken upon them themselves by doctors.
THE PRESIDENT: The court will recess for a few minutes.
THE MARSHALL: The Military Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in court please find your seats. The Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, you referred to your talk with Rascher. Did Rascher on this occasion tell you what the purpose was in this work or task?
A Yes, on occasion of that meeting in this talk I did not mention this before. I must now tell you this. Maybe I should explain in the question I think what he tells me. He wanted to become a university lecturer, and later become a permanent member of the university, and it was important for that purpose for him to work on new scientific subjects which he could show to us finally, and for that reason wanted to work in that particular field.
Q Witness, what effect did your talk have with him?
A From my attitude, and as to the whole complex of the question, I was against experiments being carried out on human beings, such experiments, because such experiments were never carried out by the Luftwaffe of new experiments before, and I always referred to the particular experiments that it was not the ethics of the German doctors, if necessary, particularly, could not experiment only on themselves. In order to point that out, and emphasize this point of view, I myself when I joined the Luftwaffe after being in the army, I myself experimented on myself, both in the low pressure chambers and exposed myself to high altitudes; several times I was myself thrown out of the Centrifugal up to the danger point; and I pointed out of other tests of aviation which could be carried out in an airplane on myself which I referred to the pilot as too dangerous. Also the fact that I was nearly fifty years of age when I learned, how to fly, and in the expedition flying I tested the particular dangerous tests that confront the pilot, and took over the particular assignment of unpleasant tests for the pilot.
MR. DENNEY: Is the witness telling his personal experience now, or relating what Dr. Rascher said?
DR. BERGOLD: These are experiments which the witness made on himself.
THE PRESIDENT: One more question.
Q. Will the witness tell the Tribunal again when he had first talked to Dr. Rascher about these experiments?
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, will you tell the Court once again when did you have your first talk with Rascher?
A. With Rascher? When this conversation took place was in May 1941. at that time though nothing final had been decided, and I made my own point of view against such experiments quite clear to Dr. Rascher, it was that I was apposed to human experiments. I told Rascher of the basic conditions of all experiments which are made by the doctors on themselves; aside from that we always mentioned that they were of prisoners under sentence of death, and I used the expression "murder" to make my attitude quite clear. These persons had to report voluntarily for these experiments, and had to be told that the death sentence was to be comuted into some more lenient punishment, or acquittel. The final decision on these questions remained open at that time, because I was against such experiments even under these limitations. I have so much in opposition that I could not make up my mind to say yes.
W. Witness, did you report to your superior officer Ruedel, or Herr Milch, of this conversation with Rascher?
A. No, not at that time, but only a little later, A little later we discussed this question of human experiments once more without Racher in Munich, on the occasion of a meeting in the summer of 1941 with Professor Weltz, his collaborator Kottenhof, and myself. This question was discussed. This was a meeting of many people in the evening in a restaurant where we had a special table to ourselves and where this very worrying question was discussed. The question was opened by Dr. Kottenhof who reported that Dr. Rascher had contacted him and proposed to him to take part in such work. Kottenhof took the view that such experiments with about the limitations which I mentioned before could be answered for all the more so, as people sentenced to death--murderes--were given a chance to save their lives; all the more so, as the danger of these experiments did not appear to be considerable. Professor Weltz took the view that such experiments could be justified for the reason because in the international literature of the great countries, such experiments were frequently described and were declared to be admissible everywhere. He named here, as I recall, the United States of America.
Q. May it please the court, I would ask to be allowed to read a brief document at this point from the Document Book of the Prosecution 5-B. This is Exhibit No. 122, NOKW-419 in the last volume submitted by the Prosecution. NOKW-419. It is the interrogation of Weltz of 8 November 1946.
MR. DENNEY: Page 188 of Prosecution Document Book 5-B, if your Honor Please in English.
DR. BERGOLD:
I will start on page 1.
"Question: Did you think about the conversation with Hippke?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: When did it take place?
"Answer: In the summer of 1941.
"Question: 1941?
"Answer: Yes, because we were then in the period of 1941-'42, the second half.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, we don't have this page 188, Exhibit 122.
MR. DENNEY: Again, Your Honors, we only used a portion of the exhibit.
776a I believe Dr. Bergold is familiar with the rule.
We gave him the entire affidavit and he is now reading from a part which doesn't appear in the Document Book, and I assume that the Court will make the same ruling that Dr. Bergold can furnish the English translation to the Court and to the Prosecution Staff.
DR. BERGOLD: Let me do so, Your Honor.
"Answer: Yes, we were then in the period of 1941-'42, the second half. This was a sociable, beer-drinking evening in the Preysing Palace, and on that occasion, Kottenhof said that permission could be expected for Rascher. I believe, although I am not quite certain, whether at that time I did or did not know Rascher and he was not then ordered to serve in my office. I could not say that for certain. There was a discussion between Kottenhof and Hippke."
MR. DANNY: If Your Honor please, I object to the reading of this document here. I don't know what its purpose is. Either he is trying to refresh the witness' recollection or he is trying to show something that is contrary to what the witness is stating. He is calling the witness; he is vouching for his credibility; and I submit that he can't impeach him at this time. There is nothing to indicate that the witness is hostile, and what purpose is served by reading an affidavit of Weltz with reference to a meeting by which the witness obviously has a clear recollection, I can't see.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I am doing this because, as in the case of the International Military Tribunal, solicitors were allowed to support what the witness said by a document to show that he is correct. This is not supposed to be a reproach. I have no further questions to the witness. I only want to show, by reading this document, what the witness said is perfectly true. That was allowed in the first case. Should the Court decide to give up the rule, I would have to read this document some other time. I leave that to the Court's judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the confusion arises from the order with which this proof is submitted. It is not intended either to impeach this witness nor to refresh his recollection, but as an independent offer of proof.
MR. DENNY: If Your Honor please, not having the document, I didn't know what he was going into, and I would suggest if Dr. Bergold has affidavits or other things that he wants to bring forward to substantiate the witness' proof or testimony, that he offered them at the conclusion of a session rather than interrupting the witness' testimony to say, "I will now show that by an affidavit of someone else, that what this witness said is just true."
All the affidavit says is that someone else says what he says.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, as I said, that the confusion arises from the fact that this is introduced at this time. I would suggest, Dr. Bergold, that you withhold the offer of this affidavit until the cross examination of this witness is concluded.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, I should like to ask you a question. Your last statement just before Dr. Bergold began to read a document in which, I assumed, would have something to do with that statement, was to the effect that in the United States experiments of a similar nature were performed. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: No.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Well, what did you say?
THE WITNESS: I don't know what type of experiments these were. I presume, however, high altitude experiments. I was informed that high altitude experiments were organized in the United States because when I was in the States myself in 1939, in Boston, I inspected the low-pressure chamber and it was reported to me that on these very questions of developing cabins, a lot of work was being done because that was particularly important to them. Whether the experiments which I mentioned concerned that work in the States, I do not know; but the general principle applied that in such experiments which are put on a bigger basis, only prisoners were used.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You didn't intend to convey the impression that you had heard that in the United States the high altitude experiments were conducted in a way to jeopardize human life?