THE MARSHAL: All persons please take your seats. All persons, rise. Tribunal No. II is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Witness, where did you study medicine?
A. I studied medicine at Berlin, at the Berlin University, as a member of the Kaiser William Academy.
Q. When did you start practicing medicine?
A. In 1913.
Q. You've heard of Hippocrates?
A. I did not understand the question, Your Honor. Yes, I've heard of Hippocrates. May I add something to that?
Q. No. Answer my questions. Did you take the Hippocratic Oath?
A. Yes; I know the Oath of Hippocrates.
Q. Witness, answer the question. Did you take the Hippocratic Oath?
A. According to my opinion, I did not have to swear to it. I did not take the oath.
Q. You did not take it?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Are you familiar with its principles?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Do you believe that medicine should be practiced in accordance with those principles?
A. Yes; I even supported that, with my personal power. I had a report and I helped the Professor Buechner during the war concerning a lecture on the Oath of Hypocrates, on this oath. Later on he had difficulties because of that. However, I saw to it that no trouble arose for him. That concerned -
Q. All right, witness; I'm not interested in you and Professor Buechner. The less speeches we have from you, the faster we'll get along. You answer the questions that I ask you; do you understand me?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Are you familiar with that portion of the Hippocratic Oath which says:
"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous"? You know that appears in the Hippocratic Oath?
A. Yes, -
Q. That is enough. You've said that the Luftwaffe doctors always performed experiments on themselves; that you had performed experiments on yourself?
A. Yes, I carried out experiments on myself too.
Q. And some of the doctors in the Luftwaffe who were under you experimented on themselves, you told the Tribunal?
A. Yes; that is correct.
Q. Did you ever hear of Dr. Rascher, Dr. Ruff, or any other Luftwaffe doctor getting in a tank of cold water and staying in it for three hours?
A. No. I've never heard about that, and I don't believe they did that, either.
Q. I'm quite certain they didn't too. You were very concerned, early in 1941 when you first heard about these medical experiments, particularly those having to do with altitude and freezing? Just answer the question. You were concerned; you were a doctor, and it bothered you; you thought someone might die; you thought that someone might die in these experiments?
A. Yes. Yes; I saw the danger that that could happen.
Q. You wouldn't consent to them right off, would you?
A. Not right from the beginning, because of my natural feeling against these experiments.
Q. Yes; it's not nice to kill people.
A. There was no question of killing people, but, according to my principles, I wanted to save lives, Your Honor, and not kill them.
Q. Don't refer to me as "Your Honor". Well, if there wasn't any question of killing people, why did you look for concentration camp inmates from Dachau for your experiments? You rejected the soldiers because they had to work in the fields that had to do with things purely military. You wouldn't take the civilians because you were afraid that some information might get out about them, and you wouldn't get monkeys but you would take concentration camp inmates.
(No response)
Q. But you would take concentration camp inmates, wouldn't you?
(No response)
Q. Just answer the question.
A. No. I did not consider them as concentration camp inmates. I considered them as people who had been condemned to death, who in this case had been given a chance to prove their loyalty to the Reich and thus given an opportunity to save their lives. It was a great experience for these people to do something for their Fatherland since they could not do anything on the front to do something at home. But not with the idea to die but to be saved. We never had a case of death. Why should there be a death now?
Q. Now, I assume that none of the doctors ever died and the witness Neff's testimony was to the effect that several of the experimental subjects died.
A. But this is quite a different instance or experiment.
Q. Don't make speeches. You made speeches for several hours and I don't propose to listen to any of them. In answer to a question by Dr. Bergold you stated that when you first discussed the matter of the experiments with the defendant in August of 1942, which you said was the first time you ever talked to him about that, he expressed considerable interest in the cold water experiments, that he had known nothing about them, and that you went into them in some detail because you were wanting to apprise him of it and because apparently from what you gathered by talking to the defendant he had never had any information on these experiments prior to the time of your conversation. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do remember that we discussed this meeting of the 31 August at the last session. Yes, indeed.
Q. And is that your recollection of what you told the Court at that time 838-A
A. This complex had been discussed long ago and now again. And, therefore, it is very difficult for me to remember all of the details, but the whole complex was brought up again. I can't tell it to you in detail.
Q. Well, I will read your testimony to you to refresh your recollection.
THE PRESIDENT: Which trial?
MR. DENNEY: In Dr. Bergold's examination it appears at page 810 of the records of February 8th, in Friday's testimony: "Milch then asked me what sort of experiments these were. I answered, 'High altitude experiments and freezing experiments.' He then asked what the term 'freezing' meant. I was prepared for that question."
THE WITNESS: May I correct that? I didn't mean freezing experiments but chilling experiments. This is something different than freezing experiments. Here it says "chilling."
MR. DENNEY: Here it says "freezing." "He then asked what the term 'freezing' meant. I was prepared for that question because it was a new term; even among medical men it wasn't often used."
DR. BERGOLD: Concerning that, I want to point out that the translation is never exact. He always say "freezing" for the word "cold", and the German word "cold" is a lower temperature than the normal temperature. There is an extremely radical difference between the two terms. One cannot use both terms "chilling" and "freezing" because they lack clarity, and the statement of the witness will not be exact.
THE WITNESS: In other words they were always speaking about the "chilling" and that is the only term that is new and for that reason I have to explain to you what it means. The word "cold" is not new and therefore there should not be an explanation for it.
THE PRESIDENT: The difference between "chilling" and "freezing" is a matter of degrees. I don't think there is any misunderstanding. Let us call it "chilling" but if pursued long enough it results in "freezing."
THE WITNESS: No, is something entirely different because through cold there is a freezing of the vessels which never takes place here.
The extreme temperature remains, no matter how cold it is, as the temperature of the skin remains 15 - 16 degrees.
839-A the inside of the body, that remains in the blood, is about 30 degrees instead of about 15 or 16.
In other words there will never be a freezing which actually takes place and, therefore, they are two different things.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. In any event, you were talking about the cold water experiments?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. This has to do with pilots who were compelled to bail out in the sea?
A. Yes, who had crashed.
Q. Just answer the question.
A. Yes.
Q. You weren't trying to indicate to the Court that this is the first time that the defendant ever knew anything about the problem of pilots bailing out in the cold water?
A. No.
Q. He knew about this before, didn't he?
A. He knew about the rescueing of pilots at sea prior to this conversation.
Q. Did you know that the defendant wrote a letter to Wolf mentioning cold water experiments as early as in May of 1942; that's Obergruppenfuehrer SS?
A. I had given him a note stating that such experiments would be prepared, on 20th of August, when he asked me for those notes.
Q. So he could have known considerably about these experiments, much earlier than in August of 1942?
A. In reference to the point of time, yes, if he had read those notes.
Q. At least you submitted them to him?
A. Yes, I did.
Q Have you heard of the term "shock" in connection with medicine?
A Shock? Yes. I have heard the term "shock" and it is known to me.
Q Shell-shock, bombing shock?
A Yes, this is clearly a medical term to me.
Q Shock that happens to any one after they had an accident?
A Yes.
Q Such as a man hit over the head?
A Yes. We have heard a lot of that, and many officers worked on that and there was a conference concerning shock and collapse.
Q About this conversation that you had with Dr. Rascher -- which took place some time in March of 1943 -- the document which Dr. Bergold referred to as being in my vest pocket, and which he has through the courtesy of Tribunal I; where is Rascher?
A Where is Rascher?
Q Where is Rascher?
A I don't know. I have never seen Rascher since that date.
Q You don't know what happened to him?
A I heard that he was dead.
Q So that any version that we get, that is, from his side of the conversation will of necessity have to come from the record.
A I think so; as he is dead, I don't believe he could appear as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denny, we will interrupt for a recess now; it is Judge Mussmano's tea time, and we will recess for ten minutes.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Court will please find their seats. Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Before recess we were talking about a letter from Rascher to Dr. Rudolf Brandt, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, dated 14 March 1943. You have seen this letter since you have been here?
A. That letter has been discussed several times and the fact that such a letter was written, I have not seen it and studied it in detail.
Q. You talked with counsel in the medical case upstairs?
A. Yes, it was there that the letter was mentioned.
Q. You have told the Court about your version of the meeting you had with Rascher. I understand that we must offer our exhibits when we get around to the rebuttal side so we can mark this exhibit 128. This is a letter from Dr. Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 14 March 1943:
"Dear Obersturmbannfuhrer:
"On 12 March I was ordered to a conference with Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke. The inspector was extremely friendly, I had the impression that the whole affair was painful to him. For your information I enclose a short description of the conversation. This description is by no means a complete one despite the fact that I took down notes immediately after the conference. I would like to emphasize the inspector's unusual amiability and caution in all expressions concerning the SS.
"May I respectfully ask you to inform the Reichsfuhrer SS of the report in as far as this appears necessary to you.
"May I also ask you, if you do not mind, to inform Hauptsturmfuehrer Heckenstaller since as far as I know he worked on my transfer by order of Obergruppenfuehrer Self.
"With obedient regards and Heil Hitler Your most grateful Sigmund Rascher" On the next page, we have the same date.
"Report on the conference between Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Doctor Hippke and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher on 12 March 1943 in Berlin.
"The course of the discussion can be described in its meaning only, not literally, since the conference lasted for 3/4 of an hour:
"Very friendly welcome by Professor Hippke. Immediately after that the question, who desired the transfer to the Waffen- SS and who suggested it.
"Rascher: Suggested and desired by the Reichsfuehrer-SS as well as by myself. I, too, have submitted a transfer request through the official Luftwaffe channels.
"Hippke: So then it is true. Why do you really want to leave the Luftwaffe? I give you every opportunity to work in the scientific field, and with us you will be backed by the solidarity of the entire medical officer's corps of the Luftwaffe. Beside we have the necessary experience in treating medical problems connected with aviation. The SS cannot possibly be interested in these questions.
"Rascher: But the Reichsfuehrer-SS does not desire at all to have those tasks carried out for the benefit of the SS alone, he expressed himself to that effect that the tasks shall be accomplished and the results shall be really made available to all interested agencies in the most rapid way.
"Hippke: We can maintain this connection with the SS also if you stay with the Luftwaffe. I hereby request you to stay with the medical corps of the Luftwaffe.
"Rascher: I beg to submit respectfully that inasfar as I am concerned, the decision about this has already been taken.
"Hippke: But in this case you must realize that the medical officers' corps of the Luftwaffe will no longer solidly back you up and that you have to expect scientific enmities and perhaps even a bitter fight in the scientific field with individual gentlemen, especially reservists, who brought along from private life their scientific manners.
But even if you no longer belong to my officers, you will always have my full support. I wish that even later on we will continue to work together. For instance I would like to see that you carry out together with Romberg the rescue from the highest altitudes and that you go even higher than 21,000 meters. For this case some two-stage device should be procured some way for the low-pressure car. Furthermore, I would desire that in your experiments on human beings you would combine the altitude experiments with the cold experiments.
"Rascher: I proposed this to you already in July of last year and the Reichsfuehrer SS for his part has also submitted this proposal to Marshal Milch. Unfortunately nothing resulted from intervention so far.
"Hippke: How embarrassing this question must have escaped my notice at that time (he takes down some notes) as already said you see there are numerous problems and you are going to be really overburdened with scientific matters. I do not let you go readily and this I emphasize again. Would you not think it over again for four weeks?
"Rascher: For this it was too late, I asked for my part to be transferred.
"Hippke: This could be cancelled. I call your attention to the fact that with the Luftwaffe, I can offer you very good possibilities for your promotion. You do not yet know your advancement with the SS, do you already know in which capacity you are going to be taken over? You are now Hauptsturmfuehrer, I suppose?
"Rascher: I do not know how I am going to be taken over, but I have full confidence in my future with the SS where efficiency is what matters.
"Hippke: But this is certainly the case with us too, think it over whether you go, I request you again to stay here.
"Rascher: When I told Hippke during the further course of the conversation how the work is done at my place, he was very surprised and said, 'Well, you built up an independent institute for yourself and so you are Head of the Institute.'
"Hippke mentioned also that Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz did not want to furnish a substitute for me, no, nobody at all, not to speak of a medical officer trained in scientific matters.
"In conclusion Professor Doctor Hippke said, well, if you persist in your decision I ask you then to report to me before leaving when you are transferred. Most friendly dismissal.
"Postscript: Professor Hippke offered me the possibility of publishing the results hitherto obtained in a Luftwaffe periodical.
It was certainly not clear whether the SS could make accessible to me a periodical in which I could publish. He was afraid I could suffer from the competition between physicians of the Luftwaffe and SS physicians.
"I would like to mention that in connection with hostility to be expected on the part of genuine Luftwaffe physicians Professor Hippke said, 'In this case you have of course the SS behind you, and this is a powerful factor.'" This is signed by Sigmund Rascher.
It does not sound as if you were anxious to get rid of Rascher.
A May I enter into a discussion of the individual points brought out here?
Q I think you said enough on direct examination about it. I do not see why we have to go into it now. The document speaks for itself.
A The document that I see now is merely a combination of the talk at my place and the conversation outside with the experts. It was all consolidated here. The conversation did not last anywhere near as long as it is here set down. There is no question of my wanting to hold him for the Luftwaffe. I was glad to get rid of him because we had difficulties with him because of his continual wishes to carry on experiments. For that reason we did not want him. I must mention one thing in particular. He says here something about an independent institute being built up with Rascher as head of it. This institute was ordered by Himmler in October. In other words, it was long after this discussion. Rascher then became head of it.. From a purely objective point of view, this could not be true. It could not be true that I said this from the start. I could not have stated it. I also mentioned that there was a discussion of an institute, but in a different context. It was a question of the future. I mentioned the idea that he could not become the leader of the institute in his early years. That was the real context. In other words, this is not true. What is set down here is not true. There was possibility of its being true, because the institute was ordered in autumn of 1943 by Himmler.
This discussion took place in March of 1943. In other words, these were future plans which he here mentions as facts. However, they were not facts.
846-A Then, there is one other point.
He reconstructed this one point. I mentioned that we were to make supplementary experiments in order to make clear to him that he would play no role, but that we would be doing it. He pretends that he was to be used here. This question of 21 kilometers was brought up. At that time we were not in a position to rise about 21 kilometers. We did not have the apparatus, so that is also false. I can say as regards these individual points that this must be a letter that is here under discussion. That could have been the case; if it were the letter from Wolfe which was written in November to Milch, but had been answered by me a few days previous, that is probably what he is referring to, because in the meantime he at least acknowledged the answer. That is the possibility I see.
Q When did you first get the letter from Milch which was written to him by Wolfe regarding Rascher's transfer?
A I would say that was in February.
Q When in February?
A I saw that from -
Q All you have to do is give me a date. When in February did you get the letter?
A It must have been the last days of February.
Q All right, Witness. Just answer the question. I am not interested in any speeches you may have to make. You were very anxious to get rid of Rascher. Is that right?
A He made too much trouble and he was too vain.
Q You wanted to get rid of him?
A For scientific reasons.
Q You wanted to get rid of him?
A Yes. I wanted to get rid of him.
Q You received a letter from Wolfe to Milch in February?
A Yes. I received a letter and I answered that I must first hear what Rascher had to say. Then I was willing to release him.
Q Then on March 6, you wrote saying he could go?
A That was not the 6th. That was the date of my answers to Wolff. It was about the middle of March.
Q Do you know a Doctor Daniel?
A I believe there is an "s" at the end of his name, Daniels.
Q Daniels?
A He was a physician under me.
Q Did Dr. Rascher work for him?
A I knew of no connection between Daniels and Rascher.
Q But you know all about what Rascher had been doing prior to the time you let him go?
A No, Unfortunately, I know nothing of it. I trusted him. I had confidence that the work was being done according to my policy. Otherwise I should have been only too happy to interfere. I am most unhappy that I did not know of it.
Q You never told Doctor Daniels that Rascher's experiments ought to be stopped?
A Tell me more precisely what Daniels' connection was with this?
Q Do you recall telling Doctor Daniels that Rascher's experiments ought to be stopped?
A No. I cannot remember any connection with Doctor Daniels.
Q Did you know a man named Sievers, "Standartenfuehrer Sievers," S-i-e-v-e-r-s?
A I have just found out about him, from the documents; I found out that he was a Standartenfuehrer who, as far as I know, was the liason man with the SS in Munich. But previously, I had known nothing of him personally, nor had I even known his name.
Q Did you ever hear of the Ahnenerbe Society?
A I knew that there was an Ahnenerbe Society. I knew that it represented the party in all questions of that nature. But since I had as little to do as possible with party matters because they were alien to me, and I believed that during the war, we soldiers had other tasks. For this reason I did not concern myself with these problems, but I do know the concept or the term, "Ahnenerbe."
Q I have here a memorandum which Doctor Sievers made on 4 February 1943. If Your Honors please, we will give this the number, 129. It is Document No. 238. It is dated "Berlin-Dahlem, 4 February 1943, Secret, Ahnenerbe, Reich Business Manager." I might say that Wolfram Sievers who is the author of this document was the business manager, a Standartenfue hrer in the SS, and presently upstairs.
"Subject: SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher.
"Out letter of 12-1-43 to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General of Waffen-SS, Wolff.
"File Number 19/10/43g.
"Conversation on 29-1-43 with SS-Oberstrumbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt.
"The Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke asked the SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher through his superior, Oberfeldarzt Doctor Daniels, for an immediate report about what he had been working on since he had been made available for new assignment. The Oberfeldarzt, Dr. Daniels, permitted SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Doctor Rascher to continue his experiments in Dachau. I suggested that SSHauptsturmfuehrer Doctor Rascher give a report approximately like this:
"'I am continuing the experiments which were assigned to me by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I considered my position as the first stop to the transfer to the Waffen-SS which was discussed by the Reichsfuehrer-SS and General Field Marshal Milch.'
"As I learned (Dr. Rascher knows nothing about this) Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Hippke said over the telephone (so that he probably could not be pinned down)-
They probably had the same trouble in those days.
"--when requesting the report; 'Rascher's experiments ought to be stopped now. It is impossible to go on like that. Now we will remove him very quickly to the East.' As SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher cannot continue his experiments at Dachau for the time being for well-known reasons it was agreed that he should go on 7 February 1943 to SS-Sturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel in Marburg. Due to the interference of Generaloberstabarzt Professor Doctor Hippke the process of admittance has become doubtful.
"1. Records.
"2. SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt.
"Personal Staff RESS with the request that measures be taken on the basis of the situation described in my letter of 12.1.43.
Sig. "Sievers "SS-Standartenfuehrer."
You can see there is a variance here.
A Oberfeldarzt Daniels was a medical officer in the staff to which Dr. Rascher belonged. There must have been discussions there. I myself, knew that after the report from Holzloehner and Finke, that Rascher was done with his experiments at the beginning of October. So at the time the conference took place in Nurnberg, all the experiments were concluded.
If there is mention here of subsequent experiments, then I know nothing about it because so far as I know, there were no further experiments. That I said at this time that experiments should be carried out only insofar as they were needed, and that can be substantiated. I did not give any instructions that he be transferred to the East. This is not the case because I know of no such plan to transfer him to the east. If that took place, it must have been a plan on the part of the Luftgau or perhaps by my personnel deputy who took care of such questions.
