#OpZion – Harvard Law School – Dachau Concentration Camp – Experiments on removal of effects due to freezing of parts of human system especially the extremities – women were used to rewarm the experimental subjects who had been frozen – a number of subjects who were frozen to death – the experimental subjects were cooled until they all lost consciousness – The test persons were then placed between two naked women in a spacious bed – It was noted that several of the subjects revived sufficiently to perform sexual intercourse – people who were opposed to experiments on human beings were to be considered as traitors


We now turn to Document No. 1612-PS, Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 79 [HLSL item 67], page 122, Your Honor, in the Document Book. This is a letter of Rudolf Brandt addressed to Doctor Rascher, Medical Officer in the SS Fuehrungshauptamt, Berlin, and to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of the WVHA, and to the Ahnenerbe Society:

“Enclosed I am sending you a letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS with an order for SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher.

“You are requested to duly note and accord needed assistance to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher in the carrying through of his experiments.

“SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher is being assigned by me to carry through the following experiments:

“1) Low pressure chamber experiments — to be carried out under conditions corresponding to those actually prevailing under normal operating conditions — for rescue from high and extremely high altitudes. Determination of changes in chemical equilibrium, as well as gas equilibrium of human body. Experiments are to be repeated until a scientifically incontestable basis for findings is established. Testing of pressure proof protection garments for the highest altitudes to be carried out with the assistance of manufacturers of such protective suit[s].

“2) Tests for reimparting warmth after total chilling of the human body recording all changes of chemical and gas characteristics — are to be further continued until complete clarification of doubtful questions. I attach particular value to conditions for experiments coming as close to actual conditions as possible, quite particularly as regards reimpartation of warmth. Sauna equipment available in Dachau should be used in connection with experiments on reimpartation of warmth.

“3) Experiments on removal of effects due to freezing of parts of human system especially the extremities, to be carried through in suitable form (e.g. applications with Gastein water).

“4) Experiments concerned with adaptation to freezing cold in snow huts (igloos) to be carried out under varying diets in order to establish whether adaptation to cold and resistance increase against freezing is possible. These experiments are to be carried out on the site of SS-Berghaus Sudelfeld.

“5) The procurement of the apparatus needs for all the experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reichsarzt-SS, Main Office for Economics and Administration and with the Ahnenerbe. The necessary chemical products, medical supplies and glass ware will be made available by the SS Medical Office, Berlin.

“6) Publication of results obtained in such tests subject to my approval only”.

Signed “H. Himmler”.

We are now at the end of the presentation of documentary evidence on the High Altitude Experiments. We will, of course, have a witness on the High Altitude Experiments, and who will be called tomorrow morning.

Now, Mr. McHaney will proceed with the presentation of the Freezing Experiments.

MR. McHANEY: Your Honors should have before you English Document Book No. 3, which contains substantially all the Exhibits which we will present on the Freezing Experiments carried out at the Dachau Concentration Camp in the Fall and Winter of 1942, and during part of 1943.

The first Document will be NO 242, and which will be Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 80 [HLSL item 1488]. This is an affidavit signed by the defendant Rudolf Brandt, setting forth his knowledge concerning the Freezing Experiments. It reads as follows:

“I, Rudolf Emil Hermann Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:

“1. I am the same Rudolf Brandt who has heretofore sworn to an affidavit on the 30th day of August, 1946, concerning certain low pressure experiments performed on human beings at the Dachau Concentration Camp.

“2. For the same reason set forth in paragraph 1,2, and 3, of my affidavit of 30 August, 1946, I am able to make this statement concerning freezing experiments performed on human beings.


“3. In the late spring of 1942, Field Marshall Milch of the Luftwaffe in a letter to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Karl Wolff (Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS), authorized the freezing experiments on human beings. Oberstabsarzt A.G. Weltz was ordered to make these experiments and Rascher was to assist him. Milch expressed his thanks to the SS for their cooperation with the Supreme Command of the Luftwaffe in conducting the low pressure experiments. To the best of my recollection, Rascher wrote Himmler a few weeks later to the effect that General Oberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. Hippke had requested freezing experiments to be carried out on concentration camp inmates at Dachau. Rascher requested that Himmler approve the pardon of several inmates at Dachau who had assisted him in performing autopsies on guinea pigs who were killed during the course of the low pressure experiments.

“4. The Luftwaffe was interested in having the cooling experiments conducted because of the fact that a number of German aviators were forced to parachute into the North Sea and consequently were sometimes subjected to extreme cold for extended periods of time. The purpose of the freezing experiments was to learn the most effective way of rewarming such aviators, thereby saving their lives.

“5. The freezing experiments were begun in August 1942 and Rascher submitted a preliminary report in September 1942. The test-persons were partially submerged in ice water to lower their body temperature. This report stated that some of the experimental subjects were killed as a result of the experiments. Rascher attempted to revive the frozen subjects by rapid rewarming with hot water. He stated that rewarming by animal heat had not yet been utilized but that he thought it would be too slow.

“6. Himmler acknowledged receipt of this report late in September and ordered Rascher to explore the effectiveness of rewarming by animal heat. A copy of this letter was sent to Sievers with a request for acknowledgment.

“7. As a result of Himmler’s request that animal warmth be used as one of the methods of rewarming in the course of the experiments, Rascher made a request that a number of women be supplied for this purpose. I know that women were supplied to Rascher and that they were used to rewarm the experimental subjects who had been frozen.

“8. In October 1942 Rascher submitted the final report on the freezing experiments performed at Dachau. This report did not contain the results of a series of experiments with drugs and with animal body heat which were then still being conducted. It was also noted that the report did not contain the microscopic pathological examinations of the brain tissues of the deceased. This report was signed by Prof. Dr. E. Holzloehner, Dr. Sigmund Rascher and Dr. E. Finke. Data was submitted concerning a number of subjects who were frozen to death.

“9. Himmler acknowledged receipt of this report; a copy of the l[e]tter being sent to Karl Wolff. He stated that a copy of the report had been sent to Field Marshal Milch of the Luftwaffe and went on to state that he expected reports regarding the use of animal heat in reviving the frozen subjects. He further asked Rascher to submit the names of people who were opposed to experiments on human beings and stated that such people were to be considered as traitors. Later on Himmler had a conference with Rascher concerning the experiments and during November he visited Dachau in order to observe personally the experiments.

“10. It should be noted that some jealousy arose among Rascher and his collaborators as a result of the low pressure and freezing experiments. Sievers was of the opinion that Holzloehner was attempting to receive credit for the cold experiments and that the same had been done by Dr. Ruff with regard to the low pressure experiments. For this reason, Sievers suggested to Himmler that it would be wisest if Rascher were taken over entirely into the SS and away from the Luftwaffe so that his work can be carried out under the sole auspices of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Ahnenerbe Institute. As a result of this, Himmler wrote a letter to Field Marshal Milch in November 1942, requesting that Rascher be discharged from the Luftwaffe and transferred to the Waffen SS. Himmler stated that he would assume also responsibility for experimentation on human beings.

“11. In the late fall of 1942, Rascher asked for permission to carry out tests on habituation to cold at the Medical Research Station for Mountain Troops at St. Johann and at the SS Mountain House in Bayrischzell where concentration camp inmates would be available for experiments. The purpose of these experiments was to have people live in igloos and to test various types of diet and clothing.

“12. Himmler wrote to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Oswald Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, regarding his visit to Dachau in November 1942 at which time he had observed the freezing experiments. He informed Pohl that he had ordered that suitable women be set aside for the purpose of warming up the experimental subjects.

“13. Rascher had still not been released from the Luftwaffe as late as January 1943 and no answer had been received from Milch in reply to the formal request made by Himmler in November 1942. Sievers was concerned about this delay because Rascher was planning to make certain experiments on the effect of dry cold on human beings and since it was thought that these could not be started prior to Rascher’s transfer, Sievers was becoming concerned least the transfer be delayed beyond the cold season. I know that Sievers was in touch with Wolff on several occasions and urged him to expedite the transfer. Wolff was serving as the liaison between Himmler and Milch in this matter.

“14. Himmler had asked Rascher to submit a short memorandum of advice to soldiers as to the best method of rewarming after a severe chilling. This memorandum was submitted to Reichsarzt SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz; and he listed certain objections on the ground that Rascher’s researches were based only on exposure to wet cold and not to dry cold. Therefore, Grawitz recommended further experimentation upon the effects of rewarming by hot water persons subjected to dry cold. Sievers became very excited at the intervention of Dr. Grawitz and immediately raised objections against his gaining control of the experiments. Sievers was also incensed by a report of a conference between Grawitz, Rascher, and Obersturmbannfuehrer Poppendick, in which Rascher quoted Grawitz as having said that it was an untenable state of affairs that a non-physician such as Sievers should have jurisdiction over medical matters.

“15. Sievers continued his efforts to have Rascher transferred from the Luftwaffe and suggested that Himmler have Rascher attached to Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Pfannenstiel’s Department in Marburg.

“16. In February 1943, Rascher submitted his report on experiments with animal heat. In the same letter, he stated that he had carried out intense chilling experiments on 30 human beings by leaving them outdoors naked from 9 to 14 hours. Rascher suggested that further experiments with dry cold be transferred to Auschwitz because it was colder there and the greater extent of open country within the camp would make the experiments less conspicuous as the experimental subjects screamed with pain when severely frozen. The report on the rewarming of intensely chilled human being[s] by animal warmth stated that the experimental subjects were cooled until they all lost consciousness. The test persons were then placed between two naked women in a spacious bed. It was noted that several of the subjects revived sufficiently to perform sexual intercourse.

“17. I wrote Rascher acknowledging receipt of the aforementioned report and stated that further experiments with dry cold should be made at Auschwitz or Lublin. A copy of this letter was sent to Pohl, who was to order the carrying out of the experiments at Lublin or Auschwitz.

“18. The efforts to release Rascher from the Luftwaffe were intensified. Hippke had apparently heard the criticism of the SS that Rascher had not been given full cooperation by the Luftwaffe; and he defended himself against the accusation that he had not enthusiastically supported the experiments performed on human beings. He indicated that he would be willing to approve of Rascher’s release from the Luftwaffe if Rascher himself made the request. Hippke pointed out that the difficulties about which there was some complaint were caused not because of any disapproval of experiments on human beings, but because of the personal vanities of the various doctors involved, in that each one apparently wanted to take personal credit. Rascher himself was criticized in that respect.

“19. Rascher defended himself in a letter to me against this slur of Hippke’s and added that he had made further tests on the resuscitation of human beings who were frozen by dry cold during a period of heavy frost. The experimental subjects were kept naked outdoors for 14 hours at freezing temperatures. A complete report on this subject was sent to Himmler in April 1943. I acknowledged receipt of this report in a letter to Rascher and according to orders advised him to get in touch with Prof. Gebhardt at Hohenlychen, to whom Himmler had sent the aforesaid report. Rascher was also directed to send a copy of the report to Grawitz.

“(Signed) R. Brandt.”

This rather long and detailed affidavit, your Honors, tends to give you a rather full picture in one place of the experiments conducted on freezing at Dachau. You will see in the exhibits which will come in later a great many of the documents which are referred to in the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt.

The next document will be Document NO-448, and is Prosecution Exhibit 81 [HLSL item 1760]. This is an affidavit signed by the defendant Becker-Freyseng; and your Honors will recall that Becker-Freyseng was from the latter part of 1941 until the end of the war attached to the Department for Aviation Medicine in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.

The affidavit reads as follows:

“I, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, being duly sworn, depose and state:

“1. I was born on 18 July 1910 in Ludwigshafen. I studied medicine at Universities of Heidelberg, Innsbruck, and Berlin. In the summer of 1940 I joined the Luftwaffe. At first I was an Unterarzt with a Flyer Selection Group.

“2. In August 1941 I was transferred to Berlin and became an assistant to Anthony who was Chief of the Referat, Aviation Medicine. This department dealt with all questions concerning aviation medicine and reported to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. We consulted with scientists about aviation medical problems and saw to it that the results of their work were applied to a practical use. We received reports from such scientists, flight surgeons institutes, and consulting surgeons and doctors of the Luftwaffe. I saw reports from Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, although he was working primarily for the Hygiene Referat under Dr. Siegfried Atmer. Generalarzt Gerhardt Rose was perhaps the most important figure in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe as far as hygienic problems were concerned.

“3. The Aviation Medicine Referat had the letter designation “2 II B” when I was attached to that office in August 1941. This designation stood for “Abteilung 2, Gruppe II, Referat B.” In the winter of 1942-43, the letter designation of the Aviation Medicine Referat was changed to “2F”, as I recall. It remained “2 F” until about January 1944 when it became known as “2 II A”. The work of the office was the same during all of this time; and the change in letter designation merely reflected reorganization of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.”

Now, your Honors may wonder what the significance of these letter designations of the Officer for Aviation Medicine in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe is; but you will see on some of the documents to be introduced at a later stage in the trial that these letters, these letter designations, will appear on some of the documents and they will have considerable significance with regard to the case against Becker-Freyseng and also Mr. Schroeder because they will indicate that this office, the Office for Aviation Medicine, was concerned with particular matters stated in that letter.

I just would like to sum up: When we see the letter designation “2 II B” o[r] “2 F” or “2 II A,” we know that it is referring to the Department of Aviation Medicine in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and that it is in effect the same department that Becker-Freyseng was attached to through the whole period in which we are interested, succeeding in May, he says, of 1944 as chief of the department and prior to that time as chief assistant to Anthony.

“4. When I first joined the Luftwaffe, Hippke was Chief of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Inspekteur des Luftwaffe Sanitaetswesens). Schroeder, at that time, was Chief Medical Officer of Air Fleet 2 and held the rank of Generalstabsarzt. Schroeder held the highest rank in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe other than Hippke. Schroeder became Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe in January 1944.

“5. At the Nurnberg Conference held in October 1942, Dr. Holzloehner gave a report on the freezing experiments conducted at Dachau in cooperation with Dr. Rascher. Anthony was Chairman of the meeting. As a result of Holzloehner’s report and others given at the conference, we issued instructions to Flight Surgeons that the warm bath method was to be used in reviving aviators who had been severely chilled. I knew that prior to the Nurnberg Conference Holz[l]oehner was experimenting with Rascher in Dachau on freezing problems. I also knew that Ruff and Romberg had conducted certain low pressure experiments at Dachau in cooperation with Rascher. It was fairly well known that these men were experimenting on concentration camp inmates. Dr. Kalk told me that he had seen Rascher in Milch’s office at the RLM, and we were both very surprised at this.”

Dr. Kalk, your Honors, as you will probably not recall, appeared on the chart which we submitted in evidence showing the organization of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. He was a consulting physician or hygienist, as I recall.

“6. After Dr. Rostock took his position under Dr. Karl Brandt, he was possibly the highest authority on science and research in Germany. All branches of the armed forces reported experiments and research to him and he summarized the reports and gave them to Brandt for approval. Handloser, as Chief of the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, also had to be entirely familiar with the research work which was being conducted by the Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe. We were ordered to report to these men all research assignments of scientists working for us so that duplication of work could be eliminated.

“(Signed) Hermann Becker-Freyseng.”

I may say that the defendant Becker-Freyseng was certainly in a position to know whereof he speaks since it was the Department for Aviation Medicine which assigned a great number of the research tasks in the Luftwaffe.

Now, your Honors, the next documents appearing on Pages 10 and 11 of the document book are simply inserted as a matter of convenient reference for the Tribunal. The document on Page 11, you will remember, was submitted this morning; and it is the letter from Milch to Dr. Wolff, stating that “Major Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain Rascher will be made available until further orders” to carry out the freezing experiments at Dachau.

JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, can you tell me quickly what exhibit that is?

MR. McHANEY: That is Exhibit 62, your Honor.

JUDGE SEBRING: Thank you. Which one, Mr. McHaney, is 62?

MR. McHANEY: That is the second letter, dated May 20, 1942. If your Honor please, both of these documents were originally registered as 343-PS. We changed the registration to 343A-PS and 343B-PS in order that we could split them up and submit them at different points in the trial because we thought the presentation was benefitted by that process.

MR. McHANEY: The next exhibit will be Decumont NO 283 and this is Prosecution Exhibit 82 [HLSL item 1563]. The Tribunal may wish to see this document. It is the first page of a letter — this is Prosecution Exhibit 82. The Tribunal may wish to look at the exhibit. Its the first page of a letter apparently written by Dr. Rascher to Heinrich Himmler. The exhibit itself contains only the first page. We do not have the following pages or the page containing the signature of Rascher. However, as you can see on the translation the first page does contain the letterhead “Dr. Medicine Sigmund Rascher.[“] The letter is dated 15 June 1942.

“Esteemed Reichsfuehrer!

“A few days ago I was ordered to a conference with the Inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Service Generaloberstabsarzt, Professor Dr. Hippke. When I told him that you had not yet received the report concerning the experiments as a whole, and that you still had to give permission for the reporting of the results, he did not ask for any report. The Inspector was extraordinarily kind and asked me, as liaison man with the SS, to express to you, esteemed Reichsfuehrer, his private thanks for the experiments.

“At the same time, he asked for permission to carry out the cold and water experiments in Dachau, and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments:

“Professor Dr. Jarisch, of the University of Innsbruck,

“Professor Dr. Holzloehner, of Kiel, as well as the Luftwaffe-pathologist

“Professor Dr. Singer, of Schwabing Hospital. (I know Professor Singer personally very well). The inspector designated the experiments as extraordinarily important, as we must count on another winter in the East.

“Later during the discussion I was asked to inquire of you, esteemed Reichsfuehrer, whether the Gestapo can investigate whether the above-mentioned gentlemen are politically unexceptionable.

“It was also decided that the Inspector would issue orders to me at all times during the experiments. The Inspector said that he would prefer to approve long-term assignments rather than to free me from the Luftwaffe, as he needed me.

“The water experiments can be started immediately, ….”

MR. McHANEY: And there the translation discontinues because we don’t have the following page of the letter. An interesting thing to note in connection with this letter, is firstly, the date 15 June 1942 at which time the low-pressure experiments at Dachau were still in process. You will recall that the final report on the low-pressure experiments was dated 28 July 1942 and it is also interesting to note of Rascher’s personal conference with Hippke, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that a considerable number, if not all of the Luftwaffe defendants in this case, will tell the Tribunal that this was simply an SS matter. The experiments perhaps occurred but they were under the jurisdiction of the Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler and that he was a man of such great power that they could raise no voice against him. I think it has been amply demonstrated already that this is not the case; such as they will describe it: that these experiments were the result of cooperation between the SS and the Luftwaffe and that they would have not been possible without such cooperation, but here we see that Rascher has a personal conference with Hippke and mentions the names of some of his collaborators[,] Drs. Jarisch, Holzloehner and Singer who actually did collaborate in the experiments which began on the 15 August 1942. We come now to Document NO 234 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 83 [HLSL item 1466]. The letter again from Rascher to Heinrich Himmler dated 10 September 1942 and it indicates that the experiments had already started and attached to it is a report, an Intermediate Report on the Intense Chilling Experiments in Dachau, started on 15 August 1942. No, your Honors, I am in error there. The Report will go in under a separate exhibit number. Letter dated 10 September 1942:

“My dear Reichsfuehrer:

“May I submit in the enclosure the first intermediary report about the freezing experiments.

“In the beginning of October a meeting on the subject of freezing experiments is to take place. Professer Dr. Holzloehner, participating in our Dachau experiments on behalf of the Luftwaffe, wants to give on this occasion an account of the results of our experiments. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer SIEVERS, who surveyed the experiments in Dachau last week, believed that if any report was to be made at a meeting, I should be called upon to submit the report. A discussion with other experts on freezing experiments would surely be very valuable. I therefore request your decision.

“1.) Can a report be made elsewhere before the oral report has been submitted to you, my Reichsleader,

“2.) Is my participation in the conference on the subject of the freezing experiments of the Luftwaffe, ordered by you, my Reichsleader?

“I will take care that the report is submitted in the appropriate manner due to a top Secret matter.” Signed “Rascher.”

MR. McHANEY: The next document 1618 PS [HLSL item 2560] is the intermediate report mentioned in the Prosecution’s Exhibit 83. 1618 PS will be Prosecution Exhibit 84:

“Intermediate report on Intense Chilling Experiments in the Dachau Concentration Camp, started on 15 August 1942.

Experimental procedure.

“The experimental subjects were placed in the water, dressed in complete flying uniform, winter or summer combination, and with an aviator’s helmet. A life jacket ma[d]e of rubber or kapok was to prevent submerging. The experiments were carried out at water temperatures varying from 2.5 degrees to 12 degrees centigrade. In one experimental series, OCCIPUT and brain stem prot[r]uded above the water, while in another series of experiments the OCCIPUT, (brain stem) and back of the head were submerged in water.

“Electrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4 degrees in the stomac[h] and 26.5 degrees in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only when the brain stem and the back of the head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal cases always revealed large amounts of free blood, up to 1/2 Liter, in the cranial cavity. The heart invariabl[y] showed extreme dilation of the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these experiments reached 28 degrees, the experimental subjects died invariabl[y], despite all attempts at resuscitation. The above discussed a[ut]opsy finding conclusively proved the importance of a warming protective device for head and OCCIPUT when designing the planned protective clothing of the foam type.

“Other important findings, common in all experiments, to be mentioned. Marked increase of the viscosity of the blood, marked increase of hemoglobin, an appro[x]imate five-fold increase of the leukocytes, invariable rise of blood sugar to twice its normal value. Aricular fibrillation made its appearance regularly at 30 degrees.

“During attempts to save severely chilled persons, it was shown that rapid re-warming was in all cases preferable to slow re-warming, because after removal from the cold water, the body temperature continued to sin[k] rapidly. I think that for this reason we can dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by means of animal heat.

“Re-warming by animal warmth–animal bodies or women’s bodies–would be too slow. As auxiliary measures for the prevention of intense chilling, improvements in the clothing of aviators come alone into consideration. The foam suit with suitable neck protector which is being prepared by the German Institution for Textile Research, Munich-Gladbach, deserves first priority in this connection. The experiments have shown that pharmaceutical measures are probably unnecessary if the flier is still alive at the time of rescue.

MR. McHANEY: Here again, your Honors, in this set of experiments we find that they are continued until certain of the subjects died. The document itself clearly reveals that a number of persons were killed in the early stages of the experiments.

THE PRESIDENT: The tribunal will be recessed.

[(]A recess was taken)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

MR. McHANEY: We had come to document 1611 PS which will be Prosecution Exhibit 83 [i.e., 85] [HLSL item 2543].


MR. McHANEY: You are right, Your Honor, — 85. This is a letter from Heinrich Himmler to Dr. Rascher, dated 22 September, 1942:

“I have received the intermediate report on the subcooling experiments in Camp Dachau.”

That refers to the report which I have just read and which is Prosecution Exhibit 84. I will continue.

“D[e]spite everything, I would so arrange the experiments that all possibilities, prompt warming, medicine, body warming will be executed in positive experiment orders.

Signed: H. Himmerl [i.e., Himmler].”

That last paragraph is perhaps a little garbled, Your Honors, but the meaning is quite clear. You will recall that in the intermediate report Rascher had made the statement that he thought that they could dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by means of animal heat. Now in this letter which is Prosecution Exhibit 85 Himmler is in effect ordering Rascher to exhaust all possibilities of re-warming, including body warming, as he puts it, of animal heat. A copy of this letter, it can be seen, went to Sievers, with a request for acknowledgement, and there apparently are not initials on that. However it indicated Lieutenant Colonel, and presumably the letter was forwarded to Rudolf Brandt in the office of Heinrich Himmler, and the Court will recall too that about this time Dr. Rascher was attached to the Ahnenerbe Society, which is an Institute for Scientific Research, and consequently a copy of this letter, which in effect was an order to Rascher, was sent to his superior, the defendant Sievers.

The next document is NO 285, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 86 [HLSL item 1570]. It is also a letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt. The letter is ad[d]ressed to “Most Honored Obersturmbannfuehrer”, and is not ad[d]ressed by name to the defendant, Rudolf Brandt. The Prosecution takes the position that the letter was in fact addressed to the defendant, Rudolf Brandt. His title at that time was an SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, which is an equivalent rank of Lieutenant Colonel. The letter is dated 3 October, 1942:

“First of all I want to thank you very much for the “Glass Ocean.” That apparently refers to a painting.” My wife and myself are very happy to possess now a complete set of these books.” It was not a painting. “I have already read the book with great interest.

“The Reichsfuehrer-SS wants to be informed of the state of the experiments. I can announce that the experiments have been con[c]luded, with the exception of these on warming with body heat. The final report will be ready in about 5 days. Professor Holzlo[e]hner, for reasons that I cannot fathom, does not himself want to make the report to the Reichsfuehrer and has asked me to attend to it. This report must be made before 20 October, because the great Luftwaffe conference on freezing takes place in Nuernberg on 25 October. The report on the results of our research must be made there, to assure that they can be used in time for the troops. May I ask you to arrange for a decision from the Reichsfuehrer regarding the final report to him, and the submission to him of the relevant material?

“Today I received your letter of 22 September 42, in which the Reichsfuehrer orders that the experiments on warming through body heat must absolutely be conducted.”

That is the letter which has come in as Prosecution Exhibit 85.

“Because of incomplete address it was delayed. Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to send a telegram to the camp commander immediately, to the effect that 4 gypsy women be procured at once from another camp.”

Your Honors would appreciate the fact that the concentration camp Dachau was reserved almost exclusively for men.

“Moreover, I asked SS Ober-sturmbannfuehrer Sievers to take steps to have the low-pressure chamber ready for use.

“The report to General Field Marshal Milch planned for 11 September could not be made, as you have discovered, because he was prevented from attending, and no representative was commissioned to receive it. As the Reichsfuehrer had not empowered me to report to anyone in the Reich Air Ministry, I abstained from making the report, which rather nettled the gentlemen of the Medical Inspectorate. I immediately informed Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers.

For the time being the report is being held as a Military Secret at the German Experimental Institute for Aviation together with a distribution list prepared by the Reich Air Ministry. The distribution of the copies, however, has not yet taken place, because, as I said, the report has not yet been made to Milch. I assume that you were informed of this whole business long ago. What shall we do now?

“I wish to enclose a letter of thanks to the Reichsfuehrer from the former prisoner Neff. At the same time I should like to thank you very much for your efforts; and let me beg you, should opportunity offer, to convey to the Reichsfuehrer my most sincere thanks for his granting of this request. I did not write to the Reichsfuehrer in person, in order not to make any further demands on his valuable time.

With best wishes and Heil Hitler! Yours most sincerely, S. Rascher.”

Your Honors are particularly concerned about whether or not this letter was addressed to the defendant, Rudolf Brandt, which I am rather sure he would not deny. You may refer to paragraph 6 and 7 of his affidavit, which has gone in as Exhibit No. 80, and he therein states substantially the facts which are revealed in this letter. I would also like to point out in referring back to the high altitude experiments that the next to the last paragraph in this letter deals with that subject, and of particular interest is the language stating that for the time being the report is being held as a military secret at the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, and that institute, of course, was the one to which defendants Ruff and Romberg were attached.

Your Honors will recall that when they presented the final report on the high altitude experiments it was found with the letter from Ruff and Romberg that Himmler sends three copies, two, three and four. Now that is significant, because as it states here the distribution list was prepared by the Reich Air Ministry, which indicates that these experiments were well known on the highest level of the medical service of the Luftwaffe, including Erhardt Milch himself, Secretary of State for Air.

The reference to the former prisoner Neff is to one of the concentration camp inmates, who was an active assistant to Rascher during the low pressure and freezing experiments, and it certainly does not refer to any concentration camp inmates who was the subject of these experiments. Consequently, it is not to be construed as any evidence of amnesty to an experimental subject.

Document 1619 PS will be Prosecution Exhibit 87 [HLSL item 2562] and is a telegram from the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, which is what we normally call the RSHA, and the Gestapo was a part of that organization. The telegram is signed, “Weiss”, who apparently was the Camp Commandant at Dachau. The telegram is addressed to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Rudolf Brandt, and states that the Kommandant of the Concentration Camp Dachau asks to instruct the Amtsgruppenchef SS Brigadefuehrer Cliecks, to send from Ravensbruck to Dachau the four women wanted by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher for his experiments, according to instructions given by the Reichsfuehrer SS.

Raven[s]bruck, Your Honors, was a concentration camp which [c]on[t]ained almost exclusively female inmates.

The next exhibit is Document 1619-PS and will be Prosecution Exhibit 88. I am in error, Your Honors, both the telegram which I have just read and the teletype which follows are included as Document [1619]-PS and both have gone into the record as Exhibit 87 [HLSL item 2562].

This is a teletype to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, Oranienburg. It states: “SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt asks you to give instructions for the four women ordered by the Reichsfuehrer-SS to be put at the disposal of Dr. Rascher to be sent from Ravensbruck to Dachau.”

If Your Honor please, the next document in the English Document Books is on page 21. It’s Document NO-295 [HLSL item 1601] and is in fact the same as the second telegram in Document 1610-PS, consequently, it will not be put in. It’s simply a case of the same document being picked up at two different sources and being registered with two different numbers here in Nuernberg. It is, in fact, the same document.

We come now to a very interesting letter, which is Document NO-286 and this will be Prosecution Exhibit 88 [HLSL item 1574]. This letter is from Anthony of the Department for Aviation Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. It is directed to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Heinrich Himmler, and it informs him about a Luftwaffe meeting of doctors which is to be held in October in Nuernberg, and that questions concerning freezing are to be discussed there.

It is important here to look at the letter designations appearing in the first part of this letter, and I will ask Your Honors to recall the affidavit of the defendant Becker-Freyseng in that regard. You will remember that he stated, when he first went into the Department for Aviation Medicine in the Luftwaffe in 1941, that it carried the letter designations and organization designation of 2 II B, and that shortly sometime thereafter, it changed to 2 F and then to 2 II A. We see here the letter designation 2 II B after the letters L.I. 14, which is Luftwaffe Inspectorate 14, which is a medical service of the Luftwaffe.

“Subject: Research order on Freezing.

“Reference:” — Then follows a series of letters, the meaning of all of which I do not know. It says “D.R.d.L.” I don’t know the meaning of that. Then comes “and Ob.d.L.” That means Oberkommando der Luftwaffe. Then “Ch.d.Luftwaffen L.In. 14”, I think, means Chief of the Luftwaffen Inspectorate 14, who at that time was Erich Hippke. Then immediately under that you see again the letter characters “2 II B” — which refers to the Department for Aviation Medicine, the chief of which was Anthony, the author of this letter, and his chief assistant was the defendant Becker-Freyseng. The letter reads:

“The Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe has given an order for research to the Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner, reference above, dated 24 February 1942, for work on the following problem: ‘The effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects’.”

Now I’d like to pause again, Your Honors, and emphasize the meaning of that short paragraph. It states that the order has been given for research to Holzloehner, who collaborated with Rascher in these freezing experiments. “Reference above” — and the reference is to reference No. 1 dated 24 February 42, as there carried in the reference, and the Department for Aviation Medicine 2 II B appears very clearly, indicating that that research order came through the Department for Aviation Medicine and that the defendant Becker-Freyseng was in that office at that time.

“At the proposal of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher appropriate examinations were made of human beings, and in agreement with the Reichsfuehrer-SS suitable SS facilities were used for the examinations.

“In order to carry out these examinations, a research group ‘Hardships at Sea’ was set up, consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as leader and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke.

“The leader of this research group reported that the examinations have been concluded.

“It is intended to dissolve the research group at the latest by 15 October 1942.

“The research documents and an extensive report will be presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. It is requested that the originals or copies of the report and of the documents be put at the disposal of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.

“It is intended to make the results, in the form of an extract, accessible to experts at a conference which will take place in Nurnberg on 26 and 27 October 1942.

The daily schedule of the conference is enclosed.

“The SS Central Office, Medical Department has been invited to this discussion by letter, dated 30 September 1942”.

I would like to state in that connection that if my memory serves me correctly that the — I beg your pardon, the reference must be there to the department run by Dr. Grawitz. I was about to say that the defendant Genzken however — his office, as I recall, was attached to the SS Fuehrungshauptamt, which is the operational headquarters of the Waffen SS, and the reference here is to the SS Central Office to which Grawitz’ Office was attached.

“It is further requested to abstain from forwarding the documents and the report to other non-medical offices”.

It is there signed: “By order Wullen. True copy”. Signature: “Anthony”.

The rest of the letter simply gives the date and place of the meeting, which was held in the Deutsche Hof in Nurnberg on the 26 and 27 of October 1942, and it also gives the agenda of the meeting. And Your Honor will see that it is dealing exclusively with problems of cold.

I call your attention to Page 24 of the Document Book to the note that Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz is also to speak on freezing problems at the same meeting.

The next exhibit will be Document NO-225 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 89 [HLSL item 1324]. This is a letter from Sigmund Rascher to Himmler dated October 16, 1942.

“Very honored Reichsfuehrer:

“By order of the Chief of LIN 14 of the Reich Air Ministry, I have been ordered to submit an oral report concerning the most recent Dachau work to you very honored Reichsfuehrer SS.

“Since your time does not permit it, I herewith request most obediently that you approve the release of the results of those experiments.

“At the same time I beg you kindly to let the Adjutant’s Office, Reichsfuehrer-SS in Munich, have a decision concerning the matter, by teletype, as the report is to be utilized on the occasion of the Luftwaffe conference of 25 October ’42 dealing with cold experiments. This date is urgent, for the reason that countermeasures must be taken against freezing of airmen. Signed: Rascher”.

Document 1916-PS will be Prosecution Exhibit 90 [not in HLSL]. This also is a letter from Dr. Rascher, [to] the Reichsfuehrer dated 16 October ’42.

“Permit me to submit the attached final report on the super-cooling experiments performed at Dachau. This report does not contain the course and results of a series of experiments with drugs as well as experiments with animal body heat which are now being conducted. Likewise, this report does not contain the microscopic pathological examinations of the brain tissues of the deceased. I was surprised at the extraordinary microscopic findings in this field. I will carry out experiments before the start of the conference in which the effects of cooling will be discussed and I hope to be able to present further results by that time. My two co-workers left Dachau about eight days ago.

“In the hope that you, highly esteemed Reichsfuehrer, will be able to spare a quarter of an hour to listen to an oral report, I remain, with the most obedient regard and Heil Hitler! Yours respectfully, Rascher”.

We come now to the final report on the cooling experiments on living human persons at Dachau. This is Document NO-428 and it will be Prosecution Exhibit 91 [HLSL item 1711].

This report is rather long, Your Honors, and while I do wish to read a number of excerpts from it, there are several things which I think we can omit, although I am sure that you will wish to study the report in full.

On page 29 they give the problem of the experiment and I think it would be well for me to here read that excerpt, as well as the general procedure of the experiment, and also some excerpts on their clinical findings. And, I will also call your attention to a certain exhibit, or a certain appendix attached to the report.

“I. Problem of the Experiment.

“Up to the present time there has been no basis for the treatment of shipwrecked persons who have been exposed for long periods of time to low water temperatures. These uncertainties extended to the possible physical and pharmacological methods of attack. It was not clear, for example, whether those who had been rescued should be warmed quickly or slowly. According to the current instructions for treating frozen people, a slow warming up seemed to be indicated. Certain theoretical considerations could be adduced for a slow warming. Well-founded suggestions were missing for a promising medicinal therapy.

“All these uncertainties rested in the last analysis upon the absence of well-founded concepts concerning the cause of death by cold in human beings. In the meantime, in order to clarify this question, a series of animal experiments were started. And, indeed, those officials who wished to make definite suggestions to the doctors in the sea rescue service had to assume a great deal of responsibility if it came to a question of convincing and consistent results in these animal experiments. At this particular point it is especially difficult to carry the findings in animals over into the human field. In the warm-blooded, one finds a varied degree of development in the heat regulating mechanism. Besides this, the processes in the skin of the pelted animals cannot be carried over to man.

II. General procedure of the Experiment.

The effect of water temperatures of 2 [degrees], 3 [degrees], to 12 [degrees] C were investigated. A tank 2 x 2 x 2 m. served as an experimental basin. The water temperature was attained by addition of ice, and remained constant during the experiment. The experimental subjects were generally dressed in equipment such as the flyer wears, consisting of underclothing, uniform, a one piece summer or winter protective suit, helmet and aviators fur lined boots. In addition they wore a lifepreserver of rubber or kapok. The effect of additional protective clothing against water-cold was tested in a special series of experiments, and in another series the cooling of the unclothed person was studied.

The bodily warmth was measured thermoelectrically. Following preliminary experiments in which gastric temperatures were measured, by a Thermic sound, we adopted the procedure of continuously registering rectally the body temperature. Parallel with this the recording of the skin temperatures was undertaken. The point of measurement was the skin of the back at the level of the fifth thoracic vertebral process. The thermoelectrical measurements were controlled before, during, and after the experiments by thermometric test of the cheek and rectal temperature.

In severe cooling, checking of the pulse is difficult. The pulse becomes weaker, the musculature become stiff, and shivering sets in. Auscultation during the experiment by means of a tube stethoscope fastened over the tip of the heart proved effective. The tubes were led out of the uniform and made possible the continuous listening to the heart during the stay in the water.

Electrocardiographic controls were not possible in the water. After removal from the water they were possible only in those cases in which a too severe muscle shivering did not disturb the electrocardiograph records.

The following chemical studies were carried out: following up of the blood sugar picture; the sodium chloride picture in the serum; the non-protein nitrogen; the alkali reserve; the alkali reserve of the venous and arterial blood and sedimentation rate (before and after the experiment). Besides this the general blood con[d]ition and viscosity were followed during the experiment, and before and after the experiment the restistance [sic] of the red blood cells and the protein content of the blood plasma were measured.

The following urinalyses were made regularly: sediment, albumen, sugar, sodium chloride, acetone, acetic acid, as well as qualitative albumen determination.

In part of the experiment lumbar and sub[o]ccipital punctrures were made as well as corresponding spinal fluid studies.

Among physical and therapeutic measures the following were tested:

a) Rapid warming by means of a hot bath, b) Warming by means of a light cradle, c) Warming in a heated sleeping bag, d) Vigorous massage of the whole body, e) Wrapping in covers, f) Diathermy of the heart.” …

On the following two pages, your Honors, certain charts and appendices have been inappropriately inserted in the middle of this document. They really belong at the back. The context of the document continues on page 34 of the English Document book.

“in addition the following drugs were given: Strophanthin i.v.; Cardiazol i.v. and i.c.; Lobelin and Coramin i.v. and i.c.. In other experiments alcohol or grape sugar was given.

A part of the experiments were begun under narcosis (8 cc. Evipan i.v.).”

Only part were done under narcosis.

The clinical picture of cooling I think worthwhile to read since it is clearly stated there was considerable pain and suffering during the course of these experiments.

“III. The clinical picture of cooling.

The clinical picture as well as the behavior of the body temperature showed certain regularities in the general course; the time of appearance of certain phenomena was, however, subject to very great individual variations. As one might expect, a good general physical condition delayed the cooling and the concomitant phenomena. Further differences were conditioned by the position of the subject in the water and the manner of clothing. Furthermore, differences showed up between experiments in which the subject lay horizontally in the water so that the nape of the neck and the back of the head were splashed with water, and others in which neck and head protruded freely out of the water.

Peculiarly, the actual water temperatures between 2 [degrees] C and 12 [degrees] C, had no demonstrable effect upon the rate of the cooling. Naturally such an effect must exist. But since besides the already mentioned individual differences and those due to experimental conditions, the various subjects cooled on different days at different rates of speed, the effect of the actual water temperatures between 2 [degrees] and 12 [degrees] disappears behind such variations.

If the experimental subject were placed in the water under narcosis, one observed a certain arousing effect. The subject began to groan and made some defensive movements. In a few cases a state of excitation developed. This was especially severe in the cooling of head and neck. But never was a complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The defensive movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a progressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the arm musculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to the body. The rigor increased with the continuation of the cooling, now and then interrupted by tonicclonic twitchings. With still more marked sinking of the body temperature it suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally, without any successful results from resuscitation efforts.

In the course of the narcosis experiments the evipan effect in a few cases went directly over into a cold narcosis; in other cases one could determine a transitory retur[n] of consciousness, immediately following the awakening effect already described; at any rate, the experimental subjects were dizzy. Cold pain was not expressed.

Experiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in the course of cooling. Upon entry into the water a severe cold shuddering appeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the head was felt as especially painful, but already after 5 to 10 minutes a significant weakening of the pain sensation was observable. Rigor developed after this time in the same manner as under narcosis, likewise the tonicclonic twitchings. At this point speech became difficult because the rigor also affected the speech musculature.

Simultaneously with the rigor a severe difficulty in breathing set in with or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to speak, an iron ring was placed about the chest. Objectively, already at the beginning of this breathing difficulty, a marked dilatition of the nostril occurred. The expiration was prolonged and visibly difficult. This difficulty passed over into a rattling and snoring breathing. However the breathing at this point was not especially deep as in Kussmaul’s breathing nor were any Cheyne-Stokes breathing or Biot’s breathing to be observed. Not in all subjects, but in a great number, a simultaneous hindering during this breathing through very profuse secretion of mucous could be established. Under these conditions sometimes a white, fine-bubbled foam appeared at the mouth which reminded one of an incipient lung edema. Though it was not possible to determine this sympton with certainty by clinical auscultation; only a sharpened unclean breath sound was audible. This foam might occur early, that is, at rectal temperatures of 32 [degrees] C to 35 [degrees] C. No special significance was to be attributed to this regarding the outcome of the experiment, which is the opposite of the described relaxation of rigor. The rate of breathing increased at the beginning of the experiment, but after about 20 minutes it decreased to something like 24 per minute with slight variations.

“In general a definite dulling of consciousness occurred at the dropping of the body temperature to 31 degress Centigrade rectal temperature. Next, the subjects still responded to speech but finally answered very sleepily. The pupils dilated markedly. The contraction under light became increasingly weaker. The gaze was directed overhead with a compulsive fixation. After withdrawal from the water an increase in the reflexes was evident in spite of the rigor, and regularly a very marked drawing up of the testicles occurred which practically disappeared into the abdomen. Early in the experiment the face was pale. After 40 to 50 minutes cyanosis appeared. With this the face appeared redder, the mucous membrane bluish-red.

The skin veins were not maximally collapsed and were virtually always penetrable.

“The heart activity showed a constant change independent of all other individual variations, which was noticeable in all subjects. Upon introduction into the water with narcotized subjects as well as non-narcotized subjects, the heart rate went suddenly to about 120 per minute. At a rectal body temperature of about 34 degress Centigrade, it then began to become increasingly slower and to sink continuously to about 50 per minute.

“The bradycardia at a body temperature of about 29 to 30 degrees Centigrade changed suddenly to an arrythmia perpetuator, as the case may be, to a total irregularity, and this began with a slow form of about 50 beats per minute; this slow form of irregularity could be transformed into a faster one. The transformation to the faster form was not an unfavorable sign regarding life.

“When an electrocar[d]iographic control after the experiment was possible, it regularly showed a Vorhofflotter. Let it be anticipated that this irregularity could continue to exist after the cessation of the cooling and a recovery of the body temperature to 33 or 34 degrees Centigrade one and a half to two hours after removal from the water, but then customarily changed of itself and without therapeutic aids into a coordinated heart activity. In the same way, let it be anticipated that in all cases with a lethal termination, a sudden cessation of the heart beat ensued upon an irregularity of the slow type.

“A check of the blood pressure was attempted, but was in no case satisfactory since an exact measurement was not possible in the decisive stage of the experiment because of the severe rigor and muscle febrillation.

“Reference has already been made to individual differences in the behavior of the rectal temperatures. Figure 4 [g]ives an example which includes four experiments, in which four different experimental subjects were cooled at identical water temperatures and with identical clothing. It was shown that in water at 4.5 degress Centigrade temperature the time required for reaching a rectal temperature of about 29.5 degrees Centigrade varies between 70 and 90 minutes. But nevertheless the diagram shows that in spite of these individual differences, it is observable that the progress or the rectal temperature proceeds according to rule. The body temperature begins to sink more rapidly from about 35 degress Centigrade.”

I’ll skip the next p[a]ragraph, and on page 39, the middle of the page, it states:

“in our experimental series, the lowest rectal temperatures which could be survived varied individually just as did the progress of the temperature drop. In general, (in six cases) death occurred with a drop in temperature to values between 24.2 and 25.7 degrees Centigrade. In one case, however, a drop to 25.2 degrees Centigrade was survived. This experiment fell outside the typical picture insofar as after 90 minutes at 26.6 degrees Centigrade a virtually stationary condition of the rectal temperature had become established for 85 minutes. We will come back again to this special experiment.”

Then I shall skip to page 40 at the bottom of the page:

“In order to follow up the effect of isolated cooling of the neck and back of the head on consciousness, body temperature and circulation, this was undertaken in three special experiments. The experimental subject lay horizontal; the back of the head [and] the neck were dipped into a receptacle through which water of corresponding temperature was continuously run. In an experiment of three hours’ duration there occurred small temperature drops of not more than 0.8 degrees Centigrade. The water temperature was 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade. In one case after 50 minutes a marked sleepiness occurred which changed over into a deep narcosis. The heat activity was variable, and obvious bradycardia could not be observed. Irregularity never developed. Changes were not seen in the electrocardiograph. On the other hand, in all three subjects the spinal fluid pressure was markedly increased after the ending of the experiment to maximal values of 300 mm. After the experiment, ataxia and definite Romberg phenomena were observed, as well as an exaggeration of the normal reflexes; pathological reflexes were absent.”

The next section, IV. deals with blood, spinal fluid, and urine during freezing, and I shall not take those up here.

Section V also deals with recovery after cooling and its dependence upon physio-therapeutic measures.

Section VI on page 50 I think perhaps I should read, since its title is “Death after Cooling in Water; Practical and Theoretical Considerations:”

“Reports to the effect that those who have been rescued at sea are imperilled for a considerable time after rescue have aroused special attention. It has been reported especially that sudden cases of death occurred as much as twenty minutes to ninety minutes after rescue, and that in mass catast[r]ophies these sudden deaths could amount to mass dying (rescue collapse). These obersvations have set off far-reaching discussions. Bleeding in the re-warming periphery, breakdowns of ne[u]ral and humoral correlations and similar ideas have been brought up.

“In contrast to this, our experiments give a relatively simple explanation of cold-death under these condition[s]. With the exception of a single case, a total irregularity of the heart chamber could be definitely demonstrated in all cases of cooling under 30 degrees Centigrade (50 experiments), when [the] rectal temperature reached 29 degrees Centigrade and usually already at a cooling of 31 degrees Centigrade. The exception was an experiment on an intoxicated subject, which is to be gone into more fully below.

“Furthermore, a heart-death was established clinically in all cases of death observed by us. In two cases breathing ceased simultaneously with the heart activity. These were cases in which it was specially noted that the neck and the back of the head lay deep in the water. In all remaining cases breathing outlasted the clinical chamber-cessation by as much as twenty minutes. In part this was ‘normal, much-decelerated breathing’, in part an agonal form of gasping. As already referred to, a Vorhofflutter could be demonstrated cardiographically during the irregularity.

“In cases in which a special cooling of neck and back of head had esisted [sic; existed(?)] before death, the autopsy showed a marked brain edema, a tight filling of the general brain cavity (Hirngefaesse), blood in the spinal fluid as well as blood in the Michaelisrhomboid (Rautengrube).

“The heart findings warrant our taking a certain attitude toward the question of rescue collapse. As Figure 5 shows, death occurred relatively quickly after removal from the water, which may be compared with rescue. The longest interval involved was fourteen minutes. It is to be noted, however, in the first place, that almost certainly a much larger number of death[s] would have been observed if an active heat therapy had not almost re[g]ularly been coupled directly with the completion of the experiment; in the secon[d] place, that in such cases there would have been very much longer intervals. We have already called attention repeatedly to the after-cooling following the experiment. In every case, where this had proceeded to a certain point, countermeasures were taken, since the experiments were never planned to end in death. One may w[e]ll imagine, however, that in mass cat[a]strophes, in which almost exclusively rescue collapse has heretofore been described, the therapeutic measures were confined to an undressing and drying off of the rescued, together wit[h] a subsequent wrapping in covers. Under these conditions, afterdrops of great magnitude and long duration were to be expected. In the course of this delayed fall in temperature a heart death might occur as in our experiments.

“We should like to emphasize that the irregularilty per se is not to be regarded in our experiments as a symptom of danger to life any more than in the clinic, but rather, as a sign of direct heart damage, which increases continuously with further falling off of temperature, until finally the heart fails. If the temperature drop is arrested, the slow form of irregularity passes over into a rapid form. This transition is a favorable sign for survival; for this irregularity virtually always passes over of itself after a time averaging ninety minutes into normal heart activity. It continues therefore for a long time after the body temperature has already risen markedly. A danger to the circulatory system could not be demonstrated at this stage. In three cases the return of the hear[t] action to normal occurred in spite of simultaneous energetic physical work.”

The report continues by making scientific observations about death resulting from cold. It also discusses comparative results they obtained with those obtained in animal experimentation. I would call your attention to some of the language on the top of page 55 where it states:

“The idea that cold death in water depends upon failure of the heart, accompanied or unaccompanied by breathing, is subject to limitation. One experiment among fifty-seven was typical.”

I just wanted to point out the words “fifty-seven” so that the Court may gain some idea of the extent of these experiments.

Part VII on page 57 deals with the influence of pharmacology and the question of alcohol which I think we may omit reading here.

Part VIII on page 61 deals with preventive measures. They tested the effect of various types of protective clothing including a so-called “foam suit” which is something I imagine Your Honors are familiar with. It is a type of chemical that generates heat when it becomes wet.

Part IX is concerning life jackets in which they make certain recommendations about improving the design of life jackets in order they they may increase the buoyancy and protect the back of the head and neck.

I think I might read Part X which is a summary, on page 69:

“1. The curve of rectal temperature of human beings chilled in water of 2 [degrees] C to 12 [degrees] C shows a gradual drop to about 35 [degrees] C, after which the drop becomes rapid. Death may occur at rectal temperature below 30 [degrees] C.

“2. Death results from heart failure. The direct damage to the heart becomes evident from the total irregularity observed in all cases, setting in as approximately 30 [degrees] C. This cardiac damage is due to overloading of the heart, caused by the marked and regular increase in the viscosity of the blood, as well as by the marked throttling of large peripheral vascular areas; besides, a direct injury to the heart by the cold is also probable.

“3. If the neck is also chilled, the lowering of the temperature is more rapid… This is due to interference with the temperature-regulating and vascular centers; [c]erebral edema also makes its appearance.

“4. The blood sugar rises as the temperature falls, and the blood sugar does not drop again as long as the body temperature continues to fall. This fact suggests an intermediary disturbance of metabolism.

“5. Respiration of the chilled subject is rendered difficult due to the rigor of the respiratory musculature.

“6. After removal from the water the body temperature may continue to fall for 15 minutes or longer. This may be an explanation of deaths which occur after successful rescue from the sea.

“7. Intensive rewarming never injures the severely chilled person.

“8. Strophantin treatment was not observed to have been succesful. The question of the use of strophantin remains open, however, Remedies which influence the peripheral circulation are definitely [n]ot advisable.

“9. The most effective therapeutic measure is rapid and intensive heat treatment, best applied by immersion in a hot bath.

“10. By means of special protective clothing, the survival time after immersion in cold water could be extended to double the survival time of subjects who were immersed without protective clothing.

“11. Certain proposals for improvement of life-jackets are being made.

“Concluded on 10 October 1942. Signed. Prof. Dr. Holzloehner Dr. Rascher Dr. Finke”.

I would like to call the Court’s attention to several of the appendices which are attached to the original German document. You may perhaps have to refer to them in order to get a clear picture of what is shown. For example, Figure 2… I think you might probably have some difficulty finding it there now, your Honors. You may probably wish to refer to it in your office. The point I wanted to make is that in Figure 2 of the Appendices it shows the temperature, pulse and respiration at death, and Figure 5 is a very interesting document which gives in a chart form the experiment number, the water temperature, the body temperature on removal from water, the body temperature at death, the time in water and the time of death. There are seven such cases given. Surely this is the shortest and most succinct report of murders in the history of criminology.

If the Tribunal please, you will note that the next two documents appearing in the document book are pictures numbered Document NO-855 [HLSL item 2026]. These pictures will not be introduced this afternoon because we will call on Mr. George Tauber to the stand tomorrow.

THE PRESIDENT: What page are they on?

MR. McHANEY: Between Pages 76 and 77. They’re little photostatic copies.

THE PRESIDENT: The document number is what?

MR. McHANEY: Number [NO] 855. It is in the upper left hand corner. We will have the authenticate and have these documents admitted through the testimony of George Tauber tomorrow. He was, as it will be revealed, an inmate at Dachau and had an opportunity to draw these pictures.

The next document will be 1609-PS which is Prosecution Exhibit 92 [HLSL item 2541]. It is a letter from Heinrich Himmler to Rascher dated 24 October 1942:

“Dear Rascher:

“I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th and 10th and both correspondences of 16 October 1942.

“I have read your report regarding cooling experiments on humans with great interest. SS Major Sievers should arrange the possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with us.

“I regard these people as high and national traitors who, still today, reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy German soldiers die as a result of these cooling methods. I shall not hesitate to report these men to the Offices concerned. I empower you to make my opinion, on this, known to the concerned offices.

“I invite you to a personal conference in November as I cannot make it sooner despite my great interest.

“SS-Lt. Gen. Wolff will once again get in touch with General Field Marshall Milch. You are empowered to make a report to the General Field Marshall Milch and, of course, to the Reichs Marshall of those who are not doctors.

“I think that covers, which have heat packets or something similar sewed in their linings, are the best for the warming of those who were stranded at sea and were picked up in boats or small vessels and where there is no possibility of placing these chilled people in a hot bath. I take it for granted that you know of these heat packets which we also have in the SS and which were used by the Russians a great deal. They consist of a mass which develops a warmth of 70 to 80 [degrees] upon addition of water and retains it for hours.

“I am very curious as to the experiments with body warmth. I personally take it that these experiments will probably bring the best and lasting results. Naturally, I could be mistaken.

“Keep me informed on the following findings. Of course we will see each other in November.

Your (signed) H. HIMMLER”.

The second copy was sent to Karl Wolff with a “request for acknowledgment and return since the Reich Fuehrer SS in Munich wants these copies again.”. Signed Brandt – that is, the defendant Rudolf Brand[t].

(The Tribunal adjourned until 12 December 1946 at 0930 hours).

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 12 December 1946, 0930-1630, Justice Beals, presiding.

THE MARSHAL: The honorable Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT [Beals]: Will the Marshal ascertain if the defendants are all present.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of the defendants.

The prosecution will proceed.

MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I will ask that the witness Wolfgang Lutz be called to the stand.

WOLFGANG LUTZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

THE PRESIDENT: Judge Sebring will administer the oath to the witness.


Q. [Sebring] Hold up your right hand and repeat the oath after me.

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath)


You may sit down.



Q. [McHaney]: Your name is Wolfgang Lutz?

A. [Lutz]: Yes.

Q: You are a German national?

A ; Yes.

Q: You are now a prisoner of war held at Camp Marcus/W. Orr near Salzburg?

A: Yes.

Q: When and where were you born?

A: In Linz on the Danau on the 27th of May 1913.

Q: Have you studied medicine?

A: Yes.

Q: Where and when?

A: 1931 [sic; 1931?] to 1937 in Vienna and Innsbruck.

Q: What branch of medicine have you specialized in?

A: Internal medicine.

Q: Were you a member of the Luftwaffe during the war?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you join?

A: On the 8th of May 1939.

Q: What rank did you attain during the war?

A: At the end I was Stabsarzt.

Q: That is a captain in the United States Army?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you stationed in Munich during the war?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know of a Luftwaffe installation called Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe in Munich?

A: Institute for aviation medicine, yes.

Q: What was that installation, what did it do?

A: To carry out scientific work in the field of aviation medicine.

Q: Do you know Georg August Waltz?

A: Yes.

Q: What was his relationship to that institute?

A: He was the head of the institute.

Q: Did the name of this institute of which Weltz was the commanding officer later change?

A: The institute resulted from an office for investigating high altitude effects. To that extent the name was changed.

Q: To what was it changed?

A: The name first was Research Office for Air Fleet 3 and afterwards Institute for Aviation Medicine, Munich.

Q: And you say that Weltz was the commanding officer of that institute?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you attached to Weltz’s institute during the war?

A: Yes.

Q: When and for how long?

A: I came to Weltz in February 1940 and remained there until the end of the war.

Q: Did you do any high altitude research there?

A: Yes.

Q: With whom did you work in this high altitude research?

A: Primarily alone.

Q: Did you ever work with a scientist at the Weltz institute by the name of Wendt?

A: Yes. I wrote a scientific treatise with him, together with him.

Q: Were you considered to be something of an expert in high altitude research?

A: Yes, I understand the question. I believe so, yes.

Q: And is the same true of Wendt who collaborated with you on this paper?

A: Not in that form I believe.

Q: Do you know Doctor Rascher, witness?

A: Yes.

Q: When and where did you first meet him?

A: At the institute. I believe in the second half of 1941.

Q: And it was the institute of Weltz that you refer to?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Weltz ever offer you the opportunity to do high altitude research on human beings in the Dachau concentration camp?

A: Yes, Weltz asked Wendt and me whether we wanted to conduct such experiments.

Q: Did you accept or refuse this offer?

A: Both of us refused.

Q: Why did you refuse?

A: I personally primarily because I did not consider myself robust enough to conduct such experiments.

Q: Did you know that Dr. Rascher was going to make these high altitude experiments in Dachau?

A: It was discussed.

Q: You mean that it was known by various members of Weltz’s Institute that these experiments were going to be carried out by Dr. Rascher?

A: It was discussed in the Institute, whether such experiments were useful — were expedient.

Q: But I asked you if it was known in the Institute that Rascher was going to carry out these experiments.

A: I believe so; yes.

Q: And you state that you refused the offer of Weltz, to work on human beings in Dachau because you were not ruthless enough; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: I take it that this means that you knew that brutality and ruthlessness would be required to do the work in Dachau?

A: Yes, an experiment involving a certain danger for the experimental subjects, of course, to a certain extent, ruthless, shall I say.

Q: Now witness, do you recall when this offer was made to you by Weltz?

A: I cannot say exactly.

Q: Did you ever see Ruff, and do you know a man by the name of Ruff, who was the head of the Department for Aviation Medicine in the DVL in Berlin — Siegfried Ruff?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you know a man by the name of Hans Wolfgang Romberg?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever see these two men in Weltz’s Institute in Munich?

A: Yes.

Q: Will you describe to the Tribunal the occasion on which you saw these two men there?

A: A short time after we had refused to conduct the experiments, RUFF and ROMBERG appeared at the Institute. WENDT and I were in WELTZ’s room, and WELTZ asked us to leave the room.

Q: Was it unusual for WELTZ to refuse you and WENDT admittance to conferences at the Institute?

A: Yes. That was something unusual.

Q: Do you know what was discussed between WELTZ and RUFF and ROMBERG, on the occasion of their visit to WELTZ’s Institute?

A: No; we were not informed.

Q: Do you know that RUFF and ROMBERG later worked in Dachau on these high altitude experiments with Dr. Rascher?

A: We knew that; yes.

Q:Now I will ask you, witness, if you attended a certain conference on Aviation Medicine held in the city of Nurnberg on the 26th and 27th of October, 1942?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you remember, on the occasion of that meeting, that a paper was read by a man by the name of HOLZLOEHNER?

A: HOLZLOEHNER — yes, I remember that.

Q: And what was the subject of the paper which HOLZLOEHNER read?

A: The subject of the paper was experiments — rather, experiences — made on people whose body temperature had been greatly reduced by putting them in cold water.

Q: It was made clear at this conference by HOLZLOEHNER that experiments to study the effects of freezing had been made on living human beings?

A: Not the effects of freezing, but of general cooling.

Q: Did Rascher also have something to say at this meeting?

A: HOLZLOEHNER’s report did not indicate that the experiments had been conducted on concentration camp inmates, and Rascher then rose and uttered a few sentences which indicated that the experiments had been instigated at the special suggestion of Himmler.

Q: And what did the statement that these experiments had been made with the support of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, mean to you?

A: That is difficult to say. I believe that those present, on the whole, were quite impressed by this information.

Q: I will ask you if it was not understood at this meeting that these experiments had, in fact, been conducted on concentration camp inmates?

A: I cannot judge that with great certainty, but I believe that must have been clear for most of them.

Q: Was it not also made clear, by the talks of HOLZLOEHNER and Rascher, that a number of the experimental subjects had been killed during the course of these experiments?

A: One could at least assume that that had been the case, because HOLZLOEHNER mentioned certain observations of heart failure among the experimental subjects.

Q: Wasn’t an important part of the clinical picture given to you and the rest of the meeting by HOLZLOEHNER, concerned with the causes of death from cold?

A: I cannot recall that.

Q: But you do state that it could have been easily assumed that people have died during the course of these experiments?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, witness, I will ask you if, at a time after this meeting, you had a discussion with a certain army officer, concerning the freezing experiments in Dachau?

A: Yes.

Q: And what did this army officer tell you?

A: The man visited me at our Institute in Munich, and we discussed some results of animal experiments which I had conducted, and he told me that it must be similar, or that it was similar with human beings. When I asked him how he knew that, he told me that he had been in Dachau and that Rascher had demonstrated some experiments during that visit and had shown him what freezing to death looked like in human beings.

Q: In other words, it had been demonstrated to this army officer at Dachau, how people died from cold?

A: That was the impression that I had; yes.

Q: Do you remember the name of this army officer?

A: No.

Q: Now, witness, I will ask you if you have had a discussion with Becker-Freyseng since the end of the war, concerning the high altitude experiments in Dachau?

A: No.

Q: Did you not on one occasion see Becker-Freyseng in a prisonor of war camp?

A: I met him in Eibling, yes.

Q: And, did he tell you that Erhardt Milch knew all about the High Altitude Experiments conducted by Doctor Rascher in Dachau?

A: Becker-Freyseng told me that the Medical Inspectorate, that is, his office, in dealing with concentration camp experiments was by passed; and that the Medical Inspectorate frequently had to try to prevent disaster.

Q: Did not Becker-Freyseng tell you that Erhardt Milch knew about the High Altitude Experiments at Dachau?

A: I cannot remember that exactly.

Q: Did he say anything about Erhardt Milch?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did he say?

A: That Milch had negotiated directly with Himmler regarding the execution of such experiments without consulting the Medical Inspectorate.

Q: I will ask your witness whether or not High Altitude problems are a matter which concerns a department for the Aviation Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. That is an aviation medicine problem, is it not?

A: The High Altitude Experiments, yes, certainly.

Q: Is the same thing true of freezing problems?

A: Yes, certainly.

MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions at this time, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The defense may cross examine the witness.



Gentlemen of the Tribunal, may I request, in connection with this cross examination, that I may put a few questions to this witness within the frame work of the subject which has been opened up by the prosecution against Professor Weltz.

Q. [Wille]: Witness, Doctor Lutz, may I ask you to answer a few questions of mine which I would like to put in order to supplement and contradict the statements of the prosecution. Please answer these questions truthfully — a few questions of a more personal nature. You were not only a collaborator of Professor Weltz in his Institute for Aviation Medicine, but also at the same time an assistant medical officer with him on certain occasions. You have assisted him in his X-ray activities in Munich, have you not?

A. [Lutz]: Yes, Sir.

Q. May I now put this question to you. In connection with Professor Weltz’s views about the medical profession, can you judge it generally? I mean to say, for instance, this: Are you aware of Professor Weltz’s general attitude in respect to his profession; his spirit of humanitarianism; the consideration which he generally showed his patients; can you briefly deal with that. In other words, his general human ideas. Did you have any contact with him when you worked for Professor Weltz?

A: Partially, yes, certainly.

MR. McHANEY: May it please the court, I cannot see that this question is material, and I would like to raise an objection to it. Whether or not Doctor Weltz exhibited a humanitarian attitude toward his patients has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and I submit the answer of this witness will not be material to the case.

THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. The counsel may proceed.


Tell me what reputation Professor Weltz had with his colleagues, the other expert doctors in Munich? Let me put it this way, first of all with the doctors of Munich? As an X-ray expert he must have had his cases assigned to him from other doctors. In other words, he must have been a man who, day after day, I would almost say, must have been in constant touch with all the doctors in Munich. Do you know how he was judged by them? I do not mean his qualifications as a scientist, but his personal manners; his human qualities and his qualities as an individual or medical officer. Will you answer my question, please?

A: Professor Weltz had a very large practice in Munich. I do not know in any way that his reputation was not excellent.

Q: Even in his capacity as a doctor and also from a human point of view, do you mean?

A: Certainly.

Q. Now, I have a question here, which in a certain sense is verbatim. Do you know from whom the plans originated to carry out the human being experiments in Dachau?

A: I do not know, but certainly not from Doctor Weltz. I am certain it was Rascher’s idea.

Q: In that case I can follow with this question: Can you say whether Professor Weltz cooperated in the creation of this plan? Did he advance it in any way? To what extent did he participate in Rascher being allowed to do this? Was he responsible for it? Did he in any way talk to the Medical Institute authorities to get Rascher to this job?

A: I cannot answer that because in all this paper work I was not initiated[.] I do not know how Rascher came to our Institute or when he came.

Q: In that case I have this question to put to you: Do you know whether Professor Weltz had overheard of Rascher being attached to the Institute?

A: I cannot say that either.

Q: Then this following question is connected with this problem. Are you aware whether Kottenhof had anything to do with Rascher being attached to the Institute in any way?

A: That is quite possible.

Q: You do not know any details about that, do you?

A: Perhaps, if you ask me about them.

Q: Do you know whether Doctor Kottenhof, later or earlier, had been connected with the so-called monkey experiments which he was supposed to have carried out together with Rascher?

A: I know he conducted experiments on monkeys. I do not know that he worked with Rascher.

Q: Do you know whether that was the reason for the fact that Kottenhof recommended Rascher’s transfer to the Aviation Institute, and aimed at that?

A: That might be, yes.

Q. Now, then, a few questions regarding Professor Weltz’s attitude toward Dachau. Do you know — incidentally the previous examination has shown this quite clearly — do you know how Professor Weltz, generally speaking, reacted to the meetings, the atmosphere in Dachau, and the experiments which were carried out there in connection with high altitude and freezing? What was his general attitude to these experiments at Dachau?

A: At that time, when the subject of Dachau came up for the first time, we, that is, Weltz, Wendt and I, discussed the problem basically; that is, we assumed that essential experiments for part of the work were being undertaken and the results of which we hoped to save the lives of soldiers; and that these experiments were being conducted on criminals who had been condemned to death by a regular court, and who were given an opportunity to be pardoned by participating in these experiments. We discussed this back and forth, but we did not come to any clear decision.

Q: Did you know or do you know that on the occasion of a visit of Professor Hippke in the spring of 1942, the question came up whether and to what extent experiments on human beings had to be made on behalf of the Air Force and then that question was discussed in great detail, not in an official discussion but in a private conference or discussion? And is it known to you that Professor Weltz on that occasion — as, incidentally, he had expressed himself to you at the Institute, as you said yourself — expressed his attitude clearly with reference to experiments on human beings? Can you tell me under what conditions Professor Weltz approved experiments on human beings?

A: I believe that Weltz, and Ruff and Romberg later, assumed the condition which I just mentioned, namely that the experiments were to be conducted only on criminals, I might almost say they were being done a favor.

Q: Was there not one other prerequisite — Weltz demanded clearly that these criminals should volunteer and that a certain amount of grace should be granted in compensation.

A: That was the tacit condition for our discussion. We were quite surprised afterwards that at least in the later stages of the experiments, as far as I know now, this question did not come up.

Q: Did Professor Weltz tell you at any time or did you have any clue that Professor Weltz was afraid to try these experiments in Dachau, or that he had turned down the whole idea because he on his part was afraid of objections on the part of the Medical Inspectorate? Did you think that that was the reason why Weltz was objecting to Rascher’s experiments — because he was afraid that his department heads would object?

A: Doctor, could you repeat that? I did not understand it.

Q: Yes, I will repeat it again. Did you have any clue indicating that the reason why Weltz objected to the experiments in Dachau was that he was afraid of objections from his superior department, the Medical Inspectorate, so to say? Or don’t you feel, aren’t you conscious of the fact that he on his part was energetically refusing to carry out these experiments?

A: I believe that Weltz was not at Dachau.

Q: I was just going to ask you. Do you know whether or how often Weltz has been to Dachau?

A: I do not know anything about that. Of course I was not Weltz’ guardian angel, I was not informed about everything he did, but I did not hear about it.

Q: But never-the-less, you, as Stabsarzt, and as his adjutant and collaborator, you must have been well informed about practically everything that Weltz was touching in the case of aviation medicine?

A: In general, yes.

Q: Therefore you must have had knowledge of any visits Weltz made to Dachau?

A: Yes, I probably would have had to know about it.

Q: Can you give me further details about the conditions under which this joint work of Ruff and Romberg on one part and Rascher on the other, was brought about?

A: I know nothing about that, nothing important, I believe.

Q: Did Professor Weltz not report to you about it? Did he not tell you that on the occasion of a meeting at Adlershof near Berlin, he talked to Ruff and Romberg and that he informed them he was approaching them with a view to forming a joint working committee with them?

A: I had to assume so when I saw Ruff and Romberg at our office.

Q: Are you also aware of the conditions for such a collaboration and were they told you by Professor Weltz either at the beginning or later?

A: No, I can’t recall.

Q: Do you now know that these gentlemen, Ruff and Romberg, based their work on the supposition that experiments which were to be carried out were first of all to be carried out on their own persons so that the danger, as such, was excluded by that means? Didn’t you hear about that? Didn’t Professor Weltz report that to you?

A: Please, it is possible, but I can’t remember at the moment.

Q: Can’t you remember that Professor Weltz said with reference to Rascher’s qualities as a doctor and a scientist and as to his character that he showed the greatest possible distrust and that because of that he was, if I may say so, satisfied to find that for these experiments in Dachau Rascher came under the control of a reliable scientist?

A: I am convinced of that.

Q:. But you yourself did not actually hear about that from Weltz?

A: As to the scientific and other qualities of Rascher, there is no use talking about that.

Q: I am extraordinarily interested in that question and your answer. May I follow it up with this question? You must have discussed these matters amongst yourselves at least, all of you. How did everybody judge the scientific qualities shown by Rascher?

A: There weren’t any.

Q: Did you know that Professor Weltz shared that opinion?

A: I know for sure that Weltz did not have a high opinion of Rascher.

Q: Well then, let me return to a previous question. Do you consider it possible under these circumstances, possible at all, — would you credit Professor Weltz with having told you and Dr. Wendt to collaborate with a medical officer, with a doctor whom you yourself have already stated was a scientific failure and who, in your opinion also inferior. Could you have reason to assume that such a collaborator to you could have been meant seriously?

MR. McHANEY: If Your Honors please, I must object to that question. I mean he is asking this man for his opinion as to whether or not he believes it is possible that Dr. Weltz could have collaborated with Rascher in any respect. That is the sense I get from his question and I cannot see that this man’s opinion on that subject is material or has any probative value whatsoever. It is a question of fact whether or not Weltz did collaborate with Rascher and it is really not a matter of opinion to be passed by this witness. Now he can testify as to whether or not he knows whether or not Weltz did in fact collaborate with him but clearly, putting the question in the form of an opinion as to whether he thinks it is possible that Weltz could have done so, I just don’t think is at all probative.

DR. WILLE: May I define my attitude in regard to that? I think, Your Honors, that we are here concerned with a very serious statement of fact which only this witness can ascertain. He alone must know whether under such circumstances as I have previously described, the question could have been taken seriously by Professor Weltz at all. As far as that is concerned we are definitely concerned with the statement of a fact which can only be made by this witness. I therefore beg you to admit this question as relevant and as admissible.

THE PRESIDENT: In this cross-examination the witness will be allowed considerable latitude. The objection will be overruled.


Q [Wille]: May I ask the witness then to answer this question?

A: Weltz, in the way in which he formulated the question, let it be seen that he expected that we would refuse. He called us in and he asked us “Do you want to conduct these experiments in Dachau?” And he continued to me: “Mr. Lutz, I do not believe that you want to do that because I know you are rather religious.” These were his exact words, so that he neither forced us or urged us to agree. Rather, on the contrary, he made refusal easy for us.

Q: Then I have a further question to put to you which is directly connected with the Institute. Can you tell me if the program for experiments and that work carried out by that Institute had previously been discussed with all officials of that Institute so that Professor Weltz, if he had seriously wanted you to collaborate in these experiments would, according to custom, have discussed the entire program of experiments with all his collaborators to have them approve it?

A: It was generally usual that in joint discussions we settled our further work.

Q: So that in this case too, according to the custom which you just confirmed, a written statement regarding the plan would have had to take place in the records of the Institute because apparently these resolutions which you passed, these working programs, were put down in writing, weren’t they?

A: Yes, that was what we usually did.

Q: And that didn’t happen in this case, did it?

A: I can’t say. No program was discussed.

Q: But after all, the execution of working programs was up for discussion. If Professor Weltz did make suggestions to you that you should collaborate, surely a discussion must have taken place as to what this work should deal with?

A: No, it was not discussed. We of course knew from the whole background what it was about but no working program was set up.

Q: A further question which deals with Rascher’s appointment, his being attached, shall we say? Do you know that Rascher, in the spring of 1942, at any rate before the 16th of March 1942, showed Weltz a telegram from Himmler, according to which experiments were to be kept secret from everybody, including Weltz? Did you have knowledge of that telegram?

A: There must have been something of that sort, I believe I recall that there were difficulties between Weltz and Rascher and this telegram seems somehow to be the climax of these difficulties.

Q: Did you perhaps gain knowledge of the fact that Professor Weltz, subsequent to that information being received regarding the Himmler telegram and, I mean subsequent to Dr. Rascher’s refusal to continue with the experiments in Dachau, Weltz immediately subsequent to these events had him transferred away from his institute, which was something he applied for to his superior at Dachau. Do you know any details about that?

A: Not really, as I had nothing to do with these matters.

Q: Let me put to you a question dealing with the subsequent developments of these experiments in Dachau. Do you have any knowledge of the fact that the institute of Weltz, or Professor Weltz personall[y], did at any time deal with the details of these experiments in reporting cases of death to the meeting in Nurenberg?

A: Impossible, the whole thing had nothing to do with us at all.

Q: But was it safe to assume that Professor Weltz became acquainted with the subject when he was asked to be a collaborater?

A: He was not asked this.

Q: At any rate, he put it to you that he knew of these shattering revelations regarding the deaths.

A: What deaths?

Q: The deaths regarding the experiments in Dachau.

A: Personally I know nothing about that even now.

Q: Now then, do you have any clues showing that Professor Weltz might have tried to get ahold of this experimental work which Rascher made afterward, that he tried to replace Rascher at Dachau when Rascher himself and his wife started to complain? Would you consider that a possibility or a probabilty?

A: That Weltz wanted to get Rascher out?

Q: Yes, you know that was claimed by Mrs. Rascher.

A: I have no reason to believe so.

Q: I am through, My Lord.



Q [Sauter]: Witness, on behalf of Dr. Ruff, I should like to put a few questions to you. When did you meet the defendant, Dr. Ruff, for the first time? When?

A: I believe in France in 1940.

Q: In 1940?

A: Yes, in 1940 — excuse me, I mean in 1941.

Q: Was that before these experiments were conducted at Dachau?

A: Yes.

Q: In that case it must be 1941.

A: Yes.

Q: How did it happen that you met the defendant, Dr. Ruff? Did you meet him often? Did you make his acquaintance very well or just professionally?

A: I should like to say professionally and officially and we spoke to each other occasionally outside of business.

Q: Doctor, is it true to say that there were professional contacts? Do you understand what I mean?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: That that consisted of working in a sub-pressure chamber and for four or five weeks you were together with Dr. Ruff working in France?

A: Yes.

Q: So that there was a low pressure chamber, which was mobile and which was constructed very similar to that one which in 1942 was constructed in Dachau for the high altitude experiments?

A: I do not know the chamber in Dachau, but the chamber …….

Q: The chamber, which you operated, together with Dr. Ruff in France, that served for altitude experiments for the air force, did it not?

A: Yes.

Q: How long were you together with Dr. Ruff in France?

A: I believe for two or three weeks.

Q: But, Dr. Ruff says for four weeks.

A: Well, I believe Dr. Ruff came a little later, he came a little later.

Q: At any rate, it was a few weeks?

A: Yes

Q: You already said that on that occasion you did not only meet on duty, but also off duty personally on social occasions?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, then, what did Dr. Ruff tell you at that time regarding his attitude toward experiments on human beings, in particular with reference to the experiments which were carried out with your pressure chamber?

A: What chamber?

Q: The pressure chamber, which you had there.

A: At that time in France there were not experiments of the type conducted in Dachau. There was no question of such experiments.

Q: There was not question of it?

A: No.

Q: Then you did make experiments?

A: They were not even scientific experiments, they were only investigations and examinations of fl[i]ers.

Q: Surely that adds up to the same thing?

A: No, but if you say so yes. Fl[i]ers were tested for their suitability and after some time we gathered certain experiences.

Q: Do you know that at that time, when you were together with Dr. Ruff in France, Dr. Ruff himself was also making experiments, that is to say experiments in the chamber on his own person?

A: Yes, I believe so.

Q: Did he on these experiments on himself make the same demands on his own body, which later on he made on the experimental persons – that is to say the pilots which were picked up?

A: On the tests with the pilots, doctors were in the chamber with the pilots during the tests.

Q: Quite. Now, these experiments which Dr. Ruff made on himself were perfectly in order and orderly and these tests on the pilots, they were supposed to be pretty tough?

A: Yes, certainly.

Q: For instance, it is supposed to have happened that during one of these experiments, the defendant, Dr. Ruff suffered paralysis of one arm?

A: Yes, that is right.

Q: So that he himself, if I understand your answer correctly, was not exactly taking it easy?

A: No, he did not.

Q: Did you also discuss political circumstances with Dr. Ruff? I mean to say, if I may suppliment my question somewhat, did you talk about political conditions to such an extent or so much that you managed to gather a fair impression of the political attitude of Dr. Ruff? For instance, with regard to the National Socialist Party and particularly the SS?

A: I had the impression that Dr. Ruff was a very unpolitical person.

Q: Then, how did he express himself in regard to the SS? Doctor, I am putting that question you know because Dr. Ruff told me that in particular about the SS and that he had talked to you on the occasion of that stay in France quite frequently. That is why I want to know from you just how Dr. Ruff did talk about the SS at that time?

A: I am sorry, but I seem to have forgotten all about it. I am really sorry I cannot remember it.

Q: What did he say about the party? For instance, about Hitler, etc.?

A: The only thing that I can say is that I did not consider him a fanatical Nazi, but I cannot remember any specific details.

Q: During the four weeks — and this is something I want to ask at the end — during the three or four weeks, which you spent with Dr. Ruff in France, what did you learn about his views about medical ethics? The conception he had of his profession, what impression did you gather about that? Would you say that he would be capable of committing crimes or was your impression different?

A: I beg your pardon. I had an absolute correct impression of Dr. Ruff and I never thought anything unfavorable of him.

Q: Thank you very much. In that case, Mr. President, I have no further questions. Thank you.



Q [Marx] Witness, a little earlier the subject of a conversation came up which you had with Dr. Becker Freyseng at Eibling?

A: Yes.

Q: And on that occasion, Dr. Becker Freyseng had told you that the medical inspectorate had frequently been by-passed; that for instance Field Marshall Milch had negotiated directly with the SS, or the command of the SS, with reference to questions which really concerned aviation matters?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recollect that ?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Then, he complained. Then Dr. Becker also told you something on that occasion about a film showing which went wrong, a film showing which Dr. Becker Freyseng was going to make for Milch, which dealt with the study made at Dachau. Do you remember that occasion ? It was to happen in September of 1941 when Rascher in Berlin and the Ministry were supposed to show the film to Field Marshall Milch personally and Milch did not show up. Becker Freyseng had not known anything about this and had not been informed until the film was already in preparation; in fact until the showing was to start? Do you know anything about that?

A: Yes, I can’t remember, but it seems quite plausible.

Q: Then, you can’t remember? Well, then I have another question. There was a meeting in Nurnberg when some eighty advisory medical men, consulting medical men of high medical reputation were present, who were holding high positions. Do you remember?

A: I can not give any exact informmation, but that can doubtless be found out.

Q: Of course we have the record.

A: You can doubtless find out. I am sure there were many people of the medical profession present.

Q: Yes, the matter, of course was planned under the heading of Sea and Winter Distress. Then Weltz and Professor Holzloehner were on the list, weren’t they?

A: Yes.

Q: What did Professor Holzloehner say regarding the question of cooling[,] of the freezing experiments, because the way it is put in this record, you see, is indicating that he expressed himself very, very carefully?

A: Yes.

Q: So that one could not draw the conclusion that he was getting out these experiments particularly in the concentration camps?

A: That’s true. As for Holzloehner’s statement one could not gather from them that they were experiments in concentration camps. Holzloehner apparently, in order to disguise the matter, had spoken of rescued persons, persons who were rescued from distress at sea.

Q: Do you mean rescued from the water? That’s what it says in the record, doesn’t it?

A: Yes, that’s how it was.

Q: Yes. Now, from Professor Holzloehner’s statement one could not draw the conclusion, therefore, that we were concerned with experiments in Dachau or any other concentration camps?

A: No.

Q: I see. And you stated previously that Rascher stammered, didn’t you?

A: Yes.

Q: So that his speech wasn’t very convincing, was it, because if someone stammers and stutters, then you say that he isn’t very effective surely or that he might even make himself ridiculous?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: Yes, I see. So that you want to say, don’t you, that Dr. Rascher’s statement could have been regarded more as a matter of wanting to make himself look important ?

A: That might be, but the subject is a little ticklish.

Q: But wasn’t it possible to gather the impression that he wanted to show off his connections to Himmler ?

A: Yes, one always had that impression with him, yes, certainly.

Q ; Of course you see, I would like to point out to you that Rascher, shortly before this meeting, had written to Himmler and in that letter he expressly pointed out that he wanted permission to deal with this matter as top secret; in other words, that he did not wish to communicate to the assembly what he was really concerned with. Surely one could not intend that any other way; top secret was the word ?

A: Yes, certainly.

DR. MARX: Yes, I see. In that case I have no further questions to put to this witness.

DR. SERVATIUS: Attorney Servatius for the absent colleague, Dr. Nelte on behalf of Defendant Handloser.



Q [Servatius] I only want to put a very brief question. Witness, as I remember, upon a question put by the Prosecutor, whether after this meeting in Nurnberg, you had talked to some officers regarding experiments on animals which were supposed to be transferred to human beings, that you had answered, “Yes, I had spoken to an officer.” Now, my question, was that an officer from the Medical Inspectorate or some other officer ?

A: I cannot say.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have not further questions.

DR. VORWERK: Attorney Vorwerk for Dr. Romberg.



Q [Vorwerk]: Witness, you had mentioned that you knew Defendant Dr. Romberg. Do you see him in this courtroom ?

A: Yes.

Q: Where is he?

A: (Indicating).

Q: In which row?

A: The fourth from the left in the back row.

Q: Did you consider that these altitude experiments, seen from the point of view of the Air Force, were really essential?

A:. I was of the opinion that the experiments gave general insight into certain questions, that they could give insight.

Q: Might I remind you that at that time the type of aircraft at the disposal of the German Air Force went out of date and at that time the Air Force particularly were trying to develop new types, and let me then repeat the question. Is it your conviction that at that time these experiments were essential seen from the Air Forces’s point of view?

A: I believe that the experiments were important.

Q: But you do not adopt the view that they were absolutely essential, I take it?

A: Well, I can’t — that is a question that goes beyond my competence here.

Q: When did you see Romberg for the first time?

A: As far as I can recall, together with Ruff when we were in France.

Q: When was that, what year?

A: ’41.

Q: How long were you together with Romberg at that time?

A: A few weeks; about three weeks.

Q: What were you doing at the time during that journey through France?

A: We were conducting tests on fliers, about their resistance to altitudes.

Q: With a pressure chamber too, I take it?

A: Yes.

Q: Who was in charge of these tests?

A: I believe the responsibility was divided into military and medical responsibility. The latter belonged to Ruff.

Q ; Did you ever experience it that Romberg, during these tests, was proceeding or acting recklessly ?

A: No, not at all.

Q: Did you meet with any experiences with his political attitude? Did you discuss that with him ?

A: I got to know Romberg quite well. I believe the same is true of him as of Ruff. He was in no way, let me say, a pronounced National Socialist.

Q: What I want to know is was he a Nazi at all; not pronounced, was he a Nazi?

A: I did not have that impression.

Q: You didn’t have the impression?

A: That he was a National Socialist.

Q: Did you have an impression to the contrary about him ?

A: I believe that I can answer that question with yes.

Q: Would you be surprised if you were to read in the press today that Romberg was a prominent Nazi?

A: Yes, that would not be true.

Q: If I understood you correctly then you said that both Professor Weltz, as well as you yourself, shared the view that Rascher was neither, according to character or knowledge, in any position to carry out these altitude experiments on his own. Briefly put, therefore, he was a charlatan in your eyes, wasn’t he; is that approximately the truth?

A: Yes, that’s true.

Q: When did Romberg first see Rascher at that time; do you know that?

A: I do not know.

Q: Then I will tell you. He saw Rascher for the first time in the office of the Research Institute of Weltz shortly after you, as you say —

MR.McHANEY: If the Court please, I think that if the attorney for the Defendant Romberg wishes to testify, that he should take the stand.

DR. VORWERK: This last hint which I was giving.

THE PRESIDENT: Objection of counsel for the prosecution is sustained to that question.



Q: If you held the view then that Rascher was a charlatan, would it not have been your duty or Weltz’s duty to draw Romberg’s attention to that fact before he began his experiments?

A: That is hard to say.

Q: Did you ever state to Romberg at any time that you too had been asked to carry out these experiments, but that you had refused?

A: No, I don’t know.

Q: But you were very well acquainted with Romberg, weren’t you? Wouldn’t it have been the duty of a comrade, since you were both serving in the Air-Force, wouldn’t it have been the duty of a colleague amongst doctors to discuss that subject?

A: Well, it was a subject which neither of us liked to talk about.

Q: What you want to say was that in your opinion Romberg too wasn’t happy taking on this job, if I understand you right; that’s what you want to say?

A: I am convinced of that.

Q: Well, why do you believe that he took it on at all?

A: I don’t believe I can answer that question, but —

Q: It isn’t known to you that Rascher was described as an excellent scientist to Romberg? Romberg made inquiries, you know, and that’s what he was told. Did you know about that?

A: No.

Q ; You knew it the first time you saw him then?

A: That’s quite possible.

Q: But at that time it was your and Weltz’s view that Rascher was a charlatan, wasn’t it?

A: Whether that was our opinion at that time, I can’t say. I saw Rascher only once at that time. The opinion that he — from the first moment on he made a very poor impression on me, but that he was such a complete zero I learned only in the course of time.

Q: Why did you believe that in connection with these experiments people only were to be used who had been sentenced to death previously?

A: It was discussed in that form.

Q: By whom?

A: Well, that was the general opinion.

Q: You say general opinion, so that, if I understand you correctly it was the opinion at the time when you, for the first time, were approached in the matter?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you also know whether Romberg was of the same opinion?

A: I am sure.

Q: But then this expression “general opinion” was then extended beyond the circle of the people who were immediately concerned? In other words, was that the opinion of all the medical officers of the German Air Forces?

A ; They knew nothing about it, but it was doubtless the opinion of all in informed circles; that is, of anyone who knew anything about it.

Q: Rascher, too?

A: Rascher was doubtless the evil spirit in this matter. I don’t know what he thought.

Q: But you are firmly convinced that Romberg shared that view, are you?

A: Yes.

Q: Was the view also attached to that opinion at the time, connected with it, that the experimental persons weren’t only going to be criminals sentenced to death but that they would also have to volunteer?

A: Yes, I believe so. Of course, I did not, but of course, that really is included.

Q: Well, if I understand you correctly then, you were convinced at the time that the victims of the experiments were only going to be people sentenced to death because they had committed crimes; and secondly, people who would volunteer in order to change their death sentence to prison sentence?

A: Yes, that was my opinion.

Q: And furthermore, you are convinced that Dr. Romberg shared that view, are you?

A: Yes.

DR. VORWERK: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.

(A recess was taken.)

THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please. The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished with the cross examination of the witness?

BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring)

Q [Sebring]: Dr. Lutz, the Tribunal understood you to say on direct examination, in substance, that you attended a conference in Nurnberg on October 26 and 27, 1942, at which the general subject, “the effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects”, was discussed, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: How long were you in attendance at that conference?

A: As far as I remember, from the beginning until the end.

Q: Do you recollect at this time the names of any members of the medical profession who attended that conference?

A: No. There is a list in existence, I think.

Q: Do you intend to say that you attended that conference for two days and do not recollect any of the members of the medical profession who were there?

A: Certainly I should be able to remember, but apart from those that actually spoke, it is very hard for me to name anyone.

Q: Can you say whether or not any persons who are now seated in the defendants’ dock were present at that conference?

A: Yes, Weltz was there; otherwise, I cannot see anyone else.

Q: Do you know all of the names of the defendants who now sit in the defendants’ dock?

A: No.

Q: Let me read them to you. Karl Brandt, did he attend that conference?

A: No, I don’t know him.

Q: Siegfried Handloser?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Paul Rostock?

A: I don’t know.

Q: Oskar Schroeder.

A: I only know him by his name.

Q: And can you recollect whether or not he attended that meeting?

A: No, I don’t think he did. It is not known to me.

Q: Well, Karl Genzken?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Karl Gebhardt?

A: I don’t know him either.

Q: Kurt Blome?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Rudolf Brandt?

A: He is unknown to me.

Q: Joachim Mrugowsk[y]?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Helmut Poppendick?

A: I don’t know him either.

Q: Wolfram Sievers?

A: No.

Q: Do you know Wolfram Sievers?

A: No.

Q: [Gerhardt] Rose?

A: I know him by his name.

Q: Do you recollect whether or not he attended that meeting?

A: No.

Q: Siegfried Ruff, did he attend?

A: I know him, but I cannot say whether he attended that conference.

Q: Did Romberg attend?

A: I cannot remember.

Q: [Viktor] Brack?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Hermann Becker-Freyseng?

A: I know him, but I don’t know whether he was present or not.

Q: You say Dr. Weltz did attend?

A: Yes, certainly, he was there with me.

Q: Konrad Schaefer?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Waldemar Hoven?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Wilhelm Beiglbo[e]ck?

A: I know Beiglbo[e]ck, but I don’t think he was there.

Q: Adolf Pokorny?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Herta Oberh[e]user?

A: She is unknown to me.

Q: Fritz Fischer?

A: I don’t know him.

Q: Then most of the defendants who now sit in the dock were unknown to you at that time, is that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal, please — pardon me.


Q: I would ask the witness, he referred to the thought that any of these experiments were to be performed upon men classed as criminals. I would ask what he meant by “criminals”.

A: Under the word “criminal”, I understood that a man who was condemned by an ordinary court in the Third Reich, that is, a criminal who was condemned by a court before the Third Reich. What I mean is, it isn’t absolutely necessary for a court to have set before the Third Reich came into power, but it is a man who was condemned to death by an ordinary court; a man who actually committed something which, according to general opinion, can be considered a crime.

Q: Do you mean another military court, or a German civil court?

A: I was speaking of a civil court.


Q [Sebring]: Would you include within the term “court” the People’s Court ?

A: I know very little about the People’s Court.

Q: What was that?

A: I know very little about the People’s Court.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I have a number of questions I would like to put to this witness. However, before I do so, I would like the record to show that the witness properly identified the defendant Romberg when he was called upon to point out his position in the defendant’s dock.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that statement, please?

MR. McHANEY: The counsel for the defendant Romberg asked this witness to identify him in the defendant’s dock. I want the record to show that he did properly identify Romberg. Of course, that does not now appear in the record. He just said “He is the fourth man from the left”, and that doesn’t show any proper identification. He is, in fact, the fourth man from the left, and I would like the record to so show.

JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Secretary-General, let the record show that the defendant Romberg is sitting in the prisoner’s dock at the place designated by the witness.



Q [McHaney]: Witness, the Tribunal has asked you what you meant by using the word “criminal”. Do I understand your answer to mean that you do not include as criminals those inmates in a concentration camp who were put there purely for political reasons?

A: Yes, you understood me correctly.

Q: Now, witness, you were asked a number of questions by counsel for the defendants about the political beliefs of various of the defendants such as Ruff, Romberg, and Becker-Freyseng. Do you remember that?

A: Yes.

Q: As I recall, they asked you whether they were anti-Nazis; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Your answer was that they were not ardent Nazis.

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: You would not go so far as to say that they were conspirators in the 20th of July plot against Hitler, would you ?

A: Not in that sense, but it would be possible that these very same people could have taken part in the plot on the 20th of July.

Q: You consider that a possibility. Now, the name of Kottenhof was mentioned in connection with the attaching of Dr. Rascher to Weltz’s Institute in Munich. Do you remember Dr. Kottenhof?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you remember when Dr. Kottenhof left Munich?

A: I cannot say that exactly, but it was approximately at the time with which we are concerned.

Q: Dr. Kottenhof went to Roumania, did he not, before these experiments were carried out — the high altitude experiments?

A: Yes; yes, he was transferred.

Q: And the defendant Weltz was then the commanding officer over Rascher in his Institute, was he not?

A: That I don’t know; I don’t know anything about the relations between Weltz and Rascher.

Q: Well, at least Kottenhof was no longer in the picture, was he?

A: No, Kottenhof was not there at all.

Q: And if Rascher was a subordinate of Weltz’s, Weltz could have had him transferred out of his Institute, could he not?

A: I am not quite clear about your question.

Q: You have stated that you do not know the relationship between Rascher and Weltz.

A: Yes.

Q: I ask you to assume that Rascher was attached to Weltz’s Institute. If Rascher was attached to Weltz’s Institute, then Weltz could have had him transferred to some other place, could he not?

A: If Rascher was subordinate to Weltz then of course, certainly, Weltz had the possibility of having Rascher transferred if the superior office — which was superior to Weltz — was in agreement with him.

Q: Now, do you remember when the low-pressure chamber was brought from Berlin to Weltz’s Institute in Munich in the early part of 1942?

A: No, I don’t remember about any such pressure chamber being brought there.

Q: Allright, then isn’t it also true that you cannot tell this Tribunal that Weltz did not himself make trips to Dachau while these experiments were in progress ?

A: I said that I could not recollect whether Weltz was in Dachau personally or not. However, if he was active extensively there, I must have gained knowledge about it.

Q: I didn’t put the question to you whether or not he had been there extensively. Rascher was not regarded as an expert in high altitude research, was he?

A: No.

Q: Therefore, if these high altitude experiments were to be carried out in Dachau, it was necessary that some experts work with Rascher, was it not?

A: Yes; it was desirable, at least.

Q: And that was the reason that Weltz asked you and Wendt to collaborate with Rascher, was it not?

A: Certainly, I would have taken over the part of the experts.

Q: Now you stated, as I recall, on cross-examination, that it seemed to you perhaps that Weltz expected you to turn this job down. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And isn’t the reason you say that because you knew that Weltz considered you to be too soft for this job ?

A: No; that would mean that Weltz desired a specially brutal procedure to be adopted there, and I don’t think that was the case.

Q: I am sorry, will you repeat that? I didn’t get the answer.

A: I did not quite get your question in translation. Would you repeat your question?

Q: I was dealing with the incident when you were asked by Weltz to collaborate with Rascher in Dachau. He did ask you and Wendt to collaborate with Rascher in Dachau, did he not?

A: Yes.

Q: And you refused, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: And Wendt refused, didn’t he?

A: Wendt? Yes.

Q: And haven’t you already told this Tribunal that the reason you refused was because you were not ruthless enough?

A: Yes, because I believed that I was not robust enough to carry out experiments on human beings.

Q: I would like the interpreter to translate the word “robust”. I would like to ask the witness: What do you mean by the word “robust”?

A: What I mean is this. It is even difficult to experiment upon a dog which looks at you and which seems to have some kind of a soul; it is even difficult to do that with a dog.

Q: That is what I understood you to mean. And Weltz knew that was your attitude, didn’t he?

A: He know that Wendt and I rejected this procedure.

Q: And after you rejected it he went to Ruff and Romberg, didn’t he?

A: I must assume that, I don’t know it.

Q: And, as I recall, you told one of the counsel for defense that you, as a member of Weltz’s Institute, were told about all of the experiments that were carried out under the auspices of Weltz’s Institute.

A: Yes.

Q: And you did not participate in the conference between Weltz and Ruff and Romberg in the latter part of 1941, did you?

A: No, I did not take part in it.

Q: Now, several of the defense counsel have asked you questions about pilot examinations carried out in low-pressure experiments. Do you recall that?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall that?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you in any sense of the word compare a pilot’s examination and a low-pressure experiment in a low-pressure chamber with the experiments carried out in Dachau?

A: Human experiments, as I have to assume were carried out in Dachau, were also carried out by scientists on their own persons.

Q: I am not suggesting to you that certain scientists in Germany, including Ruff and Romberg themselves, did not from time to time get into a low-pressure chamber themselves. I am asking you whether a pilot’s examination as carried out in the German Air Force in a low-pressure chamber could in any sense of the word be compared with the altitude experiments carried out at Dachau.

A: No doubt there were certain differences.

Q: And those differences were that they took the men in Dachau to a much higher altitude, isn’t it?

A: About the results of the experiments in Dachau I know nothing.

Q: I will ask you if a pilot’s examination in a low-pressure chamber is ever carried as high as twenty-one thousand meters.

A: No, not a pilot’s examination. I don’t think so.

Q: Now, witness, let’s go back a minute to the conference held in Nurnberg in October, 1942. I ask you again was it not clear after the statements, after the paper had been read by Holzloehner, that deaths had occurred during the course of his experiments.

A: Excuse me. Do you mean whether it became clear at the conference that during the course of these experiments the death of the experimental subject had occurred?

Q: Yes.

A: In the report of Holzloehner it stated that heart failure, that is, death, was observed in many cases, but before Rascher spoke, it could be assumed that it was in the subsequent death of persons which were rescued from the sea.

Q: But after Rascher spoke, it was clear to you and to the rest of the persons at the meeting that the experiments had not, in fact, been conducted on people rescued from the sea but upon persons furnished by the Reichsfuehrer SS, isn’t that true, witness?

A: Yes, it was clear to me.

Q: And wasn’t there some consternation at this meeting on the part of some of the scientists present after Holzloehner and Rascher had spoken?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you see Holzloehner at any time after the occasion of this meeting in Nurnberg?

A: Yes.

Q: What impression did you get of Holzloehner on the occasion of that meeting, that is to say, the meeting after the one in Nurnberg?

A: That was not a conference. I met Holzloehner in Munich. He approached me and said, “I can well imagine what you think of me now, but I can assure you I was ordered to carry out this order for the only reason in order to avoid unnecessary victims.”

Q: He was ordered by the Luftwaffe to carry out these experiments, was he not?

A: Yes, it must be so. I am not sure about that.

Q: Didn’t you get the very distinct impression that Holzloehner was very much disturbed about what he had done in Dachau?

A: No. I had the impression that he believed to have acted correctly but that he feared to be misunderstood.

Q: You mean to say that he feared that his reputation was damaged because he had help[ed] to carry out the experiments in Dachau?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know that Holzloehner subsequently committed suicide?

A: I heard it here.

Q: Now you have told this Tribunal that you thought it was generally understood by the scientists who knew about the low-pressure experiments that they were going to be conducted on criminals, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether or not the experiments were, in fact, performed upon criminals, as you define the word “criminals”?

A: The way it was obviously done I only found out after the end of the war.

Q: Then you cannot say that, in fact, the experiments were carried out on criminals, is that right?

A: No. I, naturally, cannot confirm that because I had no possibility to check it.

Q: And you also cannot say that the experiments were only carried out on volunteers, can you?

A: I cannot say that.

Q: Now, witness, is it or is it not the duty of a true and moral scientist to determine for himself what the conditions of the experiments are which he carries out and whether or not the persons upon whom he is experimenting are volunteers?

A: Under normal circumstances it had to be expected, certainly, but I, naturally, am not acquainted with the milieu which was in the concentration camp of Dachau at the time.

However, I know from my own experience that a camp has a system of its own, and it can affect you, and the barbed wire with which you are surrounded has a tendency to change human beings and has a tendency to change your character, and I think when entering a camp, you are captivated by certain conditions and a certain number of your principles are changed that way.

DR. MARX: I ask the Tribunal not to admit the testimony because, first of all, the witness is still too young, and he himself is not enough of a scientist in order to be able to answer this question. In the second place, this question may be a leading question.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal permitted the Defendant’s counsel a very liberal cross-examination. The Prosecution will be allowed some liberality in its redirect-examination. The objection is overruled.

MR. McHANEY: I think that’s all I wish to ask the witness, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination by defense counsel?

DR. HANS MAR[X] (counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng): May it please the Tribunal, there is one more question which I would like to address to the witness.


Q [Marx]: Witness, it is a question of your knowledge of the political attitude of Dr. Becker. At one time you were together in Hamburg with Dr. Becker, and that was a short time before your promotion to Stabsarzt (Captain) in the medical service. At that time, had you gained the impression of a political attitude of Dr. Becker?

A: Can you give me any more details? I cannot remember at the moment.

Q: Well, Dr. Becker claims that on the evening in question, you had stayed overnight in one hotel room.

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: And on that occasion, you had told him that your wife was half jewish, is that correct?

Q: Can it not be concluded from this that Becker had your full confidence?

A: Certainly. I had no reason to distrust him.

Q: Well, something of this kind can only be entrusted to a man who is politically discreet, and you must have been sure of his political discretion.

A: Yes.

Q: What was your opinion about the philosophical attitude of Dr. Becker?

A: We had no ardent National-Socialists in our circle, and Becker in no way emphasized this way of thinking.

Q: Yes. Under this circle, do you understand the Luftwaffe as so whole, or only the medical offices?

A: Especially the medical offices.

Q: Yes.

DR. HANS MAR[X]: Thank you very much. I have no further question.


Q [Vorwerk]: During the experiments at Dachau, did you talk with Dr. Romberg?

A: Yes, we talked occasionally.

Q: Did Romberg tell you anything about the experimental subjects?

A: Romberg did not like to discuss that subject, and the same applied to me. I remember, or I had the impression that Romberg, even after the experiments had already been carried through, was of the opinion that the experimental subjects were according to the prerequisites which had been discussed in our circle.

Q: You said that you had the impression. Don’t you know if that was actually so?

A: Yes, certainly, that was the case. I know that Romberg was convinced of it.

Q: What I wanted to know is: if Romberg stated to you that these experimental subjects were in accordance with the prerequisites which we have just discussed or if they were not in accordance with the prerequisites?

A: Could you please repeat your question?

Q: I want to know if Romberg stated to you that these experimental subjects which were used for these experiments were in accordance with the prerequisites which you have just discussed or if they were not in accordance with the prerequisites which you have just discussed?

A: At that time, as far as I remember, we did not discuss this matter in such detail; but I did have the impression, the very certain impression that Romberg was of the opinion that some of his experimental subjects at least were actually pardoned.

Q: You had this impression. Are you convinced of that? Are you convinced also that Romberg — I mean now during the experiments — also shared this impression?

A: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of the witness? If not, the witness will be excused.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal, please, we had concluded yesterday’s session with the introduction of Document 1609-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 92 [HLSL item 2541], which is on Page 77 of the English Document Book; and the Court will recall that that was a letter dated 24 October 1942 from Heinrich Himmler to Rascher, acknowledging receipt of several letters and stating that he had read his report regarding cooling experiments on humans and that Sievers should arrange for the evaluation of the results of these experiments at institutes which are connected with the SS; and he had further stated that he had regarded those people as traitors who still today reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy German soldiers die as a result of these cooling methods. We now go on to Document [NO] 401 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 93 [HLSL item 1687]; and this, if the Tribunal, please, is the report on the meeting in Nurnberg on the 26 and 27 of October 1942, on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardship. This is the report on the meeting which your Honors have heard discussed at some length this morning. On the bottom of the first page you will see that the meeting was sponsored by the Inspector of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and that the chairman of the conference was Stabsarzt Professor Dr. A.J. Anthony; and the Tribunal will recall that Dr. Anthony was chief of the department for Aviation Medicine in the medical service of the Luftwaffe, and that the defendant Becker-Freyseng was his assistant in that department from the latter part of 1942 until early in 1944, when the defendant Becker-Freyseng became chief of the department for Aviation Medicine. On the next page, that is to say, page 80 of the English Document Book, you will see an index of the contents of the report, and it gives the names of the doctors who lectured at this conference together with the subject which they discussed. You will see that Dr. Anthony gave the opening speech and the chart shows that he was chairman of this meeting. It was a report meeting on Aviation Medical problems. I call the Tribunals attention to the name of Jarisch under item IV in the Table of Contents; and the Tribunal will recall that he along with Weltz and Rascher, as mentioned in the memorandum written by Nini Rascher — that is a mistake, your Honor, — the name Jarisch was mentioned in a letter which, as I recall, is gone in already, in which Hippke had recommended to Rascher the names of Jarisch and Singer and one other gentleman whose name I forget at this moment, who were to collaborate with him in the freezing experiments. That is Document number NO-283 that went in as Prosecution Exhibit 82 [HLSL item 1563]. This was a letter from Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer in which he reported a talk he had had with Hippke and Hippke had asked that the following be engaged in these experiments. Professor Dr. Jarisch was one of them, along with Holzloehner and Singer. Immediately under the name of Jarisch in these Table of Contents is that of the name of the defendant Weltz, who read a paper on rewarming after life endangering freezing. Holzloehner gave his talk on the prevention and treatment of freezing in water, which, of course, was a report on the experiments carried out in Dachau.

We come down to Item 6 and we see the name Schaeffer mentioned as reporting on thirst and the results to combat in case of sea distress.

I cannot find the man Schaeffer identified more particularly in this report, but I suggest to the Tribunal that the Schaeffer now sitting in the box was certainly concerned with thirst problems and problems of sea distress. The Tribunal will hear proof at a later stage in this trial that it was the defendant Schaeffer who participated in a conference in 1944, where it was agreed that experiments to test the photobility [sic; potability] of sea water by this method and by a method of other means would be carried out on living human beings in Dachau; and here two years earlier we find a man with the same name reporting on the same subject in another conference which presented a report on experiments carried out on living human beings.

As the witness Lutz testified there was no question among the participating members as to where the experiments had been carried out and as to what had happened to some of the unfortunate victims.

I want to also call the Court’s attention to Item 7, to the name of Hildemann, who gave a talk on practical cold problems in the Army. I should think that the defendant Handloser might have been interested in the same subject, since at this time he was the army medical inspectorate, as well as Chief of the Medical Service of the armed forces.

I also point out to the Tribunal the name Brauch, No. 6, under Item VII, who gave a talk on Winter experience of the air fleet. He was attached to the air force as Professor and Oberstabsarzt of Luftflottenarzt 1. It was true he was one of the subordinates of the defendant Schaeffer, who at that time was connected with Air Fleet No. 2, but we shall see that we had a very very broad representation of Luftwaffe doctors at this meeting, and it would be strange indeed that none of the happenings and the reports made at this meeting did not reach the second highest ranking medical officer in the Luftwaffe.

I now ask the Tribunal to turn to the list of participants in the conference. This gives us a list of 95 doctors who attended this meeting. The Tribunal evidenced some interest in whether or not any of the defendants in this dock were there besides Weltz, and you can see from this list that a small group of them were present, namely the defendant Becker-Freyseng, being listed as No. 7. The witness who has just testified, Lutz, is shown as the No. 50. The defendant Rose, the great expert on tropical medicine dropped into this freezing conference himself, being No. 67 on this list. The defendant Ruff, No. 69, the defendant Sievers, No. 71, and the defendant Weltz No. 88.

Now, this list is very interesting for other reasons. The Tribunal will recall that the chart does not have the defendant Handloser listed as one of the defendants subordinated to him as the Army Medical Inspectorate of the Mountain Medical School of the Army at St. Joachim, and I call the Tribunal’s attention to the name Balke, Item No. 3 on this list, who was representative from this Mountain Medical School under the jurisdiction of the defendant Handloser.

I also call the Tribunal’s attention to the name Cremer, Item No. 16, being attached to the same institution under the defendant Handloser, and the Tribunal will hear later on the name of Cremer mentioned in a letter from Rascher to Himmler, as wishing to collaborate with him on freezing problems.

Item No. 33, a man by the name of Hildemann, also out at the Mountain Medical School of the Army at St. Joachim. As to Schroeder we see Huebner’s name mentioned, Item No. 38, and the Tribunal will hear the name of Huebner mentioned in connection with sea water experiments in 1944, a consulting physician to the defendant Schroeder.

Item No. 41, Oberarzt Koonig, Laboratory Platoon of O.K.W. with Handloser, the Chief of the Medical Services of the O.K.W., and again very interesting with respect to Handloser is the name Linck, No. 45, L-i-n-c-k, who was attached to the Academy of Military Medicine under the defendant Handloser.

We find the name of Meister, No. 52, another air fleet physician, Air Fleet No. 4. So that these matters were not kept from the air fleet physicians.

The Waffen-SS is represented, Item No. 55, we find the name Murthum, Obersturmbannfuehrer, of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, under the defendant Mrugowsky and Genzken.

No. 59, Peterson, Hauptsturmfuehrer, of the SS Medical Office, Berlin.

Another representative on the Academy of Military Medicine for Handloser was Ranke, Oberfeldarzt, Professor and Doctor, No. 63. Rascher, No. 64, and No. 66, Romberg. I am not sure I mentioned Romberg earlier. The defendant Romberg was there.

And of great interest is No. 76, Schreiber, Oberstarzt, Lecturer and Doctor of medical habilitation, Physiological Institute Goettingen. Dr. Schreiber is prominently shown on the chart drawn for us by Handloser, as the commanding officer of the Military Academy in Berlin, and his name appears here on the chart.

We find another air fleet physician, Air Fleet No. 3, Dr. Stelle, Stabsarzt, Luftflottenarzt.

I think the Tribunal will find a direct study of the participants at this conference most interesting.

I come now to the next page, which gives us the extract from this report, which is a summary of the talk given by Handloser, and before coming to that I would like to read the introduction which says, “The report of the meeting of 7/43,” which is not a reference to a date. This meeting was 26-27 October, 1942. It says “the report of the meeting represents the summary of the results of the scientific investigations of medical measures in the case of distress at sea, and the winter hardships. The material in question is not a service regulation. The resulting practical deductions will be worked over and ordered by the competent offices.”

Now, I think that is of some interest to Your Honor, because it gives us some indication of how these aviation medical matters were handled in the German air forces. These problems are of tremendous importance. The medical service of the German air force from time to time issued service regulations which governed the manner in which aviators were to be treated under certain circumstances, and it covers the whole field of medical treatment. Here they were concerned about the problem of freezing. What is an air fleet or flight surgeon or sea rescue service to do when they fish a man out of the North Sea? Are they to warm them in blankets or warm them in a cradle, or give them whiskey or put them in a hot bed or treat them with diathermy of the heart. These are of great interest. They do not issue these regulations which control the matters without complete and proper authority. That is precisely what he says here.

I would think it would be rather difficult for any defendant in this dock to get up and say “I knew nothing about these matters,” because they were interested in medical aviation problems. They had discussion about it. Service regulations controlling these things were not issued without the knowledge and approval of such men as Chief of the Medical Aviation Department under Freyseng, without knowledge of such people as Schaeffer, the second highest ranking medical officer in the Luftwaffe, an air fleet surgeon.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now take the noon recess, until 1:30.


THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will now be in order.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution before the noon recess had just introduced Document NO-401 as Prosecution Exhibit 93 [HLSL item 1687], which isthe report on the Nurnberg meeting in October, 1942, on freezing problems.

I read from Page 85 of the English document book on the lower part of the page, which is the opening address given by Anthony:

“During the last years soldiers of all services, especially a considerable number of fliers, could be rescued from sea distress by the Sea Distress Service (Seenotdienst) of the Luftwaffe. A year ago, by order of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Inspekteur des Sanitaetswesens der Luftwaffe), Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke had a discussion with a small circle about medical experiences at the Sea Distress Service. The results of this conference are summed up in a report. The conclusion was, among others, that exact examinations of the phenomena at general freezings are necessary to enable us to diagnose and treat these cases properly.

“During the winter campaign in the east, the freezing problem reappeared in another form.

“In the meantime, systematic examinations concerning these problems have been made at various places. The first day of our meeting shall show us the results of these examinations and thus give us an idea of the state of our knowledge of freezing in general.

“On the second day there will be reports on further medical experiences of the Sea Distress Service and of experiences during the Eastern campaign. After that specific scientific problems will be discussed which are of importance for rescues from distress at sea and for general and local protection against cold.

“On the following day the participants will also have the opportunity to attend proceedings of the Dermatological Society (Dermatologische Gesellschaft) in Wuerzburg, dealing with local freezing injuries.

“The problems to be discussed during the session should help to clarify the pertinent problems. The results will enable the competent offices to issue the necessary medical orders and instructions. The measures which have to be taken at once because of the approaching winter have already been fundamentally outlined for nine months and have also been carried out in the army.”

I continue to read on the next page, which is that portion of the report devoted to a synopsis of the paper ready [sic; read] by Dr. Holzloehner, who carried out the freezing experiments in Dachau in cooperation with Dr. Finke, also of the Luftwaffe, and Dr. Rascher.

“Prophylaxis and Treatment of Freezing in Water.

“Observations by the Sea Distress Service have shown that the reduction in body temperature proceeds very rapidly in the case of persons in distress at sea subjected to water temperature below 15 degrees. As unconsciousness or even death can occur already after half an hour, the possibility of using planes and boats is greatly decreased. Moreover, observations of mass catastrophes (the sinking of transports or war ships) revealed that even a rather long time after the rescue danger to life still exists. Thus, sudden deaths were observed twenty minutes to one and one-half hours after the rescue, which until now have remained unexplained.

“Freezing experiments on animals have been conducted hitherto predominantly to observe reflex regulations of a vas[o]motor and chemical nature. However, experiments with low temperatures of water corresponding to the range of temperature of practical importance in the Sea Distress Service were lacking. Informative investigations were conducted by Dr. Schuster. These showed that small animals could only resist freezing in water of below 10 degrees for a short time. If rats, for instance, the decline of whose rectal temperature was being recorded, swim about in water of 4 to 9 degrees, the possibility of an effective reflex regulation will already be exhausted after two to three minutes. Then the body temperature drops sharply and almost straight down, then to approach more slowly the temperature of the freezing water. Only during the first brief period does the organism behave noticeable differently from a physical model. The main body of the curve, especially the steep drop, greatly resembles the course of freezing of a small paraffin-coated bulb of corresponding volume filled with water at body temperature.

“The larger the animals the slower the reduction in temperature, corresponding to the greater amount of water and the relatively small surface. On the other hand, the phase of resistance of larger animals, such as cats and dogs, during which the straight “model-like” decline is delayed, is not prolonged correspondingly. Thus, for instance, with a dog weighing thirteen kilograms subjected to the freezing effect of four to five degree water, the straight decline begins already after two and a half minutes. This does not mean, of course, that the reflex regulations end here but that they grow less effective and are outweighed by the strong reduction of temperature.

“Thus, the question of the critical temperature of the freezing water, below which people are endangered particularly rapidly, cannot be finally answered on the basis of experiments on animals. In the case of water temperature under 15 degrees, of interest to the Sea Distress Service, all reflex regulation appears only slightly in the usual test animals. The freezing curves to a great extent resemble those of a physical model which can only be compared with many reservations to human curves because of their different measurements and differing constant temperature. But the critical body temperature, also, of men and test animals are apparently very different. Rats, for instance, can survive a rectal temperature of twenty degrees for several hours.

“The blood count, as well as the changes in the blood analysis, were also tested in such severe freezing. There investigations yielded few new results; and they correspond to the results of slow freezing or the results determined from local freezing. Among these changes, the considerable rise in viscosity in dogs and cats is of practical importance. Of interest besides are those changes which point to disorders of the intermediary metabolism. These are diminution of the alkali reserves and the rise of the pH. As the question arose, whether a considerable toxic increase in the potassium level of the blood could occur along with the known decline in resistance of orythrocytes in the cold (Jarisch), and which the incipient hemolysis frequently observed, the potassium and calcium levels of the blood were determined. The potassium content had only risen a trifling amount.

“As regards rewarming, we had the same experiences as Dr. Weltz. Just as the temperature is reduced more quickly by cold water than by cold air, so an increase in temperature is better attained by warm water than by warm air. We found most successful the effect of so-called ultra-short waves in rewarming. While a rat, with its critical body temperature of nineteen degrees, recovers totally in thermostatically controlled temperature of forty-two degrees in about three-quarters of an hour, it can, subjected to such low frequency alternating currents (Verschiebestroeme), appear almost entirely normal in its motor and sensory reactions after two to three minutes. The observation that in a hot sand bath the rewarming occurs as rapidly as in a hot water bath seems to be of practical importance. In the Sea Distress Service, sand and bran baths are more easily transported in planes and boats than are hot water baths.

“Under the practical points of view mentioned above, it was disappointing, but nevertheless of special importance for the problems of animal experiments, that after removal from the water sudden death, which could be compared to the collapse after rescue in humans, was never observed within a corresponding period of time. Therefore, it is to be assumed that conditions occur in human beings in corresponding circumstances of freezing which the animal experiments does not include.

“It has now been possible to conduct a series of investigations of human beings who were rescued after having been in cold water for a long time. The relevant statements we owe to the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke. They refer to a stay in water of 2 to 12 degrees.”

I would like to say parenthetically before I continue to read this report that while nothing has been said up to now to definitely indicate that these experiments were being performed on living human beings — that is to say, it might have been construed that the examinations were made on people who had in fact been rescued after accidentally being subjected to freezing in water — now the Witness Lutz has told us that it was made perfectly clear that these were in fact experiments. That is to say that people were subjected to freezing water to determine their reaction. But this is also apparent from the remaining part of the report, and the reason that it is apparent is because that it would have been physically impossible for any scientist to make the detailed clinical report which is contained in here on the basis of isolated rescues conducted at sea. I continue to read from the paper read by Dr. Holzloehner:

“The rapidity of which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders the movement of the arms especially increasingly difficult. This affects respiration also: inspiration is deepened and expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucus secretions occur. These factors have to be taken into consideration in planning and developing rescue equipment. Thus, for instance, it is certainly extremely difficult even at the beginning of numbness to climb into a rubber raft, to blow up a rubber raft for one person, or to make use of instruments or to signal or call. The rigor is a conditioned reflex and not, as many persons apparently think, a contraction of the corresponding muscles due to cold. It ceases spontaneously at death. From this it follows that persons seemingly dead who still evince a definite rigor offer hope of revival.

With a drop of the rectal temperature to 31 degrees, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to a deep cold-induced anethesia if the decline reaches below 30 degrees. With freezing within the range of temperature mentioned, the cold-induced anethesia can appear after 30 minutes to one and a half ho[u]rs; a sharp increase of spinal fluid pressure and reflexes appear regularly again.

“Very important is the observation that with a rectal temperature of between 29 and 30 degrees arrhythmia perpetua occurs regularly and that it remains for one and a half to two hours after the person is removed from the water. It can pass over to a normal heart activity of its own accord and without therapeutic aid. But, if the rectal temperature has dropped below 29 degrees a sudden death of heart failure can develop from the arrhythmia. Breathing can continue after the cessation of the heart activity, as slow gasping breathing for up to half an hour.

“A dependence of the rapidity with which the rectal temperature drops on water temperature between 2 to 12 degrees was not determined with any certainty. The known fact that well-fed and strong persons freeze more slowly in water was confirmed. It is certain that the rapidity of the drop of temperature increases when the neck and occiput are washed by water.

“It is of particular importance that the drop of temperature can continue for 20 to 40 minutes after removal from water if the rescued person, rubbed dry and wrapped in warm blankets, is left alone. Subsequent decline of rectal temperature of more than 4 degrees may occur. If this subsequent drop in temperature passes below a rectal temperature of 28 degrees sudden death by heart failure can occur.

“In the blood of severely frozen persons the number of red blood corpuscles is increased to 20%. The increase in leukocytes is even greater; 25,000 to 27,000 are to be found pre [i.e., per(?)] mm 3. The multiplication of the erythrocytes corresponds to an increase in hemoglobin of from 10 to 20 %. Noticeable and important is a great increase in viscosity of up to 7.8.

This increase appears very early, that is, already with a body temperature of 35 degrees. These increases are greater than those found in animal experiments. With dogs, for instance, an increase of more than 6.2 was never observed under corresponding circumstances. Furthermore, the blood sugar could be determined. Regular increases of blood sugar were observed, which, with low rectal temperatures, can reach 100%.

“True, that irregularity, which indicates a serious damage to the heart, is certainly found in experiments with animals. But, there it seems to appear only at lower temperatures. Consequently the heart of human beings, who were frozen in water, seems to be more exposed to danger than the heart of experimental animals. The damage to the heart is to be traced back to the following circumstances:

“1. The strong increase in viscosity necessitates a more intense functioning of the heart.

“2. The throttling of the peripheric regions of the vessels induces a repletion of the central parts. All records on autopsies concerning death by freezing in water after distress at sea, uniformly show a strong repletion of the right heart. There are even symptoms proving that not only the blood circulation in the skin and in the skeletal muscles is being throttled by strom [i.e., strong (?)] and rapid freezing, but that, contrary to the Dastre-Morat Law, a reduction of the blood circulation of the kidneys and intestines and even a strong contraction of the spleen take place.

“All this will increase the power of resistance in the entire circulation and increase the rush of blood to the heart.

“3. It is to be expected that, under the influence of the low blood temperature, the heart itself becomes highly hypodynamic. Experiments with animals have proved long ago that by overloading and freezing of the isolated heart a fluttering of the ventricles can be produced.

“Besides physical damage to the heart muscles by cold, damage by pathological products of metabolism must of course be taken into consideration. The high increase of blood sugar may, at first sight be brought in connection with increased secretion of adrenalin. The constancy of this increase of blood sugar during the fall of temparature, however, is noteworthy. It can be presumed that, with the fall of temperature continuing, the secretion of adrenalin will sometime come to a standstill. At the same time a rapid decrease of the blood sugar ought to take place, if the phenomena of oxidation would take their course without disturbances; apparently this is not the case.

“The conditions of the heart allow an opinion to be formed on the problem of collapse after rescue. This collapse can result either when a drop below a critical value is caused by subsequent decrease of the body temperature as set out above, or else, when the freezing was preceded by supreme physical strain. It must be pointed out in this connection that collapse after rescue particularly appeared at mass catastrophes, in the course of which people had to swim to a certain spot during a long time partly without being equipped with the necessary means of buoyancy, as life jacket, etc. In this case, a heart, the damage to and overloading of which is indicated by the fluttering of the ventricles, may suddenly fail after rescue.

“The aspect of illness in the case of rapid freezing is therefore the negative of a collapse, in the course of which a hemorrhage into the periphery takes place. Up to now such a collapse was dreaded during rewarming and therefore often a slow rewarming has been recommended or prescribed. The sudden death after warming had been traced back to such a hemorrhage into the periphery. Since it has been shown that here too, the direct damage to the heart is the main cause, those theoretical doubts can be done away with. The good results with quick warming obtained in experiments with animals encouraged a corresponding procedure with human beings. These experiments showed that baths with a water temperature of 40 [degrees] not only accelerate the return to normal temperature and absorb the sudden dangerous falls of temperature after rescue, but may also be of life-saving effect should the heartbeats begin to stop. Danger to persons treated in such a way was never observed.

“The treatment with elect[r]ic arcs or hot air is less effective. But this treatment must be prefferred to simple and quick drying and subsequent wrapping into warm blankets. Rubbing also has a favorable effect if a superficial warming up of the skin by means of a hot bath or an electric arc has preceded, which has increased the capacity to the epidermic vessels.

“The favorable effect of an intensive supply of warmth may be explained, apart from the rapid re-establishment of the body temperature, or the prevention of a subsequent fall of temperature by easing the pressure on the heart. In a way it is a sort of blood-letting into the periphery. Under those circumstances it seems illogical from the very beginning to administer anal[e]ptika to persons suffering from rigor which would increase the tonus of the vessels in the periphery. Jarisch has even found out that such anal[e]ptika given in otherwise admissible doses may have a toxic effect in experiments with animals. This does not show with human beings. Even strophanthin can be tolerated without having on the other hand a demonstrably favorable effect. Moreover, all therapeutical interference which might delay a rapid active supply of warmth is to be rejected.

“Preventive measures against rapid freezing in water proscribe in this case, that person who fall into the water keep their clothes on. The otherwise insulating air between the clothes gets lost, however, by their being soaked, nevertheless persons freeze more slowly in their clothes because the water warmed by the body adheres for a longer period to the surface of the body (decrease of the convection). Protective suits were developed which so to speak regenerate and retain the escaping air without being air-proof.

“This is wadded underwear, the threads of which are chemically prepared, a comparativery steady foam is formed which adheres to the clothing once it is drenched. By the use of such safety-suits freezing might be delayed for 1-1/2 to three hours. The chances for planes and boats in the Sea, Distress Rescue Service are considerably increased by this device.”

There follows this extract from the paper, a synopsis on the paper read by Holzloehner, a synopsis of the discussion of the paper made by various individuals and attendants at the meeting. I think it would serve no useful purpose for me to read all of those. However, I would like to call the Court’s attention to the statement made by Rascher.

“Supplementing the statements of Holzloehner there is a report on observation according to which cooling in the region of the neck only, even if it lasts for several hours, causes merely a low sinking (up to 1 deg. C) of the body temperature without changing the blood-Sugar-level or the heart function. Checking of the rectal temperature was carried out by taking the temperature in the stomach and showed complete agreement. After taking alcohol, body temperature decreases at a quicker pace. After taking daxtropur the decrease is slower than with the experiments in both sober and alcoholic condition. Hot infusions (10% dextre solution, physiolog. Table salt-solution, tutofusin, physiolog. Table salt-solution with pancortex) were successful only for a time.”

Now I think it is amply clear from reading this report on its face that it was made more than clear at this meeting that experiments had been carried out on living human beings and that this is in a clinical report given on people who had in fact evidently been subjected to freezing water. The report and clinical picture is considerably too detailed for such an explanation to be accepted, which, of course, is a matter of no importance, except in so far as it indicates that the other men in attendance at this meeting were clearly given to understand that experiments on human beings had taken place, proof of which we have already put in, and which shows clearly, of course, that the experiments did take place. The important thing here is that a report an[d] a very plain report was given at a very large meeting, at a conference meeting of doctors from all four arms of the armed forces in Germany.

The only other matter in this report which I wish to call to the Tribunal’s attention is on page 97, in which a remark is made by Grosse Brockhoff, and it reads as follows:

“The paper presented by Prof. Holzloehner reopens the question — to what extent we are justified to apply to human beings the experiences gained by experiments on animals. However, it is obvious that there is a far reaching similarity, although there are minor quantitive differences, not one fundamental difference was demonstrated. We believe, that also in the case of human beings the diminution of the sensorium of the vital centres in the medualla oblongata and in the heart are the decisive causes of death. These changes in the sensorium are rendered obvious from the electroenocephalogrous presented by Mr. Palms.”

The only reason I am bringing that up is that it seems to be a statement made by a man who perhaps was objecting at this meeting to what had been done, stating in effect, we have made these very fundamental experiments on living human beings, and it is a question of whether or not they are justified or whether experiments on animals would serve the same purpose, and he points out why there are quantitive differences, but that there are not fundamental quantitive differences, and while, of course, this is a rather mild comment, it is not to be expected in a report of this character distributed by the Luftwaffe. They are putting in verbatim everything which is said and done at this meeting. So much for the report on the Nurenberg meeting.

I proceed now to Document NO 323, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 94 [HLSL item 1669]. The Tribunal will recall that we have already put into evidence the letter from Himmler to Rascher, telling him that he should carry out the re-warming experiments with animal heat. We have also put in documents which show request of a letter from Rascher stating that Sievers should do everything necessary in obtaining the four women, and that we have two telegrams in the record which sent forward the requests to Glu[e]cks that the four women be transferred from Ravensbruck to Dachau, and we now come back to the subject of re-warming by animal warmth, and that is what this memo by Dr. Rascher seems to be. It is dated 5 November, 1942:


“Requested report on concentration camp prostitutes:

“For the resuscitation experiments by animal warmth after freezing as ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS I had four women assigned to me from the Women’s concentration camp Ravensbru[e]ck.

“One of the assigned women shows unobjectionably Nordic racial characteristics: blond hair, blue eyes, corresponding head and body structure, 21 3/4 years of age. I questioned the girl, why she had volunteered for the brothel. I received the answer: “To get out of the concentration camp, for we were promised that all those who would volunteer for the brothel for half a year would then be released from the concentration camp.” To my objection that it was a great shame to volunteer as a prostitute I was told: “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the concentration camp’. Then followed an account of a number of most peculiar conditions at camp R. Most of reported conditions were confirmed by the three prostitutes and by the female warden who had accompanied them from Ravensbru[e]ck.

“It hurts my racial feelings to expose a girl as a prostitute, to racially inferior concentration camp elements, who has the appearance of a pure Nordic and who could perhaps by assignment of proper work be put on the right road.

“Therefore, I refused to use this girl for my experimental purposes and gave the adequate reports to the camp commander and the adjutant of the Reichsfuehrer SS.

(Signed) Dr. S. Rascher”.

This, if your Honors please, is the atmosphere in which the so-called scientific experiments were carried out.

The next document is NO 288, which is Prosecution Exhibit 95 [HLSL item 1582]. This is a signed note of the defendant, Sievers, and carries the letter head of the Ahnenerbe, to the Reich Business Manager:


“Subject: Transfer of the Staff physician, Dr. Rascher, to the Waffen-SS.

“The various experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau in connection with the “Ahnenerbe” show that:

1) the fact that he has to be detailed from the Luftwaffe in each instance

2) the fact that, in addition, the assistance of the Luftwaffe has to be requested.

cause increasing difficulties. It can really be called a regular tug-of-war, through which it is true, we have so far always succeeded in carrying out the experiments ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Recent developments show, however, that this situation is unbearable, and it appears more and more that the competent offices of the Luftwaffe do not like the experiments, the importance of which is at once obvious, to be carried out by the SS. This attitude appears clearly in the letter of 10/10/42 from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Prof. Dr. Hippke, to the Reichsfuehrer SS. Further evidence: during the conference, ‘Hardships of the Sea and Winter,’ of 26 and 27 October 1942 in Nurnberg the report was delivered mainly by the Stabsartz of the Luftwaffe, Prof. Dr. Holzloehner, who was absolutely opposed to human experiments, but who tried to claim for himself the credit for the SS experiments in Dachau.

“The chief of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation Research Captain Dr. Ruff, delivered the report on the high altitude experiments before the German Academy for Aviation Research, on 6 November, 1942, ‘because persons who were not members of the Academy could not report’ and ‘in order to make up for the poor report given at General Field Marshal Milch’s,’ As has already been demonstrated, new questions continuously arise from the experiments carried out so far by Dr. Rascher, the solution of which is in the interests first of the conduct of the war, and then of the nation’s health in general. In order to carry out experiments free from all hindering influences, it would be best to transfer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher to the Waffen-SS, to put him in the Staff Department of the Waffen-SS with the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, and to assign him to the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe, for the continuation of his experiments”.

It is of course to be seen from this memorandum, which was directed to the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, that the defendant Sievers hardly had the welfare of his nation and the conduct of the war at heart.

The next exhibit will be 96, which is document NO 319 [HLSL item 1659]. This is a memorandum by Dr. Rascher to the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, on which the defendant Rudolf Brandt was active. It is dated 6 November 1942.

“Memorandum. Concerning: Cooperation of SS physicians of the Mountain Troops.

“At the session ‘Distress at Sea and Winter Cold’, all four branches of the Wehrmacht were represented. For the Army there was, among others, Oberstabsarzt Dr. Craemer, Chief of the Research Station at the Medical Corps Training School of the Mountain Troops, St. Johann. Dr. Craemer requested me to ask you, dear Reichsfuehrer, if it were not possible for the medical units of the SS Mountain Troops respectively, the responsible physicians of these units, to cooperate officially with the Research Station at the Medical Corps Training School of the Mountain Troops. Up to now only here and there SS physicians had come to St. Johann unofficially to profit by the experiences of the physicians of the Mountain Infantry which had been gained during many years. Since there was excellent cooperation of both units at the front, it would be desirable if the SS physicians could utilize the experiences of the physicians of the Mountain Troops which had been gained during many years.

“Dr. Craemer was so enthusiastic about the results I reported that he asked me for permission to see the actual experiments. Apart from scientific cooperation he requested — and which has to be set out in particular — he asked me to obtain a decision regarding the cooperation as outlined above.”

Signed, “Dr. Rascher”, with a stenographic notation, “by order to Grawitz.”

Now this is a very interesting document. We have heard the witness Lutz testify this morning that he had had an army officer talk to him after this meeting in Nurnberg and that this army officer told him that he had been to Dachau and Rascher had been good enough to demonstrate to him there how people could be killed by freezing water. I suggest that it is not without the realm of possibility that is was Dr. Craemer with whom he had this discussion, Dr. Craemer who was chief of the Corps Training School of the Mountain Troops at St. Johann, which school was under the direction of and subordinated to the defendant Handloser as Army Medical Inspectorate, and which he so graphically has drawn for us on the chart submitted in evidence before this Tribunal.

We come now to document No. 1579-PS, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 97 [HLSL item 2523]. Here again is a follow-up memorandum dated the same day as the one which I have just read, and it deals with the same subject, which is: “Joint research work of Dr. Rascher and Medical Research Station for Mountain Medical Troops.” It is directed to the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS:

“Oberstabsarzt Dr. Craemer asked whether there were a possibility of collaborating with me.

“The most urgent problem to be solved is the adaptability of the troops to winter cold and the diet best suited for it. Since the solution of this problem is also of great importance to the SS troops, I have reached the following conclusion after careful consideration:

“Since there are concentration camp inmates in the region of the SS mountain house near Bayrischzell, it should be possible to carry out the adaptability tests in that region, which can be isolated to a certain degree. The most realistic adaptation would have to be carried out in igloos in ordinary troop clothing.

“To be tried are: (a) diet rich in fat; (b) vitamin-rich, meatless diet; (c) meat-fat diet of the inhabitants of the Arctic regions.

“After the adaptability tests it would be important to investigate whether injuries to the extremeties due to freezing have a better prognosis in persons accustomed to cold than in persons unaccustomed to cold.

“The reasons for this idea of adaptability are:

“1. That by tests in Dachau I could prove that individuals accustomed to cold live from three to four times longer under the same conditions of intense cooling as persons unaccustomed to cold.

“2. That mountain troops who have been in the central sector from the beginning have been fighting at minus forty degrees Centigrade in ordinary clothing without suffering from frost injuries, whereas as many as 50 percent of the unhabituated reserve troops drawn from Western France succumbed to the cold while on their way to the front.

“The proposals for carrying out the above mentioned series of tests seem therefore justified.

“I request that this matter be looked into and that I receive proper instructions.”

Signed, “Dr. Rascher.”

Of course, the two reasons that he gives for finding a better prognosis in persons accustomed to cold very clearly indicate that Dr. Rascher proceeded to kill individuals, some of whom had been accustomed to cold and some of whom had not, because only in that way could he make the statement that he had proved that individuals accustomed to cold live from three to four times longer under the same conditions of intense cold as persons unaccustomed to cold.

The next will be document NO 314, which is Prosecution Exhibit 98 [HLSL item 1647], and at this point the defendant Gebhardt enters the picture. This is a letter from the defendant Rudolf Brandt to “Dear Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt” at Hohenlychen. It is dated 11 November 1942:

“The Stabsarzt of the Reserve of the Luftwaffe, Dr. Rascher, who is at the same time Hauptsturmfuehrer of the Allgemeine SS, will probably soon be transferred to the Waffen SS. He has already conducted important experiments in Dachau, with the assistance of the Reichsfuehrer SS, which concern the freezing of people who have remained in water a long time. Besides these, high altitude experiments were conducted.

“According to instructions from the Reichsfuehrer SS, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher — as soon as his transfer to the Waffen SS has been effected — will contact you in order to be informed of the date on which he can report to you.

“In the near future, experiments will be conducted with regard to freezing.

“The Reichsfuehrer SS asks that on your visit to Finland you ask some appropriate Finn what the Finns would do to combat freezing.”

Initialed, Rudolf Brandt.

I will recall to the Tribunal that on the two SS charts — that is to say, the charts showing the organization of the medical service of the SS — the chart showing the organization prior to 31 August 1943 did not contain the name of the defendant Gebhardt, but I assured the Tribunal at that time that that should not be construed as meaning that Gebhardt was not an important figure in the Medical service of the SS prior to the reorganization date in August 1943. As this letter clearly points up, Gebhardt was extremely close to the Reichsfuehrer SS and was turned to for advice on medical matters, and is here told that Rascher, as soon as his transfer out of the Luftwaffe is effected, will report to Gebhardt.

I come new to document NO-431, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 99 [HLSL item 1715]. This letter is dated 12 November 1942; it is addressed to Oberstabsarzt Dr. Craemer of the Research Branch of the Mountain Medical Troops at St. Johann. The letter is not signed; it obviously is a file copy. There is no doubt that the letter was from Siegmund Rascher, because of the date given, and “Munich, 56 Tregerstrasse.” If the Court will refer to any one of the many letters which came from Rascher during this period of time, you will see that that is the address from which they emanated.

“Dear Oberstabsarzt:

“Yesterday I reported to the Reichsfuehrer SS and, as agreed upon, I suggested cooperation of doctors of SS mountain troops with mountain doctors of the army units. The Reichsfuehrer SS agreed to his cooperation and has already issued instructions to the Reichsarzt SS, Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Grawitz.

“I have also reported to the Reichsfuehrer SS about the experiments concerning adjustment to cold in Igloos. The Reichsfuehrer SS fully agreed to this series of tests too, and has charged me with their conduct. The Reichsfuehrer SS approved of the tests with various foodstuffs; I have been charged with the conduct and organization of these experiments. A suitable locality, 1100 meters above sea level in the mountains, is also available.

“In case you are interested, may I ask you to contact me.

“Heil Hitler.”

The next is Document NO-287, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 100 [HLSL item 1578]. This is a letter from the defendant Rudolf Brandt to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, who as Your Honors will remember, was the administrative chief of the concentration camps. It is dated 20 November 1942.

“The Reichsfuehrer-SS requests that SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher whose transfer from the Luftwaffe to the SS is worked on right now, is to be assisted as much as possible in his experimentation at Dachau.

“Rascher suggested to the Reichsfuehrer-SS to adjust the heating pads in both pockets of the great coats, then one pad between the trouser band and the waist-bandage, and during severe cold, to put one pad in each hollow of the knee of soldiers detailed for guard duties to keep the great blood-vessels warm, and then above all, to put socks filled with heating material between the sole of the leather boots and the sole of the felt boot to prevent the foot from freezing when getting wet.

“Will you please give orders that the clothing plant in Dachau assist SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher by producing the necessary experimental clothing.”

With a copy sent to Dr. Rascher.

We come now to Document NO-236 to be Prosecution Exhibit 101 [HLSL item 1470]. This is a letter dated 12 January 1943 from Sievers of the Ahnenerbe Society to [O]bergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen-SS Wolff, concerning “Transfer of SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher to the Waffen-SS.

Reference is “Your letter 19 October 1943” — but which probably should read 1942.

“SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher reported today that according to a confidential communication of 11 January 1943, he had been released from his d[u]ties in the Anti-Aircraft Artillery School Schongau and had been placed at the disposal of the Luftgau Medical Department VII in Munich. Dr. Rascher has to be prepared to be sent at any moment to serve at a small air base. In view of the well known attitude of the superior authorities towards Dr. Rascher’s experiments, this measure has certainly a definite background. In case that the transfer of Dr. Rascher to the Waffen-SS, as requested by General Field Marshal Milch in his letter of the beginning of November 1942, is not possible in the near future, it would be highly desirable that Dr. Rascher should be granted a leave by the Luftwaffe until the above mentioned transfer is completed. Before that he will not be able to start with his research work in accordance with orders by the Reichsfuehrer-SS of December 12, 1942.

“Since freezing experiments depend on the season, precious time will be lost if Dr. Rascher is not available. It is therefore again requested that the chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, Generalobserstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hipp[k]e, be asked to grant a leave of absence to Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, independent of his application for transfer.”

Signed: “Sievers.”

Here we see the defendant Sievers getting very much concerned about a possible transfer of Dr. Rascher away from the vicinity of Dachau Concentration Camp, which of course, would not make possible the dry freezing experiments, which we shall see were carried out; and that is the reference to — that the freezing experiments depend on the season, because it seems quite clear that the wet freezing experiments could be carried out at almost any season of the year since the water temperature was obtained by the addition of ice.

We come now to Document NO-237, to be Prosecution Exhibit 102 [HLSL item 1474]. And this is a memorandum from Heckensteller, who was on the staff of — who apparently was an assistant to Wolff, and he is writing this memorandum to the attention of Richter in the Reich Air Ministry. It refers to the letter from SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff of 21 November 1942 to Milch, which Your Honors will recall, was a letter requesting the transfer of Rascher to the Waffen-SS.

“My dear Ministerial Councillor:

“Referring to our telephone conversation, I venture to remind you of the letter addressed to General Field Marshal Milch by Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff upon request of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. It referred to the Dr. Rascher affair.

“Moreover SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff has learned recently that Dr. Rascher was made available for a new assignment.

“The Obergruppenfuehrer would be very much obliged to you if you would ask General Field Marshal Milch for his early decision in this matter.”

Signed: “Heckensteller.”

Next is Document NO-320 which is Prosecution Exhibit 103 [HLSL item 1663], and this gives an insight into the jealousies among the SS men who were implicated in this affair. It’s a letter from the defendant Sievers to the defendant Rudolf Brandt dated 28 January 1943.

“Dear comrade Brandt:

“I submit to you enclosed a documentary note of Dr. Rascher on his discussion with the Reich Physician SS of 13 January 1943. I would be much obliged to you if you could advise us as to what attitude we or Dr. Rascher are to take in the future. I am slightly astonished about the cause of the discussion, for the orders of the Reichsfuehrer-SS were especially to the effect that we — that is the ‘Ahnenerbe’ — were to take Dr. Rascher’s work under our care. The argument of SS-Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz that it constituted an unbearable situation to have a non-physician give information on medical matters is not pertinent. I have never claimed to be a judge of medical matters, nor do I consider it as one of my duties. My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reichsfuehrer-SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I certainly can form an opinion; that is, on who is doing the quickest job.

“If things are to go on in the future as SS-Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz desires, I am afrai[d] that Dr. Rascher’s work will not continue to advance as fast and unhampered as heretofore.

“With comradely greetings and Heil Hitler, Yours, Sievers.

Now of course the Tribunal will not be astonished when the defendant Sievers takes the stand and tells us that he had nothing to do with these things; that the Ahnenerbe was simply an adjunct of the Reich Post Office; that just mail was channeled through his office and he passed it along to the proper authorities; that that is the only reason that his name appears in this whole affair.

The report referred to in the letter is attached and is part of the same exhibit 103, and it gives us a running account of the discussion between Dr. Grawitz; and who should be there but our defendant Dr. Poppendick, and Dr. Rascher. This is on the 13th of January 1943.

“Rascher: Reports on freezing experiments with water and emphasizes that they have been concluded practically, but not in theory.

“Grawitz: Question about the memorandum: Whether Rascher believes this to be absolutely founded for dry freezings, too?

“Rascher: No, a lot of theoretical work is still to be done, primarily many practical experiments have still to be conducted.

“Grawitz: That is my opinion. We cannot distribute a memorandum to the troops, abolishing all former views, if this is not entirely well founded, as otherwise uncertainties will arise among the troops. I shall write to Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt that I am asking the Reichsfuehrer-SS not to distribute the memorandum, before a well founded method of treatment of dry frozen persons has been established.”

We have got that memorandum coming in somewhere, as I recall, and the Court will appreciate then precisely what they are talking about. Rascher had conducted some experiments on the effects of dry cold and the proper method of rewarming people who had been subjected to dry cold as compared to wet cold; and Grawitz is here questioning the recommendations that Rascher made in this memorandum and is insisting that perhaps he hasn’t conducted enough experiments with dry cold to justify his conclusion that the same hot bath method is the proper way for rewarming. Rascher continues:

“Very well, that is the way the Reichsfuehrer gave me the order of 13 December 1942. But I urgently want to emphasize that the results of the freezing experiments with water have been established and are well founded.

“Grawitz: Well now, this had to be mentioned in the letter to Brandt so that you are not blamed in any way. You see, from my former activities (mention of some hospital) I know so much about metabolism that I am almost a specialist in this field and can help you enormously.

“Rascher: As I understood, Gruppenfuehrer, that’s why I am to turn to your office for glass materials, chemicals, and so forth.

“Grawitz: No. Not only for that. You have to turn to me in all medical matters, since after all, I am Reich Physician SS and all medical affairs are subordinate to me. It is absolutely necessary that all medical matters destined for the Reichsfuehrer go through my office.

“Rascher: I don’t know, Gruppenfuehrer, if this was the intention. I am under the direct orders of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and I have always reported directly to him. I have never received orders to another effect.

“Grawitz: You certainly will be transferred to the Waffen SS?

“Rascher: Yes, I hope so. The transfer is under way.

Grawitz: There you are. Then you will be under my orders as a physician at any rate and all matters will have to go through my office, otherwise the situation would be unbearable.

Rascher: But i am under the orders of the “Ahnenerbe”. Am I to report to you, too, what I have to report to the “Ahnenerbe”?

Grawitz: Certainly. At least a copy on all medical matters has to be sent to me for my information. For it is an unbearable situation to have a non-physician, such as Standartenfuehrer Sievers, inform me on medical matters if he does not have the adequate special medical education. I have nothing against Sievers. — Well, yes, I know you are of the “Ahnenerbe” I don’t say anything against your work for the “Ahnenerbe”, but I want you to work with the “Ahnenerbe” for the Reich Physician. I shall also write to Brandt in this matter.” ….

Finally Poppendick gets a word in.

“Poppendick: W[e]ll, I already had to ask Standartenfuehrer Sievers several times to come to me to receive information. In the long run all medical matters wind up with us anyway.

Grawitz: You see, this is the point. When the Reichsfuehrer-SS does not understand a medical matter clearly he hands the matter over to me anyway.

Rascher: Of course, I am grateful for every kind of help, but I believe that I am primarily under the orders of the “Ahnenerbe”.

Grawitz: Certainly not when you are a member of the Waffen-SS. I am able to make you profit very much by my knowledge and I shall inform Brandt to that effect. It isn’t that I bear a grudge against you or your work, but all things have to follow their way. Don’t be afraid, scientific thefts don’t occur with us. As I know, you have to acquire the right of giving lectures at universities as a qualified academic teacher under Pfannenstiehl. And you will nee[d] support. Do you want to be supported by me?

Rascher: Of course, I th[a]nk you most obediently. Where I need support, I gladly accept it.

Grawitz: Well, we shall wait then with the memorandum until you have a few hundred cases, then we shall continue. Of course, I would not like the Reichsfuehrer-SS to believe that I want to impede you. But if something has not yet been proved to a great extent, we can not distribute anything to the troops that might spread uncertainty among the responsible authorities. Everything may be true for freezing by water, but we don’t have these in the Waffen-SS. So you agree to wait with the distribution of the memorandum.

Rascher: Gruppenfuehrer, it is anyway entirely your affair, whether the memorandum is issued now, as you are responsible for it. I composed the memorandum on the basis of these few cases of dry freezing, because the Reichsfuehrer SS pressed for its publication. In composing the memorandum, I was fully aware of the necessity that many experiments still had to be carried out, and I also submitted this view on the occasion of a discussion with the Reichsfuherer SS in Dachau. But the Reichsfuehrer saw the results in Dachau and just wanting to help the troops ordered the memorandum to be drawn up.

Grawitz: in composing a memorandum or in any other scientific work you should not let anybody press you, not even the Reichsfuehrer, that never will do! Well now, you’ll send me a copy of all your medical correspondence with the “Ahnenerbe”, you’ll no longer write directly to the Reichsfuehrer in medical matters but write to me, as it comes to me anyway, will you do that?

Rascher: I’ll have to discuss the matter with Standartenfuehrer Sievers first, this comes too much as a surprise.

Grawitz: Well, I shall send you a copy of my letter to Dr. Brandt so that you can get a clear picture. I have been very pleased, to have established such a close contact with you.”

I would like to say, with respect to the defendant Poppendick, that if this letter does nothing else it clearly points out the fact that he was in reality subordinate to Dr. Grawitz (Reich Physician SS) in medical matters. I have no doubt that he will urge upon the Tribunal that at this time, which is prior to the reorganization of 31 August 1943, that he was subordinate to Dr. Grawitz, Reich Physician SS in medical matters. I have no doubt that he will urge upon the Tribunal that at this time, which is prior to the reorganization on 31 August 1943, that he was subordinated to Chief of Office for Race and Settlement in SS. Of course, it is a fact that he was subordinated to that office for certain matters. That was the SS Office to which he was officially attached. However, shown upon the chart drawn by us the Chief Dr. Grawitz, as Reich Physician SS, had authority over Poppendick in medical matters. And this memorandum places him at a meeting with Grawitz and Rascher in January 1943 and they fully explored the past experiences on freezing experiments at Dachau and Grawitz insisted at great length that further experiments had to be carried out.

We come now to Doc. NO-238 which is Prosecution Exhibit 104 [HLSL item 1476]. This takes us back to the pulling match between the Luftwaffe and the SS over the valuable services of Dr. Rascher. This memorandum is from Sievers and it gives notes on the correspondence from the SS to the Luftwaffe, about conversation with Rascher in Munich 28 January 1943, and conversation with Rudolf Brandt on 29 January 1943, and it reads as follows:

“The Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke asked the SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher through his superior, Oberfeldarzt Dr. Daniel for an immediate report about what had been he [sic; i.e., what he had been] working on since he had been made available for new assignment (Z.D.). The Oberfeldarzt Dr. Daniel permitted SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher to continue his experiments in Dachau. I suggested that SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher give a report approximately like this:

“I am continuing the experiments which were assigned to me by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I considered my ‘Z.D’ position as the first step 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 Prof. Hippke said over the telephone (so that he probably could not be pinned down) 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 Prof. Dr. Pfannenstiel in Marburg. Due to the interference of Generaloberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. Hippke the process of admittance has become doubtful.

(Signed) Sievers”

One copy went to the record. The second copy went to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Rudolf Brandt.

“With the request that measures be taken on the basis of the situation described in my letter of 12 January 1943.”

Now the Tribunal heard the cross examination of the witness Lutz this morning in which certain of the defense counsels tried to draw out that Romberg and Ruff knew — everyone else connected with this clearly understood — they were volunteers, that the Nazis were giving them a big break, they were condemned to death, given life if they survived the experiment. They take the position that that should happen. If that line has any truth at all, why is Dr. Hippke, as stated in this memorandum, upset by certain of Rascher’s experiments, if these people were condemned to death, if treated in a good and kind way, why is the reason to be ashamed about them. The reason is perfectly obvious. The high officials of the Luftwaffe realized very well what had gone on. There is no doubt there were there along the way twinges of consciousness expressed in the document which they wrote at that time but never were they so conscious stricken that they stopped the experiments they conducted from the time Rascher started early in 1942, through the freezing experiments, which require passage through low pressure chamber, or through the sea water experiments at Dachau.

Recess was taken.

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

MR. McHaney: May it please the Tribunal, the next document will be Document 1616-PS. This will be Prosecution Exhibit 105 [HLSL item 2553].

I wish to point out to the Tribunal in this connection that 1616 PS as it appears in your document book on page 120 is noted as being continued. That is a report on the rewarming by animal warmth. Eliminated from the English document book by mistake was a covering letter, to which the re-warming report was attached. Both the covering letter and the attached report are Document 1616-PS, and both are offered as Prosecution Exhibit 105. The German document books, which went to the German Counsel, did contain both the letter and the report, and the omission of this English translation was simply a mistake when the document book was assembled.

We got some indication that experiments with dry cold, as distinguished from experiments with wet or water cold, were carried out in Dachau from one of the previous exhibits which gave us a transcript of the discussion between Rascher, Grawitz and Poppendick. This letter describes in a little more detail precisely what they did in these dry cold experiments. This is a letter dated 17 February 1943 from Rascher to his “Dear Reichsfuehrer”:

“Enclosed I present to you in condensed form a summary of the result of the experiments made in applying animal warmth to people who have been intentionally chilled. Right now I am attempting to prove through experiments on human beings that it is possible to warm up people chilled by exposure to dry cold, just as fast as people who were chilled by means of continued immersion in cold water. The Reichs Physician SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz doubted very much whether that would be possible and said that I would have to prove it first by one hundred experiments. Up to the present, I have carried out intense chilling experiments on thirty human beings by leaving them outdoors naked from 0900 to 1400 hours, thereby reducing their body temperature to 27 degrees Centigrade to 29 degrees Centigrade. After an interval which was supposed to correspond to the period of transportation lasting one hour, I have placed these experiments up to the present, all subjects, despite the fact that hands and feet were partly frozen white, were successfully re-warmed within another hour.

Only some subjects showed slight lassitude, with slight rise of temperature, on the day following the experiment. No fatalities occurred as a result of this extraordinarily rapid method of re-warming.

“Unfortunately I could not yet carry out the re-warming by means of Sauna, as was ordered by you, my dear Reichsfuehrer. The weather during December and January was too warm for such experiments outdoors, and at present the camp is quarantined on account of typhus, so that I was not permitted to bring the experimental subjects into the SS Sauna. I have had myself inoculated several times, and I am continuing these experiments in spite of the presence of typhus in the camp.

“The best thing would be if I and Neff, as soon as I am transferred to the Waffen SS, could go to Auschwitz where I could clear up the question of re-warming people frozen on dry land in a large serial experiment. Auschwitz is, in every way, more suitable for such a large serial experiment than Dachau because it is colder there and the greater extent of open country within the camp would make the experiments less conspicuous. The experimental subjects yell when they freeze severely.

“If it is your intention, Highly Honored Reichsfuehrer, to carry out with the utmost speed these experiments which are so important for the army fighting on land in Auschwitz or Lublin or another concentration camp in the East, I beg you obediently to give me the necessary orders so that the remaining winter cold can still be utilized.

“With most obedient greetings and sincere gratitude, and Heil Hitler, your very devoted Rascher.”

Did your Honors receive a copy of this?


MR. McHANEY: If Mr. Travis will pass them up to you — This letter should be inserted in the document book just in front of page 120.

THE PRESIDENT: This letter will be page 119-A.

MR. McHANEY: The reference in this document to “Sauna” refers to a bath. The SS-Sauna must be to a bath house in Dachau.

The report which was attached to this letter and which is part of this Prosecution Exhibit 105 is most interesting. We have already put in the documents in which the four women were requested for the purpose of re-warming by animal warmth, and we now get this report on that subject. It is entitled: “Experiments for re-warming of intensely chilled human beings by animal warmth.

“A. The purpose of the experiment: To ascertain whether the re-warming of intensely chilled human beings by animal warmth, for example, the warmth of animals or human beings, is as good or better then re-warming by physical or medical means.

“B. Method of the experiments: The experimental subjects were cooled in the usual way, clad or unclad, in cold water of temperatures varying between fo[u]r degrees Centigrade and nine degrees Centigrade. The rectal temperature of every experimental subject was recorded thermo-electrically. The reduction of temperature occurred within the usual span of time, varying in accordance with the general condition of the body of the experimental subject and the temperature of the water. The experimental subjects were removed from the water when their rectal temperature reached 30 degrees Centigrade. At this time the experimental subjects had all lost consciousness. In eight cases the experimental subjects were then placed between two naked women in a spacious bed. The women were supposed to nestle as closely as possible to the chilled person. Then all three persons were covered with blankets. The speeding up of rewarming by light cradles or by medicines was not attempted.

“C. Results:

1. When the temperature of the experimental subjects was recorded it was striking that an after-drop of temperature up to 3 [degrees] C occurred, which is a greater after-drop than that seen with any other method of rewarming. It was observed, however, that consciousness returned at an earlier point, that is a lower body temperature than with other methods of rewarming. Once the subjects regained consciousness they did not lose it again, but very quickly grasped the situation and snuggled up to the naked female bodies. The rise of body temperature then occurred at about the same speed as in experimental subjects who had been rewarmed by packing in blankets. Exceptions were four experimental subjects who, at body temperatures between 30 [degrees] C and 32 [degrees] C, performed the act of sexual intercourse. In these experimental subjects the temperature rose very rapidly after sexual intercourse, which could be compared with the speedy rise in temperature in a hot bath.

“2. Another set of experiments concerned the rewarming of intensely chilled persons by one woman. In all these cases rewarming was significantly quicker than could be accomplished by two women. The cause of this seems to me that in warming by one woman only, personal inhibitions are removed, and the woman nestles up to the chilled individual much more intimately. Also in these cases, the return of complete consciousness was strikingly rapid. Only one experimental subject did not return to consciousness and the warming effect was only slight. This person died with symptoms suggesting cerebral hemmorrhage, as was confirmed by subsequent autopsy.

“D. Summary:

Rewarming experiments of intensely chilled experimental subjects demonstrated that rewarming with animal warmth was very slow. Only such experimental subjects whose physical condition permitted sexual intercourse rewarmed themselves remarkably quickly, and showed an equally strikingly rapid return of complete physical well-being. Since excessively long exposure of the body to low temperatures implies danger of contral damage, that method must be chosen for rewarming which guarantees the quickest relief from dangerously low temperatures. This method, according to our experiences, is massive and rapid supply of warmth by means of a hot bath.

“Rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by human or animal warmth can therefore be recommended only in such cases in which other possibilities for rewarming are not available, or in cases of specially tenlor [sic; tender (?)] individuals who possibly may not be able to stand a massive and rapid supply of warmth. As for example, I am thinking of intensely chilled small children, who are best rewarmed by the body of their mothers, with the aid of hot water bottles.

“Dachau, 12 February 1943.

(Signed) DR.S. RASCHER”

The Court will see on the following pages of this well nigh unbelievable document charts which graphically show the rewarming of these frozen victims by women. That is to say, by two women. They give an average figure for different rewarmings in which they compare rewarming by packing in blankets, rewarming with two women, rewarming with one woman, and rewarming with one woman where sexual intercourse occurred.

We move now to Document No.NO-268 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 106 [HLSL item 1553]. This is a letter from Dr. Hippke who, according to the information furnished by the defendant Sievers in his memorandum and letters, was suffering some tinge of conscience because of the experiments at Dachau and he here is writing to the Reichsfuehrer on the 19th of February 1943. I want to ask the Court to observe the file number on this document where it will see the code letters 2 II B, and I call to your attention again that refers to the Department for Aviation Medicine which was, as that time, headed by Dr. Anthony with his assistant, the defendant Becker-Freyseng.


“The experiments conducted in Dachau concerning protective measures against the effects of freezing on the human body by immersion in cold water have lead to results of practical use. They were conducted by the Stabsaerzte [sic] of the Luftwaffe Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke and Dr. Rascher in cooperation with the SS, and are now finished. The result was reported upon by those who worked on them during a conference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardships on 26 and 27 October 1942 in Nurenberg. The detailed report on the conference is a[t] present in state of preparation.

“I thank you most gratefully for the great assistance that cooperation of the SS has meant for us in conducting the experiments, and beg you to express our thanks, too, to the commander of the Dachau camp.

“Heil Hitler!

Prof. Dr. Hippke”

The Court will have occasion, when we come to the introduction of evidence on the sea water experiments, to read a letter written and signed by the defendant Schroeder which he wrote to Himmler in the middle of 1944 again asking, on behalf of the Luftwaffe, for human experimental subjects in order that the experiments to render sea water drinkable could be carried out and in that letter, as your Honors will see, will appear language somewhat similar to that used by Dr. Hippke in this letter, and, in addition, the defendant Schroeder stated that Himmler had been most helpful on similar occasions, obviously referring to these experiments carried out in Dachau.

We turn now to Document No. 1580-PS which will be Prosecution Exhibit 107 [HLSL item 2527]. If your Honors please, the translation appearing in your document book at Page 128 contains two letters. We are not here concerned with the letter at the bottom carrying the date May 2, 1941. In looking at that letter you will remember that it went into evidence under the proof on the low-pressure experiments and it carried the document No. 1582-PS. I do not recall the Exhibit number. In any event, it is just an instance of the same document being registered under two numbers and here they have coupled up two documents under 1580-PS. Actually going into evidence is the letter of 26 February 1943. So, if you will simply strike out the translation at the bottom of Page 128 and on 129 then your book will be accurate. The bottom letter, I am informed, went in as Prosecution Exhibit 46.

This is a letter from Heinrich Himmler to Rascher dated 26 February 1943:

“Dear Rascher:

Best thanks for your letter of 17 February with report on warming-up experiments. I agree to experiments being made at Auschwitz or Lublin, although, I believe that the time for the cooling-off and warming-up tests under natural conditions of cold weather has nearly passed for this winter.

“I am sending this letter at the same time to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, whom I request to order the execution of your experiments at Lublin or Auschwitz.

“Kind greetings and Heil Hitler! Your H. Himmler”.

This letter is in response to the warming-up report which I read into evidence under Prosecution Exhibit 105, and you will note that Himmler is expressing the same fear that we found in the defendant Sievers a few moments ago in stating that it was felt that Rascher’s experiments would be delayed beyond the proper time of cold weather so that he could not carry out his dry cold experiments. We are coming to a document in a few moments which will indicate that neither the deceased Mr. Himmler or the defendant Sievers were disappointed in that respect.

We come now to Document NO-262 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 108 [HLSL item 1535], and here again we find that the real difficulty between the Luftwaffe and the SS over the valuable services of Dr. Rascher was not because of the feeling on the part of the Luftwaffe that these experiments should not have been carried out on living human beings, but that it was simply a matter of professional jealousy between the people who worked on these experiments and a problem of which organization was to receive credit for these valuable experiments. This letter is from Professor Dr. Hippke, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, dated 6 March 1943, addressed to “Dear Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff” whom your Honors will recall was the liaison officer between the SS and the Luftwaffe with respect to Rascher’s experiments.

“The State Secretary Milch has given me your letter of 21 November of the last year — Diary No. 1426/42 top secret — regarding the release of the Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, Dr. Rascher to the Waffen-SS.

“I am prepared to release the Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher from the Luftwaffe, even after the Reich Ph[y]sician of the SS, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, explained to me that he could not find any substitute; I shall put him at the disposal of the Waffen-SS if Rascher himself desires this release. I shall ask him about that.

“Your conception that I, as the responsible director of all Medical-scientific research work, would have been opposed to the chilling experiments on human beings, and so retarded their development is erroneous. I immediately agreed to the experiments because our own previous work experiments on large animals were concluded and supplementary work was necessary. It is also highly improbable that I, in that I am responsible for the development of all types of possibilities for rescuing our flyers would not do everything possible to further such works. When Rascher in his time explained his wishes to me, I agreed with him immediately. The difficulties, Mr. Wolff, lie in an entirely different sphere: it is a question of vanity on the part of individual scientists, every one of whom personally wants to bring out new research results, and very often it is only with great effort that they can be led to work unselfishly for the common good. None of them is without guilt in this respect; Rascher is not either.

“If Rascher wants to build up his own research institute within the framework of the Waffen-SS, I have not objection. All research work within the field of aviation medicine — that is, altitude — moreover, is under my scientific supervision in my capacity as director of German aviation medicine. This institute would then be under the supervision of the Reich Physician of the SS, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz.

“Momentarily, however, this work cannot be carried on because its continuation would require a low pressure chamber, in which not only the altitude of the stratosphere, but also the stratospheric temperature can be established, but there is no such chamber available in Germany as yet: It is just being [b]uilt as a general chamber in the frame-work of the new Research Institute for Aviation Medicine of Berlin, and I hope I shall be able to have it completed in the course of this year. If Rascher, on the other hand, wishes to conduct other experiments, not concerned with altitude and chilling problems, these would not be under supervision (Aviation Medicine) but under the supervision of military medicine, whom he would have to contact.

“I am going to talk over all those problems with Rascher in old comradeship, and I shall again notify you”.

“With kind regards and Heil Hitler!”


Now, there are at least two interesting points about this letter, one of which is Hippke’s explanation of the apparent difficulties between certain members of the Luftwaffe Medical Service and Dr. Rascher, and Hippke himself puts it on the ground of professional jealousy. May I suggest to the Court that that is certainly a sufficient explanation of the difficulties which Dr. Weltz, the defendant in this dock, will have you believe existed between him and Rascher, and that is the explanation of those difficulties, rather than any compunction on the part of the defendant Weltz, as to these experiments.

Secondly, Hippke here indicates that any problems concerning aviation medicine come within the jurisdiction of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. He states that if Rascher wishes to conduct experiments not concerned with aviation medicine, then he comes under the jurisdiction of military medicine, and the German words there are given, “Heeressanitaetsinspektion” which, if Your Honor please, refers to the position occupied by the defendant Handloser at this time. He was Chief of the Army Medical Inspectorate.

I turn now to document 1615-PS, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 109 [HLSL item 2550]. This is a letter written by the defendant Rudolf Brandt to Dr. Grawitz on 9 March 1943.

“Dear Gruppenfuehrer: I wish to inform you very briefly, that Reichfuehrer SS on February 26, 1943 authorized SS Captain Dr. Rascher to make warming experiments in Auschwitz or Lublin. Of course, considering the warm weather, the time for cooling and warming experiments under natural temperature conditions would not be possible in that proportion.”

This letter, of course, refers back to the conference had between Dr. Rascher on the one hand and Grawitz and the defendant Poppendick on the other, and Brandt is here advising him that further dry cold experiments will take place as requested by Grawitz and his assistant, Poppendick.

The next document is NO-270, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 110 [HLSL item 1560]. This consists of a cover letter from Dr. Rascher to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, enclosing a running account of a talk Rascher had with Hippke. The letter is dated 14 March 1943.

“Dear Obersturmbannfuehrer, on 12 March I was ordered to a conference with Generaloberstabsarzt Prof. 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 Reichsfuehrer SS of the report in so 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 Wolff. Signed Rascher.”

The report is part of the same exhibit, and is dated 14 March 1943.

“Report on the conference between Generaloberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. 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 Prof. 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 gave you every opportunity to work in the scientific field, and with us you will be backed by the solidarity of the entire medical officers’ corps of the Luftwaffe. Besides, we have the necessary experience in treating medical problems connected with aviators. The SS cannot possibly be interested in these questions.

“Rascher: But the Reichsfuehrer SS does not desire at all to have these 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 on 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 in as far as I am concerned, the decision about this has already been taken.

“Hippke: But in this case you must realize that the medical officer’s 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 continue to work together. For instance, I would like to see that you carry out together with Romberg the rescue from 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. Further, 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 Marshall 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 too 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”.

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 build up an independent institute for yourself and so you are leader 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 the 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!”

The court will see that the defendant Romberg is again mentioned in connection with Rascher at this late date when Hippke suggested that his subordinate, Romberg, in the Institute of DVL, cooperate still further in the murderous experiments conducted at Dachau.

The next Document is No. 292 which will be Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 111 [HLSL item 1593]. This is a letter from Rascher to defendant Rudolf Brandt. It is a letter dated 4 April 1943.

“Much esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer!

“Enclosed you will find acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter” — of such and such a date –” secret. In the meantime you have perhaps had the opportunity of glacing over the note concerning the Rascher-Hippke conference. The conference described in it took place approximately as Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Hippke outlined it in his letter to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff. There is only one thing that I repudiate: the reproach of scientific vanity. I will gladly and immediately put the results of my research at the disposal of any person who can use them in a proper way. As it to be seen in the report about the conference, I clearly communicated this to Hippke, even before I had knowledge of the letter which I have just received. If, however, certain gentlemen — without making sure beforehand — would like to present my results as unli[k]ely, that is their business.

Also Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz doubted only the possibility of forced quick warming of frozen persons — though he could easily have had the opportunity to verify the correctness of my statement.

“The question of the saving of people frozen in the open air has in the meantime been cleared up, since, thank goodness there was once again a period of heavy frost weather in Dachau. Certain people were in the open air for 14 hours at -6 [degrees] Centigrade, reached an internal temperature of 25 degrees Centigrade, with peripheral freezings, and could all be saved by a hot bath. As I said, it is easy to contradict! But before someone does so, he should come and see. Moreover, a report about freezing in the open air will be sent to the Reichsfuehrer in the next few days.

“With best wishes”

Signed “S.Rascher.”

Document NO 240 will be Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 112 [HLSL item 1480]. Again, it is a letter from Rascher. This time to Himmler, and is dated 11 April 1943.

“Dear Reichsfuehrer!

“Enclosed I beg to submit a brief report concerning freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.

“Early in May I hope to be in a position, dear Reichsfuehrer, to submit to you my habilitation thesis. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer, Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg is prepared to use and accept it as secret thesis of habilitation.

“Do you want me to send copy of the enclosed report to the Reich Physician SS?

“With most devoted greetings and Heil Hitler I am always your obedient and grateful – S. Rascher.”

Unfortunately we do not have a copy of this freezing report which is mentioned in the letter.

We come now to Document NO 241, which will be Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 113. The letter is dated 16 April 1943. It is addressed to “Dear Comrade Rascher,” by the defendant Rudolf Brandt.

“The Reichsfuehrer SS has received the report concerning the freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air, and thanks you for transmitting same.

“Kindly contact SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt who received from Reichsfuehrer SS your report for study. Please ask SS-Gruppenfuehrer Gebhardt personally at Hohenlychen w[h]en your visit would suit him.

“Also sen[d] copy of the report to the Reich physician SS.

“I take the opportunity of confirming receipt of your letter of April 4, 1943.

“Cordial greetings and Heil Hitler!

“Yours Rudolf Brand[t].”

Here again we see the name of Gebhardt mentioned, as it appears even before that of Reich physician Doctor Grawitz.

The next Document is NO 322, which will be Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 114 [HLSL item 1666]. This letter is by Rascher to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer K[a]indl, who was the commander of the Sachenshausen Concentration Camp near Oranienburg which is just above Berlin.


“By order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, I have been conducting freezing experiments on human beings in the Dachau Concentration Camp for more than a year. To-day I learned from an experimental subject that I was not the only one conducting these experiments, but that, on the contrary, already in October-November, 1938 similar experiments had been conducted in the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Samenstrang is said to have frozen experimental subjects — that is prisoners — in cold water, and subsequently revived them by means of warm water or hot compresses. As I was to work out and have worked out a prescription for the Waffen SS for the resuscitation of frozen persons (for the campaign in the East), knowledge of all preliminary experiments in my field of work is of great importance for me. I therefore request that if possible you let me know what kind of experiments were conducted in your camp, and, if possible, what results were obtained in connection with these experiments.

“As you might not know anything about me, please make inquiries about me, if necessary, either at the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS (Obersturmbannfuehrer Baumert) or from the Commander of the Dachau Concentration Camp, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Weiss.

“Yours sincerely.”

Now, we come to Document NO 230, which will be Prosecution’s Exhibit No. 115 [HLSL item 1454]. And, this is, in fact, a short statement of the work performed by Doctor Rascher, and it was apparently prepared by him to aid in his habilitation of academic leaders.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, I will ask you to read that slowly because our photostatic copy here is in a very bad condition.

MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir. This document is dated 17 May 1943. The heading of it is: “Course of Medical Training”

“After my state examination I became voluntary assistant at the surgical clinic of the Munich University from 1935-36.

“From 1936-39 I was an unpaid assistant in the surgical department of the Schwabing Hospital in Munich.

“Since May 1939 till today I have been in military service with the Air Force.

“From 1939 till December 1942, I was attached to the Bureau of the Antiaircraft artillery school IV. During the whole summer 1941 I was detached to “Tranagerma” with the front command, station Benina-Derna.

“Subsequently I repeatedly held prolonged commands abroad, (Scandinavia, Italy).

“From 1939 till February 1942 I regularly acted as an Assistant surgeon and repeatedly held the position of an independent chief physician of hospitals.

“From 1933 till 1938 (up to the invasion of the Sudenteland, after which date I entered the military service) I worked, with the assistance of the Emergency Society for German Science, and in cooperation with the University Professor Dr. Trump in the Pathological Institute of Munich University, on the subject: ‘Is it possible to influence different media of crystallization by addition of organic compounds to such a degree, that the thus obtained changes can be utilized for diagnostic purposes?’

From this originated the following treatises: ‘Attempt of a crystallographic diagnosis of pregnancy; examination of E. Pfeigum’s statement about the possibility of a crystallographic cancer diagnosis’, published in the Munich Medical Weekly Journal 1936, and ‘Provisional report on attempts of a crystallographic Cancer-diagnoses’, Munich Medical Weekly Journal 1938. The research work of Liesegang, Hackel. E. Pfeigum and others, who were able to show the influence on the crystallization by means of addition of organic compounds, induced me to conduct these experiments. The fact that the tumor tissue during its growth secretes heterogenous album[i]n into the body fluids, which is one of the causes for cachexia, induced me to investigate whether these album[i]ns were also in a position to produce a typical effect on the crystallization in a saturated solution (e.g. copper sulfate). In fact in the further course of these investigations typical changes in the crystallization appeared, which seemed to justify further researches in this field. Experiments to influence the crystallization with small dosages — 1 to 1/10 milligram — of the different amino acids had a positive result. Also the crystallization of the blood of white rats and mice of the animal form for tumor-research in Berlin, implemented with carzinomae or sarcomas showed a definite change in comparison with the blood of healthy animals.

“As to the blood of tumor infected human beings, the experiments conducted are not yet sufficient to make any report on them.

“By military order, I started in 1939 in co-operation with the University Professor Dr. G. B. Fischer, Marburg, to work out a “Medical methed of selecting soldiers fit for stereoscopic vision” (Selection of range-finder operators).

“The results of this research work can be found in a secret military document, as well as in an aviation regulation (see also the plastic instructions film on the training or range-finder operators, published by the German Air Ministry). Basing on this method, the range-finder operators of the optical system are being selected at the Anti-aircraft Artillery School IV for the air force, the Waffen-SS, the army and also in part for the navy. In the years 1940-41 I held lectures on the subject “Selection of range-finder operators” in the anti-aircraft artillery school of the navy and conducted also regularly selection courses with lectures at the anti-aircraft artillery school”.

I suppose that is IV — yes.

“Since February 1942 I have been conducting experiments in the Dachau Concentration Camp: first, By order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the Surgeon General (Generaloberstabsarzt) Prof. Dr. Hippke, I conducted “Experiments with Dr. med. habil. S. Ruff and Dr. Romberg of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation (DVL) Berlin. The results of these experiments are described in a secret military document and in two big experimental films. Second, By order of the Reichsfueher-SS and the Surgeon General (General-oberstabsarzt) Prof. Dr. Hippke, I conducted “Experiments for the rescue of frozen persons (started on 15 August 1942) in cooperation — for four months with the University Prof. Dr. Holzloehner, Kiel and Dr. Finke of the Kiel University.

“Since the results of our common researches partly due to the lack of time, were not exhaustive enough, and since the newly acquired scientific findings were not utilized, I continued to work with four or five chemists on the solution of the physiological-chemical problems with regard to frozen persons. Examined were amongst others the changes of the heart action, the blood status, the non-protein nitrogen, the MG-1 blood level, the blood sugar, the lactic acid, the blood oxygen and 002 (arterially and venously), the plasma and serum viscosity, the hemolysis, the speed of the blood circulation, and the size of the blood corpuscles. Still completely missing are the exploration of the changes of the respiration capacity (because of the lack of an appropriate instrument, the Krogh spirometer), the graphic record of the change of the blood pressure (because of the lack of a hymograph, as well as the proper instruments for a surgical method for taking the blood pressure), and the examination of the adrenaline changes in the blood (for this purpose are missing: a Pulfrich photometer, a Hanau quartz-lamp for analysis with darf ilter [sic], a mixing bowl, Schott glass filter GG14 and a Schott glass filter GG13).

“The Reichsfuehrer-SS ordered that on basis of one of these two researches I should apply for admission as a qualified academic teacher. The total completion and the critical evaluation of the observations with regard to frozen human beings will take about four to five months more. In order to conduct these experiments, it is absolutely necessary that the instruments mentioned in the previous paragraph be placed at my disposal.

“For the time being, the staff of co-workers at my disposal, is sufficient.

“After conclusion of this research work I intend, as agreed upon, to return to the University Insitute for Aviation Medicine and Hygiene (Prof. Dr. Pfannenstiel, Marburg) for my further scientific training. With Prof. Dr. Pfannenstiel a schedule as to further research in his institute has already been worked out. The research work, which I personally chose, concerns:

1) High altitude

2) Elucidation of freezing injuries in the scope of critical research.

“I am Chief of Department of the “Ahnenerbe” and in this capacity I have been conducting my scientific research work until now; the ‘Ahnenerbe’ has always assisted me in every respect.”


The next document is NO.231, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 116 [HLSL item 1458] and here w[e] get a little further insight into the activities of the defendant Gebhardt. This letter is from Sigmund Rascher to the defendant Sievers as Reich Business Manager of the “Ahnenerbe” Society from Dachau. Dr. Rascher is still working there. The date is 17 May 1943.

“Dear Standartenfuehrer: The following contains a short account of my report to SS-Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT.

“On 14 May 1943 I reported to SS-Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebbardt at Hohenlychen. I had hardly arrived, when SS-Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt asked me to account in a very loud voice, how I dared to submit specialist medical reports directly to the Reichsfuehrer SS (he was referring to the treatise on ‘The Cooling of Human Beings Outdoors’). I actually did not even get a chance to speak and, practically, couldn’t reply anything. Then, when I tried to reply, Prof. Dr. Gebhardt said that, if I wanted to defy him, my train would be leaving for Berlin at 3 o’clock. When I was finally given opportunity to speak, I could point out to Prof. Dr. Gebhardt that the report in question was not meant to be a strictly scientific work, but simply was a short information for the Reichsfuehrer SS on the results of the experiments conducted up to now. Prof. Dr. Gebhardt had taken the view that the report was unscientific and if a student of the second term dared to submit a treatise of that kind, he would throw him out. Later on I could tell him that of course all the physiological-chemical experiments that could be carried out in Dachau with the available instruments had indeed been conducted. Where upon Prof. Dr. Gebhardt replied: I can imagine that you did a lot of work, one can tell it from this job. If I had not believed that you did a lot of work, I would not have asked you to come at all.

“In addition, Prof. Dr. Gebhardt said that he intended to merge all the groups of physicians working independently within the SS, since that would suit the Reichsfuehrer SS much better than individual people working on their own. Besides that, I somehow ought to learn university methods by working somehow, since very likely I did not yet have the proper training. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt suggested that it was necessary for me to get out of Dachau, since there I was quite left to myself and had no guidance whatsoever once I intended to enter upon a university career, I would by all means have to complete the training of a university assistant first. He further said that all those SS-physicians who are qualified to enter upon a university career, had the duty to do so. Upon my reply that for that reason I was already in touch with Professor Pfannenstiel, Professor Gebhardt replied that these matters ought to be processed by a centralized agency. In future it would not do that I send any reports directly to the Reichsfuehrer SS, but further reports to serve their purpose would have to be transmitted through him to the Reichsfuehrer. If the report had reached a suitable stage, he would first inform the Reichsfuehrer SS, go and see the Reichsfuehrer SS, together with me. Finally Professor Dr. GEBHARDT asked me to give him data on my personal and scientific career, to enable him to make further arrangements. He requested me to call again in the afternoon. When I called in the afternoon, I was, as already in the morning, accompanied by SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. FISCHER.”

I would like to say hypothetically, Your Honor, that it is the defendant Fischer, but since I am not sure of it, I will not say it.

“This time, Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT was extremely amiable. He asked me whether I now agreed with his arrangements; it would be by far the best I could do, if I joined him. I should not worry, but just continue my work in Dachau, until I had finished my jobs. Later one would see what was to be done for the future. Upon my question, what it was all about, and who was my superior, whether the Reichsarzt SS, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. GRAWITZ, who had come for an inspection several days ago, the Reichsfuehrer SS, as he personally had promised me, or the ‘Ahnenerbe’, of which I had been a member for years, Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT suggested, all that will be straightened out. Just trust it to me. But I’ll need your curriculum vitae soon, since I have to report to the Reichsfuehrer SS on 23 May.

May I ask you, Standartenfuehrer, under whom I am actually working? Under the Reichsfuehrer SS, the Ahnenerbe, the Reich Physician or Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT? Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT has already asked me why I was not a member of the Waffen-SS. Upon my answer that Dr. HIPPKE does not like to let me go, he declared, you are too able for him to let you go. Standartenfuehrer! If the same tug of war starts in the Waffen SS as has been going on between the Luftwaffe and SS, I’d rather do without a transfer to the Waffen-SS. I was promised, that I would continue to work under the Reichsfuehrer SS, under the ‘Ahnenerbe’. But I cannot serve several masters at the same time. Of course, I am convinced that SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt had the best of intentions. His assistants are enthusiastic about him. If I am compelled to ask Prof. Dr. Gebhardt’s advice each time I am going to start a new experiment, I will get so much involved in the academical routine that I won’t even be allowed to experiment such a method as rapid resuscitation that overthrows all the established clinical experience, because they contradict Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT’s methods, which are based upon centuries old clinical experiences. Also the cooperation with Prof. v. Luetzelburg would thus come to an end, as these experiments are from the very start contradictory to the hither to recognized clinical experiences. I think, this arrangement would stop everything that really ought to be experimented.

“I pray you with all my heart, Standartenfuehrer, to handle this affair in such a way that Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT, who is a very close friend of the Reichsfuehrer SS does not turn my enemy. I think that Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT can and will be an extremely disagreeable adversary. Ere I get into trouble with him, I would rather resign my job and ask for an immediate transfer to the Luftwaffe for combat service. I, therefore ask you again to deal with this affair with as much circumspection as it actually requires, because in addition I am convinced that Prof. Dr. GEBHARDT (apart from his personal ambition) really has good intentions”.

There are some inserts noted here:

“NEFF, who, as you know, is a farm manager by trade, asked me whether there was no possibility for him to return to his old job. Having been promised last year by the Reichsfuehrer SS on the occasion of his inspection of the experimental station in Dachau on 1 May, that he could return to his old job after a time of probation, I think that I can recommend NEFF’s request for giving him a chance to return to his old job as a farm manager. There are many SS farms, where a good manager, who really understands his job is badly needed. I believe that considering the present situation, I do much better to release NEFF to his job as a farmer, rather than keeping him here for the only reason of ‘boarding’ one mere worker. NEFF is a good and industrious worker, but I am convinced that he is more efficient as a farmer, because he will be heart and soul in his job. I once had a talk with Herr LIPPERT, Dachau Medicinal Plant Garden, about NEFF, Lippert said that specialists like NEFF were looked for like pins in a hay stack. He did not have one but plenty of openings for farm managers, where he could place NEFF immediately. I certainly regret to let NEFF go, because I don’t know, whether I will find again such an honest and active assistant for general tasks, but on the other hand, I can see the importance of agriculture and therefore I am keeping NEFF ready for this purpose. Please think it over, whether anything can be done in this matter”.

(Signature) S. RASCHER.

A copy was sent to the defendant Sievers.

This letter demonstrates very well, I think, the extreme power of the defendant Gebhardt. As a matter of fact, it can be seen that Rascher also was afraid of him and he was ready to go to the front as a fighter for the Luftwaffe. It moreover indicates that the defendant Gebhardt was at this time anxious to manage all the group of physicians working independantly with the SS. I will recall to the Tribunal that the reorganization of the medical service of the Waffen-SS occurred in August of 1933 and this letter is dated 17 May, 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: The court willnow recess until 9.30 tomorrow morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 13 December 1946, at 0930 hours).

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 13 December 1946, 0930-1430, Justice Beals, presiding.

THE MARSHAL: The Honorable Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT [Beals]: The Marshal will ascertain if the defendants are present.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of the defendants in the courtroom.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution respectfully requests a 15 minute recess due to the fact we have had mechanical difficulties with the safe in which we have the exhibits secured. We assure you we will be ready in another 15 minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until we are informed the mechanical difficulties have been overcome.

MR. HARDY: Thank you.

(A recess was taken.)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.

MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, at the recess yesterday evening, we had completed the introduction of Document NO-231 as Prosecution Exhibit 116, which the Tribunal will recall was the letter by Dr. Rascher to the Defendant Sievers discussing a conference which he had had with the Defendant Gebhardt.

I come now to Document NO-267 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 117 [HLSL item 1549]. This is a letter from the Defendant Sievers to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated May 22, 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: The last exhibit I have marked is 116. Did I miss one?

MR. McHANEY: The next exhibit will be Prosecution Exhibit 117. 116, your Honor, was introduced yesterday evening and was Document NO-231. Prosecution Exhibit 117 is on page 149 of the English Document Book. It concerns the report of SS Haupsturmfuehrer Dr. Sigmund Rascher to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt.

“Dear Comrade Brandt, on May 17, 1943, I received an urgent call from SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher who wanted to give me an account of his conversation with SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt. The contents of that report induced me to request Dr. Rascher to submit the report in writing. I am sending you herewith that report and ask you to let me know whether the Reichsfuehrer SS has given any definite directive to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt in regard to Dr. Rascher’s sphere of action and work. I entrust you with this affair and ask you particularly to use it only for your strictly personal information so that Dr. Rascher does not encounter any difficulties with SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt. In the meantime Dr. Rascher has submitted his personal and scientific curriculum vitae to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt in accordance with request. Heil Hitler. Your Sievers”.

The letter, of course, refers to the report which we have already offered in evidence. Oh, I beg your pardon, it refers to a report which is given in Prosecution Exhibit 116, and again it shows that the Defendant Gebhardt occupied a very influential and powerful position within the Medical Service of the SS. Both the Defendant Sievers and Rascher were very much afraid to do anything that might upset the Defendant Gebhardt, and of course, the curriculum vitae which is referred to in that letter has also been introduced in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 115.

We come now to Document NO-229 [HLSL item 1450] which is a letter of 27 September 1943 by the Defendant Sievers to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt. It concerns the appointment of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher as a lecturer. Dr. Rascher, as the Court will see, from some of these exhibits, was assigned to be appointed as a lecturer to one of the universities in Germany.

“Dear comrade Brandt! I have taken up the matter of the appointment of Dr. Rascher as lecturer. I myself brought together Dr. Rascher with Professor Dr. Blome as well as with SS-Brigadefuhrer Mentzel. The procedure and the possibilities were thoroughly discussed. Professor Blome talked with Professer Pfannenstiel at Marburg. So that the path toward effecting this appointment, which is to be a ‘secret appointment’ (‘Geheimhabilitation’) and therefore causes some difficulty, is smoothed. Kind regards and Heil Hitler! Yours, Sievers.”

And here we see the Defendant Blome entering the picture for the first time in our exhibits, at least. The Court will recall that the Defendant Blome was, from 1941, a member of that august body, the Reich Research Council, and without any question the Defendant Sievers, who by this time, was himself a member of the Reich Research Council, was in contact through that agency with the Defendant Blome.

You see here mentioned also SS Brigadefuehrer Mentzel, and you will recall that Mentzel was something in the nature of a chairman of the Managing Committee of the Reich Research Council, and Sievers was deputy to Mentzel. And here in this letter we see that the Defendant Blome has been contacted in an effort to qualify Rascher as an academic lecturer on the basis of his research in Dachau on high altitude problems and freezing problems.

I am sorry, Your Honor, apparently I did not offer this formally. This is Document NO-229, and will be Prosecution Exhibit 119 [sic] [118] [HLSL item 1450].

The next document is NO-432 and will be Prosecution Exhibit 119 [HLSL item 1719], and this letter, too, makes a most interesting reference to the Reich Research Council on which the Defendant Blome was active, the defendant Karl Brandt was active, the defendant Sievers was active, and also the defendant Rostock as alternate for the defendant Karl Brandt. This is a letter from the deceased Rascher to Walter Neff who was the inmate assistant to Dr. Rascher in Dachau and helped him very materially with the high altitude, freezing, and other experiments carried out there by Rascher on concentration camp inmates. The letter reads as follows.

“Dear Neff: Your letter dated 11.10 reached me here on the 15.10. First of all many thanks for your decision to write such a detailed letter. I really was very pleased about it. To come right away to the affair concerned: I am very sorry to hear that you are being bullied, especially as there exists no reason at all for it. Please let me know the name, rank, and address of your commanding officer, because I most certainly will take the matter up. There is no purpose at all in your getting stuck there. Finally I too know how the general condition of your health had been, when you were still here, and I also am able to judge that you cannot go through a heavy infantry training. I am glad that you became also accustomed to the ideals of the place and I am convinced that you would be glad to go to the front. But nevertheless: On the other hand, I believe that I need you more urgently than you are needed at the front. As a matter of fact I need you for the following: From the Reich research Council I got the order to carry out open-country freezing experiments, and I think they will take place on the Sudelfeld. Now, I need urgently a most reliable man, acquainted with the material, and that is you in this case. I will go in the next few days with Sievers to the Fuehrer’s Headquarter and report there in this sense and will let you know immediately.

“I received a copy of a letter according to which you have to rely on a family allowance during the time of your mobilization. If the amount of money you receive is considerably lower than the pay you drew up to now, I will be glad to give you or your wife 50 marks monthly out of my pocket. You can take it without being ashamed; I can afford it, and I am glad to do it. As a matter of fact, I do not like to see you getting into difficulties. I ask you, of course, to regard that as a comradelike private matter between the two of us. You know me too well to feel ashamed. I expect your frank answer to this matter without any inconvenience. My wife and myself are alright. The last air raid slightly damaged only the light-giving appliances and the walls, that is to say, the bulbs were smashed.

“I expect your notice soon, and remain until then with sincerest comrade-like regards, your old chief, signature, Rascher.”

In addition to seeing from this letter what the deceased, Dr. Rascher — in addition to his other fine characteristics — he was also an extraordinary generous individual. But the important thing to note is that Rascher states here that he has received an assignment from the Reichs Research Council to continue his dry freezing experiments. Now, I call the Tribunal’s attention to the date on this letter from Neff which is 21 October 1943, and ask you to compare it with the date on Prosecution Exhibit 118, which is 27 September 1943; and from this Prosecution Exhibit 118, the Tribunal will see that the deceased, Rascher, had been in touch with Dr. Blome, a member of the Reich Research Council; and a matter of three weeks later, he reports that he has received an assignment from the Reichs Research Council. And I suggest that that is not a matter of simple coincidence. Fortunately, however, the Prosecution does not have to rely upon this reasonable deduction from the documents. Document NO-690

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel. I notice that the date of the letter for Exhibit 119 on this copy, at least, is 21 October 1946.

MR. McHANEY: You are right, Your Honor. One moment, please, I am sure that that is a mistake. Mr. Travis will you pass the Exhibit up to the Tribunal? This is the document going into evidence, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit 119, and the date is 1943 and not 1946, which is a mistake on translation.

As I was observing, we need not rely upon this reasonable deduction to prove that the defendant Blome was instrumental in securing this freezing assignment from that great research body in Germany, the Reichs Research Council.

And I offer Document NO-690 as Prosecution Exhibit 120 [HLSL item 1880], and this, Your Honors, is a card taken from the files of the Reichs Research Council which shows the research assignments being worked on under the auspices of Professor Dr. K. Blome, who is the defendant Blome in this dock; and I call your particular attention to the research assignment listed third in order on page 154 of the English Document Book. There you will see that the priority number which is listed as the SS number is 0328, requested by Rascher, Munich; topic: Rewarming after general freezing of the human body, healing after partial freezings, adjustment of the human body to low temperatures. Then comes the registration number 1879/15. This is noted as worked on by Professor Dr. K. Blome with his deputy being Dr. Breuer; and I submit that this document conclusively proves that the defendant Kurt Blome was also implicated in the horrible experiments that took place in Dachau. As long as we are on this document —

THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring): Will you point that out again, sir, that statement from which you draw that inference?

MR. McHANEY: The research item is noted on Page 154 of the English Document Book, and you will see that the third research assignment under the auspices of the defendant Blome is listed as Rascher; Rewarming after general freezing of the human body, healing after partial freezings, adjustment of the human body to low temperatures. I construe that, Your Honor, to be a continuation under the auspices of the Reich Research Council of the freezing experiments in Dachau; and, of course, that is corroborated by Prosecution Exhibit 119, the letter to Neff in which Rascher is asking Neff to return to him in order to assist to carry out this research assignment from the Reichs Research Council.

THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring): I thought you drew some inference and made some statement to the Tribunal that the document tended to show that Dr. Blome had worked upon the matter, is that correct?

MR. McHANEY: Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he actually experimented with Rascher. The burden of my argument is that the defendant Blome secured an assignment by the Reichs Research Council for the deceased Rascher in order that he could continue his experiments under their auspices and with their support, which proves a number of things, Your Honor, in addition to the fact that the defendant Blome has now become implicated in the dry freezing experiments at least. It also shows that the Reich Research Council as a whole has become involved in criminal experiments upon living human beings and to further support that, I call your attention to the research assignment immediately under the Rascher assignment which reads: “SS number 0329, Hirt, Strassburg.” The topic is “Changes in the living organism under the influence of poison gases.” And that, if Your Honor please, is a reference to the Mustard gas experiments to which we will come at a later point in the trial and those experiments again will be proved to have been carried out upon living human beings in concentration camps; and those two were carried out under the auspices of Kurt Blome in the Reich Research Council.

We come now to Document NO-290 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 121 [HLSL item 1589]. This letter again makes reference to the efforts of Rascher to obtain admittance as a lecturer to a university. This letter is from the defendant Sievers to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 21 March 1944.

“Dear Comrade Brandt, My last letter to you on this subject was written on 27 November 1943. In spite of the intervention of SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Mentzel and the deputy Reichsaerztefuehrer (Chief of the Reich physicians league), Professor Dr. Blome, of which I informed you at the time, admission to the faculty with Professor Pfannenstiel at Marburg was not possible. On the 30th of November, Pfannenstiel wrote to Professor Blome on the subject as follows: “I tried to pave the way for admission to the faculty here since it was clear from personal discussions with Dr. Rascher that our spheres of work ran parallel to a great extent. The fact that Rascher’s activities have to be kept secret makes the affair very difficult to handle. In these circumstances I was unable to persuade the Marburg medical faculty to admit Rascher. (Professor Pfannenstiel then recommends that an attempt be made to have him admitted to the faculty in Frankfurt or Munich). I am genuinely sorry that I cannot fulfill as I originally hoped to do, Dr. Rascher’s justifiable desire to gain admission to the faculty in Marburg on the basis of his scientific work with which I am acquainted, and I ask him to consider my other proposals on the subject. To undertake such an attempt in Munich would serve no purpose, since, as you know, a similar attempt was already made with negative results. The director of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Frankfurt, consented to take part in the presentation of the thesis in Marburg, would most certainly have been induced to favor admission to the faculty in Frankfurt. However, owing to the need for secrecy we would have been exposed to the same difficulties with the medical faculty in Frankfurt.

“A discussion with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt, who is thoroughly familiar with Dr. Rascher’s work, revealed that the easiest thing would be to have him admitted to the Strassburg faculty. Here it is possible to have the work examined by SS Fuehrer’s only and admission to the faculty carried out in secrecy.”

Your Honor, the next two pages of the Document Book have been reversed. The letter continues on page 152 — rather, 158 of the English Document Book. Page 157 is an attachment to the letter itself. The letter continues with the listing of the SS Professors at Strassburg who could help Rascher gain admittance, and these are:

“1.) The Dean of the medical faculty, Professor Dr. Stein.

“2.) The Assistant Dean, Professor Dr. Hirt.

“3.) The Professor of Physiological Chemistry, Professor Dr. Dyckerhoff.

“4.) The Professor of Pharmacology, Dr. Gebhar[d]t.

“It would be advisable for you to forward a letter to the Dean of the medical faculty in order to initiate the procedure in the proper manner. I enclose a draft. Please inform me when the letter has been dispatched, so that Dr. Rascher may submit his work. Signed, Sievers.”

And the draft of the letter is on page 157 of the English Document Book. It is addressed to the Professor Dr. Hans Stein, Dean of the medical faculty of the University of Strassburg.

“My dear Professor: By order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, the department head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Waffen-SS, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher has carried out experiments dealing with the freezing of the human body which are important for the conduct of war. Since the Reichsfuehrer SS wishes Dr. Rascher to obtain admission to the faculty, the latter intends to do so by submitting his thesis on “Experimental tests on phenomena occurring during the freezing of the human body.” The Reichsfuehrer SS is willing to agree to this, but considers it necessary that the secrecy regulations laid down for such experiments also be complied with in carrying out the admission to the faculty. Professor Dr. Hirt, furthermore, is familiar with the details of Dr. Rascher’s work. The Reichsfuehrer SS therefore requests that the work be examined by competent members of your medical faculty and a decision be made whether the admission to the faculty can be carried out.”

This document shows us that the University of Strassburg was, in fact, an SS university, and we will see that, among others, the Defendant Karl Brandt had some relationship with members of the faculty in Strassburg.

I come now to —

THE PRESIDENT: I would like to return a moment to your Exhibit 120 referring to Dr. Blome.

MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I notice in that exhibit, on page 154, Professor Blome is described twice in connection with cancer research.

MR. McHANEY: That is right, yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: And on the next page, 155, he is also described twice as Commissioner for Cancer Research.

MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Now I do not understand clearly the meaning of the form of this letter. Is it your assumption or opinion that Dr. Blome was also in charge of these other five items which are listed on page 154?

MR. McHANEY: That is certainly the contention of the Prosecution, Your Honor. If Mr. Travis will pass me that exhibit; it is 120. The Reich Research Council, Your Honor, consisted of a number of so-called leading scientists in Germany who were working there and who had a research organization under them so to speak. It was a rather loose research organization; that is to say they might be dealing with a number of different scientists who had no relation one to the other. Now Kurt Blome was known as the Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research and was appointed to that position in the Reich Research Council, theoretically, by Hermann Goering. So that was his title; he was the Plenipoten[t]iary for Cancer Research.

THE PRESIDENT: Does it appear who prepared these documents [exhibit] 120? Do they bear the signature of Kurt Blome?

MR. McHANEY: They do not, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I notice at the head of this column it says: “Requested by;” And then “Schwarz, Seel, Rascher, Hirt, von Borstell”, and then below that “Cancer Research”, worked on by: Blome,” and the same on the next page.

MR. McHANEY: Well, sir, the best explanation of that is that this hand-written note up here, I am quite sure, was written on this document after it was captured. This is, in fact, a research card taken from the files of the Reich Research Council, a large number of which were captured. Now there is a hand-written note up on the left hand side of the translation which says: “taken out of the file after being requested,” and although the translation doesn’t show it, that is dated June 10, 1945, and it quite apparently refers to a request made by someone who was interested in picking up this particular research card and was pulled out, undoubtedly, by some German worker who was familiar with these files and who was retained after the end of the war. The card itself is a card which gives the research assignments under the Bearbeiter, who is Professor Dr. Blome. His name appears on the exhibit up here at the top and under here they describe the research assignments which are being carried out under the auspices of the Defendant Blome.

THE PRESIDENT: I would like to know the basis for that assumption.

MR. McHANEY: Well, sir, perhaps if I passed up this exhibit it would be a little clearer what I mean. I take this card to mean that all assignments on this sheet are under the Defendant Blome, since it carries the words: “Worked on by:” and then proceeds to list and describe research assignments under that.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel, until we have had an opportunity to examine this exhibit. We will hear you in just a moment after we have had an opportunity to examine this exhibit.

(Examining document.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear from Counsel.

MR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I would like to make a request to take a look at the photostats. It would make things easier for me because otherwise I will have to request the photostat through my office and it would be easier if I could see it now at this time.


DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much. I only wanted to see if this photostat bears any signature and that does not seem to be the case; there is no signature. Thank you very much.

MR. McHANEY: If your Honor please, of course the discussion goes to the weight to be given to this document. That is to say it is only of probative value and does not go to the admissibility. However, in connection with its probative value, I would like to make clear again that this document was secured from the file at the trials in Frankfurt and it represents a file card listed under the name Kurt Blome; and the file card shows that Kurt Blome, as chief or Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, had these research assignments under him as noted.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be admitted in evidence for what it is worth, subject to argument at any time.

MR. McHANEY: We come now to Document 2428-PS [HLSL item 2584] which will be Prosecution Exhibit 122, and this is a deposition taken from one Leo Maklowsky by the War Crimes Branch at Dachau. It was taken immediately following the — or at least shortly following the liberation of that camp by the American Forces. This is listed in the Document Book as a translation of Document 2428-PS which is a mistake because this is — the original deposition was taken in English, and the Court will notice that they swore in an interpreter before inducting the questioning of Leo Maklowsky. We had hoped to be able to bring Father Maklowsky here to testify because he is one of the few living survivors of the water-freezing experiments in Dachau. Unfortunately we have been unable to locate him, and so I offer instead this deposition.

If the Tribunal please, I am informed that they do not have that document ready to offer at this time, but it will be down shortly from the document room, so I will pass this and offer —

DR. PELCKMANN: May I request the Tribunal — Attorney Pelckmann for the Defendant Schaefer. May I request the Tribunal to have the English original of this testimony read to you. In the document room for the International Military Tribunal several days ago on the occasion of another testimony I have rechecked the signatures, and I have not been able to find any. I have only seen the note of the American official who was interrogating the witness to the effect that it was not possible for him to procure the witnesses because they have been absent in the meantime, and as a result of this no signatures could be procured. It is possible that this is the case also with this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The document is not at this time in court. Discussion on the admissibility of the document will be reserved until the document is brought in.

MR. McHANEY: I move then to Document NO-538 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 122 [HLSL item 1807]. This is a portion of a diary kept by the Defendant Sievers. Exhibit 122 consists of the first six months of this diary, and it is a very interesting document on a great number of points. I would like to read at this time a few of the excerpts. We will have occasion to refer to this document at other points in the trial since it bears upon a number of different experiments. The entry of 12 January 1943 reads as follows:

“SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher:

Item 1. (a) advises that he has been put in the reserve liable to recall at any time of the Luftwaffe.

(b) Necessary that he be given leave until his transfer.

(c) Instigation of necessary motions.

2. (a) Procurement of necessary apparati and instruments from Holland.

(b) Instructions to SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Schneider.

3. Procurement of memoranda on reaction of troops to extreme cold.

4. Discussion of the until now neglected results of the use of Gastein [sp?] water. Continuation would not pay.

5. Procurement of memoranda on the conference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg.”

The next entry on the same date is:

“1. SS Unterscharfuehrer Hamann, Mr. Welter of the Economic & Administrative Department concerning procurement of apparati for Dr. Rascher’s research.”

The next entry reads: “Continuation of discussions with Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher.” An entry on the 15 January 1943 is: “1. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Schnitzler: (a) Continuation of work by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher.”

Your Honors will recall that Schnitzler was an official at the Dachau Concentration Camp.

“16 January 1943. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher reports on the results of his discussion with the Reichsarzt-SS.”

Your Honors will recall that we have put in as an exhibit a report of that discussion. On the next page of the English Document Book, that is, page 163, item 2 under 27 January 1943 reads:

“Because the camp is temporarily closed, Dr. Rascher is to work with SS Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Marburg, and proceed to Strassburg.” Under 28 January 1943, we find an item stating that “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher: The General Inspector of Sanitation for the Luftwaffe has declared himself opposed to the continuation of Rascher’s work. Attitude to be taken,” and we have read into the record a letter from Sievers which amplifies on that thought. On 29 January 1943: “SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt: Report on attitude of Professor Dr. Hippke toward Rascher’s research work.” Then: “Mrs. Rascher (by telephone): Apprisal on the report to Professor Dr. Hippke. 1 February 1943. Department of Sanitation of the Waffen-SS, SS Brigadefuehrer Dr. Blumenreuther. Procurement of apparati, instruments, tools and chemicals for experiments by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher.”

I will call to the Court’s attention that the Chief of the Department of Sanitation of the Waffen-SS was the Defendant Genzken, and Blumenreuther was one of his subordinates in that capacity. On 12 February 1943: “SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher reports by telephone on the successful outcome of negotiations with SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Marburg.” On 18 February 1943 concerning SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher: “1. Charged with execution of experiments with an available plant-extract to cure cancer.

2. Position to be taken in the proceedings instituted against Rascher.

3. Transfer to Waffen-SS. Rascher is also to write an application of his own.

4. Record of freezing experiments with animal heat.”

And with respect to the Adjutant’s Office, Reichsfuehrer SS:

“1. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Schnitzler: Insertion of SS Court into proceedings instituted against SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher by the Luftwaffe Court.”

It appears from these entries which I have just read that Sievers for one was very much concerned that Rascher be court-martialed by the Luftwaffe as a result of this tug of war over his services. This, of course, did not, in fact, occur.

On the next page the entry for the 12 March 1943:

“SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher:

1. Transfer from the Luftwaffe to Waffen-SS was approved today in accordance with verbal advice from Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke.

2. Report on status of his work.

3. Serum production, in accordance with letter of 7 March.”

And down at the bottom of the page on 6 April 1943 concerning SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher:

“1. Neff, who has again been declared eligible for military service, will have to be made a member of the police force.

2. Discussion of Hippke’s letter to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff.

3. Enlistment of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Kuehn of the War Economic Board in the Reich Research Council in the procurement of apparati.”

And Item 8 under 6 April 1943 indicates that they were still at this time continuing certain low-pressure chamber experiments. Item No. 10 says that “Assignment to the Reichsarzt SS does not alter attachment to and necessity of reporting to the Ahnenerbe.” Your Honors will recall that there finally was some difficulty between Rascher and Grawitz about to whom he was to report and as to whether or not he should continue to work under the auspices of the Ahnenerbe.

I drop down to an item under 7 April 1943, item 15:

“Assignment of Dr. Rascher to Reichsarzt-SS. R.” — who is Rascher — “remains under command of the Ahnenerbe and must be transferred to it.”

Down at the bottom of the page, 17 May 1943, item 5:

“SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher (by telephone): Report on discussion with SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gobhardt.”

Document 3546-PS is next and will be Prosecution Exhibit —

THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Court will recess for fifteen minutes.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is now in session.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we would now like to introduce Document 3546-PS as Prosecution’s Exhibit 123 [HLSL item 71] [HLSL item 2590]. This is the Sievers Diary for 1944. The Document which went in as Prosecution’s Exhibit 122 was the Sievers Diary for the first six months of 1943, and unfortunately we have not found the remaining part of the diary for the last six months of 1943, but we do have here the full diary for the year 1944 and that is Prosecution’s Exhibit 123. I would like to read just a very few excerpts from this document since it is now covering the year 1944. Those do not have many references to freezing problems. The first excerpt is from an entry made on 6 January, item 2 (c) where it states:

“Writing Reichsfuehrer-SS to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl concerning support of scientific research work.”

Item (d) is “Space for execution of freezing experiments.”

And then we skip to an entry made on 14 January where we see the entry RFR which is an abbreviation for the Reich Research Council. The German word for Reich Research Council is Reichsforschungsrat.

“RFR, among others, Engineer Becker re securing of apparati for Bruecher and Dr. Rascher, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Lolling by telephone re malaria control, Auschwitz.”

The next item is an entry made on 15 January. That again refers to the Reich Research Council, Dr. Graue.

“(1) Securing of metals for Dr. Rascher’s work.

(2) Authorization for building of experimentation plant by Borchers Brothers, A. G.”

An entry on 21 January, item 8, reads:

“SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Ministry Council, Dr. Brandt.” That is a reference to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt who was [an assistant to the] Minister of Interior under Heinrich Himmler. Item 8 reads:

“Freezing experiments, Dr. Rascher, premises, SS Obersturmfuehrer Berg and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Meine, discussion of current matters, among others Bygdoe, freezing experiments, Thaerigen.”

And then I skip to an entry on page 171 of the English Document Book. An entry made on the 22nd of March which reads:

“SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher: Business discussion, among other things polygal production. Results of experiments with agar capsules. Preparations for freezing experiments during the winter month ’22 [sic; i.e., 1944] and 45. Demand for prisoner command for Schlachters.”

The reference to polygal production will become clear to the court at a later stage in the trial, and I think those are the only entries dealing with freezing experiments, but, as I have stated, we will make continued reference to these diaries of the Defendant Sievers which very, very clearly points out that Sievers was connected with practically all of the criminal experiments with which this case is concerned. I would now like to offer into evidence Document NO 647 which is not in Your Honors’ Document Book, but we have translations here to hand up. This document has been made available to the Defendant’s Information Center for the requisite twenty-four hours, and this will be Prosecution’s Exhibit 124 [HLSL item 1845]. I ask the court to insert it in the freezing document book which you now have before you. This is a note made by the Defendant Sievers and dated 16 December 1942, and Your Honors will recall that a number of the freezing experiments took place, particularly dry freezing experiments, after the date here mentioned. The subject of this memorandum is “Cooperation with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS[“] and Your Honors will remember that this institute was under the command of the Defendant Mrugowsky who in turn at this time was subordinate to the Defendant Genzken. The reorganization of the Medical Service of the SS occurred in August 1943, after the date of this instrument, and it was only on the occasion of the reorganization that the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS was transferred to the deceased, Dr. Grawitz. The memorandum reads as follows:

“With reference to my letter of 9 June 1942, regarding vermin control, a meeting took place first on 21 October 1942, with the participation of SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky and SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Scharlau, Knesebeckstr., 43-44. Under discussion was the cooperation not only in the field of vermin control, but also in the research-sphere of Rascher and with regard to the use of Gastein water in cases of freezing, as well as in various operational fields of the Hygiene Institute, as had already been laid down in the interview with SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Scharlau on 6 November 1941 (K-Enterprise[)]; release of the archeologist Hundt.

A further meeting took place then at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS on 20 November 1942 in which SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers and lecturer Dr. May took part. Dr. May promised on that occasion to send in his research plan.”

I would like to say at this meeting, first mentioned here on 21 October 1942, and at least from that date, the defendant Mrugowsk[y] was in contact with the defendant Sievers, and it was understood that the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS would cooperate with the deceased Doctor Rascher in his Dachau experiments. If you will also recall, one of the entries in Sievers diary, stated that they were securing apparatus from Doctor Blumenreiter who was a subordinate of defendant Karl Genzken, for the purpose of the Rascher experiments.

The second page of document NO 647 reads as follows:

“SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky of the Medical Office of the SS, Charlottenburg, Knesebeckstr. 43/44, is working on behalf of the Reich Eastern Ministry (Reichsministerium Ost) on fever mosquito control in the areas in the East occupied by us.

“The fever mosquito control in the Ukraine has been handled in peace time by the Tropical Institute in Moscow and several stations for that purpose have been established in the various districts. These control stations are now being re-organized in the various districts under the supervision of the SS.

“SS-Obersturmbannfueher Dr. Mrugowsky is going down there within the next few days in order to determine where the control measures are most urgent. It is to be aimed at, that at least the main road to Kiew and one of the great ore mines, where ore is being mined by us, are protected against Malaria.

DR. FLEMMING: I contest the authenticity of the document that was last read into evidence. On the second page of the document there is no date nor signature. On the photostatic copy in front of me there can be found neither a date nor a signature.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal pleases, the observation made by the defense counsel for Mrugowsky is quite correct in so far as the second page of this document contains no signature. However, it seems apparent to me that both of these documents were found together. The original is certified as being located in the Berlin Document Center. The first page of the document is signed by the defendant Sievers, and I do not see that lack of a signature

on the second page necessarily shows that the document is not a genuine authentic copy of a document captured, of course, in military operations.

DR. FLEMMING: I should like to ask that the counsel for the Prosecution submit a report regarding the capture of this document. As far as I can see from this photostatic copy, different typewriters were used in writing this document — NO 647. The type on the first and second page differ, as far as I can see. Therefore, it cannot be said that these documents belong together.

MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, in order to simplify the matter and to remove any ground for controversy, I suggest that we remove the second page of the document which we have offered as Prosecution’s Exhibit 124, and simply put in the first page which is signed by the defendant Sievers, and which bears a date, and which there is not controversy about the authenticity. In this case you can simply remove from your Document Book the second page of the translation of Document NO 647, and if we care to investigate the source of this document, and then reintroduce it we can do so at a later date.

THE PRESIDENT: The second page of Prosecution’s Exhibit 124 may be removed without prejudice to the page being offered at some later date. Exhibit 124 will consist of one page only.

MR. McHANEY: And, now, I would like to return to the deposition of Leo Michalowski, which is Document No. 2428-PS [HLSL item 2584], page 159 of the English Document Book; and I now offer this as Prosecution’s Exhibit 125. The defense counsel for Schaefer, I think, was about to make some objection to the introduction of this document. I think it is admissible on any one of a number of grounds.

Firstly, I think the document is admissible because it was accepted into evidence before the International Military Tribunal as an exhibit by Great Britain. I am told by Mr. Hardy that this note is with the original document before Judge Sebring now.

Second, this deposition was contained in a report made by an official committee of the United States Army on the Concentration Camp Dachau. The Army set up a number of investigating committes which, after the capture of various concentration camps, immediately conducted very extensive investigations, making a great number of written statements from the inmates of these concentration camps, and this is such a document. In fact, it is simply one statement from a very voluminous report on the Dachau Concentration Camp, the whole of the report being 2428-PS.

DR PELCKMANN: Dr. Pelckmann, counsel for the defendant Schaefer. I should like to make some remarks on that matter. There is something which I found out in connection with the investigation of this document. The counsel for the prosecution does not contest that the document bears no signature. This document, PS-2428, consists of three volumes. At the end of [v]olume 3 the man in charge of the investigation states that a number of witnesses, who allegedly had made statements, were not to be reached and that, therefore, they could not sign their statements. Among those people is this testimony of the father, which was submitted here. If this document were to be admitted because of other reasons, namely, because it is part of a report of the American Army or other American authorities, then the entire report would have to be submitted.

However, I doubt that the Tribunal will recognize this report as an official report in the sense of the Charter if it takes into consideration that the biggest number of the statement on which this report is based bear no signature whatsoever. In addition, I don’t believe that this is a report which can be considered to be a report of the Government authority in the sense of the Charter. It is merely an investigation of the Investigation Committee which had put this report on in three volumes.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I observe once more that this document which is now being offered was introduced before the I.M.T.; and under Article 9 of Ordinance Number 7, this Court shall take judicial notice of official Government documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes and the record and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations.

The document now before the Court is part of the records of the International Military Tribunal and is clearly admissible under Article 9. Moreover, the document now before the Court is signed by Captain L. Walker, Clyde L. Walker, an investigator-examiner; and while this copy is apparently not signed by the deponent Michalowski, certainly in any event this document is admissible.

DR. PELCKMANN: I contest that the document was submitted in its entirety before the International Military Tribunal. I want to ask the counsel for the prosecution when this document was submitted in its entirety. According to my recollection, only excerpts from this document were submitted. I merely wish to point out that at the end of this particular statement it can be seen very clearly that there is not signature of the witness available; and I should again like to ask the Tribunal to refer to Volume 3, where the investigating official himself states that he could not obtain signatures.

MR. McHANEY: I should like to say that it is certainly true that this full document was not introduced, at least in its English version before the I.M.T. That was done for the reason that they were not interested in the full statement of Michalowski. Therefore, they introduced excerpts from this statement; but clearly if the excerpts were admissible, the statement as a whole is admissible. And as for putting in all of 2428-PS, it is, of course, a ridiculous assertion because it is a very large volume of documents; and we for one are interested in none of them except this one.

I can’t believe that the defense counsel for Schaefer is interested in any of the rest of them, either. As a matter of fact, this document, as far as I can see, does not run against the defendant Schaefer. Therefore, I can’t quite understand the great controversy being raised about the admissibility of this document on the part of his counsel.

DR. PELCKMANN: With reference to my last formal objection, I have come forward to reply. The defendant Schaefer is also charged with conspiracy; and this extends to all facts. The other assertion of counsel for prosecution, namely, that because excerpts were admitted into the I.M.T. thereby a sanction is made for this Tribunal I believe is a completely incorrect statement. If this High Tribunal should find that admission of evidence to the I.M.T. had been carried out erroneously; that judicial procedure had not been carried out, then I believe that this Tribunal has a perfect right to say and has a perfect right to state that it would not admit this document.

THE PRESIDENT: The fact that from the statements before the Tribunal this Document was admitted in evidence before the International Military Tribunal is not necessarily binding. It may have been admitted without objection as far as this Tribunal knows.

The objection of counsel for the defense to the offer of this document will be sustained without prejudice to its being offered again if other supporting evidence may be procured.

MR. McHANEY: This completes the presentation of documentary evidence on the freezing experiments conducted at Dachau; and Mr. Hardy will continue now with the introduction of testimony and proof on the malaria Experiments.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution charges in the indictment the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers, in Count Two, Paragraph 6, Sub-paragraph C, and in Count Three, Paragraph 11, with special responsibility for and participation in the malaria experiments.

As will be shown in the course of this presentation, those experiments were also conducted at the Dachau Concentration Camp; and in this connection a Military Government Court of the United States of America sentenced Karl Schilling to death by hanging in the case of the United States versus Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

At this time the prosecution respectfully requests that the Honorable Tribunal call the witness August Heinrich Vieweg to the witness stand. Due notice has been filed with the office of the Secretary General; and the defense counsel have been duly notified that this witness has been summoned to appear before this Tribunal to testify to facts concerning the experiments at the Dachau Concentration Camp.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness will take the stand. Mr. Prosecutor?

MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this man a German national?

MR. HARDY: This man is a German national, yes sir.

FRANZ RIETWEG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you will stand at your place in the witness box, hold up your right hand, and be sworn. Repeat after me:

I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)


  1. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/268_229.html
  2. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/269_230.html
  3. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/270_231.html
  4. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/271_232.html
  5. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/272_233.html
  6. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/273_234.html
  7. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/274_235.html
  8. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/275_236.html
  9. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/276_237.html
  10. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/277_238.html
  11. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/278_239.html
  12. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/279_240.html
  13. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/280_241.html
  14. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/281_242.html
  15. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/282_243.html
  16. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/283_244.html
  17. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/284_245.html
  18. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/285_246.html
  19. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/286_247.html
  20. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/287_248.html
  21. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/288_249.html
  22. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/289_250.html
  23. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/290_251.html
  24. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/291_252.html
  25. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/292_253.html
  26. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/293_254.html
  27. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/294_255.html
  28. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/295_256.html
  29. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/296_257.html
  30. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/297_258.html
  31. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/298_259.html
  32. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/299_260.html
  33. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/300_261.html
  34. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/301_262.html
  35. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/302_263.html
  36. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/303_264.html
  37. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/304_265.html
  38. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/305_266.html
  39. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/306_267.html
  40. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/307_268.html
  41. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/308_269.html
  42. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/309_270.html
  43. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/310_271.html
  44. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/311_272.html
  45. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/312_273.html
  46. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/313_274.html
  47. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/314_275.html
  48. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/315_276.html
  49. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/316_277.html
  50. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/317_278.html
  51. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/318_279.html
  52. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/319_280.html
  53. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/320_281.html
  54. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/321_282.html
  55. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/322_283.html
  56. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/323_284.html
  57. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/324_285.html
  58. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/325_286.html
  59. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/326_287.html
  60. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/327_288.html
  61. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/328_289.html
  62. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/329_290.html
  63. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/330_291.html
  64. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/331_292.html
  65. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/332_293.html
  66. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/333_294.html
  67. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/334_295.html
  68. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/335_296.html
  69. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/336_297.html
  70. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/337_298.html
  71. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/338_299.html
  72. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/339_300.html
  73. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/340_301.html
  74. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/341_302.html
  75. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/342_303.html
  76. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/343_304.html
  77. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/344_305.html
  78. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/345_306.html
  79. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/346_307.html
  80. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/347_308.html
  81. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/348_309.html
  82. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/349_310.html
  83. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/350_311.html
  84. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/351_312.html
  85. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/352_313.html
  86. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/353_314.html
  87. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/354_315.html
  88. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/355_316.html
  89. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/356_317.html
  90. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/357_318.html
  91. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/358_319.html
  92. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/359_320.html
  93. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/360_321.html
  94. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/361_322.html
  95. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/362_323.html
  96. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/363_324.html
  97. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/364_325.html
  98. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/365_326.html
  99. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/366_327.html
  100. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/367_328.html
  101. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/368_329.html
  102. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/369_330.html
  103. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/370_331.html
  104. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/371_332.html
  105. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/372_333.html
  106. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/373_334.html
  107. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/374_335.html
  108. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/375_336.html
  109. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/376_337.html
  110. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/377_338.html
  111. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/378_339.html
  112. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/379_340.html
  113. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/380_341.html
  114. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/381_342.html
  115. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/382_343.html
  116. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/383_344.html
  117. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/384_345.html
  118. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/385_346.html
  119. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/386_347.html
  120. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/387_348.html
  121. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/388_349.html
  122. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/389_350.html
  123. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/390_351.html
  124. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/391_352.html
  125. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/392_353.html
  126. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/393_354.html
  127. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/394_355.html
  128. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/395_356.html
  129. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/396_357.html
  130. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/397_358.html
  131. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/398_359.html
  132. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/399_360.html
  133. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/400_361.html
  134. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/401_362.html
  135. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/402_363.html
  136. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/403_364.html
  137. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/404_365.html
  138. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/405_366.html
  139. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/406_367.html
  140. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/407_368.html
  141. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/408_369.html
  142. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/409_370.html
  143. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/410_371.html
  144. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/411_372.html
  145. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/412_373.html
  146. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/413_374.html
  147. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/414_375.html
  148. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/415_376.html
  149. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/416_377.html
  150. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/417_378.html
  151. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/418_379.html
  152. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/419_380.html
  153. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/420_381.html
  154. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/421_382.html
  155. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/422_383.html
  156. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/423_384.html
  157. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/424_385.html
  158. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/425_386.html
  159. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/426_387.html
  160. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/427_388.html
  161. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/428_389.html
  162. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/NurTranscript/TranscriptPages/429_390.html


Learn more about paedophile child snuff rings https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/jewish-paedophiles-and-snuff-movies-the-london-tape-beat-meier-dmitri-vladimirovich-kuznetsov/

View pictures of paedophiles and the royal family https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/jimmy-savile-ted-heath-and-queen-elizabeth-ii-pictures/

Learn more about the British police https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/how-much-do-you-think-you-can-trust-the-british-police/

Learn more about people trying to murder you and your family https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/proof-someone-is-trying-to-damage-the-human-body-brain-and-cause-cancer-to-kill-people-slowly/

Learn more about Freemason paedophile rings https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/international-freemason-paedophile-rings-america-britain-france-holland-jersey/

Learn more about the paedophile ring thats been operating inside the British and American intelligence agencies https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/opilluminatuspiedpiper-northamptonshire-police-helping-cover-up-unitarian-paedosadist-with-satanic-royal-connections-mp-cyril-smith-scandal-because-of-his-royal-connections-force-said-secur/

Learn about the Nazi origins of the European Union https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/opzion-margaret-thatchers-former-economics-advisor-christopher-story-hitlers-european-union-a-common-european-currency-a-pan-european-bank-called-europa-bank-and-thus/

Learn about Nazi UFOs https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/optelltale-nazi-flying-disk-prototypes-andreas-epp-testimony-eugen-lardy-testimony-adolf-hitler-hermann-gorings-gerti-vogt-maria-orsitsch-lothar-waiz-karl-haushofer-rudolf-von-sebottendo/



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s