_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
DR. VORWERK: Now, we’ll go back to the point of Rascher’s position in
the experiment.
DEFENDANT ROMBERG: I said that without Rascher there would never have
been any intention of carrying out the experiments and it would never
have been possible. This can be seen from Himmler’s original assignment.
Practical proof of this is the fact that the experiments were stopped
immediately when there were difficulties with Rascher’s assignment. This
is proved by the letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leader SS, dated
24 February 1942. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) In this letter Frau Rascher
writes that there were difficulties of command and that the experiments
were stopped; that Rascher had gone back to Schongau. That was the time
when I went back to Berlin. Later on when the experiments were actually
carried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform experiments
in Dachau without his permission or his presence, so that I never did
perform any experiments without Rascher. I always waited until he was
there. On the days when he was in Schongau no experiments were
performed. Generally, I did not even go to the experimental station.
Sometimes I went to write—but certainly never to carry out experiments.
This rule, although, of course, it often delayed the work, seemed
justified to me because Rascher had permission from Himmler to perform
these experiments and was responsible to him for the experimental
subjects. Also, I myself was under the authority of the camp at Dachau
which seriously restricted my independence, for example, my freedom of
movement or talking to prisoners and similar things. Rascher himself, on
the other hand, had a very free position on the basis of the powers
which he had received from Himmler and because of a special pass. The
Dachau camp was under Himmler’s authority. This is shown by the letter
from Himmler to Milch of November 1942. (_1617-PS, Pros. Ex. 77_ (_Pros.
Ex. 111, Milch Case_).) In this letter Himmler spoke of Holzloehner’s
conduct and adds that the Dachau camp was under his orders, and
Holzloehner would have to submit. It was under these conditions that
Rascher took the low-pressure chamber from the SS in Munich and set it
up there.
Q. Who took care of the maintenance work on the chamber during the
experiments?
A. There was not a great deal of maintenance work necessary; loading the
batteries or supplying the oxygen for the experiments was taken care of
by Rascher and was probably paid for by the camp.
Q. Was Rascher responsible to you for that?
A. No, Rascher was not responsible to me at all. He was responsible to
the Medical Inspectorate because the chamber belonged to them.
Q. Did you have ah opportunity to give Rascher any orders or
instructions, or to prohibit anything?
A. No, that can no doubt be seen from what I have already said. I could
not give him any orders. I certainly could not forbid him to do
anything. Concerning the conduct of these experiments on rescue from
high altitudes, I merely had a certain advisory right as is customary
for two scientists who are working together on the same task when one of
the two has greater knowledge pertinent to the specific task.
Q. You said the experiments began on 22 or 23 February; was that when
you saw the experimental subjects for the first time?
A. Yes. On that day I went out to Dachau with Rascher for the first time
and met the experimental subjects for the first time.
Q. About how many were there?
A. There were 10 or 12.
Q. Could it have been 5?
A. Five? No, there were certainly more than that.
Q. Could it have been 15?
A. Yes, that is possible.
Q. Did you talk to the experimental subjects on that day before the
experiments began?
A. I believe on that day we mostly talked. Whether any proper
experiments were done at all on that first day, I don’t remember. At any
rate I talked to the experimental subjects and got to know them a little
on the first day.
Q. What did you talk about with the experimental subjects?
A. They were quite new surroundings for me, of course. They were all
professional criminals who were in custody.
Q. How do you know that?
A. They told me that gradually in the course of conversation. They
didn’t, of course, have complete confidence on the first day and did not
tell me all about their previous convictions. But after careful
inquiries one discovered that they had been condemned for certain
crimes, repeatedly convicted, and finally had been condemned to
protective custody.
Q. Why did you talk to the experimental subjects on this day?
A. It is quite natural when one begins to work with such a group that a
certain personal contact is necessary. We had to get to know each other.
I talked to them about their profession, if I may call it that, and of
course I told them something about the experiments, what the whole thing
was all about, what they themselves had to do to cooperate in the same
way as my usual experimental subjects.
Q. Was the reason for this investigation to prepare the subjects for
their activity or to check whether these people were actually
volunteers?
A. No. It was more to get to know the subjects personally. The situation
was this: in the discussion with the camp commandant on the basis of the
agreement with Rascher and his authorization from Himmler, a very
definite agreement had been reached to the effect that these people were
to be selected from the volunteers. Therefore, a clear agreement had
been reached on the conditions, about which there could be no doubts
basically. When I met the subjects for the first time personally and
talked to them about the principle of the experiments and their duties,
and so forth, of course I also inquired why they had volunteered—not
because of any distrust of the camp commandant, but just for that
reason.
Q. You thought, accordingly, that they were volunteers?
A. I didn’t only think they were. They told me so themselves.
Q. How do you know that so definitely for each case?
A. In the course of time—not on the first day but in the course of
time—I talked to all of them frequently in some detail, and gradually
they told me about their previous convictions and what other prisons and
penitentiaries they had been in before they came to the camp, and they
also told me the reasons why they had volunteered.
Q. Do you mean to say that all the experimental subjects used for the
high-altitude experiments were volunteers?
A. Yes.
Q. Now before these subjects entered the chamber did you prepare them
for what they had to do and tell them the significance of the whole
thing?
A. Yes, of course. First I explained the whole question to them in broad
outline, so that they would know what it was about and what the purpose
of the experiment was. In detail I told them specifically what they had
to do in the experiments. There was the writing test during which they
had to write numbers from 1,000 backwards; then the cardinal point was
that after the altitude sickness during the experiments, as soon as they
came to, they had to pull the rip cord. We had a handle in the chamber
connected to a bell. This was to represent pulling the rip cord of the
parachute. This had to be explained to them carefully, otherwise they
wouldn’t have understood it and wouldn’t have reacted correctly.
Q. Now, before the experiments began, did you have an electrocardiogram
of each separate subject?
A. Yes and again later on.
Q. Please explain that.
A. Rascher had first examined the people to see if they were suitable
for the experiments, so there would be no heart defects or anything like
that. Then in order to get an exact control, before the beginning of the
experiments we took an electrocardiogram of all the subjects. In almost
all the experiments the electrocardiograms were registered and at the
end, when the experiments were finished, we took another
electrocardiogram of all the subjects in order to have material because
perhaps even if there was no visible injury, there might still be some
effects which could only be determined by such tests.
Q. Now, how long did these experiments on rescue from high altitude
last, approximately?
A. Well, they really began on about 10 or 11 March and they lasted until
19 or 20 May.
Q. Following that, you prepared the report which has been submitted by
the prosecution?
A. Yes.
Q. In this report you have a sentence saying that during the experiments
on rescue from high altitudes there were no deaths and there had been no
injury to health; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is correct that that sentence is in the report, and it is
also true that there were no deaths or other injuries.
Q. But here in the testimony of the witness Neff you heard that there
were deaths?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you have to say about that?
A. In addition to our joint experiments on rescue from high altitudes,
Rascher conducted experiments of his own. He did not tell me the exact
problem; he merely said that he was performing these experiments for
Himmler and that they had to do with explosive decompression sickness
and electrocardiograms. He had apparently carried out secret experiments
for some time on this problem, but then in my presence he continued them
with special subjects. In the course of these experiments the first
death occurred at the end of April in my presence. He told me in the
course of our conversations that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer on
the basis of these experiments which were ordered by Himmler. He wanted
to get Dr. Fahrenkamp into it but this cooperation never came about
because the experiments were broken off.
Before this death I had no reason to object to the experiments in any
way since Rascher was using other subjects and had a separate assignment
from Himmler for them. My assignment was to perform the experiments on
rescue from high altitudes and I carried it out together with Rascher.
Q. How many deaths took place in your presence?
A. Three.
Q. But Neff spoke of five deaths at which you were present.
A. There could only have been three.
Q. Why could there only have been three?
A. Because I remember. After all they were deaths and they made a
definite impression on me; I know it.
Q. Why did death in the low-pressure chamber make such an impression on
you?
A. In the innumerable low-pressure-chamber experiments not only
performed by us, but everywhere in Germany in other institutes, we never
had any deaths at all, and the opinion at that time was that any
necessary problem of aviation medicine could be solved without deaths.
Q. Now, how did it happen that you were present at these deaths, since
you say these experiments did not belong to your series of experiments?
A. At the beginning of April or in the middle of April, Rascher told me
for the first time that he was performing experiments with slow
ascension and that he had attempted to work with Fahrenkamp but the work
had been interrupted when the latter was sent away. I said that had
nothing to do with our experiments and was quite unimportant and
uninteresting from our point of view. He admitted that, but said it was
a specific question which especially interested him personally and which
he had to work on. I did not see these experiments, which according to
records here lasted 8 to 10 hours. He probably always performed them on
the days I was absent because these 8 to 10 hours would have interfered
considerably with our experiments. He expanded these experiments and
performed time-reserve experiments at certain altitudes to test the
adaptation which he had been testing before in the slow-ascension
experiments. This was an experiment in which the subject remains at the
same altitude, in contrast to the falling or sinking experiments where
the pressure is constantly increased, that is, when the altitude is
decreased. As his interim reports show, he extended these experiments to
high altitudes and the time reserve was studied either with or without
oxygen. The suggestion for this in part came obviously from other work,
such as that of Dr. Kliches.
I sometimes observed these experiments. He performed them correctly; he
watched the subjects so that there was, in itself, no objection to these
experiments. The only thing was that they interfered with our
experiments from the point of view of time, and Rascher’s lack of
punctuality was a much greater annoyance in this respect. According to
the documents, as well as the witness Neff, Rascher apparently had
deaths in these experiments. The first deaths were evidently unexpected.
In these unexpected deaths the electrocardiogram and the autopsy
findings, together with his reports, apparently gave Himmler the idea
that these experiments should be carried on further, and in addition
that Fahrenkamp should be called in to extend them as far as possible
scientifically. The fact that Himmler was covering them apparently
induced him in my presence to perform experiments which were dangerous,
and in which deaths occurred. The fact that I had been present several
times at previous experiments brought about my presence at that fatal
experiment, too.
Q. Did you not think it unusual that during an experimental series which
you and Rascher were to carry out together, Himmler suddenly gave
Rascher orders for special experiments?
A. Yes. I did not have any specific experience in this direction, but on
principle it is nothing unusual if when two people are working together
on a certain job, one of them receives an additional assignment from his
chief to carry out other work on his own. In addition, Rascher was also
working in Schongau at the same time on behalf of Luftgau VII. I,
myself, had work of my own in the DVL, which my associates were carrying
on and which I inquired about when I happened to be in Berlin. No one
could dispute the fact that Himmler, as Reich Leader SS and Chief of the
German Police and as Rascher’s boss insofar as he was an SS member, had
the right to give assignments to his subordinates and to order them to
carry out experiments on experimental subjects in a concentration camp.
* * * * *
Q. Now, in your opinion, what is the distinction between your presence
at the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and your occasional
presence during Rascher’s experiments?
A. In the experiments on rescue from high altitudes I was not merely
present. I performed the experiments myself. That is, I called the
experimental subjects myself, or sometimes Rascher called them. Of
course, then I explained to the people what they had to do, what they
had to write, what they had to pay special attention to, and that when
they registered the electrocardiogram, in order not to interfere with
it, they had to keep still; and then when the experiment had started I
directed the experiment myself. I watched the altitude of the mercury
indicator, and the calculated speed of ascension and descension, which I
checked with the stop watch. Of course, at the same time I observed the
subject, in other words, the persons in the experiments. In Rascher’s
experiments which were at a certain altitude—that is, the subjects were
ascended to a certain altitude and then remained at that altitude—I
sometimes watched if I happened to be in the low-pressure chamber, but
otherwise he performed these experiments alone just as he did when I was
not present. He even laid great stress on performing them alone. It is
clear to me now that he did not want me to observe any special results;
that is apparently why he performed the other experiments in the evening
or when I was away.
Q. After the first death was there an autopsy?
A. Yes, there was an autopsy.
Q. Did you participate in it?
A. No, I did not participate. I was present and I watched the autopsy.
Q. Why did you watch the autopsy if it was not your experiment?
A. Today, of course, it looks different than it did at the time. It was
a matter of course for me then. Rascher was a colleague of mine. He had
had a fatal accident in his experiments. He asked me to watch the
autopsy, and, of course, I went. I also had a quite natural scientific
interest in the cause of death, and in the findings, and I admit it
frankly, although I am aware of the danger that someone may say I was
interested in the death of the person too, but it happens in every
hospital; all doctors watch the autopsies. If, for example, in the
surgical ward, a patient died after an operation, then the chief
physician, or if he had no time, the senior physician, and the other
doctors who had nothing specifically to do with the patient, watched the
autopsy, and generally even X-ray doctors came over who didn’t know the
patient at all. Besides if I had not been present, that would today be
considered as an incomprehensible lack of interest in the death—if I
had not accepted Rascher’s invitation. If such a death happened during a
centrifugal experiment in our institute, if such an accident had
happened which was not in my field of work, I certainly would have gone
to watch the autopsy. One must learn from the findings; that is one’s
duty as a doctor. One has to look at such things so that one can draw
one’s own conclusions and be able to avoid subsequent accidents.
Q. Did you see any further autopsies of Rascher?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. After this death there was a basic change in my attitude toward
Rascher and the plan to break off the experiments, so that in the case
of later deaths I was not present because of this attitude. I do not
believe he invited me to the autopsies either, and under the conditions
in Dachau I could not go there on my own initiative.
Q. Did you ask Rascher how this death came about, or did you warn him
before the death?
A. Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I
had sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments,
purely out of curiosity, just as in our institute if centrifugal
experiments were performed, I sometimes watched them, too. There was no
reason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out
of curiosity. That was how it happened that I was present by accident at
the experiment and looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. On
the screen of the electrocardiograph one can see a little point of light
which moves, and that is determined by the heart action. When it seemed
to me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart action was
lessening, I said to Rascher: “You had better stop now.”
Q. And what did Rascher do?
A. Nothing. He kept that altitude and later death suddenly occurred.
Q. When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you
that the person would die in the next second?
A. No, of course not. First of all I had never seen a death from high
altitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn’t know that, and,
in the second place, this death certainly resulted from aero-embolism
and, therefore, suddenly. In the third place, the electrocardiogram
change was, shall we say, doubtful. I myself would have stopped the
experiment at this stage but he didn’t. I only spoke up because I would
have stopped the experiment at that moment.
Q. Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment?
A. It was not possible for me to object in view of Rascher’s position,
but I told him that such things should not happen.
Q. And what else did you do?
A. After this death I went to Berlin and told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed
with me that death should not be allowed to occur in high-altitude
experiments and it had never occurred before. Since Rascher, however,
performed these experiments for Himmler on men who were condemned to
death, we saw no way of preventing Rascher after we had made an official
report. In general when objections were made Rascher simply referred to
the orders from Himmler and to the fact that he was covered by them. It
was quite impossible to remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler’s
and Rascher’s will. And to give this death as a reason for removing the
chamber was even more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would not
have reacted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might
have started proceedings for treason or for sabotage of an essential war
experiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature to
the contrary in a concentration camp. Like every other visitor to a
concentration camp I had to sign a statement to the effect that
everything I saw and so forth in the camp would be secret. Besides, at
the beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram
from Himmler ordering silence about these experiments. A specific
obligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since
I had reported the matter to Ruff against the secrecy obligation, I also
had to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could
not give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau,
aside from the fact it would not have met with success.
Therefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility
was for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber
removed, giving the excuse that it was needed at the front. On the other
hand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be
told that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so
that we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau.
Otherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered the experiments to be
continued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the
clarification of the question of rescue from high altitudes, and he
would doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and arranged to keep
the chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at
the front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the
experiments, and he would not have released the chamber.
If I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried
out the experiments on rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would
doubtless also have continued his own experiments. That was the reason
why I reluctantly went back to Dachau.
Q. Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin?
A. The purpose was this report to Ruff.
Q. Was that the only purpose?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you explain this trip to Rascher?
A. I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife’s condition. My
wife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going
to Berlin.
Q. How long were you in Berlin?
A. Only 1 or 2 days; then I went back to Dachau.
Q. Now, before you left did you make sure whether Ruff had done anything
in response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the
chamber out of Dachau?
A. Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so
that I really did not know what was going on and what would be
accomplished.
Q. Did you notice anything special about the chamber when you came back
to Dachau?
A. Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already
said; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer
repaired.
Q. How long did you stay in Berlin this time?
A. As long as the repair required; about 2 weeks.
Q. Then during this time there were no experiments?
A. No.
Q. When did the experiments begin again?
A. The beginning of May or the middle of May I went back with the
repaired apparatus; then we concluded the experiments as quickly as
possible.
Q. Did you abbreviate the program which you had planned, or did you
change it in any way, or did you keep it the way it was?
A. No. We shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various
altitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly as possible
but in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results.
Q. When was the second death at which you were present?
A. That was a few days after my return to Dachau.
Q. Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a manner similar
to the first case?
A. In general, yes. I don’t know exactly what happened. As far as I
recall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death
occurred quicker, more suddenly.
Q. And when was the third death at which you were present?
A. That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day.
Q. After these deaths, did you ever have any arguments with Rascher
about his experiments and the way in which he performed them?
A. Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which
he always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to
object again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn’t to
interfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his
patience, and we got rather excited. I asked him why he was carrying out
these experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he wanted to
clarify the problem of caisson diseases, that is bends or aero-embolism,
because Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man to prove these air
bubbles in the blood during an autopsy under water. Also the question of
the electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified
as Himmler had given him a special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was
to do this work together with him. In addition he wanted to qualify as a
professor with Schittenhelm through this work.
Then he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to
be continued; that Professor Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that
people condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course,
be pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I
could read Himmler’s signature and whether I wasn’t satisfied with that.
Q. Was this the letter 1971-B-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 51?
A. Yes, 1971-B-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 51.
Q. And what does this letter indicate?
A. Well, it showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments
and that he, therefore, had complete official coverage, that the
subjects were to be pardoned. It says in the letter: “Of course the
person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for
life.” Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page
it says that this order from Himmler goes to the Chief of the Security
Police and the SD and to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, with a copy for
their information.
Q. Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter?
A. Since this letter prevented me from doing anything, I calmly asked
him what idea he had of these experiments, what he wanted to do, what he
wanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that
he would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various
reasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of
death at high altitudes with the change in severe altitude sickness and
with later recovery. In addition, in the hospital in Munich he had taken
electrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau, he said, he had
also registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by
shooting. If he really had evaluated all this material together with a
heart specialist, then it would, of course, have been quite valuable.
* * * * *
Q. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop
Rascher’s experiments and did you incur any danger and, if so, what?
A. What I did against Himmler’s orders and against my signed promise to
keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who
passed the information on—all this was dangerous. One probably
understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The
witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher’s experiments. He
confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he
knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the discussions
between Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the
prisoners. The low-pressure chamber was removed from Dachau earlier than
intended at our instigation. Against Rascher’s and Himmler’s wishes, it
was never returned to Dachau. The extent of the accusations made by the
SS in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with
Wolff’s telegram to Milch on 12 May, which is answered in the negative
in Milch’s letter of 20 May. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) In answer to
further efforts from Himmler, Milch ordered that the chamber was to
remain 2 months longer in Dachau. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) At this
time, we had already removed the chamber. On 5 June, Rascher again
writes to Himmler about the low-pressure chamber. Document NO-284,
Prosecution Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of 5 June. The
letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt,
says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the
prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. Then
there is a certain pause in Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts, because
Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. When the film is shown in
Berlin in the Air Ministry, Rascher does not forget to tell Milch again
of his wishes in regard to the low-pressure chamber. But hardly has the
first phase of the cold experiments—the series with Holzloehner—been
finished, when he writes to Himmler again on 9 October. (_1610-PS, Pros.
Ex. 73._) He asks Himmler to get him the low-pressure chamber so that he
can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. In the letter
of 21 October 1942 (_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_), Sievers writes to Brandt
about the continuation of the high-altitude experiments which Himmler
wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons,
he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in
order actually to get the chamber. This happens on 27 November 1942
(_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_)—a letter from Wolff to Milch, on behalf of
Himmler. The definite request for the low-pressure chamber, which is
expressed in this letter, is given definite emphasis by mention of the
opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors. I learned from a telephone call
from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a
low-pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly
astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well
that Rascher certainly didn’t want to have this made public in any way.
Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of
this call and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here
yesterday. In an official letter to various SS agencies, dated 13
December 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79_), Rascher is given the assignment
by Himmler personally to carry out high-altitude experiments. On 14
March 1943 (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110_), Rascher tells of his discussions
with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low-pressure
chamber experiments, together with me; and finally, on 18 November 1943
(_NO-1057, Pros. Ex. 463_), he tries again, through the Reich Research
Council in agreement with Himmler, to get a mobile low-pressure chamber
in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher’s and Himmler’s
efforts but, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low-pressure
chamber at his disposal for experiments.
Q. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements?
A. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher’s and Himmler’s
efforts were and that my conduct under these circumstances was not only
not cowardly, but that it was much more clever and much more successful.
Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I
had had any obligations to attack Rascher and if I had tried and been
unsuccessful, then I would have been locked up or killed and Rascher
would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without
any restriction.
Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in
what did you see such possibility?
A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all,
emigration for a person who was able; second, open resistance which
meant a concentration camp or the death penalty, and to my knowledge,
never met with any success; third, passive resistance by apparent
yielding, misplacing and delaying orders, criticism among one’s friends,
in short, what writers today call “internal emigration.” But that really
doesn’t have much to do with the question. As far as the direct question
of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take
a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot
imagine, for example, that an assistant of a scientific research worker
who is performing infections with a fatal disease, for example, leprosy,
on a prisoner, that this assistant should prevent the scientist from
carrying out this infection by force—perhaps by knocking the hypodermic
syringe out of his hand and crying “You mustn’t do that, the man might
die!” I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons,
refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that if
there were a trial against this doctor the prosecution would demand that
the assistant should have prevented the scientist in this manner.
Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible?
A. Yes.
Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or
with the public prosecutor, against Rascher?
A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said,
“Rascher has performed experiments ordered by Himmler—by the Chief of
the German Police and whatever else he was—the Reich Leader SS, the
State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior,” they would probably
have said: “Well, we can’t do anything about it. If he has orders, then
we can’t do anything about it.”
* * * * *
-----
[18] Jews who had had sexual intercourse with German women with their
consent.
[19] Very similar arguments were advanced by counsel for defendant
Romberg.
[20] The witness Neff was called to testify as a Tribunal witness and
not as a prosecution witness.
[21] See Vol. II, judgment is case of United States _vs._ Erhard Milch.
[22] Last sentence is crossed out and replaced by one in German
shorthand.
[23] Translator’s Note: “Terminal” as used here means “resulting in
death”.
[24] These studies were carried out in conjunction with the research and
educational society “Ahnenerbe.”
[25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, December
17-18, 1947, pp. 595-695.
[26] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, March
24, 25, and 26, 1947, pp. 4869-4994.
[27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, May 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1947, pp. 6764-7032.