a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf
Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were
charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal
conduct involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment).
On this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and
Sievers were convicted. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky,
Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the freezing experiments
is contained in its final brief against the defendant Sievers. An
extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 199 to 206. A
corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants
Sievers and Weltz. It appears below on pages 207 to 217. This
argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 219
to 278.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_
_Freezing Experiments_
Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed, the
freezing experiments were ordered to be performed by the defendant Weltz
and his subordinate Rascher. This can be seen from a letter of 20 May
1942 from Milch to Karl Wolff. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) A short time
later, Rascher had a conference with Hippke and the experimental team
was changed to include Jarisch, Holzloehner, and Singer. Rascher
reported these orders to Himmler on 15 June 1942, and passed on Hippke’s
request to have the experiments conducted in Dachau. He stated: “It was
also decided that the inspector [Hippke] would issue orders to me at all
times during the experiments.” (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) The research
assignment was issued by the Department for Aviation Medicine (2 II B)
under Anthony, with the defendant Becker-Freyseng as his deputy.
(_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88._)
The cold-water freezing experiments began on 15 August 1942 and
continued until the early part of 1943. They were performed by
Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the
Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Holzloehner and Finke collaborated
with Rascher until December 1942. As Rascher said in a paper on his
medical training: “By order of the Reich Leader SS and
Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke, I conducted ‘Experiments for
the Rescue of Frozen Persons’ (started on 15 August 1942), in
cooperation—for 4 months—with the Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Dr.
Finke both of Kiel University.” (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._) Rascher also
said that: “Since May 1939 till today I have been in military service
with the Air Force.” The memorandum was dated 17 May 1943. It should
therefore be borne in mind that during all of the high-altitude and
substantially all of the freezing experiments, Rascher was on _active
duty_ with the Luftwaffe, not the SS. It was not until after May 1943
that he went on active duty with the Waffen SS. He was of course
supported by both the Luftwaffe and the SS in these experiments.
The witness Neff, who was an inmate assistant in the experiments,
testified that freezing experiments in the concentration camp Dachau
started at the end of July or in August 1942. They were conducted by
Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. In October, Holzloehner and Finke left
and Rascher proceeded alone to conduct freezing experiments until May
1943. Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke used ice-cold water for their
freezing experiments. The experimental basin had been built 2 meters
long and 2 meters high in Rascher’s experimental station, Block 5. (_Tr.
pp. 626-8._) The experiments were carried out in the following manner:
The basin was filled with water and ice was added until the water
measured 3° C. The experimental subjects, either dressed in a flying
suit or naked, were placed into the ice water. Narcotics were frequently
not used. It always took a certain time until so-called “freezing
narcosis” made the experimental subjects unconscious, and the subjects
suffered terribly. The temperature of the victims was measured rectally
and through the stomach by galvanometer. They lost consciousness at a
body temperature of approximately 33° C. The experiments actually
progressed until the experimental persons were chilled down to 25° C.
body temperature. An experiment on two Russian officers who were exposed
naked to the ice-cold water in the basin was particularly brutal. These
two Russians were still conscious after 2 hours. Rascher refused to
administer an injection. When one of the inmates who attended the
experiment tried to administer an anaesthetic to these two victims,
Rascher threatened him with a pistol. Both experimental subjects died
after having been exposed at least 5 hours to the terrible cold. (_Tr.
pp. 629-631._) Approximately 280 to 300 experimental subjects were used
for this type of freezing experiment, but in reality, 360 to 400
experiments were conducted since many experimental subjects were used
two or three times for experiments. Approximately 80 to 90 experimental
subjects died. About 50 to 60 inmates were used in the
Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments and approximately 15 to 18 of them
died. Political prisoners, non-German nationals, and prisoners of war
were used for these experiments. Many of the inmates used had not been
“condemned to death.” The subjects did not volunteer for the
experiments. (_Tr. pp. 627-8._)
Even though one assumes that prisoners condemned to death were used in
all of the experiments, which is not true, the “defense” that they
volunteered on the agreement that their sentences would be commuted to
life imprisonment is invalid. During the high-altitude experiments,
Himmler had directed that in further experiments where the long
continued heart activity of subjects who were killed was observed,
criminals condemned to death should be used and, if they were revived,
they should be “pardoned” to concentration camp for life. (_1971-B-PS,
Pros. Ex. 51._) Rascher apparently construed this order to apply to the
freezing experiments also. On 20 October 1942, Rascher advised Rudolf
Brandt that until then only Poles and Russians had been used for such
experiments and that only some of these persons had been condemned to
death. He inquired whether Himmler’s “amnesty” applied to Russians and
Poles. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) Brandt told him that it did not
apply. (_1971-E-PS, Pros. Ex. 53._)
Dry-freezing experiments were carried out by Rascher in January,
February, and March 1943. One experimental subject was placed on a
stretcher at night and exposed to the cold outdoors. He was covered with
a linen sheet, but a bucket of cold water was poured over him every
hour. He remained outdoors until the morning and then his temperature
was taken with a thermometer. In the next series the experimental plan
was changed, and experimental persons had to remain naked outdoors for
long hours without being covered up at all. One series was carried out
on 10 prisoners who had to remain outdoors overnight. Rascher himself
was present during approximately 18 to 20 experiments of that type.
Approximately three experimental subjects died as a result of the
dry-freezing experiments. (_Tr. pp. 636-7._)
On the order of Grawitz and Rascher, a mass experiment on 100
experimental subjects was to be carried out. As Rascher was not present,
Neff was in the position to frustrate the experiment by taking the
experimental subjects indoors, and therefore no deaths occurred during
this experimental series. The longest period that experimental subjects
were kept outdoors in the cold was from 6 p. m. of one day to 9 a. m. of
the following morning. The lowest temperature Neff can recollect during
the dry-freezing experiments was 25° body temperature. As Rascher had
prohibited that experiments were to be carried out under anaesthetics,
the experimental subjects suffered great pain and screamed to such an
extent that it was impossible to carry out further experiments. Rascher
therefore requested Himmler’s permission to carry out such experiments
in the future in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Non-German nationals
and political prisoners were among the experimental subjects. None of
them was sentenced to death. They had not volunteered for the
experiments. (_Tr. pp. 637-9._)
In connection with the freezing experiments, Neff further testified that
in September 1942 he received orders from Sievers to take the hearts and
lungs of five experimental subjects who had been killed in the
experiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific
study. The travel warrant for Neff had been made out by Sievers, and the
Ahnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the bodies. One
of the five experimental subjects killed had been a Dutch citizen. (_Tr.
p. 633._) Sievers visited the experimental station quite frequently
during the freezing experiments. (_Tr. p. 635._)
Neff’s testimony is corroborated by the affidavits of the defendants
Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng (_NO-242, Pros. Ex. 80_; _NO-448,
Pros. Ex. 81_) and the testimony of the witness Lutz (_Tr. pp. 266-76_),
Vieweg (_Tr. p. 431_), and Michalowsky (_Tr. pp. 878-83_), and by the
documentary evidence in the record.
On 15 June 1942, Rascher informed Himmler that the Inspector of the
Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, sought permission for cold
experiments to be conducted by Rascher and Holzloehner in the Dachau
concentration camp. (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) On 10 September 1942,
Rascher submitted his first intermediary report on the freezing
experiments to Himmler. In the covering letter Rascher stated that
Holzloehner, who participated in the execution of the experiments on
behalf of the Luftwaffe, intended to lecture on the subject of freezing
in the “cold conference” of the Luftwaffe on 26-27 October in Nuernberg.
Rascher informed Himmler that “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.” (_NO-234, Pros.
Ex. 83._) The intermediary report itself shows on its face that
fatalities occurred as a result of the Rascher-Holzloehner-Finke
experiments and advocated rapid rewarming of severely chilled persons.
Rascher considered that rewarming with animal heat would be too slow,
and that experiments in this respect would be unnecessary. He voiced a
similar opinion as to the use of drugs for the purpose of rewarming.
(_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 34._) Himmler, when acknowledging the receipt of
Rascher’s report on 22 September, directed nevertheless that the
experiment with rewarming by means of drugs and body heat should be
made. A copy of this order of Himmler’s was forwarded to Sievers on 25
September. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._)
On the basis of this order Rascher approached Sievers to make
arrangements for four female gypsies to be procured at once for the
purpose of rewarming experimental subjects. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) It
was apparently Sievers’ effort in this regard which resulted in a series
of telegrams to transfer these women from the Ravensbrueck concentration
camp to Dachau. Rudolf Brandt actually directed the transfer. (_1619-PS,
Pros. Ex. 87._) The four women arrived in November 1942 in Dachau. Three
of them were used for rewarming of frozen experimental subjects, one
being excluded because she was a “Nordic” type. That the experimental
subjects were not volunteers is plain from a remark of one of these
women. “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the
concentration camp.” (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) This series of
experiments, which was not only murderous but obscene, was carried out
by Rascher between November 1942 and February 1943. His report to
Himmler reveals that one of the experimental subjects died as a result
of this series of experiments. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._)
On 8 October 1942, Stabsarzt Professor Anthony of the Medical
Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe approached Himmler with the information
that the results of the wet-freezing experiments carried out by Rascher
in cooperation with Holzloehner and Finke were to be lectured upon by
Holzloehner during the “cold conference” on 26-27 October in Nuernberg.
(_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88, compare NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) On 16 October
Rascher also asked Himmler’s permission to release the results of the
freezing experiments during these “cold conferences.” (_NO-225, Pros.
Ex. 89._) On the same day Rascher submitted to Himmler his final report
on the freezing experiments as far as they had been carried out in
collaboration with Holzloehner and Finke. This report did not include
experiments for rewarming by means of drugs and of animal body heat,
which at that time were still in progress. (_1613-PS, Pros. Ex. 90._)
This report on “Cooling Experiments on Human Beings” by Holzloehner,
Rascher, and Finke, corroborates fully the testimony of Neff concerning
this series of the wet-freezing experiments and proves that many
fatalities occurred. It shows that some of the experimental subjects
were exposed to this terrible type of experimentation without receiving
anesthetics, which would have alleviated their pain considerably. The
sufferings of the experimental subjects were vividly described. Foam
appeared round the mouths of the experimental subjects, and breathing
difficulties and lung oedema resulted. The cooling of the neck and back
of the head of the experimental subjects caused especially painful
sensations. Progressive rigor, which developed very strongly in the arm
muscles, cyanosis, and total irregularity of the heart activity were the
symptoms observed by the experimenters. Hot baths were advocated as the
best treatment for severely chilled persons. Fatalities resulted from
heart failure and brain oedema, and measures for protection against such
results were discussed at great length. (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._)
Sievers denied that Rascher reported to him on the freezing experiments
but admitted that he received occasionally Rascher’s reports from
Himmler. (_Tr. pp. 5684-5._) But by the testimony of the witness Neff it
is not only proved that Rascher submitted to the Ahnenerbe monthly,
quarterly, and semi-annual reports, describing in detail the nature and
status of his experimental research (_Tr. p. 635_), but also that the
final report of Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex.
91_) was forwarded to him. (_Tr. p. 681._)
On 24 October Himmler acknowledged the receipt of this report which he
had read “with great interest” and charged Sievers with arrangements for
“the possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with
us.” (_1609-PS, Pros. Ex. 92._)
On 26 and 27 October 1942, the conference on “Medical Problems Arising
from Distress at Sea and Winter Hardships,” sponsored by the Inspector
of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, under the chairmanship
of Anthony and with the assistance of Becker-Freyseng, took place in
Nuernberg. At this conference Holzloehner delivered his lecture on the
freezing experiments under the title “Prophylaxis and Treatment of
Freezing in Water.” The very detailed clinical observations described by
him excluded the possibility that only observations on human beings _who
were rescued_ had been made, and made it clear that experiments on human
beings had been conducted. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Moreover, Rascher
made a statement following Holzloehner’s lecture, which clearly revealed
that the experiments had been carried out on concentration camp inmates.
This report caused a sensation among the officials present at the
lecture. It was made clear that deaths had occurred. (_Tr. p. 272._)
Sievers has denied having received a report on this conference (_Tr. p.
5689_), but the entry of 12 January in his diary for the year 1943 shows
that he discussed with Rascher the “procurement of memoranda on the
conference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg.” (_NO-538, Pros.
Ex. 122._)
On 6 November 1942, Rascher forwarded a memorandum to Himmler’s personal
staff, the office of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, regarding cooperation
with Dr. Craemer of the Medical Research Station for Mountain Medical
Troops at St. Johann. This was a school subordinated to Handloser as
Army Medical Inspector. In this memorandum Rascher advocated
dry-freezing experiments on concentration camp inmates in the mountain
region of Bayrischzell. The purpose was to investigate whether injuries
of the extremities due to freezing would have a better prognosis on
persons accustomed to cold than on persons unaccustomed to it. Rascher
said that Craemer had heard the report in Nuernberg and was very
enthusiastic about the experiments. He requested to see some in
progress. (_NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96_; _1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97_.) Himmler
gave his permission for this type of dry-freezing experiment in an order
dated 13 December 1942, in which he lists Rascher’s assignment for the
execution of high-altitude and three different types of freezing
experiments. Copies of this order were submitted to various SS agencies
and to the Ahnenerbe Society. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79._) Himmler’s
letter contained the following directive:
“5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the
experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of
the Reichsarzt SS, of the Main Office for Economic
Administration, and with the Ahnenerbe. * * *”
The evidence proves that prior to 21 October 1943, Rascher received an
assignment from Blome of the Reich Research Council to conduct open-air
freezing experiments. (_NO-432, Pros. Ex. 119._) Sievers aided Rascher
in the matter of obtaining the location and personnel for these
experiments. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)
On 13 January 1943, Rascher had a conference with Grawitz and the
defendant Poppendick concerning the freezing experiments. In this
conference Rascher’s freezing experiments were discussed in detail. He
stressed the point that he was working with the Ahnenerbe and that he
reported to the Ahnenerbe. The documentary note of Rascher’s on this
conference shows on its face that wet-freezing experiments had been
conducted by him and that Grawitz requested him to carry out further
freezing experiments with dry cold until he would “have a few hundred
cases.” This documentary note was forwarded by Sievers to the defendant
Rudolf Brandt on 28 January. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) In his covering
letter Sievers requested Brandt’s opinion as to what attitude he and
Rascher were to take in respect of their position to Grawitz, with the
implied request that Brandt should strengthen his position with Grawitz,
who considered it “an unbearable situation to have a non-physician give
information on medical matters.” What Sievers wanted to achieve was an
intervention of Brandt with Himmler on his behalf and, therefore, he
stressed his personal importance by saying:
“My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research
men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reich Leader 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 afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not
continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.”
(_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._)
On 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the
experiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of severely
chilled persons. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) In his accompanying letter
to Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold experiments
in Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been experimented upon and
had been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14 hours, thereby reducing
their body temperature to 27°-29° C. The extremities of the experimental
subjects were frozen white. Rascher suggested a large series of
experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This place would be
suitable for such experimentation because it was colder there, and the
spacious open country within the camp “would make the experiments less
conspicuous, as the experimental subjects _yell_ when they freeze
severely.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) Himmler gave
Rascher permission to carry out additional freezing experiments in the
concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (_1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109._)
Rascher’s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943,
reveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried
out on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy
frost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold
of -6° C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal
temperature of 25° C. (_NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111._) The three fatalities
which, according to Neff’s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing
experiments, apparently occurred during this series of experiments.
(_Tr. pp. 637-8._)
On 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report concerning
“freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.”
(_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) The report itself is not available, but the
letter of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that
the defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (_NO-241,
Pros. Ex. 113._) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt
took place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant
Fischer. Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and
other experimentation carried out in the Dachau concentration camp and
invited Rascher to collaborate with him. Rascher feared to lose his
independence and turned to Sievers to settle this affair in a tactful
way as Gebhardt was a very close friend of Himmler, and Rascher,
therefore, feared his eventual enmity. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._)
Sievers, in turn, approached Brandt in this matter on 22 May and
requested information whether Himmler had given any definite directive
to Gebhardt in regard to Rascher’s sphere of action and work. He further
asked Brandt’s intervention on behalf of Rascher by saying:
“I entrust you with this affair and ask you particularly to use
it only for your strict personal information so that Dr. Rascher
does not encounter any difficulties with SS Gruppenfuehrer
Professor Dr. Gebhardt.” (_NO-267, Pros. Ex. 117._)
When Rascher visited Gebhardt in Hohenlychen, the latter encouraged him
to embark upon a career of university lecturer. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex.
116._) Rascher followed this suggestion and Sievers supported him
wholeheartedly and collaborated with the defendants Brandt and Blome to
have Rascher appointed university lecturer. (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118_;
_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121_.) That Rascher’s thesis for habilitation was
based on the freezing and high-altitude experiments is proved by
Rascher’s memorandum on his medical training which he wrote for the
purpose of his habilitation (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_) and other evidence
in the record. (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._)
c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_
_The Freezing Experiments_
Freezing experiments on human beings were carried out in Dachau
concentration camp from the end of 1942 on.
It cannot be denied that a ruthless carrying-out of these experiments
was liable to inflict torture and death upon the persons experimented
on. Here, too, it seems necessary to distinguish between two groups of
experiments. One group comprises the experiments carried out by
Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke, and the other one,
those carried out by Rascher alone. The first group of experiments
easily permits the assumption that the possible effects of the
experiments on the persons subjected to them were taken into
consideration. After all that has become known about Rascher by now, the
assumption is justified that, during the experiments carried out by
Rascher alone, considerations of the effect on life and health of the
persons used were not of primary importance. The only exceptions were
probably the experiments Rascher carried out in the presence of third
persons who were not involved.
On the occasion of administrative conferences he had to attend in
Dachau, Sievers met Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher who
had just finished a freezing experiment. The person experimented on was
placed under an arc of light [Lichtbogen]. That is all Sievers saw of
this experiment. (_German Tr. p. 5684._)
Then Sievers watched a second freezing experiment. Himmler had
instructed Professor Hirt of Strasbourg to have a look at Rascher’s work
on freezing, since he (Himmler) obviously had come to the conclusion
that Rascher alone was not sufficient for the clarification of these
scientifically extensive and difficult questions. For this experiment a
professional criminal was introduced whom a regular court had sentenced
to death for robbery and murder. Sievers and Dr. Hirt made sure about
this by examining the files of the criminal police department of the
Dachau concentration camp. Dr. Hirt then asked the person to be
experimented on whether he realized that the experiment might prove
fatal to him. The person to be experimented on answered in the
affirmative.
By personally questioning the person to be experimented on, Sievers then
made sure that he agreed to the experiment. The person in question
answered in the affirmative and added: “If it does not hurt.” This
assurance could be given since the experiment was carried out under full
narcosis. Sievers did not take part in the entire experiment, but he saw
that it was carried out under full narcosis. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._)
The witness Dr. Punzengruber, at that time an inmate of the Dachau
concentration camp and from 1942-1943 assigned to Dr. Rascher’s station
as a chemist, confirms that the person used had been condemned to death.
The same witness confirms that Sievers was not present during other
freezing experiments. Dr. Punzengruber could establish this because his
laboratory was located next to the room where Dr. Rascher carried out
his experiments. (_Affidavit of Dr. Punzengruber, 14 March 1947._)
A further presence of Sievers at freezing experiments has not occurred
and has not been claimed from any side.
In order to prove Sievers’ participation in the freezing experiments,
the prosecution pointed out the following documents:
Rascher’s letter of 10 September 1942 to Himmler. “SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who observed the experiments in
Dachau last week, is of the opinion that if during a convention
there would be a report at all, I, too, would have to be called
in for reporting.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._)
Himmler’s letter of 22 September 1942 to Rascher in which the
former instructs Rascher to carry out experiments in quick
increase of body temperature and increase of body temperature
through medicaments and animal heat [medikamentanimalische
Erwaermung], Sievers received a copy of this letter for
information on 25 September 1942. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._)
Rascher’s letter of 3 October 1942 to Dr. R. Brandt which
contains the information that he (Rascher) had asked Sievers to
transmit at once a teletype communication to the camp commander
stating that four female gypsies from another camp must be
procured immediately; that furthermore he had asked Sievers to
take steps to have the low-pressure chamber put at his disposal;
he finally mentioned that he informed Sievers about the failure
of the planned report to Field Marshal Milch. (_NO-285, Pros.
Ex. 86._)
Sievers’ note of 6 November 1942 concerning Rascher’s transfer
to the SS. (_NO-288, Pros. Ex. 95._)
Letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reich Chief Manager
[Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer
Wolff, concerning Rascher’s transfer to the Waffen SS. (_NO-236,
Pros. Ex. 101._)
Letter, dated 28 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer
of Ahnenerbe to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS
concerning the taking of Dr. Rascher’s work under the protection
of Ahnenerbe in pursuance of Dr. Rascher’s conversation on 13
January 1943 with the Chief Reich Physician [Reichsarzt] of the
SS, Dr. Grawitz. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._)
Note, dated 4 February 1943, of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of
Ahnenerbe concerning Dr. Rascher’s report to the medical
inspection [Sanitaetsinspekteur] of the Luftwaffe on his
activities since he was declared unassigned [zur Disposition].
Furthermore Rascher should go to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel on 7 February 1943. (_NO-238, Pros.
Ex. 104._)
Letter, dated 17 May 1943, from Dr. Rascher to the
Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe concerning Rascher’s
statement on his report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr.
Gebhardt on 14 May 1943. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._)
Letter, dated 22 May 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of
Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning Rascher’s statement on his
report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt. (_NO-267,
Pros. Ex. 117._)
Letter, dated 27 September 1943, from the
Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt concerning
Dr. Rascher’s establishment as a college professor
(Habilitation). (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118._)
Letter, dated 21 March 1944, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of
Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning the establishment of Dr.
Rascher as a college professor. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._)
The prosecution furthermore refers to the testimony given on 17 and 18
December 1946 by witness Neff. Neff testified that Sievers frequently
was at the experimental station; that during experiments he was present
several times; that, however, he could not remember whether Sievers had
been present during experiments which ended fatally.
The prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of having procured female
concentration camp inmates to be used in the rewarming experiments
[Wiedererwaermungsversuche]. In this connection the following was
submitted:
Letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt:
“* * * Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to pass on
immediately a teletype communication to the camp commander in
which is stated that four female gypsies must be procured from
another camp at once.” (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._)
Telephone call [Fernspruch] of 7 October 1942 from camp
commander Weiss to Dr. Brandt, concerning the putting at the
disposal of staff physician [Stabsarzt] Dr. Rascher “of the four
women for experimental purposes as ordered by the Reich Leader
SS”. (_1619-PS, Pros. Ex. 87._)
Teletype communication, dated 8 October 1942, to SS
Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, concerning the departure from their
original station of “the four women ordered by the Reich Leader
SS”.
Dr. Rascher’s report of 5 November 1942 on concentration camp
prostitutes [KL-Dirnen]. Refusal, on account of her Nordic
racial characteristics, to use one of those women, and
corresponding report to the camp commander and to the adjutant
of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._)
Witness Neff estimates that 10 women from the Ravensbrueck
concentration camp were put at disposal for experiments with
body heat [animalische Waerme]. (_German Tr. p. 632._)
The following is to be said to the prosecution’s accusation that Sievers
played an important part in procuring female concentration camp inmates
to be used for the rewarming of persons used in experiments:
Nowhere, except in the letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to
Dr. Brandt does there exist any indication that such an assumption might
be justified. But this letter only states that Dr. Rascher had asked
Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers immediately to pass on to the camp
commander a teletype communication reporting that four female gypsies
must be procured from another camp at once. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._)
The fact that the order to carry out experiments concerning the increase
of temperature through medicaments and body heat [medikamentanimalische
Erwaermung] was given by Himmler is proved beyond doubt by 1611-PS,
Prosecution Exhibit 85.
Furthermore, I point to the interrogation of Dr. Romberg. (_German Tr.
pp. 6864-65._)
Sievers claims not to have done anything in this connection since the
orders originated with Himmler himself. Consequently there was nothing
caused by his own initiative. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._)
At that time Rascher was at Dachau concentration camp most of the time,
while Sievers came there very rarely. Therefore it was much easier for
Rascher than for Sievers to inform the camp commander of his wishes.
Rascher refused to use one of the four women for experiments in
rewarming through body heat because this woman possessed beyond doubt
the characteristics of the Nordic race. Rascher reported this to the
camp commander and to the adjutant of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323,
Pros. Ex. 94._) In this connection, too, Sievers did not play any part.
The prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of taking part in Dr.
Rascher’s dry-freezing experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche].
Sievers is not mentioned in the following documents submitted in this
connection: NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96; 1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97; NO-431, Pros.
Ex. 99; 1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107; 1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109; NO-292, Pros.
Ex. 111; NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112; NO-241, Pros. Ex. 113; NO-432, Pros. Ex.
119.
These letters are neither addressed to him nor signed by him. Neither
have copies of them reached him nor have they passed through his hands.
The letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of
Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, contains the following
passage: “Since the freezing experiments depend on the season, valuable
time is lost as long as Dr. Rascher is not available.” (_NO-236, Pros.
Ex. 101._)
The witness Neff did not testify that Sievers knew of the dry-freezing
experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche].
Sievers knew through Himmler’s order of 13 December 1942, that Rascher
was supposed to carry out dry-freezing experiments. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex.
79._) Only during this trial did Sievers come to know that Rascher
carried out such experiments in Dachau. Himmler had ordered these
experiments to be carried out on the terrain of Berghaus Sudelfeld. They
were planned for the winter of 1943-44. Sievers faked inquiries as a
result of which the terrain at Sudelfeld was supposed to be unsuited and
by this he succeeded in not having the dry-freezing experiments carried
out during the winter of 1943-44. The experiments, which Himmler then
ordered for the winter of 1944-45, did not take place because Rascher
was arrested in the spring of 1944. (_German Tr. pp. 5689-90._)
Since the dry-freezing experiments in the mountains, ordered by Himmler,
did not take place at all, Sievers can rightfully claim to have helped
to prevent them.
The freezing experiments which, beginning at the end of August 1942,
were carried out in Dachau concentration camp, originated from a
scientific research order the medical inspector [Inspekteur des
Sanitaetswesens] of the Luftwaffe had given Stabsarzt Professor Dr.
Holzloehner on 24 February 1942. At Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher’s suggestion,
corresponding experiments were carried out on human beings. For this
research work an experimental group “Seenot” (“Hardships at sea”),
consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as chief, and Stabsarzt Dr.
Rascher and Dr. Finke, was organized. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88_; _NO-268,
Pros. Ex. 106_; _NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_.) The freezing experiments were
carried out in agreement with the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex.
88._) In his letter, dated 19 February 1943, the medical inspector of
the Luftwaffe thanks the Reich Leader SS for the great help which the
cooperation with the SS afforded in carrying out the research work.
(_NO-268, Pros. Ex. 106._) On 6 March 1943 the medical inspector of the
Luftwaffe confirmed in a letter to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff that he had
at once agreed to freezing experiments on human beings. (_NO-262, Pros.
Ex. 108._)
The prosecution argues that Sievers gave special support to Rascher as a
person and thus he revealed that he also wanted to support Rascher’s
experiments. Therefore reason exists for comment on Rascher’s
personality and Sievers’ attitude toward him.
Dr. Rascher was staff physician (Stabsarzt [Captain, M. C.]) of the
Luftwaffe reserve and at the same time a member of the general SS,
holding the rank of an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. In a well-planned scheme he
always put this last mentioned position and his direct connection with
Himmler in the foreground. Orally or in writing he submitted all his
wishes to Himmler; to him directly did he send the reports on his work.
He referred to Himmler whenever he wanted to assert himself and his work
before other official agencies such as, for example, the Luftwaffe. He
appealed to Himmler when the chief physician of the SS [Reichsarzt SS]
Dr. Grawitz, and Professor Dr. Gebhardt, did not give him the
recognition and the support he believed were due him. Through Himmler he
tried to effect his establishment as a university lecturer. (_NO-283,
Pros. Ex. 82_; _NO-234., Pros. Ex. 83_; _NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103_;
_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105_; _1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107_; _NO-270, Pros. Ex.
110_; _NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112_.)
There can be no doubt that on account of his protection by Himmler he
showed an autocratic mind toward his surroundings and also toward his
military superiors, brutality toward his inferiors, and disgusting
servility toward his protector, Himmler. (_German Tr. p. 674._)
In the Dachau concentration camp he was able to move without
restrictions and without control by accompanying guards. This was
impossible for occasional visitors like Sievers. (_German Tr. p. 5672_;
_German Tr. p. 5320_; _German Tr. pp. 6542-43_; _German Tr. p. 8620_;
_German Tr. pp. 8697 and 8887-88_; _Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12_.)
Holding the rank of a commanding general, the medical inspector of the
Luftwaffe deemed it advisable to assure SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff in
his letter of 6 March 1943 that he “would discuss the entire problem in
_old comradeship_ with Rascher personally.” (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._)
A commanding general deemed it advisable to adopt this attitude,
contrary to all military customs, toward a staff physician because by
this conciliatory attitude, inconceivable under other circumstances, he
wanted to avoid a controversy with the latter on account of the latter’s
connections with Himmler.
What Rascher thought of Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke’s attitude is
revealed in the letter of 14 March 1943 to Dr. Rudolf Brandt in which he
states:
“I would like to point out the extraordinary amiability of the
inspector and his carefulness in all remarks relating to the
SS.” (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110._)
To make sure that Himmler would under all circumstances be informed
about Rascher’s conference with Medical Inspector Hippke, he continues:
“May I respectfully ask to inform, wherever that seems necessary
to you, the Reich Leader SS of my report.” (_NO-270, Pros. Ex.
110._)
The statement that Witness Dr. Punzengruber made about Rascher is very
characteristic:
“His (Rascher’s) connections were so strong that practically
every important superior trembled in fear of the intriguing
Rascher, who consequently held a position of enormous power.”
(_Sievers 44, Sievers Ex. 45._)
Rascher’s servility toward Himmler is already revealed by the bombastic
phrases with which he closes his letters to Himmler. To give a few
examples only:
Letter dated 17 February 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: “With
most obedient regards I remain in honest gratitude with Heil
Hitler your very devoted S. Rascher.” (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex.
105._)
Letter, dated 11 April 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: “With most
obedient regards and Heil Hitler I remain always, devoted to you
in gratitude, your S. Rascher.” (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._)
Letter, dated 10 September 1942, from Rascher to Himmler: “In
grateful admiration with Heil Hitler your very devoted S.
Rascher.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._)
The picture of Rascher is completed by the testimony that personally he
went to the highest authorities only. (_German Tr. p. 7966._)
Sievers is also brought into connection with Dr. Rascher’s attempt to
establish himself as a university lecturer.
In his “educational history” [“Ausbildungsverlauf”] Rascher mentions
that the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) ordered him to establish himself as a
university lecturer with one of his two papers: “Attempts at Rescue from
High Altitude” [“Versuche zur Rettung aus grossen Hoehen”] and “Attempts
at the Saving of Frozen Humans” [“Versuche zur Rettung ausgekuehlter
Menschen”]. (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._)
By a letter, dated 12 August 1943, from Dr. Rudolf Brandt of the
personal staff of the Reich Leader SS, Sievers is entrusted with this
affair. This letter is not at our disposal. On 27 September 1943, that
is after more than 6 weeks, Sievers answers that he introduced Rascher
to Professor Dr. Blome and SS Brigadefuehrer Mentzel. The former had
talked to Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg. On 21 March 1944, that
is almost 6 months after the letter just mentioned, Sievers reports to
Dr. Brandt on the further development of the case of Dr. Rascher’s
establishment as a university lecturer. The attempt in Marburg had
failed and consequently they would have to try to establish Rascher as a
lecturer at Strasbourg University. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._)
Rascher’s arrest freed Sievers from the necessity of taking any further
action. The fact that Sievers was involved, as far as the establishment
as a university lecturer is concerned, not only in Rascher’s case, is
revealed, for example, by Sievers’ 1943 diary, entry of 9 February 1943
concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schuetrumpf (_NO-538,
Pros. Ex. 122_); furthermore, entry of 22 February 1943 concerning the
establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Rudolph; furthermore, Sievers’ 1944
diary, entry of 22 February 1944, concerning the establishment as a
lecturer of Dr. Schmidt-Rohr. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)
If, in case of Rascher’s establishment as a lecturer, Sievers was acting
only as in other similar cases of members of Ahnenerbe, then this was
one of his tasks as Reich manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe
and he cannot be charged with special activity on Rascher’s behalf.
* * * * *
There is no indication that Sievers had known, before the experiments
started, that they could become immoderate or inhuman. Neither as far as
planning nor as far as the direction was concerned nor in any other way
had Sievers anything to do with the carrying out of the experiments.
Furthermore the question must be answered whether Sievers did not gain
knowledge through Rascher’s reports, which he received while the
experiments were carried out, of the criminal character of Rascher’s
experiments.
The prosecution submitted the following reports of Dr. Rascher: Final
report, dated 10 October 1942, of Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke,
Dr. Rascher (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) Interim report, dated 15 August
1942, of Dr. Rascher. (_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 84._) Report, dated 17
February 1943, of Dr. Rascher. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) These reports
were sent by Rascher directly to Himmler as can be ascertained from the
documents themselves or from the accompanying letters. None of the
documents indicates that a copy of the reports went to the Ahnenerbe or
that they came to Sievers’ knowledge in some other way. Sievers denies
that he obtained knowledge of these reports.
Sievers did not take part in the conference of 26-27 October 1942, as
can be clearly seen from the list of those present. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex.
93._) Sievers, also, never received a written report on the conference.
Also the secretary of many years’ standing of the Ahnenerbe, the
witness, Dr. Gisela Schmitz, has stated that she never saw reports about
experiments of Rascher. Since all the incoming mail was delivered first
to her she would necessarily have seen any such reports. (_Sievers 45,
Sievers Ex. 46._) Even if Sievers—as he did not—should have obtained
knowledge of one or another of the reports, he cannot be expected to
have formed an independent opinion on the permissibility of human
experiments from the point of view of medical professional ethics.
Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to interfere with the
sub-chilling experiments, or to prevent them or bring them to a stop. It
must be pointed out again and again that Sievers was competent only for
administrative affairs.
Everything that Sievers could do for the prevention of the experiments
was done. In the cases of the experiments at Dachau, Sievers’ influence
was nil. On the other hand he was able to prevent some experimental
activity on Rascher’s part by procrastinating the dry-cold experiments
[Trockenkaelteversuche] which should have been carried out in the
mountains.
* * * * *
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WELTZ_
Document 343-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, is the only document
submitted in this connection [freezing experiments] and mentioning the
name of Professor Weltz. It is a letter by Field Marshal Milch, dated 20
May 1942, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of the Personal Staff,
Reich Leader SS. In this letter Field Marshal Milch says that the
high-altitude experiments were completed and that there was no real
reason for their continuation. The letter continues: “The carrying out
of experiments concerning the problem of distress at sea, on the other
hand, is important; they were prepared in direct agreement with the
authorities. Oberstabsarzt Weltz is instructed to carry them through and
Stabsarzt Rascher is also made available for them until further notice.”
Obviously, the prosecution intends to take this letter as basis for the
assertion that Professor Weltz participated in the planning and the
carrying out of the experiments. At the session of 8 May 1947, (_Tr. p.
7237_) the prosecutor referred to this letter and drew the conclusion
therefrom that Field Marshal Milch, pursuant to the information he had
obtained from Professor Hippke on 20 May, thought that Rascher still
belonged to the office of Weltz in Munich and that Professor Weltz was
entrusted with the carrying out of the freezing experiments for this
reason. If and to what extent Field Marshal Milch was informed about the
actual events may be left undecided. It is merely established that
Professor Hippke already knew at that time that Stabsarzt Rascher no
longer belonged to the office of Weltz. This appears with certainty from
NO-296, Prosecution Exhibit 58, which is the letter of the Medical
Inspector of the Luftwaffe of 27 April 1942 to the Chief of the Personal
Staff of the Reich Leader SS, from the reply to Wolff’s application to
Hippke of 16 April 1942, in which Wolff asks for the extension of
Stabsarzt Rascher’s assignment to the DVL (German Research Institute for
Aviation), Dachau Branch. There is, therefore, no doubt that on 20 May
1942, Hippke knew that at that time Rascher no longer belonged to Weltz’
office. How it happened that the name of Professor Weltz was mentioned
in this document was established by Professor Hippke’s testimony as
witness in the trial against Erhard Milch. (_Weltz 3, Weltz Ex. 7._)
Professor Hippke testified in this connection that in a discussion at
the beginning of June 1942 he was informed by Rascher that the latter
had received orders from the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) to carry out
freezing experiments. A report on this conference is contained in
NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82. Supplementing this report, Rascher’s
report on his conference with Professor Hippke, Hippke himself testified
that he was thinking of Professor Weltz because he knew that Professor
Weltz—in his institute in Munich—had been working on problems of
freezing with animal experiments. Later, he had abandoned this plan to
ask Professor Weltz to cooperate in the carrying out of these
experiments because he had become convinced that the theoretical work
was not the point but the practical experience on freezing problems and
that not Professor Weltz but Professor Holzloehner had the greater
practical experience.
However, it has been established that Professor Weltz never received
such an order and also that he was not otherwise concerned in any way
with the carrying out of the freezing experiments. This is proved by the
testimony of the defendant Weltz in his own case, (_Tr. 7108-09_), and
by the affidavit of Professor Weltz’ co-worker Dr. Wendt. (_Weltz 23,
Weltz Ex. 21._)
For the rest, Weltz’ name does not appear in any connection in any of
the numerous documents relating to the problem of freezing experiments
submitted by the prosecution. On the contrary, these documents show
clearly who from the Luftwaffe was actually ordered to carry out these
experiments and who carried them out in Dachau.
The fact that Professor Weltz was not even requested to participate in
the planning of the freezing experiments, appears clearly from Document
NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82, already discussed, and above all without
objection.
* * * * *
That Professor Weltz refused to participate in the experiments after he
learned about them was firmly established on the other hand by the
evidence submitted by the defense which in turn is supported by the
documents submitted by the prosecution. Document 1610-PS, Prosecution
Exhibit 73, submitted by the prosecution appears to have special weight
as evidence in this connection. It is Rascher’s letter to Himmler of 9
October 1942. In this letter Rascher asks Himmler to see to it that the
apparatus necessary for chemical analysis be put at his disposal by
laboratories not working to full capacity. He points to the fact that
the Weltz Institute does not make apparatus available to him, as it was
allegedly used there for freezing experiments with shaved cats, and the
institute needed these apparatus for its own use. Moreover, the
affidavit of the witness Dr. v. Werz (_Weltz 4, Weltz Ex. 11_) according
to which Professor Weltz refused to furnish apparatus for freezing
experiments at Dachau, further proves this disapproval on the part of
Professor Weltz of the freezing experiments carried out at Dachau.
Moreover, it appears also from NO-3674, Prosecution Exhibit 549. Here,
an attempt is made to procure the apparatus (colorimeter) which was not
delivered by Weltz from somewhere else. From 1609-PS, Prosecution
Exhibit 92, it becomes apparent to what danger Professor Weltz exposed
himself by his attitude against Rascher. It is a letter of the Reich
Leader SS of 24 October 1942 to Rascher. In it Himmler acknowledges the
receipt of Rascher’s letter, dated 9 October 1942, (_1610-PS, Pros. Ex.
73_) mentioned above in which Rascher complains about Professor Weltz’
attitude. In reply to this complaint Himmler writes:
“People who today still disapprove of human experiments and
would rather have German soldiers die of the consequences of
freezing I consider to be guilty of treason and high treason,
and I shall have no compunction to report the names of these
gentlemen to the authorities concerned. You are authorized by me
to inform the offices concerned of this of my opinion.”
From Sievers’ testimony in direct interrogation it appears,
unequivocally, that this referred to Professor Weltz. In this regard
Sievers declared the following: “I can only say this in respect to Weltz
himself, for Herr Rascher, as I already stated in reply to your
question, mentioned in this connection Weltz as a participant.”
The defendant Sievers also declared that in view of Rascher’s character,
as known to him, it could be expected that Rascher would make use of the
powers given him with respect to “those guilty of treason and high
treason,” among others also against Professor Weltz.
In the course of the cross-examination of Weltz the prosecution
intimated in a veiled manner that Professor Weltz might have moved
objects and files or might have put apparatus at the disposal of the
Dachau experiments.
Since the prosecution could not submit evidence of any weight in this
respect it is unnecessary to go into this. In the cross-examination
itself it became apparent that all the files and apparatus were in
existence at the end of the war and that Weltz himself had made
suggestions to hand over his institute in an orderly manner to the
Americans. (_Tr. pp. 7241-7242._)
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Pros.
Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
NO-234 83 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 10 September 219
1942, transmitting intermediate report on
freezing experiments (1618-PS).
1618-PS 84 Intermediate report, 10 September 1942, on 220
intense chilling experiments in Dachau
concentration camp.
1611-PS 85 Letter from Himmler to Rascher and Sievers, 22 221
September 1942, ordering rewarming in
freezing experiments through physical
warmth.
NO-285 86 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 3 221
October 1942, stating that Sievers would
obtain four gypsy women for rewarming
through body warmth.
1619-PS 87 Teletype from commandant of Dachau 223
concentration camp to Rudolf Brandt, 7
October 1942, stating that four women would
be available from Ravensbrueck concentration
camp for Rascher’s experiments.
NO-286 88 Letter from Goering’s office to Himmler, 8 223
October 1942, with attached invitation to
the conference on “Medical Problems Arising
from Hardships of Sea and Winter.”
1613-PS 90 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 October 225
1942, transmitting report on cooling
experiments on human beings (NO-428).
NO-428 91 Report of 10 October 1942, on cooling 226
experiments on human beings.
1609-PS 92 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 24 October 244
1942, and note by Rudolf Brandt.
NO-323 94 Memorandum of Rascher on women used for 245
rewarming warming in freezing experiments, 5
November, 1942.
NO-320 103 Letter from Sievers to Brandt, 28 January 246
1943, and Rascher’s report on his
discussions with Grawitz and Poppendick.
1616-PS 105 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 17 February 249
1943, and summary of experiments for
rewarming of chilled human beings by animal
warmth, 12 February 1943.
NO-268 106 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 19 February 252
1943, on freezing experiments in Dachau.
1580-PS 107 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 26 February 253
1943, on freezing experiments in the
concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin.
NO-292 111 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 4 April 253
1943, reporting on dry-freezing experiments
in Dachau.
NO-322 114 Letter from Rascher to Keindl, 28 April 1943, 254
about previous freezing experiments
conducted at Sachsenhausen.
NO-231 116 Letter from Rascher to Sievers, 17 May 1943, 255
concerning a conference with Gebhardt on
freezing experiments.
NO-432 119 Letter from Rascher to Neff, 21 October 1943, 258
concerning dry-freezing experiments.
NO-690 120 List of research projects from the files of 259
the Reich Research Council.
_Testimony_
Extracts from the testimony of Tribunal witness Walter Neff 260
Extract from the testimony of defendant Handloser 265
Extract from the testimony of defendant Schroeder 269
Extracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 274
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-234
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 83
LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, TRANSMITTING
INTERMEDIATE REPORT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS (1618-PS)
Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher Munich, Trogerstr. 56
at present Berlin, 10 Sep 1942
My dear Reich Leader,
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. Professor 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, believes 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 Reich Leader?
2. Is my participation in the conference on the subject of the freezing
experiments of the Luftwaffe ordered by you, my Reich Leader?
I will take care that the report is submitted in the manner appropriate
for top secret matter.
Yours gratefully and respectfully
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Yours very devotedly, S. RASCHER
1 enclosure
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1618-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 84
INTERMEDIATE REPORT, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, ON INTENSE CHILLING EXPERIMENTS
IN DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP
S. Rascher
Intermediate report on intense chilling experiments in the Dachau Camp,
started on 15 August 1942
_Experimental procedure_
The experimental subjects (VP) were placed in the water, dressed in
complete flying uniform, winter or summer combination, and with an
aviator’s helmet. A life jacket made of rubber or kapok was to prevent
submerging. The experiments were carried out at water temperatures
varying from 2.5° to 12°. In one experimental series, the occiput (brain
stem) protruded 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° in the
stomach and 26.5° 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 one-half liter,
in the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation of
the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these experiments
reached 28°, the experimental subjects died invariably, despite all
attempts at resuscitation. The above discussed autopsy 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, should be
mentioned, marked increase of the viscosity of the blood, marked
increase of hemoglobin, an approximate five-fold increase of the
leukocytes, invariable rise of blood sugar to twice its normal value.
Auricular fibrillation made its appearance regularly at 30°.
During attempts to save severely chilled persons [Unterkuehlte], it was
shown that rapid rewarming was in all cases preferable to slow
rewarming, because after removal from the cold water, the body
temperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for this reason we
can dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by
means of animal heat.
Rewarming 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 Institute for the 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.
[Signed] DR. S. RASCHER
Munich—Dachau, 10 September 1942.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1611-PS
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 85
LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER AND SIEVERS, 22 SEPTEMBER 1942, ORDERING
REWARMING IN FREEZING EXPERIMENTS THROUGH PHYSICAL WARMTH
Secret
Reich Leader SS
Rf/Dr. AR/19/30/42
Personal Headquarters
Reich Leader SS
22 September 1942
1. Dr. Rascher
Munich—Dachau
I have received the intermediate report on the chilling experiments in
Camp Dachau.
Despite everything, I would so arrange the experiments that all
possibilities, prompt warming, medicine, body warming, will be executed
in positive experiment orders.
[Signed] H. HIMMLER
2. SS—Lt. Col. Sievers
Berlin
A carbon copy with the request for acknowledgment.
SS Lt. Col.
25 Sep 42
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-285
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 86
LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT
SIEVERS WOULD OBTAIN FOUR GYPSY WOMEN FOR REWARMING THROUGH BODY WARMTH