Chapter VII: Extracts From Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (6)

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.

2. FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

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_