Chapter VII: Extracts From Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (9)

A. The length of the experiment varied, according to the individual case. Whether the subject was clothed or unclothed also made a difference. If he was slight in build and if in addition to that he was naked, death often occurred after only 80 minutes. But there were a number of cases where the experimental subject lived up to 3 hours, and remained in the water until finally death occurred.

* * * * *

Q. Will you describe to the Tribunal the method used for rewarming the victims of the freezing experiments?

A. During the period when Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke were there, rewarming was in the beginning carried out by massage and partly by means of injections of drugs affecting the heart, and also by means of rewarming by electrical heaters and sometimes by means of a warm bath. At the end of the Holzloehner period, the hot water rewarming method was introduced, and that was carried out until the end of the rewarming experiments with the exception of a few special experiments with animal heat. About 10 women from the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck were ordered to report to Dachau to supply the heat and were forced to press themselves against the body of the frozen person in order to rewarm him in that manner. These are the methods which were employed in order to rewarm the frozen body.

Q. Now, Witness, did I understand you to say that the hot water bath method of rewarming was not adopted until after Holzloehner and Finke had left?

A. After Holzloehner and Finke had left the station, hot water rewarming was also carried out.

Q. Do you recall receiving orders in September 1942 from Sievers to take the hearts and lungs of five inmates who had been killed to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific study?

A. It is correct that I had to take specimens belonging to five persons who died during experiments from the morgue to Hirt in Strasbourg. I myself, of course, have never done any dissecting and therefore did not prepare these specimens. Sievers ordered me to go to Strasbourg and there deliver the glasses to Professor Hirt, together with an accompanying letter. This was the end of September or the beginning of October. The travel warrant had been made out by Sievers and the traveling expenses were also paid by the Ahnenerbe.

Q. Had the five experimental subjects been killed shortly before you left for Strasbourg?

A. I cannot remember with absolute certainty whether the specimens were fresh or whether they were taken from older corpses. I do know that among the specimens there was one from a Dutchman. I cannot recollect for certain the nationality of the other four.

Q. Did you deliver these hearts and lungs to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg?

A. I delivered them in Strasbourg, not to Professor Hirt himself but to the laboratory at the University there. The letter to Professor Hirt I handed to him personally, and he wanted me to return and see him in the afternoon, since he had to give me something to take to Dachau. He gave me a sealed letter to Dr. Rascher and a parcel for Sister Pia which I handed to Rascher to pass on.

Q. Now, Professor Hirt was also a member, in fact the head of the Department of the Ahnenerbe Society, was he not?

A. We knew that Professor Hirt was also making experiments and belonged to the Ahnenerbe Society.

* * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT HANDLOSER[31]

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

MR. MCHANEY: Let us pass on, General. Your attorney asked you whether or not you ever gained any information concerning the freezing experiments carried out by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. Do you deny that you ever received knowledge on that matter?

DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I said, no.

Q. As a result of the Eastern campaign weren’t you very much interested in “Cold” problems?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t that why you sent army officers to the Luftwaffe conference in October 1942?

A. Of course the interest in cold problems was of an important nature. I do not know who assigned them. From May until the end of October I was with headquarters in the Ukraine and I believe that the chief probably telephoned me as to whether or how many people we should send, and he may have made some proposal, and I think I would have told him on that occasion “Yes, I am in full agreement. Send somebody there.” It is quite a matter of course that we took people who knew something about cold because they were the people who would be interested in it.

Q. Well, having sent them, you then immediately lost interest in the problem, I suppose?

A. No, I did not lose interest. At some period of time somebody probably reported to me whether something particular had happened or whether there were any particular results or not, and what could be exploited by us. But, at that time there was no mention of anything in particular having occurred, nor was it said that any particular revolutionary results were achieved. At any rate, I cannot recollect that anything like that happened. I should merely like to point out that my interest in cold problems was in our particular sphere of these problems, that is the so-called earth-bound cold, at normal height or at the most in the mountains where it concerned soldiers in mountain troops. That was something which we discussed during various meetings, at first in 1942; it was discussed to a great extent, and very exact directives were contained in the reports of these meetings. You will find them in 1942 and you will find them in 1943. Naturally we were interested in cold problems, and it is quite a matter of course that whenever we were invited by the Luftwaffe to send our experts we did. The same thing is done everywhere, not only in the army and in the field of medicine, but in technical fields as well.

Q. Well, I thought that was probably correct, General; now I want to put it to you that Holzloehner had made a very remarkable discovery and one which I am sure came to your attention. Holzloehner and Rascher had found out that this massive warm bath was an extremely effective way of reviving persons from shock due to long exposure to cold, a treatment which had been first discovered by a Russian in the 19th century but had been forgotten somehow. Wasn’t this a matter remarkable enough so that Schreiber, who was at this meeting, or one of the many other army doctors who were down there, would perhaps call it to your attention, after the extreme cold you had suffered in Russia the previous winter?

A. I said already before that we were always interested in cold problems and as you say, very correctly, mainly because of this terrible winter of 1941-42. I knew before that our regulations which were valid up to the war and perhaps during the first year of the war, stated that people who were frozen had to be rewarmed very slowly. The entire population was informed that a frozen person should not be rewarmed too quickly. Even before that we included in our regulations that one should concentrate on rewarming, and certain forms of rewarming were described. If we army people who knew the Russian front were not as impressed by this warm bath, as you may think we were, it was probably because there were no warm baths available along the entire Eastern front, and this plays quite a large part in the impression any new invention may have made on us.

Q. Well, now, General, let me put it to you this way. Did you make any changes in the basic directives concerning the rewarming after shock from exposure to cold after this Luftwaffe conference or after the conference in December 1942?

A. If you look through the reports of the meetings and the directives it is quite possible that somewhere, I can’t tell you exactly where although I have it, something is said about warm or hot baths in regard to freezing. You yourself brought to our knowledge again, through a document, that in December 1942, that is, after Nuernberg, Holzloehner spoke about his rewarming questions during a conference in the Academy. That was reported to 300 or 400 men who transferred that information to the front and I am sure that later on new directives contained information about the warm bath, too.

Q. I am sure it did, too, General. That is the reason I asked you because I think that there is no doubt that great importance was attached to the results of this experiment in Dachau by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. I now want to ask you if you didn’t actually hear Holzloehner speak in December 1942 at the meeting of consulting physicians at the Military Medical Academy?

A. I cannot recollect that, and I must say once more that that is something which was done within the various expert branches. I am sure you will see that these expert branches dealt with these suggestions themselves. However much one so desires, it is not possible to participate in several expert branches simultaneously.

Q. Well, then, to put it to you, General, this speech by Holzloehner is reported in our Document NO-922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, and it goes on—you have a very short synopsis here of his report but he does give clinical observations in cases of deaths resulting from cold, and I find that you made some comments at this cold session on page 51 of the original report. It reads:

“Handloser stresses the extraordinary importance of education
also in combating cold effects and appeals to all medical
officers, in their capacity as leaders of the health service, to
see to it that through frequently repeated explanations each
individual is taught to observe the necessary precautionary
measures.”

A. May I ask you where it is? Is it with reference to the lecture by Holzloehner? At any rate, it seems to be within the framework of the cold problem.

Q. General, I will put the German to you so that you can see for yourself. General, let us read the little summary of the speech by Holzloehner because the Tribunal does not have this document before it. It reads:

“Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner:

“Prevention and Treatment of Freezing

“In case of freezing in water of a temperature below 15°
biological counter-measures are practically ineffective, whether
in the case of human beings or animals. Human beings succumb to
reflectory rigidity, increase of blood sugar, and acidosis, at
an earlier stage and to a greater extent than animals. At a
rectal temperature of below 30° under such conditions of
distress at sea auricular flutter regularly sets in; at under
28° heart failure frequently occurs in human beings.
(Over-exertion due to unequal distribution of blood, increased
resistance, and increased viscosity.) Treatment with drugs is
senseless and has no effect. In the case of human beings, best
results are also achieved with hot baths. The foam-suit was
developed as a prophylaxis against freezing in water below 15°.”

Now, General, after that little summary of the talk by Holzloehner there were several other lecturers on freezing problems and then at the end we have the gentlemen who made some comments on these lectures; we find among them Bremer, Dr. Hippke, the man who commissioned these experiments, and Jarisch and Buechner. Now I want to ask you if this document refreshes your recollection so that you can tell us whether or not you heard this report by Holzloehner.

A. Yes, after reading what I have in my hand now, it is quite possible that I listened to this lecture. At the same time, it is a proof that I have not as good a memory as you assumed, because I already had this document in my hands once before here in Nuernberg; you once gave it to me and I forgot about it.

Q. Now, did Holzloehner describe clinical observations about human deaths resulting from cold in this lecture which you heard?

A. I cannot tell you that.

Q. Does it not say so in your own report here?

A. It says here that Holzloehner belonged to the Luftwaffe and as far as I was informed later, Holzloehner had gained a large amount of experience from his service on the Atlantic Coast. I am sure that was something which was mentioned during his lecture. He had an emergency sea station near the Atlantic coast and near that there was a hospital where he treated these frozen people who had been rescued from the sea. There was no cause to suspect anything special behind this.

Q. Was it apparent to you that he carried out experiments on human beings?

A. No.

Q. Well, General, we have heard some testimony here about the talk Holzloehner gave in Nuernberg 2 months before this and, as I recall, there was some indignation in this meeting in October 1942, because all these gentlemen realized what had happened; are you telling me that no rumor of this seeped up from Nuernberg to Berlin in 2 months, so when the same man gave the same talk, you gentlemen were in complete ignorance about the fact that these experiments had been carried out on living human beings in a concentration camp?

A. I cannot say how far any discussions or any indignations were noted in Nuernberg. At any rate, I never heard anything about any rejection or any indignation. I could well imagine that if I were to hold a lecture somewhere and I afterwards gained the impression that there was some kind of obscurity, or some particular sensation, and if 2 months later, I gave the same lecture at another place, I would naturally change my lecture and would draw my conclusions from what I had learned previously. I am sure that this might well have been the case here. At any rate after reading this excerpt, if a few pages are missing here and if one doesn’t look at the pages exactly, one must assume that the man noted down here as Handloser spoke immediately after the lecture of Holzloehner. I believe that the report of the meeting itself will show you that a few other lectures took place between the lecture of Holzloehner and the discussion. You will also have to admit that considering the fact that we were approaching winter again (this meeting took place in December 1942) my remarks did not refer so much to Professor Holzloehner’s lecture, but were merely a reminder that we wanted to do everything and in that way wanted to concentrate our entire interest on the front where freezing took place in order to help our soldiers. That is all this discussion was.

* * * * *

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SCHROEDER[32]

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. MCHANEY: I don’t believe you have told the Tribunal yet about the conversation you had with Holzloehner on his freezing experiments, have you?

DEFENDANT SCHROEDER: What experiments do you mean? What conversation do you mean? Do you mean in 1940?

Q. General, you know as a matter of fact there apparently is some dispute between the prosecution and yourself about the precise date, but you knew during the course of the war that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau?

A. Yes, I learned that in my office in 1944, as I said here before.

Q. And, I am suggesting to you that after you learned that Holzloehner had been implicated in those experiments you called him in and talked to him?

A. Yes, oh yes. I know when you mean now, yes. There are two things which play a part here. I said yesterday that in 1940 Holzloehner had furnished people who were rescued from the sea to the Rescue Station at Witze, where he first gained experience. Then I lost sight of Holzloehner, since I left the west in the year 1941, and I saw him again for the first time in the fall of 1944, when for some reason that I do not know, he visited one of the men in my office. At that time I spoke to him briefly, and since I had learned in the meantime that he was conducting, experiments in Dachau, I asked him whether that was correct or how he was doing it. I remember at that time he told me that he was conducting experiments based on the experience which he had gained on the coast, and he was supplementing these experiments by conducting experiments on human beings in Dachau. At that time he was speaking about six or seven criminals who had been condemned to death were put at his disposal for that purpose. At that time, he said nothing about any fatalities. I gained the impression then that the entire manner of the experiments had impressed him mentally. I had the feeling that he did not want to speak about it; his suicide later confirmed that.

Q. Well, General, I think this is all rather significant. I think you should have probably made some mention of it before this date. When was this meeting with Holzloehner?

A. I mentioned it during my interrogation; I think that was in the fall of 1944. I cannot remember the exact date. It could have been November 1944. I am not quite sure.

Q. Well, this was after you had initiated the sea-water experiments, then; is that right?

A. Considerably later, yes.

Q. And, as I recall, you also said in this interrogation that you had seen this report by Holzloehner, which I understand you have denied heretofore; now, had you seen Holzloehner’s report or not?

A. No, nor did I ever say that I had. He reported to me on this, but he did not show me a report.

Q. Now, General, I am reading from a summary of an interrogation of you made on 21 October 1946, and one paragraph reads as follows: “Schroeder also knows about the ‘See-Not’ and ‘Winter-Not’ reports from which he could conclude that human beings were used for experiments. This could also be concluded from Holzloehner’s report on the freezing experiments, and it could furthermore be seen from the comments which Dr. Rascher wrote on the above matter. Schroeder learned about these matters in 1944.” Now, is this summary inaccurate?

A. Very inaccurate.

Q. All right, let us get it straight. In the first part of 1943 you received a report on the Nuernberg meeting, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. In May 1944, Becker-Freyseng told you that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau, did he not?

A. That is not the right way of putting it. He said that Holzloehner had made the experiments; nothing was said to me about Rascher and Finke. I did not know them then. I learned their names only since I was imprisoned.

Q. You mean you had not heard up to then that Rascher had worked with Holzloehner on these experiments; is that right?

A. No, I did not say that. I heard Rascher’s name for the first time in this report of 1945 when I was imprisoned.

Q. Well, I do not know, General, but I am going to look in just a minute—I think Rascher’s and Finke’s names are mentioned in this report which you got in the first part of 1943 on the Nuernberg meeting. You do not recall that?

A. No.

Q. And I very well remember that Rascher had made a comment on this rather long lecture by Holzloehner, from which it could clearly be seen that Rascher himself was experimenting with Holzloehner; do you not remember that?

A. I can say that now, because in the meantime I have seen these reports, “See-Not” and “Winter-Not,” and have read them through carefully and acquainted myself with the various names, and I know that in this report there is an extensive report by Holzloehner and after that a short remark by Rascher. I did not pay any attention to it at that time because I had no connections with Rascher, nor did I see any reason why I should; but I did interest myself in Holzloehner’s report because I knew him from working with him on the French coast.

Q. Well, we will come back to the report in just a moment, but right now I want to go on with your discussion with Holzloehner. Can you tell us, more or less, exactly what he told you?

A. That is a little too much to ask me to recall a brief remark that I made in 1944 on the occasion of a very short visit. I do recall that I met Holzloehner outside my hut, and I asked him to step in a moment; then I asked him about the experiments. He answered me briefly and that was the end of our conversation. The only thing that struck me was that Holzloehner, who previously had been a very lively and brisk person, seemed very depressed and worn out. I attributed that to the 5 years of war that had passed. That there were other reasons, perhaps, for this, I could only adduce later from his tragic demise. It could be that I commented to my adjutant on this subject. I am not sure at the moment, but I think it is quite possible because Augustinick knew Holzloehner very well and liked him. Perhaps Augustinick can be asked about that later.

Q. You said a moment ago you got the impression that Holzloehner did not want to talk about these experiments, and you also had been dabbling in Dachau experiments yourself. I think under these circumstances it might be expected that you would have questioned Holzloehner rather closely about what went on in his experiments. You did not do that?

A. He told me briefly that his observations from the English channel coast could be checked on experiments being performed in Dachau on criminals condemned to death, and that these experiments had been described in the report which he had submitted. That made it perfectly clear what was going on, so why should I ask anything further? I was not particularly interested in going into that specific result.

Q. Well, were the sea-water experiments over at that time?

A. Yes, some time before, and that must have been why Holzloehner came to me because these experiments had long been concluded.

Q. You did not have any one in the nature of representative at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942?

A. No.

Q. Now, you mentioned this report which you received on that meeting; that is Document NO-401, Prosecution Exhibit 93. You stated that you did not know that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloehner. I found a statement on page 11 of this report which reads as follows: “For the relevant statements, we have to thank the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke; they refer to a stay in water of 2 to 12 degrees.” That statement indicates very clearly that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloehner, does it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I think you stated to your own defense counsel that it was impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had been carried out, but rather, you thought they were clinical observations made on people fished out of the North Sea, is that right?

A. Yes, I based my testimony solely on the Holzloehner report which was the only thing that interested me. There were reports by Rose and others but I did not read them. I glanced through them briefly but gave no further attention to them because I did not know the people who had drawn them up.

Q. Let’s just look briefly at one or two points here and see if they might not indicate to you, if you thought about it a little bit, that these were really experiments and not clinical observations on people who accidentally fell into the sea. For instance, on page 11 of the translation it states as follows:

“The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was
determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an
advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders
the movement of the arms especially increasingly difficult. This
also affects respiration. Inspiration is deepened, and
expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucous secretions
occur.”

Now, when you read that little paragraph about a man who had been in the water 5 to 10 minutes where it is said that he had rigor of the skeletal muscles, where his inspiration is deepened and his expiration is delayed and where there is a heavy mucous secretion, did you imagine that they had Dr. Holzloehner in a lifeboat in the North Sea making these observations on some aviator who had fallen in accidentally? Did you think that, General?

A. Yes, that’s what I thought. You don’t know the local situation at Visson. There were a beach and dunes, and a guard from the rescue station always stood on the dunes to keep an eye on the water and the surrounding country, particularly when flights to England were taking place, so that it actually did happen that fliers bailed out and fell into the water just in front of the shoreline. Rescue boats were ready at that time and went out to sea immediately, so that it was altogether possible that fliers who fell into the water close to the coast could very quickly be observed and rescued. These are the facts of what actually took place at that rescue station at that time.

Q. On the same page they have this remark: “With the drop of the rectal temperature to 31°, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia if the decline reaches below 30°.”

Now, do you suppose that they pulled this aviator in and inserted a rectal thermometer and found his temperature at 31° and then tossed him back and let it drop another degree, all the time watching closely a clouding of consciousness, and then hauled him back in when it was 30° and noted a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia?

A. No, that isn’t the correct way to put it either. This is one of the observations that was new to us and to which we paid a great deal of attention in order to explain these incomprehensible fatalities, namely, the fact that when the people were removed from the water their temperature still dropped and simultaneously with the drop in temperature a fatal collapse of the heart occurred. This was one of our fundamental and new observations. And I must report again and again that this rescue house was a small place, but it did have the apparatus for observing these people very exactly. That was the sense of the whole thing.

Q. General, you’ve already covered yourself a little bit by saying you didn’t read these discussions after Holzloehner’s lecture very carefully; but I want to read you the one by Rascher, in any event, and see if you won’t admit that if you had read this little comment by Rascher that there could have been no doubt whatsoever in your mind that experiments were carried out and not observations on aviators in the North Sea. This is on page 15 of the translation, and Rascher has said:

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

Now, General, if you had read that, wouldn’t it have been perfectly clear that these were experiments?

A. Today, of course, after this whole question has been exposed I should; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that report that these were a special group of human experiments. I can say that here under oath, and I should like to reiterate it. That was my attitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been changed by what I have discovered here.

Q. I might also point out to you that Benzinger’s comment expressly speaks of Holzloehner’s experiments repeatedly; but I assume that that also made no impression on you?

A. I can say one thing to that. My comrades, the medical officers in my office at that time in Italy, had no notion either that human experiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word said about such a thing on the occasion of my inspection visits. Of course, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought up; but I never heard any indication that these reports were the result of a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others, too, did not see so clearly as is pointed out here that these were human experiments.

Q. And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about these experiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nuernberg in October, with considerable comment there about these experiments? Holzloehner later gave a lecture before all the consulting physicians, at least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he spoke. He gave another report there on these experiments. You never heard any rumors in the air force about these things; is that right?

A. No.

Q. You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you?

A. I have stated frequently that I don’t even know Finke.

* * * * *

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS[33]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

DR. WEISGERBER: During the subsequent period you came in contact with the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher?

DEFENDANT SIEVERS: I once went to Dachau in order to participate in administrative conferences at the time when Dr. Rascher, Professor Holzloehner, and Dr. Finke were concluding a cold experiment. That is to say, the experimental subject had just been placed into a room, but I didn’t see anything else of this experiment.

Q. On the occasion of this experiment, or on the occasion of a discussion which perhaps followed, did you hear anything more in detail about Rascher concerning these experiments?

A. These three men were very busy reading the apparatus used in connection with that experiment. I was told that it was necessary to apply the warm covers as quickly as possible. Professor Holzloehner stated that they had almost concluded their experiments and that further experiments hardly seemed necessary. No scientific questions were discussed at that time.

Q. Did you see any report or did you receive reports from Rascher about these cold experiments?

A. No. These reports also went directly to Himmler from Rascher, as becomes evident from the documents which have been submitted here.

Q. In Document 1611-PS (_Pros. Ex. 85_), you find a letter sent by the Reich Leader SS to Dr. Rascher, dated 22 September 1942. In the second paragraph it states that it was sent to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers for information. Paragraph 1 mentions the interim report on the cold experiments by Dr. Rascher at the Dachau concentration camp. One could conclude therefrom that you received this interim report.

A. This interim report went directly from Rascher to Himmler, otherwise Himmler wouldn’t have answered Rascher direct. I don’t think, however, that it is out of the question that Rascher had told Hitler in this interim report, or in some other way, that when I heard of these cold experiments I considered them to be perverse. I assume that by sending me that report Himmler’s opinion on that subject was to be transmitted to me, and that is why I received a copy of that letter for my information.

Q. Now, would you be good enough to turn over one page, and you will find there Dr. Rascher’s letter dated 3 October 1942. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) This letter is obviously directed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It becomes evident from that letter that Rascher applied to you in a number of matters, is that correct?

A. Yes, I shall revert to that briefly, first of all concerning the low-pressure chamber. He says here that he turned to me in order to take steps regarding the low-pressure chamber. I didn’t do anything about that, at least not on the basis of this request by Rascher, only later when Himmler arrived at Munich and when he himself ordered me to send him this draft letter which was previously discussed. He further says that he turned to me regarding a teletype which requested the furnishing of women for these experiments. Since Himmler had already issued orders regarding the furnishing of experimental subjects, there was nothing left for me to do.

Q. Didn’t you participate in a second cold experiment?

A. Yes, together with Dr. Hirt, whom I had to accompany by order of Himmler, as he had been included in Rascher’s experiments with Himmler’s approval. Himmler probably had realized in the meantime that Rascher alone would not be sufficient in order to clarify these scientifically very extensive and difficult questions. Hirt could only come to Munich for one day because of his state of health and for that reason asked that everything be prepared beforehand, so that he could gain insight into all the work results which had been obtained so far. I told Rascher to prepare everything according to Hirt’s desire. A professional criminal was presented for the purpose of this experiment.

Q. Was that a professional criminal who had already been condemned to death, and how did you know whether it was such a criminal?

A. Before the experiment started Hirt wanted to look at the files because there was a possibility that this experiment would end fatally. The sentence was furnished by the Criminal Police Department of the Camp Administration. We saw that this was a sentence which had been passed by a regular court, and it became evident therefrom that this man had more than 10 years’ penitentiary behind him, and had been recently, sentenced to death because of murder and theft. Hirt furthermore asked the man whether he knew that this experiment might end fatally, whereupon the man answered that he was well aware of it. He said that he would have to die anyway for he was a confirmed criminal, and he just could not stop his criminal activity; therefore he deserved death.

Q. Did you convince yourself of that by asking the experimental subject whether he was actually a volunteer?

A. After Hirt’s questioning I personally asked the man whether he agreed to that experiment. He thereupon said that he was in full agreement, providing it didn’t hurt him. This assurance could be given to him because the experiment was carried out under complete anaesthesia. I didn’t participate in the entire experiment, but I saw that this man was given an anaesthetic.

Q. You yourself saw the files from the criminal police?

A. Yes, I read through them, together with Hirt.

Q. Well, I guess there can be no doubt that this was a professional criminal sentenced to death by a regular court?

A. This was a very regular sentence. All previous sentences were listed in the files, and I remember in addition to the death sentence, he had already had 10 years’ penitentiary.

* * * * *

Q. Now, would you please be good enough to turn to page 86 of the document book before you? This is a report about a so-called “Cold Conference” dated 26 and 27 October 1942. Did you receive this report in the Ahnenerbe?

A. I certainly didn’t receive it and I don’t remember having seen it anywhere.

Q. Didn’t Curator Wuest receive that report?

A. I do not believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher, which only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly by Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest if Himmler actually sent them himself. I don’t believe that has happened in this particular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about it. These reports and the research assignments just discussed lay completely outside the interests and sphere of Wuest.

Q. What do you know about the so-called dry-cold experiments of Dr. Rascher?

A. I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler’s order which was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing of the equipment. I don’t know whether these experiments were actually carried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this courtroom. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was necessary for them to be performed in the mountains. Himmler had also ordered that these experiments be carried out in the grounds of the mountain villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodation was available there. Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had heard that there were a sufficient number of cases of freezing to be found in hospitals at the front. I therefore asked Rascher why it was necessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my question and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide by Himmler’s order.

Q. Which year was that?

A. That was at the end of 1942.

Q. The order was at the end of 1942?

A. The end of 1942. The conversation with Rascher about the accommodation took place afterwards.

Q. And that was intended for the winter of 1943-44?

A. No, for 1942-43. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable, some other place had to be found and I handled this matter in a very dilatory manner. Rascher pressed me on the matter and Himmler was rather indignant, but after all I couldn’t create a house by myself. Himmler subsequently ordered that preparations be made for these experiments to be carried out at least in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I think it must have been the winter of 1943-44. I’m sure it was 1943-44, and I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations were to be made for 1944-45. These experiments, however, were never carried out because Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944.

Q. In that case you are saying that these dry-cold experiments were not carried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943-44. You assisted in preventing these experiments from being carried out by delaying the finding of suitable accommodation?

A. Yes.

Q. I will now briefly summarize your testimony with reference to the count concerning cold experiments.

MR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, the defense counsel has put questions to the witness and the witness has testified to these questions. I really think summations after each experiment are unnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: A short summation on the part of defense counsel might be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition.

DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, your Honor. You accidentally attended the completion of a cold experiment by Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen no reports about Dr. Rascher’s experiments and received no knowledge about them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects for the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually had nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the circumstances which you have previously described. You know nothing about any dry-cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You succeeded in delaying and finally completely frustrating the dry-cold experiments in the mountains. Is that correct?

DEFENDANT SIEVERS: Yes, that is correct.

Q. After searching your mind, did you do anything in that connection which went beyond the orders given you by Himmler?

A. No, in no way at all.

* * * * *

-----

[28] Figure 14, headed “Mean Values from Group of Four Experiments each at 4° C. [39.2° F.] to 4.5° C. [40.1° F.] Water Temperature,” is a chart showing the skin temperature and the rectal temperature of four experimental subjects each of whom respectively in a sober state, was given 100 cubic centimeters of alcohol one hour before the start of the experiment, and was given 100 grams of pure dextrose one hour before start of the experiment. The three curves indicating skin temperature show drops to 16° C. and below after 60 to 80 minutes; the three curves showing rectal temperature show a low of 22.3° C. and 21.3° C. after 70, 100, and 110 minutes respectively, and then an increase to 31.3° C. after 130, 200, and 230 minutes respectively.

[29] 1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105, see p. 249.

[30] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17-18 December 1946, pp. 595-695.

[31] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 11, 12, 13, and 18 February 1947, pp. 2815-3104.

[32] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 25, 26, 27 February 1947, pp. 3470-3700.

[33] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 9, 10, 11, 14 April 1947, pp. 5656-5869.

3. MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving malaria experiments (par. 6 (C) of the indictment). Only the defendant Sievers was convicted on this charge. In the case of the defendant Mrugowsky the judgment of the Tribunal makes no special reference to this charge.

Although the defendant Rose was not charged with _special_ responsibility for participation in malaria experiments, the prosecution offered proof to show some participation by Rose in these experiments. However, the Tribunal in its judgment refrained from making a finding of guilt or innocence as to Rose, since malaria experiments were particularized in paragraph 6 (C) of the indictment and since Rose was not among those defendants who were charged with special responsibility by name (judgment, vol. II). The Tribunal said that the manner of the prosecution’s pleading “constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, [and] that only such persons as were actually named in the designated experiments would be called upon to defend against the specific items. Included in the list of names of those defendants specifically charged with responsibility for the malaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged.”

“This does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was inadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We think it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose’s knowledge of human experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.”

The Tribunal did make findings of guilt or innocence with regard to several experiments which were not particularized in detail in the indictment and concerning which the indictment did not name any particular defendants as having special responsibility. For example, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning phlegmon, polygal and gas oedema experiments (_subsections 12-14, see pp. 653 to 694_) under the general charge of paragraph 6 of the indictment, which alleges that the criminal experiments “included, but were not limited to” the particularized experiments. (_See also introductions to sub-section 12-14, see pp. 653-4, 669-70 and 684._)

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the malaria experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Rose and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 280 to 283. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Sievers and Rose. It appears below on pages 283 to 288. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 289 to 314.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT ROSE_

* * * * *

With respect to the malaria experiments, two questions are presented for consideration: first, whether the malaria experiments were performed in a criminal manner, and second, whether the defendant Rose was connected with such experiments.

That the performance of the malaria experiments in the Dachau concentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war was criminal has not been seriously disputed by any of the defendants. In December 1941, while working in Italy, Dr. Claus Schilling met Conti who became interested in supporting further work by Schilling on malaria problems. A meeting was arranged with Himmler who gave his permission for experiments to be carried out in the Dachau concentration camp. Schilling began his work in Dachau in February 1942 and continued his experiments until the end of the war. He was primarily concerned with discovering a way of immunizing persons against malaria. During the course of the experiments, approximately 1,200 concentration camp inmates were infected with malaria either by being bitten by infected mosquitoes or by injections of malaria-infected blood. After having been infected, the prisoners were treated with various drugs, including quinine, neosalvarsan, and pyramidon. Most of the experimental subjects were non-German nationals. Of the experimental subjects infected, approximately 30 died as a direct result of the experiments and an additional 300 to 400 died as a result of complications.

The above facts are established by the Review of the General Military Commission in the case of the U. S. against Weiss and others, held at Dachau, Germany. (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125._) Claus Schilling was a defendant in that case and was convicted and sentenced to death. In an affidavit submitted in evidence before that Tribunal, dated 30 October 1945, Schilling admitted that the experimental subjects were not volunteers.

One of the assistants to Schilling in his experiments at Dachau was Dr. Ploetner, who was a member of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe under the defendant Sievers. Sievers conferred with Ploetner regarding the malaria experiments and received reports from him. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123; entries for 30 January, 22 February, 23 May, 31 May, 1 June, 24 August._) Rose stated that he learned that Ploetner was a collaborator of Schilling through an inquiry to the Journal of Tropical Medicine in the year 1944. Ploetner had published an article in that magazine and it had come to Rose’s attention. (_Tr. 6339._)

The witness August Vieweg testified for the prosecution and substantiated the findings of the Military Commission at Dachau. Vieweg was first subjected to the malaria experiments himself and thereafter served as an inmate-assistant in the malaria ward. Vieweg testified that Schilling experimented on approximately 1,100 inmates, including Germans, Poles, Russians, and Jugoslavs. Among the Russian inmates used were prisoners of war. Seven or eight of the subjects died in the malaria station, primarily as a result of pyramidon poisoning. (_Tr. p. 428._) He also testified that to his knowledge, an additional 60 inmates died after having been transferred from the experimental station. He further stated that none of the inmates volunteered, that he personally did not, and that the experimental subjects were not freed as a result of undergoing the experiment. The original infection card from the files of Schilling in Dachau, showing the date of infection of the witness Vieweg with “Culture Rose,” was introduced. (_NO-983, Pros. Ex. 128_; _see also Tr. pp. 584-5_.)

The defendant Rose participated in the criminal experiments of Schilling by furnishing him material with which to carry out the experiments. This material was furnished by Rose with knowledge of facts which would have led any reasonable man to the conclusion that Schilling was carrying out criminal experiments. Rose had known Schilling for many years and succeeded him as Chief of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute. Moreover, Rose, by his own admission, was an adviser to Dr. Conti, who arranged for Schilling to carry out his experiments in Dachau. It is highly unlikely that such an arrangement would have been made without consulting Rose.

Rose furnished Schilling with malaria spleens for his experiments in Italy during the year 1941, a fact which Rose denied on the stand until contradicted by his letter to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941. (_NO-1756, Prog. Ex. 486._) Rose continued to furnish infection material to Schilling after he set up his experimental station in Dachau. Rose and his witnesses admitted that anopheles eggs were sent to Schilling in 1942, but Rose, after that occasion, issued instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling because he did not agree with his research aims. (_Tr. p. 6415._) On 4 April 1942, Schilling wrote to Rose asking for “Culture Rose” to continue his experiments. This letter bears the dateline “Dachau, 3K, Hospital for Inmates,” and it was initialed by Rose on 17 April 1942. Schilling stated that he would be “very thankful * * * for this _new_ support of my work.” [Emphasis supplied.] That Rose complied with this request of Schilling’s is established because the witness Vieweg was himself infected with “Culture Rose.”

On 5 July 1943, in a letter, also with the notation “Dachau, K3, Malaria Station,” Schilling thanked Rose for a consignment of atroparvus eggs and accepted Rose’s offer to send him his excess eggs. This letter mentions the “Prisoner August,” who obviously was the witness, August Vieweg. This letter was initialed by Rose on 27 July. (_NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488._) On the same date Rose replied to Schilling’s letter, advising him that at the next favorable opportunity, a shipment of anopheles eggs would be made to him.

* * * * *

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT SIEVERS_

* * * * *

Sievers had knowledge of and supported the criminal malaria experiments in Dachau. He testified that early in 1942 he learned from Himmler that Schilling was conducting malaria experiments in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 5692._) In a memorandum dated 3 April 1942 concerning a consultation between Sievers and Dr. May on the location of an experimental station for the Ahnenerbe, Sievers mentioned as a persuasive reason for locating in Dachau the fact that Schilling was carrying out his malaria experiments there. (_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126._) Although this memorandum gives the name as “Schling”, Sievers testified that the name Schilling was intended. (_Tr. p. 5693._)

The witness Vieweg testified that in late 1943 or early 1944 Sievers made several visits to Schilling’s malaria station where he consulted with Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling’s. (_Tr. pp. 445-7, 464._) He stated that Sievers consulted with Schilling and also inspected the laboratory. (_Tr. p. 423._) Sievers testified that the purpose of these visits and consultations was to arrange for the transfer of Ploetner to the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe.

A number of entries in the Sievers diary for 1944 prove that Sievers was connected with and supported the malaria experiments. On 30 January he received a memorandum by Ploetner on malaria. A notation of 22 February states that “further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner to be done through RGF [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer Conti].” Ploetner, in addition to his work with Schilling, was also collaborating with Rascher in the blood coagulation experiments. (See entries of 29 January and 14 April.) On 10 May 1944, the entry indicates that Rascher’s research work was transferred to Ploetner. This was apparently a result of Rascher’s difficulties in connection with the kidnapping of children by him and his wife. On 23 May 1944, Ploetner was charged with the management of the Ahnenerbe division in Dachau. The entry for 31 May indicates that Sievers and Grawitz reached an understanding concerning Ploetner’s continued collaboration with Schilling. On 21 June, Sievers conferred with Schilling about limiting Ploetner’s activities with him after his transfer to the Ahnenerbe. Ploetner was actually appointed department head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe on 27 June. The entry for 24 August 1944 notes that collaboration between Schilling and Ploetner had been agreed upon. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)

* * * * *

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT SIEVERS_

* * * * *

_Malaria Experiments_

1. Under the direction of Professor Dr. Schilling, malaria experiments were carried out in Dachau concentration camp in the years 1941-1944.

2. According to the statements in the verdict of the United States Military Court at Dachau of 26 January 1946 (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125_) a great number of people were killed in these experiments.

3. Sievers had not the slightest connection with either Professor Schilling’s malaria experiments or with any other malaria experiments.

The prosecution charges Sievers with participation in malaria experiments.

“As can be seen in all spheres of this devilish experiment
program in Nazi Germany, the defendants charged with the malaria
experiments had on their side an extensive knowledge of
Schilling’s activity. In some cases they worked actively with
the late Dr. Schilling”. (_Tr. pp. 403-4._)