Chapter LV: Section 2: A III f (20)

In the face of all these uncontradicted documents and stenographic records of meetings, it would be fatuous for anyone to say that Milch was unaware that forced labor and prisoners of war were being used in the Jaegerstab construction program.

However, there is more than this passive evidence. Milch, himself, contributes the positive evidence of his full knowledge of and unrestrained participation in the Jaegerstab slave labor activities.

On 25 April 1944, he said—

“It will only work if we put these workers into barracks. We
cannot exactly treat them as prisoners. It must appear
otherwise, but it must be so in practice. * * * I am personally
convinced after talking to the Fuehrer that he will agree as
soon as it is made reasonable. The people should not be able to
mingle with the population and to conspire. Nor should they be
allowed to run around free, so that they can cross the frontier
every day. Both practices must be stopped. * * * I am of the
opinion that that must be done at once. It’s all the same to me
if individual people do object. Protest does not interest me at
all, whether from the Chief of Prisoners of War Affairs or from
our side. Kleber, would you be so good as to take care of this?”

KLEBER: “As far as prisoners of war are concerned I can take
care of it, but not where it concerns the air force. That must
be handled separately.”

MILCH: “Naturally. This must be handled by us. There was, in
fact, another proposal but we do not want it. Otherwise someone
else will come complaining.”

KLEBER: “I should like to transfer the prisoners further off to
Brunswick.”

MILCH: “I think it is an excellent idea for the prisoners to go
there if Brunswick continues to be attacked.” (_T-356-57._)

Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 provides—

“No prisoner of war may be sent to an area where he would be
exposed to the fire of the fighting zone.”

At the 4 May 1944 meeting, Saur reported that the Jaegerstab itself, independent of Sauckel, had organized an expedition for the procuring of workers in Italy. On 5 May 1944, Schmelter reported that the Jaegerstab transport from Italy had been delayed because of the lack of guards, whereupon the defendant said—

“Is there someone at the escort detachment headquarters in Italy
responsible for seeing that people do not get out and run away
during the journey? That is what the escorting personnel is
there for. Someone of standing? Dr. Wendt is responsible for the
whole undertaking. I am of the opinion that, if anyone jumps
out, he should be shot; otherwise a thousand will get on and
only twenty will arrive there. The gendarmerie and all military
posts must look out for those who abscond on the journey. They
will be arrested at once and will appear before a court
martial.” (_T-349-50._)

At a conference held on 22 February 1944, one Rautenbach says—

“That refers to Wernigerode. In Solingen we had the best results
with Frenchmen and the worst with Italians, meaning the Italian
workers and not the prisoners of war. For that reason we do not
employ any Italians here in Wernigerode. They are only 50 to 60
percent efficient.” (_T-2180._)

And the defendant then remarks—

“Could not the following be done; give the Italians in principle
only half of their food rations, letting them earn the other
half when they do their work well?” (_T-2181._)

It is obvious that, as one of the chiefs of the Jaegerstab, the defendant actively, willingly, and knowingly countenanced, ordered, and participated in slave labor practices and the use of prisoners of war in activities prohibited by international law. Aside from his other statements, the one made on 13 June 1944, where he advocates the exportation from France of machinery and men would, in itself, be enough to convict him of such participation.

“We must write off these areas in France completely, and above
all the factories which are situated further into the country
towards the south and west. For when the invasion begins, the
guarding neither of a stretch of land, nor of a line will be
possible, nor will anything function because of sabotage * * *.
No Frenchman will work when the invasion begins. I am of the
opinion that the French should be brought over again by force,
as prisoners.”

SAUR: “I should prefer to do it sooner.”

LANGE: “We have machines there too, in particular the presses.”

MILCH: “Everything must come out; machines and men.” (_T-358._)

The Jaegerstab functioned from 1 March 1944 to 1 August 1944 and then it expanded into the Ruestungsstab. When the Jaegerstab concluded its efforts a report was made to the Fuehrer, which declared that Jaegerstab had, in spite of air attacks, doubled its aircraft production. (_T-360._)

(c) Generalluftzeugmeister

In his capacity as Generalluftzeugmeister, Milch held periodical meetings and conferences in connection with the Luftwaffe armament production. Labor, its procurement, disposition, and treatment, was inevitably a subject for frequent discussion, and in these discussions Milch portrayed himself an intransigent, implacable taskmaster, uninhibited neither by law nor custom, and unrestrained by moderation or regard for the helpless vanquished.

At one of these meetings on 5 May 1942, presided over by the defendant, one Fridag reported—

“The French become worse and worse. I threw out 80 of them who
will be sent to concentration camps in Russia. They refused to
work. The French say at 4 o’clock: ‘I won’t work another hour’,
and you cannot make them work another hour. This happened four
weeks ago all of a sudden when the first bombing attack on Paris
took place, while before that the French were the best people.”
(_T-2106._)

The fact that the bombardment of the beloved Paris of these Frenchmen would naturally emotionally disturb them was not weighed or considered by the defendant in spite of the fact that Frydag had reported that prior to the bombardment they had been excellent workers. Implacable and unyielding as some story book pagan god, the defendant turns to von Gablenz, Chief of the Planning Office, and declares—

“I demand if the people refuse to work they immediately be
placed against the wall and shot before all the other workers.”
(_T-2107._)

Further—

“I ask you to get in touch with the Reich Fuehrer SS [Himmler]
and to ask him to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer. Now is
the right time; unless we do something effective now, the others
will become bothersome. I ask that their being sent to
concentration camps be taken into consideration too. I will tell
you afterwards how you should act in such a matter.” (_T-2107._)

Later, on 7 July 1942, he indicated a willingness to try more peaceable methods, but if they did not succeed, then—

“I intend to fill the new Heinkel Plant in the East entirely
with Frenchmen brought down there by force. If they don’t work
in France, they may work as prisoners in Poland. After all, we
have to remember that it is we and not the French who have won
the war.” (_T-2116._)

On 28 July 1942 we find him again complaining about French production—

“At the present time we receive six to nine planes from the
French. I could well imagine that they would get out 45 for
themselves. I shall close up the shop with a single stroke and
have the workers and the machines come to Germany. If it does
not work on a voluntary basis, then we do it by compulsory
contracts. Perhaps I shall first give them a week to think it
over. It is a fact that, on the whole, these people work in
silent opposition. One cannot blame them for it either, it is
true, but they should not have started the war.” (_T-2117._)

In this outburst we discover two strange utterances. One, “compulsory contracts”, and the other the statement that the French started the war. Since the word “contract” means a willing agreement between two or more people, a “compulsory contract” is, of course, meaningless because one cannot be forced into a contract. If there is any compulsion, then the operation becomes a matter of outright coercion. With regard to the French starting the war, the defendant had the grace to state during the trial that he now knows that France did not initiate hostilities, although he believed to the contrary at the time.

The defendant has declared repeatedly that he had no connection with, or even knowledge of, concentration camps. He only visited one of them (Dachau) in 1935. At the end of the war he was aware of the existence of but two concentration camps, although 200 were flourishing in all their ghastliness at the time. Yet despite this blissful ignorance of concentration camps the phrase rippled easily from his tongue. At the same meeting above-mentioned he stated that if two certain individuals, Schneider and Bergen, “make difficulties” he would put them into a concentration camp for the duration of the war (_T-2118._)

When one Petersen, on 30 November 1942, spoke of obtaining 500 men from a concentration camp, Milch said, “For this purpose we should come to an agreement with Himmler.” (_T-2148._)

On 27 April 1943, when one Stahms indicated that concentration camp inmates are almost 3,000 strong, Milch declares that against a withdrawal of 3,000 foreign workers from the Luftwaffe industry, he attached importance to the assignment of these 3,000 concentration camp inmates to the Luftwaffe. (_NOKW-413._)

At the GL meeting of 4 August 1942, someone reported that the French might strike in the event of a British attack. This provoked Milch into the thunderous outburst—

“In such a case I would ask to be appointed military commander
myself. I would band the workers together and have fifty percent
of them shot; I would then publish this fact and compel the
other fifty percent to work by beating if necessary. If they
don’t work, then they, too, will be shot. I would get the
necessary replacement somehow. But I hope the military commander
will do his duty. I’m not worried about it. The word ‘strike’
must never be used. For us there is only ‘living or dying’ but
not ‘striking’. That goes for the educated man as well as for
the worker, for the German as well as for the foreigner. The
word ‘strike’ means death for the man who uses it.”
(_T-2121-2122._)

On this quotation in court the following colloquy occurred between a member of the Tribunal and the witness [Milch]:

JUDGE MUSMANNO: Curiosity consumes me as to what would happen if
an officer inferior in rank to yourself took you at your word
and actually executed a number of these workers or prisoners of
war. Would that officer then be punished?

THE WITNESS: No one was there who would have been in a position
to do so. Apart from that, all those who were under my orders
knew me and my way of handling things. They knew exactly that I
didn’t mean it the way I said it, and apart from that they
always laughed about my remarks when I used such strong words.

JUDGE MUSMANNO: In other words, the comment of a field marshal
in a matter of this seriousness was really of no value?

THE WITNESS: Because the people knew that I got excited very
easily about certain things, and these incidents here have been
selected and submitted of course. From every one of these
meetings, which took place twice a month, there was a
report—about this thick—and perhaps, at some time or another,
sometimes once, sometimes twice, due to the many reports which I
received, there was a certain outburst, and then I would lose my
temper as we soldiers used to. However, I didn’t intend to do
anything about it and I spoke to those under my orders once in a
while. They pointed out to me that I used such strong words, and
they knew exactly that this was not meant seriously. They knew
exactly that no such order had been given and that I myself
would never cause anybody to be punished, not even when it would
have been justified, for the very simple reason that I did not
have the power to give punishments. (_T-2124-2125._)

Then Judge Phillips inquired—

JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, now, whether you meant it or not, you
would say these things, and by so doing you counselled and
advised others under you at a meeting which you presided over to
do such things. Whether you meant it or not, you did that,
didn’t you?

THE WITNESS: No. I never gave the order by using these words,
because my people spoke with me, and after all they knew from my
words that I never meant it earnestly.

JUDGE PHILLIPS: Didn’t you say, ‘I would band the workers
together and have fifty percent of them shot? I would then
publish this fact and compel the other fifty percent to work by
beating if necessary.’ Did you say that or not?

THE WITNESS: I do not remember to have said that. However, three
days ago I believe I said that I never knew afterwards when I
had such outbursts of rage because I had that rush of blood to
my skull due to that injury I had, and I couldn’t remember what
I said at that particular moment. I just burst out in rage.
(_T-2125-2126._)

The defendant has constantly denied that he was a moving factor in the foreign workers program. But at the GL meeting on 18 August 1942, we find him asking for a complete report on the labor question, how it has developed, what nationalities are involved, how great is the fluctuation—

“What real requests we now have to make in the different sectors
in order to cover the needs for specialists and for skilled and
unskilled labor, how many of them are foreigners, etc. What
happens to those who leave the industry? Are they compelled to
work elsewhere? Are they, _as I proposed, under control in the
camps supervised by the SS_ and considered as being in mild
concentration camps or are these gentlemen allowed to remain
outside and do as they please?” (_T-2127._)

When questioned as to the significance of “mild” concentration camps, he explained that these were camps to which people were sent for a short time for “education”.

Complaining about “antisocial elements” who “moved from one factory to another,” Milch rejected the suggestion that the armed forces should take care of these people in camps. This could not be done because “they have not been condemned and in no way violated the existing laws.”

“That is why Himmler should get these people into his clutches
because he can treat them _outside the law_.” (_T-2134._)

At the GL meeting on 19 October 1943, the defendant spoke on the subject of a possible foreign workers’ uprising. He said that he had discussed this eventuality with Himmler, and that he, Milch, had already given orders to the Chief AW[163] and to the training stations to get military training in this field.

“If for instance in the locality X, an uprising is started, then
a sergeant with a few men, or else a lieutenant with 30 men is
to turn up in the plant, and first of all shoot into the crowd
with a machine gun. What he should do after is to shoot down as
many people as possible in cases of revolt. I have given orders
to that effect even if our foreign workers are involved. But
first of all he must succeed in getting them all laid out flat
on the ground. And then every tenth man is to be singled out and
shot, while the others are lined up and see it. If our machines
are being wrecked, etc., then such measures have to be applied.
I said to Himmler: ‘I’ll go along with you in your efforts.’”
(_T-2153._)

Milch denied at the trial that he had talked to Himmler about this matter and endeavored to argue incorrectness in the minutes. But the weakness of his attempted exculpation here lies in the fact that he could well have argued the necessity for drastic action in such an emergency, without excesses of course. In fact, he had explained, “If our planes are destroyed in the workshops, an energetic measure should be taken.” But in the desire to extricate himself completely from the situation, he challenges the record, he refutes the Himmler conference, and then adds the usual explanation that he was excited at the time.

At a GL conference on 2 March 1943, the defendant was commenting on the fact that foreign workers were becoming hostile.

“On principle I have to be informed of every case of
swinishness. I do not understand at all why Germany should put
up with it when Poles and Frenchmen explain to the
people—today, indeed, you are still sitting in this work; but
later we shall be the owners; and if you treat us properly we
shall see to it then that you are shot dead immediately and not
tortured first. In all these matters energetic interference must
be made. I am of the opinion that there should be only two types
of punishment in such cases; firstly, concentration camps for
foreigners, and secondly, capital punishment. If a certain
number of such hostile elements are removed and the others are
informed, they will then work better. Their love for us
certainly won’t become any greater; but neither will their hate,
for it is already strong enough. In this respect, too, energetic
interference must be made and in no case must the works put up
with it. The best method is to give one blow with a sledge
hammer to the person concerned; and I shall treat with
distinction every man who does something like that whenever he
hears such stupid nonsense. We are living in total war; and the
workers must be told that they don’t have to put up with
anything.” (_T-2169._)

When the above was read to the defendant in court, he stated that he did not recall the utterance and explained, “that once again it is my well-known rage. I simply let go.” However, upon further cross-examination he seemed to recall what it was all about and said, “Yes, and I was enraged here through the report which had been submitted to me as to the fact that our people were being threatened with death. That enraged me considerably; and I blew up.” This is an interesting observation. This man, from whose lips death threats fell like acorns from an oak, asks that all his fulminations be ignored. Although he sat on the victors’ bench at the time, yet because a worker who had been dragged from his home hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of miles away, blurted from the depth of his misery, that if he got the opportunity he would kill his captor, the captor felt morally justified in recommending the use of a sledge hammer on the head of the defenseless captive. The sledge hammer blow was to be delivered not for a deed committed, but merely for the use of words. To fortify this point, defense introduced an affidavit which declared that the servant girl in the Milch household repeated certain statements as to what her people (she was a Ukrainian) would do in the event they became victorious. On this subject they were so sensitive that even the gossip and chatter of a maid servant threw fear into their hearts, but it is solemnly averred in court that the imprecations of a field marshal were always ignored.

At the same meeting above indicated the defendant said—

“But in the abstract, I see no difficulties in the way of
getting 100,000 or 200,000 French workers to Germany, nor do I
see any difficulties in the way of keeping them in order. If a
case of sabotage occurs in one area, every tenth man in the area
will be shot. Then such acts of sabotage would cease of
themselves. The western peoples are very much afraid of death,
while it is quite different matter with the Russians.”
(_T-2172._)

In explanation of this remark the defendant said that he did not recall making it. “That was still part of my madness.”

On 4 November 1943, Milch conferred with Goering at the Junkers Works at Dessau. Discussing the Italian workers, the defendant said—

“We have to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as
ball bearings, steel castings, and others, and we cannot take
the people from there. The same applies to the technical sphere.
The people there are working for us. All depends on our policy
toward the Italians. I have ordered that they can be beaten up
if they do not work. I have also given permission that Italians
caught sabotaging be sentenced to death. If this measure is not
desired by the higher authorities, which seems to be the case,
we are powerless. Then the Italians in the Reich will not be of
any use to us.” Further, “We could count on millions all
together, if we let them starve if they do not work!”
(_T-2193-2194._)

The defendant denies that he ever gave the order specifically mentioned here, and since he was talking to Goering, he places himself in the position of having lied to his superior officer, something of which, considering his vehement professions of soldier’s loyalty to military hierarchy, it would never be expected he could be guilty.

On the subject of French prisoners of war, the defendant said—

“Don’t forget that not even 1,000,000 Frenchmen are here as PW’s
while we have 7 to 8 million soldiers. Therefore, the French are
still in a very favorable position. But they must realize that
they will be brought to Germany all together if they don’t work
hard enough at home.” (_T-2198._)

As Vichy was working hand in glove with Berlin at the time, the defendant contends that coercion was not involved since it was the French Government who had issued the orders for this movement.

Addressing himself on another occasion to the subject of French workers, the defendant stated, “There is no good will in France, and you can really not expect it from these fellows. But we will force them to work by not feeding them.” Goering then said, “I can do this here much better.” And Milch replied, “That will get us nowhere. We shall then have to shut down the plants in France.” (_NOKW-245._)

At the GL meeting of 27 May 1942, von Gablenz reported, “Yesterday, the first[164] has exploded in France, at the Arado plant, an explosive, a float, but no damage has been done.” Milch commented, “What measures have been taken in consequence? I want to have a report on what has been done—How many people have been shot and how many hanged. If that guy cannot be found today, fifty men should be selected and if I were you I would hang three or four of them whether they are guilty or not. It is the only way!” (_NOKW-407._)

IV. MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS
(a) High-Altitude Tests

On 15 May 1941, Dr. Rascher, medical officer in the Luftwaffe and member of the SS stationed at Munich, wrote Heinrich Himmler asking that Himmler furnish to him two or three professional criminals to be used as subjects in high-altitude experiments. He stated that tests had been made with monkeys, but since their reactions differed from those of human beings, he preferred to work with live men, it being understood that these individuals could, of course, die in the experiment. Himmler replied through his adjutant, Rudolf Brandt, that he would gladly make prisoners available for such high-altitude research, and authorized that the experiments be carried out by Dr. Rascher, a Dr. Kottenhoff, and Dr. G. A. Weltz, who was Chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich.

In March 1942, with a low-pressure chamber furnished by the Luftwaffe, the experiments began at Dachau. The apparatus used for these tests was simply a wood and metal cabinet in which air pressure could be increased and decreased, the purpose of the tests being to ascertain the subject’s capacity and ability to take large amounts of pure oxygen, and to observe his reaction to a gradual decrease of oxygen approaching infinity. In this manner high-altitude atmospheric pressure would be simulated, and from the results the experimenters were to be able to determine methods and means of maintaining and saving lives among aviators compelled to rise to extreme altitudes, and at times because of war hazards obliged to parachute to the earth. The subjects for these experiments were to be individuals already sentenced to death.

Stated in strictly academic fashion, one could without too much difficulty be persuaded that these experiments were not entirely irrational or inhuman. The subjects were to die anyway, and if in dying they could furnish scientific data not obtainable otherwise, data which would save the lives of others, the project would not seem as criminally homicidal as it might appear when stated bluntly that experimenters would kill experimentees.

Whether the project was criminal and inhumane depends upon answers to the inevitable questions:

1. Were the prisoners actually condemned to death previously?
2. If so, for what reasons were they condemned to capital punishment?
3. Were the experiments painful to the subjects?
4. What scientific benefits resulted from the experiments?

If any prisoner used in the experiments was condemned to death merely for opposing the Nazi Regime without actually having committed any physical crime, it does not answer the criminal charge to say that the subject was already doomed to die, because by using that argument the experimenter or his SS superior could easily take any concentration camp inmate and, by merely pointing a finger at him, condemn him to death. Obviously in such a case the slayer could not, after the death, plead innocence on the grounds that the victim was to die anyway. Exculpation from the charge of criminal homicide can possibly be based only upon bona fide proof that the subject had committed murder or any other legally recognized capital offense; and, not even then, unless the sentencing Tribunal with authority granted by the State in the constitution of the Court, declared that the execution would be accomplished by means of a low-pressure chamber.

It has been asserted by the defense in this case that pardons were promised the subjects of these experiments in the event they survived. But the whole record reveals but one such shadowy case. It was also stated by one of the witnesses for the defense (General Wolff of the SS) that the subjects of these experiments were men who, because of their criminal records, had been denied the honor of fighting for the Fatherland, but that by submitting to these experiments they would be allowed, if they survived, to join combat forces at the front. General Wolff furnished no names or specific instances in this connection, nor does it appear that he, at any time, was in attendance upon the experiments at Dachau.

Dr. Romberg, under indictment for these same and kindred offenses, said on 1 November 1946, that he personally witnessed the death of three of Dr. Rascher’s subjects, and that he knows that other experimental subjects were killed while he was not present. He estimated that the fatalities totaled between five and ten. He was silent on the character of the victims.

Rudolf Brandt, who is currently on trial in Tribunal I, declared in an affidavit dated 30 August 1946, that Rascher wrote Himmler asking for concentration camp subjects for his high-altitude experiments. “Volunteers could not very well be expected, as the experiments could be fatal under the circumstances.” (_T-475._) Also “many experiments ended with the death of the experimental subject.” (_T-477._)

Brandt declared further that after Rascher submitted a report on his first experiments, Himmler ordered him to continue the experiments and authorized the commutation to life imprisonment of those subjects, previously condemned to death, who survived the experiments. However, Poles and Russians were excluded from this declared clemency. For Himmler, to be a Russian or a Pole or a Jew was an offense that could be expiated only with death. Both Romberg and Brandt are interested witnesses since they are defendants in another trial on similar charges. The testimony of one Anton Pacheleff, however, is not burdened with this possible defect as he is not answering to any charges. An Austrian patent lawyer, he was an inmate of Dachau, and while his testimony must still be carefully scrutinized, it does not need to be evaluated on the basis that the affiant has something to gain in exaggerating the nature, extent, and effect of the medical experiments. He declared under oath that Dr. Rascher chose the victims for his researches from the punishment company at Dachau, a group made up of political prisoners marked for extermination. “A few convicts were among the political prisoners, having been placed there merely to depress the morale of the political prisoners, and so a few convicts were killed along with the others.” (_T-408._)

The most complete account of this entire operation was contributed by Walter Neff, an Austrian who had been committed to Dachau because, prior to the Anschluss, he had testified in an Austrian court against certain Nazi terrorists. Only by coincidence were the experiments enacted in a ward to which he had been assigned as an untrained nurse, and thus he became an unofficial observer. He testified that from 180 to 200 concentration camp inmates were subjected to the high-altitude experiments, and of these, 10 were volunteers. Of all these subjects only one man was ever released, and that was an individual called Zopota.

It was Neff’s conclusion that over a period of three months from 70 to 80 persons were killed in the high-altitude experiments. He declared further that approximately 40 of the persons killed were persons not previously condemned to death. One man, according to Neff, was deliberately killed in the low-pressure chamber by Dr. Rascher so that he could perform an autopsy on him after his death at the atmospheric pressure of 10,000 meters altitude. During one autopsy it was discovered after the breast had been opened that the heart was still beating. “This experiment,” Neff said, “caused many cases of death because many more experiments were made in order to see how long the heart of a man could beat thus autopsied.” (_T-419._)

In this connection, reference must be made to one of the most cruel and fiendish decrees scratched by the claw of Himmler on the horror-filled parchment of his diabolic ingenuity. On 13 April 1942 he wrote Dr. Rascher, “these experiments should above all be evaluated for the purpose of seeing whether it is not possible, through this long functioning of the heart, to bring such people back to life. Should such an experiment of bringing back to life succeed, then it is understood that the person condemned to death will be commuted to lifelong imprisonment in a concentration camp.” (_1971-B-PS._) Thus, if the lifeless and mutilated body of one of these tortured victims of cold-blooded homicide should be made to function again, its owner would receive from the benevolent Heinrich Himmler the assurance of the luxuries of a lifelong imprisonment in an SS concentration camp!

But this is not the end of the hilarious game of these two death-head players, as they toss human life back and forth. On 20 October 1942, Rascher queries Himmler’s adjutant on this subject. He desires to know if, amongst the mythical survivors of his lethal experiments, there should be any Poles or Russians, whether they were also to receive the boon of lifelong imprisonment in a concentration camp. Incidentally, Rascher adds, the only ones he has experimented with have been Poles and Russians. And the reply comes back from Himmler’s adjutant that Dr. Rascher, “please,” is to be informed that “the decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler concerning pardoning (they called it pardoning!) of experimental subjects does not apply to Poles and Russians.” (!!!)

The manner in which some of the victims were selected is material fit for an Edgar Allen Poe story or a horror magazine. One day after 16 Russian prisoners had been used as experiments, two Jews were scheduled to be killed. Curious as to the identity of the two scheduled for extermination, Neff watched the first victim being placed in the experimental chamber. Something in the man’s features forcibly brought to his mind the image of the prison tailor. Hurrying to the tailor shop he learned that indeed it was the tailor, and that he had not been condemned to death, but that an SS-man, one Endres, had placed him among the list of those scheduled to be killed because this tailor had refused to make a civilian suit for Endres!

Neff further testified that at one time the chamber became damaged, but after being repaired more deaths occurred, and on the last day Rascher killed five persons. (_T-421._)

On 16 April 1942, Rascher wrote Himmler describing an experiment which he repeated four times “with the same results.”

“When Wagner, the last VP (experimental subject) had stopped
breathing, I let him come back to life by increasing pressure.
Since the VP was assigned for a terminal (‘Terminal’ meaning
‘death-resulting’ in this case) experiment, since a repeated
experiment held no prospect for new results, and since I had not
been in possession of your letter at that time, I subsequently
started another experiment through which VP Wagner did not live.
Also in this case the results obtained by electrocardiographic
registration (Herzstromabschreibung) were extraordinary.”
(_T-431-32._)

Here Rascher, in a macabre demonstration worthy of his record, repeated an experiment four times knowing what the result would be, and then finally killed the subject because he had been marked for extermination anyway.

(b) Were the Experiments Painful to the Subjects

The defense contends that the experiments, even though often fatal, were not accompanied with actual pain to the subjects, and therefore the experiments could not be characterized cruel or inhuman. Anton Pacheleff often stood by the apparatus during the experiments and looked through the observation window of the chamber. He testified—

“I have personally seen through the observation window of the
chamber when a prisoner inside would stand a vacuum until his
lungs ruptured. Some experiments gave men such pressure in their
heads that they would go mad, and pull out their hair in an
effort to relieve the pressure. They would tear their heads and
face with their fingers and fingernails in an attempt to maim
themselves in their madness. They would beat the walls with
their hands and head, and scream in an effort to relieve
pressure on their eardrums. These cases of extreme vacuums
generally ended in the death of the subject. An extreme
experiment was so certain to result in death that in many
instances the chamber was used for routine execution purposes
rather than an experiment.” (_T-409._)

One report made up by Doctors Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher graphically described the reactions of the subject as he fell from a height of 47,000 feet. Some of the more unusual reactions are noted:

47,200 ft. Lets the mask fall, severe altitude sickness, spasmodic
(klonische) convulsions.
45,580 ft. Opisthotonus.
44,950 ft. Suspended in opisthotonus.
44,920 ft. Arms stretched stiffly forward; sits up like a dog,
legs spread stiffly apart.
43,310 ft. Agonal convulsive breathing.
40,030 ft. Dyspnea, hangs limp.
23,620 ft. Uncoordinated movements with the extremities.
19,690 ft. Clonic convulsions, groaning.
18,080 ft. Yells aloud.
9,520 ft. Still yells, convulses arms and legs, head sinks
forward.
6,560 ft. Yells spasmodically, grimaces, bites his tongue, does
not respond to speech, gives the impression of
someone who is completely out of his mind.
5 minutes (after reaching ground level) Reacts for the first time
to vocal stimulation.
11 minutes Holds his head turned convulsively to the right; tries
repeatedly to answer the first question concerning
his birth date.
28 minutes Sees nothing; runs against open window sash upon which
the sun is shining, so that large lump is formed on
his forehead; says “Excuse me, please.” No expression
of pain.
37 minutes Reacts to pain stimuli.
75 minutes Still disoriented in time; retrogressive amnesia over
three days.
24 hours Normal condition again attained; has no recollection of
the experiment itself. (_T-455-56._)

(c) Results Achieved

On 11 May 1942, Rascher made his first report to Himmler on the high-altitude experiments—

“As practical result of the more than 200 experiments conducted
at Dachau the following can be assumed. Flying in altitudes
higher than 12 kilometers without pressure-cabin or
pressure-suit is impossible even while breathing pure oxygen. If
the airplane pressure machine is damaged at altitudes of 13
kilometers and higher the crew will not be able to bail out of
the damaged plane themselves since at that height the bends
appear rather suddenly. It must be requested that the crew
should be removed automatically from the plane, for instance, by
catapulting the seats by means of compressed air. Descending
with opened parachute without oxygen would cause severe injuries
due to the lack of oxygen besides causing severe freezing;
consciousness would not be regained until the ground was
reached. Therefore, the following is to be requested: (1) A
parachute with barometrically controlled opening. (2) A portable
oxygen apparatus for the jump. For the following experiments
Jewish professional criminals who had committed ‘Rassenschande’
(race pollution) were used; the question of the formation of
embolism was investigated in ten cases. Some of the VP’s died
during a continued high-altitude experiment; for instance, after
one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. * * * To find out
whether the severe psychical and physical effects, as mentioned
under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following
was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute
descending test had taken place, however before regaining of
consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until they died.
* * * One VP was made to breathe pure oxygen for two and
one-half hours before the experiment started. After six minutes
at a height of 20 kilometers he died and at dissection also
showed ample air embolism as was the case in all other
experiments.” (_T-384-385._)

Dr. Romberg declared in an interrogation conducted on 29 October 1946, that he and other doctors had conducted experiments on themselves reaching altitudes of 17,000 meters (17 kilometers). Beyond that, he said, death was probable. This seems to contradict the report made by Rascher, above referred to, in which he speaks of the impossibility of flight at 12 kilometers (12,000 meters).

But the whole fallacy of the experiments and their sheer futility are revealed in a letter which Dr. Hippke, Chief of the Medical Section of the Luftwaffe, wrote to Himmler under date of 8 October 1942—

“It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of
parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important
factor, viz., cold, has so far not yet been taken into
consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the
entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in
actual practice will very likely prove to be far more
unfavorable than in the present experiments.” (_T-404._)

If it was impossible perfectly to simulate flying conditions in the low-pressure chamber—and this, if they were scientists at all worthy of the name, they should have known and must have known—then the tests were only the wildest kind of experimenting. And if the experimenting was done with human lives, as it was, the recklessness and the wanton handling of these human lives, resulting from 60 to 70 times in death, can only be characterized by what it was,—murder.

(d) Freezing Experiments

On 20 May 1942, [Field] Marshal Milch wrote General Wolff recommending experiments “in regard to perils at high seas.” (_T-393._) As German aviators from time to time were being forced to parachute into the North Seas, and consequently being subject to extreme cold for extended periods of time, the purpose of the freezing experiments was to ascertain the most effective way of rewarming such aviators and thereby saving their lives. (_T-480._)

The cold water experiments were performed between August and October 1942; the dry-cold experiments from February to April 1943. Walter Neff, already identified, described the experimental basin as being made of wood, two meters long, two meters high, and 50 centimeters above the floor. He stated that 280 to 300 prisoners were used in the tests, many of them undergoing as high as three experiments, and that out of the number indicated 80 to 90 died. The selection of the subjects was left to the political department of the camp after Rascher had made requests for a certain number. The eventual victims were made up of political prisoners, foreigners, prisoners of war, and inmates condemned to death. According to Neff, none of the subjects were volunteers. (_T-423._)

The experiment was conducted in the following manner. The basin was filled with water and then ice was added until the temperature measured 3° [centigrade]. Now the subject, either naked or dressed in a flying suit, was forced into the freezing liquid. When two certain doctors, Holzloehner and Finke, were performing the experiment, the subjects had narcotics administered to them, but when Rascher took over he refused narcotics because he maintained that “you cannot find the exact condition of the blood, and that you would exclude the willpower of the subject if he was under an anaesthetic.” When the subject was experimented on in a conscious state, a much longer time elapsed before the so-called freezing narcosis set in. (_T-424._)

Neff, describing the operation, declared that the “sinking down of the temperature until 32° [centigrade] was a terrible plight for the experimental subject.” At 32° the subject lost consciousness, but these persons “were frozen down to 25° body temperature.” When Rascher was handling the experiments “a large number of the persons involved were kept in the water so long a time until they were dead.” (_T-425._)

Many others died during the reviving or during the re-warming procedure. The utterly heartless and fiendish manner in which some of the experiments were conducted can be gathered from the graphic description by Neff of the episode of the two Russians—

“It was the worst experiment which was ever carried out. From
the bunker two Russian officers were carried out. We were
forbidden to speak to them. They arrived in the afternoon at
approximately 4 o’clock. Rascher had them undressed and they had
to go into the basin in a naked state. Hour after hour passed
and when usually after a short time, 60 minutes, the freezing
would have set in, these two Russians were still conscious even
after two hours. All of our appeals to Rascher, asking him to
give them an injection was without purpose. Approximately in the
third hour one Russian said to the other: ‘Comrade, tell that
officer that he may shoot us.’ Then the other one replied,
‘Don’t expect any mercy from this Fascist dog.’ And how can one
imagine that we inmates also had to be witnesses of such a death
and could do nothing against it, then you can really estimate
how terrible it is to be condemned to work in such an
experimental station. After these words, which were translated
to the Germans by a young Pole in a somewhat different form,
Rascher went back into his office. The young Pole immediately
tried to give them an anaesthetic with chloroform, but Rascher
returned immediately. He threatened us with a pistol, and he
said, ‘Don’t dare interfere and approach these victims.’ The
experiment lasted at least five hours until death set in. Both
corpses were sent to Munich for autopsy in the Schwabisches
Hospital there. Q. Witness, how long did it normally take to
kill a person in these freezing experiments? A. The length of
the experiment varied according to the individual case. It
always varied according to whether the subject was clothed or
unclothed. If his physical construction was weak and if in
addition to that he was naked, death often set in already after
80 minutes. But there were a number of cases where the
experimental subject lived up to three hours and remained that
way in the water until finally death set in.” (_T-426._)

On 20 September 1942, Rascher made an intermediary report on these experiments—

“The experimental subjects (VP’s) were placed in the water
dressed in complete flying uniform, winter or summer
combination, and with an aviator’s helmet. A life jacket made of
rubber or kapok was to prevent submerging. The experiments were
carried out at water temperatures varying from 2.5° to 12°
[centigrade]. In one experimental series, the occiput, the brain
stem, protruded above the water, while in another series, the
brain stem and back of the head were submerged in water * * *.
Fatalities occurred only when the brain stem and back of the
head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal cases always
revealed large amounts of free blood, up to one-half liter, in
the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation
of the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these
experiments reached 28° the experimental subjects died
invariably, despite all attempts at resuscitation. The
above-discussed autopsy findings conclusively proved the
importance of a warming protective device for the occiput when
designing the planned protective clothing of foam type.”
(_T-398-399._)

The sheer monstrousness of this type of experiment reveals itself in the last sentence of the report which states with the flourish of a great scientific discovery that if the back of the head, the occiput is to be submerged in freezing water, there should be a warm, protective device to cover the occiput. If one is to have his feet in icy water, he should wear warm, waterproof boots. If he is to dip his head in the icy water, then his head should also be protected! This, then, is the weighty conclusion of so-called scientists sacrificing human lives for an observation that is obvious to a ten-year-old child.

“During attempts to save severely chilled persons (Unterkuehlte)
it was shown that rapid re-warming was in all cases preferable
to slow re-warming, because after removed from the cold water,
the body temperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for
this reason, we can dispense with the attempt to save intensely
chilled subjects by means of animal heat. Rewarming by animal
warmth, animal bodies or women’s bodies, would be too slow. As
auxiliary measures for the prevention of intense chilling,
improvements in the clothing of aviators come alone into
consideration. The foam suit with suitable neck protector which
is being prepared by the German Institution for Textile Research
(Deutsches Textilforschungsinstitut), Muenchen-Gladbach,
deserves first priority in this connection. The experiments have
shown that pharmaceutical measures are probably necessary if the
flier _is still alive_ at the time of rescue.” (_T-399-400._)

Here other amazing, fantastic discoveries were made.

1. That something should be done at once to re-warm a body that
has been floating about in icy water.

2. That aviator suits be made up with suitable neck protectors.

3. And that if the flier is still alive when rescued, medicine
should be prescribed for him. If dead, no pharmaceutical
measures are recommended!

In the year 1942, in the name of science, in the name of progress, men trained in medicine calmly and deliberately froze the blood in the arteries and veins of human beings to the point of death to proclaim warm clothing for low temperatures and re-warming and medicine for those who have succumbed to coldness.

Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who participated in some of the experiments, declared that as a result of the freezing experiments conducted at Dachau, they gave orders to flight surgeons that the warm bath method was to be used in reviving aviators who had been chilled. And thus another milestone was reached in science; namely, that warmth revived and comforted these who had been chilled. (_T-470._)

On 22 September 1942, Himmler acknowledged Rascher’s report, but Himmler who was carrion and obscenity incarnate, ordered that further subjects be frozen, and that re-warming and revival be attempted by the use of naked women. For this purpose Rascher obtained four gypsy women, and the experiments began. The subjects were, in accordance with usual procedure, forced into water in which ice cakes floated and were retained in the freezing compound until unconscious. Then each frozen victim was put to bed with two naked women, and the three were covered with blankets. In still other experiments the unconscious subject was placed in bed with only one woman. From all this revolting and macabre performance, the scientific deduction was reached that the re-warming process was better achieved by one woman than two because with one single partner “personal inhibitions are removed and the woman nestles up to the chilled victim more intimately.” This was the great scientific revelation achieved from an obscene spectacle which could have seemed more like the superstitious drum-beating rites of barbarians on some forgotten savage, jungle-infested isle, than the work of educated doctors in the year 1942. Nor was this type of experiment without its fatalities. Of one subject, the report stated, “This person died with symptoms suggesting cerebral hemorrhage as was confirmed by the subsequent autopsy.” The Nazi scientists, after this experiment, did however, achieve greatness in stating that this type of re-warming was recommended only when women were available and other types of re-warming facilities were not available, except in the “case of small children who are best re-warmed by their mothers with the aid of hot-water bottles.” (!)

In a final report to Himmler on the super-cooling experiments at Dachau, the ghastly experimenters, after having killed scores of subjects, came to the conclusion that they did not know whether rescued persons should be re-warmed quickly or slowly—

“It was not clear, for example, whether those who had been
rescued should be warmed quickly or slowly. According to the
current instructions for treating frozen people, a slow
warming-up seemed to be indicated. Certain theoretical
considerations could be adduced for a slow warming. Well-founded
suggestions were missing for a promising medicinal therapy.”

The uncertainty is blamed on the “absence of well-founded suggestions concerning the cause of death by cold in human beings.” (_T-433._)

And now, in order to clarify this question, they decided to go back to animal experiments which would suggest that after all their experimenting and killing of human beings, they are no closer to any scientific discovery than when they started. (_T-433._)

However, they still continued the experiments with human beings in another manner. This was the dry-cold process, an operation carried out during the period January-March 1943. The _modus operandi_ of this experiment was to place the subject outdoors at night in a nude state, cover him with a linen sheet, and then pour cold water over him hourly. After several operations of this character, Rascher complained that it was a mistake to cover the subjects even with a linen sheet. He must be utterly naked, otherwise “the air cannot get at the person.” And from then on the subjects suffered their torture without covering of any kind. Even if it could be assumed that the test could have the slightest modicum of value, it is not understood why the subject had to be utterly naked. As the purpose of the experiment, it is presumed, was to ascertain the reaction of a soldier’s body to a frozen state, there is no reason why the subject could not wear some clothes, if only the merest undergarment, because it is scarcely conceivable that a soldier or aviator would be without some clothing on his back. On this subject, Neff testified—

“The next experiment was a mass experiment when the prisoners
were also put outside naked at night. The temperature of one of
them was measured with a galvanometer, the others with a
thermometer. Rascher was present during approximately eighteen
to twenty experiments of that type, but I can not remember
exactly how many deaths occurred and if deaths occurred in
connection with these experiments. I would like to say with
certain reservations that approximately three deaths occurred
during that period.” (_T-429._)

On the character of the subjects Neff stated—

“Of the experimental subjects subjected to air-cooling
experiments, none were people who were sentenced to death. They
were prisoners of various nationalities. There were also German
political prisoners and ‘green’ prisoners.

“Q. And these prisoners had not volunteered, had they?

“A. No.” (_T-429._)

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
(a) Responsibility of Milch as to Count One of Indictment

Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, promulgated by the Allied Control Council, representing the nations of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, proclaims the ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor of civilian populations of occupied territories, or the ill-treatment of prisoners of war, to be war crimes, punishable by death, imprisonment, or other penalties.