A. Yes.
Q. Prior to that time you had discussed these experiments with Luts and Wendt, hadn't you?
A. No, that is not true.
Q. Lutz said you had.
Q. Yes, I had discussed it with Lutz and as I said in my direct examination I told Lutz about this conversation with Hippke and we carried on that conversation and discussed the possibilities for and against the problem. I did not speak in detail to Wendt. I don't recall at all having discussed it with Wendt.
Q. Well now Lutz testified you offered him an opportunity to collaborate with Rascher?
A. Well, I dispute that.
Q. It became apparent sometime before December 1941, or maybe in December 1941, that Rascher was to conduct experiments at the Dachau concentration came, didn't it?
A. Rascher wanted to carry out his experiments in Dachau.
That became clear when Ruff accepted my proposition.
Q. Why would you have offered Ruff a proposition if there hadn't been some discussion about it before then?
A. I do not understand that question.
Q. You invited Ruff to collaborate with Rascher. How did you happen to have knowledge, how did you happen to know Rascher wanted somebody to collaborate with him, what did you go up there for? Did you have a vision suddenly and decide he wanted to have some experiments and say to Ruff: Do you want to collaborate with Rascher I will assign you to him? Didn't you have some sort of a meeting with Rascher beforehand and have some sort of a plan? You wouldn't have invited Ruff and Romberg to assist you if you didn't have some sort of a plan. It didn't just come out of thin air, did it?
A. I thought I had described this sufficiently. Probably in November 1941 Rascher was ordered to my institute without my doing anything about it, without my knowledge even, and now he was a member of my institute and he had an assignment from Himmler to carry out these experiments, and I did not know what to do with him, that was the situation.
Q. Now we are getting to it. In November, 1941, Rascher was assigned to your institute, wasn't he?
A. I assume that, yes.
Q. He became your subordinate in the Luftwaffe, didn't he?
A. As it was called technically he was ordered to work in my institute.
Q. And he was your subordinate? When you are in the Luftwaffe or any other branch of the Wehrmacht before you can put a man from one job to another it is necessary to order him, he has to have written orders, the same in the German Army as in the U S Army or in the Navy or any other army, and so Rascher received orders wherein he was trans ferred, to the Institute Weltz, wasn't he, and he became your subordinate?
Let's not quibble about it, doctor.
A. Yes, that is his position.
Q. Then Rascher had an assignment wherein he could, if he so wished, use subjects of the concentration camp Dachau, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. He could have equally as well have accomplished his objective by using volunteers other than volunteers of inmates of Dachau concentration camp?
A. That depends on what Rascher's aim was. Rascher did not have an aim at that time. That was the difficulty. He proposed experiments to me for which Himmler wanted to use the experimental subjects , and I did not approve of Rascher's aim and that was how the unhappy situation, as far as Rascher was concerned, arose. On the one hand he had Himmler's permission and on the other he had no aim to do anything with that permission, and he proposed to me this slow ascent experiment, which I turned down.
Q. When was that, in November 1941?
A. That proposal he made to Kottenhoff when he met him for the first time.
Q. Now what proposals did he make to you after he became your subordinate in November 1941?
A. When in November 1941 he became my subordinate and when I had turned down his first proposal, he then, as I said before, he then made a proposal to me for the cold experiments to be carried out in Dachau, and that I also turned down, as I said before.
Q. Well then when did he propose that he wanted to use the low pressure chamber? He must have proposed it some time in November-when?
A The use of the low pressure chamber?
Q Yes.
A His first wishes to make high altitude experiments were based on the fact that a low pressure chamber must be used, but we never reached that point in our conversation because, from the beginning, I said "We shall not make those experiments" and Rascher had no reason to ask me what low pressure chamber to use.
Q Let me ask you a question. Did they perform some experiments in Dachau on high altitude from your knowledge, from sitting here in the dock for five months? Did they?
A Yes.
Q Well, now, who proposed them? In November, 1941, Rascher came to work for you, as your subordinate in your institute, ordered there by the Luftwaffe. It was only the Luftwaffe which could change his assignment because he was a member of the Luftwaffe. Now, when did he propose these experiments? If he didn't propose them, then Weltz proposed them and went to get Ruff and Romberg. Now, why did you ask Ruff and Romberg if somebody didn't propose these experiments? Who proposed them in November, 1941? You had rejected his other proposal earlier on the slow descent proposition. Now then, did he extend a new proposal to you in November, 1941, or by what token did you step forward and invite Ruff and Romberg down to Dachau and get those two men in all this trouble? Now, how did that happen?
A I believe I described this in detail. I say once again that in November, 1941, that Rascher came to my institute. He made the new proposal to have cold experiments. I then told Rascher that "we are not interested in cold experiments. Our animals are quite sufficient here. There's no point to it." Then I described how, by chance, when I was on a trip to Berlin, I visited Ruff and Ruff told me of the difficulties of his own program and other difficulties which he had with experimental subjects. I, in turn, told Ruff that Rascher was hanging around my institute and I did not know what to give him to do;
that Rascher had permission to make experiments in Dachau; and, thereupon, I proposed to Ruff to have his experiments carried out on the basis of Rascher's permission in Dachau. Surely I described this all in detail, and Ruff did too.
Q Now, I have listened with great interest to what you have just said. Do you want to think for about one minute and confirm to the Tribunal that that is how the experiments started at Dachau? That is just the answer I wanted. Now, think about it a minute and will you confirm to the Tribunal that that's how the experiments started in Dachau.
A The experiments came about that I said that on a trip to Berlin, I talked to Ruff, that I told Ruff that there was a possibility to have experiments carried out in Dachau and that Ruff, in turn, told me how short he was of experimental subjects. That, I think, is all I have to say in this connection.
Q That's perfect, Doctor. We won't have to discuss that any further.
Now, after you talked to Ruff, then you set a date for a meeting, didn't you, in Munich, and this date for a meeting in Munich took place when? When was that date? When did it actually take place in Munich?
A I cannot give you the date. I assume that it must have been in December. Perhaps the middle of December, 1941.
Q That was also in December that they went to Munich? You went to Berlin in December and they came to Munich in December, is that right?
A No, I'm sorry, I made a mistake here. I assume that the conversation in Munich took place in January. I slipped there.
Q All right. Now, Ruff and Romberg were invited to participate in these experiments with Rascher by you because they were experts on the subject, is that right? You wanted some experts to work on this. If you were going to use inmates of the concentration camp, you decided you would like to have experts doing it; and that's your reason for asking Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with you and Rascher, is that it; because these men were experts in the field?
A That is a distorted description and Ruff and Romberg's affidavits are on the basis of this; and in their cross examination they have corrected their affidavits. It is a distorted way of putting it to say that I had called in the experts Ruff and Romberg to my experiments. How it really happened was I offered to Ruff whether he wanted to make experiments with Rascher. Romberg, in turn, had decided on the program. The program was not my contribution. And on that basis, the collaboration occurred.
Q And, in the event that you had not offered this to Ruff and Romberg; then Ruff and Romberg would not be in this dock today; would they?
A I assume so.
Q Well, now, the hurdle I am trying to get over is that Mr. Lutz says you offered it to him. Of course; you deny that. And he refused; and gives very elaborate reasons for his refusal in that he wasn't strong enough -- that is, in his heart - to perform these experiments on human beings. And the hurdle I am trying to get over now is the statement you made on direct when you said that such a play oh words by Lutz was ridiculous; that you had never noticed Lutz to be religious or to have any misgivings about such things and you made a statement which has bothered me considerably wherein you state: "I would have reminded Lutz of things which make this answer ridiculous." Now, was Lutz mixed, up in something criminal? What was this here that would have made his answer ridiculous?
A Lutz' reply would have been ridiculous according to the views held at the time by Lutz on the overall situation. Lutz; at that time, was an ardent advocate of total war with all means and his conception roughly was - I now speak of 1941 - he realized that the war would be a hard and severe one and he was of the opinion that this war must be fought with all means at our disposal.
At that time he used the following expression quite frequently, the expression: "If we are to win this war we, in Germany, must use shooting in the neck more frequently." I think Lutz didn't mean this literally. What he meant was perhaps this. He believed that we, in Germany, were sitting between two chairs. On the one hand, the democratic methods with which you could wage war successfully we had got rid of, and, on the other hand, he thought that the total warfare methods which we saw embodied in Russia had not been introduced 100%, and that was his opinion that he expressed in the words that "In Germany, we should shoot people in the neck more." Just at that time and just before, there were small differences between Lutz and myself on the point that Lutz used his elbows quite a bit. I tell these things which are not of vast importance - I am not very keen about telling these things about my assistants - but if it helps to clarify these things I have to tell these things. If ever I had small difficulties with my subordinates-it occurred rather rarely - it was always on the point that Lutz used his elbows too ruthlessly. Later on, he had a difference with our charwoman, and when I sent him on an assignment he had arguments when he misbehaved rather awkwardly with the Gauleiter and I had to rescue him from a very heavy difference of opinion with the Gauleiter which was not without considerable risk as far as I am concerned.
Q So now, Doctor Weltz, these little incidents of Lutz' personality - what you refer to as making his refusal to participate in human being experiments in Dachau ridiculous - is that what you base it on? That slim evidence of his character? You base it on that?
A A man who tells me that "more people should be shot in the neck in Germany" cannot tell me in the same breath "I am too softhearted. I am not robust enough." I must say I would have declared that ridiculous. I don't know that that is only my opinion.
Q Well now, in this meeting in January, 1942, wherein Ruff and Romberg attended, who else was present at the conference?
A Present were, at that conference, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and myself.
Q Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and yourself, yes?
A Yes.
Q And Lutz was not there?
A I described this. Rascher was late. Ruff and Romberg were present. Before the conference opened we talked in my room on different matters and when Rascher arrived - he had a car accident and made apologies and when Rascher finally turned up I told these gentlemen "Thank you very much. I wish to begin now" and began the conference, and the gentlemen left my room.
Q I see. Then Lutz' testimony that you told him you were going to have a conference and that you didn't want him in the room is true, isn't it?
A Yes, it is.
Q This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Defense counsel for defendant Brack): May it please the Court, may I ask the Court's indulgence for two minutes? In the courts of the trial the following witnesses have been proposed: Wolff, Dietrich, Seivert - I am defense counsel for Brack - Wolff, Dietrich, Seivert, Hederich and Pfannmueller. I have decided not to use Seivert and Hederich. Wolff was turned down as a witness. Now, there is a difference between myself and the Secretary General about the two remaining witnesses: Dietrich and Pfannmueller. They should be called into the witness stand as witnesses. I would be grateful for a ruling of the Court to allow me those two witnesses on the stand.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I may be able to help you here. I don't know the status of Pfannmueller right now. The Doctor does. But I turned Pfannmueller over to the German courts for trial some two months ago and I don't know whether he has departed from Nurnberg yet.
They are proceeding very rapidly. He may be here now I don't know that - but I assume that he is in Frankfurt awaiting trial. I don't know whether he will be available for this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if counsel for the defendant Brack and the prosecution will come to my office immediately upon this recess, we'll discuss the matter with them there.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 0930 HOURS, 8 MAY 1947).
Official Transcript of the of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on May 8 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in the court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record tho presence of all tho defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. GEORGE WELTZ - Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:Dr. Weltz -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just one moment.
The Tribunal desires to meet three members of the German counsel, to be chosen by the German counsel, at a quarter before four this afternoon in the Judges' anteroom to discuss tho matter of the time to be allowed counsel for argument at the close of the case. If counsel for the defendants will choose a committee of three to meet with the Judges this afternoon at a quarter before four, the matter will be discussed.
Counsel may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Weltz, at the close of yesterday's session we had taken up the meeting in Munich in January 1942, and you stated that Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and yourself were present at that meeting.
Now, between the meeting in Munich and your meeting with Ruff in Berlin, did you then inform Rascher that you had successfully received the support of Ruff and Romberg, so that Rascher then could carry out work in high-altitude research at Dachau?
A Certainly, otherwise Rascher would not have come to this meeting. I had to invite Rascher to this meeting, and one of the purposes of this meeting was to acquaint Ruff and Romberg with Rascher.
Q Now, after the meeting had assembled I presume that you had one or two stops to consider. First of all, did the four of you discuss the necessity for the experiments, bearing in mind, of course, that all four of you were familiar with this field of research, Ruff, Romberg and yourself being more particularly experts in the field.
A We acquainted Rascher with the program; Rascher in his turn told us what the conditions were. He showed us the Himmler letter that has been mentioned here; and the program was already laid down. There was no further discussion of the program. The program was already clear at Adlershof.
Q This letter that you have referred to, that Dr. Romberg referred to, did you have the opportunity to read that letter of Himmler's?
A Yes, Rascher showed it to us in this meeting.
Q Can you substantially tell this Tribunal just what that letter contained?
A The letter contained the statement that Himmler gave his permission for experiments in Dachau, that these experiments were to be undertaken on habitual criminals, that these habitual criminals were to be volunteers, and that they were to receive a suitable mitigation of punishment.
All these facts were certainly set forth in the letter.
Q Well, now, doesn't it seem strange to you, Dr. Weltz thinking logically for the moment, that Himmler in his letter authorizing Rascher to conduct experiments at Dachau, would have interposed the remark in his letter that the subjects to be used must be volunteers, in view of the letter of 15 May 1941, wherein Rascher wrote to Himmler and told Himmler that volunteers could not be had and that it was necessary that criminals be set aside for use in those experiments?
A Of course, I don't know what Himmler and Rascher discussed, but if I can speculate on this subject, I should think that it obviously became clear to Rascher that the question of the volunteers played a great role when he talked to Kottenhoff. Kottenhoff expressed to Rascher scruples to the effect that criminals were not the persons for the experiments that Rascher and Kottenhoff were planning, because they could not be volunteers in effect. In the experiments planned by Rascher and Kottenhoff extensive cooperation of the experimental subjects was counted on, because we had found out in our experiments with rabbits that the respiration had to be carefully regulated if altitude adaptation was to be achieved. And Kottenhoff had misgivings about whether persons who were forced to submit to the experiments would so regulate their respiration voluntarily. That is I presume, why this question of whether the subjects were volunteers played such a great role with Rascher all of a sudden, because Rascher realized from his discussion with Kottenhoff that the question of the subjects' being volunteers was very important.
Otherwise, of course, I do not know how these letters cane about nor just what happened between Rascher and Himmler.
Q Now, how elaborately did Himmler express the view that the subjects to be used in these experiments must be volunteers, that is, in that letter which Rascher produced at the January 1942 meeting at your institute?
A It was simply mentioned that the subjects should be volunteers. There was nothing in the letter about the way the selection was to be made.
Q Now, doesn't it seem inconsistent to you, or doesn't the document 1971 b PS which is on page 64 of the English Document Book, which is the letter from Himmler to Rascher which he received after Himmler had previously received Rascher's interim report, that he sent this letter to Rascher wherein he stated, one, this experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned, to death, and so on? Isn't the element of the voluntary nature of the subjects conspicuously absent from this letter?
A I don't have this letter before me.
Q Do you have Document Book No. 2 there?
A No.
Q Produce German Document Book No. 2 please. (Whereupon book delivered to the witness). Now this letter says: "1. This experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned to death. 2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to be taken into consultation on these experiments. 3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart, the experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine whether those men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life. Heinrich Himmler." Now we don't see the word "voluntary" mentioned in this letter, do we, Doctor?
Q I believe that this letter obviously refers to Rascher's experiments, and not to ours. We did not carry out any experiments on which we had to see how long the heart continues to beat after altitude sickness; Rascher in his relations with Ruff, Romberg, and me.
Q Now, Doctor, I can well see that you are now going to draw this line of demarcation between Rascher's experiments, and the Ruff-Romberg experiments, and there is no point in our arguing further on this letter, but I do wish to call your attention to this letter where Himmler now, you stated, wrote to Rascher before this time, and stated that the subjects were to be pardoned. Now, in this letter he states that they are to be pardoned if they are killed, and then called back to life -then you will grant them a pardon to be put in a concentration camp for life. Now that's the only instance wherein we see the "pardon" clause coming forth, isn't it?
A I don't know whether what Rascher told us always was the same as what he discussed with Himmler. I can only say what Rascher told us, and I can only refer to this one statement of Himmler's that I saw, and there is no doubt that the question of the voluntary subject played a role in the discussion between Kottenhoff and Rascher, and that our entire discussion with Ruff and Romberg also involved the voluntary element in a very important role.
Now I do not know whether Rascher got a separate letter from Himmler stating this, or how it was.
Q Now one brief question along those lines. Isn't it true, or won't you concede, that, after reading this letter which is in Document Book No. 2, and you say that you saw another letter from Himmler, which unfortunately we do not have here in evidence, doesn't it seem to you that the attitude of Heinrich Himmler changed considerably, keeping both letters in mind?
A What I heard about Himmler's attitude here, if I evaluate that now, then I must say that Himmler's attitude did change radically.
Q You don't have to go into a long discussion, Doctor, on Himmler's attitude. I am talking about the two letters. You saw one letter wherein you state that Himmler elicited that the experiments must be performed upon criminals, for one, and, two, they must be volunteers, and, number three, they will be given a pardon. Now you say you saw another letter of Himmler's wherein he said that the experiments can continue on persons condemned to death, and secondly, that if anyone dies or becomes unconscious in the course of the experiment, and they are called back to life, then they may be pardoned to a concentration camp for life. Now do those two letters one of which you saw, which this Tribunal and I unfortunately have not seen, and, the letter which we have before us, do they exhibit the attitude of one man on the same subject consistently?
A Whether or not they were to be volunteers is, as far as I can see in this Himmler letter, Document 1971-B-PS, not mentioned. It does not say that they should be volunteers, nor does it say that they should not be volunteers.
Q That is right.
A In other words, this letter which I know only from the records -does not appear to me to exclude the possibility that at another time Himmler wrote a letter in which the condition was laid down that the subjects should be volunteers, particularly since Rascher had to know that the question of their being volunteers was a very important point to us.
Q Now, Doctor, at this same meeting in January 1942, the question of the use of the low-pressure chamber arose, and, I assume, it was agreed that Ruff and Romberg would bring their low-pressure chamber down to use at Dachau. Now, did they agree to move this chamber to Dachau directly, and what was the reason for stopping off over night at the Institute Weltz? This seems to me of considerable interest here.
A Ruff testified on this at great length. During the discussion in my Institute in Munich, the individual conditions weren't laid down under which the chamber could be used. If I understood Ruff correctly, the camp commandant made these demands directly of Ruff, and I knew nothing. When the chamber came I was told that the papers and the key to the chamber were to be left with me. Ruff has already explained that. The Berlin drivers arrived in the late afternoon: the chamber was not left at my Institute, however, but was left near the station, and on the next day the SS drivers came to me and fetched the papers and the key, and drove the chamber on.
Q These experiments, now Doctor, were to be performed on habitual criminals; the criminals were to volunteer, and they were to receive a pardon after they had undergone the experiments. What was the reason for the secrecy in the planning of these experiments, if everything concerning them was honorable?
A Ruff has testified regarding this point; the secrecy was determined from two points of view. The Luftwaffe required a secrecy of a limited sort because of the nature of the assignment was such as to indicate that a high altitude machine was under development in Germany; all these developments on research assignment were to be kept secret until they were finished, and, when they had been concluded, either they became secret once for all, they were made partially open to the public or entirely open. The decision as to this was, sensibly enough, always reached only after it was ascertained what the experiments had produced in the way of results. Now, while developments were underway, they were all secret. In contra-distinction, to my basic reasearch on animals, which were always open experiments.
That was the reason for secrecy demanded by the Luftwaffe. Now, the SS also demanded secrecy, because of the concentration camp. This was a general demand of the SS. It was not because we were now performing experiments, but these were permanent secrecy requirements pertaining to the concentration camp. There were two sorts of secrecy, and two rules on secrecy.
Q Well, now, Doctor, you state that in the Himmler letter he merely stated that the subjects to be used must be volunteers, that he gave no particulars, nor did he not set forth any regulations for the selection thereof. Hence, it follows that Ruff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz, at the meeting in Munich at your Institute, January 1942, must have set forth a prescribed course to follow in the selection of volunteers. Now will you please tell the Tribunal just what steps you outlined for the selection of your volunteers?
A These points were not decided on at the discussion at my Institute, but at a discussion one or two days later with the camp commander at Dachau, when we drove out to Dachau.
Q You mean to tell me that at a scientific discussion in your Institute, when it was secret, wherein you had to ask Mr. Lutz and Mr. Wendt to leave the room, and that the paramount thought in your mind was that the subjects to be used were volunteers, that you didn't at that time discuss how they were to be selected before you met the concentration camp commandant? The basic problem here was the selection of the inmates to be used, if it wasn't the basic problem, you didn't have to go the concentration camp; do you mean to tell me that you four gentlemen with college educations, members of the medical profession, didn't discuss such an important problem at your meeting in Munich?
A. I do not see why you think this is a problem. We could find out the whole technical side of it and the setup only be seeing the camp commander, and that is the reason we went one or two days later to Dachau. It was only there that the technical details wore discussed. We knew at the meeting in Munich that they were to be volunteers, but without exact knowledge of the living conditions, regulations, etc., in the camp we could not decide whether they should be chosen at roll-call or in some other way. All these things we had to leave to the camp commander, and had to wait till he made suggestions.
Q. Just a moment, Doctor. You have stated now that you couldn't tell whether you would have to got them from the roll-call or whet you must do. Then you must have talked about it at the Munich meeting. You couldn't have ascertained these things unless you chatted about it or agreed on something at the Munich meeting. Now, what did you agree upon? You must have said, "We can't decide on this volunteer business until we get to see the concentration camp commandant. But above all, the man must be healthy; the man must volunteer; he must be warned of the hazards of the experiments; we must thoroughly discuss these experiments with each inmate to be used so that we will be sure that he will cooperate in the manner that Kottenhoff has elaborately outlined; didn't you agree on those things, or were you negligent in your preparations?
A. That was no problem for us. From the very first the offer made to us had been for volunteers, and we had no reason to doubt this question or to discuss it. We merely had to see to it that the conditions promised us were fulfilled regarding the voluntary consent, there was no great discussion, because that was simply the prerequisite that was taken as a matter of course, and it was not discussed.
Q. I can understand that it was no problem for you at that time. But it is the big problem today. That is way you are here, because you didn't consider it a problem then. Be that as it may, then you went to Dachau. You arrived at Dachau, and then you discussed the nature of the volunteers. Now tell the Tribunal just what regulations you set up for the selection of these volunteers. Now carefully did you outline to the concentration camp commandant what type of subject you wanted?
A. Schnitzler, the adjutant of the Reichsleitung, informed the camp commander in our presence that his orders from Himmler were, one, that Himmler had given his permission for these experiments; two, that all of us were to participate in them; three, that they were to be volunteers and that they were to be habitual criminals. Then, between Schnitzler, Rascher, and the camp commander, there was a brief discussion, in which they decided that they would take the prisoners from block such- and - such. These numbers did not mean very much to us, and then we found out that the camp commander-
Q. Well, now, just a moment. The decided they would take the subjects from one block or another block; they specified what blocks that they were going to ask for volunteers? Is that it?
A. Yes.
Q. Continue. Go ahead.
A. The camp commander said, "Well, if these are the conditions, then it will be best to take the prisoners from such and such a block."
Q. Now, what were these conditions again?
A. Ruff has already said that. We said that these conditions were to correspond to the average requirements of the Luftwaffe.
Q. Well, now, did you then, while all of you were there, the gentlemen who had arranged the plans for these experiments, have the selection of the volunteers take place so that you would be able to ascertain whether or not you could use them?
A. No. That was decided on later.
Q. You mean any man who volunteered would be of use to you if he was healthy?
A. He had to meet certain requirements, and we knew Himmler's order which Schnitzler communicated to the camp commander in our presence. We know what sort of a group of people they were to be. They were to be habitual criminals, and so forth. We knew all that. There was no room for any doubt or any uncertainty in this matter.
Q. You have conclusively stated that a subject to be used in the course of these experiments must be a man who is willing fully to cooperate. He must be a person as outlined by Kottenhoff on Page 11 of your document book, wherein Kottenhoff states:
"Rascher came to me after the lecture and spontaneously made the proposition to conduct the above under No. 10 further described high-altitude adaptability tests, which since 1937 I had planned to conduct on Luftwaffe physicians and pilots, on professional criminals. I explained to him that the experiments in question could only succeed if the test persons, overcoming the respiratory inhibitions at this altitude, could considerably increase their respiratory activity intentionally (by exerting their will power); furthermore, that they had to carry out this forced respiration in a certain rhythm, mainly using abdominal muscular pressure (stomach respiration) and in a horizontal position.