To make sure that Himmler would under all circumstances be informed about Rascher’s conference with Medical Inspector Hippke, he continues:

The statement that Witness Dr. Punzengruber made about Rascher is very characteristic:

Rascher’s servility toward Himmler is already revealed by the bombastic phrases with which he closes his letters to Himmler. To give a few examples only:

The picture of Rascher is completed by the testimony that personally he went to the highest authorities only. (German Tr. p. 7966.)

Sievers is also brought into connection with Dr. Rascher’s attempt to establish himself as a university lecturer.

In his “educational history” [“Ausbildungsverlauf”] Rascher mentions that the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) ordered him to establish himself as a university lecturer with one of his two papers: “Attempts at Rescue from High Altitude” [“Versuche zur Rettung aus grossen Hoehen”] and “Attempts at the Saving of Frozen Humans” [“Versuche zur Rettung ausgekuehlter Menschen”]. (NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115.)

By a letter, dated 12 August 1943, from Dr. Rudolf Brandt of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS, Sievers is entrusted with this affair. This letter is not at our disposal. On 27 September 1943, that is after more than 6 weeks, Sievers answers that he introduced Rascher to Professor Dr. Blome and SS Brigadefuehrer Mentzel. The former had talked to Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg. On 21 March 1944, that is almost 6 months after the letter just mentioned, Sievers reports to Dr. Brandt on the further development of the case of Dr. Rascher’s establishment as a university lecturer. The attempt in Marburg had failed and consequently they would have to try to establish Rascher as a lecturer at Strasbourg University. (NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121.)

Rascher’s arrest freed Sievers from the necessity of taking any further action. The fact that Sievers was involved, as far as the establishment as a university lecturer is concerned, not only in Rascher’s case, is revealed, for example, by Sievers’ 1943 diary, entry of 9 February 1943 concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schuetrumpf (NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122); furthermore, entry of 22 February 1943 concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Rudolph; furthermore, Sievers’ 1944 diary, entry of 22 February 1944, concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schmidt-Rohr. (3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123.)

If, in case of Rascher’s establishment as a lecturer, Sievers was acting only as in other similar cases of members of Ahnenerbe, then this was one of his tasks as Reich manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe and he cannot be charged with special activity on Rascher’s behalf.

There is no indication that Sievers had known, before the experiments started, that they could become immoderate or inhuman. Neither as far as planning nor as far as the direction was concerned nor in any other way had Sievers anything to do with the carrying out of the experiments.

Furthermore the question must be answered whether Sievers did not gain knowledge through Rascher’s reports, which he received while the experiments were carried out, of the criminal character of Rascher’s experiments.

The prosecution submitted the following reports of Dr. Rascher: Final report, dated 10 October 1942, of Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, Dr. Rascher (NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91.) Interim report, dated 15 August 1942, of Dr. Rascher. (1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 84.) Report, dated 17 February 1943, of Dr. Rascher. (1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105.) These reports were sent by Rascher directly to Himmler as can be ascertained from the documents themselves or from the accompanying letters. None of the documents indicates that a copy of the reports went to the Ahnenerbe or that they came to Sievers’ knowledge in some other way. Sievers denies that he obtained knowledge of these reports.

Sievers did not take part in the conference of 26-27 October 1942, as can be clearly seen from the list of those present. (NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93.) Sievers, also, never received a written report on the conference. Also the secretary of many years’ standing of the Ahnenerbe, the witness, Dr. Gisela Schmitz, has stated that she never saw reports about experiments of Rascher. Since all the incoming mail was delivered first to her she would necessarily have seen any such reports. (Sievers 45, Sievers Ex. 46.) Even if Sievers—as he did not—should have obtained knowledge of one or another of the reports, he cannot be expected to have formed an independent opinion on the permissibility of human experiments from the point of view of medical professional ethics.

Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to interfere with the sub-chilling experiments, or to prevent them or bring them to a stop. It must be pointed out again and again that Sievers was competent only for administrative affairs.

Everything that Sievers could do for the prevention of the experiments was done. In the cases of the experiments at Dachau, Sievers’ influence was nil. On the other hand he was able to prevent some experimental activity on Rascher’s part by procrastinating the dry-cold experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche] which should have been carried out in the mountains.

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WELTZ

Document 343-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, is the only document submitted in this connection [freezing experiments] and mentioning the name of Professor Weltz. It is a letter by Field Marshal Milch, dated 20 May 1942, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of the Personal Staff, Reich Leader SS. In this letter Field Marshal Milch says that the high-altitude experiments were completed and that there was no real reason for their continuation. The letter continues: “The carrying out of experiments concerning the problem of distress at sea, on the other hand, is important; they were prepared in direct agreement with the authorities. Oberstabsarzt Weltz is instructed to carry them through and Stabsarzt Rascher is also made available for them until further notice.”

Obviously, the prosecution intends to take this letter as basis for the assertion that Professor Weltz participated in the planning and the carrying out of the experiments. At the session of 8 May 1947, (Tr. p. 7237) the prosecutor referred to this letter and drew the conclusion therefrom that Field Marshal Milch, pursuant to the information he had obtained from Professor Hippke on 20 May, thought that Rascher still belonged to the office of Weltz in Munich and that Professor Weltz was entrusted with the carrying out of the freezing experiments for this reason. If and to what extent Field Marshal Milch was informed about the actual events may be left undecided. It is merely established that Professor Hippke already knew at that time that Stabsarzt Rascher no longer belonged to the office of Weltz. This appears with certainty from NO-296, Prosecution Exhibit 58, which is the letter of the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe of 27 April 1942 to the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS, from the reply to Wolff’s application to Hippke of 16 April 1942, in which Wolff asks for the extension of Stabsarzt Rascher’s assignment to the DVL (German Research Institute for Aviation), Dachau Branch. There is, therefore, no doubt that on 20 May 1942, Hippke knew that at that time Rascher no longer belonged to Weltz’ office. How it happened that the name of Professor Weltz was mentioned in this document was established by Professor Hippke’s testimony as witness in the trial against Erhard Milch. (Weltz 3, Weltz Ex. 7.) Professor Hippke testified in this connection that in a discussion at the beginning of June 1942 he was informed by Rascher that the latter had received orders from the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) to carry out freezing experiments. A report on this conference is contained in NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82. Supplementing this report, Rascher’s report on his conference with Professor Hippke, Hippke himself testified that he was thinking of Professor Weltz because he knew that Professor Weltz—in his institute in Munich—had been working on problems of freezing with animal experiments. Later, he had abandoned this plan to ask Professor Weltz to cooperate in the carrying out of these experiments because he had become convinced that the theoretical work was not the point but the practical experience on freezing problems and that not Professor Weltz but Professor Holzloehner had the greater practical experience.

However, it has been established that Professor Weltz never received such an order and also that he was not otherwise concerned in any way with the carrying out of the freezing experiments. This is proved by the testimony of the defendant Weltz in his own case, (Tr. 7108-09), and by the affidavit of Professor Weltz’ co-worker Dr. Wendt. (Weltz 23, Weltz Ex. 21.)

For the rest, Weltz’ name does not appear in any connection in any of the numerous documents relating to the problem of freezing experiments submitted by the prosecution. On the contrary, these documents show clearly who from the Luftwaffe was actually ordered to carry out these experiments and who carried them out in Dachau.

The fact that Professor Weltz was not even requested to participate in the planning of the freezing experiments, appears clearly from Document NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82, already discussed, and above all without objection.

That Professor Weltz refused to participate in the experiments after he learned about them was firmly established on the other hand by the evidence submitted by the defense which in turn is supported by the documents submitted by the prosecution. Document 1610-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 73, submitted by the prosecution appears to have special weight as evidence in this connection. It is Rascher’s letter to Himmler of 9 October 1942. In this letter Rascher asks Himmler to see to it that the apparatus necessary for chemical analysis be put at his disposal by laboratories not working to full capacity. He points to the fact that the Weltz Institute does not make apparatus available to him, as it was allegedly used there for freezing experiments with shaved cats, and the institute needed these apparatus for its own use. Moreover, the affidavit of the witness Dr. v. Werz (Weltz 4, Weltz Ex. 11) according to which Professor Weltz refused to furnish apparatus for freezing experiments at Dachau, further proves this disapproval on the part of Professor Weltz of the freezing experiments carried out at Dachau. Moreover, it appears also from NO-3674, Prosecution Exhibit 549. Here, an attempt is made to procure the apparatus (colorimeter) which was not delivered by Weltz from somewhere else. From 1609-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 92, it becomes apparent to what danger Professor Weltz exposed himself by his attitude against Rascher. It is a letter of the Reich Leader SS of 24 October 1942 to Rascher. In it Himmler acknowledges the receipt of Rascher’s letter, dated 9 October 1942, (1610-PS, Pros. Ex. 73) mentioned above in which Rascher complains about Professor Weltz’ attitude. In reply to this complaint Himmler writes:

From Sievers’ testimony in direct interrogation it appears, unequivocally, that this referred to Professor Weltz. In this regard Sievers declared the following: “I can only say this in respect to Weltz himself, for Herr Rascher, as I already stated in reply to your question, mentioned in this connection Weltz as a participant.”

The defendant Sievers also declared that in view of Rascher’s character, as known to him, it could be expected that Rascher would make use of the powers given him with respect to “those guilty of treason and high treason,” among others also against Professor Weltz.

In the course of the cross-examination of Weltz the prosecution intimated in a veiled manner that Professor Weltz might have moved objects and files or might have put apparatus at the disposal of the Dachau experiments.

Since the prosecution could not submit evidence of any weight in this respect it is unnecessary to go into this. In the cross-examination itself it became apparent that all the files and apparatus were in existence at the end of the war and that Weltz himself had made suggestions to hand over his institute in an orderly manner to the Americans. (Tr. pp. 7241-7242.)

d. Evidence