![A. I do not know of Romberg having made any protests against
it.
Q. He did not make any protest in your presence?
A. Only at the time when we were concerned with the incident
which I spoke of earlier. I do not know anything about anything else.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF
BRANDT[26]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Kauffmann: Now I should like to speak to you about Document
Book No. 2, concerning the high-altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher.
You said this morning that you knew Rascher?
Defendant Rudolf Brandt: Yes.
Q. Did you see him frequently?
A. Very few times in the course of 4 to 5 years.
Q. Did he come to your office and speak with you?
A. Twice when I was about to leave Munich by train, he and his
wife brought a letter for Himmler to the station and gave it to me.
Q. And what did he want when he came to Himmler’s front office
and saw you?
A. Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said, this could not
have happened more than 4 or 5 times.
Q. Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher?
A. No. I was never present at those conferences.
Q. Did Rascher ever tell you personally, either before or after a
conference with Himmler, why he had come?
A. No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits because I
had no time for that.
Q. But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was
carrying out experiments on human beings in Dachau?
A. Yes, that I knew.
Q. Did you ever visit Dachau yourself?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1575-250312010605-a342f651/85/Measurement-and-Control-Basics-Resources-for-Measurement-and-Control-Series-3rd-Edition-Thomas-A-Hughes-30-320.jpg)
![rest of his orders.
Q. Now, I want to discuss NO-402, Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is
a letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter
accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots
from high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at
it?
A. I certainly did not work on it, and I did not even give it a
cursory glance, first of all because it is a medical report, and
secondly, because it is much too long.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROMBERG[27]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Vorwerk: Now, we’ll go back to the point of Rascher’s position
in the experiment.
Defendant Romberg: I said that without Rascher there would never
have been any intention of carrying out the experiments and it
would never have been possible. This can be seen from Himmler’s
original assignment. Practical proof of this is the fact that the
experiments were stopped immediately when there were difficulties
with Rascher’s assignment. This is proved by the letter from Frau
Rascher to the Reich Leader SS, dated 24 February 1942. (NO-263,
Pros. Ex. 47.) In this letter Frau Rascher writes that there were
difficulties of command and that the experiments were stopped; that
Rascher had gone back to Schongau. That was the time when I
went back to Berlin. Later on when the experiments were actually
carried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform
experiments in Dachau without his permission or his presence, so
that I never did perform any experiments without Rascher. I always
waited until he was there. On the days when he was in Schongau no
experiments were performed. Generally, I did not even go to the](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1575-250312010605-a342f651/85/Measurement-and-Control-Basics-Resources-for-Measurement-and-Control-Series-3rd-Edition-Thomas-A-Hughes-33-320.jpg)
![[18]
Jews who had had sexual intercourse with German women with
their consent.
[19]
Very similar arguments were advanced by counsel for defendant
Romberg.
[20]
The witness Neff was called to testify as a Tribunal witness and
not as a prosecution witness.
[21]
See Vol. II, judgment is case of United States vs. Erhard Milch.
[22]
Last sentence is crossed out and replaced by one in German
shorthand.
[23]
Translator’s Note: “Terminal” as used here means “resulting in
death”.
[24]
These studies were carried out in conjunction with the research
and educational society “Ahnenerbe.”
[25]
Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript,
December 17-18, 1947, pp. 595-695.
[26]
Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript,
March 24, 25, and 26, 1947, pp. 4869-4994.
[27]
Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, May
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1947, pp. 6764-7032.
2. FREEZING EXPERIMENTS
a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf
Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were
charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct
involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment). On this
charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers
were convicted. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky,
Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the freezing
experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Sievers. An
extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 199 to 206. A
corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants
Sievers and Weltz. It appears below on pages 207 to 217. This](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1575-250312010605-a342f651/85/Measurement-and-Control-Basics-Resources-for-Measurement-and-Control-Series-3rd-Edition-Thomas-A-Hughes-50-320.jpg)
![argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 219 to
278.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS
Freezing Experiments
Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed, the
freezing experiments were ordered to be performed by the defendant Weltz
and his subordinate Rascher. This can be seen from a letter of 20 May 1942
from Milch to Karl Wolff. (343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62.) A short time later,
Rascher had a conference with Hippke and the experimental team was
changed to include Jarisch, Holzloehner, and Singer. Rascher reported these
orders to Himmler on 15 June 1942, and passed on Hippke’s request to
have the experiments conducted in Dachau. He stated: “It was also
decided that the inspector [Hippke] would issue orders to me at all times
during the experiments.” (NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82.) The research assignment
was issued by the Department for Aviation Medicine (2 II B) under
Anthony, with the defendant Becker-Freyseng as his deputy. (NO-286, Pros.
Ex. 88.)
The cold-water freezing experiments began on 15 August 1942 and
continued until the early part of 1943. They were performed by
Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the Medical
Service of the Luftwaffe. Holzloehner and Finke collaborated with Rascher
until December 1942. As Rascher said in a paper on his medical training:
“By order of the Reich Leader SS and Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr.
Hippke, I conducted ‘Experiments for the Rescue of Frozen Persons’
(started on 15 August 1942), in cooperation—for 4 months—with the
Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Dr. Finke both of Kiel University.” (NO-230,
Pros. Ex. 115.) Rascher also said that: “Since May 1939 till today I have
been in military service with the Air Force.” The memorandum was dated
17 May 1943. It should therefore be borne in mind that during all of the
high-altitude and substantially all of the freezing experiments, Rascher was
on active duty with the Luftwaffe, not the SS. It was not until after May
1943 that he went on active duty with the Waffen SS. He was of course
supported by both the Luftwaffe and the SS in these experiments.
The witness Neff, who was an inmate assistant in the experiments,
testified that freezing experiments in the concentration camp Dachau](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1575-250312010605-a342f651/85/Measurement-and-Control-Basics-Resources-for-Measurement-and-Control-Series-3rd-Edition-Thomas-A-Hughes-51-320.jpg)
![thing I certainly can form an opinion—that is, on who is doing the
quickest job.
“If things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer
Grawitz desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not
continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.” (NO-
320, Pros. Ex. 103.)
On 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the
experiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of
severely chilled persons. (1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105.) In his accompanying
letter to Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold
experiments in Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been
experimented upon and had been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14
hours, thereby reducing their body temperature to 27°-29° C. The
extremities of the experimental subjects were frozen white. Rascher
suggested a large series of experiments in the Auschwitz concentration
camp. This place would be suitable for such experimentation because it
was colder there, and the spacious open country within the camp “would
make the experiments less conspicuous, as the experimental subjects yell
when they freeze severely.” [Emphasis supplied.] (1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105.)
Himmler gave Rascher permission to carry out additional freezing
experiments in the concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (1615-PS,
Pros. Ex. 109.)
Rascher’s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943,
reveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried
out on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy
frost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold
of -6° C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal
temperature of 25° C. (NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111.) The three fatalities which,
according to Neff’s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing experiments,
apparently occurred during this series of experiments. (Tr. pp. 637-8.)
On 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report
concerning “freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open
air.” (NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112.) The report itself is not available, but the letter
of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that the
defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (NO-241, Pros. Ex.
113.) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt took
place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant Fischer.
Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and other](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1575-250312010605-a342f651/85/Measurement-and-Control-Basics-Resources-for-Measurement-and-Control-Series-3rd-Edition-Thomas-A-Hughes-58-320.jpg)
![subjected to them were taken into consideration. After all that has become
known about Rascher by now, the assumption is justified that, during the
experiments carried out by Rascher alone, considerations of the effect on
life and health of the persons used were not of primary importance. The
only exceptions were probably the experiments Rascher carried out in the
presence of third persons who were not involved.
On the occasion of administrative conferences he had to attend in
Dachau, Sievers met Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher who
had just finished a freezing experiment. The person experimented on was
placed under an arc of light [Lichtbogen]. That is all Sievers saw of this
experiment. (German Tr. p. 5684.)
Then Sievers watched a second freezing experiment. Himmler had
instructed Professor Hirt of Strasbourg to have a look at Rascher’s work on
freezing, since he (Himmler) obviously had come to the conclusion that
Rascher alone was not sufficient for the clarification of these scientifically
extensive and difficult questions. For this experiment a professional criminal
was introduced whom a regular court had sentenced to death for robbery
and murder. Sievers and Dr. Hirt made sure about this by examining the
files of the criminal police department of the Dachau concentration camp.
Dr. Hirt then asked the person to be experimented on whether he realized
that the experiment might prove fatal to him. The person to be
experimented on answered in the affirmative.
By personally questioning the person to be experimented on, Sievers
then made sure that he agreed to the experiment. The person in question
answered in the affirmative and added: “If it does not hurt.” This assurance
could be given since the experiment was carried out under full narcosis.
Sievers did not take part in the entire experiment, but he saw that it was
carried out under full narcosis. (German Tr. pp. 5685-86.)
The witness Dr. Punzengruber, at that time an inmate of the Dachau
concentration camp and from 1942-1943 assigned to Dr. Rascher’s station
as a chemist, confirms that the person used had been condemned to
death.
The same witness confirms that Sievers was not present during other
freezing experiments. Dr. Punzengruber could establish this because his
laboratory was located next to the room where Dr. Rascher carried out his
experiments. (Affidavit of Dr. Punzengruber, 14 March 1947.)
A further presence of Sievers at freezing experiments has not occurred
and has not been claimed from any side.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1575-250312010605-a342f651/85/Measurement-and-Control-Basics-Resources-for-Measurement-and-Control-Series-3rd-Edition-Thomas-A-Hughes-60-320.jpg)
Measurement and Control Basics Resources for Measurement and Control Series 3rd Edition Thomas A. Hughes
- 1. Visit https://ebookultra.com to download the full version and explore more ebooks or textbooks Measurement and Control Basics Resources for Measurement and Control Series 3rd Edition Thomas A. Hughes _____ Click the link below to download _____ https://ebookultra.com/download/measurement-and-control- basics-resources-for-measurement-and-control-series-3rd- edition-thomas-a-hughes/ Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Measurement Analysis and Control Using JMP Jack E. Reece https://ebookultra.com/download/measurement-analysis-and-control- using-jmp-jack-e-reece/ Measurement and Control in Food Processing 1st Edition Manabendra Bhuyan https://ebookultra.com/download/measurement-and-control-in-food- processing-1st-edition-manabendra-bhuyan/ Take Control of iPhone Basics iOS https://ebookultra.com/download/take-control-of-iphone-basics-ios/ Digital and Analogue Instrumentation Testing and measurement Testing and measurement 1st Edition Nihal Kularatna https://ebookultra.com/download/digital-and-analogue-instrumentation- testing-and-measurement-testing-and-measurement-1st-edition-nihal- kularatna/
- 3. Aerosol Measurement Principles Techniques and Applications 3rd Edition Pramod Kulkarni https://ebookultra.com/download/aerosol-measurement-principles- techniques-and-applications-3rd-edition-pramod-kulkarni/ Industrial Flow Measurement 3rd Edition David W. Spitzer https://ebookultra.com/download/industrial-flow-measurement-3rd- edition-david-w-spitzer/ The Handbook of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Measurement 3rd edition Hill https://ebookultra.com/download/the-handbook-of-customer-satisfaction- and-loyalty-measurement-3rd-edition-hill/ Construction Project Scheduling and Control 3rd Edition Saleh A. Mubarak https://ebookultra.com/download/construction-project-scheduling-and- control-3rd-edition-saleh-a-mubarak/ Measurement Instrumentation and Sensors Handbook Second Edition Spatial Mechanical Thermal and Radiation Measurement John G. Webster https://ebookultra.com/download/measurement-instrumentation-and- sensors-handbook-second-edition-spatial-mechanical-thermal-and- radiation-measurement-john-g-webster/
- 5. Measurement and Control Basics Resources for Measurement and Control Series 3rd Edition Thomas A. Hughes Digital Instant Download Author(s): Thomas A. Hughes ISBN(s): 9781556177644, 155617764X Edition: 3rd File Details: PDF, 2.71 MB Year: 2002 Language: english
- 6. Measurement and Control Basics, 3rd Edition Thomas A. Hughes • Process Control and Process Control Loops • Fundamentals • Temperature and Pressure Measurement • Level Measurement and Control • Analytical and Flow Measurement Taken from Measurement and Control Basics, Third Edition
- 7. Notice The information presented in this publication is for the general education of the reader. Because neither the authors nor the publisher have any control over the use of the information by the reader, both the authors and the publisher disclaim any and all liability of any kind arising out of such use. The reader is expected to exercise sound professional judgment in using any of the information presented in a particular application. Additionally, neither the authors nor the publisher have investigated or considered the effect of any patents on the ability of the reader to use any of the information in a particular application. The reader is responsible for reviewing any possible patents that may affect any particular use of the information presented. Any references to commercial products in the work are cited as examples only. Neither the authors nor the publisher endorse any referenced commercial product. Any trademarks or tradenames referenced belong to the respective owner of the mark or name. Neither the authors nor the publisher make any representation regarding the availability of any referenced commercial product at any time. The manufacturer’s instructions on use of any commercial product must be followed at all times, even if in conflict with the information in this publication. Copyright © 2002 ISA – The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 ISBN 1-55617-764-X No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISA 67 Alexander Drive P.O. Box 12277 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hughes, Thomas A. Measurement and control basics / Thomas A. Hughes.-- 3rd ed. p. cm. -- (Resources for measurement and control series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-55617-764-X 1. Process control--Instruments. 2. Measuring instruments. I. Title. II. Series. TS156.8 .H78 2001 670.42'7--dc21 2001006083
- 8. Editor’s Introduction This “mini-book” is available both in downloadable form, as part of the ISA Press Digital Book Library, and bound in a print format. “Mini-books” are small, unified volumes, from 25 to 100 pages long, drawn from the ISA catalog of reference and technical books. ISA makes mini-books available to readers who need narrowly focused information on particular subjects rather than a broad-ranging text that provides an overview of the entire subject. Each provides the most recent version of the material—in some cases including revisions that have not yet been incorporated in the larger parent volume. Each has been re-indexed and renumbered so it can be used independently of the parent volume. Other mini-books on related subjects are available. The material in this mini-book was drawn from the following ISA titles: • Measurement and Control Basics, 3rd Edition, by Thomas A. Hughes. Order Number: 1-55617-764-X To order: Internet: www.isa.org Phone: 919/549-8411 Fax: 919/549-8288 Email: info@isa.org
- 10. ISA Resources for Measurement and Control Series (RMC) • Measurement and Control Basics, 3rd Edition (2002) • Industrial Level, Pressure, and Density Measurement (1995) • Industrial Flow Measurement (1990) • Programmable Controllers, 3rd Edition (2001) • Control Systems Documentation: Applying Symbols and Identification (1993) • Industrial Data Communications: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd Edition (2002) • Real-Time Control Networks (1993) • Automation Systems for Control and Data Acquisition (1992) • Control Systems Safety Evaluation and Reliability, 2nd Edition(1998)
- 12. THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO my wife Ellen, my daughter Audrey, and my mother Helene for their love
- 14. ix CONTENTS ABOUT THE AUTHOR xiii PREFACE xv Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO PROCESS CONTROL 1 Introduction, 1 Definition of Process Control, 1 Elements of a Process Control System, 3 General Requirements of a Control System, 7 Intuitive Approach to Process Control Concepts, 9 Chapter 2 PROCESS CONTROL LOOPS 27 Introduction, 27 Single-loop Feedback Control, 27 Time Elements of a Feedback Loop, 30 Comparison of Basic Physical Systems, 35 Dead Time Lag, 47 Advanced Control Loops, 49 Tuning Control Loops, 53 Chapter 3 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC FUNDAMENTALS 67 Introduction, 67 Fundamentals of Electricity, 67 Selecting Wire Size, 81 Electrical Control Devices, 87 Chapter 4 DIGITAL SYSTEM FUNDAMENTALS 93 Introduction, 93 Binary Signals and Codes, 93
- 15. x Table of Contents Numbering Systems, 94 Data Codes, 101 Binary Logic Functions, 106 Logic Function Symbols, 111 Ladder Logic Diagrams, 111 Chapter 5 PRESSURE MEASUREMENT 117 Introduction, 117 Definition of Pressure, 117 Manometers, 126 Pressure Gauges, 128 Chapter 6 LEVEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL 147 Introduction, 147 Sight-type Instruments, 147 Pressure-type Instruments, 151 Electrical-type Instruments, 155 Sonic-type Instruments, 160 Radiation-type Instruments, 161 Level Switches, 165 Chapter 7 TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT 171 Introduction, 171 A Brief History of Temperature Measurement, 171 Temperature Scales, 172 Reference Temperatures, 173 Filled-System Thermometers, 175 Bimetallic Thermometers, 176 Thermocouples, 179 Resistance Temperature Detectors, 188 Thermistors, 193 Integrated-Circuit Temperature Sensors, 195 Radiation Pyrometers, 197 Chapter 8 ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL 201 Introduction, 201 Conductivity Measurement, 201 Hydrogen-Ion Concentration (pH) Measurement, 204 Density and Specific Gravity Measurement, 208 Humidity Measurement, 216 Principles of Electromagnetic Radiation, 221 Electromagnetic Spectrum, 221 Photodetectors, 224 Turbidity Analyzer, 231 Gas Analysis, 232 Analyzer Measurement Applications, 236
- 16. Table of Contents xi Chapter 9 FLOW MEASUREMENT 241 Introduction, 241 Flow Principles, 241 Flow-Measuring Techniques, 252 Chapter 10 FINAL CONTROL ELEMENTS 275 Introduction, 275 Control Valve Basics, 275 AC and DC Motors, 292 Pumps, 302 Chapter 11 PROCESS CONTROL COMPUTERS 309 Introduction, 309 History of Process Control Computers, 309 Distributed Control Systems, 315 Programmable Controllers, 318 Basic Components of PLC Systems, 320 Plantwide Computer-based System, 336 Appendix A STANDARD GRAPHICS SYMBOLS FOR PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION 341 Appendix B THERMOCOUPLE TABLES 353 Appendix C ANSWERS TO EXERCISES 357 INDEX 367
- 18. xiii ABOUT THE AUTHOR Thomas A. Hughes, a Senior Member of ISA—The Instrumentation, Sys- tems, and Automation Society, has 30 years of experience in the design and installation of instrumentation and control systems, including 20 years in the management of instrumentation and control projects for the process and nuclear industries. He is the author of two books: Measure- ment and Control Basics, 3rd Edition, (2002) and Programmable Controllers, 3rd Edition, (2001), both published by ISA. Mr. Hughes received a B. S. in engineering physics from the University of Colorado, and a M.S. in control systems engineering from Colorado State University. He holds professional engineering licenses in the states of Col- orado and Alaska, and has held engineering and management positions with Dow Chemical, Rockwell International, EG&G Rocky Flats, Topro Systems Integration, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr. Hughes has taught numerous courses in electronics, mathematics, and instrumentation systems at the college level and in industry. He is cur- rently the Principal Consultant with Nova Systems Engineering Services in Arvada, Colorado.
- 20. xv Preface The third edition of Measurement and Control Basics is a thorough and com- prehensive treatment of the basic principles of process control and mea- surement. It is designed for engineers, technicians, management, and sales personnel who are new to process control and measurement. It is also valuable as a concise and easy-to-read reference source on the subject. This new edition provides expanded coverage of pressure, level, flow, temperature, analytical measurement, and process control computers. Material on the proper tuning of control loops was added to Chapter 1, and expanded coverage of control loops was added to Chapter 2. Chapter 3 includes a more complete discussion of electrical and electronic funda- mentals needed in process control and instrumentation. The discussion of the basic principles underlying pressure measurement has been expanded to include a discussion of sensor characteristics and potentiometric-type pressure sensors. Extensive coverage was added on typical pressure transmitter applications. The discussion on level mea- surement has been increased with the addition of several common level instruments and switches such as displacers, tape floats, microwave, and radar. The chapter on temperature measurement has been improved by adding new illustrations and a section on radiation pyrometers. Coverage of analytical measurement and control in Chapter 8 was increased by the addition of a section on the principles of electromagnetic radiation and its application to analytical measurement. Three sections were also added to Chapter 8 on photoconductive sensors, photomultiplier tubes, and turbid- ity analyzers. Chapter 9 on flow measurement contains new coverage on Reynolds Number and fluid flow profiles. The discussion of the basic principles of
- 21. xvi Measurement and Control Basics fluid flow has been expanded and improved in Chapter 9. A discussion on types of control valves and control valve actuators was added to Chapter 10 and the section on control valve sizing was expanded and improved. All of the chapters have been supplemented with new or improved exam- ple problems and exercises. Most of the illustrations in the book have been revised and improved.
- 22. 1 1 Introduction to Process Control Introduction To study the subject of industrial process control effectively you must first gain a general understanding of its basic principles. To present these con- trol principles clearly and concisely, an intuitive approach to process con- trol is used. First, however, some basic definitions and concepts of process control are presented. Definition of Process Control The operations that are associated with process control have always existed in nature. Such “natural” process control can be defined as any operation that regulates some internal physical characteristic that is important to a living organism. Examples of natural regulation in humans include body temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate. Early humans found it necessary to regulate some of their external envi- ronmental parameters to maintain life. This regulation could be defined as “artificial process control” or more simply as “process control,” as we will refer to it in this book. This type of process control is accomplished by observing a parameter, comparing it to some desired value, and initiating a control action to bring the parameter as close as possible to the desired value. One of the first examples of such control was early man’s use of fire to maintain the temperature of their environment. The term automatic process control came into wide use when people learned to adapt automatic regulatory procedures to manufacture products or pro-
- 23. 2 Measurement and Control Basics cess material more efficiently. Such procedures are called automatic because no human (manual) intervention is required to regulate them. All process systems consist of three main factors or terms: the manipu- lated variables, disturbances, and the controlled variables (Figure 1-1). Typical manipulated variables are valve position, motor speed, damper position, or blade pitch. The controlled variables are those conditions, such as temperature, level, position, pressure, pH, density, moisture con- tent, weight, and speed, that must be maintained at some desired value. For each controlled variable there is an associated manipulated variable. The control system must adjust the manipulated variables so the desired value or “set point” of the controlled variable is maintained despite any disturbances. Disturbances enter or affect the process and tend to drive the controlled variables away from their desired value or set point condition. Typical dis- turbances include changes in ambient temperature, in demand for prod- uct, or in the supply of feed material. The control system must adjust the manipulated variable so the set point value of the controlled variable is maintained despite the disturbances. If the set point is changed, the manipulated quantity must be changed to adjust the controlled variable to its new desired value. For each controlled variable the control system operators select a manipu- lated variable that can be paired with the controlled variable. Often the choice is obvious, such as manipulating the flow of fuel to a home furnace to control the temperature of the house. Sometimes the choice is not so obvious and can only be determined by someone who understands the process under control. The pairing of manipulated and controlled vari- ables is performed as part of the process design. Figure 1-1. Process control variables Process Disturbances Controlled Manipulated Variables Variables
- 24. Chapter 1 – Introduction to Process Control 3 Elements of a Process Control System Figure 1-2 illustrates the essential elements of a process control system. In the system shown, a level transmitter (LT), a level controller (LC), and a control valve (LV) are used to control the liquid level in a process tank. The purpose of this control system is to maintain the liquid level at some pre- scribed height (H) above the bottom of the tank. It is assumed that the rate of flow into the tank is random. The level transmitter is a device that mea- sures the fluid level in the tank and converts it into a useful measurement signal, which is sent to a level controller. The level controller evaluates the measurement, compares it with a desired set point (SP), and produces a series of corrective actions that are sent to the control valve. The valve con- trols the flow of fluid in the outlet pipe to maintain a level in the tank. Thus, a process control system consists of four essential elements: process, measurement, evaluation, and control. A block diagram of these elements is shown in Figure 1-3. The diagram also shows the disturbances that enter or affect the process. If there were no upsets to a process, there would be no need for the control system. Figure 1-3 also shows the input and output of the process and the set point used for control. Figure 1-2. Process level control: Example Liquid H LT 100 Control Valve Liquid LC 100 LV 100 Level Transmitter Level Controller
- 25. 4 Measurement and Control Basics Process In general, a process consists of an assembly of equipment and material that is related to some manufacturing operation or sequence. In the exam- ple presented in Figure 1-2, the process whose liquid level is placed under control includes such components as a tank, the liquid in the tank, the flow of liquid into and out of the tank, and the inlet and outlet piping. Any given process can involve many dynamic variables, and it may be desir- able to control all of them. In most cases, however, controlling only one variable will be sufficient to control the process to within acceptable limits. One occasionally encounters a multivariable process in which many vari- ables, some interrelated, require regulation. Measurement To control a dynamic variable in a process, you must have information about the entity or variable itself. This information is obtained by measur- ing the variable. Measurement refers to the conversion of the process variable into an ana- log or digital signal that can be used by the control system. The device that performs the initial measurement is called a sensor or instrument. Typ- ical measurements are pressure, level, temperature, flow, position, and speed. The result of any measurement is the conversion of a dynamic vari- able into some proportional information that is required by the other ele- ments in the process control loop or sequence. Evaluation In the evaluation step of the process control sequence, the measurement value is examined, compared with the desired value or set point, and the amount of corrective action needed to maintain proper control is deter- Figure 1-3. Four elements of a control system Measurement Control Evaluation Input Set Point Process Disturbances Output
- 26. Other documents randomly have different content
- 27. been in the camp and he promised him that he would be released. He was later sent to the Group Dirlewanger. Q. Was it considered a privilege to be released to the Group Dirlewanger? A. No. The inmates who later were forced to transfer to the Group Dirlewanger thought that this was the worst thing that could happen to them. Q. Will you tell the Tribunal just what the Group Dirlewanger was? A. The Group Dirlewanger was an SS division who received their education in Oranienburg and who were used for special purposes. At one time 200 German political inmates in this group were transferred to Russia. All persons who were forced to join this group were very disgusted at being forced to join the SS and fight for them. They considered being selected to join the SS as the very worst disgrace. Q. Was the Dirlewanger a special commando group? A. Yes, it was a special commando group and was assigned to the most dangerous spots. However, I only know that from comrades to whom I have spoken about this matter after the liberation. Q. Other than the prisoner Sobota, were there any other concentration camp inmates released as a result of undergoing the high-altitude experiments? A. I know of no case except Sobota. Q. Do you know of any cases where a prisoner condemned to death had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment because he underwent the high-altitude experiments? A. No. Q. Witness, were any political prisoners used in these high- altitude experiments? A. Yes, there were political prisoners who were used in these experiments. All foreigners were considered political prisoners. Q. Witness, tell the Tribunal how one could tell the difference between a political and a criminal prisoner in a concentration camp?
- 28. A. All inmates had certain squares with letters; the political inmates had red squares; the German political inmates had a plain red square; the Poles had a red square with a “P” marked on it; the Russians with an “R”; all nationalities could be identified by the first letter of their country. The red square with a yellow star was the Jew. The green square, on the other hand was the sign of the so- called professional criminal. Here it must be said that there were quite a number of people with green squares who did not fall under the classification of professional criminals, but who were sent to the camp with that square since the Gestapo could find no excuse to send them into the camp as political prisoners. Q. Now, was this square really a square or a triangle? A. It was really a triangle with the head of the triangle pointed down to the earth. If it pointed upward, it indicated a member of the Wehrmacht who was sent to the camp for punishment. Q. Witness, were any Jews experimented on in these high- altitude experiments? A. Yes. Q. Now, tell the Tribunal approximately how many prisoners were killed during the course of the high-altitude experiments? A. During the high-altitude experiments 70 to 80 persons were killed. Q. Did they experiment on prisoners other than those condemned to death? A. Yes. Q. Were any of those prisoners who had not been condemned to death killed during the course of the high-altitude experiments? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any idea how many may have been killed? A. There could have been approximately 40 persons. Q. That is, 40 persons were killed, who had not been condemned to death, out of a total of 70, did you say? A. Yes. Q. Now, were some of those killed political prisoners?
- 29. A. Yes. Q. Is there any way of telling whether or not a prisoner had been condemned to death—that is, when the experimental subject arrived in the pressure chamber, was there any way to know whether he had been condemned to death? A. Once the experimental subjects came from the Bunker, that is, if the SS brought them out, we could always tell they were prisoners who had been condemned to death. When the inmates were sent by the camp leader, and were brought there by him, then we could also tell they were persons who came from the camp, and that they were not persons who had been condemned to death. Q. Could Romberg know this just as you did? A. He could only know it if he tried to find out about it, because he could hardly differentiate whether the person concerned came from the Bunker or came from the camps. Q. But you could tell that yourself? A. Yes. Q. Did Romberg ever ask you whether or not these experimental subjects had been condemned to death? A. I do not remember Romberg ever asking me about that. Q. Were records kept in the concentration camp which showed whether or not a man had been condemned to death? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether Romberg ever checked these records? A. I do not know that. Q. You do not know if he ever checked them, is that right? A. No. Q. Can you remember, approximately, how many deaths Romberg witnessed during these high-altitude experiments, if any? A. I can remember five cases where Romberg was present during cases of death; whether he was present on other occasions, I do not know. It is possible, but I am not sure of it. Q. You are sure of only five cases? A. Yes. Q. Did Romberg ever make any objections concerning these deaths?
- 30. A. I do not know of Romberg having made any protests against it. Q. He did not make any protest in your presence? A. Only at the time when we were concerned with the incident which I spoke of earlier. I do not know anything about anything else. EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT[26] DIRECT EXAMINATION Dr. Kauffmann: Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No. 2, concerning the high-altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher. You said this morning that you knew Rascher? Defendant Rudolf Brandt: Yes. Q. Did you see him frequently? A. Very few times in the course of 4 to 5 years. Q. Did he come to your office and speak with you? A. Twice when I was about to leave Munich by train, he and his wife brought a letter for Himmler to the station and gave it to me. Q. And what did he want when he came to Himmler’s front office and saw you? A. Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said, this could not have happened more than 4 or 5 times. Q. Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher? A. No. I was never present at those conferences. Q. Did Rascher ever tell you personally, either before or after a conference with Himmler, why he had come? A. No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits because I had no time for that. Q. But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying out experiments on human beings in Dachau? A. Yes, that I knew. Q. Did you ever visit Dachau yourself?
- 31. A. No. I was never in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp. Q. Did you yourself ever take part in experiments on human beings? A. No. Q. Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document books? A. I cannot recall ever having seen them. Q. Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler in which he makes suggestions to Himmler for the first time that human being experiments should be carried out in Dachau. In this letter he says that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on fatal consequences for some of the subjects. Do you remember receiving this letter? If not, can you say how you probably would have handled this letter when it came? A. I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have put this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally, after one glance through it had assured me that it was a medical matter in which Himmler was generally interested. Dr. Kauffman: We are speaking now, your Honor, of 1602-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 44. Q. Now, please look at page 57 of the German document book. This is 1582-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which you tell him that, of course, prisoners will gladly be made available for high-altitude experimentation. Was this letter written on your own initiative or is it a case similar to all the others that you have brought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler? A. This letter does not originate with me. It can be traced back to clear orders from Himmler. Q. Now, please take a look at 1581-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 48, a letter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write that low-pressure experiments are being carried out by the Luftwaffe in Dachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next Document, 1971-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 49, a letter from Rascher to Himmler. In the first sentence of this letter there is mention of an
- 32. enclosed interim report, and there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, did you read this interim report? A. I should assume that I did not because firstly, such medical reports were quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of all the work which I had to do, I did not have enough time to concern myself with reports which, first of all, I didn’t understand and, secondly, did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with the mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself. Q. Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 52, apparently a teletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles and Russians are also to be pardoned if they have survived several severe experiments. In 1971-E-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 53, your answer is to be found, a teletype message to Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler in Munich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be pardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given particular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature was emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any explanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message? A. I cannot remember this communication. Of course, I cannot here state under oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype message was sent on Himmler’s orders with my signature to it. It is also quite possible that I saw this message and knew its contents and sent it off, after receiving instructions from Himmler. Q. But I should think that you would still remember a document with such contents today; and yet you say that you do not remember it? A. No, I do not. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got from Himmler, I could not concern myself enough with the details of each matter in order to be able to remember them for any length of time. Q. Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler and then waited for his orders? A. I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his mail and then received his instructions along with all the
- 33. rest of his orders. Q. Now, I want to discuss NO-402, Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is a letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you? A. Yes. Q. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it? A. I certainly did not work on it, and I did not even give it a cursory glance, first of all because it is a medical report, and secondly, because it is much too long. EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROMBERG[27] DIRECT EXAMINATION Dr. Vorwerk: Now, we’ll go back to the point of Rascher’s position in the experiment. Defendant Romberg: I said that without Rascher there would never have been any intention of carrying out the experiments and it would never have been possible. This can be seen from Himmler’s original assignment. Practical proof of this is the fact that the experiments were stopped immediately when there were difficulties with Rascher’s assignment. This is proved by the letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leader SS, dated 24 February 1942. (NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47.) In this letter Frau Rascher writes that there were difficulties of command and that the experiments were stopped; that Rascher had gone back to Schongau. That was the time when I went back to Berlin. Later on when the experiments were actually carried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform experiments in Dachau without his permission or his presence, so that I never did perform any experiments without Rascher. I always waited until he was there. On the days when he was in Schongau no experiments were performed. Generally, I did not even go to the
- 34. experimental station. Sometimes I went to write—but certainly never to carry out experiments. This rule, although, of course, it often delayed the work, seemed justified to me because Rascher had permission from Himmler to perform these experiments and was responsible to him for the experimental subjects. Also, I myself was under the authority of the camp at Dachau which seriously restricted my independence, for example, my freedom of movement or talking to prisoners and similar things. Rascher himself, on the other hand, had a very free position on the basis of the powers which he had received from Himmler and because of a special pass. The Dachau camp was under Himmler’s authority. This is shown by the letter from Himmler to Milch of November 1942. (1617-PS, Pros. Ex. 77 (Pros. Ex. 111, Milch Case).) In this letter Himmler spoke of Holzloehner’s conduct and adds that the Dachau camp was under his orders, and Holzloehner would have to submit. It was under these conditions that Rascher took the low-pressure chamber from the SS in Munich and set it up there. Q. Who took care of the maintenance work on the chamber during the experiments? A. There was not a great deal of maintenance work necessary; loading the batteries or supplying the oxygen for the experiments was taken care of by Rascher and was probably paid for by the camp. Q. Was Rascher responsible to you for that? A. No, Rascher was not responsible to me at all. He was responsible to the Medical Inspectorate because the chamber belonged to them. Q. Did you have ah opportunity to give Rascher any orders or instructions, or to prohibit anything? A. No, that can no doubt be seen from what I have already said. I could not give him any orders. I certainly could not forbid him to do anything. Concerning the conduct of these experiments on rescue from high altitudes, I merely had a certain advisory right as is customary for two scientists who are working together on the same task when one of the two has greater knowledge pertinent to the specific task.
- 35. Q. You said the experiments began on 22 or 23 February; was that when you saw the experimental subjects for the first time? A. Yes. On that day I went out to Dachau with Rascher for the first time and met the experimental subjects for the first time. Q. About how many were there? A. There were 10 or 12. Q. Could it have been 5? A. Five? No, there were certainly more than that. Q. Could it have been 15? A. Yes, that is possible. Q. Did you talk to the experimental subjects on that day before the experiments began? A. I believe on that day we mostly talked. Whether any proper experiments were done at all on that first day, I don’t remember. At any rate I talked to the experimental subjects and got to know them a little on the first day. Q. What did you talk about with the experimental subjects? A. They were quite new surroundings for me, of course. They were all professional criminals who were in custody. Q. How do you know that? A. They told me that gradually in the course of conversation. They didn’t, of course, have complete confidence on the first day and did not tell me all about their previous convictions. But after careful inquiries one discovered that they had been condemned for certain crimes, repeatedly convicted, and finally had been condemned to protective custody. Q. Why did you talk to the experimental subjects on this day? A. It is quite natural when one begins to work with such a group that a certain personal contact is necessary. We had to get to know each other. I talked to them about their profession, if I may call it that, and of course I told them something about the experiments, what the whole thing was all about, what they themselves had to do to cooperate in the same way as my usual experimental subjects. Q. Was the reason for this investigation to prepare the subjects for their activity or to check whether these people were actually volunteers?
- 36. A. No. It was more to get to know the subjects personally. The situation was this: in the discussion with the camp commandant on the basis of the agreement with Rascher and his authorization from Himmler, a very definite agreement had been reached to the effect that these people were to be selected from the volunteers. Therefore, a clear agreement had been reached on the conditions, about which there could be no doubts basically. When I met the subjects for the first time personally and talked to them about the principle of the experiments and their duties, and so forth, of course I also inquired why they had volunteered—not because of any distrust of the camp commandant, but just for that reason. Q. You thought, accordingly, that they were volunteers? A. I didn’t only think they were. They told me so themselves. Q. How do you know that so definitely for each case? A. In the course of time—not on the first day but in the course of time—I talked to all of them frequently in some detail, and gradually they told me about their previous convictions and what other prisons and penitentiaries they had been in before they came to the camp, and they also told me the reasons why they had volunteered. Q. Do you mean to say that all the experimental subjects used for the high-altitude experiments were volunteers? A. Yes. Q. Now before these subjects entered the chamber did you prepare them for what they had to do and tell them the significance of the whole thing? A. Yes, of course. First I explained the whole question to them in broad outline, so that they would know what it was about and what the purpose of the experiment was. In detail I told them specifically what they had to do in the experiments. There was the writing test during which they had to write numbers from 1,000 backwards; then the cardinal point was that after the altitude sickness during the experiments, as soon as they came to, they had to pull the rip cord. We had a handle in the chamber connected to a bell. This was to represent pulling the rip cord of the parachute. This had to be explained to them carefully, otherwise they wouldn’t have understood it and wouldn’t have reacted correctly.
- 37. Q. Now, before the experiments began, did you have an electrocardiogram of each separate subject? A. Yes and again later on. Q. Please explain that. A. Rascher had first examined the people to see if they were suitable for the experiments, so there would be no heart defects or anything like that. Then in order to get an exact control, before the beginning of the experiments we took an electrocardiogram of all the subjects. In almost all the experiments the electrocardiograms were registered and at the end, when the experiments were finished, we took another electrocardiogram of all the subjects in order to have material because perhaps even if there was no visible injury, there might still be some effects which could only be determined by such tests. Q. Now, how long did these experiments on rescue from high altitude last, approximately? A. Well, they really began on about 10 or 11 March and they lasted until 19 or 20 May. Q. Following that, you prepared the report which has been submitted by the prosecution? A. Yes. Q. In this report you have a sentence saying that during the experiments on rescue from high altitudes there were no deaths and there had been no injury to health; is that correct? A. Yes, it is correct that that sentence is in the report, and it is also true that there were no deaths or other injuries. Q. But here in the testimony of the witness Neff you heard that there were deaths? A. Yes. Q. What do you have to say about that? A. In addition to our joint experiments on rescue from high altitudes, Rascher conducted experiments of his own. He did not tell me the exact problem; he merely said that he was performing these experiments for Himmler and that they had to do with explosive decompression sickness and electrocardiograms. He had apparently carried out secret experiments for some time on this problem, but
- 38. then in my presence he continued them with special subjects. In the course of these experiments the first death occurred at the end of April in my presence. He told me in the course of our conversations that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer on the basis of these experiments which were ordered by Himmler. He wanted to get Dr. Fahrenkamp into it but this cooperation never came about because the experiments were broken off. Before this death I had no reason to object to the experiments in any way since Rascher was using other subjects and had a separate assignment from Himmler for them. My assignment was to perform the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and I carried it out together with Rascher. Q. How many deaths took place in your presence? A. Three. Q. But Neff spoke of five deaths at which you were present. A. There could only have been three. Q. Why could there only have been three? A. Because I remember. After all they were deaths and they made a definite impression on me; I know it. Q. Why did death in the low-pressure chamber make such an impression on you? A. In the innumerable low-pressure-chamber experiments not only performed by us, but everywhere in Germany in other institutes, we never had any deaths at all, and the opinion at that time was that any necessary problem of aviation medicine could be solved without deaths. Q. Now, how did it happen that you were present at these deaths, since you say these experiments did not belong to your series of experiments? A. At the beginning of April or in the middle of April, Rascher told me for the first time that he was performing experiments with slow ascension and that he had attempted to work with Fahrenkamp but the work had been interrupted when the latter was sent away. I said that had nothing to do with our experiments and was quite unimportant and uninteresting from our point of view. He admitted that, but said it was a specific question which especially interested
- 39. him personally and which he had to work on. I did not see these experiments, which according to records here lasted 8 to 10 hours. He probably always performed them on the days I was absent because these 8 to 10 hours would have interfered considerably with our experiments. He expanded these experiments and performed time-reserve experiments at certain altitudes to test the adaptation which he had been testing before in the slow-ascension experiments. This was an experiment in which the subject remains at the same altitude, in contrast to the falling or sinking experiments where the pressure is constantly increased, that is, when the altitude is decreased. As his interim reports show, he extended these experiments to high altitudes and the time reserve was studied either with or without oxygen. The suggestion for this in part came obviously from other work, such as that of Dr. Kliches. I sometimes observed these experiments. He performed them correctly; he watched the subjects so that there was, in itself, no objection to these experiments. The only thing was that they interfered with our experiments from the point of view of time, and Rascher’s lack of punctuality was a much greater annoyance in this respect. According to the documents, as well as the witness Neff, Rascher apparently had deaths in these experiments. The first deaths were evidently unexpected. In these unexpected deaths the electrocardiogram and the autopsy findings, together with his reports, apparently gave Himmler the idea that these experiments should be carried on further, and in addition that Fahrenkamp should be called in to extend them as far as possible scientifically. The fact that Himmler was covering them apparently induced him in my presence to perform experiments which were dangerous, and in which deaths occurred. The fact that I had been present several times at previous experiments brought about my presence at that fatal experiment, too. Q. Did you not think it unusual that during an experimental series which you and Rascher were to carry out together, Himmler suddenly gave Rascher orders for special experiments? A. Yes. I did not have any specific experience in this direction, but on principle it is nothing unusual if when two people are working
- 40. together on a certain job, one of them receives an additional assignment from his chief to carry out other work on his own. In addition, Rascher was also working in Schongau at the same time on behalf of Luftgau VII. I, myself, had work of my own in the DVL, which my associates were carrying on and which I inquired about when I happened to be in Berlin. No one could dispute the fact that Himmler, as Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police and as Rascher’s boss insofar as he was an SS member, had the right to give assignments to his subordinates and to order them to carry out experiments on experimental subjects in a concentration camp. Q. Now, in your opinion, what is the distinction between your presence at the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and your occasional presence during Rascher’s experiments? A. In the experiments on rescue from high altitudes I was not merely present. I performed the experiments myself. That is, I called the experimental subjects myself, or sometimes Rascher called them. Of course, then I explained to the people what they had to do, what they had to write, what they had to pay special attention to, and that when they registered the electrocardiogram, in order not to interfere with it, they had to keep still; and then when the experiment had started I directed the experiment myself. I watched the altitude of the mercury indicator, and the calculated speed of ascension and descension, which I checked with the stop watch. Of course, at the same time I observed the subject, in other words, the persons in the experiments. In Rascher’s experiments which were at a certain altitude—that is, the subjects were ascended to a certain altitude and then remained at that altitude—I sometimes watched if I happened to be in the low-pressure chamber, but otherwise he performed these experiments alone just as he did when I was not present. He even laid great stress on performing them alone. It is clear to me now that he did not want me to observe any special results; that is apparently why he performed the other experiments in the evening or when I was away. Q. After the first death was there an autopsy?
- 41. A. Yes, there was an autopsy. Q. Did you participate in it? A. No, I did not participate. I was present and I watched the autopsy. Q. Why did you watch the autopsy if it was not your experiment? A. Today, of course, it looks different than it did at the time. It was a matter of course for me then. Rascher was a colleague of mine. He had had a fatal accident in his experiments. He asked me to watch the autopsy, and, of course, I went. I also had a quite natural scientific interest in the cause of death, and in the findings, and I admit it frankly, although I am aware of the danger that someone may say I was interested in the death of the person too, but it happens in every hospital; all doctors watch the autopsies. If, for example, in the surgical ward, a patient died after an operation, then the chief physician, or if he had no time, the senior physician, and the other doctors who had nothing specifically to do with the patient, watched the autopsy, and generally even X-ray doctors came over who didn’t know the patient at all. Besides if I had not been present, that would today be considered as an incomprehensible lack of interest in the death—if I had not accepted Rascher’s invitation. If such a death happened during a centrifugal experiment in our institute, if such an accident had happened which was not in my field of work, I certainly would have gone to watch the autopsy. One must learn from the findings; that is one’s duty as a doctor. One has to look at such things so that one can draw one’s own conclusions and be able to avoid subsequent accidents. Q. Did you see any further autopsies of Rascher? A. No. Q. Why not? A. After this death there was a basic change in my attitude toward Rascher and the plan to break off the experiments, so that in the case of later deaths I was not present because of this attitude. I do not believe he invited me to the autopsies either, and under the conditions in Dachau I could not go there on my own initiative. Q. Did you ask Rascher how this death came about, or did you warn him before the death?
- 42. A. Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I had sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments, purely out of curiosity, just as in our institute if centrifugal experiments were performed, I sometimes watched them, too. There was no reason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out of curiosity. That was how it happened that I was present by accident at the experiment and looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. On the screen of the electrocardiograph one can see a little point of light which moves, and that is determined by the heart action. When it seemed to me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart action was lessening, I said to Rascher: “You had better stop now.” Q. And what did Rascher do? A. Nothing. He kept that altitude and later death suddenly occurred. Q. When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you that the person would die in the next second? A. No, of course not. First of all I had never seen a death from high altitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn’t know that, and, in the second place, this death certainly resulted from aero- embolism and, therefore, suddenly. In the third place, the electrocardiogram change was, shall we say, doubtful. I myself would have stopped the experiment at this stage but he didn’t. I only spoke up because I would have stopped the experiment at that moment. Q. Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment? A. It was not possible for me to object in view of Rascher’s position, but I told him that such things should not happen. Q. And what else did you do? A. After this death I went to Berlin and told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed with me that death should not be allowed to occur in high- altitude experiments and it had never occurred before. Since Rascher, however, performed these experiments for Himmler on men who were condemned to death, we saw no way of preventing Rascher after we had made an official report. In general when objections were made Rascher simply referred to the orders from
- 43. Himmler and to the fact that he was covered by them. It was quite impossible to remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler’s and Rascher’s will. And to give this death as a reason for removing the chamber was even more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would not have reacted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might have started proceedings for treason or for sabotage of an essential war experiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature to the contrary in a concentration camp. Like every other visitor to a concentration camp I had to sign a statement to the effect that everything I saw and so forth in the camp would be secret. Besides, at the beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram from Himmler ordering silence about these experiments. A specific obligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since I had reported the matter to Ruff against the secrecy obligation, I also had to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could not give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau, aside from the fact it would not have met with success. Therefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility was for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber removed, giving the excuse that it was needed at the front. On the other hand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be told that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so that we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau. Otherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered the experiments to be continued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the clarification of the question of rescue from high altitudes, and he would doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and arranged to keep the chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at the front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the experiments, and he would not have released the chamber. If I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried out the experiments on rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would doubtless also have continued his own
- 44. experiments. That was the reason why I reluctantly went back to Dachau. Q. Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin? A. The purpose was this report to Ruff. Q. Was that the only purpose? A. Yes. Q. How did you explain this trip to Rascher? A. I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife’s condition. My wife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going to Berlin. Q. How long were you in Berlin? A. Only 1 or 2 days; then I went back to Dachau. Q. Now, before you left did you make sure whether Ruff had done anything in response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the chamber out of Dachau? A. Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so that I really did not know what was going on and what would be accomplished. Q. Did you notice anything special about the chamber when you came back to Dachau? A. Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already said; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer repaired. Q. How long did you stay in Berlin this time? A. As long as the repair required; about 2 weeks. Q. Then during this time there were no experiments? A. No. Q. When did the experiments begin again? A. The beginning of May or the middle of May I went back with the repaired apparatus; then we concluded the experiments as quickly as possible. Q. Did you abbreviate the program which you had planned, or did you change it in any way, or did you keep it the way it was? A. No. We shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various altitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly as possible
- 45. but in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results. Q. When was the second death at which you were present? A. That was a few days after my return to Dachau. Q. Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a manner similar to the first case? A. In general, yes. I don’t know exactly what happened. As far as I recall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death occurred quicker, more suddenly. Q. And when was the third death at which you were present? A. That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day. Q. After these deaths, did you ever have any arguments with Rascher about his experiments and the way in which he performed them? A. Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which he always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to object again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn’t to interfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his patience, and we got rather excited. I asked him why he was carrying out these experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he wanted to clarify the problem of caisson diseases, that is bends or aero-embolism, because Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man to prove these air bubbles in the blood during an autopsy under water. Also the question of the electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified as Himmler had given him a special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was to do this work together with him. In addition he wanted to qualify as a professor with Schittenhelm through this work. Then he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to be continued; that Professor Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that people condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course, be pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I could read Himmler’s signature and whether I wasn’t satisfied with that. Q. Was this the letter 1971-B-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 51?
- 46. A. Yes, 1971-B-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 51. Q. And what does this letter indicate? A. Well, it showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments and that he, therefore, had complete official coverage, that the subjects were to be pardoned. It says in the letter: “Of course the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life.” Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page it says that this order from Himmler goes to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, with a copy for their information. Q. Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter? A. Since this letter prevented me from doing anything, I calmly asked him what idea he had of these experiments, what he wanted to do, what he wanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that he would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various reasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of death at high altitudes with the change in severe altitude sickness and with later recovery. In addition, in the hospital in Munich he had taken electrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau, he said, he had also registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by shooting. If he really had evaluated all this material together with a heart specialist, then it would, of course, have been quite valuable. Q. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop Rascher’s experiments and did you incur any danger and, if so, what? A. What I did against Himmler’s orders and against my signed promise to keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who passed the information on—all this was dangerous. One probably understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher’s experiments. He confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the discussions between Rascher and myself did not take
- 47. place in the presence of the prisoners. The low-pressure chamber was removed from Dachau earlier than intended at our instigation. Against Rascher’s and Himmler’s wishes, it was never returned to Dachau. The extent of the accusations made by the SS in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with Wolff’s telegram to Milch on 12 May, which is answered in the negative in Milch’s letter of 20 May. (343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62.) In answer to further efforts from Himmler, Milch ordered that the chamber was to remain 2 months longer in Dachau. (NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63.) At this time, we had already removed the chamber. On 5 June, Rascher again writes to Himmler about the low-pressure chamber. Document NO-284, Prosecution Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of 5 June. The letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt, says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. Then there is a certain pause in Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts, because Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. When the film is shown in Berlin in the Air Ministry, Rascher does not forget to tell Milch again of his wishes in regard to the low-pressure chamber. But hardly has the first phase of the cold experiments—the series with Holzloehner—been finished, when he writes to Himmler again on 9 October. (1610-PS, Pros. Ex. 73.) He asks Himmler to get him the low-pressure chamber so that he can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. In the letter of 21 October 1942 (NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75), Sievers writes to Brandt about the continuation of the high-altitude experiments which Himmler wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons, he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in order actually to get the chamber. This happens on 27 November 1942 (NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78)—a letter from Wolff to Milch, on behalf of Himmler. The definite request for the low-pressure chamber, which is expressed in this letter, is given definite emphasis by mention of the opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors. I learned from a telephone call from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a low-pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew
- 48. very well that Rascher certainly didn’t want to have this made public in any way. Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of this call and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here yesterday. In an official letter to various SS agencies, dated 13 December 1942 (1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79), Rascher is given the assignment by Himmler personally to carry out high- altitude experiments. On 14 March 1943 (NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110), Rascher tells of his discussions with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low-pressure chamber experiments, together with me; and finally, on 18 November 1943 (NO-1057, Pros. Ex. 463), he tries again, through the Reich Research Council in agreement with Himmler, to get a mobile low-pressure chamber in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts but, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low-pressure chamber at his disposal for experiments. Q. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements? A. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts were and that my conduct under these circumstances was not only not cowardly, but that it was much more clever and much more successful. Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I had had any obligations to attack Rascher and if I had tried and been unsuccessful, then I would have been locked up or killed and Rascher would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without any restriction. Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in what did you see such possibility? A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, emigration for a person who was able; second, open resistance which meant a concentration camp or the death penalty, and to my knowledge, never met with any success; third, passive resistance by apparent yielding, misplacing and delaying orders, criticism among one’s friends, in short, what writers today call “internal emigration.” But that really doesn’t have much to do with the question. As far as the direct question of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take a comparison from the medical field, it is
- 49. unknown to me and I cannot imagine, for example, that an assistant of a scientific research worker who is performing infections with a fatal disease, for example, leprosy, on a prisoner, that this assistant should prevent the scientist from carrying out this infection by force —perhaps by knocking the hypodermic syringe out of his hand and crying “You mustn’t do that, the man might die!” I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that if there were a trial against this doctor the prosecution would demand that the assistant should have prevented the scientist in this manner. Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible? A. Yes. Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or with the public prosecutor, against Rascher? A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said, “Rascher has performed experiments ordered by Himmler—by the Chief of the German Police and whatever else he was—the Reich Leader SS, the State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior,” they would probably have said: “Well, we can’t do anything about it. If he has orders, then we can’t do anything about it.”
- 50. [18] Jews who had had sexual intercourse with German women with their consent. [19] Very similar arguments were advanced by counsel for defendant Romberg. [20] The witness Neff was called to testify as a Tribunal witness and not as a prosecution witness. [21] See Vol. II, judgment is case of United States vs. Erhard Milch. [22] Last sentence is crossed out and replaced by one in German shorthand. [23] Translator’s Note: “Terminal” as used here means “resulting in death”. [24] These studies were carried out in conjunction with the research and educational society “Ahnenerbe.” [25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, December 17-18, 1947, pp. 595-695. [26] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, March 24, 25, and 26, 1947, pp. 4869-4994. [27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1947, pp. 6764-7032. 2. FREEZING EXPERIMENTS a. Introduction The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment). On this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were acquitted. The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the freezing experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Sievers. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 199 to 206. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Sievers and Weltz. It appears below on pages 207 to 217. This
- 51. argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 219 to 278. b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS Freezing Experiments Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed, the freezing experiments were ordered to be performed by the defendant Weltz and his subordinate Rascher. This can be seen from a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Karl Wolff. (343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62.) A short time later, Rascher had a conference with Hippke and the experimental team was changed to include Jarisch, Holzloehner, and Singer. Rascher reported these orders to Himmler on 15 June 1942, and passed on Hippke’s request to have the experiments conducted in Dachau. He stated: “It was also decided that the inspector [Hippke] would issue orders to me at all times during the experiments.” (NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82.) The research assignment was issued by the Department for Aviation Medicine (2 II B) under Anthony, with the defendant Becker-Freyseng as his deputy. (NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88.) The cold-water freezing experiments began on 15 August 1942 and continued until the early part of 1943. They were performed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Holzloehner and Finke collaborated with Rascher until December 1942. As Rascher said in a paper on his medical training: “By order of the Reich Leader SS and Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke, I conducted ‘Experiments for the Rescue of Frozen Persons’ (started on 15 August 1942), in cooperation—for 4 months—with the Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Dr. Finke both of Kiel University.” (NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115.) Rascher also said that: “Since May 1939 till today I have been in military service with the Air Force.” The memorandum was dated 17 May 1943. It should therefore be borne in mind that during all of the high-altitude and substantially all of the freezing experiments, Rascher was on active duty with the Luftwaffe, not the SS. It was not until after May 1943 that he went on active duty with the Waffen SS. He was of course supported by both the Luftwaffe and the SS in these experiments. The witness Neff, who was an inmate assistant in the experiments, testified that freezing experiments in the concentration camp Dachau
- 52. started at the end of July or in August 1942. They were conducted by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. In October, Holzloehner and Finke left and Rascher proceeded alone to conduct freezing experiments until May 1943. Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke used ice-cold water for their freezing experiments. The experimental basin had been built 2 meters long and 2 meters high in Rascher’s experimental station, Block 5. (Tr. pp. 626-8.) The experiments were carried out in the following manner: The basin was filled with water and ice was added until the water measured 3° C. The experimental subjects, either dressed in a flying suit or naked, were placed into the ice water. Narcotics were frequently not used. It always took a certain time until so-called “freezing narcosis” made the experimental subjects unconscious, and the subjects suffered terribly. The temperature of the victims was measured rectally and through the stomach by galvanometer. They lost consciousness at a body temperature of approximately 33° C. The experiments actually progressed until the experimental persons were chilled down to 25° C. body temperature. An experiment on two Russian officers who were exposed naked to the ice- cold water in the basin was particularly brutal. These two Russians were still conscious after 2 hours. Rascher refused to administer an injection. When one of the inmates who attended the experiment tried to administer an anaesthetic to these two victims, Rascher threatened him with a pistol. Both experimental subjects died after having been exposed at least 5 hours to the terrible cold. (Tr. pp. 629-631.) Approximately 280 to 300 experimental subjects were used for this type of freezing experiment, but in reality, 360 to 400 experiments were conducted since many experimental subjects were used two or three times for experiments. Approximately 80 to 90 experimental subjects died. About 50 to 60 inmates were used in the Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments and approximately 15 to 18 of them died. Political prisoners, non-German nationals, and prisoners of war were used for these experiments. Many of the inmates used had not been “condemned to death.” The subjects did not volunteer for the experiments. (Tr. pp. 627-8.) Even though one assumes that prisoners condemned to death were used in all of the experiments, which is not true, the “defense” that they volunteered on the agreement that their sentences would be commuted to life imprisonment is invalid. During the high-altitude experiments, Himmler had directed that in further experiments where the long continued heart activity of subjects who were killed was observed, criminals condemned to death should be used and, if they were revived, they should be “pardoned”
- 53. to concentration camp for life. (1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51.) Rascher apparently construed this order to apply to the freezing experiments also. On 20 October 1942, Rascher advised Rudolf Brandt that until then only Poles and Russians had been used for such experiments and that only some of these persons had been condemned to death. He inquired whether Himmler’s “amnesty” applied to Russians and Poles. (1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52.) Brandt told him that it did not apply. (1971-E-PS, Pros. Ex. 53.) Dry-freezing experiments were carried out by Rascher in January, February, and March 1943. One experimental subject was placed on a stretcher at night and exposed to the cold outdoors. He was covered with a linen sheet, but a bucket of cold water was poured over him every hour. He remained outdoors until the morning and then his temperature was taken with a thermometer. In the next series the experimental plan was changed, and experimental persons had to remain naked outdoors for long hours without being covered up at all. One series was carried out on 10 prisoners who had to remain outdoors overnight. Rascher himself was present during approximately 18 to 20 experiments of that type. Approximately three experimental subjects died as a result of the dry-freezing experiments. (Tr. pp. 636-7.) On the order of Grawitz and Rascher, a mass experiment on 100 experimental subjects was to be carried out. As Rascher was not present, Neff was in the position to frustrate the experiment by taking the experimental subjects indoors, and therefore no deaths occurred during this experimental series. The longest period that experimental subjects were kept outdoors in the cold was from 6 p. m. of one day to 9 a. m. of the following morning. The lowest temperature Neff can recollect during the dry-freezing experiments was 25° body temperature. As Rascher had prohibited that experiments were to be carried out under anaesthetics, the experimental subjects suffered great pain and screamed to such an extent that it was impossible to carry out further experiments. Rascher therefore requested Himmler’s permission to carry out such experiments in the future in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Non-German nationals and political prisoners were among the experimental subjects. None of them was sentenced to death. They had not volunteered for the experiments. (Tr. pp. 637-9.) In connection with the freezing experiments, Neff further testified that in September 1942 he received orders from Sievers to take the hearts and lungs of five experimental subjects who had been killed in the experiments
- 54. to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific study. The travel warrant for Neff had been made out by Sievers, and the Ahnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the bodies. One of the five experimental subjects killed had been a Dutch citizen. (Tr. p. 633.) Sievers visited the experimental station quite frequently during the freezing experiments. (Tr. p. 635.) Neff’s testimony is corroborated by the affidavits of the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng (NO-242, Pros. Ex. 80; NO-448, Pros. Ex. 81) and the testimony of the witness Lutz (Tr. pp. 266-76), Vieweg (Tr. p. 431), and Michalowsky (Tr. pp. 878-83), and by the documentary evidence in the record. On 15 June 1942, Rascher informed Himmler that the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, sought permission for cold experiments to be conducted by Rascher and Holzloehner in the Dachau concentration camp. (NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82.) On 10 September 1942, Rascher submitted his first intermediary report on the freezing experiments to Himmler. In the covering letter Rascher stated that Holzloehner, who participated in the execution of the experiments on behalf of the Luftwaffe, intended to lecture on the subject of freezing in the “cold conference” of the Luftwaffe on 26-27 October in Nuernberg. Rascher informed Himmler that “Sievers, who surveyed the experiments in Dachau last week, believed that if any report was to be made at a meeting, I should be called upon to submit the report.” (NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83.) The intermediary report itself shows on its face that fatalities occurred as a result of the Rascher- Holzloehner-Finke experiments and advocated rapid rewarming of severely chilled persons. Rascher considered that rewarming with animal heat would be too slow, and that experiments in this respect would be unnecessary. He voiced a similar opinion as to the use of drugs for the purpose of rewarming. (1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 34.) Himmler, when acknowledging the receipt of Rascher’s report on 22 September, directed nevertheless that the experiment with rewarming by means of drugs and body heat should be made. A copy of this order of Himmler’s was forwarded to Sievers on 25 September. (1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85.) On the basis of this order Rascher approached Sievers to make arrangements for four female gypsies to be procured at once for the purpose of rewarming experimental subjects. (NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86.) It was apparently Sievers’ effort in this regard which resulted in a series of telegrams to transfer these women from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp to Dachau. Rudolf Brandt actually directed the transfer. (1619-PS,
- 55. Pros. Ex. 87.) The four women arrived in November 1942 in Dachau. Three of them were used for rewarming of frozen experimental subjects, one being excluded because she was a “Nordic” type. That the experimental subjects were not volunteers is plain from a remark of one of these women. “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the concentration camp.” (NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94.) This series of experiments, which was not only murderous but obscene, was carried out by Rascher between November 1942 and February 1943. His report to Himmler reveals that one of the experimental subjects died as a result of this series of experiments. (1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105.) On 8 October 1942, Stabsarzt Professor Anthony of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe approached Himmler with the information that the results of the wet-freezing experiments carried out by Rascher in cooperation with Holzloehner and Finke were to be lectured upon by Holzloehner during the “cold conference” on 26-27 October in Nuernberg. (NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88, compare NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83.) On 16 October Rascher also asked Himmler’s permission to release the results of the freezing experiments during these “cold conferences.” (NO-225, Pros. Ex. 89.) On the same day Rascher submitted to Himmler his final report on the freezing experiments as far as they had been carried out in collaboration with Holzloehner and Finke. This report did not include experiments for rewarming by means of drugs and of animal body heat, which at that time were still in progress. (1613-PS, Pros. Ex. 90.) This report on “Cooling Experiments on Human Beings” by Holzloehner, Rascher, and Finke, corroborates fully the testimony of Neff concerning this series of the wet-freezing experiments and proves that many fatalities occurred. It shows that some of the experimental subjects were exposed to this terrible type of experimentation without receiving anesthetics, which would have alleviated their pain considerably. The sufferings of the experimental subjects were vividly described. Foam appeared round the mouths of the experimental subjects, and breathing difficulties and lung oedema resulted. The cooling of the neck and back of the head of the experimental subjects caused especially painful sensations. Progressive rigor, which developed very strongly in the arm muscles, cyanosis, and total irregularity of the heart activity were the symptoms observed by the experimenters. Hot baths were advocated as the best treatment for severely chilled persons. Fatalities resulted from heart failure and brain oedema, and measures for protection against such results were discussed at great length. (NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91.)
- 56. Sievers denied that Rascher reported to him on the freezing experiments but admitted that he received occasionally Rascher’s reports from Himmler. (Tr. pp. 5684-5.) But by the testimony of the witness Neff it is not only proved that Rascher submitted to the Ahnenerbe monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual reports, describing in detail the nature and status of his experimental research (Tr. p. 635), but also that the final report of Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke (NO-1428, Pros. Ex. 91) was forwarded to him. (Tr. p. 681.) On 24 October Himmler acknowledged the receipt of this report which he had read “with great interest” and charged Sievers with arrangements for “the possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with us.” (1609-PS, Pros. Ex. 92.) On 26 and 27 October 1942, the conference on “Medical Problems Arising from Distress at Sea and Winter Hardships,” sponsored by the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, under the chairmanship of Anthony and with the assistance of Becker-Freyseng, took place in Nuernberg. At this conference Holzloehner delivered his lecture on the freezing experiments under the title “Prophylaxis and Treatment of Freezing in Water.” The very detailed clinical observations described by him excluded the possibility that only observations on human beings who were rescued had been made, and made it clear that experiments on human beings had been conducted. (NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93.) Moreover, Rascher made a statement following Holzloehner’s lecture, which clearly revealed that the experiments had been carried out on concentration camp inmates. This report caused a sensation among the officials present at the lecture. It was made clear that deaths had occurred. (Tr. p. 272.) Sievers has denied having received a report on this conference (Tr. p. 5689), but the entry of 12 January in his diary for the year 1943 shows that he discussed with Rascher the “procurement of memoranda on the conference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg.” (NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122.) On 6 November 1942, Rascher forwarded a memorandum to Himmler’s personal staff, the office of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, regarding cooperation with Dr. Craemer of the Medical Research Station for Mountain Medical Troops at St. Johann. This was a school subordinated to Handloser as Army Medical Inspector. In this memorandum Rascher advocated dry- freezing experiments on concentration camp inmates in the mountain region of Bayrischzell. The purpose was to investigate whether injuries of the extremities due to freezing would have a better prognosis on persons accustomed to cold than on persons unaccustomed to it. Rascher said that
- 57. Craemer had heard the report in Nuernberg and was very enthusiastic about the experiments. He requested to see some in progress. (NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96; 1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97.) Himmler gave his permission for this type of dry-freezing experiment in an order dated 13 December 1942, in which he lists Rascher’s assignment for the execution of high-altitude and three different types of freezing experiments. Copies of this order were submitted to various SS agencies and to the Ahnenerbe Society. (1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79.) Himmler’s letter contained the following directive: “5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reichsarzt SS, of the Main Office for Economic Administration, and with the Ahnenerbe. * * *” The evidence proves that prior to 21 October 1943, Rascher received an assignment from Blome of the Reich Research Council to conduct open-air freezing experiments. (NO-432, Pros. Ex. 119.) Sievers aided Rascher in the matter of obtaining the location and personnel for these experiments. (3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123.) On 13 January 1943, Rascher had a conference with Grawitz and the defendant Poppendick concerning the freezing experiments. In this conference Rascher’s freezing experiments were discussed in detail. He stressed the point that he was working with the Ahnenerbe and that he reported to the Ahnenerbe. The documentary note of Rascher’s on this conference shows on its face that wet-freezing experiments had been conducted by him and that Grawitz requested him to carry out further freezing experiments with dry cold until he would “have a few hundred cases.” This documentary note was forwarded by Sievers to the defendant Rudolf Brandt on 28 January. (NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103.) In his covering letter Sievers requested Brandt’s opinion as to what attitude he and Rascher were to take in respect of their position to Grawitz, with the implied request that Brandt should strengthen his position with Grawitz, who considered it “an unbearable situation to have a non-physician give information on medical matters.” What Sievers wanted to achieve was an intervention of Brandt with Himmler on his behalf and, therefore, he stressed his personal importance by saying: “My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reich Leader SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On one
- 58. thing I certainly can form an opinion—that is, on who is doing the quickest job. “If things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.” (NO- 320, Pros. Ex. 103.) On 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the experiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of severely chilled persons. (1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105.) In his accompanying letter to Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold experiments in Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been experimented upon and had been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14 hours, thereby reducing their body temperature to 27°-29° C. The extremities of the experimental subjects were frozen white. Rascher suggested a large series of experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This place would be suitable for such experimentation because it was colder there, and the spacious open country within the camp “would make the experiments less conspicuous, as the experimental subjects yell when they freeze severely.” [Emphasis supplied.] (1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105.) Himmler gave Rascher permission to carry out additional freezing experiments in the concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109.) Rascher’s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943, reveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried out on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy frost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold of -6° C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal temperature of 25° C. (NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111.) The three fatalities which, according to Neff’s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing experiments, apparently occurred during this series of experiments. (Tr. pp. 637-8.) On 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report concerning “freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.” (NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112.) The report itself is not available, but the letter of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that the defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (NO-241, Pros. Ex. 113.) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt took place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant Fischer. Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and other
- 59. experimentation carried out in the Dachau concentration camp and invited Rascher to collaborate with him. Rascher feared to lose his independence and turned to Sievers to settle this affair in a tactful way as Gebhardt was a very close friend of Himmler, and Rascher, therefore, feared his eventual enmity. (NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116.) Sievers, in turn, approached Brandt in this matter on 22 May and requested information whether Himmler had given any definite directive to Gebhardt in regard to Rascher’s sphere of action and work. He further asked Brandt’s intervention on behalf of Rascher by saying: “I entrust you with this affair and ask you particularly to use it only for your strict personal information so that Dr. Rascher does not encounter any difficulties with SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt.” (NO-267, Pros. Ex. 117.) When Rascher visited Gebhardt in Hohenlychen, the latter encouraged him to embark upon a career of university lecturer. (NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116.) Rascher followed this suggestion and Sievers supported him wholeheartedly and collaborated with the defendants Brandt and Blome to have Rascher appointed university lecturer. (NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118; NO- 290, Pros. Ex. 121.) That Rascher’s thesis for habilitation was based on the freezing and high-altitude experiments is proved by Rascher’s memorandum on his medical training which he wrote for the purpose of his habilitation (NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115) and other evidence in the record. (NO- 240, Pros. Ex. 112.) c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS The Freezing Experiments Freezing experiments on human beings were carried out in Dachau concentration camp from the end of 1942 on. It cannot be denied that a ruthless carrying-out of these experiments was liable to inflict torture and death upon the persons experimented on. Here, too, it seems necessary to distinguish between two groups of experiments. One group comprises the experiments carried out by Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke, and the other one, those carried out by Rascher alone. The first group of experiments easily permits the assumption that the possible effects of the experiments on the persons
- 60. subjected to them were taken into consideration. After all that has become known about Rascher by now, the assumption is justified that, during the experiments carried out by Rascher alone, considerations of the effect on life and health of the persons used were not of primary importance. The only exceptions were probably the experiments Rascher carried out in the presence of third persons who were not involved. On the occasion of administrative conferences he had to attend in Dachau, Sievers met Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher who had just finished a freezing experiment. The person experimented on was placed under an arc of light [Lichtbogen]. That is all Sievers saw of this experiment. (German Tr. p. 5684.) Then Sievers watched a second freezing experiment. Himmler had instructed Professor Hirt of Strasbourg to have a look at Rascher’s work on freezing, since he (Himmler) obviously had come to the conclusion that Rascher alone was not sufficient for the clarification of these scientifically extensive and difficult questions. For this experiment a professional criminal was introduced whom a regular court had sentenced to death for robbery and murder. Sievers and Dr. Hirt made sure about this by examining the files of the criminal police department of the Dachau concentration camp. Dr. Hirt then asked the person to be experimented on whether he realized that the experiment might prove fatal to him. The person to be experimented on answered in the affirmative. By personally questioning the person to be experimented on, Sievers then made sure that he agreed to the experiment. The person in question answered in the affirmative and added: “If it does not hurt.” This assurance could be given since the experiment was carried out under full narcosis. Sievers did not take part in the entire experiment, but he saw that it was carried out under full narcosis. (German Tr. pp. 5685-86.) The witness Dr. Punzengruber, at that time an inmate of the Dachau concentration camp and from 1942-1943 assigned to Dr. Rascher’s station as a chemist, confirms that the person used had been condemned to death. The same witness confirms that Sievers was not present during other freezing experiments. Dr. Punzengruber could establish this because his laboratory was located next to the room where Dr. Rascher carried out his experiments. (Affidavit of Dr. Punzengruber, 14 March 1947.) A further presence of Sievers at freezing experiments has not occurred and has not been claimed from any side.
- 61. Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookultra.com