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 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.” * * * * * ----- [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