1947-04-25, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 April 47.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

May it please your Honor, Defendant Brack having been excused, he is now absent.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note the absence of the Defendant Brack, pursuant to excuse by the Tribunal.

Counsel may proceed.

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Professor, I have one last question regarding the document the prosecution last put in, your letter regarding the experiments with the Copenhagen vaccine. Can you tell me something about that? Tell me about what the results were of testing this vaccine in Buchenwald.

A: The results of this experiment as set down in Ding's diary, namely, the ascertainment that this vaccine which seemed superior to the lung vaccine when used in animal experiments turned out to be useless for use with human beings, that is in the Ding diary. That was the result of the experiment. The practiced consequences of the experiment were that the Ipsen vaccine, the introduction of which I had energetically recommended in September 1943, was not introduced. That was a very important decision for it this vaccine had been introduced, which could be produced two and a half times more copiously than the lung vaccine, then there would have been much greater amounts of vaccine available for people in danger. Today it cannot, of course be said for certain how many human beings would have died as a consequence of using this useless vaccine that I had recommended. But there is no doubt that the number of these deaths would have been materially higher. And from the point of view of my responsibility as a hygienist, — the responsibility for those who died because a vaccine which I recommended, but which was nevertheless useless, was used, as I say, the responsibility would lie heavier on me.

For one thing, because the number of persons involved would be higher, higher than the responsibility which a court may ascribe to me for having approved this experiment on persons who had been assigned to this experiment by the competent state authority, as can be seen from the documents that the prosecution has put in.

DR. FRITZ: I have no further questions in the redirect examination to put to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by other defense counsel?

BY DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt):

Q: Witness, under examination by the prosecution you mentioned an experiment that was carried out in a foreign country on persons condemned to death, and you said that carbon tetrachloride was the drug used, is that correct?

A: Yes, that was carbon tetrachloride. That is a medicine which is used frequently in the treatment of hookworm.

Q: Witness, I have one question here. What happens if carbon tetrachloride is heated?

A: You must not heat carbon tetrachloride. Carbon tetrachloride is CCL4 and if you bring that into juxtaposition with oxygen and heat it phosgene gas, which is a poison, is created. The toxicity of carbon tetrachloride in practical use rests on the fact that —

Q: Witness, I am not interested in the details. You do say that phosgene is created?

A: Yes, that is generally known.

DR. SERVATIUS: No further questions.

BY DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky):

A: Witness, the prosecution at the conclusion of the cross examination showed you Document 1754, which surprised you. Will you please take a look at that document?

A: I don't have the document here.

Q: Will you please take a close look at this document. A large number of Mrugowsky's letters from the Hygiene Institute have been put in evidence. All of these letters had at the letterhead a reference to the letter that was being answered, or they began by saying, in answer to your letter of the such and such. Is there anything of that sort in this letter?

A: No, there is no reference to a previous letter.

Q: When you looked at this letter here you, because it was addressed to you, assumed that a letter from you must have been what this letter refers to. Now if you look at this letter more closely can you tell me whether you remember for certain that you wrote a letter to Mrugowsky or Grawitz or someone else to which this is the answer, or is it possible that, as in other cases, Gildemeister or Conti turned to Grawitz and that Mrugowsky answered the letter on orders from Grawitz?

A: That is, of course, possible. In the cross examination I stated that I did not remember these events, and in particular I staked that I did not remember having given a suggestion that this lung vaccine should be tested. It is, of course, possible that the question of this lung vaccine was negotiated between other offices and that Mrugowsky as a result of these discussions received some such assignment.

Q: Is it not to some extent probable that you were not the person who wrote the letter that preceded this one, because this letter so deviated from the form that is usually prescribed for military letters?

A: Normally, if I should write a letter and receive an answer to it, then the military form proscribes that there should be a reference to what this is an answer to, and then the letter would be answered, so what you say is true.

Q: Also, Document 1186 was put in. That was your letter to Mrugowsky. In this letter —

A: I beg your pardon. I don't have the letter.

Q: I am going to read an excerpt from it. In this letter it states: When the typhus vaccine from mouse livers was being considered it would be desirable to know whether in the experiments in Buchenwald there were the same protective results as were obtained from vaccines from classical virus. Are you in a position to have such an experimental series carried out? Did you know anything more precisely about the experiments in Buchenwald, in particular Ding's subordination relationships so far as the typhus experiments in Block 46 are concerned?

A: No. Of that I knew nothing. That can also be seen from the letter, because I am addressing an inquiry about matters that I know nothing about. If I had know about them, I should not have had to inquire.

Q: If this letter was put in this morning, do you know whether you received an answer from Mrugowsky or anyone else to this letter and what the contents of the answer were?

A: I can recall no answer and no correspondence in this matter. If there were an answer it probably would have been put in evidence here.

Q: In other words, on the basis of the two documents put in this morning you can say nothing about Ding's position in the typhus experiments or about Mrugowsky's participation in them.

A: There is nothing to be seen about that in these documents, and just what the subordination relations were in the SS, I never knew anything about, so I don't know it today.

DR. FLEMMING: No further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions on the part of the defense counsel the Prosecution may cross examine as to matters which have been brought out since the close of the cross examination.

MR. McHANEY: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Defendant Rose has no further questions of the witness?

The witness Rose is excused from the witness stand and will take his place.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have a few documents to put in that I have not yet put in. May I do so now?

I put in as further document from Rose Document Book 2, Document 24, Rose Exhibit 40, Pages 25 and 26 of this Document Book. This is an affidavit by Dr. Friedrich Grunske of February 6, 1947, Since the Prosecution had dropped the charge against Rose so far as it concerns yellow fever, this affidavit has pretty well lost its importance for Rose's case. However, I believe that the affidavit will be of value to the Tribunal in its search for the truth. The Bench will recall that Hr. McHaney and myself had a controversy regarding the interpretation to be put on the German word "Probe", and Mr. McHaney proved with a dictionary that it could mean both "sample" and "experiment". Now I have had another affidavit given to me by the man who made this affidavit, who certainly must have known just what he meant, and he certifies in the last paragraph that when he spoke of "Virus Proben" he was talking of virus samples and not virus experiments.

DR. FRITZ: I now offer another document from Rose Document Nook III — Document 41. This will be Rose Exhibit 41. The document is on page 83. This is an affidavit on the part of Dr. Hildegard Hoering. This is the wife of the Professor Hoering I called as a witness who has already pointed out in his testimony that his wife worked for a certain length of time with Professor Rose in the Robert Koch Institute. I do not wish to read this document. Frau Hoering here explains what Dr. Rose said to her regarding the question of euthanasia.

As the next document I put in the next one in the Document Book -Document 42. This will be Rose Exhibit 42 and is an affidavit by Mr. Schmidt — Juengst of 27 January 1947 on pages 84-5 of the Document Book. This man is a person who has known Dr. Rose since 1922 and makes statements regarding Dr. Rose's character. I shall, however, not read the document.

I now offer the next document, Rose Document 43, Rose Exhibit 43, page 86 of the Document Book. This is an affidavit of the Swiss citizen Dr. Peter Peiser of 12 February 1947 on page 86 — 87 of the Document book. Dr. Peiser also knows the defendant Dr. Rose, having been with him in China. Dr. Peiser is moreover a Jew and gives Dr. Rose a good character reference. I shall dispense with reading the document.

As the next document comes Rose Document 44, the next one in the Document Book. This will be Rose Exhibit 41. This is a letter to myself from Professor Brumpt from the Parisian Institute of Parasitology, 19 November 1946; which concerns the professional qualities of Professor Dr. Rose and this document —

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I don't think that the letter is in the form of an affidavit. I interpose a formal objection. I personally don't mind seeing the document admitted but I raise the objection because I don't want to see any precedent established with regards to letters of this type addressed to Defense counsel.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution is correct. This is merely an unsworn-to letter.

DR. FRITZ: That is quite true, your Honor. Perhaps the Tribunal would care to look at the original and thus assure itself of the authenticity of this letter.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not the basic reason for the objection. The letter is an ex parte statement written without any responsibility not under oath at all. And, if the Tribunal would admit such letters as this we would very likely be swamped with letters to persons both for the prosecution and for the defense. If counsel for defendant desires to procure a verification or oath to this letter it might now be admitted provisionally subject to later on presenting something in proper form which would make it admissible.

DR. FRITZ: Then I shall follow that procedure, Mr. President. The next Rose Document, Document Rose 45, on page 88 and 90 of the Document Book I shall put in as Rose Exhibit 45. Here the situation is the same as the immediately preceding document, to wit, the document is not sworn to. The difference, however, is that the letter was addressed to the President of War Criminals Court and was made available to me by the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDENT: The fact that the letter is directed to the President of War Criminals Court does not change the basic situation. It is still a purely ex parte statement in the letter and not made under oath.

DR. FRITZ: Then I shall put this document in for the present simply for identification and then later produce a sworn certification. Herewith, Mr. President, I have put in evidence all the documents in my Document Book with the exception of Number 48 in the Supplementary Volume. This is the very last document. I don't believe it is necessary for me to put this document in view of the charge that the Prosecution has dropped against the defendant Rose.

THE PRESIDENT: Document Book II, Document No. 27, I have not marked as an exhibit received.

DR. FRITZ: I thank you for bringing this to my attention. This was an oversight on my part. This document I did not put in. However, I should like to do so. That is Rose Document Number 27 and I shall put it in as Rose Exhibit No. 46. This is an affidavit by the University Professor, Dr. Franz Buechner of 3 March 1947, pages 57 to 61 of the Document Book. I shall forego reading the document because it concerns itself largely with the question of hepatitis epidemica since the Prosecution has dropped its charge against Professor Rose. However, on page 60 of the Document Book, at the end of the document it also concerns itself with Professor Rose's personality.

Mr. President, my secretary points out to me that I have failed to put in another document, to wit, Document 40 in Document Book III. This is an affidavit by the physician Dr. Karl Muchlens of 13 February 1947 which I offer as Rose Exhibit 47. It is on pages 78 to 80 of the Document Book. It concerns itself with Professor Rose's criticism. I shall not bother to read this document either. This, I believe, is all the Rose Documents and this concludes my presentation of the Rose case. However, I should like to reserve for myself the right to put in a few documents later. For example, I am expecting some from England.

THE PRESIDENT: As in other cases, the Tribunal will reserve the counsel for the defendant Rose the right to offer the documents he may receive at some later time prior to the time that the evidence is closed.

The defendant Rose having rested his case we will now call the case of the United States versus Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz.

DR. SAUTER (Defense counsel for the defendant Ruff): Mr. President, it is my intention, first of all, to call Dr. Ruff to the stand. Thereupon, I shall have two witnesses to hear if they have arrived here from Berlin by Monday or Tuesday. If the witnesses do not arrive, I have procured affidavits from these witnesses which I shall put in evidence. I have handed in a rough document book which contains documents 1 to 17. Then I have four annexes to this — Annex 1, with documents 18 and 19; Annex 2, with document 20, Annex 3, with document 21; and Annex 4, with two documents, Documents 22 and 23. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call the defendant Dr. Ruff to the stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness Ruff will take the witness stand.

SIEGFRIED RUFF, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

JUDGE SEBRING:

Please hold up your right hand and be sworn.

I swear by God, the almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

You may sit down.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, before Dr. Sauter begins, the prosecution has not yet received Supplements 3 and 4 and, in addition thereto. I am not aware of the fact that we have received the notice of the two witnesses to be called by Dr. Sauter for the defendant Ruff. It may well be that we have and I have not received them yet, and I would merely like to know the names of the two witnesses he intends to call if they arrive from Berlin.

DR. SAUTER: I believe the Tribunal has the supplementary volumes 1 and 2 since long. The volumes 3 and 4 will probably be given to the prosecution and the Court on Monday.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no supplementary document book.

DR. SAUTER: Here they come.

(Document books were presented to the Tribunal by the Secretary General.)

And the two witnesses whom I intend to call, assuming that they get here from Berlin, are Dr. Freitag and Fohmeister, but I much doubt whether they will get here from Berlin.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, you are forty years old?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you married?

A: Yes.

Q: Have two children, ages 4 and 8?

A: Yes.

Q: You studied medicine, took your degree, and were then assistant at a University clinic but, however, did not set up your own practice?

A: That is true. Never.

Q: You entered the service of the Luftwaffe and served not in the Luftwaffe but in the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt [Research Institute for Aviation]. Perhaps you can explain how that came about. When did you enter that institute?

A: During my study as a doctor I spent my spare time studying aviation. That is to say, I flew as a sport — at first, gliding, and then motorized flight. Of course, as a student of medicine who concerned himself with sport aviation I, of course, was interested in the medical questions that concern aviation. When, after my studies were concluded and I had taken my doctor's examination, I was an assistant at the University clinic at Bonn. I began to concern myself with the medical questions of aviation and to experiment in this field. The work I did at that time was mainly concerned in ascertaining whether the climatic conditions that one meets when one climbs to a high altitude could be used, in any way, for the therapeutic purposes. At the end of the year 1933, one of my teachers, the physicist ordinarius [full professor] at the University of Bonn, recommended me to the Experimental Station for Aviation as a medical consultant.

I accepted this position in 1934. In other words, since 1934 and until the collapse I was a physician in the Experimental Station for Aviation.

Q: You were the director of this institute?

A: First when I came to the institute in 1934 I was scientific collaborator in the institute. I was the first and only medical collaborator in this research institute, and was first assigned to the Department for the Investigation of Technical Accidents. Thus, in the first years of my activities there, I concerned myself with questions of accidents, worked on the medical questions involved, and since this field became larger and larger, I finally received a department and finally I built a medical institute with several scientific collaborators.

Q: Was this aviation medicine institute that you were in charge of — was this a part of the Luftwaffe?

A: This DVL did not have any legal status of its own. It was one of many institutes that were included under the term "DVL", namely, Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt [German Research Institute for Aviation]. At the end of the war there were about twelve or fourteen such institutes within the framework of the DVL.

Q: What was the managing board of the DVL?

A: The DVL was a registered association, founded by private and governmental sources, in order to conduct research into the scientific basis for aviation. The association consisted of individual industrial firms and state offices and officials. The board of managers was elected from this group of people. It consisted again of private individuals, of representatives of individual industrial firms who were members of the association, and of representatives of other governmental institutes. The board of managers of the DVL determined how the organization was to be managed, and it appointed the institute and departmental chiefs. The management, at that time, consisted of one scientist.

To him were subordinated four directors. Three of these directors each had a group of scientific institutes under him, and the fourth director was in charge of administration, construction, etc. In this group of institutes they were subordinate to the individual directors. My institute was the one entitled "Equipment".

Q: You were the leader of this institute until Spring of 1945. Were you then professionally active thereafter, and if so, when and where?

A: From the Spring of 1945 until the Autumn of 1945 I was unemployed. From October, 1945, to September 1946, I was scientific collaborator of the Aero-Medical Center of the United States Air Forces.

Q: What was your position there, just in general?

A: My activities were similar to those that I had under the DVL.

Q: Were high altitude experiments carried on in this Aero Medical Center such as you are accused of in this trial?

A: I experimented in the field of high altitude research and also carried out high altitude experiments in the low pressure chamber as I had done in my institute and of which I am here accused.

Q: Did you use a low pressure chamber such as was used in Dachau?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, what specific tasks did your institute have? Namely, the institute of which you said previously that it had the title "Air Medicine Institute"?

A: In general, this institute had the job of finding the medical and scientific bases of aviation and investigating the general practical questions that confront aviation.

Q: In what way was this institute or the D.V.L. subordinate to the Air Ministry?

A: The D.V.L. received its instructions from the Air Ministry until the end of 1941 from the so-called research department of the Air Ministry and then from the research director of the Ministry. My institute, the Institute for Aviation Medicine, had a particular position with the D.V.L. to the extent that we were subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and had to report to it and receive orders from it. However, the orders which we did receive from the Medical Inspector to concerned only technical matters. In other words, it was not a military subordination or command.

Q: Who was chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe at that time?

A: At that time, Hippke.

Q: The same Hippke, who has often here been mentioned?

A: Yes.

Q: What were the relations between your institute and the party; the SS and the SA and what were your relations to the N.S. Doctors Union?

A: The German Experimental Institute for Aviation, as well as my own Institute, had no relations at all to the party, to the SS or to any other party agency. The Institute, as I have already said here, had been founded in the year 1911, it was a registered association and had no affiliations to any party agencies.

I, myself, at the end of 1937, entered the party as a party candidate and was finally accepted in the year 1938. I did not belong to the SS, the SA or to the National Socialist League of Physicians.

Q: You were saying that you were accepted into the party in the year of 1938; did you then become a proper party member; did you receive the party membership book; did you receive the usual obligations; were you placed under oath, etc.?

A: I said that in the second half of 1937 I signed my application for party membership and that in the year of 1938 I was actually accepted. I never received a so-called party book, nor did I get any obligation.

Q: During the subsequent period, did you hold any office in the party?

A: No, I never exercised any office with the party.

Q: Mr. President, in that connection I should like to offer an affidavit as Document No. 2 in Document Book Dr. Ruff and I shall give it Exhibit No. 1, Ruff Exhibit No. 1. This is an affidavit by Engineer Otto Fuchs, given on 23 December 1946 and certified and signed on the very same day before the competent Burgermeister [Mayor]. After the customary introduction, the witness Otto Fuchs says, but at first states that he was a deputy member of the Board of Directors in the German Experimental Institute for Aviation and then he speaks about Dr. Ruff:

Dr. Siegfried Ruff, as chief of the 'Institute for Aviation Medicine' was also employed with the D.V.L. As far as I remember he was appointed to this position by recommendation of Professor Dohnen, amongst others, who was at that time Chancellor of Bonn University. This alone shows that party political consideration did not lead to Dr. Ruff's appointment, but exclusively scientific considerations, and especially the fact that he, as an enthusiastic and extremely gifted pilot, seemed to be particularly suited to understand the problems, which arose during actual flights, and to submit these to scientific examination. I saw and talked to Dr. Ruff almost daily, unless either he or I were traveling.

His political opinion is known to me well enough to be able to testify about it.

2. I would like to emphasize the following about Dr. Ruff's character and his general human qualities as far as I was able to observe them:

a) His readiness to listen to all human troubles and his ever present willingness to help with advice and action. He always put in a good word for the accused in any kind of disciplinary action, especially in connection with the often incomprehensible severe sentences for violations of flying discipline and order, but also in matters pertaining to offenses against civil laws. He tried to awaken human understanding by explaining the psychological backgrounds and by citing his own experiences. His attitude impressed me favorably and as a result we frequently discussed the idea of attaching a section for aviation psychology to his institute. His kindly, frank manner seems, by the way, not to be an individual characteristic but a quality possessed by his entire family.

Dr. Ruff had a very high conception of his medical calling. He demanded from himself and his staff the highest personal effort. I know, for instance, that he and his colleagues carried out the most dangerous aviation experiments, such as those on acceleration-endurance, sitting personally at the controls. Dr. Wieshoefer who participated with him in these investigations, met with accidental death during one of them. In the same way he repeatedly performed experiments on himself in the centrifuge and in the high altitude chamber. During those experiments he often reached the limit of endurance and consciously accepted pain and physical disorders. This spirit, by the way, did not reign exclusively amongst the doctors of the D.V.L. I know for instance, that Dr. Benzinger of the Air Force Research Institute Rechlin also conducted highly dangerous experiments on himself as an experimental subject.

I never noticed that Dr. Ruff was possessed of an unusual or even a pathological ambition, which might have resulted in his acting against his better conscience for reasons of decoration or career. His simple, modest, quiet demeanor, his integrity, and his dislike of meeting his superiors more often than official necessity demanded, resulted in many personal setbacks, for instance, his promotion to a professorship; but nevertheless this caused no injury to his self-confidence which might have resulted in a desire to alter his way of life or to push himself into the limelight.

For these mentioned reasons I consider it absolutely impossible for Dr. Ruff to have committed a crime against the law and against humanity.

b) Dr. Ruff seemed to me at no time so enamored of national socialistic ideology that he accepted all decrees, speeches and actions of the government without criticism. Neither did he agree with the brutal treatment of the Jews, nor with inhuman warfare, as far as we know about it. I remember the horror with which he discussed the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto when rumors about this occurrence reached him. The order to kill parachutists who bailed out and especially Dr. Goebbels' malicious statement that enemy air-crews who bailed out, could no longer be protected from the fury of the population, which was practically an incitement to murder, he regarded as infamy quite incompatible with the honor of a soldier, and he expressed himself openly to that effect. He also sharply criticized the surprise daylight attack of German fighter planes on London — I forget the date — when crowds and buses were fired on.

In contrast to this on returning from visits to the front, he gave repeated examples of how the Allied Command respected the Red Cross, contrary to propaganda statements.

I think I shall skip the next paragraph and I shall continue with Paragraph c. Well, I don't think I have to read that either, it mainly repeats his political attitude and this also applies to Paragraph d. I ask you to take notice of these paragraphs and I will continue with figure E.

e) As far as I know, Dr. Ruff was not in close contact with the SS. As he was by nature against all extremists, he could not very well agree with the radical demands of this organization. He saw in the racial doctrine, as did every educated man, a crude conclusion based on the mental capacity of the masses, from insufficient scientific material, and therefore completely distorted; their attitude toward the churches, their system of supervision and spying, their penal institutions (concentration camps) and their political intolerance were in contrast to his tolerant nature; or respect for the rights of the individual, willingness to listen to the opinions of others, and a desire to extend the scientific and human horizon were inborn in him.

3) I myself did not belong to the party and its branches, neither in actual fact nor in sympathy.

I don't think I have to read the last. Then follows the certification.

In this connection, Mr. President, I offer to the Tribunal as further evidence Document No. 4, which is to be found in Document volume Ruff, which you will find on Page 12 of the Document Book. This will be Exhibit No. 2. It is an affidavit of a certain architect called Hermann Brenner, who from the year 1928 until April of 1945 was a member of that Institute.

In other words, for seventeen years he was in a position to acquaint himself with the situation. I don't have to read this affidavit in its entirety, but I ask you to take notice of it. I merely want to read the second paragraph under 2 and the last paragraph under figure 3. Under Figure 2 it says and I quote:

It was well-known in the German Experimental Institute for Aviation that Dr. Ruff carried out a series of experiments in aviation medicine on his own person. This was in conformity with his own ideas and with the principles of the Institute, which laid down that, if any important experiments were to be carried out on human beings, he and his colleagues must be the first to volunteer for such experiments (aviation experiments, low pressure chamber experiments).

I am now going to read the last paragraph under Figure 3:

Dr. Ruff naturally took part in these debates as well, expressing himself just as unreservedly as all the others on the subject of the State Leadership. When for example the subject of the killing of parachutists came up — I do not know if such an order did exist — Dr. Ruff was strongly opposed to such an idea as being, in his opinion, not only a contradiction of the principles of decent warfare, but also of his sportsmanlike opinions as an aviator.

This affidavit is certified also in the proper way.

Witness, one witness who has testified here, said that you were not considered to be nominated for a professorship; is that correct and what is the true situation? I merely am putting that question to you because from various sides I have been informed that you were an authority and renounced authority in your special field?

A: I think that I received in 1936 a lecturer assignment regarding aviation matters at the University of Berlin.

During the winter semester, 1937 to 1938, I qualified as a lecturer at the Medical Faculty of the University of Berlin and during the year of 1941 was released from the research department of the Aviation Ministry or rather was suggested as a research lecturer. Opinions had to be expressed by two or three professors on this suggestion. In my case one was Professor Rein, who was and is today the physiological expert at the University of Goettingen and the present rector of that University. The other was Professor Strughold, who was at that time the head of the Aviation Medical Institute of Berlin and is at present ordinarius for physiology at the University of Heidelberg and scientific collaborator of the Aero Medicine Center, U.S. Army Air Force. The third was Professor Knothe, at that time Professor for x-ray at the University of Berlin and the head of the Experimental and Lecture Department of the Luftwaffe. Now he is the head of an x-ray department at Hanover. At that time, I was not promoted to a professorship and in the year 1944 I heard from the referendum for research work in the Aviation Ministry that the application, dated at that period had not been approved, because I was considered by the party agency that had been asked, as completely lacking party interest and party activities. In the year of 1945 another such request was made by the Aviation Department, but because of the eminent collapse nothing was done.

Q: Mr. President, I received the qualifications written at that time about Dr. Ruff from the University of Goettingen. These qualifications originate from the Ordinarius for Physiology, Professor Dr. Rein, who is at present lecturer of the University at Goettingen. I offer this as evidence and it is to be found in the Document Book Ruff, Document 5 on Page 16 — Pages 16 to 19.

This opinion as Dr. Rein has his signature and is certified by a notary:

I know all the details of the scientific accomplishments of Dr. med. habil. Siegfried Ruff. His work is distinguished by its objectivity and its reliability, and is often highly original. He was unusually fortunate in dealing with the problems of practice by modern scientific methods, and thus was able to achieve many important results. I was convinced that he was completely master of the secondary and basic sciences of his field of work, and that he constantly endeavored to keep up with their advances. I am convinced that, scientifically, Dr. Ruff is full of promise; the intensity of his work shows an increasing curve. I think that he fully deserves the title of Professor of research.

There is a second expert opinion by this Dr. Rein, director of the University of Goettingen, which can be found on page 18 of the Document Book and which is also concluded in Exhibit 3. I am not going to read it because it conforms to the opinion written in 1941 and it merely refers to the three years that have elapsed, and is just as favorable as the preceding opinion.

In this connection, Mr. President, I am now offering an affidavit by the previously mentioned Dr. Strughold, dated 28 January 1947, to be found in Document Volume Ruff, Document 9, on pages 31 to 34. This affidavit was certified in the customary manner by the competent officer of the Air Medical Center in Heidelberg, and I shall read it because it is of special significance when judging the character of Dr. Ruff and because this Professor Doctor Strughold is an expert who has not been equalled by anyone in Germany.

MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, I don't think it is necessary for Dr. Sauter to read each and everyone of these character reference affidavits, giving the background of the Defendant Ruff, into the record. He has read one quite extensive affidavit, which I did not bother to object to the reading of because I thought if he read one, he might let up and not read the rest of them, but it appears that Dr. Sauter intends to read each and every one of them. I think he can well ask the Tribunal to take notice of the affidavits without reading them here.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I would like to follow this suggestion, if the Prosecution would abide by similar principles, but up to the moment I have never experienced it that in a case where the prosecution would have a number of incriminating witnesses, say ten, would say that I am going to read one such statement of the witness and I ask you to take notice of the others. If ten prosecution witnesses are available, I am sure all ten of them will march up and give evidence. I am of the opinion, if I have 10 witnesses, who are testifying on behalf of my client, I should be permitted to offer the evidence. I am sure the Tribunal will permit me to read half of them.

Mr. President, this reading of affidavits is 10 times more expedient than bringing witnesses over here and questioning one after the other, for one or two days. I think I shall have only one witness whom I shall examine here and I think I will finish in a short period of time. I am of the opinion that these affidavits are very important for the judgment of the personality of the Defendant Ruff, because he has come into this trial in a very unfortunate manner. During the course of the proceedings, I shall submit quite a number of affidavits and I shall ask you to only take notice of them, but I shall ask to read the most important ones.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has very largely yielded to the opinion of counsel as to what affidavits should be read and what portions of the affidavits should be read and what should simply be submitted in evidence, when submitted to the Tribunal for consideration. Of course, character witnesses testify only for the defendants; these affidavits, concerning the character of a defendant, are not particularly helpful when read into the record. It is quite proper for counsel for the defendant to read striking paragraphs and important portions of them, but these exhibits which are in the record and admitted in evidence before the Tribunal, will all be considered and be given the same consideration as if they had been read in their entirety in the record. In some ways it may almost be imagined they will receive more attention, because in reading through a long record, one comes to lengthy affidavits, one might then go back to the Document books and read the affidavit, which is he therein contained. The Tribunal will, as it has before, except in cases where the privileges are abused, allow counsel for the defendants to use their best judgment in reading affidavits, or those portions of them, which they desire to put into the record. The affidavits, of course, are of two classes; factual affidavits and affidavits as to character, and for the factual affidavits a much greater reasons exists for the reading of those into the record and putting them before the Tribunal than is true in the case of character affidavits.

At the present we will leave the matter to the best judgment of counsel as to what affidavits, or portions of them should be read and what should simply be admitted in evidence.

Of course, counsel for all parties might probably be again reminded, they will be called upon, to furnish trial briefs to the Tribunal, and in the trial briefs they will call attention to these portions of the record, whether in the Document Book or in daily transcripts, on which they particularly rely; but actually in a record of this length the Tribunal will rely very strongly on trial briefs, submitted by counsel for the respective defendants and in those briefs, ample opportunity will be afforded, counsel to call attention, and it will be their duty to so do, and to call attention to those portions of the record, which they deem particularly pertinent to their client's case. Counsel may proceed.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the affidavit with which I am dealing now seems to have significance because it's author, Professor Strughold, was in absolute opposition to the National Socialist regime, as he says, furthermore, he studied in the United States of America for a number of years while he carried on his research work. I am going to skip the introduction of this affidavit in order to oblige the Prosecution. For the same reason I am not going to read figure I, where it is explained what scientific achievements the defendant Ruff has to show. I should only like to read one sentence in Figure I. Here it says:

It is noteworthy that he, Dr. Ruff, carried out on himself all important extreme experiments and, particularly that he undertook himself dangerous undertakings in aeroplanes. In the same way, he also made altitude experiments on himself, although that was not primarily in his own special sphere.

This is all I am going to read of Figure I. These sentences are very important, because it has been said here in the court room that the most important thing of any research work is the experiments of the researcher on himself. I was not going to read the paragraph about the political attitude of Dr. Ruff in #2 and I am merely asking the Tribunal to take notice of it. It confirms with the explanation by other witnesses. On the other hand, I would like to read the paragraph 3 where it says the following about the personality of the defendant, as a researcher and practitioner, and I quote:

Dr. Ruff was intent on creating a good scientific reputation for his Institute. There were no signs of an unhealthy ambition to be seen in him. He was unassuming, friendly, very ready to help, and took a great interest in the members of his Institute. He was moreover very self-sacrificing. He carried out all important and dangerous experiments on himself. In particular his numerous acceleration experiments are responsible for the fact that his health (circulation) suffered considerably, a fact which was demonstrated in the past year by an edema of the legs in the evenings, which persisted for weeks at a time.

In summing up, I can say this: Dr. Ruff is a scientist of extraordinary experimental talent and ingenuity, who made outstanding contributions to the development of air travel, particularly in the sphere of high speed flying, and to research into the cause of accidents. To a great extent, he obtained these results, especially in the aircraft experiments which were not always completely under control, by carrying out the experiments on himself. In experiments on others, he would hardly have neglected, because of his own personal attitude, the precautions which medical conscience prescribed.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, I am now going to continue and I will ask you the following: What was the main activity of your institute, of which you were the head. What experiments were carried out in your institute?

A: As I already said before the entire work of the institute developed, on the basis of the knowledge of the cause of air accidents. In the institute itself there were three main spheres of work, one was pure air accident science. This included air accident statistics from a medical point of view, and in the second sphere of work, the special questions of speed in air flight was worked upon, and in the third sphere of work there were questions of high altitude, the question of the prevention of accidents was in the foreground.

Q: The experiments which were carried out in the spring of 1942 at Dachau, were they something extraordinary, or did they fall within the every day practice of your institute? In that connection, could you perhaps give us a closer insight as to the extent of the experiments in your institute.

A: At first, I should like to answer your first question. The experiments which were carried out with my approval and my permission by my collaborator Romberg at Dachau were absolutely within the framework of the experimental work such as was carried out in our own institute upon ourselves.

To state the amount of all the series of experiments which we carried out in the course of these ten years would go much too far. Therefore, I should only like to give you a few examples from which one can see what the course of our work was. For instance, through accident reports we gained knowledge that during a certain period of time in sport aviation, glider aviation, a number of fatal accidents occurred, because the passengers in the planes, when landing on the ground, or rather crash landing on the ground, received serious injuries, for instance, the tearing of the liver and the spleen, stomach etc. Within a short period of time, amounting to perhaps six months or nine months, forty persons died. We had to explain how these accidents came about and how they could be prevented. In order to do that it was necessary to establish what strain the stomach could take from the stomach belt to which the flier is attached. We tried to imitate such strokes as they occurred during flight to the extent at which it became unbearable, that is until the belt was torn, and then we were in a position to state the means with the help of which such injuries could be avoided.

Owing to these experiments there was practically no accident of that kind in the subsequent period.

In another experimental series we had to clarify the question of how many dives a flier would be able to carry out from the medical point of view. We used an army diving plane where we carried out experiments amounting up to thirty dives a day. The pilot on those occasions was present, being the man in charge of the experiment, and the experimental subject, and another experimental subject was seated on the second seat. While the experimental subject who sat in the co-pilot's seat changed with someone else after a certain number of tests, the pilot, as the man in charge of the experiment, and experimental subject, carried out all tests.

All together we carried out 800 such dives in the course of three months and we only interrupted these experiments when we found signs of exhaustion of the heart and blood circulation of the pilot.

A further experimental series was to determine the effect of vibrations and shakings on the occupants of a plane. These experiments were carried out partly in the plane and partly on certain shaking tables. In the case of these vibration experiments strong disturbances in the nervous system become apparent which are registered by certain methods. My assistant Wisehoefer found his death during one such experimental flight. This was not because of medical reasons but because of a technical error in the flight.

Then there was another experimental question concerning parachute jumping up to what speed the unprotected face of the pilot is not exposed to injury. These experiments were partly carried out in the plane by the experimental subject going out into the air after a certain speed was reached, exposing the face to the air current, and after that, by some means, the person was brought back into the plane. In cases of high speeds such experiments were carried out in a wind tunnel. During such experiments we went to 820 kilometers per hour speeds. And, in order to give you some idea, of what that means, one can say that with over 800 kilometers there is a wind pressure of over 3000 kilograms per one square meter. In order to explain it a little better one may point out that a normal ceiling in an office building takes three hundred to three hundred fifty kilos per square meter. In the case of this speed of the wind, which corresponds to 3,000 kilograms per square meter, the air becomes very hard. Even the smallest bits of dust enter the skin as if they were projectiles, and the skin of the face becomes so worn and so effected that after the experiment several experimental persons had their faces covered with blood on the pores of the skin.

Then experiments were carried out in order to ascertain what the shocks were that a person could stand after the parachute had unfolded. During these experiments the spine is very strongly strained. Also these experiments were carried out to the limits of what was necessary for practical flying. Furthermore experiments were carried out in the question of what would happen if in the pressure cabin of a plane — this is a cabin where the crew of a stratospheric flight plane are being housed.

This has the pressure which corresponds to do out 3000 meters and if this cabin suddenly should leak because of a gun shot or because of a window pane breaking, the people inside can experience an acceleration of altitude compared to 3 to perhaps 15 thousand meters within a period of time of 1/10 of a second. Since it was not at all clear whether the human organism could stand it, we, in the same way as other nations, carried out such experiments. — A further question which will effect us later is the question of parachuting from high altitudes which was dealt with by us in self-experimentation. I should like to limit myself to these examples, and I should only like to read a number of these experiment series just by naming their titles: Experiments on the effects of certain laughing-gas concentrations, which is a narcotic gas; examination of the damage of ears by noise; examination of the resistance of the human spine against shocks as occur when planes are landing; examination of the physiological basis when building catapult seats; examination what affects resistance at high altitudes etc. The number of these experimental series could be increased as desired.

Q: Mr. President, I should like you to take notice of Document 19. It is to be found in Document Volume Ruff, Supplement No. 1. This document will receive Ruff Exhibit No. 5. This is a compilation of the publications of the defendant, in which he constantly reported to the public on the experiments which were carried through, and on their results. I ask you to take notice of that document. — Dr. Ruff, we have already seen from your description that all these experiments were apparently carried out in the interest of aviation, is that correct, or were other experiments carried out?

A: No. All these experiments were in the interest of aviation, and as I said before they were mostly in the interest of the prevention of accidents or the diminution of damages in case of accidents.

Q: Do you think you can say that all of these experiments were actually necessary in the interest of the Aeronautics and personnel?

A: It is my opinion that this was so.

Q: During these experiments did there occur any fatal accidents which effected either experimental subjects or the people in charge of the experiment or any assistants. I am particularly referring to the high altitude experiments such as they were carried on at Dachau in the year of 1942?

A: In the entire German Aviation Medicine, although thousands and thousands of experiments were carried out, we only had two fatal cases. One occurred in the year of 1937 in the Himalayas where one aero medical scientist when carrying out medical experiments in the mountains received his death because of an ice avalanche. This was not due to his medical experiments. The second case of death which occurred in the entire Aviation Medicine in Germany, was the death of my assistant Wiesehoefer.

Q: You have already mentioned, that, haven't you?

A: Yes, I mentioned that before. The death of this man also was not due to medical conditions but merely due to a technical error in the plane.

Q: Dr. Ruff, in the affidavits read which it is already repeatedly mentioned, you carried out all experiments first upon yourself, where you were putting yourself at disposal as an experimental subject. During those experiments which you performed upon yourself, did you experience any personal damage of health, etc?

A: Then carrying out these many diving flights experiments, a condition of exhaustion of heart and circulation appeared which never quite left me.

But it on the other hand is not particularly dangerous.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, at this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.