1947-04-28, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 April 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. SIEGRFIED RUFF Resumed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Ruff):

Q: Before the recess you told us what you know before the Dachau experiments about the experimental subjects, whether they were voluntary, whether they were criminals, whether they received rewards. I should like to know whether similar indications were made to you about the quality of the experimental subjects while the experiments were continuing, that is, after they had already started.

A: Yes, also after the beginning of the experiments these factors were confirmed to me. when Romberg came from Dachau to Berlin for the first time and reported to me about the experiments, we naturally discussed the question what experimental subjects were placed at our disposal, and on this occasion Romberg confirmed to me that they were placed at our disposal, that they were all voluntary, and that we were there concerned with criminals.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER: Mr. President, I had intended to quote two testimonies of witnesses, the testimony of SS Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff, who has been mentioned here repeatedly, and also the testimony of Professor Doctor Hippke, who also was mentioned on numerous occasions. Originally I intended — considering the importance of their testimony — to hear them personally on the witness stand. In the meantime, however these two witnesses were already heard orally in the Milch Tribunal downstairs and were cross examined subsequently. For that reason, I decided not to examine these witnesses here. If we would examine these two witnesses here it would cost us approximately 4 days, for that is exactly the length of time they took downstairs.

Therefore, I should merely like to quote excerpts from their testimony. I am not going to do that today because the supplemental document book in which these two testimonies are contained is not yet available to you. By tomorrow morning this supplemental book will be available to you and then I shall be in a position to read excerpts from these two testimonies.

MR. HARDY: Your honors, I don't know whether defense counsel knows the procedure necessary, for the introduction of the testimony before the Tribunal Number II will only necessitate him receiving a copy of the record and having the record certified to by the Secretary General of that Tribunal, and then to request the Tribunal here to take judicial notice thereof. And by doing so, I don't see the reason or necessity for reading into the record here the testimony before Tribunal Number II. It may be done that simply. I don't know whether he is aware of that or not.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER: Mr. President, I have already stated that I am not going to read this long record in verbatim, but shall only quote a few excerpts which appear to be of particular importance. I am doing that in the interest of brevity of the proceedings and for the same reason I forwent the opportunity to examine these witnesses personally because that would have cost us approximately four days. The prosecution probably would not be able to get any more from those two witnesses in their cross examination than was the case downstairs in the Milch Tribunal. What I suggested now is intended to accelerate proceedings.

MR. HARDY: Your honor, I agree with Dr. Sauter 100%. I am merely trying to inform him that to have it certified to by the Secretary of that Tribunal will not delay us here when he introduces it tomorrow.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the prosecuting attorney is correct if the Secretary-General will certify the entire testimony of these two witnesses, this Tribunal will take judicial notice of that testimony.

It is then available before this Tribunal for both parties and can be referred to in argument. It will then be noted by the tribunal in its entirety and counsel may call attention in argument and in his brief to those portions which he deems important to his defense. Of course, the evidence is already in the transcript form. The Secretary-General will just certify that so many pages of the mimeographed transcript as to the testimony of those witnesses before Tribunal II in that testimony is before this Tribunal for judicial notice, and the Tribunal will take judicial notice of that testimony. It seems to me that would accomplish very purpose that counsel for the defendant Ruff, and the other defendants whose defense will be put in next, that that would answer every purpose that the defendants could desire.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. I am in full agreement with you. In that connection I should like to read an excerpt from an affidavit by Herbert Wilschewske which can be found in Document Book Ruff, Document No. 11 on page 45, and which was already submitted to the IMT during the case against the SS. This document will receive the exhibit number 10. This Herbert Wilschewske from whom this affidavit originates was a Polish Communist. He went to Dachau Concentration Camp after having been sentenced previously to eight years penitentiary because of refusal to undergo military service. The first part of that affidavit is not important and I ask you merely to take notice of it.

He here speaks about housing and treatment he received in Dachau and he said he was well treated and quite satisfied. I should only like to read the two small paragraphs at the end of the affidavit. I would like to read them because they refer to experiments. The one but the last paragraph, page 47 of the German edition of the document, reads:

During the whole of my stay in Dachau I saw no instance of killing or maltreating of prisoners, with the exception of the "youth education" measures ordered by the Reichsfuehrer-SS; these were corporal punishment. All cases of execution of shooting or hanging, of which I heard, were based on court-martial verdicts.

I have never actually seen conditions like those I saw in films and read about in the newspapers after the capitulation, about maltreatment in the German concentration camps. I knew, certainly, about medical experiments on prisoners. I had repeated opportunities of speaking to prisoners who had presented themselves for these experiments. I know nothing of the nature of these experiments. Prisoners who reported for those experiments, did so, as far as I know, voluntarily, as in this way they could earn their own freedom and rehabilitation as well as benefiting their dependents —

This affidavit is certified in the proper way as I said before. It originates from a Polish Communist who was interned at Dachau for a number of years. Dr. Ruff, the experiments in Dachau then began. What order did you have which permitted you to send your co-workers to Dachau, including Dr. Romberg?

A: Dr. Romberg received the order to clarify the question whether a protection of airplane passengers is possible at a height of 20 kilometers altitude. For that purpose he was to carry out certain parachute experiments. By parachute experiments we understand experiments where a man who has jumped from the plane would fall as if he wasn't opening his parachute.

Under so-called slow sinking experiments we understand experiments which are similar to conditions where a man goes down to the ground when his parachute is opened. During those experiments Romberg was to pay attention to the so-called pre-mobilization which is the peculiar incident where the human being when descending from high altitude regains his full consciousness at the point where when ascending he lost his consciousness. In the case of this assignment with which Romberg went to Dachau we were concerned with a very clearly limited order to clarify a practical and important question.

Q: Dr. Ruff, during this trial we are always speaking of medical experiments on human beings. In other words, medical experiments on human beings. I would be very interested to know whether this experiments, the experiment in an airplane, or experiments with the low pressure chamber in order to protect people from high altitude can be put on the same level as medical experiments, such as infectious experiments, etc., or wasn't there any basic difference which could find the effect in the legal evaluation of these experiments?

A: If you like you could divide medical experiments into two main groups. On the one hand you have the actual clinical experiments to which, for instance, belong infection experiments. In the case of these clinical experiments the man in charge of the experiment is not really close to the actual course of the experiments or, at any rate to a very small extent. The physiological experiment on the other hand to which these aviation experiments belong have an entirely different task. They are performed on healthy persons, do not bring about any illness and normally result in no damage to health of the person or even in the death of the experimental subject. It is their task to investigate the normal physiological living conditions or to test the regulations governing these conditions. In order to cite a very simple example one can find out what the reaction of the heart is under normal conditions for instance, how the heart reacts when standing, when lying, after easy work, etc.

In order to stick to this example one can also try to ascertain to what extent the heart can be burdened with, for instance, physical activity. For such a purpose I ask that the experimental subjects carry out physical exercise up to the time of exhaustion. During that time I observe all the things which are of particular interest to me. During such burdening experiments, as we call it in medicine, practical questions often play a particular part. In order to stay with this example of the function of the heart the practical questions which will crop up, for instance, are the following: to what extent can a human being, given certain nourishment and assuming a certain age, be burdened. In our experiments as we carried them out in Dachau it was to be ascertained whether this burdening, by having a person parachute from high altitude, remained within normal reactions of a human being and the practical question is whether the human person would awaken from its altitude sickness early enough to carry out his decision to unfold the parachute entirely. It is important that in this group of physiological experiments can increase this burdening by degrees so that one carefully approaches the limitations of possibility. The entire experiment is carried out within the sphere of normal. Contrary to the clinical experiments, for instance, infection experiments which are always carried out in the sphere of the abnormal.

Q: Dr. Ruff, I should like to revert to the one but last question I put to you. I have just heard it was translated that Romberg had the order to clarify this problem at a height of 25000 meters. Didn't I understand you to say that is order read that the problem was to be clarified at a height of 20000 meters?

A: Yes, that is correct. I said 20,000 meters.

Q: Dr. Ruff, one day the experiments were started at Dachau—

Were you yourself in Dachau during those experiments and did you personally convince yourself how these experiments were carried out, or was that not the case?

A: That is correct. at one time I went to Dachau while these experiments were carried on and I observed them.

Q: Do you know when, approximately, that was.

A: Yes, that was during the first weeks of these experiments. Unfortunately I can no longer give you the exact date.

Q: Can you tell us approximately how long after the beginning of the experiments you went there, whether one week, 14 days or a month later.

A: I assume about three weeks later. I went there about three weeks after the beginning of the experiments but as I said I can't say exactly.

Q: I fully understand. During your personal experience in Dachau when you observed these experiments for the first and last time, did you also see the inmates used for these purposes.

A: Yes.

Q: Did you speak to these people, I mean the inmates?

A: Yes. I did before and after the experiments I spoke to those inmates who participated in the experiments which I personally saw. And, in addition I had time, from five to six hours, to move among these prisoners, that were used for the experiments and talked to them about various matters.

Q: Dr. Ruff, did these persons wear any particular red or a green badge, and I mean the prisoners who you saw when you went to Dachau? During the experiments when you yourself were there did the experimental subjects wear any badge? Did that come to your notice?

A: The experimental subjects which were used for our experiments were housed together at that experimental station. They all wore a badge which was the same in the case of all them. It was the green badge belonging to the criminal.

Q: Did you find, out, through conversation, for what crimes these people had been incarcerated?

A: Romberg, as well as Rascher, told me about the crimes that were committed by these persons, and I think that the witness Neff, who was examined here, said something about that. Today I only remember the case of two of these experimental subjects of whom one was sentenced because of theft and the other because of printing false money.

Q: You said that the inmates who you saw wore the green badge, the badge for professional criminals. Weren't there any political prisoners there who ordinarily would have had the red badge?

A: These experimental subjects I saw all wore the same badge; namely, the green square.

Q: Dr. Ruff, did you entertain any thoughts when you were in Dachau as to whether people who you saw there were Germans or foreigners? Whether they were Aryans or Jews? Whether they were civilians or prisoners of war? I am not asking you whether you are thinking about that today, but whether you thought about that at that time or whether you learned something about it? I emphasize — at that time.

A: At that time I did not think about that point. That for the reason that I did not know that any foreigners were housed in any concentration camps, not to speak of prisoners of war. That I only heard here during the trial — that there were any prisoners of war in Dachau or in any concentration camps. I cannot remember having read, in the newspaper before this trial that any prisoners of war were in concentration camps.

From the conversation I had with the inmates during my stay in Dachau I can say today, with certainty, that none of these inmates spoke any other language but German. Certainly, there was no experimental subject there who came from abroad, and if I remember correctly, Neff, has also testified that these foreigners did not wear the badge of a professional criminal.

Q: During conversations with these people did you discuss the question of the voluntary nature? If you didn't discuss that question expressly, what impression did you gain from these people as to that aspect?

A: I didn't discuss the question of their voluntary nature specifically because I had already known before the experiments started that we were going to use voluntary subjects. My co-worker, Romberg, on the occasion of his first trip to Berlin, told me that they would be voluntary professional criminals and I therefore had no occasion to discuss that question with them. However, I asked one of these people since I was interested in that subject — how many had volunteered or rather, how many had reported for these experiments, and he said that this was a number of sixty-seven and that Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Rascher had ten selected, the age groups which were suitable for our experiments.

Q: Witness, as you have said, you went to Dachau once after the experiments has started. You observed them yourself and convinced yourself of their execution. Why did you do that? Could you not rely upon your co-worker, Dr. Romberg, and if so, why did you go from Berlin to Munich in order to observe the experiments?

A: Dr. Romberg was my oldest collaborator. Ever since January, 1938, he was a member of my institute and had engaged in particular in medical questions occurring during air accidents and during altitude accidents. By order of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, he investigated all air incidents — air accidents during the years from 1938 to 1940, and he compiled a very extensive report on these matters where he established that during aviation, air incidents occur for the reason that crews were not informed enough about the peculiarities of altitude sickness.

On the basis of that report it was ordered that all crews of airplanes who had to fly in high altitudes had to be subjected once every two years to altitude sickness in order, by own experience and by observing their friends, they would get acquainted with altitude sickness. Rombert had performed numerous experiments of various nature upon himself in this sphere of high altitude. Within my institute it was his task to inform younger collaborators about altitude sickness. In other words, he had to teach our younger assistants and, in this manner, he had to perform high altitude experiments almost every day on either as the man in charge of the experiments or as the experimental subject. During all these experiments I had considered Romberg as a careful and reliable experimenter and physician. In spite of that, however, I went to Dachau personally in order to observe these experiments personally. Whenever any experiments were carried out outside our institute I was in the habit of doing that and I am referring to wind tunnel experiments at Braunschweig and other experiments at Rechlin. This visit to Dachau had nothing at all to do with my evaluation of the reliability of Dr. Romberg, but it was in accordance with a principle to which I always adhered whenever experiments were carried out beyond the limits of our institute.

Q: Then the experiments at Dachau, Dr. Ruff, were not performed by yourself, but by the co-defendant, Dr. Romberg, and by the repeatedly mentioned Dr. Rascher. What was the relation of subordination? Was Dr. Romberg subordinate to Dr. Rascher during those experiments, or was Dr. Rascher subordinate to Dr. Romberg? Was this question of subordination ever discussed or, at any rate, what was year understanding?

A: During those experiments we were concerned with scientific collaboration. This had been agreed upon. This, in effect, means that neither one was subordinate to the other. This scientific collaboration between the representatives of various institutes is quite customary in science. Dr. Romberg was responsible for the scientific part of these high altitude experiments because he was the one who had already in the past carried out such experiments.

He was the one who set up the experimental plan and had most experience in that regard. Within the concentration camp, the relations of subordination was different because Rascher had had the approval for the performance of these experiments and therefore was responsible to Himmler. Romberg, on the other hand, within the camp was responsible to the camp commander and to the SS legal system. That was no special case, but every person who had entered the concentration camp had to acknowledge this fact by his signature before given the permission to enter the camp. I had to sign such a paper when visiting the camp. Every person had to obey all the orders by the SS, while in the camp, and certainly had no right what so ever to issue within the camp. Dr. Ruff, in various documents contained in the document Volume #2 of the prosecution the expression can be found that Rascher was detailed to the DVL station at Dachau, DVL meaning German experimental Institute for Aviation. For instance, I found that expression contained in a file notice of Mrs. Rascher, dated the 28th April, 1942, Document 264, and also in a letter by the witness Wolf, directed to Hippke, addressed to the 16th of April, 1942, Document # 318. On the other hand, Heppke told me personally that there was no branch in Dachau of the DVL. How about that situation?

A: I did not at all concern myself about Rascher's being detailed to these experiments, either before the experiments or during the experiments. Rascher did not belong to my institute, and his being detailed, therefore, could not concern me. When the experiments started, Rascher had belonged to the institute of Prof. Weltz which had an Air Force agency, and if, as I see from the documents, there were differences between Weltz and Rascher, Rascher tried to be detailed to some other agency. In this connection, his wife suggested that he be detailed to the DVL at Dachau. No such branch over existed. At no time was there a branch of the DVL at Dachau or in any other concentration camp.

In the year 1942 there was no branch of the DVL at all, with the exception of an institute for seaplanes, which was located at Hamburg. Rascher, before the experiments and during the experiments when he was in Berlin, was not even detailed to my institute there. My institute was a civilian agency to which he could not possibly have been detailed.

Whenever any soldier or officer was to work with us temporarily as a guest this fact always presented particular difficulties. He was then detailed to an Air Force agency, and this agency in turn permitted him to work with us as a guest. Otherwise, a detailing to a branch at Dachau was not possible for two reasons; one reason because no such branch existed, and, secondly, that if my such branch existed it would have been a civilian agency.

In addition, if any such detailing had been carried out, DVL would have had to have been informed, and this report would have been sent back automatically by our personnel department containing the indication that any such detailing was not possible from a military point of view.

In Hippke's letter of reply to Wolff, which refers to the suggestion of the detailing of Rascher to Dachau, you find that Hippke does not agree to that suggestion; but, rather, writes that Luftgau VII (Air Gau VII) would carry out this request.

Q: Dr. Ruff, when did you gain knowledge that Dr. Rascher's work with Prof. Weltz had been terminated, and that Rascher was once more part of his unit, which was then located at Schongau. When was that? Can you tell us approximately?

A: When I was at Dachau at that time I heard there were certain differences with Weltz and Rascher, and that Rascher had been detailed away from that institute or was to be sent away. Since this concerned internal affairs of the institute I did not worry about it.

Q: Witness, there is a certain contradiction to be found in the documents which are available here. The witness Neff who was examined here has stated on the 17th of December that he know with certainty that you were in Dachau once in order to look at these experiments. He said that was on the 22nd of February, 1942, the day of his birthday. Dr. Romberg, your co-workers, has made an affidavit, Exhibit 40, Document 476, wherein he states in paragraph five, and I quote:

I, Dr. Romberg, remember that Dr. Ruff at least visited Dachau twice, on which occasion he observed the experiments.

How often were you really in Dachau in order to look at the experiments?

A: For the purpose of observing the experiments I went to Dachau once. In spite of that fact, however, both testimonies are correct when Heff says that he saw me in Dachau on one occasion when I looked at the experiments; and Romberg is also correct when he says that I was at Dachau on two occasions.

On one occasion I was there before the beginning of the experiment in order to discuss them; and on the second time I was there while these experiments were going on.

Q: Dr. Ruff, at the time you were in Dachau in order to attend the experiments personally — that was approximately at the beginning of March, 1942 — what did Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher report to you about the progress up to that time? Were you told that the experiments had been going on according to program and without any incidents? Or were you told that there were any incidents?

A: While I was in Dachau at that time Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg told me what experiments they had performed. They said that the experiments had been going on properly and they didn't tell me about any incidents which may have occurred.

Q: You said before that on that occasion you observed the experiments at Dachau. You discussed various matters with the experimental subjects. Did you perhaps also speak to the experimental subjects, asking them whether they knew anything of incidents which occurred, or whether any damages to their health resulted during the course of the experiments?

A: Naturally, I did not ask the experimental subjects about these matters; I only asked the people in charge of the experiments. I asked the experimental subjects only how they felt after the experiments, etc. They confirmed what I saw with my own eyes, namely, that apart from a certain tiredness alter the experiments, they suffered no complaints whatsoever.

Q: While you were personally present in Dachau, what did you learn or what could you establish about the amount of the experimental subjects, and whether the same subjects were used for the experiments, or whether they changed in the case of the respective experiments? Dr. Romberg's experiments didn't only take place for a few days, but extended over a period of several weeks; what did you learn about that? What was the amount? Were they the same ones or did they change?

A: I already said that a group of experimental subjects was housed at this experimental station. It was planned from the outset and it was in effect carried through that these experimental persons were to be available for the entire series. The amount of these experimental subjects ranged between ten to fifteen persons.

Q: Dr. Ruff, we know today on the basis of the documents which have been submitted that during the Dachau high altitude experiments — and I am speaking quite generally — fatalities occurred. When and in what manner did you for the first time hear about these fatalities?

A: That was approximately at the end of April, or the beginning of May. Dr. Romberg came to Berlin and reported to me that Rascher, in addition to our experiments for the purpose of protecting the people from high altitudes, was performing other experiments, as he said, upon orders of Himmler; and that one fatality occurred during those experiments of Rascher. Rascher, as Romberg reported to me, was carrying out an investigation about the reaction of the heart during the so-called "pressure illness."

Q: What kind of an illness is that?

A: That is aero-embolism.

Q: Well, perhaps you could shortly describe that illness using the Latin word or the German word won't help us.

A: These are complaints which occur — can occur — after an altitude of 10,000 or 11,000 meters, on the basis that there is a lack of nitrogen. During such experiments a fatality had occurred when for some time he was at an altitude of between 10,000 to 12,000 meters. Dr. Romberg reported to me that during that experiment the Electrocardiogram had registered an irregularity. He warned Rascher that in effect after a little time an electrocardiogram had dropped down and the result was death of the experimental subject. On the basis of this report of Romberg about this one case of death, we had become clear that we would have to conclude our experiments as quickly as possible. Dr. Romberg was only to conclude the very urgent experiments which had to be performed. During that time a film had to be produced about these experiments — ordered by Himmler on the occasion of his visit to Dachau. After this film had been concluded the chamber was to be removed from Dachau as quickly as possible. The difficulty in concluding the experiments presented itself because one could neither tell Rascher nor Himmler that the fatality which had occurred was the real reason.

Romberg therefore was to use the pretense that the chamber was urgently required at the front. For that purpose we naturally needed the authority of our medical inspector, that was Hippke. In this manner it was possible to remove the chamber from Dachau; against Rascher and Himmler's will it would not have been possible.

Q: Do you believe that against the will of Rascher and against the will of Himmler you could have removed the chamber out of the concentration camp at Dachau at all, if you hadn't done it through the trick you have described?

A: I don't believe I need to go into that at all, that neither Romberg or I would have been in a position to act against the will of Himmler and Rascher to remove anything out of the concentration camp, and certainly not the low pressure chamber.

Q: It is true, Dr. Ruff, that on any occasion you were told it would be sabotage and treason if experiments were prevented?

A: When we removed the chamber from Dachau in this way we realized that it was not entirely without danger to us. How dangerous it actually was, we learned only later because it was said that Himmler had said in writing that he considered those who sabotaged such experiments or attempted to sabotage them were traitors.

Q: A little while ago you told us that in addition to the experiments which Dr. Romberg was to undertake on your behalf that Dr. Rascher was carrying out other experiments on his own accord, and that there was one death in these other experiments; now when you received this news from Dr. Romberg you no doubt wondered how such a death was possible. I should like to know, on the basis of the description of Dr. Romberg, did it occur to you that in Dachau in these experiments Dr. Rascher carried out on his own accord a crime had been committed; what was your first reaction?

A: It never occurred to me that this was a crime. According to our experience, on the basis of thousands of high altitude experiments, one did not need to expect death in these experiments under the assumption that the experiments were carried out properly; but, of course, we realized that somehow, by an unfortunate coincidence, a death could occur. At that time already we could expose our plane crew at a height of 12,000 meters for fifteen minutes in training. During these experiments we never had a death, nor serious incidents; but, nevertheless, it did not occur to me at the time that a crime had been committed here, I considered this an unfortunate coincidence, and it was my point of view that I saw no reason to think that Rascher was carrying out experiments, which were dangerous or which had to result in death.

Q: Now, Dr. Ruff, five years have passed since then; now do you still believe today; as you did then, that in such high altitude experiments, when the people are kept at a height of 10,000 to 13,500 meters for some time, that no deaths can occur if the experiments are well prepared and properly carried out?

A: No, I am of a different opinion today for the following reason: In the American Air Force, as well as in the German Air Force, these tests at 12,000 meters were carried out for training purposes with a very small difference in the method. In these tests the American Air Force, to which the soldiers were ordered just like in the German Luftwaffe, had several deaths. The difference between the tests in our Luftwaffe and the American Air Force was merely that we kept our crews at 12,000 meters for fifteen minutes, and the American Air Force kept their crews at that altitude up to one hour; and during these experiments for training purposes and not for research purposes, there were several cases of death, and these deaths are described in a paper which was published.

I personally had an opportunity to talk to a sergeant or a corporal, who was present at two of these experiments. He was in Heidelberg, where I was working, and was in charge of the low pressure chamber, and had worked with that formerly in the States. He could not give me any information about the medical aspects of what happened, he merely described the situation to the effect that the experimental subject was perfectly alright at 12,000 meters, then suddenly fell over and when the chamber was brought down, the person was dead. The cause for this sudden death has not been clarified, they are probably the result of the effect that a small gas bubble is formed in the blood at this altitude and this gas bubble reaches the part of the brain which is between the brain proper and the spinal cord, the so-called medulla obligata, that a blood vessel is clogged up there and because of inadequate circulation in this part of the brain, a sudden death is caused.

That the cases of death which occurred to Dr. Rascher in the presence of Dr. Romberg were accidents became quite clear to me in the course of this trial; for if what the witness Neff said here is true, that about seventy to eighty people lost their lives in these experiments, and that Dr. Romberg was present at only some of the experiments, then you well can understand, on the basis of this fact alone, that they were accidents when Dr. Romberg was present, because Dr. Rascher obviously had an inclination to conceal these experiments from Romberg.

I personally can see no reason if he concealed seventy seven experiments, with deaths from him, that he should now let him be present at three.

Q: Dr. Ruff, we have reached the stage where you learned that the experiments in Dachau, the experiments which Rascher carried out on his own accord, led to a death, then you gave instructions to stop the experiments and to return the chamber to Berlin, that is where we stopped. In addition to this the instruction which you gave Dr. Romberg, did you do anything else, for example, to avoid independent action of Rascher or to prevent further deaths, etc., what else did you do?

A: I have already said, we had wanted to get the chamber back from Dachau with the explanation that it was needed urgently at the front, we needed the cover of the Medical Inspector Hippke. Therefore, when Dr. Romberg visited me in Berlin and reported to me that a death had occurred, I tried to reach Hippke, but I was not able to find him on that day because he was away on a trip. Then Romberg went back to Dachau, but after about two days he came back to Berlin again and brought the damaged meter from the chamber, which the witness Neff told about. Then he remained in Berlin for several days to have this apparatus repaired and went back to Dachau. After that I had an opportunity to talk to Hippke, and I told Hippke how far we had gotten with our experiments. I told him that this death had occurred, and that it was my opinion that the experiments had to be broken off immediately, and that I had already given Romberg instructions to stop the experiments as quickly as possible and got the chamber out of Dachau.

Hippke approved this idea, and he showed me a telegram from Wolf via Milch to him, in which Rascher demanded that the chamber should stay there two more months. Hippke told me that he wanted to refuse to leave the chamber there any longer, and later he did so.

Q: Do you know yet, Dr. Ruff, what the date of this telegram was?

A: The 12th of May.

Q: The 12th of May, document PS-343A, Exhibit 62 of the Prosecution in document book 2, page 83. Then did you see Hippke again?

A: After the chamber was returned, I went to see Hippke again in the beginning of June. I told him that we had concluded our experiments, that we had succeeded in getting the chamber out of Dachau, that the chamber was back in Berlin, and I told him briefly about the results of the experiments, and what had happened in the meantime. On this occasion Hippke showed me another letter from Hess by Wolff through Milch to Hippke again, and that stated that Milch had already promised Wolff that the chamber would stay in Dachau two more months. Then Hippke said the facts make this business obsolete, the chamber had already been brought back, and he was going to report this to Milch.

Q: If I understood you correctly, Dr. Ruff, do you mean to say that the first visit which you paid Hippke was before the 20 May, 1942, about the 12th May?

A: Yes, it was before the 20 May, 1942, probably about the 13th or 14th.

Q: And the second visit?

A: That was at the beginning of June.

Q: Beginning of June, 1942? You are obviously referring to this letter of the 4 June, 1942, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Document 261, which Hippke showed you, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, Dr. Ruff, I would be interested in one thing: Can you tell us more or less precisely when the low pressure chamber was returned to Berlin. The statements made so far and the assumptions differ, what do you know today about this point?

A: I cannot give the exact date even today when the experiments in Dachau were finished. They were certainly finished before the 23 May. On the 23rd of May Romberg was certainly back in Berlin. That can be seen from a work book of my chief mechanic.

On the 24 and 25 May, 1942, was a holiday, and on the 28 May the work shop delivered to Romberg the model of a clock, and this clock model was used in connection with the film which was made in Dachau to make titles. It was planted in as a trick shot showing the progress of time during the experiments. From these facts I can say today with certainty that before the 23 May the experiments in Dachau were finished and the chamber was removed from the concentration camp.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this work book of the former mechanic I received yesterday from Berlin. I have it here, if the court is interested in it, I shall, of course, be glad to place it at the disposal of the Tribunal. From the whole manner in which this book is kept, one can so every clearly that it was not made up just new and that this entry was not added now, but that this was the original in which the mechanic Fohlmeister, that is his name, made his entries at that time. The book was to show how many hours this mechanic worked every day together with his assistants. He always writes what work was done in detail, and on the right side he puts down for each day the number of work hours and also the number of over-time hours. I have not been able to present this book earlier because I did not receive it until yesterday, and besides you will not be able to do much with the book, because it is in German. The whole book would first have to be translated and that really isn't worth all of that work, but nevertheless I consider it important that this book, which I showed to the defendant last night, can be used as evidence, because it has great value as evidence to prove the truth of what the defendant Ruff has said, here under oath.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what do you contend this book shows by way of evidentiary matter?

DR. SAUTER: This book shows, for example, that on the 2nd of June, the second day of the 6th month, there is an entry by this man Fohlmeister, stationed at Adlers-hef, that is the town where Dr. Ruff was, chamber to be unloaded, 8-3/4 hours work, 1 hour overtime. That proves in addition to what Dr. Ruff has testified that this chamber, which was not brought back to Berlin by road, but by railroad, arrived on the 2 of June in Berlin in Adlers-Hof, and was unloaded on that day.

That on this date, on the latest, it arrived in Berlin. I merely want to prove at what time the chamber was returned to Berlin, because it has been asserted in another connection, that far into June experiments were carried out, for which Ruff might be held responsible; and this work book, of which everyone can see it is obviously the original, also shows on the 28th May, an entry: Romberg, film clock, and it says something, "mass" I can't imagine what that means, and neither can Mr. Ruff, 8-3/4 hours and 1-1/2 hours overtime. This, in connection with the testimony of Mr. Ruff, shows that on the 28th May this film clock was made at the institute, which was to be used for a film with this low pressure chamber. I want to prove by means of these entries that on the 2 June 1942 at the latest, the chamber was back at Berlin, having been brought back by railroad. That it left Dachau perhaps two or three weeks before that, and it arrived in Berlin on the 2nd of June. That is the work book and the work which it covers.

MR. HARDY: I wish counsel would kindly translate the entry again; road this entry again, doctor?

DR. SAUTER: First, what I consider important, there in an entry dated 28 May, 1942:

Romberg film clock, mass

— I don't know what that means —

8-3/4 hours, 1-1/2 hours overtime

and under the date of 2-6-42, there is an entry:

Station Adlers-hof, chamber unloaded 8-3/4 hours and 1 hour overtime.

MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I am quite familiar with the evidence and I can't see the materiality of it. However, if Dr. Sauter wishes to make a document certifying to these two entries, the two extracts of the original, I will have no objection to them being introduced in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you heard the offer of the Prosecution. If you have the two entries you mentioned copied and certified they may be submitted in evidence without objection.

DA. SAUTER: Very well, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that the book itself be submitted to the Prosecution for examination, allow them to examine the book in your presence, or in the presence of anybody whom you choose to designate, and then have the copies made.

DR. SAUTER: I had hoped, Mr. President, that the witness, Fohlmeister, would be here to day and could be called as a witness today or tomorrow and explain his work book, but the witness was not able to get leave to come here from Berlin. There are certain difficulties, and consequently I cannot call this witness, but I shall do what the President suggested.

THE PRESIDENT: Is Counsel for the Prosecution willing to stipulate now, that the record as read in the evidence may be admitted as correct reading, the time book which Counsel had?

MR. HARDY: Counsel for Prosecution is willing to stipulate that, your Honor. However, we are not stipulating as to the fact that as a fact this chamber arrived in Berlin on that date. We would stipulate that the entries are correct. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: We understand that. But, Counsel for Prosecution is willing to stipulate that those entries are in the book as read by counsel. Is that correct?

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, due to my inability to read the German language I would request that the interpreter here read the same two entries as pointed out by Dr. Sauter, and that will verify the entries and the translation thereof; and then I will be willing to stipulate.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, suppose the entries be examined after the recess this afternoon and the matter can be taken up in the morning. The interpreter can examine the records then with counsel for both parties, and then some stipulation can be reached when the Tribunal opens tomorrow morning.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, yesterday I showed you this work book. Did you recognize it with certainty as the same work book which was prepared by your foreman, Fohlmeister, at that time under your supervision?

A: Perhaps I may first make a correction — not yesterday but the day before yesterday. Yesterday was Sunday. Yes, I know the book. That is the work book of my foreman, Fohlmeister.

Q: In that connection then, Mr. President I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of an affidavit Matthes in Document Book, Ruff No. 6, Page 20 to 23, Exhibit 10. This Dr. Matthes also worked at the Institute which was headed by the defendant Dr. Ruff. In April 1933 he already met Dr. Ruff, as a definite opponent of the SS and then — I did not intend to read this document — but he described in February 1942 he was assigned to the Institute and he says that Rascher says some very derogatory things about Ruff — that Ruff was no National Socialist, that he refused to give Rascher assistance, that Ruff was sabotaging the war effort, etc.

Then I shall read on page two at the bottom — it says:

From these records —

says the witness Dr. Matthes —

I noticed that in the experiments performed by Dr. Romberg no fatalities or physical damages had occurred, that according to the records all experimental subjects got well over these experiments and recovered soon. Further the records as well as the explanations given by Dr. Romberg showed that he had conducted his experiments by employing all conceivable precautionary measures. The experimental subjects, so Romberg explained to me, had been criminals condemned to death who were later pardoned.

Then the witness speaks about the time of the return of the chamber to Berlin and says — I read on page 3 then, the last two paragraphs:

Only at the time of my conversations with Dr. Romberg did I also learn that a low pressure chamber had come back from Dachau, According to my recollection, the low pressure chamber must have come back to the Institute in May 1942. I can remember the date because after the return of the low pressure chamber I was ordered by Dr. Ruff to take a trip to Cologne in order to procure spare parts. I made this trip and on that occasion I was in my home town of Bonn. That was in the time from 1 June to 10 June 1942 so that the low pressure chamber must have been returned to the Institute in May 1942.

I shall not read the last paragraph — it merely shows that Dr. Ruff took an interest in the relatives of this witness in spite of their Jewish ancestry and that he helped them. And this has been sworn to by the witness Dr. Matthes and certified.

Mr. Ruff, the chamber came back to Berlin. What happened then to this chamber?

A: It stayed in the DVL longer than we liked. First that wasn't too bad, since it had to be checked over and prepared for new use.

A longer stay, as actually occurred was unpleasant because this indicated that the chamber was not urgently needed as we had indicated, that actually in the months of June and July there was no use for the chamber. Only in August the Luftwaffe group turned up and took over the chamber — and they took it away in August.

Q: I should like the Court in this connection to take notice of an affidavit of Dr. Kellersmann which is in Ruff Document Book, Document 14. That will be Exhibit 11.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did I understand you to say Document 14?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Document No. 14, Dr. Kellersmann, page 55, Exhibit 11. I do not intend to read the document — it merely supports the statement just made by the defendant Ruff that the chamber was in Berlin and not used for several months, although the SS, as we know, repeatedly asked for use of the chamber.

Dr. Ruff, when he visited Berlin at the end of April or the beginning of May Romberg told you of only one death — did you later learn of other deaths and from whom?

A: In the time between Romberg's return to Dachau and the removal of the chamber Romberg called me up once or twice in Berlin — might even have been three times. The first time I informed him that Hippke approved our plan. I informed Romberg that Hippke had already received a telegram from Rancher for use of the chamber for a longer period, and that Hippke intended to disapprove the extension and inform Milch. When Romberg called up again he told me that Rascher had performed further experiments, and from the telephone conversation could draw the conclusion that something had happened again during these experiments. Romberg was not able to say anything more definite on the telephone since all telephone conversations were checked on and he could not tell me over the telephone how the experiment had gone off and what had happened. But, from the conversation I could conclude something had happened. And, I believe that was the same telephone conversation when Romberg told me our experiments were finished and said that Rascher had approved having the chamber returned.

And, then on the basis of this telephone conversation I sent people to Dachau to load the chamber on the railroad there. When Romberg came back to Berlin, he reported to me that in the meantime Rascher had two further deaths. He, Romberg, had been present at the experimental station when these deaths occurred. As far as other deaths from Dachau experiments were concerned I never heard anything about them; and, in particular, I realized on the basis of Romberg's reports that the deaths had occurred during experiments performed by Rascher on instructions from Himmler.

Q: Without your volition?

A: Without my volition, and without my knowledge.

Q: Now, the witness Neff who was examined here in December spoke of five deaths which supposedly occurred during Rascher's experiments when Romberg was present. Did you hear anything about that?

A: No. I did not hear anything about that. I heard about three deaths, and Romberg reported them to me. When Rascher was in Berlin to draw up the report he didn't say a word to me about deaths, nor about his experiments which he had performed for Himmler at all.

Q: Dr. Ruff, you are speaking of experiments which Rascher carried out without your knowledge and without your approval on his own initiative. Apparently he had special orders from Himmler. Do you have any idea today whether these experiments of Rascher's he did on his own accord had anything to do with the problem which was to be solved through your experiments in Dachau, that is, the problem of rescue by parachute from high altitudes; or from your conviction as a specialist, were these independent experiments of Rascher's something quite different?

A: From the intermediate reports which Rascher sent to Himmler, which I saw here for the first time in the document book, one thing is clear; that these experiments have nothing to do with experiments for rescue from high altitudes. What Rascher wanted to clarify is not quite clear to me from these brief intermediate reports. He doubtless had attacked quite a number of questions, did a few experiments each time, and then stopped the experiments and taken up something different. In any case, insofar as one can conclude from these intermediate reports, there was in no case any complete series of experiments. There are at least three, four, perhaps five problems which he tried to work on — none of which he completed and it seems to me that these experiments were merely orienting experiments and that he intended to clear up these various problems without longer series of experiments, and no doubt he always wanted to have the low pressure chamber in Dachau again for that purpose.

Q: Witness, you are convinced then that in the experiments which were carried out with your approval and with your knowledge -that is the regular orderly experiments — there were no deaths?

A: In these experiments for rescue from high altitude I know that there were no deaths.

Q: The witness Neff, when he was examined here in December, said that Rascher once, by night, allegedly performed experiments with sixteen Russians when Dr. Romberg was not present. The result was that, on the next morning, all of the sixteen Russians were dead. When did you learn of this matter for the first time?

A: I learned of it for the first time when the witness Neff made this statement on the witness stand here.

Q: Do you really believe that in this case one could speak of medical experiments or what is your opinion today, as an expert, about what Rascher's intention could have been in this action?

A: In the low pressure chamber, when it was in Dachau, twelve people could be accommodated at the utmost.

There was room for twelve people to sit on the benches if the people crowded together. If one assumes that the number of sixteen Russians is correct, then there was not room for these sixteen people in the chamber. Moreover, it is impossible to perform an experiment simultaneously on sixteen or twelve or eight at the same time. The chamber has three windows. Even if there is a doctor at each window, observing the experiment, it would hardly be possible for him to observe sixteen people at the same time who all become unconscious in a very short time, have cramps, etc. It is hardly possible. My opinion agrees with that of the prosecution's medical expert that this was not an experiment at all, that this was an execution.

Q: Dr. Ruff, in Document Book 2, there are a number of photographs concerning a man who was subjected to some experiments in the chamber, Do you remember those photographs in Document Book 2?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you believe that there is any evidence as to what the type of experiments was during which these pictures were taken? whether these were the rightful experiments for your institute or whether these were the independent experiments of Dr. Rascher for Himmler?

A: In the form in which the photographs were submitted in the document book these photographs show nothing whatever except that a dead body was dissected. These pictures could be from any pathological institute and could be autopsy. Dr. Alexander, the prosecution's medical expert, was kind enough, however, to give me a few better copies of these pictures, and in these good copies one can see very plainly that in this brain autopsy — in the big vessels of the brain there are more of less large air bubbles. The vessels, in part, looked like strings of pearls. This proves that these dead people died either when surfacing after diving, or died after leaving the so-called caisson, that is the air pressure chambers which are used for work in water, for instance, when bridge pillars are set up, or else that these were deaths from high altitude.

The latter is to be assumed in this case, if one grants that these pictures were actually taken in Dachau. Assuming then that these were people who died from high altitude, then on the basis of this finding of the air bubbles in the blood vessels, they must be people who died after a long stay at altitudes of more than at least 10,000 meters — probably more than 12,000 meters. These gas bubbles in the blood vessels develop at these altitudes normally above 12,000 meters — in the course of a longer stay at these altitudes, since these gas bubbles need a certain period of time to develop, at 12,000 meters, the time is five, six, seven, eight or ten minutes, this could not have happened in the experiments for rescue from high altitude. In these altitude experiments, the experimental subjects, for example, when bailing out at 15,000 meters and falling on the open parachutes — those people were at heights above 12,000 meters for three minutes. This is the longest time which the experimental subjects remained at altitudes higher than 12,000 meters, because, when jumping from 20,000 and 21,000 meters there were no parachute descents with the open parachute but only three falling experiments without the parachutes being opened, and in these experiments the experimental subjects remained one hundred seconds at the maximum above 10,000 meters. The gas bubbles in these pictures therefore show, with the probability that borders on certainty, that these deaths could not have occurred in experiments for rescue from high altitude.

Q: And you conclude, Dr. Ruff, that these films which were found among Dr. Rascher's papers and which were taken into document book #2, have nothing to do with your experiments?

A: That is correct.

Q: Well, then the chamber was returned to Berlin. Who gave the order for this — you or Dr. Hippke?

A: I had told Romberg to see it that we got the chamber out of the camp and then I had men sent down to load it. For the return transport, as well as for the transport down there, Hippke gave his approval.

Q: Now, Dr. Ruff, as we now know, on the 5th of April, 1942, Dr. Rascher wrote to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. He sent him an intermediate report — a secret report which you and Dr. Romberg did not sign. This is Document PS-1971A, Exhibit 49 of the prosecution, how do you explain the fact that, in this report which was made behind your back, the affair with the sixteen dead Russians is not even mentioned by Rascher to a man like Himmler, because you know, Dr. Ruff, this intermediate reports mention other deaths, but these sixteen Russians are not mentioned in this report of Rascher?

A: In this intermediate report Rascher speaks of experiments, and I believe the fact that these sixteen Russians are not mentioned supports the assumption of the medical expert of the prosecution, with which I agree, that these Russians were not the subject of an experiment but were executed, and that it was not mentioned for this reason.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 29 April 1947)