1947-04-29, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al; defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF — Resumed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

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

Q: Dr. Ruff, you are still under oath today. Yesterday, Dr. Ruff, you were speaking of the Dachau high altitude experiments with which you are charged. Today we come to one final subject, that is the reports on these various Dachau experiments. As we have heard, Dr. Rascher on the 5th of April 1942 sent a secret report to the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler — which is in document book 2, document PS-1971A, Exhibit No. 49, page 62 in the German and 60 in the English. It was read here in the courtroom. In this report — you remember this, Dr. Ruff?

A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Rascher in the first part describes the experiments which he carried out together with Dr. Romberg, and he concludes this with the sentence, and I quote:

All the experimental subjects recovered after a certain time at 8 Kilometers and regained their consciousness and the normal functions of their senses.

In order to avoid confusion, that refers to the experiments that were conducted together with Romberg. In the second part of the report Dr. Rascher describes the experiments which he performed alone and he writes, I quote:

Only continuous experiments above ten and a half kilometers were fatal. The third experiment of this type was so unusual that — since I carried out these experiments by myself, that is, without Romberg — I called in an SS doctor of the camp. This was a continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12 kilometers on a 37 year old Jew.

Dr. Ruff, this secret report of Dr. Rascher alone seems to be of special significance, therefore, I should like to ask you when did you learn of this secret report of Dr. Rascher for the first time? This is the secret report of the 5th of April 1942 which is signed by Rascher alone.

A: I saw this report for the first time when it was submitted by the prosecution here in the courtroom.

Q: Dr. Ruff, did you receive knowledge of these experiments of Dr. Rascher concerning which he writes that he carried them out alone, that is, without Romberg, and when he called in an SS doctor as a witness for a third experiment? When did you learn of these experiments?

A: At the same time when this report was submitted here in the courtroom. In the preliminary interrogations I also did not hear anything about these experiments.

Q: Witness, according to your expert opinion, these experiments which Dr. Rascher carried out alone and which led to fatal results, did they have anything to do with your own experiments, that is, with the experiments which you approved which were included in the working program for Dr. Romberg and which alone you desired in the interest of aviation?

A: These experiments have nothing to do with the experiments for rescue from high-altitude, they have no connection with them.

Q: Dr. Ruff, do you know whether this secret report, or interim report, by Dr. Rascher of the 5th of April 1942 was received by the Luftwaffe, especially the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate for the Luftwaffe, Professor Hippke? Did he talk to you about it, or do you know anything else about it?

A: I do not know that any Luftwaffe agency ever received this report. Hippke in particular never talked to me about such experiments or about such a report. I should think that if Hippke had received such a report he would no doubt have said something to me about it, since he knew that at the time when Rascher was carrying out these experiments in Dachau we, that is Romberg in this case, at the same time carried out the experiments for rescue from high altitude. I would assume that if Hippke had received such a report I would have heard something about it.

Q: Then I have a final question concerning Rascher's secret report. Dr. Ruff, yesterday we discussed the fact that Dr. Rascher once in the evening called for 16 Russians, that he did something with these 16 Russians we don't know what it was — and that on the next morning these 16 Russians were dead, all of then. Yesterday you told us that in that case there could have been no question of any medical or any other type of experiment. You recall saying that?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, it is noticeable that in this secret report which Rascher sent to Himmler fatal experiments are mentioned, that is, experiments which Rascher carried out alone, but that he does not mention this affair with the 16 Russians at all. Can you give us any explanation for this? How could this be explained in your opinion?

A: It is difficult to say why Rascher did not report these deaths of these Russians, but I imagine that this confirms the opinion of the prosecution's medical expert which completely agrees with mine, that in the case of these Russians it was not an experiment but an execution. Otherwise, I do not see any reason why Rascher in his report to Himmler, in which he was constantly reporting deaths, failed to report these deaths.

Q: Witness, I shall then leave this secret report from Dr. Rascher to Himmler, and I ask you, was a report also made about the experiments which were made with your approval and with your knowledge, of which you have knowledge?

A: Of course, we reported on these experiments which were performed by Romberg in Dachau with my approval and sanction. We made up a very detailed report. Romberg and Rascher drew up this report together. This is the report of the 28th of July 1942 which is in document book 2, document 402. This report was sent to my superior agency in aviation medicine, that is Hippke, through Himmler and Milch, and at least five or six copies and probably even more, went to a number of agencies of the Aviation Ministry and Aviation Industry which needed these results for the construction of rescue equipment and in the construction of planes.

It was the purpose of these experiments to create material for rescue from high altitudes and consequently the results had to be made available to the agencies which needed the information.

Q: This report is written on a sheet of paper headed "German Experimental Institute for Aviation". It is signed by Dr. Romberg, Ruff, and Rascher, isn't it?

A: Yes.

Q: How did it happen that you also signed this report although you were present on only one day at the experiments, that is only at a relatively small part of the experiments, and although you consequently could say nothing from your own observation about the majority of the experiments?

A: It is customary in such scientific reports that the head of the Institute countersigns the report which is drawn up by the persons who actually performed the work. The head of the Institute thus assumes co-responsibility for the conclusions drawn from the results of the experiments. For the head of the Institute is responsible to superior agencies, or in general scientific life, to other scientists, that with his name he confirms the scientific accuracy of his associates, who, it is possible, no one in the scientific world or among superiors may know, he takes the responsibility for it.

Q: Is that the general custom in such scientific work?

A: It is customary in such a report that the head of the Institute countersigns. In publications that is done by putting a head over the work "From the Institute So and So — head Dr. So and So". By putting this head above the report the head of the Institute assumes co-responsibility for the scientific contents.

Q: This report, which I may perhaps call the official report, was sent to a number of offices and persons who were interested you said. Who sent it out? Did you do that yourself or did you have it done?

A: As far as I can recall we sent three copies to Himmler at his request. One copy is here in the Document Book with the accompanying letter. The other reports, on the basis of a distribution list set up by the Aviation Ministry, were sent to offices of the Aviation Ministry and people in industry. They were sent out by the office that had mimeographed the report, that was the Central Office for Scientific Reports in the Research Administration of the Aviation Ministry.

Q: You said that the report was sent to Himmler, among other people, and if I am not mistaken it was addressed to the Reichsfuehrer-SS.

A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Ruff, did you also report to Himmler orally about the Dachau experiments?

A: My associate Romberg, together with Rascher, reported to Himmler orally. I believe that was in July 1942. On some day in July Romberg called me up and told me that Rascher was in Berlin, and had told him that Himmler had ordered an oral report. That was between four and five in the afternoon when I received the call and in the evening at eight the two gentlemen already had to go to the Fuehrer's Headquarters by special train. As the Prosecution's document show Rascher made this report. We did not initiate it.

Q: Dr. Ruff, we know from the documents which have been submitted by the Prosecution, that on the 11 September 1942 a film was shown in the Reich Aviation Ministry dealing with the Dachau high altitude experiments. The lecture which was intended at the same time from Field Marshal Milch was not made, as we heard, because Milch did not appear, The details are shown from the Document in Document Book II, No. 1610-PS, Exhibit 73. Were you present at the showing of this film at the Reich Aviation Ministry, and what did you hear and see?

A: I was not present at the showing of this film. As the documents show, this film showing had been arranged at Rascher's suggestion by Himmler with Milch and quite a number of people from Milch's office had been invited, but I was not among them.

Q: In your official report, which you also signed which was drawn up by Romberg and Rascher, there is no mention of any fatal results of any experiments in Dachau. Now, we note the following, Dr. Ruff: When this report was drawn up and sent out you doubtless already were aware that, I believe, three, deaths had occurred. The report says nothing about that.

How can you explain this, and why, when you signed this report, did you not object?

A: I knew that these deaths had not occurred in the experiments for rescue from high altitudes but in other experiments which Rascher carried out on orders from Himmler. There was hence no occasion to mention these deaths in this report.

Q: Then, if I understand you correctly, the official report which you also signed was to be merely a scientific presentation and evaluation of the experiments which had been approved by you and in which Romberg had participated. On the other hand, the independent experiments which Rascher carried out secretly were none of your business and consequently had nothing to do with your scientific paper. Therefore, these three deaths were not mentioned. Did I understand you correctly?

A: Yes, that is correct. I was not supposed to know anything about the deaths which had occurred in Rascher's experiments as far as Rascher was concerned. Because of the fact that Romberg had told me about these deaths, he had violated his obligation to secrecy to which he signed his name before entering the concentration camp.

Q: Now, witness, let us assume that on the basis of Dr. Romberg's report, and perhaps after consultation with Rascher, and on the basis of your knowledge of all these circumstances, you had come to the conclusion that these three deaths had occurred during your own experiments, that is, during the official experiments in which Dr. Romberg participated and of which you had knowledge. If you had come to this conclusion what would you have done? Would these three deaths have been omitted in your official report, or would you have seen to it that they were mentioned if that had not been done up to that time? This is only a hypothetical question.

A: It is a matter of course that in such a case the deaths would have been mentioned. Yesterday I spoke briefly about the experiences of American scientists with experiments at 12000 meters. These men, also were afraid — which an honest scientist must not be — to report these incidents and accidents.

Q: Do you believe, Dr. Ruff, that if these three deaths had been mentioned, let us say, that you would have had any official difficulties, that reproaches would have been made, or that you would have been called to account?

A: Of course, if these deaths had been listed or had to be listed because they had occurred during the experiments, I would have had to explain the reasons for the deaths as far as possible, but I would have had to list them no matter whether I would have gotten into difficulties or not. But I do not believe there would have been any difficulty because our superior agencies knew both Romberg and myself and knew that such deaths could not have occurred because of negligence or deliberately.

Q: Dr. Ruff, you are acquainted with those times by experiences. You know Dr. Rascher personally. You can, therefore, form some judgment of him, and you heard of his close relationship with Himmler. Do you believe, on the basis of your knowledge of conditions, that Dr. Rascher was pursuing any definite aim by failing to mention these three deaths in the official report of the 28th of July, which you also signed, or do you believe that Dr. Rascher could have said that in a report to Himmler if it had anything to do with the experiments?

A: From the interim reports to Himmler which we have here it is quite clear that Rascher had no occasion to keep any deaths secret from Himmler. If deaths had occurred in our experiments, Rascher would have had no reason to urge that they be omitted from the report. The report was first sent to Himmler for release, and, therefore, there was no occasion to conceal the deaths.

Q: Dr. Ruff, you were always a serious and conscientious research worker in the field of aviation medicine. You have told us that your Dachau experiments were in the interest of technical progress in the field of aviation. They were to clear up the question "in what way can one rescue aviators from great altitudes in cases of accidents?"

That was the problem which you were to solve. Now, if deaths had occurred in your own experiments, and if these deaths had been concealed in your own report, must one not say that an incomplete and false report would distort the whole problem of the development of rescue apparatus and would have led it into quite wrong channels; that you, as the scientist responsible would have influenced technical developments in a totally wrong manner?

A: Of course, if as a scientist, I had been willing to conceal deaths which actually occurred — that is, make a false report — I would have violated the most primitive principle of the research worker that is, the one that he must report the results of his experiments correctly and honestly. One forgives any scientist for drawing false conclusions from his results, but one never forgives a scientist if, in his work, he misrepresents his results and would have been what this would have amounted to. Moreover, the concealing of deaths would, of course, have affected the whole technical development of rescue apparatus. It would have directed it into false channels. With this report we assumed the responsibility. We said that to a height of 20 kilometers rescue by parachute is possible under certain circumstances. If death had occurred, such a rescue would not be possible or, at least, would not be definitely possible. For this reason alone, it was impossible for us to be able or be allowed to conceal deaths.

Q: Dr. Ruff, in your report, you drew certain conclusions from the results in order to show, in this way, what technical science and aviation can learn for the future from this report. These conclusions are under #4, in the report which I have just read. In these conclusions you deal with the problem of cold.

That is the problem which is added to the problem of altitude and also had to be investigated and solved. For this cold problem I now refer you, Dr. Ruff, to the letter which the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Professor Hippke, sent to Himmler with the date of the 10th of October, 1942, after the Dachau altitude experiments were finished. It is in Document Book 2 of the prosecution, #289, and it says: — I quote in order to recall this sentence to your memory because every word is important here:

The Dachau high altitude experiments are for us a very valuable and important addition to our knowledge. The fact that an altitude with so little oxygen can be endured at all for some time is most encouraging for future research.

Then comes another sentence, and Hippke writes:

It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of parachuting can be drawn for the time being as a very important factor, that is cold, has so far not yet been taken into consideration. It places an extraordinary excess burden on the entire body and its vital movements so that the result in actual practice will very likely prove be far more unfavorable than in the present experiments.

And later comes the sentence:

In the meantime, the supplementary tasks required now

— that is apparently on the cold problem —

have been begun.

Now, Dr. Ruff, as a layman, I can not judge the significance of this cold problem in connection with the high altitude experiments and how it was solved. Perhaps you can explain to us what the practical value of your Dachau high altitude experiments was for the needs of aviation.

That is, the practical value, although the problem of the effects of cold had not yet been solved.

A: Hippke is right in his letter. In the effects of altitude on the human organism, various factors play a role. Not only the reduction of pressure in general; not only the reduction of oxygen; but also cold. In the altitudes in which our experiments took place, here in Central Europe we have an average annual temperature of about minus 55 degrees — 55 below zero. This cold has to be considered in some way, but is the advantage of high altitude experiments in the low pressure chamber that the individual factors of the effects of altitude can be separated. That is, one always tests the effects of the lack of oxygen or the effects of the lack of oxygen and the lowered pressure, and when one knows the effects of these factors, then one can go on to test the third factor that is, cold. In other branches of medicine one does not, for example, if one wants to study what happens if a human being has malaria and cholera at the same time — I don't know whether that is possible — then one does not infect him at the same time with cholera and malaria, but first, with malaria, and then, if he has survived that, with cholera, in order to study the individual effects first, and then one would infect him with a combination of malaria and cholera. I emphasize that is a hypothetical case. And so it is here in the high altitude experiments. One examines the effect of the lowered air pressure first. Then one adds cold when one knows the first effects. That is what we did. After the end of the Dachau experiments, we continued the parachute experiments in our institute, adding the factor of cold. One sentence about the results. The cold air had no effects on the results.

The results were exactly the sane as without the cold.

Q: Dr. Ruff, your low pressure chamber, as you told us yesterday, came back to Berlin in May. On the 2nd of June it was unloaded there. Now, I should like to know — did you, in Berlin, to solve this problem — the effect of cold — perform any further experiments and did you make a report on these experiments which had nothing to do with the ones mentioned here?

A: I have already said that we performed extensive experiments with cold. As is customary, a report was issued about these experiments too.

Q: Do you have this report or was this report shown to you in your interrogations?

A: No, it was not shown to me, but I have it in my possession.

Q: Dr. Ruff, I see your official report of July 1942; I will ask you one more question. In this report experiments on themselves by the two persons in charge, Rascher and Romberg, are described, and considerable pain is described which Rascher and Romberg had to suffer in the experiments which they performed on themselves. I recall that the Prosecutor at one time read this passage from the report and drew the conclusion that in the case of the experimental subjects, that is the outsiders, torture had occurred. That in other words, these outsider experimental subjects, whether they were volunteers or not suffered exactly the same, almost unbearable pain, as Romberg and Rascher when they experimented on themselves. Now, you, Dr. Ruff, told us yesterday that in so called altitude sickness there is no pain at all; there is unconsciousness, one is not aware of becoming unconscious; later one does not know that one was unconscious, and most experimental subjects have no idea that the experiment has been performed. That is how little they feel of the experiment. That is your description, I believe.

A: Yes, that is right.

Q: Now, will you please tell us how do you explain this contradiction; on the one hand Rascher and Romberg suffered such terrible pain in the experiments on themselves; on the other hand you tell us experimental subjects in altitude sickness feel practically nothing.

A: What I said yesterday or Friday is true, that in altitude sickness there is practically no pain; altitude sickness begins unnoticed by the person concerned. He feels nothing. In the two self-experiments which I reported here this is something quite different. Rascher and Romberg were at an altitude between 12,000 and 13,500 meters. They were breathing oxygen and did not suffer from altitude sickness. They were completely conscious, because I said when breathing pure oxygen the feeling of the human being, that is the altitude up to which he is completely capable of action, is between 12,000 and 13,500 meters. In the altitude between 10,000 and 13,500 meters, approximately, it is possible that in these people who are completely conscious there is pain, these so-called bends.

This is the result of the fact that through the general lowering of the pressure within the tissues of the organism nitrogen is released. This nitrogen collects within the tissue in tiny bubbles. It extends the tissues and thus causes pain. This pain may be completely harmless, just about the same as barely perceptible rheumatic pain. It can be similar to a strong rheumatic pain, but again as in these two cases it may be quite extensive. But to cause this pain it is again necessary that the persons concerned, remain at this altitude for a considerable time. In these experiments of Romberg and Rascher on themselves, which are described in this report, Romberg was at 12,000 meters for 30 minutes in one case, before the pain started, in the second case he was at 13,000 meters for 40 minutes. In the case of Rascher there was much less pain, the time was so much shorter. This bends time for their development requires considerable time. Yesterday I pointed out several times that in German aviation, as well as in the United States Air Force, for example, the groups which have to fly at high altitudes are for training purposes kept at 12,000 meters for some time. They are to become acquainted with these complaints at this altitude and they are explained the cause, they are shown or told that by going down to 8,000 meters say the pain can generally be done away with. In these training tests, therefore, it is necessary to keep the groups up there for some time, simply for the reason that the bends does not occur until after some time. Another point, did Romberg and Rascher carry out these experiments which actually had nothing to do with the experiments for rescue from high altitude. It is customary for all high altitude experiments in the low pressure chamber that the person in charge of the experiment or some other doctor goes into the low pressure chamber with the subject and watches the subject during the experiments, that is possible only to a height of 13,500 meters. Higher than that the experimental subject and the doctor are subject to the same effects, and therefore there would be no purpose in taking a doctor up to that altitude. Now, Romberg and Rascher performed such experiments several times a day between 10,000 and 13,500 meters, and were in the chamber with several different experimental subjects, and now it was discovered that in the first experiment and every day the doctor had no pain.

In the second experiment in the same day, he had a certain amount of bends and if he performed a third experiment on the same day then he might suffer severally. Now, in order to determine the cause of it, whether the time which was spent at the high altitude is cumulative in its effect or whether the number of flights is the cause, these self-experiments showed that actually only the time, the amount of time spent at that altitude is important. The experimental subjects themselves did not suffer such pain for two reasons: First of all they were never at such an altitude so long, and in the second place even if they had been there that long they had altitude sickness and did not therefore register any pain.

Q: Dr. Ruff, in order to avoid a confusion about another point in your report, I should like to clear up the following: in your official report on 28 July which you signed, in the experimental subjects you mentioned cramps which were observed; I understood correctly, Dr. Ruff, did I not, I interpret the report correctly, if I assume these were cramps which occurred during the so-called altitude sickness, it is when the persons were unconscious and when the experimental subject feels nothing either during the time or afterwards, if I understood correctly?

A: Yes, that is correct. I said yesterday that these cramps, as in the case of epilepsy and the cramps caused from therapeutic purposes, these always occur while the person is unconscious, that he is never aware of them and never feels them.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Document Book 2 there are a number of pictures of an experimental subject apparently suffering from altitude sickness, and the Prosecutor said more or less something to this effect, one can merely look at these pictures, then if a layman can see what terrible pain these people must have suffered. Appearances are deceptive in this case and I take the liberty of submitting a book, the original which the defendant Dr. Ruff, and a witness who submitted an affidavit, Professor Strughold, wrote, with pictures on page 144.

I should like to hand this book up to you. Would you please look at it, and then I shall tell you why I am showing you this book.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, has counsel for the Prosecution seen this book?

DR. SAUTER: I am about to give him the book, Your Honor.

DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen; if one looks at these picture one has the impression that it must be terrible pain, which these people are suffering; one may even have the impression that these are experiments where the experimental subjects are enduring such terrible things that they are about to die. In reality, any aviation expert will tell you that the experimental subject picture here felt nothing at all in these experiments. That is something that we as lay-men cannot understand, but it is so. Look at the last picture, gentlemen, you will see at the left the Defendant Romberg in his normal condition and on the right you will see him in a plane at very high speed completely distorted; he almost looks dead. If, as a lay-man, one looks at the picture one says to oneself the face of Romberg is so distorted that it can never become a normal face again. Nevertheless the man felt nothing in the experiments and the girl, who was also in the picture, who was also so terribly distorted momentarily daring the experiments, she did not feel anything either. When the Defendant Romberg is on the witness stand and has taken the oath, he can state under oath whether he felt anything during these experiments or not.

Gentlemen, I am showing you this book and have shown it to the Prosecution also because it is a practical example to show how easily an experienced lay-man can be mistaken on the basis of such pictures. Perhaps in this connection I can ask Dr. Ruff, who also participated in such experiments as an experimental subject.

Dr. Ruff, I discussed these pictures with you the other day: can you tell us as an expert that these experimental subjects suffered no pain worth mentioning during the experiments, although they look so terrible in the pictures?

A: That is true up to the speeds described here, up to 485 kilometers per hour there is no pain worth mentioning. It must be emphasized of course that these people are completely conscious.

Q: Dr. Ruff, perhaps you can also tell the Tribunal how these pictures were taken very briefly?

A: They were taken while a plane was in a power dive. The person was looking, over the roof of the cabin and the pictures were taken; that is the person was in the complete stream of air.

Q: Dr. Ruff, now I come to the conclusion of the Dachau experiments; I have a few minor questions to ask you.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, these pictures which are offered in evidence in this book refer to a speed test and as far as I can make out have no connection with high altitude experiments.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the Prosecutor is protesting against something that was never claimed. I did not say that these experiments had anything to do with the Dachau high altitude experiments. I submitted the book merely to show you that experiments can be deceptive. As a lay-man, one can assume that someone is in terrible pain but in reality it is harmless. It was for this purpose that I submitted these pictures.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that counsel for the defendant offered the book in evidence.

MR. HARDY: It was my understanding he had from the remarks of the defense counsel. I object to the book as being immaterial.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did you offer this book in evidence or merely using it to illustrate the testimony of the witness?

DR. SAUTER: Only for the latter purpose, only to be able to show it to the witness.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, you signed an affidavit, I believe it was in October of 1945, Document No. 437, Prosecution Exhibit No. 42, this is in Document Book 2 on page 46. There is a sentence in there, which was read to you the Prosecutor and it reads:

Personally, I would not consider these experiments immoral especially in war time.

With respect to this sentence, on the 10th of December here, the Prosecutor said that in this opinion it was quite unusual that you, Dr. Ruff, positively say in your affidavit that you do not consider these experiments immoral, especially in war time. Now, I should like to know what did you mean by this sentence so that a wrong conclusion is to drawn from it?

A: When the Prosecutor showed me this affidavit, which they had formulated, the final sentence was that I considered these experiments permissible in war-time, but that in peace-time I would declare them specifically criminal or immoral. I refused to sign this sentence and a discussion followed, lasting more than an hour. The sentence was changed repeatedly and I repeatedly refused to sign. Finally, I declared myself willing to sign this formulation. That is now this sentence came about. What I wrote in this sentence was my opinion at the time and is so even today. This sentence refers exclusively to the experiments, which were performed at Dachau with my knowledge and approval because the interrogation before the affidavit was written.

Even today, I am of the opinion that I can stand up on this opinion. When I signed this sentence, I was acting on the assumption that they were important experiments, that the experiments were performed on professional criminals, who had volunteered and that after surviving the experiments, these criminals would be given certain advantages. I assumed that as far as my judgment could decide that these experiments were not dangerous and that was the basis for the sentence. Even today I can see nothing immoral in that. At the time the experiments were carried out, we were involved in a very serious war throughout Germany, day after day and night after night, men, women and children and to expect to be killed and possibly by the terrible method of burning to death and millions of people had to give up their lives at the front. Neither then nor now can I see anything immoral in using a professional criminal who volunteers for such experiments.

Q: Dr. Ruff, if the experiments which you approved, that is experiments to rescue plane crews from high altitude, were properly prepared and properly carried out, do you believe that three deaths or five deaths would be possible?

A: No, that would have been quite impossible. It is, of course, not entirely impossible that one death could have occurred by an unfortunate accident or a special circumstance, but with this one death the experiments would have come to an end, because this one death would have shown that from the height they were taking place, one could not count on certain rescue by parachute.

Q: Dr. Ruff, we know from the proceedings so far that after the chamber was returned to Berlin, Rascher, Wolff, even Himmler personally and also Sievers were at great pains to get the chamber back to Dachau, but this was frustrated by the Luftwaffe; did you have anything to do with this; what was your attitude toward this demand of the SS?

A: Yesterday I described briefly that I saw two letters from Wolff. The first was a telegram in May. The second was a letter from Wolff dated the beginning of June. In both cases Hippke agreed with me that Rascher was not to get the low pressure chamber back to Dachau. Of the later letters which are in the documents here I know nothing. Only a few months later I heard from Romberg that Sievers had called him up and had asked him whether he intended to perform new experiments with Rascher at Dachau. He, Sievers, had given the assignment to obtain and buy a mobile low pressure chamber for the SS. I reported this fact to the medical Inspectorate, to Dr. Becker-Freyseng I called his attention to this point and told him that I considered it superfluous for Dr. Rascher, who was still on the Luftwaffe then; even if he was to be assigned elsewhere, he should have his own low pressure chamber.

My attitude toward Mr. Rascher's experiments — and this led to the withdrawal of the chamber and the refusal to grant further experiments — was that I did not see any important, urgent reason to carry out experiments in which deaths could or had to occur. In addition to this attitude towards Rascher's experiments, there was another factor for me personally, which caused me not to collaborate with Rascher at all any more and not to carry out experiments in a concentration camp at all.

That was because of the minor things, above all the fact that during the experiments in the concentration camps one was completely in the hands of the camp commandants, Rascher or Himmler; that one had to subordinate oneself to these people; and that there was painful secrecy, no doubt at the instigation of Rascher, who wanted with this secrecy to avoid any results of these experiments turning up without his name being mentioned. On the one hand, he and Himmler demanded strict secrecy; and, on the other hand, he tried to have these results published. Later I also learned from Rascher that he had sent his own father to a concentration camp, or, rather, that he boasted about the fact that he had sent his own father to a concentration camp.

This showed me that this man had qualities of a character which made it impossible for me to work with him at all.

Q: Then, Ruff, you saw to it that Rascher was not able to experiment with the low pressure chamber at all any more and for this purpose through the co-defendant Becker-Freyseng you confiscated all production in this field for the Luftwaffe? Is that true?

A: No, that is not quite true. I was not able to do that. I was able only to warn the medical Inspectorate and give the suggestion to Becker-Freyseng.

Q: But Becker-Freyseng did confiscate all the production for this purpose in order to frustrate Rascher; is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, witness, the witness Neff, whom we have mentioned several times, on the 18th of December stated here that approximately 180 to 200 prisoners had been used for the high altitude experiments, and about 70 to 80 of them had died. Neff did not make a distinction and was not able to make a distinction between the orderly experiments in which Romberg participated and the independent experiments of Rascher of which you knew nothing. Now, I ask you, when did you learn for the first time that 180 to 200 prisoners were used and that no less than 70 or 80 lost their lives? You said yesterday that only about twelve prisoners, between ten and fifteen, and always the same people, were used?

A: I heard these numbers for the first time here during the trial. During the interrogations I did not hear these figures.

Q: Dr. Ruff, you told us that you were told that these people were volunteers. Now, let us take the case that someone, Romberg or Rascher or Neff or the camp commandant, told you, we don't have any volunteers. The are simply assigned. What would you have done then when you know nothing about this trial? What attitude would you have taken then?

A: Then as well as today I would have refused to accept these prisoners. I would have had to refuse them. I have said yesterday that in our experiments for rescue from high altitude we were dependent on the active cooperation of the experimental subjects. The experimental subjects had to be interested in the experiments; otherwise, it was impossible to carry out the experiments properly. Even under the conditions prevailing at the time under the power of the commandant or Himmler I would have been able to refuse these experiments without any personal danger to myself by saying, "We cannot use involuntary subjects. It may be all very well from the legal point of view, but for these experiments we cannot use anyone except volunteers. These experiments can be performed only on volunteers." That would have been my point of view at that time; and I still hold this same position today.

Q: Dr. Ruff, you told us yesterday that Dr. Romberg had a definite program to clarify an important question for the Luftwaffe and that he had gone to Dachau with this program. Your report of the 28th of July 1942, the official report, which we discussed before, does it show that the Dachau, experiments, that is, the experiments which you approved, were actually limited to the necessary experiments, that is, the experiments which were necessary to clarify this problem for the Luftwaffe?

A: That is expressly mentioned several times in the report. On page 2 of the report it says, I quote:

I had to dispense with detailed clarification of purely scientific questions for the time being.

On page 15 it says, I quote:

Since the slow sinking experiments without oxygen had reached the limit apparently, sinking experiments were carried out from higher altitudes with oxygen.

On Page 16 it says, I quote:

Sinking experiments with even higher altitudes were not performed, since in practice there is no necessity to use the open parachute at such altitudes and expose oneself to the danger of freezing.

On the same page, in the next paragraph, it says, I quote:

Three falling experiments were begun at 14,000 meters in order to avoid having too large a number of experiments.

On page 20 it says,

Experiments with explosive decompression without previous oxygen respiration were not carried out because we were working on the assumption that in combat the enemy pressure cabin planes can fly with an eight kilometer atmosphere.

These quotations, I believe, show that the experiments were limited to what was absolutely necessary.

Q: Witness, Neff told us that in an alleged high altitude Experiment one experimental subject died and that then at 10,000 meters within the chamber an autopsy was performed. When did you first learn of this case?

A: I heard of this for the first time when Neff said that on the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.

(A recess was taken)