1947-04-29, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF — Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Ruff):
Q: Dr. Ruff, we shall be finished in two or three minutes with the direct examination. We have only a few questions yet to put. Aside from the high altitude experiments with the low pressure chamber Dr. Rascher carried out numerous other experiments, for example the freezing experiments, the low temperature experiments, etc., which lead to many deaths or to severe damage to the subject's health; when and how did you hear of Dr. Rascher's further experiments?
A: I knew only of low temperature experiments. I was at the freezing conference which has frequently been mentioned here in Nurnberg, and heard there Professor Holzloehner's report. When hearing this report I did not have the impression that Dr. Holzloehner had had fatalities in his experiments. The preparation was such that one would certainly think when he was speaking of fatalities he was speaking of Seenot [distress] fatalities. It was known that Holzloehner had previously had a station to alleviate sea distress in the North Sea, and that he had complete experience about sea distress there. On this occasion I heard of low temperature experiments being carried out, that Himmler had told Rascher to carry out freezing experiments was known to me previously because when Rascher and Romberg reported to Himmler, Himmler mentioned this order to Rascher in some way and asked Romberg to participate in the experiments. At that time Romberg refused to do so on the grounds that he was not a specialist in this field. The Institute had never concerned itself with sea distress problems, and when he returned from this report to Himmler Romberg told me about this and asked me in case a request should be directed to the Institute that Romberg should participate in these experiments, — I should help him to avoid participating in them. However, such a request never came. Otherwise, I never heard of any other experiment of Rascher either before or after that.
Q: At the freezing conference in 27 October 1942 you were present?
A: Yes, this was an Aviation Medicine Conference. There were several such, and even if the field under discussion there was not specifically our field, nevertheless, we were asked to attend these conferences, and if we had time to we participated in them.
Q: In other words, you were there only as an auditor?
A: Yes.
Q: Because you were ordered to do so?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Ruff, you are also charged with conspiracy, in other words, conspiracy with all the other defendants, and those you were made co-responsible for everything that the other members did; for this reason it would interest me to know what relationship you had with the other members in the dock, and what relationship did you have with the experiments carried out by the doctors?
A: Before I came to Nurnberg I knew of the co-defendants personally only Professor Schroeder; Professor Rose very slightly, we had seen each other once or twice; Dr. Romberg, of course; Dr. Becker-Fryseng, Professor Weltz and Dr. Schaeffer. I met Dr. Schaeffer in 1945. I knew by name Professor Brandt, Professor Handloser and Professor Rostock, also Professor Gebhardt and Sievers, and otherwise no one. The others I knew neither personally or by name. I had professional relationships only with Professor Schroeder, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Becker-Freyseng and Professor Weltz. Regarding experiments that are here under consideration, and on account of which the other defendants are accused, I heard here in Nurnberg as I have already said, only the freezing experiments, and in 1945 or the beginning of 1946 when I saw a report I had occasion also to find out about the drinking water experiments. It is of course to be understood that I may have heard something at the end of the war to the effect that experiments were being carried out to make sea water potable, but I cannot recall that, however, only of the experiments I heard of at the end of 1945 or the beginning of 1946.
Q: Dr. Ruff, since you are speaking now of the drinking water experiments, I should like to direct your attention to what has been put in evidence in this case, namely the minutes of a meeting on the 19 of May 1944 in Document Book 5, exhibit 133, Document 177, these are minutes of a meeting in the Reich Air Ministry.
The Technical Office there from the rest of the distributors, it shows that a copy of these minutes was sent to your Institute, at least it is so stated, and under the list of those to whom the minutes were to be sent the Institute for Aviation Medicine, DVL, Berlin Adlershof, is mentioned. A representative of your Institute was not present at the conference of 19 May 1944, that is to be seen from the list of those present. However, among those present under No. 14, Unterarzt [Junior Doctor] Dr. Schaeffer is mentioned. However, he did not belong to your institute, but to the so-called Luftfahrtforschungs [Aeronautics Research] Institute of the Reich Air Ministry, in other words, the Institute which Professor Strughold was in charge of, but Professor Strughold's Institute is not among these to whom the report is distributed, although a professor from that institute was present. Now, I shall be interested, to know whether in 1944, at any rate before the end of the War, you saw these minutes of May 1944; were they brought to your official attention?
A: I cannot recall this document, and I believe I should remember it had been brought to my attention. Moreover I can't quite see why this report, these minutes should have been sent to me, because as I said before our Institute never concerned itself with any of the questions involved in sea distress, in other words, they did not concern themselves with making sea water potable.
Q: Did Professor Strughold's Institute concern itself with that?
A: Yes, they did, yes.
Q: Did you not assume, Dr. Ruff, that the name of your Institute was included by accident in the name of those to which these minutes were distributed, because your Institute is almost identical in name to Professor Strughold's Institute?
A: I consider that possible, but I do not know.
Q: Dr. Ruff, in the course of the trial we have heard of numerous medical conferences, for example the regular conferences of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht meeting in St. Johann, Tyrol, Berlin, Hohlychen, and so forth; did you yourself take part in such conferences, or was your institute Represented there?
A: I never took part in the conferences of the Consulting Physicians since I was not the consulting physician of any branch of the army. My co-workers also did not take part in any such conference, and I did not receive the reports from them.
Q: Dr. Ruff, you knew of the experiments in Dachau, I should like to know now did you otherwise in a concentration camp or a prison or penitentiary, carry out experiments with prisoners or participate in such experiments?
A: Neither before or after the Dachau experiments did I carry out experiments in a concentration camp or a prison or penitentiary.
DR. SAUTER: No more questions in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defense counsel desire to propound questions to this witness?
DR. WILLE: Dr. Wille for Weltz.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q: Dr. Ruff, let me ask a few questions. To compare, Professor Weltz, let me ask first of all that I gathered from your direct examination that you had known Professor Weltz possibly for a long time, as colleagues you had mutual respect and esteem, and therefore you may be able to state that all your agreements were carried out in this respect also?
A: Yes, I have already said that when Professor Weltz made this opinion that experiments be carried out in Dachau I had known him for many years, and that I had no reason to suppose he was proposing any experiments which he considered unethical or about which he had any legal assumptions.
Q: In order to clarify this matter, namely the matter of this affidavit, I should like you to describe briefly just what I am talking about here in Document NO-437, page 46, of the German Document Book, page 46 in the Document Book, you said:
I believe that Weltz told me in December he wanted me to carry out experiments in the concentration camp of Dachau; it would be well if specialists in this field would help in these experiments, and for this reason Weltz got in touch with me.
That is what you said in this affidavit; now, in your direct examination you explained this statement by saying that the agreement was the result of a conversation that took place in Aldershof Berlin, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct. When he visited Berlin, Professor Weltz told me that through Rascher and through Weltz institute, experiments were to be carried out in Dachau, that Hippke had given his agreement in principle to these experiments months ago, but that these experiments were still in the planning stage since they were not urgent and it was for this reason he suggested that the experiments be carried out in Dachau
Q: New, I have this further question, which again refers to your affidavit; you also stated that Professor Weltz was informed of the experiments being carried out in Dachau and was orientated regarding that; now his statement could be misunderstood; what exactly did you mean by that?
A: That meant that Weltz was informed and orientated about the planning of these experiments, because it was his suggestion that the experiments take place. He had the conference in Munich, we were in Dachau at the same time and discussed the matter with the camp commander to that extent Weltz was orientated about experiments in Dachau.
Q: My next question; was Weltz informed about the carrying out of the experiments?
A: I did not speak to Weltz about that.
Q: Did you give him a final report?
A: No, no report reached him from us.
Q: Do you know whether Weltz received such a report from elsewhere?
A: Of that I do know nothing.
Q: Regarding the high altitude experiments, there is a film in existence; do you know whether Weltz saw that film?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Can you say whether Weltz know about the fatalities?
A: I cannot say that for sure, of course, but I consider it improbable. I, myself, told him nothing about that.
Q: No further questions.
BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng):
Q: Dr. Ruff, how long have you known Becker-Freyseng?
A: Since 1938 or 1939, at that time Dr. Becker-Freyseng, was assistant at the Luftfahrt Medizinische Forschungsinstitut [Aviation Medical Research Institute] of the Air Ministry.
Q: Then, when during the war did you enter official relations with him?
A: In the course of 1941.
Q: On what occasion?
A: At the beginning of 1941, I was ordered by Hippke of the Medical Inspectorate, to visit all the low pressure chambers in Germany; there were twenty-five or more of them and then to submit a report of the condition of the low pressure chambers and also to suggest any technical improvements that should be carried out on the low pressure chambers. Then, in connection with the report that the Medical Inspectorate received, Dr. Becker-Freyseng was assigned to carry out these technical improvements and it was on this occasion that I resumed official relationship with Becker-Freyseng.
Q: Dr. Ruff, how long did Becker-Freyseng have anything to do with this re-modeling?
A: This, I cannot tell you, but it was quite a while at least; more than a year.
Q: You say, in other words, that Professor Becker-Freyseng from 1941 on had to do with the low pressure chambers; now the mobile low pressure chamber that was used, in Dachau, which plays a considerable role in this trial and the Tribunal could perhaps be of the opinion that Becker-Freyseng was improving of the use of the chamber in Dachau, particularly because you said in your direct examination that this chamber belonged to the Air Ministry and the Medical Inspectorate had ordered to use of the chamber in Dachau. Can you please tell the Tribunal whether Becker-Freyseng had anything to do with the use of the Dachau chamber?
A: No, he did not. This was a new chamber, which was sent to us by the delivery firm and we had received orders from the Medical Inspectorate to build a few additional pieces of apparatus into the low pressure chamber.
For instance the telephone system that corresponds to the one you have in an airplane, also we had to install the oxygen equipment. This was done by us, because we had the specialists available who did it when short of works in our airplanes. In other words, the chamber was not being used in the normal military way and for that reason it was not set up under Becker-Freyseng's supervision.
Q: Good. Witness, now in this connection one other question. In your direct examination by Dr. Sauter, you said that you had only spoken to Becker-Freyseng, I suppose at the end of 1942, about the fact that Rascher wanted a low pressure chamber for his future experiments and you said that you saw no necessity for sending such a chamber to Dachau and you said further that you had warned Becker-Freyseng about the SS plan to get a low pressure chamber for yourself, is that what you said?
A: Yes.
Q: Now will you please tell the Tribunal what Becker-Freyseng said, when you gave him this warning?
A: Dr. Becker-Freyseng said he would get in touch with the firm. At first he was of the same mind as I, he said he would get in touch with the firm and see to it that the firm made its entire production available only to the Luftwaffe.
Q: This is the firm Zeurtzen?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you. Now a further question, Dr. Ruff did you know the so called Medical Experience reports and when were these reports introduced?
A: I know of them, they were issued monthly by the troop doctors with the flight units and they reported on anything that was interesting from an aviation point of view. When they were first introduced, I cannot say, but roughly it was during the first years of the war.
Q: And do you also know who worked on these reports at the Medical Inspectorate?
A: I know that Becker-Freyseng did. I know this because we frequently saw parts of these reports and we received them whenever the reports could help us in solving any of our own problems. For instance, in the case parachute jumps, there had been several fatalities because the electric cord from the ear phones had become lodged around the neck of the person who was dropping and strangled him. We had to clear up the question of how these accidents could be prevented.
Q: Could you estimate how many reports there were every month?
A: I should say there were from two to three hundred.
Q: Thank you. Now a question regarding high altitude experimentation. Dr. Ruff, you received reports on the corrections, you delivered a lecture regarding the results of these high altitude experiments and this report was printed; when was this lecture and when was it published?
A: It is true that I delivered such a report in the Academy for Air Research, not directly about these experiments but about the general question of the possibility of saving people from high altitude, but in this lecture the results of the Dachau experiments were also discussed and evaluated, that must have been in late autumn or early winter of 1942, or the end of 1942; in other words I do not know the exact date. as you say, it was published, but I do not know the date of that publication either, it certainly appears in "Jahrbuch der Luftfahrtforschung," [Yearbook of Aviation Research] 1942 -1943.
Q: Thank you. Now, can you also say whether you mentioned the names of Romberg and Rascher in your lecture?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: Do you know whether this report went to the Medical Inspectorate?
A: I had to show this lecture to the Medical Inspectorate, before I delivered it, for approval and afterward, of course, special copies of the lecture were sent to the Medical Inspectorate because that always was the practice.
Q: Now, in your direct examination, you also mentioned the Nurnberg conference and said about it that there were many such medical aviation conferences, I can assume that you, yourself, delivered many lectures at many such conferences not only at Nurnberg?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the lectures that were delivered at such conferences have to be submitted to the medical inspectorate for approval before they were delivered?
A: Since these were conferences of the Medical Inspectorate itself, it was not necessary in this case to submit the entire draft of the lecture for approval before hand, either the medical inspectorate asked: "Can you read a paper on such and such a theme" or one applied to deliver a lecture himself, giving the title and general contents, but nothing more than that.
Q: Frequently you took part in discussions at such conferences; I assume now the notes on the discussions certainly did not have to be submitted for approval?
A: No, of course not because the discussion took place only after the lecture.
Q: Now, I'd like to discuss a document with you, Dr. Ruff, submitted by the prosecution. This is Document No-934, Exhibit Number 458. This was submitted during Schroeder's cross examination and is consequently not in a document book. This is a list of the medical research assignments of the OKL, Chief of the Medical Services of the Air Force and the research administration of the RDL and OBDL. Dr. Becker-Freyseng is mentioned as the person who worked on this. I give the document to you.
I am discussing this with you for the following reason: The Prosecution put the Haagen research assignment before Dr. Schroeder in this report. The report is called "Secret"; and the Prosecution drew conclusions from it that are disadvantageous to Prof. Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng. Dr. Becker-Freyseng said to me that the list was not only incorrect about this point, the Haagen assignment was not secret, and that you could also find other errors in this document, namely, regarding points which you, Witness, could clarify. Please look at Page 2 of this document, Number II, entitled "Air Medicine", and I waste No. 4.; "Current evaluation of air accident reports from the medical point of view. (Secret) Research about the effect of underpressure on the teeth, DVL, Institute for Air Medicine, Dr. Siegmund Ruff." In other words, you are mentioned as the person working on this. You see a sign there, and that sign means that this is an assignment by the Research Center and not by the Medical Inspectorate. Can you please tell us, Witness, whether what is set forth in this list is correct?
A: What is said under point 4 is certainly wrong. The current evaluation of aero-medical accident reports was something that took place after 1936. It was renewed every year and certainly was an assignment made by the medical Inspectorate because it is a purely medical matter. Moreover, it is also wrong that this assignment was secret. The semi-annual reports that were made on the basis of this assignment were in part secret, namely, these that contained simple accident statistics, where every accident was listed, its cause, the number of deaths, number of wounded.
Then in the second part the experiences that could be derived from these accidents were listed: and this part was not secret. It was the purpose of this report, which was printed in great numbers, that the contents should be made available to every pilot so that he could knew why accidents happened.
Q: Now, Doctor Ruff, there is mention also of the effect of under pressure on the person's teeth.
A: That, too, is something which was not of a medical nature given by a technical agency.
Q: Did this assignment have anything to do with the current evaluation of air accidents?
A: No. I has nothing to do with this assignment; it was an assignment by itself.
Q: In other words, this entry here is false in its essential points?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, please look at assignments Number 5 and 7 in the same list. Let me quote Number Five:
Experiments on the strains made on physical system and housing of a pilot in an Anti-Aircraft Rocket, Top Secret
— and again the assignment is issued to you. The little sign that I mentioned before is missing. In other words, this assignment was made by the Medical Inspectorate. Now, is that true?
A: No, that is again erroneous. This is an assignment on the basis of a purely technical development and was assigned by the research leadership of the RLF.
Q: Please take a look at Page 3, Witness. Number 5 is again mentioned here; and here there is a little sign next to it. It is the same assignment; and the little sign means that it was an assignment on the part of the research leadership. In other words, these two are the same assignment; but once it seems to have been an assignment by the Medical Inspectorate and the other time by the research leadership.
A: Yes, the two assignments agree word for word.
Q: Then again there is again a mistake here?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Now, take a look at Number 7. I quote:
The carrying out of sheeting-off procedures, statically and in the airplane, with the centrifugal seat and with propulsion by powder. Secret.
The little sign is missing. That means that the assignment was supposedly made by the Medical Inspectorate. Is that so?
A: This is certainly also erroneous. This is certainly an assignment on the part of the research leadership; but aside from that mistake, there is another one here. This was certainly not secret, because this must have been an assignment from the year 1944; and the work on centrifugal seats was, as far as I know, never secret, because this was a new rescue instrument, from the use of which you could not draw deductions about anything else concerning technical developments in aviation; and so far as one could not draw deductions from the use of this rescue material about other matters in the air in aviation, they were not designated as secret.
Q: In other words, Witness, you agree with me that in the few assignments that I have read to you here there are numbers of errors which seriously put in question the value of this list as a whole?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Dr. Ruff, as can be seen from this list, you and your institute received a large number of research assignments from the Medical Inspectorate. How often when you were carrying out these assignments were you checked on by the Medical Inspectorate?
A: In carrying out these assignments we were not checked on at all in general. We frequently had visits from some department chief or other in the Medical Inspectorate; the Medical Inspector himself, and of these occasions we reported how the experiments were coming along, and showed in what form they were being carried out. But we were not checked on.
Rather, we simply submitted a report on the carrying out of the research.
Q: Was it customary in research, Witness, if a research assignment was issued to carry out any sort of checking?
A: Neither with us in aviation nor elsewhere was that customary. Frequently the office that had issued the assignment, and which usually provided the funds for the research, asked for a report at stated intervals on the work being done; but a personal check on the work did not take place. At least I do now know of any such cases.
Q: One last question. Was the way in which you should achieve your results prescribed to you in any way?
A: The way was in general not prescribed. Either the assignment came directly from the Medical Inspectorate or the research leadership; and it sometimes happened that how the experiment was to be carried out was suggested, but certainly it was not prescribed.
Q: Now another last question. So far as I know at the end of the war you worked in the Aerial Medical Center in Heidelberg for the American Air Force, and you worked in conjunction with Becker-Freyseng. Can you tell us whether Becker-Freyseng between October 1945 — namely, when he was hired — and September 1946, — namely, the time he was imprisoned — carried out dangerous experiments on himself in the Heidelberg Aerial Medical Center and whether he or any of his colleagues suffered any harm because of these experiments?
A: That is correct. Together with a certain Dr. Gauer and myself, Becker-Freyseng carried out experiments on himself. These were experiments in which he stayed for a considerable length of time at 12,000 meters altitude. At that time we did not know what results the Americans had achieved in this field; and we had several very unpleasant incidents. One of our colleagues, Dr. Gauer, had a severe discharge in the knee joint, was in the hospital for several weeks and then had to go on crutches for three months. But there were no cases of death.
DR. TIPP: Thank you, no further questions.
BY DR. VORWERK for Romberg:
Q: Witness, in your direct examination when you described the course of your career you spoke of the various sorts of experiments. Can you say that Dr. Romberg made experiments to the same extent and in the same way you did?
A: Yes, that is so. Dr. Romberg was, as I said, my oldest collaborator and carried out these experiments on himself as I did.
Q: During your direct collaboration with him could you over say that he didn't seem reliable to work on his own initiative?
A: No. On the contrary Romberg distinguished himself in all his experiments by his particular care and particular reliability. With no qualms at all I could let him carry out any experiments as the responsible experimenter. I had no occasion to warn him in any way about anything but he experimented with the greatest of circumspection.
Q: In view now of the possibility of giving pain to the experimental subject I should like to know what the nature was of those various experiments that you mentioned yesterday? Which was the one that was the most likely to cause pain?
A: I believe that of all the experiments that we ever carried out those were subjectively the most unpleasant, namely the most painful, concerning research into the effects of cold and oxygen.
In these cases, before the real experiment, the subject was subjected to temperatures as low as 40 centigrade below zero for an hour or more. The subjects were lightly clothed. These experiments were, at least to me, the most unpleasant.
Q: You are speaking now of high altitude experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: I was not referring to high altitude experiments, but I was referring to experiments such as you referred to yesterday. Yesterday you listed a whole number of experiments that were not high altitude experiments but which were necessary for research into aviation problems. Now, I want to ask you whether high altitude experiments were more painful than other experiments you carried out?
A: No. In my direct examination I said that the greatest part of the high altitude experiments were completely painless, namely all these in which one experiences high altitude sickness.
Q: Was it necessary that the experiments carried out in Dachau within the framework of your program all had to lead to high altitude sickness?
A: Yes, in all cases there was altitude sickness that lasted for a greater or shorter length of time.
Q: You said that during altitude sickness the experimental subject feels no pain, is that so?
A: Yes. The subject is unconscious and feels no pain.
Q: Is the subject susceptible to pain up to the moment when the sickness occurs, or is it possible that the experimental subject up to that moment is subject to conditions that cause him pain?
A: I described the course that altitude sickness takes, and I said at first that if the oxygen supply is interrupted at a certain altitude, then for a short period of time — and that period of time depends on how high the subject is — the experimental subject is fully capable of action. At that moment he is susceptible of feeling pain.
Q: Up to the moment — please answer this question whether up to the moment when high altitude sickness occurs, the experiments carried out in the framework of your program in Dachau — could cause pain to the experimental subject?
A: No.
Q: Further, according to what you said one would not feel pain during altitude sickness. Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: Could the experimental subject suffer pain from the moment of waking up on?
A: After the experimental subject regained consciousness it was possible for him to suffer pain because he was capable of action then.
Q: In the Dachau experiments was there cause for pain to the experimental subject after regaining consciousness?
A: No, but after he regained consciousness and was descending he could fool pressure on the car drums.
Q: Was there subsequent pain as a result of these experiments?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember that Dr. Romberg at the beginning of the experiments took an electrocardiogram of each experimental subject, took one also during the experiment, and a third electrocardiogram after the experiments? Did you know that?
A: Yes, I knew that, because that was necessary if we wanted to be able to say in the report later that there was no lasting deleterious effect.
Q: These electrocardiograms that were taken three times on each experimental subject which Romberg took with him to Berlin-Adlershof, did you see them?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you present when they were evaluated?
A: As far as I know, I was not.
Q: Do you know, from this evaluation that was undertaken, that no lasting harmful effects were observed at that time in the case of the experimental subjects?
A: Yes; I did see the results of the final evaluation.
Q: Who showed this to you?
A: Dr. Romberg.
Q: In other words you knew even at that time this and didn't find it out here?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Now, regarding the dangerousness of these experiments, an I to believe that the experiments that are the most painful are not also the most dangerous?
A: Yes, that is so. You have to distinguish in such experiments between subjective pain and the danger. These can be two quite different things.
Q: From all experiments in your experience that you described yesterday which do you think are the most dangerous?
A: I should say that experiments to ascertain the influence of flying with the person lying parallel with the motion of the flight, in which the head is toward the outside, on the centrifugal machine. I should say that is the most dangerous of all.
Q: You consider that more dangerous than high altitude experiments?
A: In general, yes.
Q: This experiment that you just described, was that carried out in Dachau?
A: No, they were carried out by our institutes as self-experiments.
Q: I am speaking now only of high altitude experiments. Please disregard the other experiments. In your opinion, what is the most dangerous experiment that you ever carried out in a low pressure chamber?
A: The most dangerous experiment within the framework of our high altitude experiments including the Dachau experiments — and I am now referring to high altitude experiments — of all of them I consider most dangerous the one Romberg carried out on himself and which is mentioned in the report. I did not know this from what I knew at this time but from what I learned since. I believe in this experiment Romberg came close to death.
Q: What is that experiment and why do you consider it the most dangerous.
A: Romberg experimented on himself at 13,500 meters in which he suffered severe experiences of blinding, paralysis, etc.
Q: But, don't you believe that the experiments at the height of 20,000 meters are more dangerous?
A: The dangerousness of high altitude experiments does not depend exclusively on the altitude but depends on lack of oxygen to which the body is subjected. That is to say, I can conduct experiments at 20,000 meters that are relatively not dangerous and carry out relatively dangerous experiments at 13,000 meters. If in one case, at 20,000 meters the stay is very brief, and in another case, at 13,000 meters, I let the person stay for a long time.
Q: Before the beginning of the Dachau experiments it was clear to you what sort of experiments were to be carried out?
A: Yes.
Q: Let us take the average experiment, such as was carried out in the framework of the Dachau experiments, let us compare it to other high altitude experiments such as you were accustomed to carry out. Were the Dachau experiments more dangerous than other high altitude experiments you were accustomed to carry out?
A: On the average they were certainly no more dangerous than experiments we carried out at our institute.
Q: Were they more dangerous than those carried out at the Aero Medical Center?
A: No, and particularly in view of present experiences we know that the experiment we carried out in Heidelberg were considerably more dangerous to life than the bailing out experiments.
Q: Now one other question. Am I correct in saying that there was a research assignment already in existence when the Dachau experiments began, and this assignment concerned rescue from groat heights?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Is it also correct that you received this assignment from the Air Ministry via Hippke and concerned itself with rescue from high altitudes?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Is it further true that you had already carried out a series of experiments to solve this problem?
A: Yes, that is so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.