1947-04-29, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened, at 1330 hours, 29 April 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. VOWERK (Counsel for the defendant Romberg):

Q: Dr. Ruff, before the recess we had stopped at the statement that the Dachau experiments represented a part of those experiments which were part of the program of saving people in high altitudes, that is to say, that before the Dachau experiments began there were in your institute experiments carried out on the question, as well as subsequent to the Dachau experiments, on the same subject, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: During the first conferences with Rascher was there any mention to the effect that experimental subjects might die?

A: In the first discussions with Rascher we spoke of the danger involved in the experiments, and on this occasion as well as later when we talked to the camp commander at Dachau we pointed out that in our opinion, that is, in human judgment, no deaths were to be reported.

Q: During the first conference with Rascher did you think that he purely wanted to participate in the high altitude experiments, or could you see from his whole attitude that he wanted to go beyond that and make experiments of his own whether on his own initiative or by Himmler's orders?

A: At this discussion in Munich and in the discussions afterwards not a word was said about any other experiments which were planned or were to be carried out. We discussed merely the experiments for rescue from high altitude.

Q: Did Rascher not at that time already mention that he intended to make his thesis to be a lecturer — in the field of high altitude experiments? Is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Did Rascher at that time show that, apart from the high altitude experiments, he also had to make experiments in order to he able to write his thesis in this field?

A: I don't know anything about that. In any case, I do not recall such statements on the part of Rascher in connection with the discussion in Munich at that time.

Q: When did you, for the first time, tell Romberg about Weltz proposition?

A: Following Weltz visit to my institute in Berlin — either on the same day or the next day.

Q: Did you, at that time know that Rascher was a member of the SS?

A: No, I did not know that when Dr. Weltz was in Berlin. I don't believe that I heard anything about Dr. Rascher's belonging to the SS.

Q: When did you first hear that Rascher had been given permission by Hippke to make high altitude experiments at Dachau?

A: At this first discussion with professor Weltz, Professor Weltz told me that the Medical Inspector Hippke, a few months before that, had already given his fundamental approval for such experiments in Dachau.

Q: Would it therefore be correct to say that Rascher both had the permission of Hippke to carry out the experiments and Himmler's approval to carry out the experiments?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Do you believe that Rascher would have made experiments in Dachau if the DVL had not participated?

A: Yes, I am convinced of it.

Q: Do you believe that the DVL would have made experiments in Dachau if Rascher would not have taken part at all?

A: The question is not easy to answer. The prerequisite for the participation or the execution of these experiments at Dachau was that some one had the permission to perform such experiments in Dachau, and that was Rascher.

Q: Let me put my question a different way. Do you believe that the DVL, even if it had wanted to, would have been in a position to carry out experiments in Dachau without Rascher?

A: No, I consider that impossible.

Q: But you are of the opinion that Rascher, without the DVL, would actually have made such experiments?

A: I am convinced of that, yes.

Q: But you know that Rascher did not possess a low pressure chamber. Do you believe that Rascher's connections would have been sufficient to obtain a low pressure chamber?

A: I am convinced that if Rascher had gone to Himmler, and Himmler had demanded that a low pressure chamber be put at his disposal, that he would have received it.

Q: Are you of the conviction that by yours or Romberg's measures the low pressure chamber was, in fact, removed from Dachau earlier than Rascher actually intended it to be?

A: Yes, I believe that that is proved by the documents we have here too.

Q: Do you also believe that by Romberg's presence in Dachau, Rascher was impeded in his experiments or, at least, limited, and up to a certain point was prevented by that presence?

A: That is, for me at least, clear from what we have learned in the, course of the trial here. The witness Neff, for example, says that Rascher always took advantage of the time when Romberg was not there — that is, in the, evening — for his experiments. If Romberg had not been present, he would, no doubt, have had the whole day for such experiments and would, no doubt, have carried out more experiments then he actually did.

Q: Do you agree with me in this idea that first of all Rascher would have carried out his experiments in Dachau even without the DVL, and that, secondly, he would have been less interrupted in his experiments, and, thirdly, that he could have kept the low pressure chamber as long as he regarded it as necessary, or as long as Himmler gave him his permission? Do you believe that these ideas are correct?

A: I am convinced of it.

Q: How many experimental subjects with green triangles did you see?

A: I can't give you the exact figure — ten to fifteen approximately.

Q: Did you see where those people were billeted?

A: Yes, during the day that I was at Dachau I was practically all the time at the low pressure chamber or in the room adjacent to the billet of these men.

Q: And all the experimental subjects whom you saw on that occasion were wearing a green triangle, is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: When did you, for the first time hear that Rascher, apart from those experiments to rescue people from high altitudes, used the same low pressure chamber, which was used for those experiments, without your and Romberg's knowledge, made experiments of a different kind?

A: I heard that for the first time when Romberg came to Berlin and reported the fact to me, and I believe on the same occasion he reported that a death had occurred.

Q: You don't know whether Romberg told you before the first fatality occurred?

A: No, I don't remember that.

Q: Do you regard it as possible that Romberg talked to you about this and that you might have forgotten it?

A: That is possible.

Q: Now, when you heard about the first fatality did you modify your program to rescue people from high altitudes or did you leave it as it was? Did you change it or shorten it?

A: We shortened it.

Q: Did that not endanger the result of the whole experiment?

A: No, the result was not endangered. The experiments were not shortened to that extent. We would merely dispense with a few minor things which were not essential.

Q: What was your first reaction when you heard about the first fatality?

A: My reaction was that I completely agreed with Romberg that our experiments had to be concluded quickly so that we could prevent Rascher's continuing his experiments.

Q: Did you not conceive the idea of desisting altogether from further experiments?

A: We did think of that briefly.

Q: And why did you give it up?

A: We decided against it because, in the first place, our experiments which had already been carried out would have been in vain, but, secondly, and especially because, by giving up our experiments, we would not have prevented Rascher's experiments. What we were primarily interested in was, on the one hand, to complete the experiments but, on the other hand, to see to it that the low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau; but that was possible only by completing our experiments so that we could say that the experiments for which the chamber was sent to Dachau are completed, and we also said the chamber is urgently needed. Only in this way could we even think of getting the chamber out of Dachau.

Q: How was it then not to interrupt the experiments rather than choose the other way?

A: Would you please repeat the question? I didn't hear the beginning.

Q: Whose idea was it to determine not to interrupt the experiments but take the other way? Would it not have been possible to break off the experiments altogether?

A: I believe that this idea originated with Romberg. If I remember correctly, my first reaction was that I said: "All right, you are in Berlin, you will stay here and we'll stop the experiments."

Q: Would it have been possible at that time to break off the experiments and get back the chamber?

A: It would have been possible merely to break off the experiments. It would not have been possible to get the chamber back.

Q: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to the witness on the part of defense counsel?

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Witness, you have described in a general way the low pressure chamber and the experiments that you say were carried out with this chamber. Will you please tell the Tribunal just exactly what equipment and machinery is necessary for the conduct of high altitude experiments.

A: Yesterday I said that the chamber itself consists of a room which is sealed against pressure. The door of this chamber is constructed in such a way that the inside of the chamber is sealed hermetically against the air from outside. In the chamber itself there are benches and tables to accommodate the person conducting the experiment and the subject, and also in the chamber, for each person, there is a supply of oxygen. There is a so-called "lung automat" — that is, an apparatus which controls the supply of oxygen to the inmates of the chamber in such a way that during the inhalation phase of breath, oxygen is supplied and during the expiration, no oxygen is supplied. This control of the supply of oxygen goes through a tube and is connected to the mask which the inmate of the chamber wears. The oxygen which is supplied through this apparatus comes from a bottle of compressed oxygen — that is, a steel container in which the oxygen is under high pressure. This oxygen is supplied to the "lung automat" through a thin tube. In the chamber there is also a valve so that the experimenter, who may be in the chamber too, will be able to start a descent. Now, the chamber is connected by a system of tubes with valves to a number of pumps — to one or several pumps — and these pumps pump the air out of the chamber. The speed with which the air is pumped out can be regulated by a valve which is outside the chamber at the controls. In the chamber, in general, there is also a meter which gives approximately the altitude. There are also sprays and medicine for reviving the subjects in the chamber. In addition to the tubes leading to the pumps, there is another system of tubing which leads to the fresh air outside. The other end of this tube opens into the chamber. Between the two ends of this tube there is a valve which one can open and close. For decent, this valve is opened and air is introduced into the chamber.

This increases the pressure and this brings about descent. Outside of the chamber, at the controls, there is another altimeter which consists of the mercury column which measure the altitude exactly. That is, the altitude not read directly, in general, but the pressure in millimeters of mercury which is later calculated to what altitude this indicates.

Q: Will you please explain to the Tribunal the procedure which you would use for conducting what you called explosive decompression test; how are the men seated, how are they equipped, and what is the precise procedure for such a test?

A: If we start with the conditions of this mobile chamber which was used at Dachau, the big low pressure chamber itself is rather a big room which has room for 10 or perhaps as many as 12 persons. In this big chamber no explosive decompression tests can be carried out. For such tests there is in addition to the big chamber a small chamber which can hold two people at the most. The two people sit on a small bench facing each other. The small chamber is otherwise equipped just like the big one is, hermetically sealed. It has windows for observation. It has telephone communications and between the big and the small chamber is a very big valve with two openings of about 15 centimeters diameter each. In order to carry out such an explicit decompression test the big chamber is pumped out to a certain altitude. After this has been done the subject enters the small chamber. Depending on the experiment he is either with or without oxygen equipment. There is a telephone, and the subject goes into the chamber. and now in Dachau the experiments were generally performed in this way. There is a slow ascent to 8 or 10,000 meters, generally with oxygen. This altitude for beginning the experiment was chosen because in the military planes the crews who normally fly in pressure cabins under pressure corresponding to 3,000 meters, have instructions as soon as there is any danger to reduce the pressure in their cabins so that it will correspond to 8,000 meters. The purpose of this was that the crew should be forced, even before the acute danger existed, to use their oxygen equipment because they could not fly at 8,000 meters without oxygen, so that if something actually does happen they have already their oxygen equipment on. Now, I come back to our experiment. The subjects go up slowly to eight to ten thousand meters, they were generally left there for a few minutes, so that they would be given an opportunity to get rid of the gas from their bodies.

In the stomach there is always a little air or gas that expands When the altitude increases, and they were to get rid of this gas, so that it would not expand further at greater altitude, and interfere with breathing. The same conditions exist in practice. Then came the experiment proper, this experiment consisted of two parts, the explosive decompression and the following parachute jump. That follows the explosive decompression to the altitude for a parachute jump. A slow ascent to this altitude is not possible, I have already said that above 13 or 14 thousand meters altitude sickness occurs. If one had gone up to these altitude slowly one would arrive at the desired altitude with an air sick subject that would not have corresponded to the conditions of practice. Now, to get back to our experiment, the explosive decompression follows; this is brought about in the following way between the big chamber and the small chamber, the big valve is opened. The air is suddenly drawn from the small chamber into the big chamber. The pressure between these two chambers was coordinated. Such sudden rises are not possible with pumps of normal dimensions. Now, the experimental subjects were at the altitude for the beginning of the actual experiment, and start the part of the experiment in which we were interested.

Q: How long did it take to decompress the small chamber so that the compression in the small chamber would be the same as it was in the large chamber?

A: About one second. The actual speed of this adjustment depends on how the valve is manipulated, but it would be about one second.

Q: Then when that occurred and the pressures were equalized how did this complete the experiment to simulate a parachute jump down to a ceiling where a person could exist without the aid of oxygen, and could simply get their breathing substance from the air itself, wasn't that the second phase of this experiment?

A: That was the experiment proper. The part of the experiment which we were primarily interested in there. After the altitude for the experiment had been reached the subject remained for a few seconds at this altitude. The purpose of this was to simulate as closely as possible the conditions of practice, because if there is such explicit decompression within a plane it takes a certain length of time before the crew members can jump. After a few seconds of waiting at this altitude the pressure in this small chamber was increased. That is the descent was broken, and the speed of this increase of pressure was so regulated that it corresponded to the speed of falling without a parachute, and in other experiments it corresponded to the speed of falling with an open parachute. With this falling speed so regulated the chamber descended to zero meters, and that was the end of the experiment. That we were interested in, in these experiments, was to determine whether and when the experimental subjects were able to carry out an order or instructions which had been given before the experiment after overcoming altitude sickness. That is a person in an airplane is told after such a thing happens to you then to jump first. You don't do anything and when you come to without then you pull the rip cord of your parachute. The same thing was said to the experimental subjects, and after they came to after suffering altitude sickness they manipulated a lever which in the experiment represented the rip cord of the parachute. In manipulating this lever the experiment was actually ended, and then the chamber was brought down to zero meters. That actually had nothing to do with the experiment.

Q: From the time that you would embark on one of these experiments until you considered the experiment at an end; what length of time would be required?

A: That differed greatly, It depended on whether these were slow sinking experiments, that is experiments to simulate falling with a parachute or free falling experiments, which corresponded to falling without a parachute. Roughly, one can say the following without making too great a mistake; one can conclude for the falling experiments: 10 seconds per 1,000 meters; for the sinking experiments per 1,000 meters — one minute. I believe that is accurate enough for these conditions, but in the original of our report there is an exact chart of the time that the individual experiments took.

Q: You could recollect then what would be an average time for the completion of an explosive decompression test from the time that the experimental subject actually took is seat in the small chamber until you carried through the assimilation of depressurized small cabin and the descent down to zero; would take twenty minutes, thirty or five minutes, what length of time would it take?

A: For one experiment, I would like to submit the figure for the highest altitude 21,000 meters, rising to 8,000 meters, it taken two or three minutes, weight measure 5 minutes, that makes 8 minutes. The other rise to 21,000 meters, one can ignore as far as time is concerned, that is about one-tenth of a second. Then the ascent from 21,000 let us say to 10,000 meters is where the actual experiment is really finished normally if there is no difficulty with the ear, it would take two or three minutes; that would make a total of twelve or thirteen minutes for the experiment.

Q: Then, you would say that from the time the experimental subject actually seated himself in the chamber until the experiment was concluded it consumed somewhere between twelve end fifteen minutes?

A: That is about right, yes.

Q: Now, during all that period of time I understand that certain observations were being made by physicians, technicians, researchers or attaches to regard Behring results, I suppose the pulse counts, cardiogram and that sort of thing; is that correct?

A: That is right.

Q: To conduct such an experiment, now I mean the explosive decompression test; how many physicians, technicians and attaches were normally necessary to manipulate the chamber and the air pressure and to check and to tabulate the results?

A: For such an experiment, if I should give the minimum personnel, we needed a doctor to observe the subject and one technician to manipulate the chamber to take care of the pumps, to be in the machine room, etc. The observing doctor, if it was an experiment on the small chamber, could look from the window into the chamber and with his left hand regulate the decent.

Q: Then, you say that for this explosive decompression test, the matter could satisfactorily be concluded with one doctor and one technician; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is the minimum.

Q: In the tests you conducted how many doctors, technicians and attaches did you have?

A: There were two doctors, Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher and also in general another person who took care of the technical things.

Q: Were any tests concluded or launched to determine the ceiling which a flier could attain without the use of oxygen?

A: No, that was not done, but perhaps I may point out one thing; there is a great difference whether one leaves a person for a short time at a certain altitude and determines whether he could stand this altitude with or without oxygen, or whether one leaves him for a long time at this altitude. The effect of the lack of oxygen depends on the strength of the oxygen lack and also on the length of time of the lack.

Q: From your study of the matter, can you say to what ceiling a flier can be expected to go without oxygen and still live?

A: According to our experience from 4,000 there are certain symptoms without oxygen and certainly from 5,000 or 6,000 meters it is not possible to stand this altitude for a very long time. A pilot would not be able to control his plane at this altitude without oxygen. On the other hand, we know that under other conditions it is very possible at 8,000 meters to perform serious, severe work without oxygen. We find these conditions in the case of mountain climbers. It is known that the highest peaks in the world in the Himalayas have been climbed without oxygen, that would be 8,000 meters. That is because the body in such a slow ascent as in the mountains can adapt itself to the altitude. For example, the number of red blood corpuscles, which are very necessary for oxygen supply, is increased to more than double in general area.

One cannot answer this question correctly in the same form or in a sense such as occurs in aviation where it is generally considered that at about 5,000 or 5,000 meters it is not possible to stay for hours. That one can live in this altitude for a short period, this of course varies depending on the individual.

Q: In these experiments that were conducted, either the explosive decompression tests or the slow ascents, what opportunity was there in either of these chambers for self rescue by that I mean to say if the experimental subject felt that he was losing control of his mental or physical faculties what opportunity did he have, other than to signal to the man manipulating the chamber to be brought down to normal altitude?

A: In each of these chambers, in the small one as well as in the large one, there was within reach a valve which one could open to descend.

Q: Just exactly where was this low pressure chamber located and installed in the Dachau concentration camp?

A: This mobile low pressure chamber was standing on a road between two barracks. In one of these barracks was the shelter for the experimental subjects and the workroom for the person in charge of the experiment and and the rest of the personnel.

Q: When you were ready to begin an experiment, who produced the experimental subjects from day to day? In other words, how did those subjects who were housed in the barracks know that at such and such a time there was going to be an experiment and that they in particular had been selected for that experiment?

A: The subjects for our experiments for rescue from high altitude were during the whole course of experiments in this room in the barracks. They were not brought from somewhere when the experiment was to be conducted, they were all there. The person who was in charge of them was the witness Neff who has testified here.

Q: I understand that; but how did Neff know that at 1430 hours he was to product the experimental subject A, or B, or C at the chamber itself for the conduct of an experiment? They simply couldn't guess it. Someone had to go through the routine actually, I suppose, of making each of the experimental subjects know that today, 29 April, at 1430 hours he would be expected to report somewhere to somebody for some sort of a test, wouldn't he? Now, what was the routine for making that man available?

A: On the day when I myself participated in these experiments I saw how this happened. Where the record of the experiment was kept, it was set down who was available for experiments, that is, what experimental subject had not been in an experiment in the past few days. After every experiment the subject had several days of complete rest. That was so that the results would not be influenced by the person's being subjected to too many of them. It was from the remaining subjects that the experimental subjects could be used. As far as I recall, the witness Neff saw such people as could be used and asked them which one of them wanted to be in an experiment that day. Then from the limited group Neff brought the one who wanted to be in the experiment on that particular day. The group was often limited more and more every day; but at the end nobody but one person was left who had not participated; and that was his turn that day.

Q: Ordinarily how many experiments were each of these experimental subjects required to undergo?

A: The subject participated in about ten or twenty experiments altogether.

Q: Over what period of time?

A: Three months.

Q: You spoke of a large pressure chamber and a small chamber. Now, which one of these was out in the road between the two barracks?

A: They were both together in one truck.

Q: What would you say were the approximate inside dimensions of the large low pressure chamber?

A: The big low pressure chamber was about eight-that is, there were two circles. Two cylindrical chambers adjacent to each other. Each of these circles had a diameter of about two meters thirty, two meters twenty or two meters thirty.

Q: How many people could be accommodated in the large Chamber if you wanted to conduct a mass experiment? Let us assume for instance, I think you said that a person could go up to four thousand meters without the use of oxygen; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Let us assume that you wanted to determine that fact. How many experimental subjects could you have placed in the large pressure chamber at one time?

A: The Luftwaffe had, as far as I know, a maximum of ten persons in the big chamber. In each of these two circles which I mentioned, of which the chamber was composed, there would be more than 4 experimental subjects and one doctor, let us say, a total of ten persons. But if one assumes that these people were to crowd together closely, one would surely have been able to seat twelve people in the chamber.

Q: To get into that chamber were there two entrance doors or just one?

A: Only one door.

Q: And that pressure, if you start at zero, I suppose would ordinarily start at what we call approximately fifteen pounds to the square inch? Would that be correct?

A: Yes, that is right, 760 millimeters of mercury by the other measurement. That is one atmosphere.

Q: If you were then to attempt to take that pressure down, for instance, let us assume you wanted to take it down to 6000 meters, how long would it take to do it?

A: It is possible to vary this ascent to a certain extent by the valves. The normal speed of an ascent with which we carried out such experiments was a thousand meters per minute.

This was, so to speak, the standard speed because the altitude which can be reaching without oxygen depends to a certain extent upon the ascent. In order to be able to compare experiments at various institutes, the Medical Inspectorate suggested that unless there were any special circumstances one should use this speed, a thousand meters per minute.

Q: Suppose you wanted to test the chamber itself to see if it was operating properly. What would be the minimum time that you could take that chamber from zero to 6000 meters?

A: That depends on the construction of the chamber. But to stick to this particular mobile chamber that we used in Dachau, for 6000 meters we would need about three minutes, three or four minutes. May I add something about these questions? This red book which Dr. Sauter handed to the Tribunal has in it a sketch of this mobile chamber.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Ruff, when were you first approached by Dr. Weltz?

A: December 1941.

Q: Did Dr. Weltz come to visit you in Berlin?

A: He came to Berlin and visited me in my institute

Q: What did he say?

A: During this visit we discussed aero medical questions among other things. He had received our first report on parachute descents from great heights and we discussed this. I told him how we wanted to continue with these experiments, in other words, what would be the second part in this experimental series. And, that is in essence the subject of our conversation. Prof. Weltz then suggested to me that the second part of this experimental series should be carried out in Dachau on prisoners.

Q: Professor Weltz suggested to you that you should carry out this research on prisoners in Dachau concentration camp. Is that the first time you heard of the plan?

A: Yes, that was the first time I heard of that project and Professor Weltz made this suggestion that there should be collaboration between Romberg and Rascher, between his institute and mine, and that we should carry out the experiments.

Q: What do you suppose prompted Dr. Weltz visit to you in Berlin?

A: There were many such visits. In the first place I said in my direct examination that Weltz throughout the entire War came to my institute once or twice a year when he was in Berlin and had time to come to the institute.

Q: Prior to the time that you and Romberg accepted the invitation of Weltz, to your knowledge, had Dr. Rascher any experience in the field of high altitude research?

A: You mean Rascher and myself?

Q: No, I will repeat. Prior to the time that you and Romberg entered the Dachau picture did Rascher ever have any experience in high altitude research work?

A: Rascher had been assigned to Weltz's institute for several months at this time and certainly he at least had the opportunity to witness high altitude experiments and to take part in them. Moreover as I could see from conversations I had with Rascher from the time I met him Rascher was perfectly acquainted with aero medical problems.

Q: But, actually Rascher was more or less a beginner in this type of research work, wasn't he?

A: How much he had worked in this field I cannot say. I don't even know it today but with us in the institute the situation was that if a new worker came within three months he had participated in low pressure work for at least one hundred times and had a very good idea of what altitude problems were from his own personal experience.

Q: Well, now didn't Dr. Weltz consider it desirable to have experts like yourself and Romberg assist Rascher in these experiments?

A: It is true that in this collaboration that Weltz proposed he said, among other things: "It is, of course, best if you or Romberg take part in these experiments because Romberg had already carried out such parachute decent experiments and is, therefore, the man who has carried out such experiments and knows about the whole problem of rescue from high altitudes."

Yes, that is correct.

Q: Well, now during the course of Weltz's visit to Berlin, the first visit, did you discuss any of the arrangements to be made at Dachau in the carrying out of these experiments?

A: So far as I can recollect today we probably discussed the whole matter of carrying out these experiments because we spoke about the first part of the series and the second part was identical so far as the carrying out of the experiments at high altitudes. This was to be at higher altitudes.

Q: Well, now Dr. Ruff did you, when you first heard of the proposal of Dr. Weltz to go to Dachau to assist Rascher and work upon concentration camp inmates, did you have any immediate misgivings about the situation?

A: Perhaps I can make a correction in a detail here. In this discussion it was not as if we were going to Dachau to support Rascher and assist Rascher but in this discussion we said that between Weltz's institute and ours there should be collaboration. Now to answer your question whether I had misgivings at that time. I had no legal misgivings because I knew that the State official who had approved these experiments was Himmler. Himmler was then in the Ministry of the Interior. He was Chief of the Police and the highest executive officer in the State. Therefore, I had no misgivings of legal nature. It is another question, of course, from an ethical medical point of view where the choice of carrying out experiments on prisoners was something brand new to us. So, I and Dr. Romberg had to get used to this idea.

As I have already said in my direct examination, we had heretofore carried out these experiments on ourselves and now were being asked to carry them out on other persons and prisoners. That I nevertheless decided to carry out these experiments on prisoners was determined for me first of all by the urgency of this matter and secondly by my knowledge of international literature which assured me that the attitude I had toward such experiments was repudiated now by Professional medical associations in foreign countries. Nor did the Prosecution or church, or a Parliament in any foreign countries object to such experiments. All that I knew. And let me say that my knowledge of these international experiments afforded me the certainty that I was undertaking nothing which would have been prohibited in another part of the world or another part of Germany and would have been regarded as unethical. I explained this morning that this is still my point of view that experiments on prisoners, professional criminals, if they are volunteers and if they do not endanger life, and if they are offered some sort of recompense for them, I do not regard it as immoral to carry out these experiments.

Q: Well, did you speak with Professor Weltz about the dangers involved in experiments in this first meeting in Berlin?

A: I dare say I did but at any rate we certainly spoke about in Munich.

Q: Well, now prior to your trip to Munich, that is immediately after your meeting with Professor Weltz, did you then report the fact that you had been visited by Professor Weltz and that you had been invited to collaborate with his institute in the experiments at Dachau to any one?

In other words, report that immediately to Hippke?

A: On a day that followed this conference. Of course, I don't know today whether one or two days later after I had discussed this proposal with Romberg I went to Hippke and also discussed this problem with Hippke. On this occasion I became convinced that Hippke had given his approval in principle months ago for experiments in Dachau and on this occasion got Hippke's approval for the experiments and for the use of the low pressure chamber for this.

Q: As a matter of fact, Hippke had talked to Rascher and Weltz prior to the time he visited you, that is Weltz visited you, isn't that right?

A: Yes, Hippke told me that, namely that a few months ago Rascher and Koppenhoff, I do not know whether Weltz took part, had a discussion with him in Munich about the question of high altitude experiments.

Q: Hippke at that time approved of the experiments, didn't he, as planned?

A: When I was with Hippke he gave his approval for these experiments.

Q: Well, now then you proceeded to have a meeting in Munich at Weltz's Institute. When did that meeting take place?

A: I can't remember that for sure today but it was in the beginning of 1942.

Q: Who was present at that meeting?

A: Present — Professor Weltz, Dr. Rascher, Dr. Romberg and myself.

Q: Wasn't Dr. Lutz and Dr. Wendt the there

A: Drs. Lutz and Wendt were not present at this discussion.

Q: Well, now, don't I recall Dr. Lutz stating here that you and Romberg visited the Institute in Munich and upon arrival he met with you at the same time with Wendt and then Weltz, Rascher, Romberg and yourself got to the part of this discussion which would involve the work to be done at the Dachau Concentration Camp. Thereupon Lutz and Wendt were asked to leave the room. I believe you will find that in the record of this trial on page 279 and that is the testimony of Lutz. Well, now did you talk to Lutz about these matters to any extent at all prior to the time Lutz was asked to leave the room?

A: Of course, when I was there in Munich in the Institute I also spoke with Lutz.

Q: Were Lutz and Wendt men who had done considerable work on high altitude research work with animals?

Q: Of Lutz I know that he had done work in the field of high altitude experimentation.

Q: Well, then why would it be necessary or why was it necessary to ask Lutz, a man who had considerable knowledge of high altitude research, to leave the room?

A: This request that Lutz should leave the room was not known to me. I heard his testimony here but with the best will in the world I cannot recall that upon this occasion Lutz was sent from the room. Please keep in mind that this took place about five years ago and I am quite willing to admit the possibility that some such thing did happen. On the other hand I believe that Lutz's failure to participate in this discussion is nothing so very unusual. As I imagine that in my institute received visitors, let us say Professor Wendt and Lutz, and we had something to discuss then I should have thought it a matter of course to ask my collaborators who were in the same room to leave the room.

I think that is so a matter of course the two wouldn't have to do much talking about it.

Q: That's very true, but we first must consider that when the witness Lutz was here in this court room he stated that he was offered the position that you had relative to Rascher at Dachau. In other words, Weltz had asked Lutz to collaborate with Rascher at Dachau and Lutz said here on the stand that he considered himself not ruthless enough to conduct high altitude experiments on human beings in concentration camps. That is on page 269 of the record. Do you recall that?

A: Yes, I remember that testimony.

Q: Well, taking that into consideration, it would appear that Lutz would have had some interest in this particular conference, would he not, had it not been determined by the members of this conference that they wanted it kept secret?

A: It seems to me that the opposite is the case. If this really was the case, as you have described it; namely, that Weltz asked Lutz ahead of time to carry on the experiments and Lutz here states that he didn't feel himself ruthless enough to carry out such experiments, then there certainly wouldn't have been any reason to send him from the room.

Q: Well, now, you apparently did not agree with the attitude that Lutz exhibited here before this Tribunal when he stated, on page 302 of the record, that he himself would not have carried out such experiments on a god, much less on a human being.

A: Mr. Prosecutor, I believe I have to correct you here. In the German record of what the witness said — at least, as I understood it he never testified that he wouldn't have carried, out such experiments, even on a dog, such as we carried out on human beings. The witness did not say that. The witness said he did not feel himself to be robust enough for such experiments.

Q: Yes, you will find that, Doctor — I won't argue with you on that point... You will find that on page 269 of the record — "robust" — and you will find, on page 302, the expression I quoted to you. In addition, to that, Dr. Wendt also refused to participate in these experiments. Now, inasmuch as you are an expert in this field of research, why do you suppose these two gentlemen, who were also men of considerable reputation in the field of high altitude research, had such strenuous misgivings about conducting experiments at Dachau?

A: Let me point out first of all that, at that time, I did not know that these two gentlemen had allegedly received an offer from Weltz to carry out such experiments and had refused. I still doubt that. And I believe that the witness Wendt will in the course of this week, testify on this matter. It is very hard for me to say why these men refused to accept Weltz's offer. Yesterday I described the experiments that we carried out on ourselves. I told you the conditions under which I gave my approval for these experiments in Dachau and I can say for myself that I had neither legal nor moral misgivings about these experiments. As you have seen from the testimony of prosecution witnesses here — first Leibbrandt — the physician can take the point of view that he repudiates all human experiments. That is one point of view which everyone must respect. On the other hand, there are physicians who embrace a different point of view.

Q: Well now, when was the low pressure chamber ordered down to Dachau?

A: Again I can't tell you the precise day. It was after the 12th of February. I know that on the 12th of February the chamber was still in Berlin and the chamber must have gone to Dachau after that date; roughly, at the end of the first half of February or the beginning of the second half of February.

Q: Well now, prior to the ordering of the low pressure chamber to Dachau had you yourself been to the concentration camp — that is, prior to the time the low pressure chamber arrived?

A: Yes, I have already said that after this discussion in Weltz's institute — I believe on the next day — there was a discussion in the concentration camp of Dachau with the camp commander.

Q: When did Rascher and Romberg and yourself select the volunteers to be used in the experiments?

A: Neither Romberg nor myself chose these volunteers. Before Romberg came down to Dachau for these experiments, of these sixty persons who had applied Rascher Chose those who Were suitable for our purposes.

Q: Well now, after the low Pressure chamber arrived in Dachau, did the experiments begin immediately?

A: I can't say that for sure today. The witness Neff testified that on the 19th of February, or perhaps on the 22nd of February, if I remember correctly, the experiments began. It is also possible that the first experiments took place on this day, but the documents show that there was then a pause of a considerable length of time because there were some difficulties with Rascher, and then, at the beginning of March, the experiments really began. That is what I know on the basis of the documents and Neff's testimony. Of my own knowledge I don't know that.

Q: Well now, the volunteers were selected after the pressure chamber had arrived at Dachau, is that right? In other words, the experiments began some time after the pressure chamber arrived? Now, did they then select the particular subjects to be used or accept the volunteers after the arrival of the low pressure chamber?

A: I can't answer that in detail. I was not at Dachau when the chamber arrived, nor was I there at the beginning of the experiments. Thus, I cannot answer that question with precision.

Q: Well, you have stated here that your reason for accepting this invitation to participate in these experiments at Dachau was because of the fact that the subjects to be used were volunteers. Now, didn't you yourself, acting as a prudent person, ascertain the existence of a group of volunteers before you sent this chamber to Dachau? Suppose you sent the chamber all the way to Dachau and you couldn't get a volunteer, which obviously was the case? You sent the chamber to Dachau before you even had ascertained whether or not any one had volunteered for these experiments, didn't you?

A: That is so, yes. But the situation was that the camp commander told us during this discussion that we should have no difficulty in finding enough volunteers.

He asked us, nevertheless, to keep the number of prisoners whom we should need to a minimum since he needed all the inmates of the camp for work.

Q: Well now, Doctor, you apparently received the authorization from Hippke prior to the time that you sent the chamber to Dachau. Now, this chamber was a mobile chamber, was it not?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: That is, the chamber itself was mounted onto a tractor?

A: Yes, that is so.

Q: And it was possible for the chamber to be driven from Berlin to Dachau on the Autobahn, I presume?

A: Yes.

Q: Well now, you sent the chamber first of all to Munich to Weltz's institute, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Why was the chamber sent to Weltz's institute rather than having been sent directly to Dachau?

A: In my direct examination I explained that yesterday. The chamber, on its way to Dachau, went via Munich. During the discussion with the camp commander in Dachau we talked about whom the drivers should turn to. The chamber belonged to the Luftwaffe and should certainly be turned over to a member of the Luftwaffe. Moreover, we did not know when the chamber would reach Dachau. It was winter, there was snow, so that you couldn't foresee when the chamber would arrive. Rascher was not at Dachau but was either in Munich or Schongau, and while we were discussing these things the camp commander asked whether the drivers were informed what sort of experiments were to take place. We, of course, denied that because it was not our custom to tell the drivers what sort of experiments we were doing. And then the commander said, "If that is the case, then I want that chamber to stay in Munich for the time being because, otherwise, the drivers will spread some rumors to the effect that the people to be used in it are about to be chosen." For this reason, on the wish of the camp commander, the chamber stayed in Munich

Q: Well, as a matter of fact it only stayed in Munich until such time as it got dark, didn't it, and then they drove it into Dachau, that is two SS men came from Dachau and relieved the DVL drivers after dark and drove the chamber to the Dachau concentration camp, isn't that exactly what happened?

A: I don't believe that is so. I wasn't present, but from what I heard the drivers reached Munich in the evening, left the papers and keys to the chamber with Weltz, and then in the course of the next day the chamber was sent on to Dachau. This is the first time I heard that the chamber was taken to Dachau under cover of darkness. On the contrary, I believe that the chamber reached Munich on a February afternoon when it was already dark, and the papers were delivered and then when daylight came on the next day and the chamber was sent on to Dachau. That is the way I see it.

Q: Now, Doctor, when was the first time that you talked to any of the subjects that were being used in these experiments?

A: When I was in Dachau to take a look at the experiments.

Q: Did you ever personally stop one of the subjects and ask him "did you volunteer for this experiment?"

A: No, I have already said that I already knew that these subjects were volunteers. When Romberg was in Berlin for the visit and after the experiments started he told me about the quality of these experimental subjects, consequently I had no occasion to inquire about that again. I received a sort of indirect corroboration of this when I asked one of the experimental subjects how many persons had applied and I received the answer "about 60". In other words, I did't ask directly whether experimental subjects were volunteers because as I have said I knew that already.

Q: Now, we have heard here in this courtroom the opinion of Professor Leibbrandt, Rose, Sievers and others as to the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment; what is your moral attitude about the capacity of a prisoner to volunteer for an experiment?

A: It is my opinion that a prisoner is altogether in a position to volunteer for an experiment. From the purely legal point of view so far as I can judge the prisoner is altogether in a position to carry out legal business, consequently he can also decide whether he is to participate in an experiment or not.

Q: Well, then it is your opinion that a person, even though incarcerated can actually in the direct sense of the word, volunteer for a medical experiment?

A: I am of that view, that both a prisoner or a non-prisoner can volunteer for experiments.

Q: If that be the case why was the criminal status of these subjects to be used in the high altitude experiments of any consequence?

A: Of course, it is easier in experiments to give approval if the subjects are habitual criminals and not some other people who because of their ideology or politics or some other reason are being kept prisoner. I am of course of the opinion that I am permitted to carry out experiments on political prisoner if these gentlemen volunteer. But regarding the possibility of carrying out experiments on political prisoners, there was no discussion on that occasion at all. Then Weltz made this proposal to me and told me that Hippke had given his permission, I asked who these prisoners were and he told me that they were habitual criminals who had volunteered. Thus the question whether or not we might experiment on political prisoners never came up in this connection.

Q: And it is your contention that the persons used at Dachau were not only subjects condemned to death, but also included habitual criminals, that is people with 10, 20 or 30 year sentences, is that right?

A: The experimental subjects which were used in our experiments, namely the 10 or 15 who were always at the experimental station, were not persons condemned to death so far as I know, rather this was a group of experimental subjects who were under protective custody.

Q: How, what did you or your group offer these habitual criminals?

A: You mean the recompense that they should receive?

Q: Yes.

A: We offered them nothing on our part. We had no possibility of doing so, because the recompense would have to be determined by the office that had charge of these people, namely Himmler, only he could promise recompense, and see to it that it was given, and as the witness Neff here has testified, he promised these people that after the experiments they would be pardoned.

Q: Now, inasmuch as you and Romberg were involved in these experiments, did you yourself make any attempt to investigate the status of a prisoner after he had been subjected to the experiments in the high altitude research work?

A: After carrying out those experiments when Rascher came to us to turn in in opinion, we asked how this business of pardoning prisoners was coming along. Rascher said that he had seen to that, and thereafter we did not concern ourselves with this matter, because that was not our job and was not within our power. That was the job of the Reichsfuehrer SS.

Q: Of course Rascher never exhibited to you the letter that he received from Heinrich Himmler stating that Rascher had the power to pardon some of these inmates after they had once gone through the experiments to the extent that they had died and if they could have been recalled to life that their sentences could have been committed to life imprisonment in the concentration camp; did he call that to your attention which was the offer that these inmates had?

A: No, I saw that letter here for the first time among the Documents.

Q: Well, now, as I understand it from direct examination, you maintain that there are actually two sets of experiments at Dachau in the field of high altitude research, namely, those experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and those experiments for the benefit of the SS, conducted solely by Rascher as ordered by Himmler and the experiments that were conducted by Ruff and Romberg; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is true to the extent that on the one hand there were experiments in descent from high altitude and on the other hand, as can be seen from the documents; there was not one experimental series but several short ones which Rascher carried out on Himmler's orders.

Q: And these are the experiments where death occurred; is that right, the Rascher experiments, the SS experiments, so to speak?

A: Fatalities occurred in Rascher's experiments and in the experiments concerning high altitude there were none.

Q: Now, when these gentlemen from the concentration camp volunteered for the experiments, was is not clear to these subjects that they were, volunteering for the experiments to be conducted under the guidance of Ruff and Romberg rather than the fatal experiments to be conducted under Rascher independently?

A: That was told to the persons who volunteered individually for the experiments that, of course, I cannot report on to you, because I was not present; but what they were told was that these were high altitude experiments and that so far as could be seen, these experiments were not dangerous to life.

When Romberg went to Dachau, he told the experimental subjects precisely just what the nature of the experiments was to be. This was necessary so that the subjects would be in position to participate in a sensible manner in these experiments, namely should be able to do what was expected of them in the experiments. The experimental subjects that we had for our experiments, were certainly told at considerable length what these experiments had as the goal and they were also certainly told that there would not be any serious danger as fatalities or death.

Q: One last question along these lines; Doctor, in the course of these experiments who determined whether or not the volunteer was a volunteer for Rascher or for Ruff and Romberg. In other words, when an experimental subject entered the prison chamber, was he given a tap on the shoulder, was he told you are Rascher subject, you are Ruff's experimental subject, or did they wear jerseys, one having SS on it and the other Luftwaffe?

A: I have already said that the experimental subjects, who participated in our experiments, were kept permanently at this experimental block, that they were there throughout the whole period and participated in all the experiments in high altitude and that nothing happened to any of them. I remember the witnesses Neff and Vieweg testified and both of these collaborated with this.

Q: Did you check on the status of each and everyone of the experimental subjects that were set aside, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher experiments, namely 60 subjects.

A: I did not quite understand the question.

Q: You have stated here that some sixty experimental subjects were set aside in one group to be used in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher experiments, after the conclusion of the experiments, did you check and can you tell this Tribunal under oath that each and every one of those sixty experimental subjects are now living?

A: I believe there must have been an error in translation. I did not say that sixty persons were reserved for the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher experiments, I said that from a number of about sixty of these prisoners about then or fifteen were chosen, who were constantly present at the experimental station, as experimental subjects.

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

(The Tribunal recessed until 09,30 Hours, 30 April, 1947.)