1947-04-30, #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 30 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 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Ruff, continuing our discussion regarding the subjects used in the experiments at Dachau, you maintain that all subjects used in the Rascher, Romberg Ruff high-altitude experiments were volunteers. Who told you these subjects were volunteers?

A: In my direct examination I said that before the experiments I was first told about them and then Hippke corroborated this statement, furthermore, this was also corroborated by Rascher in the discussion in Weltz's Institute, and fourthly, it was corroborated by the camp commander, and after the experiments began, when Romberg was in Berlin for the first time to report to me, he again corroborated the fact that the subjects were volunteers.

Q: What did Dr. Weltz have to do in this picture, did he participate in the selection of the inmates to be used?

A: I said during the discussion in my institute in Berlin Professor Weltz told me what sort of persons the experimental subjects were, namely, that they were criminals, that they were volunteers.

Q: I asked you a question, you can answer it very briefly. Did Dr. Weltz participate in this selection of the inmates to be used for these experiments?

A: No.

Q: Did Professor Hippke participate?

A: No.

Q: Dr. Romberg, did he participate?

A: No.

Q: Then it is possible that those three gentlemen didn't know whether or not they were volunteers, isn't that so?

A: These three gentlemen had been told that these experimental subjects were volunteers, moreover — when Romberg came to Berlin —

Q: Who told them?

A: Probably Rascher. I don't know the details.

Q: Then you actually don't know who told them that these subjects were to be volunteers?

A: That is so, except for Romberg, because when Romberg told me that these people were volunteers he had already conducted experiments in Dachau, and what he told me was based on his own information.

Q: Now you have also told us that the subjects used were either men condemned to death or habitual criminals in every instance. What do you consider to be an habitual criminal?

A: I consider an habitual criminal to be a person who by committing several crimes has demonstrated that he is a recidivist, in other words, a criminal who is condemned by a regular court to be kept in jail for the general good of society.

Q: Now I notice on page 89 of document book number 2 which is the report signed by Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher signed the draft thereof, which is document NO-402, and on page 14 of the original copy of that particular report, which is your report, there is described there the conditions of an experiment, and just what happened to one of the subjects experimented upon, how he answered each question, and so forth.

In parenthesis you will note in that report that this inmate is described "in civilian life a delicatessen dealer". The German, I believe, should be translated to mean "delicatessen owner", rather than dealer. Now, it is important, isn't it, to note, Dr. Ruff, that the gentleman used in this experiment was a delicatessen dealer? Does that fit into the framework of being a person who is considered to be an habitual criminal?

A: I see no contradiction between the fact that a man is on the one hand an owner of a delicatessen and on the other hand an habitual criminal. There is no contradiction there. It seems to me that persons from every profession or class of society can commit crimes and thus can become habitual criminals. I recall to your attention the prosecution witness Vieweg who was by profession a worthy book binder, and yet he had committed a long series of crimes and is at the moment under indictment in Bamberg for, I believe, 7 or 8 crimes for abortion, for arrogating to himself the title of physician, — major theft, fraud —

Q: We won't go into the category of Vieweg. I want to ask you now why the words in parenthesis were found as they are in the report, and why they weren't set down in the following manner: In civilian life "a professional criminal", that would have been more appropriate, would it not?

A: No, I don't believe so. Could you please give me the precise page where this is to be found?

Q: On page 14 of the original copy. Page 89 of the English.

A: Now, I can tell you about this. This is the description of an experiment in great detail. For every minute of the experiment there is an indication of what the experimented subject is doing, and it is here stated that the experimental subject, in the twelfth minute after he reaches sea level, himself asks: "May I slice something?". And, then, as an explanation of why a man should ask something as strange as that, there is, in parenthesis, the explanation of what he was in civilian life; namely, a delicatessen dealer. The indication that he was of that profession explains why he asked if he could slice something such as wurst or —

Q: (Interrupting) How well did you know this particular man, Doctor?

A: I personally didn't know him at all.

Q: You didn't know whether or not he was just a delicatessen dealer who was perhaps put into the Dachau concentration camp because he was a Jew?

A: That I cannot tell you.

Q: Yet you were willing to sign your name to a report which, very elaborately, describes what happens to a human being and did not know who that particular human being was, or what his status was in the Dachau concentration camp?

A: In my direct examination, I said already that all the experimental subjects whom I saw when I was in Dachau were the green sign that meant they were habitual criminals, and that the persons used in our experiments were housed all together in one room. That, in addition to this, I inquired when I was in Dachau just what crimes these individuals had committed and that I found out that one of them was a counterfeiter, and another was a habitual cheater.

Several such crimes were named to me. That had to suffice for me. Moreover, we had to depend on the use of whatever the executive organ of the state made available to us in the way of habitual criminals for these experiments.

Q: Now, what was the manner in which these criminals volunteered for the experiments?

A: When the subjects turned up for the experiments you did not have the impression at all that they were, in any way, coerced to take part in these experiments. They participated in the experiments with interest; were, for instance, interested in seeing what altitude a person, who just concluded the experiment before the one they were to take part in, had recovered consciousness, at what height they had handled the parachute. They discussed the experiments among themselves; they would talk shop: One would say: "I woke up at 7,000." The other would say: "I woke up at 6,500." The entire attitude in these experiments showed clearly that these experimental subjects were not only volunteers but were participating in the experiments with personal interest.

Q: I can quite agree with you that they were tremendously interested in what was happening in that chamber. I imagine I would be too if I were one of those so-called "volunteers". But, now I ask you again, how did they volunteer?

A: By applying for the experiments.

Q: Well, did they call these men in and ask them if they wanted to volunteer, or did the men just walk up and say: "I want to go into that chamber and volunteer for these experiments." How did it happen that they volunteered? What was the particular surroundings of this volunteer business?

A: In my direct examination I have already explained that a number of persons volunteered for these experiments and one of the prisoners told me that it was approximately sixty. Of those sixty, the experimental subjects were selected whose age and physical condition made them good subjects for the experiments. These experimental subjects were collected in a room at the experimental station and, throughout the entire three months which the experiments lasted, they stayed in this room at the experimental station.

Q: I have heard all that, Doctor.

I'm asking you again, and for the third and last time, how did they volunteer?

A: Very simple question.

Q: Do you know or don't you?

A: I'm sorry to say I don't understand the question.

Q: Well, then, in other words, you don't know how these men volunteered for this experiment. You don't know whether they went up and said to the concentration camp commandant "Please, I want to take part in this experiment", or whether the concentration camp commandant called them into his office and said, "Gentleman, do you wish to volunteer for this experiment?" How did they volunteer?

A: So far as I know, during formations in the camp, and there were two or three every day, they were asked to volunteer for the experiment.

Q: They were asked?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, that's all you know about it.

A: That's all I know about it.

Q: You don't know whether the concentration camp commandant, or Rascher, or whoever it may have been, published a bulletin, and placed it on the bulletin board which said "Volunteers wanted"? Such a thing as that you've never heard?

A: No, I never heard about it.

Q: You do not know whether these men volunteered at the point of a gun, do you?

A: I know for certain that they were not forced to volunteer at the point of a gun. In my direct examination I have already explained —

Q: (Interrupting) Just a moment, Doctor. How could you know for certain if you weren't there when these inmates were selected? You're pretty positive now. You state for certain you don't know whether these men were coerced or seduced or whatever it may be, or forced into these experiments. You weren't there. You really don't know, do you?

A: I have already explained in my direct examination that, for the experiments we carried out for rescue for high altitudes, it was not possible to work with persons who were not volunteers since it was necessary that the experimental subjects show original initiative, that they should be interested in the experiments. Otherwise, we should not have been able to obtain the results that we did.

Q: Of course, that is argumentative and we will leave that for argument in briefs, Doctor. Let's go on.

Now, after you had had this meeting in Dachau and it had been established that the experiments were to take place and the concentration camp commandant had offered to supply the electricity, etc., you then returned to Berlin, is that correct?

A: After the discussion in Dachau, we went back to Berlin, yes.

Q: When did you return to Dachau again?

A: Me?

Q: Yes.

A: During the first weeks of the experiments.

Q: Now, experiments had been conducted between the time you left Dachau in the first instance and returned? There had been some experiments in that interval had there not?

A: Yes, experiments had been carried on in that interval.

Q: Did you receive reports daily or weakly, or in what manner, from Romberg during the course of these experiments?

A: At irregular intervals I received reports from Romberg.

Q: Well now, what was Romberg's status here actually? I haven't got it clear yet. Romberg was your immediate subordinate in your institute in Berlin, wasn't he?

A: He was one of my co-workers and was subordinate to me.

Q: And he was still subordinate to you while he was working with Rascher, was he not?

A: That is so, yes.

Q: Are you willing to assume full responsibility for any work that Romberg was engaged in?

A: I am ready to take the responsibility for the experiments that were approved by me; namely, the experiments in rescue from great heights.

Q: Of course, as I understand it, anything that Romberg did was approved by you, wasn't it?

A: Romberg went to Dachau with a very specifically set down assignment; namely, to carry out experiments in rescue from great heights and, of course, I must take the responsibility for that assignment I gave to Romberg.

Q: Well now, actually, what was the assignment that you had given Romberg when he left Berlin? Now, bear in mind that you had experimented at great length with this thigh altitude business in your own institute in Berlin, and I imagine that Dr. Benzinger had done the same in Rechlin, and there had been extensive experimentation along those lines. Now, what was the purpose in setting up Dachau? Was there something new to be found or what was it? What was the instruction you gave Romberg?

A: The experiments we carried out in our own institute were, as I have already described, the first part of several experimental series to clarify the question of rescue from great heights. This first part, which was carried out by ourselves through experiments on ourselves, concerned itself with rescue up to the heights of 12 kilometers; namely, in altitudes in which already many of our war planes flew. Now, the second part of these experimental series concerned heights from 12 to 20 kilometers and, so far as this particular series was carried out in Dachau, it included the experimental testing of the question up to what height a parachute descent with or without oxygen, with parachute unfolded or not can be carried out.

Q: Well, then, in brief, Dr.Ruff, the series of experiments which had been conducted in your institute in Berlin went to a limit of 12,000 meters.

A: That is right.

Q: And then it was your express purpose to continue on your research work at Dachau and to investigate the situation in an altitude from 12,000, to 20,000 meters, is that correct?

A: That's right.

Q: Well, why couldn't you have investigated the situation between 12,000 and 20,000 meters in Berlin without going to Dachau?

A: We could have done that in Berlin also. I have already described, already told you what the reasons were for my proposing that the second part should be carried out at Dachau.

Q: It wasn't because of the fact your co-workers or yourself perhaps were obviously reluctant to try to go up to such heights as you had planned to put these prisoners at, was it?

A: No, that was not our reason, because as I have already told you in my cross-examination, I had already conditioned a part of the second half of the experiments in our own Institute namely that part which involved explosive decompression. In my cross-examination I described a few of the experimental series which we carried out in the course of last 10 years at my Institute. If I had taken more time on that I believe this idea that we did not want to subject ourselves to such experiments ourselves would not have been brought up at all.

Q: Well, Doctor, there is evidence here in this same report, and I will hesitate a moment for the sake of clarity, when I refer to your report that means the report or Romberg and Rascher with reference to the two reports of Rascher; in your report, Document NO 402, there is evidence your co-workers Rascher and Romberg made a half hearted attempt to go above 12,000 meters, and they went to 12,500 or 13,500 meters. As said in this report they stopped the experiments because of the intense pain they experienced, isn't that so?

A: No, it is not quite so.

Q: Didn't you say that in the report, Doctor?

A: I have the report here.

Q: I will read it to you, Doctor. It shows here on Page 91 of tie English the case of Rascher and Romberg and there experiment there, and two-thirds of the way down the page it states:

At the same time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe, so that at last the discontinuance of the experiment became necessary.

Well, now, didn't Rascher and Romberg have to quit after they had reached 12,500 or 13,500 meters, respectively?

A: That is so, and again it isn't so. Now, I didn't make myself quite clear about this yesterday, and consequently I should like to repeat it. There is an essential difference between whether the experimental subject stays above 12,000 meters for 100 seconds or for 40 minutes like in this case. These experiments on themselves by Romberg and Rascher have nothing to do with the descent experiments, such as they were carried out on the experimental subjects. I explained yesterday why they carried out these orientation experiments on themselves at all, that is to say when they were with the experimental subjects several times a day in the chamber then after the second or third ascent they felt pain but not in the first ascent. In other words, the pain increased with the number of ascents per day. And now in order to ascertain whether this pain are so because they had made several ascents, in other words, because of the number of ascents or whether the pain was caused by a protracted stay at great heights, therefore these experiments were undertaken and they then knew that the pain did arise or could arise for that reason.

These experiments are mentioned in this report in order to clarify certain symptoms on the part of the experimental subjects. That is the reason why they are mentioned here, and that is why they were each carried out by Rascher and Romberg. It would have made no sense to carry out these experiments on the actually experimental subjects themselves, because first of all the subjects themselves felt no pain, because they remained at the altitude a vary brief time and secondly —

Q: Just a moment, I hope you appreciate I am a very simple person, and it is hard for me to understand some of these things. If you make them briefer then I can understand them better. Then the purpose of this experiment of Rascher and Romberg was to see how long they could stay there; is that what you are trying to tell me, just to see how long they could stay at that height; was it the time limit that they were trying to overcome or what was it?

A: No, they didn't want to find out how long they could stay there, they simply wanted to ascertain whether if you stayed at that altitude for along time one felt a similar sort of pain, such as the pain they felt when they had entered per day several times in order to observe the experimental subjects.

Q: Then it was a time factor that was involved?

A: It was to be cleared up whether the pain that the people conducting the experiments felt depended on the number of ascents per day or whether the length of time that they spent at the altitude was cumulative in its effect.

Q: Then it did become a problem to you particular researchers just how long a man could remain at that altitude?

A: No, the time limit and experiments in rescue from great heights was permanently definitely determined, When a man jumps from an airplane and does not open his parachute he falls about a thousand meters in 10 seconds.

On the other hand, the man who opens his parachute immediately descends in the open parachute at the rate of perhaps one thousand meters in one minute. These time limits have been ascertained in aviation practice, and there was no reason to do any changing of the time proportions.

Q: And then when these deaths occurred in the Rascher experiments what caused these deaths from your knowledge here? Probably you don't know because you weren't there when that occurred at Dachau, but from your knowledge of the documents what caused these deaths?

A: In the case of the first fatality I heard of there is probably why I or no one else could the cause of death for sure. Now from what I know today, namely what I have known since 1946, it is my point of view that this fatality occurred because the subject stayed at a great height, for too long time, namely between 12,000 and 14,000 meters, because one of several small gas bubbles formed in the blood stream and one of the gas bubbles lodged in the little space between the spinal column and the brain. It there stopped up an artery and lead to death. I have come to this conclusion by analogy with the accidents I know of that occurred in the American Air Force, which again could be traced back to the reason.

Q: This air bubble you speak about, what would that be more precisely called; would that have any connection with this embolism, would that be one and the same thing you are referring to now?

A: That is the same thing, yes. That is also the same as pressure drop sickness.

Q: What is pressure drop sickness, would that be caused from an air embolism?

A: Pressure drop sickness does not occur as a result of an air embolism. The converse is the case. When you are suffering from pressure drop sickness an air embolism can arise. I am not quite sure whether I make myself clear on this.

Q: That is quite clear. Now, this particular phenomena of a gas bubble in the blood stream, you say perhaps is the cause of death of that first person in the Rascher experiment; anyone would not be able to determine that when it happens, that you only learned over a period of a number of years after you had seen a number of other experiments, and the things that happened in the other experiments, is that right?

A: On the basis of one such individual fatality it was certainly not possible to determine the cause. Only the repetition of similar such do the — would lead one to the conclusion that that was the cause of the death. I should like to emphasize that this is only my personal opinion that this was the cause of death, and I readily admit that they might have died for other causes. However, that is the only diagnosis I could find.

Q: Well, was this condition you have explained here at that time, we are going back to the Rascher experiment, — at that time was it something now, the condition you have just determined now to perhaps have been the cause of the death in 1942, was that condition as compared in high altitude research something new, in other words did Rascher accidentally discover something new, and not know about it?

A: Rascher didn't discover anything.

Q: Well, how about air embolism; did you always consider the fact of air embolism in connection with all your experiments?

A: With what experiments?

Q: In the high altitude experiments.

A: You mean rescue from great height?

Q: Yes.

A: In those experiments about high altitude rescuing we did not take air embolism into account.

Q: I see. Well, now Doctor, could you tell us just what air embolism is, very briefly so that myself and the Tribunal will understand it and try to put it in layman's language for us, will you please?

A: Under the expression air embolism one understands the occlusion of a larger or a smaller blood vessel through an air bubble or a gas bubble.

Q: Well, now, how can you as a physician ascertain such a state, such a condition; how is it possible to ascertain whether or not a person is suffering from air embolism?

A: You ascertain this one the basis of the symptoms that such air embolism causes. It depends entirely on what organ, what tissue or what part of the body has the air bubble in it, and on that depends the symptoms because this air bubble prevents the blood from circulating in the blood vessel in which it is located.

Q: What I am getting at is, can you diagnose it; for instance is pain a proof of air embolism?

A: A general air embolism does not cause pain.

Q: I see, well suppose you are looking at one of the subjects; how can you determine whether or not they are suffering from air embolism; what would be your way to diagnose this condition?

A: First, I should have to suspect that some form of air embolism was present. I could only have this suspicion if there are some symptoms of deficiency, and on the basis of these symptoms of deficiency, I can under certain conditions form an impression of where the air embolism is blocking off.

Q: Then it is most difficult, is it not, to diagnose air embolism on living man?

A: To diagnose air embolism, if one diagnoses air embolism, that of course is only a diagnosis of probability and conjectures in most cases.

Q: Then, the only way you can actually ascertain that air embolism existed would be on a dead man by an autopsy or as Rascher did by keeping a dead man under water etc.; that is the only way you can determine if the state of air embolism exists?

A: It is usual in pathology that if you suspect that there is an air embolism for instance, in the heart or in the paracordis, you carry out the dissection of this organ under water.

Q: Let us look at Rascher's two reports, the first one being on page 60 of the English Document Book, Document No. 2, which is Document PS-1971A. The first page of the Document is a covering letter, Dr. Ruff, What I am trying to get you to do, Dr. Ruff, is in the best manner you can describe to the Tribunal this situation of air embolism, inasmuch as it is referred to in Rascher's report. Rascher could probably answer the question better than you however, I want you to go over this with us. This is the first report, under No. II, if you will go down to the line:

The experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg proved the following —

then skip one, two, three and the fourth paragraph under that statement; do you have that?

This will be under paragraph 2 in the report. — What is the trouble? — It is under No. 2, you will see the second paragraph starts out with the words

The experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg proved the following:

Then if you will jump down to the fourth paragraph under this section, which starts out:

The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course

Do you have that Doctor?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Now, I want to read this to you, Doctor, and see if you can help us with this problem.

The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course that I called an SS physician of the camp as witness, since I had worked on these experiments all by myself. It was a continuous experiment without oxygen at the height of 12 km conducted on a 37 year old Jew in good general condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes the experimental subject began to perspire and to wiggle his head, after 5 minutes cramps occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes breathing increased in speed and the VP experimental subject became unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether.

Severest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the mouth.

At five minute intervals electrocardiograms from 3 leads were written. After breathing had stopped, dissection was started.

Now, in this autopsy report it is apparent that Dr. Rascher found this condition of embolism, inasmuch as he states after his autopsy in the second paragraph and if you will turn to the second paragraph, under the "Autopsy Report," he states:

One hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal morrow was completely severed and the brain removed. Thereupon the action of the auricle stopped for 40 seconds. It then renewed its action coming to a complete standstill 8 minutes later. A heavy subarchnoid edema was found in the brain. In the veins and arteries of the brain a considerable quantity of air was discovered, Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart and liver were enormously obstructed by embolism.

Well, now was that the only way that Rascher could have determined that this subject was suffering from air embolism was to perform an autopsy; he definitely found that condition, you see, Doctor?

A: Yes, it is certainly true that he found this condition in this autopsy.

Q: Well, now, this picture which we have to put into evidence here; is it possible form this picture of the brain to diagnose air embolism; it might perhaps be the light, but you can see some bubbles in this picture, so I have had it enlarged for your benefit to look at. Do you perhaps see those light spots; would that perhaps be air embolism?

(The picture is shown to the witness.)

A: Yes, that is air embolism, but the discovery that air is in these vessels does not mean that the vessels are obstructed. These air bubbles in the blood vessel can be present without their leading to any disorders. We know from experimental medicine, for example, that an injection of air, let us say at 100 cubic centimeters can be made into a blood vessel without the experimental subject noticing anything at all. In other words, the effect of air in the blood stream depends entirely where that air gets to.

Q: Would you kindly pass back that photograph? I want to show it to the Tribunal, so that they can get a picture of just what this condition is.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary General procure a copy of Prosecution Document Book 2 for the Tribunal?

MR. HARDY: This, Your Honor, is an enlarged version of what appears in Document Book 2 and you can quite clearly see what Dr. Ruff has pointed out.

Well, now, Dr. Ruff, on page 76 of this Document Book, which is Rascher's second report, the report of Rascher dated 11 May, to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, the 6th paragraph under No. 7. It starts out:

To find out whether the severe psychical and physical effects.

Do you have that Doctor?

THE WITNESS: I have paragraph 6 and 7, yes. Experiments as Peruitin and —

Q: This is paragraph 6 under No. 7, and it starts out:

To find out whether the severe psychical and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done.

Do you have it now?

A: Yes, I have it.

Q: It states here:

To find out whether the severe psychical and physical effects as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done.

Now before we go into that it appears apparent that Dr. Rascher deemed it necessary to conduct an autopsy under water until — in order to find out whether or not this embolism condition existed in this particular experimental person. Now his purpose in doing this, as it states, was to find out whether or not this condition of embolism was the cause for the severe psychical and physical effects. Well now from your experience since that time with the American authorities and your past experience, was Rascher correct in performing an autopsy in order to find out this condition, or could it have been ascertained without such an autopsy.

A: It is not altogether easy to answer that question. I think the situation is that whether or not there is a case of air embolism, one can say from the symptoms with pretty great certainty whether embolism is present, but for a more certain answer or an absolutely certain answer, you have to carry out an autopsy. For example, if after an operation, death occurs through embolism, then of course the autopsy is the first thing that absolutely determines for certain the cause of death.

Q: Well now let us read this: Rascher states:

After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining of consciousness, some experimental persons were kept under water until they died. When the skull and cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.

That proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is not fatal at all, but that it is reversible, as shown by the return to normal conditions of all of the other experimental persons.

It was also proved by experiments that air embolism occurs in practically all vessels even while pure oxygen is being inhaled. One experimental person was made to breathe pure oxygen for two and one-half hours before the experiment started. After six minutes at a height of 20 kilometers he died and at dissection also showed ample air embolism as was the case in all other experiments.

At sudden decreases in pressure and subsequent immediate falls to heights where breathing is possible no deep reaching damages due to air embolism could be noted. The formation of air embolism always needs a certain amount of time.

Well now were you familiar enough with air embolism to have been able to determine this that Rascher found, or do you agree with what Rascher states here?

A: No, I do not agree in every point at all with what Rascher says here. Rascher says here that:

That proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is not fatal at all, but that it is reversible as shown by the return to normal conditions of all other experimental subjects.

Now this is a finding which Rascher made on the basis of his ignorance, and the case really is not air embolism. I said before what the effects of air embolism are depends on where the embolism is in the body. If the embolism is in the brain and in the vital part of the brain it can be fatal. If that embolism is located in the heart and in the neighborhood of the heart, it can also be fatal, because it interrupts the entire circulation of the blood. If it is located in the fatty tissue of the abdomen that cuts off a certain part of that tissue from blood irrigation, and then necrosis develops which is quite harmless.

In other words, it also depends on, first, how large the embolism is, and secondly, where it is located. A few minutes ago I said that long before Rascher made this discovery, experiments were carried out in which air was injected into the blood stream, and it was then observed that even large amounts of air, such as 100 cubic centimeters could be absorbed by the experimental subject with no danger or damage to himself at all. However, this experiment did not prove that 100 cubic centimeters of air in the blood stream are always harmless, because if that air reaches the right places it will cause an embolism so that air can be fatal.

Q: Now you will notice in the paragraph just above, six, that is paragraph 5, but in the some section of the report Rascher said:

For the following experiments Jewish professional criminals who had committed race pollution were used. The question of the formation of embolism was investigated in 10 cases. Some of the experimental subjects died during a continued high altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water, an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels, and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles.

Well now it seems to me that Rascher did a great amount of experimentation to determine the cause of death or the causes for these conditions of drop pressure, drop sickness or high altitude sickness.

Were you as interested as Rascher was in whether or not air embolism was the cause of these things, or was that purely a side line of Rascher's part?

A: Of the experiments which were here described I know only what is in this report here and no more, and I saw this report for the first time when it was put in evidence in this trial. What Rascher's ideas were about the experiments I don't know. For us these results that he here sets forth would not have been entirely uninteresting, of course, but for all practical purposes those results played no role in what we were doing, because as I said in the thousands of experiments that we carried out in German medicine at such altitudes on soldiers or others, we never had a fatality, so that we had no reason to inquire into the reasons for fatality.

Q: Well then any question about — concerning air embolism, did not appear in the experiments that you and Romberg had any authority over, did it? What I am getting at here, it appears to me that the criminal aspect of Rascher's work was his strange desire to find out just what air embolism did and whether or not he could determine how a person was suffering from it, and consequently he killed these people, or left them up in the air long enough so that they died, and then he autopsied them, and that appears to me to be a crime in itself, and it appears from your testimony you were not involved in these matters. Now were you interested in finding out whether or not air embolism was one of the causes for the pressure fall sickness?

A: That pressure fall sickness has something to do with the freezing of the nitrogen from the blood or tissue was known very well at that time. Rascher's experiments were all together unnecessary to ascertain that, because it was already known.

Q: Well now it seems to me that in the course of these experiments there would be two things to consider, one would be the altitude sickness as considered by lack of oxygen, and the other would be your so-called pressure drop sickness, which would be where the function of air embolism would come into play.

Now did it appear in the course of your experimentation that this pressure drop sickness was caused by something else rather than the lack of oxygen?

A: Pressure fall sickness has nothing to do with the lack of oxygen. I have already described during my direct examination that there is a certain zone, namely, the zone between 12 and 14 kilometers, or let's say, 12 and 13½ thousand kilometers; and in this altitude there is no sickness among the passengers nor pilot of a plane. That is to say, if they are adequately supplied with oxygen. But drop pressure fall diseases can occur. In other words, this proves that pressure falls have nothing to do with the supply of oxygen. That is an entire different matter, pressure fall sickness occurs as a result of the general reduction of the air pressure in which the person finds himself.

It is similar to the symptoms that occur when a deep sea diver rises from a considerable depth and does not do so slowly enough; in other words, the pressure on him is reduced. It is similar to the so called caisson sickness. This is the same sort of disease that you notice with persons who have to work in caissons when they come from the caisson, which is a chamber under pressure. If they come from it too rapidly then they have similar symptoms as one finds in pressure fall symptoms. But what I am saying now is not something that was learned from these experiments of Rascher's; it is something that has been known for a long, long time.

Q: I see.

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

(A recess was taken.)