1947-04-30, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR.SIEGFRIED RUFF — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Now, Doctor, we have about completed our discussion of this business of air embolism end I have gathered from what you have told me that in your experiments on rescue from high altitudes you were not particularly interested in collecting data on pressure drop sickness or air embolism, were you?

A: That is correct.

Q: Well, now did the problem of pressure drop sickness or air embolism enter at all into your research on rescues from high altitude at that time or later on after the Dachau work or during the course of your time at the Aero Medical Center? Did this problem of pressure drop sickness or air embolism ever enter into any of your research on rescues from high altitude?

A: Regarding the complex of questions concerning itself with protection from high altitude this did not bother me. After the Dachau experiments I personally concerned myself with pressure fall diseases. This was from the year 1945 to 1946 at the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg.

Q: Well, was there anything found in your experiments on rescue from high altitude that could have contributed to the problem of whether or not pressure drop sickness with air embolism was present in addition to the oxygen lack? You understand the question?

A: I don't understand you.

Q: I ask again. Was there anything found in your experiments on rescue from high altitude that could have contributed to the problem of whether or not pressure drop sickness with air embolism was present?

A: No, not really. These experiments had had nothing to do with the reason for the origination of this pressure fall disease.

Q: I see. Well now, Doctor, in this Document 402, which is on page 82 of the English copy, Document Book II, which is Exhibit No. 66. For your convenience, Doctor, I have the original here that I will pass up to you so that you can follow it better.

Would you kindly keep it in the order which it is now in. Now, on the first page there appears there your signature. Is that correct? Is that your signature?

A: Yes, that is my signature.

Q: Also the signature of Romberg?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: The first page is a cover letter to the report itself, is it not?

A: Yes.

Q: Well now, how many copies of this report did you make in the first instance?

A: I cannot tell you that exactly as to the number. I estimate that approximately a dozen of these reports were sent, which would mean a dozen of these copies, but that is only an approximation.

Q: What did you do with the first, the original copy? Did you keep that yourself, the original report, and just send out the copies?

A: I am sure that one of these reports was kept by us.

Q: I see. Well, now I notice here that this report is addressed to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Berlin, and it states:

Inclosed we submit copies No. 2, 3, and 4 of the report on the experiments on rescue from high altitude for your files.

And your signature appears. Well now, you were not connected with the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Your experiments were separate and apart from the Reichsfuehrer-SS. How do you account for addressing these reports to him?

A: The Reichsfuehrer-SS has demanded that all reports about these experiments would have to go through him. He was the man in whose sphere the experiments were carried out and he wanted these reports to be sent to him at first.

Q: I see. Well now, Doctor, this report here doesn't contain any of the information that is set forth in some of the Rascher reports. For instance, the deaths, etc. How does that happen?

A: Because the fatalities which occurred during the experiments of Rascher had nothing to do with our experiments — experiments for the rescue from high altitude — and didn't occur there.

As a result there was no reason to incorporate these deaths in that report.

Q: Well, now, Rascher had these deaths that were connected with his research for air embolism and likewise that had nothing to do with your particular phase of the experiments, did it?

A: The experiments which were carried out by Rascher for reason of research in air embolism have nothing to do with the experiments carried out for the purpose of rescue from high altitude.

Q: Is that why you had no mention of air embolism in your report? That's why you didn't bring that factor up, isn't it, because it had nothing to do with you and you hadn't heard about it?

A: I said, daring my direct examination, what I heard about Rascher's experiments from Romberg when a death occurred. He told me that Rascher wanted to take notes of the register of the electrocardiogram in the case of this pressure fall sickness. What I knew when this report was compiled was, first, of all, that Rascher, in addition to our experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitude, was carrying out other experiments and that, in the course of these experiments which were carried out by order of Himmler, deaths occurred. As to the manner of the experiments Rascher was carrying through, I only knew that he was using the electrocardiogram in the case of these pressure drop sickness. This is all I knew about these other experiments when compiling my report. In other words, I knew exactly that deaths which occurred during Rascher's experiments had nothing to do with the experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitudes. For that reason, there was no occasion to incorporate these death cases in that report for two reasons: one, that they did not occur during our experiments; and, secondly, the other experiments were only known to me in very broad outlines and I only knew about a part of these experiments. You can see from Rascher's intermediate reports that he had carried out a number of various experiments. For that reason, I could not embark on the idea to incorporate any thoughts that Rascher may have had, during the course of his experiments, in my report.

Q: Well then, all this material that Rascher had collected concerning air embolism, since you didn't discuss it with him, since you didn't know about it, had no knowledge about it at all at that time, until such time as you were served with these documents in this case — is that the reason why this report contained or made no mention of the data concerning the facts that Rascher found in connection with this air embolism business?

A: No, this report, as it is stated here, is a report for the purpose of rescuing people from high altitudes. The additional experiments of Rascher had nothing to do with these experiments. Even today, after these intermediate reports are available to me, I can still say that these experiments had nothing to do with the experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitudes, and that was the reason.

Q: Well, Doctor, we won't linger on this any longer. We will go to page 91 of your own report. Obviously, you slipped up when you wrote this. Page 91 of the English which is page 16 of the original document, Doctor, and it will be the last paragraph on page 16 of the original document. Do you have that?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, it starts off:

In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and body functions (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight still—

A: Just a moment. Page 16 of that report starts with a different text.

Q: This is on the last paragraph of the page — of 16 of the report.

A: Yes, thank you.

Q: And I will start again:

In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbance and body failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post—hypoxemic twilight still remains something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness (aero-embolism) had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack.

Now, how did you know that it "happened often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack" had it not been for the fact that Mr. Rascher, Mr. Romberg, and Mr. Ruff had their heads together in each and every one of these experiments?

A: I didn't understand the question.

Q: Well, first of all, the first sentence says that

a large number of the experiments found the cause of the severe mental disturbances and body failures

and then you state in the last four — five words

the twilight still remains something of a riddle.

Now, didn't Mr. Rascher supply the answers to that riddle when you go on to state:

It appears often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness air embolism, had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack?

Now, I ask you, how did you know air embolism without Rascher's work?

A: There is no mention of this air embolism. I note the sentence:

It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack.

This is entirely different and has nothing to do with what you have just said. You cannot say, as I already stated before, that pressure drop sickness and gas embolism is the same. I tried before to explain that, in the case of the pressure drop disease, gas embolism can appear. That, of course, is not absolutely necessary and does not follow. Therefrom our knowledge came which enabled us to discuss this question as to whether air pressure sickness would play a part in these serious symptoms can be seen on the next page. On the next page we have the two experiments by Romberg and Rascher —

Q: Just a moment, Doctor.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the copy which is available to the Prosecutor must in some way be different to the original, which is before me and which was also available to the defendant Ruff. The Counsel for the Prosecution has repeatedly read "pressure drop sickness, Air embolism, etc." He wrote that twice. In our original however, there is no work mentioned of "air" or "embolism." I should like to point that out to you at this time so as to avoid the Prosecutor reading a text to the defendant, which is probably just an error on the part of the Prosecution. I want to state expressly that in the German copy and the original there is no mention of embolism.

MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor. The English contains the word in parenthesis "air embolism" and the German original text does not. We will go on, Doctor.

Q: Now, on page—

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, if what the Prosecutor has just said is correct I ask that the Document Book be rectified accordingly. Secondly, it may be expedient to explain at this moment how it is possible that an expression is introduced into a document which is not contained in the original, and it must of necessity mislead any person reading that document. I don't think that this is a tenable situation where such an erroneous expression gets into a document which is available to the Tribunal and upon which the Tribunal has to base its judgment.

THE PRESIDENT: Several times during the course of this trial similar errors have occurred and have been discovered. These matters are rather serious and when matters like this are found, the document book, the the original and the copies in the possession of the Tribunal should be corrected so they speak the truth and show correct translations of the original documents.

These errors are serious and cause a great deal of delay in the trial and a great deal of trouble for counsel and for the Tribunal. Some of the errors are apparently interpolations which have been inserted in the document, by whom or under what circumstances, of course, the Tribunal is not advised, but any such errors as this which are found should be immediately corrected by preparing the sheets, the mimeographed sheets calling attention to the volume and page where the error is found, and also the correct translation.

Q: Well, now, Dr. Ruff, is pressure drop sickness in an average or standard German dictionary defined as air embolism or vice-versa?

A: No.

Q: Is it common to say—

A: One has to distinguish there between two matters, firstly, pressure drop diseases are used in the English usage as bends and chokes, and then there is another designation "air embolism." Air embolism, however, does not at all mean gas emboli. These are two entirely different expressions. Air embolism in the English usage means that the complaints arise through the release of nitrogen within a person's body. It isn't a very exact designation. Gas emboli in medicine and air embolism are two entirely different matters.

Q: Well, now, will you explain to us how you found that it appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined the pressures of severe oxygen lack?

A: I said that after these sentences it is explained how this conclusion could be drawn. It was drawn as a result of the self-experiments by Rascher and Romberg, then that experiment pressure drop sickness—

Q: Just a moment. It appears from the Rascher-Romberg experiment that they had performed on themselves, is that what you mean?

A: Yes, it says that in this regard observations are important carried out upon the person. I will read in this connection:

the subjective accounts made by the authors in two experiments each were interesting.

This is the following sentence.

Q: It says here it appears often now, in what other experiments did it appear?

A: In the case of these drop experiments from a 15 kilometer altitude during which these more severe symptoms of altitude sickness appeared, and which are explained in detail in this report. It seemed as if during this sickness the lack of oxygen and the pressure drop sickness combined.

Q: Well, now, I wish you would turn to page 95, which would be page 22 of the original, and this is section 3, that is Roman numeral III entitled "Discussion of the Results."

A: Discussion of the Results—

Q: Do you have that?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, now, it says here

The descending experiments without oxygen show that the limit for a safe escape with an open parachute lies approximately at a jumping altitude of 13 Kilometers.

That is 42,700 feet.

Since in a jump from 13 kilometers recovery of consciousness occurred only 1.6 kilometers.

And so one must always consider the possibility of landing in an unconscious condition with all the attendant dangers. Well, now, it is apparent that you have decided that a safe altitude is 13,000 meters, is that correct?

A: Yes, 13,000; yes, it is said here 13,000. The conditions as they are entitled in this sentence, non-oxygen and pressure drop sickness, which means a descent when the parachute was unfolded, and in that connection the limit was considered to be 13,000 meter. That is correct.

Q: Did you actually send men up to an altitude higher than 13,000 meters?

A: Yes, that is true—

Q: And how do you justify doing that; 13,000 meters is determined to be the highest you can go and still be safe?

A: Firstly, the determination of this safe limit was only possible after the conclusion of the experiment. I can only determine a limit if I notice when reaching that limit that I can go on no longer, and after having concluded some experiments subsequently which had gone beyond this limit. Say that for practical conditions I would have to consider that the limit lies at 13,000 meters, The conditions which prevailed when we lay down the limit of 13,000 meters were only derived after having experienced a 15,000 meter height. After these experiments I could say that in an altitude of 15,000 meters a flyer who has no oxygen at his disposal and whose parachute is unfolded at 15,000 meters cannot be saved without injuries, because when landing on the ground he is still unconscious and that when landing on the ground he could of necessity be injured or in case of dropping into the water he would drown.

Q: Well, then, you do agree, inasmuch as you were unable to determine before the experiments started, just how high a man could go up, but these were extremely dangerous; were they not, these experiments?

A: These are two different matters, the ignorance whether one can ascend to those limits or not and the danger which may be incurred through the experiments. They have nothing to do with one another. I should like to give you an example, I should like to assume if a human being can carry out one hundred knee bends, unless I can experiment on him, I don't know. On the other hand, you cannot maintain that I could say whether this is dangerous or not, because I don't know before hand if it is possible for him to carry out one hundred knee bends or or not.

Q: Would it not have been then the proper thing to experiment first in any of the things, which you speak of in the report, to experiment on animals to determine the effect there before having resorted to human beings?

A: Naturally, we also performed animal experiments, but these animal experiments can only roughly inform us. In this report you find a comparison made between animal experiments, which were carried out by Lutz at the Institute of Weltz and our experiments and the results of these two experiments do not only differentiate themselves from a quantitative point of view, but also from a qualitative point of view; that is the altitude which you can use by using an animal can never by the same, as you use when using a human being, it can be higher or lower. Here we not only have a quantitative difference in the experiments, but we found that we also had a qualitative difference. In other words, the reaction of the animal conducted experiments was entirely different from that of experiments on human beings.

Q: Just a moment, you said that Lutz and Wendt experimented on animals and you gained your knowledge from Lutz and Wendt is that right; and that is, why it was not necessary for you to experiment on animals; is that what you are trying to tell me?

A: No, perhaps I did not express myself clearly. All I said, was that a proof is to be found, that such experiments cannot be carried out on animals, in this very same Document, where the results of the animal experiments carried out by Lutz and Wendt are doing compared with the experiments on human beings. The results of the animal experiments, carried out by Lutz and Wendt were not known to us when we executed these experiments and this is something which is actually contained in the report. This only came to our knowledge after the end of the experiments.

Q: Then, how do you justify experimenting on human beings before you experimented on animals; Lutz and Wendt used animals, you did not even go that far.

A: I was just saying that naturally we were carrying out experiments on animals before the experiments on human beings, in order to clarify the trend to which these experiments would have to be molded. Yesterday, I tried to explain that there are a number of questions which crop up in medicine, especially aviation medicine, which cannot be clarified, by the use of animals. The responsibility for not having carried out those experiments on animals instead of human beings, I can well assume as a scientist and as a physician.

Q: May I call it to the Tribunal's attention on page 96 of the English Document Book, Ruff's report states:

Unfortunately this work was not available to us during these experiments, so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and derived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the authors,

Well, Dr. Ruff, when did Romberg first report the death to you?

A: Naturally, I cannot state today exactly, but I should say it was in April.

Q: March maybe or April of 1942, is that it?

A: I did not say anything of March, I spoke here of April.

Q: You said downstairs in answer to Mr. Denny that you assumed it was in March of 1942; now do you assume that it was in April rather than March?

A: When answering Mr. Denny's questions, I never said March.

Q: Well, now, when you received this report from Romberg about the death of an inmate, just what did Romberg tell you?

A: I have tried to explain it several times. Romberg came to Berlin and reported to me that Rascher, by order of Himmler, was carrying out other experiments than ours designed for the rescue of high altitude and during this other experiment a case of death had occurred. He further said that during the experiments, which Rascher was carrying out, he intended to study the heart in the case of pressure drop sickness.

Q: Now, was this the first time that you realized that there were actually two sets of experiments going on; the Rascher, Ruff and Romberg experiments and then the Rascher experiments which he did exclusively; when this report was reported, was this the first time you realized you were cooperating with Rascher only in the Luftwaffe experiments?

A: When Romberg at that time came to Berlin, I heard as far as I know for the first time that there existed at all, in addition to our experiments for the protection from high, altitude other experiments, which were carried out by Rascher by order of Himmler.

Q: Well now, upon receiving the report from Romberg about this then what did you do?

A: I already stated what we considered about the matter. We came to the conclusion that it would be best to conclude the experiments as quickly as possible. I had reported this matter to Hippke and Romberg returned to Dachau in order to conclude the experiments, subsequently the chamber was taken from Dachau.

Q: While we are on the point of the chamber, you state that the chamber was taken from Dachau by rail ; that you loaded it on a railroad, in connection with the book which Dr. Sauter presented to you in direct examination and that it took some eight hours to load the chamber; I presume it took nearly eight hours to unload the chamber. Would it not have been easier to load the chamber on a truck and drive to Berlin; was there a gasoline shortage?

I did not got any answer.

THE INTERPRETER: It did not come through.

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Will you start again please.

A: From the Document, which was submitted by Dr. Sauter yesterday from the book of my mechanic, I said there is no indication about the time, which was necessary for the loading of the low pressure chamber, with the exception that my mechanic had to work on a contain day for so many hours when unloading the chamber. From these hours of work, one cannot conclude the entire amount of hours, which were necessary for the loading or unloading of that chamber.

The transport back of this chamber by rail actually resulted on the basis of the lack of fuel. There we were not concerned with gasoline, but with diesel oil. As I already said during my direct examination, diesel oil was terribly scarce in Germany and was essentially reserved for the submarines. It was impossible to receive permission for a journey from Munich to Berlin and get the corresponding amount of diesel oil for that purpose. That is the reason why the chamber was transported by rail.

Q: Well, now after these deaths were reported to you, or after this first death, did you order any steps to be taken with reference to Rascher?

A: I stated that our experiments were to be concluded as quickly as possible and that we tried to get the chamber out of Dachau.

Q: I ask you again, did you take any steps against Rascher?

A: No, I did not take any steps against Rascher. I could not do that.

Q: Here is a person who had died and you have not done anything about it; is that right?

A: It is correct that a person died; it is not correct that I did nothing about it. I saw that this chamber was removed from Dachau, which meant that Rascher was deprived of the opportunity of carrying out future experiments.

Q: Now, did Romberg report any other deaths to you?

A: Yes, that is right.

Q: When?

A: As I said already during my direct examination that during the time which elapsed between the return of Romberg and the final return of Romberg to Berlin, we were repeatedly in telephonic contact with one another. During one of these telephone conversations, and as far as I remember the last one, Dr. Romberg told me Rascher was carrying out further experiments and on that occasion he indicated something had happened again. After his return to Berlin he confirmed my assumption which I had during the telephone conversation and actually told me another two persons had lost their lives during these Rascher experiments.

Q: Did you do anything about that?

A: There was nothing for me to do. The chamber at that time had already been removed from Dachau. The experiments had already been concluded and when I reported this matter to Hippke that the chamber had been returned, I at first told him verbally about the result of the experiments and at the same time informed him about these facts.

Q: Was Rascher still in the Luftwaffe at that time?

A: Rascher at that time still belonged to the Luftwaffe. I believe that at that time he was trying to be transferred to the SS. Rascher, therefore, from a military point of view belonged to the Luftwaffe, but as it has become evident from a number of documents, he has been made available to the SS or rather Himmler.

Q: Well now would you tell us just what function the electrocardiogram served?

A: The electrocardiogram served the purpose to master the electrical vibrations which occurred in the heart whenever it is active. Each muscle and every other tissue produces by it activity an electrical current. In the case of the heart this current is rather strong and one easily succeeds in registering this electrical current in the heart.

Q: Well now do you use an electrocardiogram each time you are conducting one of these high altitude experiments?

A: No, I cannot answer that question exactly, but I don't believe that in the case of all experiments electrocardiograph registers were made.

Q: Was it used in the high altitude experiments?

A: Yes.

Q: Well now, if Romberg was using the electrocardiogram in these experiments, he was doing that for the benefit of the Rascher, Ruff and Romberg work, wasn't he?

A: He used the EKG whenever it seemed advisable to him when carrying out experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitudes. Apart from using it during the high altitude experiments, he used the EKG in order to supervise and observe the experimental subjects. Before the beginning of the experiments he registered the heart of the experimental subjects.

Q: That is right. Let's look at Mr. Romberg's affidavit, which is document NO 476, on page 2 of Document Book 2. This is the paragraph No. 6 in the affidavit, No. 6:

I witnessed the death of three of Dr. Rascher's human experimental subjects during the experiments. The first death occurred in the latter part of April, and on this particular occasion I was studying: the electrocardiogram by using the experimental subjects.

Romberg was your subordinate, wasn't he?

A: Yes, that is true.

MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honors.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination by defense counsel?

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, I should like to clarify a number of points which have been raised during the course of your examination which require clarification.

Counsel for the Prosecution has repeated your testimony regarding the voluntary nature of the experimental subjects and he stated that according; to your testimony sixty experimental subjects were selected at Dachau, and I think ten or fifteen of these sixty were actually used for the experiments. In order not to allow any erroneous opinion appearing I shall ask you once more. Did the Camp Commandant or Dr. Rascher or any one else select a group of sixty experimental subjects who were then to be used for the experiments, or is it rather true as you already stated during your direct examination that this group of approximately sixty persons volunteered and then, Rascher, Neff or any one else selected from these sixty volunteers those persons who were to be used for these experiments on a certain date? How was the true situation?

A: Already yesterday I have tried to illustrate that point. According to my information sixty persons all together volunteered. Of these sixty people, approximately 12 were selected, who, because of their health and physical condition, complied with the conditions which we needed for our experiments. These ten or twelve experimental subjects were housed together in the experimental station throughout the entire length of the experiment. These ten or twelve persons, are the experimental subjects were for the experiments as it is stated in our report.

Q: This, I think, finally clear up that point. The second correction, Dr. Ruff, when describing these experimental subjects, you repeatedly used the expression "Sicherheitsverwahrung?", people in protective custody, and you said that these were profession criminals who had been placed into protective custody and for that reason were sent to Dachau. I heard in the meantime that this expression "sicherheitsverwahrung" was in the English translation expressed as protective custody. The difference is the following: The "sicherheitsverwahrung" of which Dr. Ruff was speaking, according to German law, could only be used in the case of professional criminals, and was ordered by the court. Protective custody on the other hand, which is a very similar expression, although containing a different content, has nothing whatsoever to do with justice or any court.

It was carried out mostly for political reasons, completely arbitrarily, and without any justice or sentence. Dr. Ruff, is it correct what just told you?

A: Yes, it is true.

Q: I would now like to rectify a further error. At the beginning of the trial a witness Lutz was heard who at one time had been employed at Professor Weltz office. Dr. Lutz at that time stated he was principally opposed to experimental subjects because he wasn't robust enough, he wasn't rough and strong enough. Then using this expression "robust" under quotation marks, he was asked what he really meant by it. As I see from the record of the 12th of December, he replied, and I quote:

I should like —

and, then a little pause, and the sentence wasn't completed. When the witness continues, and I quote:

It is even difficult to take a dog for experiment who has a soulful look in his eyes,

end of quote. So far the testimony of the witness Lutz, who, I think is still today in the Dachau concentration camp as an old Austrians SS man, Dr. Ruff was told that Dr. Lutz's testimony road as follows, and I quote:

That is what I understood from the German translation, it was said that Lutz wouldn't even carry out the experiments on a dog that Ruff had been carrying out on human beings.

I am sure that this repetition of Dr. Lutz testimony was erroneous, and I should like to rectify that in order to prevent the defendant Ruff from being incriminated by an erroneous statement in the record.

Q: Dr. Ruff, the question of whether animal experiments could have been used instead of your experiments was discussed; and you stated that in the case of the high altitude experiments which you were to carry out the use of animal experiments was often impossible. I am now asking you, Dr. Ruff, is it correct that during your high altitude experiments—and I am in particular referring to the altitude sickness which plays a part—the essential points consist of the fact that the experimental subject, after awakening from unconsciousness, reaches out above his head and then pulls the lever of the parachute with all his strength. Naturally a guinea-pig cannot be trained sufficiently to cause it to pull the lever of the parachute after awakening. You will agree with me there, won't you.

A: This is no doubt correct.

Q: Dr. Ruff, upon a question by the prosecutor, you said—or at least you said when he asked you—that you didn't know who exactly told you that these persons at Dachau were volunteers. That is, at any rate, how your answer sounded, even though you may protest against it at the moment. You were asked:

Was Dr. Romberg present? Does he know it from his own knowledge? Was he there when these people were asked?

You said, "No." Then you were asked:

Was Hippke there?

and you said "No", and so forth, until at the end it was that,

In that case, you don't know who exactly told you that these people were volunteers.

Then you answered, and I quote:

That is correct.

I believe that you really wanted to say something else because in addition to Dr. Romberg and Dr. Hippke other people confirmed it to you that these persons were volunteers.

Who were these other persons?

A: Prof. Weltz, Rascher, and the camp Commandant.

Q: Weltz, Rascher, and the camp Commandant. Rascher and in particular the camp Commandant were in fact the people who had personally spoken to the prisoners?

A: Yes.

Q: I have just heard that in the question of this dog there was another error; that the sound of the translation was to the effect that the Austrian SS man who is now in Dachau, was to have stated that he wouldn't even kill a dog. There is no word of killing. We are only concerned with an experiment on a little dog who looks at one with a mournful expression in its eyes, that's all.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, would you please advise defense counsel to ask his question rather than just talk to the witness? He hasn't asked a question yet in that last remark.

DR. SAUTER: The last thing I said naturally was no question. In that case Mr. Hardy is completely correct. It was merely a correction of an error in translation. Naturally I cannot put that in the form of a question; I can only make a statement.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I suggest that these corrections of translations could take place after he finishes his redirect examination?

THE PRESIDENT: It might well be convenient if those corrections were written out, typewritten, and handed to the Tribunal and to opposing counsel at one time.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, I should like to draw your attention, to another document and should like to ask you to tell us how exactly you interpret that document; in other words, what conclusions you derive from it.

This document can be found in Document Volume Number II on Page 79. This is a letter by Dr. Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer SS. It is dated the 11th of May 1942. If you will look at the second paragraph, you will find that it starts with the words, "tonight..." and there you will find the sentence and I quote:

He —

(and that means a certain Dr. Fahrenkamp)

intends to report to you about his own opinion regarding my heart experiments.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you give as the page in the English Document Book of this document?

THE INTERPRETER: This is found on Page 74 of the Document Book Number II,

DR. SAUTER: Page 74 of the English Document Book, second paragraph, middle of the second paragraph:

He intends to report to you about his own opinion regarding my heart experiments Dr. Fahrenkamp gave to you himself. From our conversation—

(Dr. Rascher's conversation)

— I have the impression that a great field of work will open up to me yet.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Ruff, if you now compare this quotation to the intermediate secret report which Rascher submitted to the Reichsfuehrer Himmler before your official reports, behind your back, won't you find a clear confirmation that these experiments of which you are now speaking to us were special experiments of Rascher's and were always actually claimed by him as being his own experiments, having nothing at all to do with your experiments?

A: This letter, Document No. 220, which you just submitted to me, is the accompanying letter to the intermediate report dated the 11th of May. This is the secret intermediate report dated the 11th of May and addressed to Himmler.

In my opinion it becomes clearly evident from the paragraph that in the case of these heart experiments they are concerned with Rascher's experiments; and it furthermore becomes evident from that paragraph that Rascher intended to carry out yet a large number of experiments in order to clarify these questions. Of this opportunity, however, he was deprived by the transport of the chamber back to Berlin.

Q: Now, a last question, Doctor. In all the letters which reached me and in all affidavits which I have submitted to the Tribunal, you were described to us as a particularly conscientious and careful researcher and a man filled with a love for truth. Doctor, within five or six months, during which you have been in solitary confinement, you had sufficient opportunity to search your conscience and to ask yourself whether, during those Dachau experiments in which you were mixed up in such an unfortunate manner, you acted justifiably or whether you committed a mistake.

At the end, Doctor, I want to ask you about this — and don't think now about the end of the trial but just give me your answer as a man who loves the truth. Please answer the question, if today from the point of view of your conscience you are now judging your acts at that time, if you yourself take your conscience into account do you feel today that you acted correctly, or is it your feeling today that you committed crimes; that you committed an error? Will you please answer this and tell the Tribunal honestly and openly in the conclusion of your examination?

A: I can assure you that even after serious deliberation I have a free conscience. If I have made a mistake, it was only perhaps that I gave my approval to working with a man like Rascher; but that Rascher was a criminal I found out only after the war and chiefly during this trial.

In the year 1942 when these experiments took place, I knew nothing of all that. Rascher to me meant the serious officer who never gave any occasion for criticism; and if his superior considered him to be a seriously-thinking officer, I certainly could not think of judging him as a criminal.

The conditions under which the experiments were carried out in Dachau on voluntary people, on professional criminals, in my opinion were not objectionable; and that is even my opinion today. The manner in which the experiments were carried out was unobjectionable. They were carried out scientifically, prepared scientifically; and they were necessary. After all these considerations I can even today say that my conscience as a human being and as a researcher is free.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions on the reexamination of the defendant Ruff.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have some other questions to put to this witness before he is dismissed from the stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)