1947-04-30, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 30 April 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF — Resumed RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Ruff, in clarification of this translation, the word "aero embolism", you have implied that aero-embolism is not a constant feature of the condition known as pressure drop sickness, also known as decompression caisson disease, or the bends. Now, in fact it is not only a constant feature of it, but in English it is actually used as a synonym. Now I would like to show you and the Tribunal a standard medical dictionary, namely, Dorland's American Illustrated Medical Dictionary published by. W. B. Sanders in 1944, and on page 214 you find that bends is a name for caisson disease, also for aero-embolism. This makes the translation as set forth in the English here perfectly correct. In addition, caisson disease is defined on page 448 as, and it states:

it is due to the release of bubbles of atmospheric gases in the body.

Now, this caisson disease is also synonymous with your pressure drop disease, both of which are caused by decompression. Then you find decompression defined on page 410 of this same dictionary, which states:

the removal of pressure or compression force, particularly the slow removal of pressure from deep sea divers and caisson workers to prevent the onset of bends.

Now, Dr. Ruff, we have here a German dictionary —

A: Let me say one thing about the definition you just read to me. If the translation of that definition was heard correctly, then the definition in that dictionary is altogether wrong, because both the caisson disease and the bends do not arise if the pressure is gradually raised or rather, lowered. On the other hand, these diseases occur if the change of pressure is relatively rapid. For this reason there are legal regulations of how caissons are to be used, for instance, at what rate the pressure in the caisson is to be reduced, namely, a change of 1-2 atmospheres cannot be made in less than half an hour.

In other words, if the translation of the definition you read was correct, then that definition in the dictionary is wrong.

Q: Well, now, here you find a German dictionary wherein we have marked this. I would like to have you read this as marked. This is a standard German dictionary, Meyer's. Where it is marked there — I have it marked for you, doctor. Would you read that definition, please. Would you read that aloud, please.

A: (Dictionary handed to witness)

Caisson disease occurs in persons who are subject to a high air pressure, workers under air pressure, and such people. (The laws for the protection of workers should be referred to, page 771.) The sudden appearance of gases absorbed by the blood at higher than normal pressure when the pressure is suddenly reduced, leads to obstructions and stoppages which cut off parts of the body from blood circulation. This is fatal in the brain, causes hemorrhages in nose, stomach and so forth. Compare also mountain disease, and see also professional diseases in the same dictionary.

This is Meyer's Konversations Lexikon of the year 1925. At this time very little was known about pressure fall disease if anything at all. Here again the same mistake is made that has occasionally been made here in the trial. Here the caisson disease, for example, is brought into relation with mountain sickness. Now mountain sickness is an altitude sickness which rests on a lack of oxygen, whereas the caisson disease, rather the symptoms that result from caisson disease, result from the change of pressure. Now, the confusion of these two terms in this dictionary shows that the editor of this particular definition was not an expert in this field.

Q: Well, now, these three dictionaries, the two I called to your attention so far, do show that the pressure drop disease, decompression disease, the bends, caisson disease and aero-embolism, are used interchangeably with each other, don't they, the dictionaries do? However, you maintain that these dictionaries are incorrect, is that right?

A: The dictionary that I have here before me is certainly not correct, and I've already told you what things can be compared, namely, pressure fall disease, caisson disease and the bends can be compared with one another. They are altogether similar. They arise roughly in the same manner only with the difference that the differences in pressure in aviation are less than one atmosphere, because the pressure of zero atmospheres is reached only at the height of 400 kilometers, namely, where you reach the total vacuum of outer space. In caisson disease, on the other hand, work is done under some circumstances under a pressure of two, three or four atmospheres. In other words, the difference in pressure in caisson disease, or in caisson work, is much greater than a difference in pressure that is possible in aviation. That is the reason why the symptoms of caisson disease are more severe than the symptoms of pressure fall disease in aviation. But in principle you can equate these three diseases, namely, pressure fall disease, bends and caisson disease. But there is a quantitative difference though the causes of them are by and large the same.

Now what you cannot equate with these three diseases is air embolism because, as I said this morning, there is air embolism not infrequently in the case of operations. And, this air embolism in the case of operations can have nothing to do with any change of air pressure. In other words, this is something quite different. On the other hand it is correct that in the disturbances after reduction of pressure air embolism can occur. They do not necessarily have to but they may. In other words you cannot equate caisson disease or pressure fall disorders with air embolism.

Q: Well, now was Dr. Rascher, when he used air embolism, was he using it correctly in his sense.

A: When he said — I don't know just where he said it if he said it — that an air embolism had been discovered; then he actually had found in the heart or in a blood vessel greater or smaller amounts of air, and that is air embolism.

Q: Well, let us go on and get your opinion of this other definition in another dictionary. This is Taber's Encyclopedia Medical dictionary, and under bends, on page B 20, records: "Bends (caisson disease)" and then it states as follows:

Pain and weakness caused by increased atmospheric pressure. This brings about the absorption of atmospheric gases other than oxygen, particularly nitrogen. Release of pressure releases this nitrogen from solution in the blood and causes formation of gas bubbles in the tissues. Treatment: Decompression or increased pressure reapplied until nitrogen is redissolved in the blood when gradual cessation of the pressure is induced.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, there seems to be some trouble with the translation.

MR. BROWN: You are going much too fast.

MR. HARDY: We will repeat.

Pain and weakness caused by increased atmospheric pressure. This brings about the absorption of atmospheric gases other than oxygen, particularly nitrogen. Release of pressure releases this nitrogen from solution in the blood and causes formation of gas bubbles in the tissues.

Then they have here:

Treatment: Decompression or increased pressure reapplied until nitrogen is redissolved in the blood when gradual cessation of the pressure is induced.

Now, doesn't that convey the same thought that pressure drop sickness, decompression disease, the bends, caisson disease, and air embolism are used interchangeably?

A: Now, first of all, if the translation was correct I heard the statement that raising of pressure causes molestation. That is not so; it is the reduction of pressure that can cause suffering, because when I rise up in the air I do not raise the pressure but I lower it, and in caisson disease difficulties do not arise when pressure is increased, namely when people go into the caisson but symptoms occur when the workers leave the caisson. In other words, when the pressure on them is reduced.

Q: Well, now let's go to the next. The Encyclopedia Americana has a very elucidating paragraph written by no less a man than Smith Ely Jelfy. Now this here — I will read slowly for the benefit of the translator — shows unmistakably that air embolism is a constant feature of decompression disease. This is on page 150.

Caisson disease is a disorder popularly known as the bends, occurring among workers in compressed air who are submitted to a pressure of two or three atmospheres, as are tunnel workers. The symptoms of the disease do not appear while the workman is under compression but come on after decompression when some minutes or even hours have elapsed. Symptoms were at first thought to be due to mechanical pressure, which by producing changes in the distribution of the blood, caused congestion of the blood when pressure was removed. This, however, is contrary to the adaptability of body fluids to pressure and does not agree with experimental evidence. The gas emboli theory is now generally accepted. According to this theory, blood in compressed air absorbs an increased amount of oxygen and nitrogen, which under compression is distributed to the fluids of the various parts of the body.

If now rapid decompression takes place, bubbles of gas form in the blood more rapidly than the gas can be cast off by the lungs, and numerous capillary emboli result. These then cause pain in local regions, either by direct or mechanical force, or by cutting off the local blood supply. There may be more or loss general pain involving two or three or all of the extremities and sometimes severe abdominal pain with prostration, which in rare cases results in unconsciousness, collapse, and death. These symptoms are due to the presence of spinal cord or brain lesions — the results of the gas emboli in the blood vessels of the central nervous system. Vertigo with deafness and labyrinth hemorrhage are sometimes present and probably point to embolism in the labyrinth. Dyspnea in the sense of constriction in the chest are also sometimes present but not always fatal. The most successful treatment is that of recompression with gradual decompression carried on in a mechanical air lock. This is now required by law in some countries. Prophylactic measures are carried out by careful examination of the workmen and the elimination of these unfitted for work in compressed air. Predisposing factors are youth or too advanced age, alcoholism, organic disease, or fatness. New men should be given short shifts and workmen should be carefully supervised. Fatigue is also a factor. Certain countries and states already have laws regulating shifts and providing for gradual decompression gaged according to pressure undergone, which are the chief preventive measures.

Now, can it not be said in view of that that air embolism can have other causes, but caisson disease is always due to air embolism?

A: First of all, since you spoke a little too fast the translation was somewhat fragmented. The first part you read corroborates what I said a little while ago. In your other dictionary you read that caisson disease arrises through the increase in pressure.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, it appears to the Tribunal that these rather complicated and technical translations may not make the matter clear to the witness. I think these definitions as read by counsel should be carefully translated into German and with the English volumes be submitted to counsel for the defense, so that he may study them and make his answers more intelligent and more satisfactory to all concerned.

MR. HARDY: I will do that a later date, Your Honor. At this time I merely wanted to point out that it is consistently in most dictionaries a synonymous term.

THE PRESIDENT: We understand that. We understand your position, but the question is whether or not the witness, having had these translations read to him only, whether he thoroughly understands the definition and is competent to discuss them. That could be done at a later time with these carefully made translations, with the English dictionaries for examination by defense counsel, should be furnished to the defense who may be allowed to consider them and discuss them later.

Q: Professor Ruff, this report which is document NO-402 — when did you and Romberg and Rascher write that report?

A: I didn't write this report at all. The report was written by Rascher and Romberg. I simply signed it.

Q: When did you receive the report, to sign it?

A: When was it finished?

Q: Well, what date? Can you tell me that? Do you know off-hand? The report is dated 28 July 1942.

A: The date is as you said it — the date is on the report.

Q: Then in other words, Ruff and Romberg wrote this report and then submitted it to you. Did you at any time offer any suggestions for this report?

A: Rascher and Romberg wrote this report and gave it to me to be countersigned.

Q: Well, did you have any corrections or anything to say about the report, or did you first of all see a draft of the report and then have an opportunity to correct it?

A: It is possible, but I can't tell you that in detail today. But, I have already said in my direct examination that through my countersignature I took responsibility for the scientific deductions set forth in this report. That is the meaning of my signature.

Q: And even after having heard of the deaths at Dachau you were still willing to associate your name with Rascher on this report?

A: We had to issue a report oh these experiments in some form or another. We had to report on what had been done there. That this report was signed by the two workers that worked on the experiments is of course quite understandable, and moreover it was regular procedure that the leader of the institute would have to put his name to it also. The fact that I knew Rascher had carried out experiments and had deaths did nothing to change this.

Q: Well, now as a result of this work, Dr. Romberg received a medal, didn't he — the War Merit Cross, I believe?

A: After he visited Himmler in the Fuehrer's Headquarters, a few weeks or months later, he received the War Merit Cross, Second Class.

Q: Did you also receive one?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Who recommended Romberg for the War Merit Cross? Did you recommend him?

A: No.

Q: Well, who recommended him?

A: I have seen from the documents that that on Rascher's suggestion, at least, I think that's to be found in a document; namely, Sievers made this recommendation. I am not sure of that, but that seems to be my recollection.

Q: It could have been Rascher, however, that recommended him, couldn't it?

A: I can't tell you.

Q: However, you were not recommended for the War Merit Cross to Himmler — just Romberg — is that right?

A: No, I was not suggested for that decoration. There was no reason to either, because if any one was to be suggested for a decoration because of this experimentation it certainly wouldn't have been I because I didn't carry out these experiments. I was simply the Chief of the Institute.

Q: Well, suppose you had not sent this low pressure chamber to Dachau how would they have carried out the experiments?

A: I don't understand that question.

Q: Well, if they didn't have a low pressure chamber in Dachau then there wouldn't have been any low pressure experiments in Dachau obviously.

The low pressure chamber came from your institute?

A: The low pressure chamber was the property of the Medical Inspectorate and, on Hippke's approval, was sent to Dachau.

Q: And it was Professor Weltz that requested that the low pressure chamber be brought to Dachau?

A: I didn't know that.

Q: I'm asking you that.

A: I repeat, I knew nothing to the effect that Prof. Weltz had asked that the low pressure chamber be taken to Dachau.

Q: Well, it actually was your low pressure chamber, assigned to your institute, wasn't it. owned by the Luftwaffe?

A: No, that was not a low pressure chamber of our institute. It had just come from the firm and was to be used in the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt [Research Institute for Aviation]. It was to be equipped with the inter-com system and so forth. It was not actually assigned to our institute for use, but just so we could make these alterations in it.

Q: Well, who was it assigned to? Was it a new one that had just been built?

A: It was a new chamber that had just been manufactured by the firm, and which was sent to us at the institute because we, on the orders of the Medical Inspectorate, were to put in the inter-com system and the oxygen system. We, in this case, means the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt, which had the experts and technicians who usually put this same sort of equipment in air planes.

Q: Well now in summation, how did you happen to become involved in these experiments at Dachau?

A: In my direct examination and in my cross-examination by you this morning I said several times that in 1941, about December, Professor Weltz visited me in Berlin in my institute.

Q: Well, had it not been for Professor Weltz' visit you would not have gone to Dachau, is that right?

A: That's possible yea.

Q: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions of this witness by defense counsel in connection with the cross-examination?

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, it was my intention to ask the defendant Ruff a number of questions to clarify the question of embolism, since the question has been pursued so stubbornly by the prosecution; however, I shall wait to see what clarification of this point the prosecution later submits and, for my part, I shall make the necessary counter-clarifications and submit them to the Tribunal in writing. I believe that would be better, than if we should here discuss a problem about which lawyers, in effect, cannot take any attitude. However, I should like to point out one thing. This morning the question, so far as I appraised it, was not whether the word"embolism" could be translated by such and such a word, or whether it meant this or that, but what struck me as important was that the principal question that in a document where the word "embolism" is not found the word "embolism" is added, and that the German translation is given to us with the usual certification that it is a verbatim copy. To that I objected today. I shall not make any further statements on this subject, but shall simply ask the witness Ruff one or two further questions.

MR. HARDY: I went to clarify to the Tribunal this ambiguity that Dr. Sauter is trying to more or less imply that we stuck the word "Air-Embolism" in a document to create a confusion.

I have checked up with the Translation Division and the translator apparently at that time — she isn't here at this time — but the Chief told me that the Translation Division, when they come across such a word and they have two meanings or another meaning, that they put in parenthesis an alternative meaning, and this here is just another meaning or another translation for the word in German. That's how the confusion arose. It was not put in to confuse the Bench or to create an interference as Dr. Sauter is trying to put forth here.

JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, when that expression appears it has appeared in several of the documents — and when that appears should not that fact be made apparent to the Tribunal?

MR. HARDY: Yes, it should, Your Honor. But, at this particular time, it was not made apparent to me either, Your Honor, and I obviously went along the same course, but not intentionally.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. SAUTER:

Dr. Ruff, at the end of the cross-examination you were asked by the prosecutor about your responsibility for the defendant Dr. Romberg.

You were shown Romberg's affidavit of 1 November 1946, #6. This is in Document Book #2. #3 reads:

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. On this particular occasion I was studying the electrocardiograph of the human experimental subject then being tested. After the death of this human experimental subject I raised objections to Rascher and also informed Ruff concerning the matter.

Thereafter two other deaths occurred on different days in May.

You were asked whether this Romberg was your co-worker and whether you were his superior, and you answered these questions in the affirmative. You were then asked if you were responsible for what Romberg did and you also answered that in the affirmative. Now, tell me what your point of view previously was and what your point of view now is with regard to this question: Dr. Romberg received a very precise working program from you regarding what he was to do with Rascher. Outside of this work program, Dr. Rascher carried on experiments of his own behind your back. Now, in the experiments that took place according to the program nothing happened, but in Rascher's own experiments something, did. Now, I want to ask you, in view of what you were charged with this morning, is it your point of view that you responsibility for your co-worker, Dr. Romberg, regarding the Dachau experiments — speaking now entirely in general — extends so far that you would consider yourself responsible for any possible cooperation by Romberg in Rascher's own experiments, or is it your point of view that you knew nothing of these matters, that you didn't approve these matters, and that, accordingly, you are not responsible for what Romberg did in that field? Now, please think about that and answer.

A: Dr. Sauter, I believe that is a question which I, as a physician, can answer only with great difficulty. I believe that is a purely legal question. I personally do not feel myself responsible which I neither requested, nor approved or knew of, but, that however, is my personal opinion and I believe the question is a purely legal problem.

Q: But, in your personal opinion, it is a matter of course to you that you are not responsible for what Romberg did under those circumstances?

A: Yes, that is my personal opinion.

Q: Now, in this question or responsibility I should like to bring up something else, Dr. Ruff. You signed the one report officially which Romberg and Rascher drew up. You co-signed this report, and you told us this morning that you thus undertook a certain responsibility for this report. I believe you said that you took the responsibility for this report. I believe you said that you took the responsibility for the scientific evaluation of the results of these experiments.

A: I said that I thereby undertook the responsibility for the scientific conclusions that were drawn from the experiments described in the report, the theories that the two workers pursued when they drew their conclusions from the experiments. I said that I agreed with those theories and, to that extent, also personally take over the responsibility for that.

Q: In other words, you undertake the responsibility for the correct evaluation?

A: Yes.

Q: I ask you this because you were the chief of an Institution. Is it your point of view that by cosigning this report, which two other researchers worked out, you thus take the responsibility for the experiments themselves? In other words that by co-signing this report you take co-responsibility for the experiments, for any irregularities that might have taken place during the experiments, or any harm that might have been done?

A: I don't know, but I don't believe that my signature to this report can be construed as my taking responsibility for the experiments. Every scientist knows who reads such a report, if the chief of the Institution has co-signed, every scientist knows that the Chief of the Institution was not present at each experiment and himself carried out the experiments. That is a matter of course.

Q: Now, a last question. It was previously said that Dr. Romberg had received the War Merit Cross, 2d Class. The Judges probably have no idea what sort of a decoration this is. It could be a very high decoration or could be a very low one. Please tell me, is it correct that this is the lowest class of decoration that exists in Germany, the very lowest decoration one could receive?

A: That is true as of the year 1942, yes.

DR. SAUTER: No further questions.

DR. WILLE: Wille for Weltz.

BY DR. WILLE:

Q: Dr. Ruff, you said on a question from the Prosecutor that without a visit from Professor Weltz to you in Berlin it was inconceivable to you that the Dachau experiments would have taken place; I believe to have understood the meaning of your answer, but I don't want a false picture to be created here. Now, let me ask you, you will agree with me that it was a matter of your own decision that on Dr. Weltz' suggestion you arranged that the experiments in Dachau should be carried out?

A: I have described already several times how these experiments came to be carried out. Dr. Weltz was not my superior. He visited me as chief of the Munich Institute in my institute. We discussed scientific questions and came to speak of the question of rescue from great altitudes, and on this occasion Dr. Weltz suggested that the second half of these experiments should be carried out at Dachau in cooperation with Rascher. I believe that this clarifies the question you asked.

DR. WILLE: But it was very important to me that I should hear this once again in view of the question the Prosecutor put to you.

DR. VORWERK: Vorwerk for Romberg. I have two or three questions.

BY DR. VORWERK:

Q: Do you believe, Dr. Ruff, that during the time the chamber was in Dachau, Romberg undertook other experiments than these on the question of rescue from great altitudes?

A: I consider that to be out of the question.

Q: May I assume that it is your firm conviction that during his stay in Dachau Romberg only took part in experiments which concerned themselves with rescue from high altitudes?

A: I assume that to be practically certain.

Q: Dr. Ruff, can you tell me who issued Romberg authority for his travel orders when Romberg went to Dachau?

A: When an official trip was to be undertaken the person who wanted to carry out this official trip filled out the travel orders, then I signed them for my Institute, and then they went to the management of the Experimental Institute for Aviation and they approved the trip.

Q: In this case then so far as the Institute was concerned these travel orders bore your signature and then were passed on?

A: Yes.

DR. WEISGERBER: Weisgerber for Sievers.

Your Honor, I should like to ask one or two questions concerning the relations between Huff and Sievers.

Q: The Prosecutor has repeatedly pictured Sievers as a person responsible for the execution of a number of experiments such as are here the subject of the charge. Among these experiments are included the experiments here designated as high altitude experiments, the planning and execution of which are known to you. Now, I should like to find out the following: Did Sievers have anything to do with the planning and execution of the experiments which were carried out in Dachau so far as you know?

A: I know nothing of that. So far as I can recall I never heard Sievers name only after the experiments were concluded, roughly at the time when this report, Document 402 was compiled in Berlin. Therefore I had not heard the name Sievers at all so far as I can recollect. In my opinion he can have had nothing to do with the planning of these experiments and certainly not with the carrying out of them.

Q: Did Sievers have anything to do with making the low pressure chamber available?

A: No, certainly not.

Q: Do you know whether Sievers had anything to do with the choice of Dr. Rascher as the person in charge of the experiments?

A: I never heard anything to that effect, nor can I imagine that that may have been so.

Q: Did Sievers have anything to do with the evaluation of the notes that were taken during the experiments or with the preparation of the reports on the experiments?

A: This report that is to be found in Document 402 here was compiled in my Institute in Berlin on the basis of the minutes of the experiments. Now, Sievers was certainly not present when the evaluation of these notes was undertaken, because until I reached Nurnberg here I did not know Sievers at all. Consequently, he could not have been in my institute, in Berlin.

Q: I again then would conclude that the high altitude experiments were carried out without Sievers having to appear at all?

A: I have no reason to assume the contrary.

DR. WEISGERBER: No further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness?

The Witness Ruff may be excused from the stand and resume his place.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there are a number of documents which I should like to submit to you which have so far not been submitted. The first, I have an affidavit contained in Document Book Ruff, Document # 3, to be found on page 10 to 11. This will receive Exhibit No. 12. This is an affidavit made by a certain Adolf Voss — who from the year 1937 until 1944 had worked with Dr. Ruff with some interruptions, and for that reason is well acquainted with his personality and the entire situation. I should like to ask you to take notice of the contents of that affidavit and I shall only read the last and the one before the last paragraph on page 2 of the document.

I quote. Dr. Wieshofer was a collaborator of Dr. Ruff:

Dr. Wieshofer, who was a very close friend of mine, told me in 1942 or 1943 that experiments were carried out at Dachau behind Dr. Ruff's back and without his consent. Dr. Wieshofer was very indignant about it but he himself had no detailed information on the subject.

I have always known and esteemed Dr. Ruff as an upright and decent man. Dr. Ruff proved to be an excellent and careful physician when carrying out experiments with me in low pressure chambers. I never felt that any experiment was badly prepared, scientifically or technically, considering the seriousness of the situation. I cannot imagine that Dr. Ruff risked human lives in Dachau in a frivolous and unscrupulous manner, when making experiments in aviation medicine.

So, for the quotation. I ask you to take notice of the rest of the contents. This affidavit is signed in the proper manner and certified.

As the next document I should like to submit Exhibit No. 13, Document No. 7, which is the document to be found on pages 24 to 26 in Document Book Ruff. This is an affidavit by a certain Dr. Hans Georg Clamann. This witness was an Oberregierungsmedizinalrat [High Government Medical Councilor] at the Aviation Medical Research Institute and therefore a high medical official in the Luftwaffe. I also ask you to take notice of the contents of that affidavit. The witness mentions that he always held Dr. Ruff's character in high esteem and says that he only heard the best about him in his capacity as a human being as well as a scientist. From the affidavit itself I should like to read the following paragraph and I quote:

As far as the investigations carried out in Berlin by Dr. Siegfried Ruff are known to me, the overwhelming majority were carried out by him and his collaborators as self-experiments.

Further volunteers were recruited for experiments only because the number of his collaborators was no longer sufficient owing to the urgency of the investigations.

Dr. Ruff showed a high sense of responsibility in the investigation and, never demanded more of his colleagues than of himself.

In view of this experience, it appears to me to be out of the question that Dr. Ruff should have carried out experiments which constituted crimes against humanity.

This affidavit, which I just read, is certified in the proper manner.

The next document will receive Exhibit No. 14, Ruff Exhibit No. 14, and it is to be found in Document Book Ruff as No. 10 on pages 35 on. It is an affidavit made by the university lecturer Dr. Otto Gauer, dated 23 January 1947. This affidavit too is sworn to and certified in the proper manner. I attach particular importance to this affidavit because its author, Dr. Otto Gauer, was not only a collaborator of Dr. Ruff for a long period of years but also because this Dr. Otto Gauer is now in the United States active in the same capacity as a researcher as before in Germany. For that reason Dr. Gauer has a very particular expert knowledge of the matters involved here. In the first part of his affidavit the witness describes the defendant Ruff's personality and I shall not read all that in detail. This is as brilliant a characterization of Dr. Ruff's character as was made by all the ether witnesses.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, might I ask counsel that this notation on the back by Dr. Marx has to do with the authenticity of the signature of the affiant, if it was made at the same time, or later here in Nuernberg. There is no jurat on this document; it merely contains the name.of Dr. Marx, who says:

The authenticity of the signature appears to be correct.

Does that happen to be a jurat, or what might it be?

DR. SAUTER: May I clarify that point, Mr. President? Counsel Dr. Marx, as you know, is representing a defendant here. Dr. Marx at that time, with my approval, went to Heidelberg and there took this affidavit from Dr. Gauer, which I had arranged for with Dr. Gauer previously. Dr. Marx, if I am not mistaken, had simultaneously obtained an affidavit for the purpose of his own client, which I do not know. Naturally, I did not make this special trip to Heidelberg, but asked Dr. Marx to obtain this affidavit for me.

MR. HARDY: Granted, Your Honor, the defense counsel has authority of the Tribunal to administer an oath and to certify a signature, but I merely want to know if Dr. Marx certified that the signature was correct and saw Dr. Gauer sign it.

DR. SAUTER: Dr. Marx went to Heidelberg for that very purpose. He went there in order to obtain an affidavit for his client and for me from Dr. Gauer. That is the reason why neither I nor any other notary could make this certification, but Dr. Marx who was present when the signature was given.

MR. HARDY: I have no objection to this document. I only wanted to know if it was executed in Heidelberg.

THE PRESIDENT: The jurat signed by Dr. Marx contains no date, no place, nor does it contain a certificate that the witness was sworn. It simply says:

The authenticity of the above signature is hereby certified.

As counsel says, no place, no date or any affidavit delivered.

DR. SAUTER: This deficiency of form, which obviously is due to a mistake by Dr. Marx, I shall rectify in the future and I shall see to it that the date and place of this certificate are added by Dr. Marx.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel may proceed with the document now.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, inasmuch as Dr. Sauter is willing to testify that Dr. Marx signed this affidavit in Heidelberg and it is merely a mistake in form, I will not protest it and it won't be necessary for him to do that work.

THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for the defendant may proceed.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.

This witness, endowed with special qualifications, Dr. Gauer states in this affidavit, which he made immediately before his departure for the United States, a number of matters referring to the personality of Dr. Ruff. I shall skip the first part since it entirely conforms with statements made in the other affidavits, referring to Dr. Ruff's character. I shall quote from page 3, the center of the Page. This is to be found on page 37 of the German document book volume:

In many dozens of experiments I had the opportunity to learn with what extreme caution and sense of responsibility Ruff carried out the experiments. His supreme principle was never in any way to endanger the experimental subject. I never experienced an experiment in which Ruff carried on the strain longer than was necessary for the solution of a certain problem. In Ruff's published work (Aviation Medicine 3, 225, (1939)), Monograph of German Aviation Medicine (in print), there are frequent references to the fact that he refrained from adding to the strain after a certain problem had been solved. Experiments with very great strain and experiments of which the consequences could not be immediately foreseen Ruff carried out on himself first, on principle. It is also characteristic that Ruff, after a rebuilding of the experimental installation on the large human centrifuge always insisted on serving as an experimental subject himself for the first test. This attitude created unlimited confidence in Ruff among his employees and among most of his closest collaborators, who always placed themselves at his disposal for psychically and physical extraordinarily exacting experiments. It is due to Ruff's experience and caution that out of all of his numerous experimental flights and dangerous experiments, as far as I know, not one serious accident occurred. To sum up, it can therefore be stated that Ruff is a highly qualified scientist, who is distinguished by a particular sense of responsibility.

With regard to the experiments carried out in Dachau, which are the basis of the indictment against Ruff, I think it highly improbable, for purely objective as well and as for personal reasons, that any initiative came from Ruff in this respect, but I presume that it came from the technical side (Technical Office, REM). As far as I know, high altitude experiments were too far on the margin of his real field of interests. His whole attention, as has already been stated, was centered on the problems of high speed flying and catapult installations, the building of which he had to accomplish in the face of ever increasing difficulties, I presume that Ruff was called to these Dachau experiments because he was the medical scientist who was best acquainted with the development of the stratosphere and rocket aircraft.

As the whole problem of rescue from stratosphere aircraft was a very special science, a short explanation is given, as far as seems necessary to judge the experiments on which the indictment is based.

The problem of rescue from stratosphere aircraft.

Importance was attached in Germany much earlier than in other countries to the development of rocket propelled aircraft, which can fly at heights of between 10 and 20 km. Therefore the rescue of aircrews during accidents at such a great height became an urgent aviation medicine problem. These problems, which first became urgent with the development of the Me 163 rocket fighter, retain a great practical importance also for the future, insofar as the development of long distance aircraft for passenger and goods transport will probably culminate in the construction of large stratosphere planes in the not too distant future.

In stratosphere planes the crew is in an airtight cabin, the so-called pressure body in which the atmospheric conditions necessary for like, such as normal atmospheric pressure, normal temperature and oxygen concentration, are artificially maintained. Outside the cabin the atmospheric pressure is so low, that is, the air so thin, that no human being could live. If the wall of the cabin is damaged, the artificially maintained pressure bursts away, and the crew finds itself with lightening speed in a vacuum corresponding to the altitude of the flight. AngloSaxon aviation medicine created for this process the very pertinent expression "Explosive Decompression". In this way the crew is exposed to double danger.

Firstly, owing to the sudden decrease in pressure the gas-filled cavities of the body expand with lightening speed. Theoretically, there is a danger that the tissues may tear and other mechanically conditioned disturbances may occur; also the emergence of gas bubbles from the body fluids is to be feared, which may cause circulation disorders, paralysis symptoms and necrosis.

Secondly, the acute lack of oxygen caused by the cabin being no longer air tight, effects after the so called reserve interval, high altitude sickness, which finally, if the lack of oxygen continues for too long leads to death by paralysis of the respiratory and circulation centers. Rescue from the stratosphere is only possible by immediate descent into lower, non-dangerous air layers. The question arises here whether the speed of the pilot's descent with an open parachute or the speed of the body falling unimpeded with a closed parachute is sufficient to enable the crew to pass sufficiently rapidly through the danger sphere and to reach the non-dangerous air layers.

The aviation physician whose task it is to clarify the problem of rescue from great heights, has therefore two questions to answer;

Firstly, are human beings able to endure explosive decompression?

Secondly, if so, is there a possibility of surviving the lack of oxygen after leaving the 'plane'?

The first question has been tackled since 1939 in different institutes by self-experiments.

Now there follow a number of tables which I merely ask you to read and I continue reading the affidavit after these tables and I quote again:

The results were favorable. In particular, the most modern investigation by H.M. Sweeney showed that the resistance of the human body is unexpectedly high against the action of explosive decompression.

In contract to the numerous investigations on explosive decompression, the only report about which I know on the subject of rescue from altitudes above 12,000 is the DVL report by Romberg and Rascher which forms the basis of the indictment. The enormous experimental expenditure which was made to clarify the effect of decompression on the human body, and which involved a considerable risk for the experimental subject, only has a real practical sense if the second question finds a real practical solution. If we do not wish to stop half way, corresponding experiments are categorically aided by the above named result.

I shall skip the next paragraph. The witness said, as it was stated before, that animal experimentation is insufficient, and on page 7 you have the results of the experiments he made, and I quote:

The experiments were made in connection with self-experiments on the possibility of rescue from maximum altitudes of 12,000 m, carried out by Romberg. The first experiment in the series of experiments yielded an extraordinarily important result. During the jump with an open parachute, the so-called descent experiment, from 12,000 meters consciousness is lost after 1 minute 10 seconds. After descending for a further 3 minutes, the experimental subject awakens and is fully capable of action at an altitude of 8.3 km.

This is surprising insofar as progressively severe nigh altitude sickness develops if the experimental subject is exposed to this altitude for 4-1/2 minutes. The process of the so-called "pre-mobilization" which was observed by previous authors by indication with descent experiments from altitudes lower than 12 km., apparently plays an important and beneficial role at higher altitudes. Its mechanism has not yet been explained. On the basis of this extraordinarily favorable result, the strain was increased step by step in the following experiments. This procedure is usual in experimental medicine. The experiments were finally stopped "because in practice there is no necessity whatsoever to save oneself from even greater altitudes with an open parachute." No death occurred.

The extraordinarily long periods of unconsciousness are in themselves no proof of a particularly reckless method of experimenting. An experienced altitude research worker is able to judge the actual condition of the experimental subject from the state of breathing and the activity of the heart, and in case of a life-endangering disturbance to stop the experiment by increasing the pressure and administering oxygen. The observer knows that Romberg and Ruff often lost consciousness during their own experiments dispersed the pessimism of numerous research workers who thought that descent from such high altitudes was impossible.

Thus the development of more or less complicated auxiliary installations for the rescue of crews from altitudes up to 20 km, was unnecessary. This result was of extreme value for technics and for the tactics of air fighting.

About subjective troubles daring low pressure chamber experiments, the witness says the following:

Since there are many wrong ideas current about the subjective troubles during high altitude experiments, the problem is to be discussed in detail in the following way:" Decrease in air pressure decreases oxygen content of air—

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this whole subject has been fully explained by the witness himself on the stand, and I wonder if Dr. Sauter deems it absolutely necessary to read this into the records, and it seems to me ground has been pretty well covered by the defendant himself, he can ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this without reading it verbatim into the record.

DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, that these statements are perhaps of even more importance for the judgment of this case than a number of statements we have heard yesterday and the day before. This is a witness who is a leading researcher in this field, and who, for that reason, was asked to go to the United States. It is my opinion that the conception of such a witness is this field is particularly helpful to the Tribunal when it wants to master these technical difficulties.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may continue to read the document or such portions thereof as he deems important.

DR. SAUTER: In this connection the witness says. I repeat, this to be found on page 42, page 8 of this affidavit, because the prosecution contends these experiments cause special pain:

If the air pressure is decreased, the concentration of oxygen in the air which is inhaled, correspondingly decreases. The oxygen absorption by the lungs is finally so alight, that the combustion process in the cells can no longer properly take place and the vital functions must cease. At first, the complicated work of the central nervous system is discontinued. First of all spontaneous, and self-control abate, changes of feeling similar to those occurring under alcoholic intoxication take place.

Then follow muscular weakness, sleep and unconsciousness. In the final stage of the high altitude sickness the respiratory and circulatory centers are paralyzed as by an over-dose of narcosis. In the initial stage of unconsciousness frequent cramps of various kinds can be observed. Involuntary contractions of the facial muscles, leading to grimaces, weeping, laughing, etc. may also occur. These phenomena which may make a ghastly impression on people who know nothing about aviation medicine, take their course subjectively without any kind of trouble. The danger of high altitude sickness is especially based on the fact that it causes only few impressive symptoms, above all neither pain nor heavy breathing. It was for just this harmlessness of the symptoms that the doctors of all nations had to make the greatest efforts to convince the air crews by appropriate instruction of the danger and malignity of the high altitude disease.

Occasionally, especially during longer spells in high altitudes, pains in the joints and wind troubles may occur.

But they probably did not play an essential role in the experiment put forward, since from the considerable lack of oxygen which was induced, unconsciousness resulted after an average of 30 seconds.

To sum up:

Firstly, the question of rescue from extremely high altitudes constitutes a problem of the utmost importance for aviation medicine. The experiments yielded unexpected results which were of importance for technical development.

Secondly, experiments with animals yield no quantitatively binding values.

Thirdly, the experiments were carried out on a scientific basis. The experiments were discontinued after a certain practical aim had been attained. No casualties ensued.

Fourthly, the subjective troubles during experiments with low pressure chamber in high altitudes without oxygen are slight.

The witness in the last paragraph goes on to explain Ruff's self experiments and the self experiments of his collaborators; and he points out that Dr. Ruff always subjected himself first to very dangerous experiments and then the voluntary collaborator of his institute. This affidavit is certified in the proper manner.

I offer as the next document an affidavit by a dentist, Dr. Freitag, as Ruff Exhibit Number 15. This is to be found in Document Book Ruff, Document Number 15, page 57. This is an affidavit of Dr. Walter Freitag, dated the 2nd of January, 1947, which was certified in the proper manner on the 30th of January 1947.

Dr. Freitag, from June 1939, with some small interruptions, up to the year of 1945, was a collaborator of Dr. Ruff in the latter's institute. He participated personally in a number of experiments and he knows the work of the institute very well. In the affidavit, which I will not read in detail, he describes his impression of Dr. Ruff's personality, his demeanor during the experiments, and similar matters. I will ask you to take notice of that affidavit; and I shall dispense with reading it since by and large it conforms completely with observations which other witnesses have made of Dr. Ruff's personality and his behavior.

As a further document I offer to you under Exhibit Ruff Number 16, in Document Book Ruff, page 63, Document Number 16, an affidavit by a woman, Franca von Guaita. She is a German national. I beg your pardon, Your Honor, this is not on page 63 but, rather, on page 52.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of this document?

DR. SAUTER: Document Number 13; and I gave it the exhibit number 16. I repeat, on page 52 of the Document Book, Document Number 13, Exhibit Ruff Number 16, and affidavit by a woman called Franca von Guaita. This affidavit is signed in the proper manner on the 27th of January 1947. This Mrs. Guaita gets into this matter because she was the head of the Film Department in the DVL, of which Dr. Ruff's institute was a part.

In this capacity she dealt with Dr. Ruff's experiments and often was present during the execution of such experiments. I shall confine myself to reading from the 3rd paragraph on page 1 where it says, and I quote:

During all the experiments which I filmed, I ascertained that Dr. Ruff and his collaborators exposed themselves first to known as well as unknown dangers. His medical colleagues, as well as colleagues from other research institutes of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, volunteered as subjects for these experiments, especially during the war; and thus a great many persons took part in dives, among them, I myself, several times, to operate the film camera. Dr. Ruff himself as pilot took part in all dives which affected health, whereas we took part only once a day.

Then the last paragraph of this affidavit reads:

Thus I know Dr. Ruff only as a man who fought to save other people's lives; and I consider it entirely out of the question that he ever laid violent hands on anybody.

I ask you to take notice of the rest of the contents of this affidavit.

As Exhibit Ruff Number 17, I offer Document Number 12 in Document Book Ruff — I repeat, Document Number 12 in Document Book Ruff, on page 49 of the German text. This is an affidavit of Dr. Friedrich Kipp, which I am not going to read. I shall merely ask you to take notice of the contents. This Dr. Kipp for four years, from the year 1942 until the end of 1945, was a scientific collaborator of Dr. Ruff. He also confirmed the point that Dr. Ruff basically was performing all the experiments himself as self experiments and then used his collaborators as volunteer subjects. He says that Ruff was very hard on himself but just as considerate and careful towards his collaborators. He says he was a researcher who was very considerate and conscious of his responsibility.

I should also like to ask you to take notice of the next document, Number 16 in Document Book Ruff, on page 63 of the German text.

I am giving this Exhibit Number Ruff Number 18. This is the affidavit by Master Mechanic Karl Fohlmeister, the very same master mechanic from whom this work diary originated which I yesterday submitted to the defendant Ruff. I ask you to take notice of this affidavit, which is certified in the proper way.

The witness Fohlmeister from February 1937 until April 1945, that is, over a period of eight years, was a co-worker with the physician Dr. Ruff. As a master mechanic he had a special position of confidence. He described the detailed experiments as they were carried out. He goes on to elucidate the part which Ruff played during these experiments; and I shall confine myself to a paragraph at the end of the first page where it says:

The principle tasks of the institute were primarily the examination of the afflictions of the human body caused by any action resulting from aerial activity. Of the approximately ten male collaborators of the section, those who were mast tirelessly experimented upon were Dr. Ruff, myself, and Dr. Wieshofer, who crashed during a test flight. In this respect, however, the first place goes without any doubt to Dr. Ruff, who always was the first to try out on himself without any personal considerations all the newest experiments. Moreover, his evaluations were always of the highest quality; for instance, those in connection with the effects of centrifugal force. When dives and curves were carried out in the Junker 87, he, as a regular pilot, was the one who was always exposed, while we as experimental subjects, took our turns respectively. In good flying weather, for instance, there was almost continuous activity in the air during which twelve diving and flattening out operations were generally carried out by each individual flight. As already mentioned, however, Ruff always occupied the pilot's seat and flew with each one of us. Operations of this nature have been sufficiently recorded both in pictures and documents. On many occasions I completely lost consciousness during these curvilinear flights. Ruff often suffered from ocular disturbances and severe headaches in the evening.

The witness goes on to describe the difficult experiments in which Ruff was always the first to participate. In particular, he describes the participation of Ruff in the high altitude experiments with low pressure chamber, of cold going down to minus 15 degrees. Then he concludes his affidavit on his last page with the words:

For ten years all of us in the Institute for Aviation Medicine volunteered for all experiments, and primarily our chief as already mentioned; and we all did it only in the interests of health and to protect the lives of others, without receiving any compensation or other reward. We all considered this as understood. Once General Udet gave my chief and me an extra week of furlough. That was all. Therefore, with regard to my previous chief Dr. Ruff, I can only say the best with a clear conscience. And nothing is more applicable to him than the inscription on a cup which he once got for glider flying instruction which reads:

The deed is silent.

This was Karl Fohlmeister's testimony, sworn to in the proper manner.

The next document is the Document Number 17, to be found in Document Book Ruff on page 67 of the German text. This will receive Exhibit Number 19. This is an excerpt from a journal — I think it is either English or an American journal. I have the original available here.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the next document which Dr. Sauter is offering in evidence is an article in a journal, "The Lancet", dated December 7, 1946; the article written by Kenneth Mellanby, a man who sat here in the first row, an observer of this trial for several weeks. It is merely his opinion. This is a moral issue of this trial, perhaps an opinion of judgment in his behalf, one which was not drawn at the time of the experiments but one drawn now; and I deem it inadmissible in evidence and object to its admission.

THE PRESIDENT: While, Counsel, some matters contained in this proposed exhibit might be proper matters of argument if counsel for the defense is desirous of so using them; I do not see that this is properly admissible as an exhibit.

It contains no evidentiary matter.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in this trial one can be of a different opinion regarding many issues. You know very well that I hardly submitted any excerpts from literature. In this case, however, I made an exception. That, because this article in a journal originates from a man who himself belongs to the Tropical Hygiene Institute in London; I am sure that he is an expert of highest rank. I am sure that he is an expert who has maintained a certain amount of objectivity in such subjects that form the subject of this trial. However, I shall abide by your suggestion and I shall revert to this matter in my final plea when I shall show you what the conception of unobjectionable physicians on the Anglo-Saxon side on these experiments. I shall corroborate that in my final plea.

The next document, Your Honor, which I am going to submit to you can be found in Supplement No. 1 to Document Book Ruff. It bears Document No. 18 of this supplemental volume and will get exhibit No. 19. This is an affidavit by diploma engineer Heinz Ernst Lesser, who for eight years was a co-worker at the institute of Dr. Ruff. This affidavit was sworn to and certified in the proper way. I ask you to take notice of its entire context and I shall only read page 2 of this affidavit, the center of the page, and it reads:

I thought it particularly praiseworthy that Drs. Ruff and Romberg carried out all experiments on themselves before they repeated them on other persons who volunteered. The work carried out by Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg, as well as those of the other physicians of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, have contributed towards the solution of many problems of aviation medicine, the greater part of which until 1936 had not been solved and thereby many flying accidents, particularly those due to high altitude unconsciousness, were explained.

All experiments carried out at the order of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation were made with persons who had volunteered.

The witness goes on to describe in detail that the method developed by Rascher and Romberg was, as he said, an immense contribution for the decrease of death resulting from high altitudes.

According to his experience also, he said, the experiments involved no danger whatsoever, and he goes on to say that he was ready at any time to subject himself to any such experiments under the leadership of Dr. Ruff. He goes on to describe the extraordinary care which Drs. Rascher and Romberg showed towards all experimental subjects.

As a further document I am going to submit an affidavit of General of the SS Karl Wolff. This is to be found in Supplement III, taken in London on 21 November 1946 and sworn to and certified in the proper way in Nuernberg on 27 March 1947.

The record of this affidavit was submitted to you as a document mainly because the witness, without himself having participated in the Dachau experiments in any way, can testify completely objectively about the quality of the experimental subjects. I am not going to read the affidavit in detail. He first explains the research spleen of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler and then he goes on to say that the initiator of these experiments at Dachau was Dr. Rascher — the mental originator of these experiments. And then he speaks about the quality of the experimental subjects. That is on page 3 of the original, first paragraph.

I quote:

In order to clarify and to stop such accidents in the future a number of junior members of the Luftwaffe had volunteered with their own person for experiments. Now, he said, sometime ago Dr. Rascher had had the idea to use volunteering inmates of concentration camps instead of the valuable members of the Luftwaffe which could be assigned to better tasks. Of course, favors would have to be granted to these inmates as a compensation, after about a dozen experiments, for instance, release from custody and front assignment. He, Himmler, he said, had gladly accepted this suggestion of Dr. Rascher and had granted permission to carry it out. He continued that he was very much interested in these experiments and therefore that he thought it very important that I witness the experiment we were going to see, in order to be able to talk about it to the Fuehrer at a suitable occasion.

And that is what I did. The Fuehrer was very glad about it. As far as I remember, the short report I gave him also resulted later on in the release and front assignment of these inmates.

Therefore, Himmler was altogether responsible for making possible the execution of the experiments in the concentration camps, while Dr. Rascher was the executive head.

I think that I can skip the next paragraph; then the witness says:

Right after the arrival of Himmler in the concentration camp Dachau Dr. Rascher started with his experiments. About ten prisoners were standing in front of their barrack. They looked quite detached and one after the other they climbed willingly into the low pressure chamber which was built into an automobile. Each experiment took only a few minutes, in accordance with the height that was imitated and with the normal falling speed of the human body.

After they had left the low pressure chamber, it took the prisoners only about two minutes until, lying on a blanket on the floor of the barracks, they had recovered from the short endurance test. After that, in the knowledge of what they had just achieved, they became actually confiding. None of them were political prisoners; they were all rightly and lawfully declared to be unworthy for military service because of a strong criminal record (thieves and such).

They emphatically assured Himmler in my presence that in this manner, after a request to get a chance to prove their value at the front had been rejected, they at least made a voluntary, modest contribution for Germany with their own person, and that thereby they wanted to prove their good will which really existed. Thereupon Himmler promised them to use his influence with the Fuehrer to obtain their release and the front assignment they wanted. It results, for instance, from the letter of Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt of 20.7.42 that Himmler, in fulfillment of his promise, decided on 14.7.42 really, that the prisoner Sobota and two other co-prisoners were to be released from the concentration camp and transferred to the trial unit (Bewaehrungstruppe) 'Dirlewanger'. Had these guinea pigs been involuntary, then Himmler, in view of the inhuman treatments which in that case would really have taken place, could never have afforded to take the risk of these people going over to the enemy during a combat assignment of this 'Dirlewanger' unit.

As far as I recollect, I have gained no knowledge from Himmler or from any other sources of the fact that later on low pressure experiments, for instance, were carried out on inmates on a non-voluntary basis.

The further statements of the witness show the same trend and I do not intend to go into them in detail.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what number of exhibit do you assign to this document?

DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon.

THE PRESIDENT: What Exhibit number did you assign this document?

DR. SAUTER: The testimony of Wolf has Exhibit #20.

I then have a number of documents which have not yet returned from the Translating Branch and I shall submit them at a later date. Among those is the extract of the penal record about our witness Vieweg. If you remember, this is the witness who didn't know whether, excepting one sentence, he had previously suffered any other sentences. In the meantime, I have received his criminal record and I found confirmed what I had assumed from the start; namely that the witness already before had suffered seven sentences, including one of five years' penitentiary. This is one of these people who are now going around the country claiming to be political prisoners, and who offered himself here in this trial as witnesses. I shall submit this criminal record to the Tribunal.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, as I understand it now, Dr. Sauter has one more book that book is Book #4. That is the one we haven't received.

THE PRESIDENT: That is my understanding.

MR. HARDY: and then now, in Document Book #2, he has an affidavit under "Ruff Publications", or is it supplement #1? Does he intend to introduce that? I haven't given it an exhibit number yet.

DR. SAUTER: I have already done that during the course of the examination of the defendant Ruff. I think this is Exhibit #8 if I'm not mistaken. Yes, I think it is #8.

MR. HARDY: No. 8 is another one. That is the affidavit of Schroeder. This one here has not been introduced yet.

JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel for the prosecution is referring to —

MR. HARDY: (Interrupting) Document 19.

JUDGE SEBRING: Document #5, I think, counsel.

MR. HARDY: I have missed it then. Thank you Your Honor.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this brings me to the end of the submission of my documents, and I further make the application which I have already made in the past that we carry out here a practical experiment, using a low pressure chamber, in order to convince ourselves here how such an experiment, using a low pressure chamber, in order to convince ourselves here how such an experiment is being carried through and what its effects are. In Heidlberg, not too far from here, there is such a low pressure chamber. The defendant Dr. Ruff and other defendants have already worked in this low pressure chamber. This mobile low pressure chamber, located in Heidelberg, can be brought to Nurnberg without any difficulty. Some such experiment can be carried out in a courtyard of the Palace of Justice and it will considerably make the Tribunal's tasks easier if it can convince itself about such an experiment. Ye have a number of experts who can be in charge of that experiment. There is an American medical center at Heidelberg where a number of experts are located. The defendants Ruff and Romberg, are available for this experiment and are ready to subject themselves to it. I have received a number of telegraphic offers from a dozen former collaborators of Dr. Ruff that they would be glad to make themselves available here as experimental subjects. Among them is this witness Mrs. Guaita who, earlier in her capacity as film director, had participated in these experiments.

I should like to consider this my application for having such an experiment performed here and then, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, you will convince yourselves that, in case these experiments are planned and executed in a scientific manner, they are harmless and non-dangerous and not painful to an extent that any one of us persons here in the court room could subject ourselves to any such experiments.

JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, is the experiment you propose the one you say that Dr. Ruff performed? That one or one of Dr. Rascher performed? Which one you propose to show here?

DR. SAUTER: Dr. Ruff's experiments, the experiments that Dr. Ruff has performed. The experiments of Rascher do not concern us,

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it is my understanding that the Tribunal has ruled on this once.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has ruled on this point, denying the application made for the defendant Ruff, and the Tribunal is of the same view. The application is denied.

The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 1 May 1947.)