1947-05-01, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.

HANS ROMBERG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. VORWERK:

Q: Dr. Romberg, before we go on where we stopped, I should like to ask you to speak about the necessity of these experiments and to explain what the significance of this machine was that could fly at an altitude of 16 kilometers.

A: I said that motors for air planes were being built at this time which could reach an altitude of 16 kilometers. That is, their maximum achievement was 16 kilometers. The actual ceiling would be two or three kilometers higher than that.

Q: Do you mean to say that this machine would, in practice, be able to reach an altitude of 18 or 19 kilometers.

A: Yes, that would be the highest altitude which it could reach at all. At 16 kilometers it could fly with its entire motor power.

Q: What do you mean by full pressure altitude?

A: That is a very technical expression connected with the compressors. At that altitude, the motors work just as a motor not built especially for high altitude works on the ground, artificial pressure is created which corresponds to sea level pressure. Above this altitude the efficiency of the machine sinks rapidly.

Q: I believe that this explains that point sufficiently.

Now, we'll go back to the point of Rascher's position in the experiment. You were just beginning to speak of this question before the recess.

A: I said that, without Rascher, it would never have been intended to carry out the experiments and it never would have been possible. That arose from Himmler's original assignment. Practical proof of this is the fact that the experiments were stopped immediately when there were difficulties with Rascher's assignment. This is proved by the letter from Mrs. Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer SS, the 24th of February 1942, Document NO-263, Exhibit 47.

In this letter, Mrs. Rascher writes that there were difficulties of command and that the experiments were stopped; that Rascher has gone back to Schongau. That was the time when I went back to Berlin and later, when the experiments were actually carried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform experiments in Dachau without his permission or his presence, so that I never did perform any experiments without Rascher. I always waited until he was there. On the days when he was in Schnogau, no experiments were performed. Generally, I did not even go to the experimental station — perhaps to write — but certainly never to carry out experiments. This rule, although, of course, it often delayed the work, seemed justified to me because Rascher had the permission from Himmler to perform these experiments and was responsible to him for the experimental subjects. Also, I myself was under the authority of the camp at Dachau which seriously restricted my independence. For example, my freedom of movement or talking to prisoners, similar things. Rascher himself, on the other hand, on the basis of his powers which he had received from Himmler and on the basis of a special pass, had a very free position. The camp of Dachau was under Himmler's authority. That is shown, for example, by the letter from Himmler to Milch, Document 1617-PS of November, 1942, Exhibit 77. In this letter, Himmler spoke of Holzloehner's conduct and adds that the camp Dachau is under his orders, and Holzloehner would have to submit. Under these conditions, Rascher had taken the low pressure chamber from Munich and set it up.

Q: Who took care of the maintenance during the experiments, that is who worked on the chamber, maintained it?

A: There was not a great deal of maintenance work necessary for example loading the batteries or supplying the oxygen, that was taken care of by Rascher and it was probably paid for by the camp

Q: Was Rascher responsible to you for that?

A: No, Rascher was not responsible to me at all. He was responsible to the medical inspectorate because the chamber belonged to them.

Q: Did you have an opportunity to give Rascher any orders or prohibition or instructions?

A: No, that can no doubt be seen from what I have already said. I could not give him any orders. I certainly could not forbid him to do anything only for the progress of these experiments for rescue from high altitude I had a certain advisory right as is customary for two scientists who are working together on the same task, and when one of the two has greater knowledge pertinent to the specific task.

Q: You said the experiments began on February 22 or February 23, was that the time when you saw the experimental subjects for the first time?

A: Yes. On that day I went out to Dachau for the first time together with Rascher, and met the experimental subjects for the first time.

Q: About how many were there?

A: There were 10 or 12.

Q: Could it have been five?

A: Five? No, there were certainly more than that.

Q: Could it have been 15?

A: Yes that is possible.

Q: Did you talk to the experimental subjects on that day before the experiments began?

A: I believe on that day we talked, primarily. Whether any experiments were done at all on that first day, whether any real experiments were done before the thing was stopped for the first time I don't remember. At any rate I talked to the experimental subjects and got to know them a little on the first day.

Q: What did you talk about with the experimental subjects?

A: It was quite new surroundings for me, of course. The were all professional criminals who were in custody.

Q: How do you know that?

A: They told me that gradually in the course of conversation. They didn't have complete confidence on the first day and told me all about their previous convictions. But after one inquired carefully one discovered sometime that they had been condemned for certain crimes, repeatedly convicted, and finally had been condemned to Sicherheitsverwhrung (protective custody).

Q: For what reason did you talk to the experimental subjects on this day?

A: It is quite natural when one begins to work with such a group then certain personal contact is necessary. We had to get to know each other. I talked to them their profession, if I may say so, and of course I was told then something about the experiments, what it was all about, what they themselves had to do to cooperate. So the cooperation would be possible as with [illegible] the experimental subjects that I was used to.

Q: Was the reason for this investigation to prepare the subjects of their activity or to check whether these people were actually volunteers?

A: No, it was more to get to know the subjects personally. The situation was this, in the talk with the camp commandant on the basis of the agreement with Rascher, and his authorization from Himmler, a very definite agreement had been reached that these people were to be selected from the volunteers; a clear agreement had been reached on the conditions, about which there could be no doubts basically. When I met the subjects for the first time personally and talked to them about the principle of the experiments and their duties, and so forth, of course I also inquired why they had volunteered, not because of any distrust of the camp authorities, but just for that reason.

I didn't only believe that, but they were. They told me so themselves.

Q: How do you know that so definitely for each case?

A: In the course of time, not on the first day but in the course of time I talked to all of them frequently in some detail, and gradually they told me about their previous convictions, and what other prisons and penitentiaries they had been in, before they came to the camp and they also told me the reasons why they had volunteered.

Q: Do you mean to say that all the experimental subjects who were used for the high altitude experiments were volunteers?

A: Yes.

Q: Now before these subjects entered the chamber did prepare them for what they had to do, and told them the significance of the whole thing?

A: Yes, of course. First I explained the whole question to them in broad outline, so that they would know what it was about and what the purpose of the experiment was. In detail I told them specifically what they had to do in the experiments. There was the writing test, they had to write numbers from 1,000 backwards, then the cardinal point was that after the altitude sickness during the experiments as soon as they came to they had to pull the ripcord. We had a handle in the chamber connected to a bell. This was to represent pulling the rip cord of the parachute, and this had to be explained to them carefully, otherwise they wouldn't have understood it and wouldn't have reacted right.

Q: Now, before the experiments began, did you have an electrocardiogram of each separate subject?

A: Yes and later again.

Q: Please explain that.

A: First Rascher had examined the people to see if they were suitably fitted for the experiments, so there would be no heart defects or anything like that. Then for an exact control, before the beginning of the experiments we took an electro-cardiogram of all the subjects and in almost all the experiments the electro-cardiograms were registered and at the end, when the experiments were finished, we took another electrocardiogram of all the subjects in order to have material for, perhaps if there were no visible damage, their might still be some effects which could be determined only by such tests.

Q: Now, how long did these experiments of rescue from high altitude last approximately?

A: Well, they really began on about the 10th or 11th of March and they lasted until the 19th or 20th of May.

Q: Following that, you prepared the report which has been submitted by the prosecution?

A: Yes.

Q: In this report you have a sentence saying that during the experiments for rescue from high altitude there had been no deaths and that there had been no damage to health, is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct that that sentence is in the report, and it is also true that there was no death or other damage.

Q: But here in the testimony of the witness Neff you heard that there were deaths?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you have to say about that?

A: In addition to our joint experiments for rescue from high altitude, Rascher had experiments of his own which he carried out. He did not tell me the exact problem; he merely said that he was carrying out these experiments for Himmler and that they were to do with the explosive decompression sickness and electro-cardiogram.

He had apparently carried out secret experiments for some time on this problem, but then in my presence he continued it with special subjects. In the course of these experiments at the end of April the first death occurred when I was present. He told me in the course of our conversations that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer on the basis of these experiments which were ordered by Himmler. He wanted to get Dr. Fahrenkamp into it but this was not done. Dr. Fahrenkamp did not work on this matter because the experiments were broken off.

Before the death, I had no reason to object to the experiments in any way since Rascher was using other subjects and had an assignment from Himmler for them separately. I had the assignment to carry out the experiments for rescue from high altitude and I, together with Rascher, carried it out.

Q: How many deaths were there when you were present?

A: There were three.

Q: But Neff spoke of five deaths at which you were present.

A: There could only have been three.

Q: Why could there only have been three?

A: Because I remember. There were deaths after all and they made a definite impression on me, I know it.

Q: Why did death in the low pressure chamber make such an impression on you?

A: In the innumerable low pressure chamber experiments not only made by us, but everywhere in Germany in other institutes, we never had any deaths at all and the point of view at that time was that any question of aviation medicine, which was necessary, could be solved without deaths.

Q: Now, how did it happen that you were present at these deaths, as you say these experiments did not belong to your series of experiments?

A: At the beginning of April or the middle of April Rascher told me for the first time that he was performing experiments with slow ascension and he had attempted to work with Kottenhoff but the work had been interrupted when the latter was sent away. I said that had nothing to do with our experiments and was quite unimportant and uninteresting from our point of view. He admitted that he said it was a specific question which especially interested him personally and which he had to work on. These experiments, which according to records here lasted eight to ten hours, I did not see. He probably always performed them on the days I was not there because these eight to ten hours would have interfered considerably with our experiments. He expanded these experiments and performed time reserve experiments at certain altitudes to test the adaptation which he had been testing before in the slow ascension experiments. This was an experiment where the subject remains at the same altitude in contrast to the falling or sinking experiments where the pressure is constantly increased, that is, when the altitude is decreased. As his intermediate reports show, he extended these to high altitude. The time reserve was studied either with or without oxygen. The suggestion for this in part came obviously from other work, such as Dr. Klisches.

I sometimes observed these experiments. He carried out these experiments correctly; he watched the subjects so that there was in itself no objection to these experiments. The only thing was that they interfered with our experiments from the point of view of time, but Rascher's unpunctuality was a much greater annoyance in this respect. According to the documents, as well as the witness Neff, Rascher apparently had deaths in these experiments. The first deaths were apparently unexpected. In these unexpected deaths the electro-cardiogram and the autopsy findings, together with his reports, apparently gave Himmler the idea that these experiments should be carried on further, to work with Fahrenkamp in addition, to extend them as far as possible scientifically. The fact that Himmler was covering them apparently induced him in my presence to carry out experiments which were dangerous, and in which deaths occurred.

The fact that I had been present several times at previous experiments brought about my presence at that fatal experiment, too.

Q: Was it not unusual to you that during an experimental series, which you and Rascher were to carry out together, Himmler suddenly gave Rascher orders for special experiments?

A: Yes, of course. I did not have any specific experience in this direction, but on principle it is nothing unusual if two people are working together on a certain job one or both of them receive additional assignment from his chief and carries out other work. In addition, Rascher was also carrying out work in Schongau at the same time, which was on behalf of Luftgau [Air Fleet] 7. I, myself, had work of my own in the DVL, which my associates were carrying on and which I inquired about when I happened to be in Berlin. That Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer SS and chief of the German Police and as Rascher's boss insofar as he was an SS member, had the right to give orders to his subordinates and to give them assignments and order them to carry out experiments on experimental subjects in a concentration camp no one could dispute.

Rascher's cancer work, which Neff mentioned here, in which he was gathering blood from cancer patients to test them, that was also going on at the same time. Later during the cold experiments that was something similar. If Himmler gave the order to re-warm by animal heat and Rascher conducted these experiments within the framework of the cold experiments, after Holzloehner had left, that was also possible in this case because no special equipment was needed for these cold experiments.

In our experiments the execution of the experiments depended upon the presence of the low pressure chamber, and for this reason he carried out these experiments simultaneously, and in general behind my back.

Q: Did Rascher otherwise in your experiments which you had carried out jointly with him show the tendency to give the experiments a wider scientific basis?

A: Yes, that was definitely his tendency to expand the matter as much as possible and to burden our joint experiments with specific questions which were of no practical importance. He wanted to carry out examinations of the spinal fluid, for instance, but I succeeded in stopping all of these efforts. I always urged that the experiments be carried out as quickly as possible in the way necessary for the Luftwaffe, that is in the way necessary for rescuing fliers. That explains the fact that on page 2 of our joint report there is something said that Ruff mentioned yesterday, that the detailed clarification of scientific questions had to be dispensed with for the time being, because I always insisted that these had nothing to do with the subject; but it would have been possible in Dachau, that is proved by the chemical and clinical tests during the cold experiments.

Q: Now, in your opinion, what is the distinction between your presence at the experiments for rescue from high altitude and your presence during Rascher's experiments where you happened to be present?

A: In the experiments of rescue from high altitude it was not just my presence. I performed the experiments myself. That is, I myself called the experimental subject, or sometimes Rascher called them. Of course, then I explained to the people what they had to do, what they had to write, what they had to pay especial attention to, and then when they registered the electrocardiogram that in order not to interfere with this they had to be still, couldn't move; and then when the experiment had started I directed the experiment myself, I watched the altitude of the mercury indicator, and the calculated speed of ascension and descension, which I checked with the stop watch.

Of course, at the same time I observed the subject. In other words, the persons in the experiments. In Rascher's experiments which were at a certain altitude, that is, there was ascension to a certain altitude, and then they stayed at that altitude I sometimes watched if I happened to be there, if I happened to be at the low pressure chamber, but otherwise he performed these experiments alone just as he did when I was not present. He even laid great stress on performing them alone. It is clear to me now that he did not want me to observe any special results, that is, apparently why he performed the other experiments in the evening or otherwise when I was away.

Q: After the first death was there an autopsy?

A: Yes, there was an autopsy.

Q: Did you participate in it?

A: No, I did not participate. I was present and I watched the autopsy.

Q: Why did you watch the autopsy if it was not your experiment?

A: Today, of course, that looks different than it did at the time. It was a matter of course for me then. Rascher was a colleague of mine. He had a fatal accident in his experiments. He asked me to watch the autopsy, and, of course, I went. And I also had quite a natural scientific interest in the cause of death, and in the findings, and I admit it frankly, although I am aware of the danger that someone will say I was interested in the death of the person too, but it happens in every hospital, all doctors watch the autopsies.

If, for example, in the surgical ward, a patient died after an operation, then the chief physician, or if he didn't have time, then the senior physician, and the other doctors who had nothing to do specifically with the patient, watched the autopsy, and generally even x-ray doctors came over who didn't know the patient at all; and besides if I had not been present, that would be considered today an incomprehensible lack of interest in the death, if I had not accepted Rascher's invitation. If such a death happened in a centrifugal experiment in our institute, if such an accident had happened which was not in my field of work, I certainly would have gone to watch the autopsy. One must learn from the findings, that is one's duty as a doctor. One has to look at such things so that one can draw one's conclusions and be able to avoid later accidents.

Q: Did you see any further autopsies of Rascher?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: After this death there was a basic change in my attitude toward Rascher in the plan to break off the experiments, so that in the case of later deaths I was not present because of this attitude; and I do not believe he invited me to the autopsy and under the conditions in Dachau I could not go there on my own initiative.

Q: Did you ask Rascher how this death came about, did you warn him before the death?

A: Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I had sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments, just from curiosity, just as in our institute if there were centrifugal experiments in our institute, I sometimes watched them too. There was no reason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out of curiosity; that was how it happened I was present by accident at the experiment, and I looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. One can see from the electrocardiograph on the screen a little point of light which moves, and that is determined by the heart activity. When it seemed to me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart activity was getting less, I said to Rascher: "You had better stop now."

Q: And what did Rascher do?

A: Nothing, he didn't react to it. He stayed at that altitude and later death suddenly occurred.

Q: When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you that the person would die in the next second?

A: No, of course not, first of all I had never even seen a death from high altitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn't know that and in the second place this death certainly resulted from an air embolism and, therefore, suddenly, and in the third place the electrocardiogram change was dangerous. I myself would have stopped the experiment at this stage but he didn't and I only said that because I would have stopped the experiment that moment.

Q: Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment?

A: It was not possible in view of Rascher's position that I should object, but I told him such things should not happen.

Q: And what else did you do?

A: After this death I went to Berlin and I told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed with me that the death should not be allowed to occur in high altitude experiments and never had occurred before, but since Rascher carried out these experiments for Himmler on a man who was condemned to death, we saw no way to prevent Rascher after we gave the report officially. What Rascher said in general when objections were made, I mean he simply referred to the orders from Himmler and the fact that he was covered by them. To remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler's and Rascher's will was quite impossible. To give this death as a reason for removing the chamber was still more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would have re-acted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might have started proceedings for treason or sabotage of an essential war experiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature in a concentration camp, and like every visitor to a concentration camp I had to sign a statement that everything I saw here and so forth in the camp would be kept secret. Besides, at the beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram from Himmler which ordered silence about these experiments. A specific obligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since I had reported that that matter to Ruff against the obligation to secrecy I also had to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could not give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau, aside from the fact it would not have had any success.

Therefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility was for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber removed, giving the excuse that is was needed at the front. On the other hand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be told that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so that we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau. Otherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered that the experiments should be continued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the clarification of the question of rescue from high altitude, and he would doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and have arranged to keep the chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at the front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the experiment and would not have released the chamber.

If I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried out the experiments for rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would doubtless also have continued his own experiments. That was the reason why I reluctantly went back to Dachau.

Q: Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin?

A: The purpose was this report to Ruff.

Q: Was that the only purpose?

A: Yes.

Q: How did you explain this trip to Rascher?

A: I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife's condition. My wife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going to Berlin.

Q: How long were you in Berlin?

A: Only one or two days then I went back to Dachau.

Q: Now, before you left did you make sure of whether Ruff had done anything in response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the chamber out of Dachau?

A: Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so that I really did not know what was going on and what would be accomplished.

Q: Did you notice anything special when you came back to Dachau? Did you notice anything special about the chamber?

A: Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already said; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer repaired.

Q: How long did you stay in Berlin this time?

A: As long as the repairing took — about two weeks.

Q: Then during this time there were no experiments?

A: No.

Q: Then did the experiments begin again?

A: The beginning of day or the middle of May I went back with the repaired apparatus; and then we concluded the experiments as quickly as possible.

Q: Did you abbreviate the program which you had laid out or did you change it in any way; or did you keep it the way it was?

A: No, we shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various altitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly was possible but in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results.

Q: When was the second death where you were present?

A: That was soon, a few days after my return to Dachau.

Q: Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a way similar to the first case?

A: In general, yes. I don't know exactly what happened. As far as I recall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death occurred quicker, more suddenly.

Q: And when was the third death and were you present?

A: That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day.

Q: After these deaths, did you never have any argument with Rascher about his experiments and the way in which he performed them?

A: Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which he always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to object again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn't to interfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his patience, and we got rather excited.

I asked him why he was carrying out these experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he was checking the problem of caisson diseases, bends, aero-embolism, that he had to clarify it because Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man during an autopsy under water to prove these air bubbles in the blood. Also the question of the electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified as Himmler had given him s special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was to do this work together with him. He wanted to qualify as a professor with Schittenhelm with this work.

Then he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to be continued) that Prof. Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that people condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course, be pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I could read Himmler's signature and whether I wouldn't be satisfied with that.

Q: Was this the letter from the Prosecution Document Book 11, PS-1971-B, Exhibit 51?

A: Yes, 1971-(b)-PS, as Exhibit 51.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, can you give me the page of the English Document Bock on which that exhibit appears?

DR. VORWERK: Page 64.

Q: And what does this letter indicate?

A: It showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments that he had complete, official coverage, that the subjects were to be pardoned. It says so in the letter, "Of course the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life."

Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page it says that this order from Himmler goes to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and to SS-Brigadefuehrer [Brigadier General] Gluecks, with a copy for their information.

Q: Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter?

A: Since I had been prevented from doing anything by this letter, then I calmly asked him what idea he had of these experiments; what he wanted to do; what he wanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that he would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various reasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of death at high altitude, with the change in severe altitude sickness, with later recovery, and also in the hospital in Munich he had taken electrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau he said he had also registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by shooting. If he had really compiled all this material and had evaluated this material together with heart specialists, it was, of course, quite valuable.

Q: Are you of the opinion that the experiments which Rascher performed were performed in order that the might qualify as a professor?

A: Whether that was the main purpose or not I cannot say. That certainly played a role in it but they certainly were ordered by Himmler.

Q: Now, are you of the opinion that these experiments were ordered by Himmler at his suggestion or that Rascher ordered them before he went to Himmler?

A: That is difficult to say. It probably developed gradually on the basis of his reports. The reports are written in such a way that he presents the results as very important. Thereupon Himmler ordered that the experiments be continued.

Q: But, it is no doubt a fact that Rascher at that time had a great deal of material in order to be able to qualify as a professor?

A: Yes, he doubtless had.

Q: Was Faherkamp called up next to corroborate in these experiments?

A: No. He kept saying that Fahrenkamp was to come, that he was going to work with him, and evaluate the electrocardiograms. But, as least during my time, he did not come to Dachau. In any case I never saw him. In the last few days a big electrocardiograph came, a big Siemens machine, such as we had in our institute. I knew it and I told Rascher that he wouldn't like it because this Siemens machine is very sensitive to all electrical disturbances. One can work only in areas free of any interferences.

You said Rascher snowed you the letter in which Himmler ordered the continuation of the experiments and the pardoning of the experimental subjects?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he also show you a teletype saying that pardoning would not effect Russians and Poles. This is in Document Book II of the Prosecution, page 69 in the German, document 1971-G-PS, Exhibit 53, page 66 in the English. Page 66 in the English Document Book.

A: No he did not show me that. He could not snow me that. It is dated 31 October 1943, a time when the high altitude experiments had long been concluded. It is introduced into the Document Book at this point because it refers to this letter of 13 April. In response to this teletype, the affidavit which was given to me for signature contained a sentence which was wrong — that the experiments had been performed primarily on Russian or Poles. But since I never saw a Russian or Pole at the experimental station I had to cross out this statement and the interrogator said that didn't make any difference, that there were documents to prove this fact. It seems to me that it is proven that no Russians or Poles were used in the high altitude experiments, but only in October 1943 during the could experiments after the Holzloehner period.

Q: Here when the witness Neff was examined you heard that he spoke of an autopsy in the low pressure chamber. Do you remember that?

A: Yes, I remember that.

Q: Now what about this autopsy in the low pressure chamber?

A: I cannot remember this at all. I cannot say whether or in what way it took place.

Q: When did you hear of it for the first time? When did you hear for the first time that this incident was supposed to have happened?

A: From Neff here. Neff said that I had altitude sickness and was unconscious in this experiment and I recovered somewhat when the altitude was reduced and made signs to Rascher that he was to stop the experiment and that I wanted to get out of the chamber. But, Rascher ordered me sent to higher altitude without paying any attention to my signs. And, I became sick again and unconscious again. He also said that I did not have any part in the autopsy in any way because of the severe altitude sickness which was no doubt combined with decompression disease. I was, no doubt, unconscious. In other experiments at Dachau I frequently had often altitude sickness. I cannot say anything about an individual experiment.

Q: Neff also reported here, as you recall, an incident with a tailor. Do you remember this incident?

A: Yes. I remember it. Neff told of two cases when I was supposed to have intervened. I can remember only one with this tailor which was about the middle of April. In any case, it was after Sievers's visit, which was in the first days of April. If it had been before this visit Rascher certainly would have told Sievers all about it as he told Professor Wuest later. It was about as follows: Neff met me in the hull, or in the office, and said to me — he said something wrong was going to happen in the chamber. Rascher had ordered a prisoner to be brought as an experimental subject. This man was not a volunteer and was not condemned to death and was being brought by an SS man, against his will. He knew it himself because knew the man. He was a tailor who was working in the work shop. He told me to go and see Rascher and try to prevent it.

I went to see Rascher immediately and asked him what was going on and asked him who this subject was and told him Neff knew the man who was a tailor and know something was wrong. Rascher questioned the SS man who had brought the tailor and it was actually discovered that the tailor was neither condemned to death nor had he volunteered for any experiment.

Q: Now, didn't you become suspicious?

A: Well, Rascher went away to clear up the matter with the SS man, whether he was supposed to bring this man up, etc. He discovered the SS man had taken the matter in his own hands and, first of all, he sent the tailor back to his work shop. When the SS man threatened the tailor again Rascher said he had reported the incident, and soon after that the Camp Commandant came and Rascher told him about the whole incident indignantly. He demanded the SS man be punished, and I can recall that afterwards he talked to me about this SS man and said that those were perhaps not the worst ones but such a man could not be allowed to stay in the concentration camp service. He did consult the Camp Commandant and did probably dispense with the charges against him and finally got this man sent to the Eastern front in a penal company. That he reported to the Camp Commandant and this immediately happened convinced me that things in the concentration camp were correct.

Such excesses of individuals which could happen were immediately settled and punished. After this incident Rascher made me give my word of honor that I would not say anything about the whole matter. I was obligated to secrecy about the experiments and what I saw in the concentration camp but for this thing he felt certain personal responsibility and such an incident might start rumors and put the concentration camp in a bad light. Since this matter was settled immediately quite officially by Rascher I gave him this promise. Later on we went to East Prussia when we met Professor Wuest on the train. He told Professor Wuest of this incident with all details. He expressed his indignation and he spoke to Wuest for a long time whether immediate transfer to the front would be enough punishment and Professor Wuest assured him that he had acted correctly.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30.