1947-05-01, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 1 May 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

HANS ROMBERG — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the Defendant Romberg):

Q: Mr. Romberg, before the noon recess you were describing to the Tribunal the incident with the tailor. Do you know whether something actually happened in that case to the effect that the SS man who had brought the tailor along was hold to account?

A: Yes, at any rate he was removed from the camp. Rascher told me that he was transferred, and Neff also stated here that he was removed.

A: Neff went on to tell about a second incident where as a result of your intervention an experimental subject was not admitted to the experiment. Do you remember that second incident?

A: No, I do not remember that.

A: That was Neff's position during these experiments and what was his attitude towards them?

A: Neff did not play any essential part for me during these experiments and he did not come at all into the foreground. He was the block oldest of our experimental subjects who were living at the block and as a former nurse of that station he was to assist us whenever necessary. He had certain qualifications in his capacity as a male nurse that Neff apparently played a certain double roll during these experiments only became clear to me here. At that time I had the absolute impression that Neff was feeling as a prisoner and had the same attitude towards Rascher's experiments as I. This is the only way one can explain that I spoke to Neff about my attitude towards Rascher's experiments and that I told him that I would endeavor to get tho chamber away from there through the help of Milch.

If I had considered Neff as a Kapo, as a man who was against the inmates, I would never have spoken to Neff about Rascher and his experiments in a rejecting and critical manner. I cannot imagine the fact that Neff knew about Rascher's experiments that had a fateful result, or that he had any knowledge of them. I can only explain that if he had known about them Rascher would have told him to keep everything secret. Naturally, he must have kept strictly to that directive since any betrayal of Rascher world have had the most serious consequences for Neff.

In addition, Neff had been promised release the same way as all other experimental subjects and was actually released on March 1944. Any such promise, of course, had a fateful importance for Neff and that way perhaps explains his peculiar behavior. In spite of that, there can be no doubt that Neff with his innermost feeling was on the side of the inmates. This is confirmed by the fact that after the war he went back to Dachau and once more went into the ranks of the inmates, and also that he handed to the American Troops all incriminating material about the SS there and told about the invalid action. Furthermore, this shows that he found his place within the ranks of the victims of Fascism. Many of his exaggerated and incorrect testimonies can be explained by the testimonies which may incriminate himself too.

Q: What are the testimonies that you consider to be exaggerations, or that you consider to be false testimonies, and to what extent do you believe that these testimonies were incorrect?

A: I can only explain that in a few individual cases. For instance, Neff is always speaking of ten women who were used during these experiments. In the documents, however, only four are being mentioned.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, whenever the defendant or defense counsel are referring to statements of the witness Neff, would they kindly refer to the page number of the record?

BY DR. VORWERK:

Q: We're here concerned for example with experiments on Russian officers — experiments on two officers, if you remember, Dr. Romberg. These are testimonies which can be found on page 675 and 676 of the German transcript. What is it you can say about these experiments and Neff's explanation that he is giving in connection with that experiment?

A: I'm not an expert in cold questions, but I think that the description of this experiment is largely exaggerated. I think it is impossible that it could have been carried out in that manner. I have looked through the cold questions as they become apparent, for instance, the Document 428, Exhibit 91, on page 4 of that report, and I also looked at the Document No. 401, Exhibit 93, which is the report on the cold conference held at Nurnberg, on page 43 of the report. According to these descriptions of the other cold experiments, the rigor begins to appear after a very short time, after approximately ten to twenty minutes, and makes any movement or speech on the part of the experimental subject impossible. After, at the latest one hour, unconsciousness appears. Neff, on the other hand, states here that these two Russian officers, even after a period of three hours, were speaking to one another and were in possession of their full consciousness and then he said that they even shook hands. I can not imagine that this period of time could have elapsed. The same becomes apparent from the American work on cold questions where it is stated that, in case of sea rescue, the rigor occurs after a very short time, approximately ten minutes, and this rigor would make any entry into the rubber rescue boat impossible.

Q: Neff, on page 694 of the German transcript, goes on to say that Rascher was producing cyanide tablets which were to be swallowed by the inmates.

Some of the people had died under severe pain. At the end he says:

Among our comrades we said, by way of figure of speech, and I quote, they are producing a drug which would kill us very quickly as soon as something happens.

A: Well, he is contradicting himself here by saying that the inmates lost their life under severe pain. Then he goes on to say they found a drug by which they can die without pain. But, it is well known that potassium cyanide kills without any pain.

Q: I have just been informed, Mr. President, that, through error, the release of Neff was stated as being in the year of 1945 instead of the year 1942. It should be 1942.

Regarding the voluntary aspect of the experimental subjects, Neff, on page 656 and 657 of the German transcript, as well as on Page 711 and 712 of the German transcript, states as follows, and I quote:

A: Volunteering for these experiments was made possible when the person concerned turned to Rascher on his own initiative. That was not difficult because Rascher was around the camp a lot. Naturally, every prisoner who is hungry and is working on a difficult detail, knowing that at the experimental station he would receive better nourishment, will try to get there. In addition, the Reichsfuehrer SS promised the inmates that they would be released.

What can you say about this testimony of Neff's?

A: The first testimony, where he says that of two hundred experimental subjects only ten were voluntary, and this latter testimony that you mention can not be brought into conformity, and, therefore, contradict one another. In addition, I think that the number of two hundred experimental subjects is largely exaggerated.

Q: Let us now revert to the experimental subjects. What badges did the experimental subjects wear who were at disposal for the experiments for rescue from high altitudes?

A: They had badges as they were worn by professional criminals.

Q: Were they green only, or were other badges among them?

A: No, all these badges were green. All, with the exception of Neff, who was wearing a red badge, but he was not a real experimental subject.

Q: Did Neff participate in any experiments as an experimental subject?

A: Yes, he did, and he offered himself to them.

Q: Do you remember the badges which were worn by the experimental subjects who were used for Rascher's experiments? What kind of badges were they? Were they criminals? Were they political prisoners? What can you say about that?

A: As far as I saw the experimental subjects, and you must keep in mind that I only saw a small part of them, they wore green badges and were thereby designated as criminals. There were, however, a few red ones among them who had been sentenced because of high treason or such similar offenses.

Q: The witness Neff, who testified here, was also heard in the Milch trial which was running simultaneously to this one. Do you know that?

A: Yes.

Q: The witness says here, on page 973 to 974 of this record, and I quote:

It was my impression that Dr. Romberg was not in complete accordance with the experiments Dr. Rascher was performing, and intended to get the chambers away from the camp as quickly as possible. Rascher, on the other hand, was attempting the contrary. He wanted to keep the chambers as long as possible in the concentration camp. To what extent Dr. Romberg succeeded in getting the chambers away earlier, or rather, to what extent Rascher succeeded in keeping them there for a longer period of time, I don't know.

Did you speak to Neff at that time to the effect that it was your wish to remove the chambers from the camp as quickly as possible?

A: Well, he is saying that. I discussed this matter with him at that time for the reason I stated before; namely, that I considered Neff as Rascher's opponent. Rascher, of course, wasn't allowed to learn about that, and it is for this reason that Neff knows that I endeavored to get the chamber away.

Q: Well, how were these experiments finally stopped?

A: The basis for this stoppage was the agreement reached between Hippke, Ruff and myself. We intended to pretend there was an urgent reason for the chamber being removed, and thereby stop the experiments. It was difficult, however, to execute that plan. Neither towards Himmler nor towards Rascher could we cite the reason as to the fatalities caused by Rascher. The only thing we could say was that those chambers were used for air accidents. This, of course, wasn't a very strong reason. Rascher when I returned from Berlin and made the first indications that the chambers was to be used and when I told him that we would have to finish the experiments very quickly, Rascher didn't react to that at all, but told me that he would intervene with Himmler and Milch and got the permission for a longer usage of the chamber, something which he in effect achieved. However, when Milch's order to that effect came the chamber had already been removed. The basic prerequisite for getting the chamber away was to bring the experiments for rescue from high altitude to a quick conclusion and in addition to finish the film which was to be taken about these experiments, as a result of Himmler's order. Only by fulfilling these two demands which were made by Himmler was he in a position to influence Rascher to agree to the temporary removal of that chamber. I explained to him that there would be little sense in getting a permission for the chamber to be retained for a further period of two or three weeks and told him that I was sure that one needed the chamber at the front very quickly. I suggested to him that it would be a much better way to get this chamber at a later date to Dachau through other means for a longer period of time. I told him that he could then carry out the work which he was ordered to do by Himmler.

I said that he also could participate once more in the experiments for the purpose of saving people from high, altitudes. Only by using this tactic was it possible that Rascher didn't oppose the removal of the chamber and that he didn't succeed to get an order to the contrary from Himmler or Milch. It can hardly be conceived that he would have succeeded in getting such an order through. He actually did that, and one can see it by looking at the letter from Milch to Wolff, this is Document N0261, Exhibit 63, in Document Book II dated 4 June 1942. In conclusion I should like to state once more that at no time would it have been possible for anyone, not even Milch or Hippke to remove the chamber against Himmler or Rascher's will from the concentration camp.

Q: When was the chamber removed from the camp?

A: That was on the 19th or 20th of May. At any rate before the order Hippke's or Milch's dated the 20th of Hay, Document 343-PS, Exhibit 62, could have achieved any effect. That was on the 19th or 20th of May, and not at the beginning or end of June as Neff said here or in August as the Prosecutor says.

Q: How is it that you know exactly that the chamber left the camp on the 19th or 20th of May?

A: Fortunately I have in my possession a few firm dates about this experimental series which do give me some hints. At first it was the birth of my child, date 19th of March at which time I went to Berlin. Since the birth was originally expected on the 9th of March I know I was then in Berlin. As I said before I returned to Berlin on the 19th or 20th of March and then I also know that I went to Berlin for Easter, and that I stayed there a few days after Easter. I know that I was in Berlin on the 1st and 2nd of May, and I also know that I stayed in Berlin for sometime because then the barometer was repaired.

I also know that Whitsun [Day of Pentecost] occurred on the 24th of May and I know that in the week before Whitsun I had already loft. That was on a Tuesday or Wednesday. I spent a few days at the DVL, and I know that oven after Whitsun I didn't return to Dachau. For that reason I know exactly that the chamber was removed on the 19th or 20th in the week before Whitsun.

Q: Dr. Ruff, who was here yesterday or the day before as a witness, has made statements to the effect that a detailing to a branch of the DVL at Dachau was not possible; what is your attitude to that question; will you explain that as briefly as possible?

A: Dr. Ruff has said that in essence when the experiments started Rascher was still detailed to the institute of Woltz, which was a military agency of the Medical Inspectorate. Later Rascher suggests, or we know from the letter of Mrs. Rascher, Document NO 264, Exhibit 60, that to detail him to the Branch at Dachau of the DVL. Wolff writes the same thing in his letter to Hippke. This can be explained since Rascher nor any other SS agency were clear about the organization of the DVL. We after all were no military organization, and Rascher neither during the experiments nor later when he was in Berlin for the purpose of working out the report was detailed to the DVL. Therefore, it was impossible for him to be detailed to any branch which after all was non-existent. If in effect any such details had been made objection would have been raised in the Personnel Department and we would have found out about it. At any rate I didn't personally hear or see of any such details. I really didn't know when he left the Weltz Institute. I only know that the ack-ack [Anti-Aircraft] Artillery School at Schongau had been stated in his orders because he often went to this place by car and on that occasion he told me that he would have to be officially detailed there since otherwise his car would have to be stopped.

For the purpose of his Dachau journeys he had received special permission by the Reichsfuehrer SS. The expression DVL "branch" therefore is wrong and any military transfer there is impossible.

Q: Has it often happened that air force officers had been detailed to Adlershof to the DVL there?

A: Yes, we had Luftwaffe officers working with us. They were detailed to us by the Medical Inspectorate who knew the situation and who didn't detail them to us directly, but to the air school at Adlershof, or to some air force institution there for the purpose of actually working with us.

Q: Therefore, you are of the opinion that any detailing of air force physicians was impossible to your institute because your institute wasn't a military one, do I understand you correctly?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you arrive in Berlin after the conclusion of the experiment?

A: I already said on the 20th of May. I am sure that on that date I was again in Berlin. A few weeks elapsed, perhaps two or three weeks until Rascher arrived in Berlin in order to work out the mutual report about the experiments. He had not been detailed to us, oven for that period of time. He merely received guest travel orders which authorized him to enter the terrain of the DVL.

Q: How was this chamber sent — by rail or by car to Adlershof?

A: As Ruff said yesterday, it came back by rail because we did not have enough diesel oil for that purpose.

Q: How was the research report compiled, the report on the research of saving people from high attitude?

A: Rascher, as I said, came to Berlin in the beginning of June and together we started writing the report on the basis of my book and that is the report which is available here. Rascher insisted on pointing out the necessity for a continuation and extension of the experiments. I had no objection to that because I personally intended to continue these experiments too. In particular, to find out what the effects of cold were in the case of a parachute descent. Of course, our opinion as to the experiments differed. Rascher intended to continue the experiments in Dachau on inmates, but I intended to carry them on at my institute, DVL, but I did not speak about that.

When at the end of the report I added the sentence that no cases of death had occurred in these experiments, Rascher had no objection at all. This is a clear proof that Rascher considered the experiments, which he performed by order of Himmler, as his personal work and property. These experiments had nothing to do with the experiments conducted for the purpose of rescuing people from high altitude. When taking into consideration Rascher's personality, there can be no doubt that Rascher would have had no inhibitions to introducing a report about death cases in a top secret document if such cases had occurred in the latter report. Regarding the cold experiments, which Rascher wrote together with Holzloehner and Fink, there were many reports about cases of death.

In addition, I would never have been irresponsible enough to introduce a research report, which was to be the rescue basis for our future flights and experiments and which was to influence the air-force, in which I concealed such a decisive point as this would have had the most serious consequences for the future. It is really not necessary to speak about it; it is just out of the question.

Ruff never would have countersigned any such report. At that time there was really no reason to keep quiet about any cases of death, because no one really would have held me to account for causing any cases of death.

Q: The witness, Neff, has testified here that you yourself had served as an experimental subject during these experiments. Up to what altitude did you ascend?

A: I participated in a number of experiments. At one time I was the accompanying physician in the experiments and went up to 12,000 to 13,000 meters and then I participated in a number of self experiments, which have been discussed here. In addition there was explosive decompression experiments of a pursuit descent at 19 kilometers without a supply of oxygen.

Q: In July of 1942 a report was made to Himmler, together with Rascher; how did this report come about and what happened there?

A: In July — I have forgotten the exact date — Rascher suddenly appeared in Berlin. He telephoned me at the DVL and asked me to meet him. I left Adlershof and met him in Berlin. He told me that both of us had been ordered to go to the Fuehrer's headquarters to report and we both went to the Reichsfuehrer SS office in Berlin. There they already had our train tickets ready for us. Then we heard the film about the experiments, went to my department and I telephoned Ruff. I told him about the matter. Then, I had to change, pack, and we loft the same evening. We had a special train with sleepers on the train. Rascher met Professor Wuest, who also was going to the Headquarters on this journey and he told him once more about the notorious reports about the tailor.

Q: When did you arrive at the Headquarters?

A: The next morning; we went by car to Himmler's special train, which had not yet arrived, but which was due to arrive that evening. He arrived late that night and he heartily greeted Rascher. On this occasion, Rascher introduced me to Himmler. We went to a conference room and Himmler asked us to report to him about the high altitude experiments.

We did that by reading to him the conclusions we had arrived at, as they can be found in the report here. Himmler was rather satisfied and said we should report to the Reich Marshal too.

He said that he had been with Goering for one week and they had reached a good understanding. He then pointed to the gold flying badge with diamonds which he had just been given by Goering. I had noticed that badge before and had silently thought that this highest civilian decoration, which Himmler was wearing and which up to that time was only used in the case of being committed during very dangerous test flights, was possibly the reward given to Himmler for having forgone his original wish to getting his own air force within the SS, which was his wish-dream and that Rascher also mentioned that to me. After the high altitude experiments, Himmler started to speak about the cold experiments and gave the orders to prepare them.

Q: Did Himmler say anything further about the cold experiments?

A: Yes, he mainly emphasized that these experiments were of great importance for the army, navy and air force. He went on to develop a number of tests about those experiments and their execution. For instance, he gave the order to Rascher that he should go to the rescue stations for people who were shipwrecked at the North Sea and find out how the community population were reviving their shipwrecked people. He went on to say that the population had found out very good and well proven means to revive people, like with herbs, tea, coffee or things like that and at any rate one must take the experiences gained by the population into consideration. He said he could well imagine that a fishwoman could well take her half frozen husband into her bed and revive him in that manner and everyone said that animal warmth had a different effect than artificial warmth. He went on to say that Rascher should have experiments to that effect and he would have to take into consideration the popular means used by the population.

Q: What was your attitude toward these statements made by Himmler?

A: Prompted by a sober and materialistic attitude, I did not think very much of these mystic methods and therefore raised an objection against that sort of experiment. I said that the main consideration was how to rewarm people, whether to rewarm them quickly or slowly and if you experiment around too long you will lose lives. There was a painful silence and after that I noticed that this was not the place for any contradiction.

Q: Was Professor Wuest present during that conversation?

A: Yes, he had come along with Himmler and he was present there.

Q: Did anyone object to your objection?

A: No, certainly not with words, but the silence which occurred meant much more than words could have meant. Later Rascher gave me a severe reprimand and he asked me if I was entirely mad. He thought I was made to contradict the "Reichs Heini" as he expressed himself in that manner.

Q: Did Wuest's remarks to Sievers refer to that situation about which Sievers has testified here?

A: Yes, it can only be in reference to that situation.

Q: Sievers says upon pages 58 to 69 of the German transcript, and I quote:

Wuest once told me about a conference which took place at the field headquarters of Himmler in the presence of Romberg and Rascher. In that connection he said the young man had come to his attention, although he had forgotten his name. Romberg not only opposed Himmler, but beyond that made long statements. This caused an embarrassing silence among the people present.

Is that the incident?

A: Yes, I am sure it must have been that.

Q: Did Himmler say anything else during that conference?

A: After this embarrassing silence was over, Himmler spoke about the demands that that total war effort made on us and he said that it wasn't asking too much to use concentration cam inmates for these experiments, who were not helping at the front. This is the way these people could rehabilitate themselves, people condemned to death could thereby be pardoned, and they could be given an opportunity to fight at the front. He further said that whoever didn't understand that could not have understood that in this war it was a matter of life or death for Germany. Then he went on to speak about the losses in the East and particularly the losses of the SS and how his heart was bleeding every time he heard that another thousand of his wonderful boys had died.

Q: What impression did these statements make on you?

A: Well these were words that actually made sense considering this serious situation at that time. However, I was firmly decided never again to cooperate with Rascher.

Q: And what happened afterwards, was the film shown?

A: On, yes, afterwards we went into a room and there the film about the experiments was shown. Himmler was very satisfied with the film and the experiments and he thought that those experiments were of extreme importance for the Luftwaffe and that they would save the lives of many a pilot. Afterwards we saw it in the news reel and in the Russian military film.

Q: What was your impression about the entire conference you had with Himmler?

A: Well, at that time I did have a very strong impression about this conference. These serious conditions, I heard about the losses in the East and about the total war effort were in such strong contradiction to what I had read in the press, that I would perhaps even have participated in the cold experiments as they were performed by Rascher and the carelessness he had shown toward human life.

For that reason, when Himmler asked me to participate in the cold experiments I tried to get away from that duty and I succeeded in doing so.

Q: Therefore, although you were selected for these experiments you refused to take part, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: When did Rascher first plan to carry out the cold experiments, so far as you know?

A: During the high altitude experiments in Dachau he collected literature on the subject, and no doubt had it planned, and whether it was Himmler or Rascher I don't know. He also showed me the work by Smith and Fay about the treatment of cancer with cold and he asked me to work on these planned experiments with him, but I always carefully tried to get out of it. When he was in Berlin working on the report of the DVL he got to know my work and I was able completely to convince him I was not the right man for these experiments and that it was too far away from my field of interest and my field of work and Rascher stopped trying to persuade me to work on the cold experiments. I was, therefore, unpleasantly surprised when Himmler suddenly personally gave me the assignment to carry out the experiments with Rascher. When he gave me the assignment I tried to get out of it by saying I was already overworked at the DVL. He immediately offered me assistance to get free from the DVL and I gave up objecting. I thought it would be possible to get free by myself and I decided to disappear inconspicuously just as in the high altitude experiments and I succeeded in doing so.

The next time I saw Rascher at the aviation ministry when the film was shown, I, of course, did not bring up the subject of the cold experiments, and he himself did not mention it either. I was all the more astonished then when Rascher in October appeared in Nurnberg with Holzloehner and they had already completed the experiments.

Q: Did you ever ask Rascher whether the experimental subjects were pardoned or released, the people who had participated in the high altitude experiments?

A: Once when we visited Himmler, Himmler said that the people would be released and when I met Rascher in Nurnberg at the cold meeting, I asked him and he said that they had been released.

Q: You were just speaking of a film shown in the Reich Aviation Ministry, and you no doubt wrote a brief report on it. That is document book No. 2 of the Prosecution, NO 224, Exhibit 76; when was this film shown?

A: I know the date only from this report which I wrote and which is in the document book. I know from that it was on the 11th of September. I was on a trip at that time. I was on leave and the invitation or the order to attend this showing of the film was sent after me. I went to the Reich Aviation Ministry on that date and I met Rascher there. The rest of the meeting is described better in this file note than I can reproduce it from memory. After the unsuccessful attempt to show it, Milch had failed to turn up and Rascher refused to toll me about these experiments without the presence of Milch. This had annoyed the doctors who were interested. Rascher immediately telephoned Mr. Sievers and told him about the failure of the showing very indignantly, because his vanity was hurt.

Sievers, who was just about to go on a trip, asked both of us to came to the railroad station and when we met him there he tried to calm Rascher down and thought that nothing could be achieved with excitement. He asked me to write a brief note about what had happened that morning and to send it to him. He asked about the film and when we told him we had left the film in the Aviation Ministry he advised us to go get the film because of the obligation to secrecy, but I was not able to do so until the next day.

Q: Did you hear anything more about the film later?

A: No, I never heard anything more about it.

Q: In Prosecution Document Book No. 2 there are a number pf pictures. Did you take these pictures?

A: No, I did not take these pictures. I can say the following about these pictures. When these pictures were shown to me during an interrogation, I was told they came from a motion picture film' and the prosecution said the same thing here. I thought that meant the film which I knew the motion picture of the experiments when I was present, but when I looked at the pictures I was immediately able to see that four of them at the most could have come from that motion picture. I assumed that Rascher might have taken another film behind my back. In the meantime I have realized, having looked at the pictures closely, that not a single one of them comes from that motion picture. I know that because in the film which was taken in the experiments there was a clock in the background and instruments in the foreground. That was necessary in order to be able to use the film later. It was possible only as the time and altitude were always registered on the film.

Also Rascher had put mounter suits on the experimental subjects during the picture.

Q: In these pictures which are in Document Book II are there no instruments and no clock?

A: No, I've looked at them carefully. That could not be overlooked. That was a big clock with a big second-hand which was beside the head of the subject.

Q: That is proof to you that these pictures do not come from the film?

A: That they do not come from the film, yes. The witness Neff, who was probably present when these photographs were taken, immediately realized the difference when the pictures were shown to him here. He says on Page 661 of the German transcript, I quote:

When the film was taken the prisoners were given a civilian suit and it could not be seen that they were prisoners. These are photographs; and I know that when prisoners were photographed, they were given a fairly clean suit with no insignia. That is why one could not see on the photographs or in the film who these people were or what insignia they wore.

MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I wish to clarify for the record that it is not known to me that the prosecution offered these pictures in Document Book II as extracts from the film that was purported to have been shown at the RLM but merely as photographs which were found among the personal effects of Dr. Sigmund Rascher in his home in Munich; and I want it to be clear that the film that was shown at the Ministry is not in the hands of the prosecution. Had said film been in the hands of the prosecution, it certainly would have been shown here during our case in chief; and we will — are in search of such films.

DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I should like to have the explanation of the prosecution that the pictures in Document Book II are not submitted as having been taken during the experiments for rescue from high altitude. If I understood the prosecutor correctly that is the explanation he just made.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the prosecution does not state that these pictures were not taken during the course of those experiments.

I am merely trying to clarify it that these photographs which have been offered in evidence and are contained in Document Book II are not extracts of the film, that is, as far as we know. It may well be that the same type pictures appear on the film; but the prosecution has not seen the film that was shown at the RLM and does not have the film that was shown at all. The first four pictures in Document Book II have been properly identified by no less than defendant Romberg himself; and the remainder of the pictures have been identified by the witness Neff when he was here on the witness stand. We contend that these are pictures of the experiments at Dachau.

DR. VERWERK: I ask that the transcript show that these pictures do not come from the film which was taken of the experiments for rescue from high altitude.

THE PRESIDENT: The record will show the statement of counsel for the prosecution. That is as far as the Tribunal will go in the matter; and counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.

THE WITNESS: May I say something else about these pictures?

BY DR. VERWERK:

Q: Please do.

A: I said at the beginning that when I was shown these pictures I was told that they came from a motion picture film; and the prosecution said the same thing here. I thought that might mean a Leica film, for example, not necessarily a motion picture. Only when the pictures were shown to me did I think that they meant that it actually came from a motion picture and thought that it might have come from this motion picture of the experiments. Since I did not know those photographs but only knew the motion picture, I assumed in the beginning that they were the same thing; but because the instruments are lacking and because of the testimony of Neff, it is clearly proved that not a single one of these pictures comes from the motion picture but from a private film in the possession of Rascher, a Leica film, photographs which he probably took for his private work or for his work to qualify as a professor.

Q: When was the Cold meeting in Nurnberg?

A: That was in October.

Q: How did it come about that you participated? Did you know from the lecture which you heard that there had been deaths during the cold experiments?

A: First of all my participation was a matter of course because it was a meeting of aviation medicine, of aviation doctors.

It was just coincidence that it was a Cold meeting. I participated in almost all such meetings; and, besides, I was interested in the cold problem since I was at the time planning to carry out cold experiments with the low pressure chamber, experiments which were later carried out.

As for this second question, whether I knew that any deaths had occurred, one must make a strict distinction between my personal judgment and that which was clear to the general public. Besides, one must not over-estimate the attention attracted by such a meeting. I did not approve of Rascher and his experiments personally. I had broken off the low pressure experiments for that reason and had refused to participate in the cold experiments as Himmler had wished.

If now in Nurnberg Holzloehner spoke of observations of cold persons and said that he had collaborated with Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke, if he spoke of observations on dead persons, I personally, since I was prejudiced against Rascher, almost automatically assumed that this referred to the experiments, especially since after Holzloehner's lecture Rascher spoke in a bad external form and said that Himmler had taken the responsibility for this and ordered strict Secrecy. But in his lecture Holzloehner had spoken of the experience of rescue from sea, animal experiments, human experiments, and had confused them in such a way that the listener who was not prejudiced would have assumed that the results were experience from cases of rescue at sea. This is especially true of people who knew how extensive this sea rescue service was, who knew of its great success, and who knew that Finke and Holzloehner had worked together in the sea rescue service.

Q: Now, Mr. Romberg, one more question on the previous matter on the pictures. In your presence during the Dachau experiments, were any other pictures taken, whether films or individual pictures, any others besides the ones which form the motion picture which was later shown at the Aviation Ministry and to Himmler?

A: No, I knew only that motion picture. That is why I thought of it first when I was shown the pictures.

Q: Then you did not take any other pictures?

A: No.

Q: Did Rascher take any other pictures during the experiments for rescue from high altitude?

A: No; at least not in my presence.

Q: Aside from you two, did any third person take other pictures aside from this motion picture?

A: I don't know whether anyone else took pictures.

Q: As far as you were present?

A: No.

Q: Later did you do any further work in the field of high altitude?

A: Yes. That was really my field of work; but I also worked specifically on the question of parachuting from high altitudes or rescue from high altitudes, the cold work which Dr. Ruff has already mentioned, parachute jumping, and cold and lack of oxygen, great altitudes, and time reserve experiments — that is, staying at high altitudes with simultaneous lack of oxygen, and with cold. During the cold experiments we first worked on the question of parachute jumping, as the more important question; and the second thing was the question of the simultaneous effect of lack of oxygen and cold while remaining at high altitudes. These were experiments on ourselves, together with the associates. As Ruff has already said, we wore light clothing and wont down to as far as 45 degrees below zero as long as two hours.

One report each was written on the two series of experiments.

DR. VORWERK: In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to submit from Document Book Romberg Document Number 1, the affidavit of Dr. Walter Freitag. I should like to submit this as Exhibit 1. In the first paragraph of this affidavit the affiant speaks of his work with the defendant Romberg from 1939 on at the Institute for Aviation Medicine.

I should like to read the second paragraph. I quote:

Dr. Wolfgang Romberg was diligent and industrious and carried out his tasks conscientiously and to the best of his ability. The experiments, in particular the work in the low pressure chamber on the effects of oxygen deficiency at normal temperatures and in the cold (up to minus 45 degrees C.) required considerable mental concentration as well as extreme physical exertion. Dr. Romberg was always the first to submit to those experiments. The importance of his personal effort is especially emphasized by the large number of tests and experiments. The elucidation of a number of individual questions was probably only made possible by this effort.

Then there follows a judgment of the character of the defendant. Then I shall read the last sentence:

I am convinced that he planned and performed the experiments on inmates from an absolutely moral standpoint and that he, just as Dr. Ruff, was the victim of mean, treacherous deception.

There follows a signature and certification. It is dated the 28th of January 1947.

DR. VORWERK: As Romberg Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I submit the next affidavit by Dr. med. Werner Loeckle. First the affiant speaks of his own work and how he got to know the defendant. Then, in the second paragraph he describes individual experiments. Later he speaks of the volunteer nature of the experiments, of the carefulness of the defendant in all his experiments, that the subjects were volunteers. Then I should like to read on page 5 of the paragraph that starts a little above the middle of the page. I quote:

I met Dr. Romberg as a member of the institute round about 1938 or 1939. He was mainly concerned with questions of high altitude physiology, and participated in most of the planning of the experiments, where he proved to be an intelligent and circumspect, extraordinarily cautious and conscientious adviser. He always paid special attention to all security installations and precautions. Nearly all the people working there confidently asked his advise when dangerous or us yet unknown experimental conditions had to be tested. He always undertook the training of now assistant personnel, and his efforts were extremely successful. He always took part himself as an experimental subject in the experiments necessary for his own work and for the work of other members of the institute even if the experiments were unpleasant or dangerous. Romberg only worked with volunteer experimental subjects: I think he would never had made use of any forced 'readiness to volunteer'. In view of his character I consider it to be quite out of the question for Dr. Romberg to have taken part in unscrupulous experiments or in cruelties.

A closer acquaintance with Dr. Romberg, showed his political attitude to be open to the world and definitely above the narrow nationalistic ideas prevailing at the time.

His objections against certain measures of the regime were well thought out and were not without a certain grim sense of humor.

Long conversations with similar minded persons in his room were a real consolation, to us in those abnormal times. It was Dr. Romberg who skillfully provided a possibility to listen to foreign radio stations in the institute.

And follows the signature and certification.

In view of the political attitude of the defendant I should like to submit Document Romberg No. 3 as Exhibit No. 3. This is an affidavit of Mrs. Nadja Bartsch of the 20 February 1947 and she says — I quote the first paragraph:

I have known Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg since the summer of 1943 as an extraordinarily helpful physician and cotenant. On closer acquaintance with him and his family I found him to be the strongest opponent of National Socialism. We all constantly listened together to foreign broadcasts both in his rooms and ours and our conversations were anything but pro-nazi.

I should like to remark here that as a non-aryan, I would never have associated with anyone who had other ideas.

When I heard of the accusations made against Dr. Romberg, I could hardly believe them, for I know no one among my acquaintances who was such a fanatical opponent of National Socialism and, on the other hand, was such a helpful physician and man.

There follows the signature and certification.

As Romberg Document No. 4 I should like to submit the affidavit of Fritz Ebmeyer which will be Romberg Exhibit No. 4. This is dated 19 February 1947. I quote — first paragraph:

I have known Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg since 1943. When the Nazi authorities refused me permission to marry my fiancee, who, according to the regulations in force at the time, was of mixed descent Grade II, Dr. Romberg showed his political views by advising me to wait patiently as this regime could not last much longer and then I should be able to marry. After the collapse in 1945 I married my fiancee.

If Dr. Romberg had any pro-Nazi feelings, my fiancee and I would have had nothing to do with him or his family. Apart from the foreign broadcasts, to which I constantly listened at his home, it was his truly fanatical anti-National-Socialist attitude which supported me in my views.

There follows the signature and certification.

Now let's got back to the high altitude experiments, Dr. Romberg. I should like to ask you why did you not forcibly prevent Rascher from breaking off the experiment when you saw that it might be fatal?

A: You mean prevent him from carrying the experiment on?

Q: Yes.

A: Basically I can say the following. An academic man and a scientist by virtue of his education and training is hardly able to attack some one physically and achieve anything by brute force. I personally am not a violent man or a boxer I think you will be willing to believe. For myself specifically and for a scientist in general to make his ideas prevail by violence. He relies more on words or arguments on his powers of persuasion.

That is the general answer. As for the specific question — in Dachau I can say the following; That I had any legal duty or right to interfere by force I cannot imagine. In any case I could not got this idea from the situation. I had special permission — I was so to speak a guest in the Dachau camp — and I had had to sign a paper saying I was under orders of the camp administration and SS courts, I had to submit to all orders and rulings dealing with the administration of the camp. I could not give orders to any one in the camp, either Rascher or a prisoner. I did not have any right to criticize any orders of the Camp Commandant or to change them or to object to them. I had no supervision over Rascher nor over the prisoners. But Rascher did have supervision over me within the concentration camp. Only in the course of performing our experiments for rescue from high altitude did I have a right to make suggestions and to give advice to Rascher and to our experiments, because of the two men, I had the more experience in this specific field and in that sense I could make suggestions to Rascher or give him advice as is customary among two scientists working together in the same field. And so I was able to arrange for our experimental subjects that I considered necessary and the ordinary performance of the experiments and insist how often they came or that their food should be good, etc. Now, if Rascher in experiments which he was ordered personally to perform for Himmler brought his own experimental subjects to the station, those were men who had been condemned to death or volunteers. If Rascher performed experiments with these men I could watch. I could even advise him to stop. I could point out a danger but I had no right to prevent him even if I had seen that he clearly intended to kill the experimental subjects.

If I had attempted to attack Rascher personally, or knocking him down, since he was a Luftwaffe officer he always carried a pistol he probably would have shot me or he could have had me arrested. In any case I could never have gotten out of the camp. I did not carry any weapons. As a civilian I didn't own one. I could never attack him personally.

The whole idea of an attack on Rascher seems to me too grotesque if I imagine, for instance, that a civilian comes into a research institute in the Luftwaffe, such as a low pressure chamber experiment with fatal results — Ruff mentioned such experiments here yesterday, for example — and then simply shoots at the man who has performed the experiment, and besides I should like to say that the whole problem now, looking back on it, looks quite different. The facts were that Rascher was performing experiments which had been ordered. He had the authorization from a competent man in the government. The subjects were volunteers; they had been promised that they would be pardoned. One can, with right, demand that a person object to the execution of a criminal order or to the execution of an order which he does not think is right, although the matter becomes difficult here because not every one is capable of judging every order, but one can hardly demand that a person attack some one else in order to prevent him from carrying out such an order, risking both his own life and the life of the other person. That personal cowardice played no role in my case, I should like to state expressly.

Q: Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop Rascher's experiments and did you assume any danger and, if so, what?

A: What I did against Himmler's orders and against my signed promise to keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who passed the information on, was dangerous. One probably understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher's experiments. He confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the debates between Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the prisoners. The low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau, earlier than intended, at our instigation. Against Rascher's and Himmler's wishes it was never returned to Dachau. How great the efforts of the SS were in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with Wolf's telegram to Milch, the 12th of May, which is mentioned in Milch's letter of the 20th of May, Document PS-343A, Exhibit 62, which is denied in that letter.

In answer to further efforts from Himmler, Milch answers that the chamber is to remain two months longer in Dachau. Document 261, Exhibit 63. At this time, we had already removed the chamber. On the 5th of June, Rascher again writes to Himmler about the low pressure chamber. Document 284, Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of the 5th of June. The letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt, says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. There, there is a certain pause in Rascher's and Himmler's efforts, because Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. Rascher does not forget when the film is shown in Berlin in the Aviation Ministry to tell Milch again of his wishes in regard to the low pressure chamber, but hardly has the first phase of the cold experiments — the series with Holzloehner — been finished, and he writes on the 9th of October, Document 161-PS, Exhibit 73 — writes to Himmler again. He asks Himmler to get him the low pressure chamber so he can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. The letter of the 21st of October, 1942, Document 226, Exhibit 73, Sievers writes to Brandt about the continuation of the high altitude experiments which Himmler wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons, he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in order actually to get the chamber. This happens on the 27th of November, 1942, Document 269, Exhibit 78 — a letter from Wolf to Milch, on behalf of Himmler. The request for the low pressure chamber, which is expressed in this letter, mentions the opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors and is given definite emphasis. I learned from a telephone call from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a low pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well that Rascher certainly didn't want to have this made public in any way.

Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of this call — this whole matter-and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here yesterday. In an official letter to various SS Agencies, dated 13 December 1942, Document 1612-PS, Exhibit 79, Rascher is given the assignment to carry out high altitude experiments, by Himmler personally. On the 14th of March, 1943, Document No. 270, Exhibit 110, Rascher tells of his discussions with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low pressure chamber experiments, together with me, and finally, on the 18th of November, 1943, Document No. 1057, Exhibit 463, he tries, through the Reich Research Council, in agreement with Himmler, again to get a mobile low pressure chamber in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher's and Himmler's efforts and, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low pressure chamber at his disposal for experiments.

Q: Well, what do you want to prove by these statements?

A: This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher's and Himmler's efforts were. That my conduct under these circumstances was not only cowardly, that it was much cleverer and much more successful. Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I had made the criminative attempt and the attempt which had no prospect of success to prevent him from carrying out these experiments, I would have been killed or locked up and Rascher would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without any restriction.

Q: At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in what did you see such possibility?

A: There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, for a person who was able, immigration. Second, open resistance which meant concentration camp or death penalty, and to my knowledge, never had any success. Third, passive resistance, the apparent giving in, delaying orders, criticism among one's friends — what the writers are now calling "inner immigration". But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.

As far as the direction question of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot imagine that, for example, an assistance of a scientist research worker who is performing infections with a fatal disease — for example, leprosy — on a prisoner, that the assistant should, by force, prevent the scientist from carrying out this infection. Perhaps, if he didn't do that, the man might die in knocking the hypodermic syringe out of his hand. I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that, if there should be a trial against this doctor, it should be demanded that an assistant prevent the scientist from doing this.

Q: Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible?

A: Yes.

Q: But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or with the public prosecutor, against Rascher?

A: Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said: "Rascher has carried out experiments ordered by Himmler — by the Chief of the German Police and what else was he, Reichsfuehrer SS, State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior," they would probably have said: "Well, we can't do anything about it. If he has orders, then we can't do anything about it."

Q: Was Rascher under the jurisdiction of the civilian authorities?

A: No, he wasn't. As a Luftwaffe officer, he was, of course, under the Luftwaffe.

Q: Then you would have had to report him to his superior in the Luftwaffe?

A: Yes, and I really did so through my private channels. I went to Ruff and told him about it and Ruff went to Hippke who was Chief of the Medical Service and, in a sense, the supreme superior of the Medical Officer Rascher.

Q: Mr. President, this might be a suitable time to break off.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, cam you advise the Tribunal as to how long you expect it will require to present your direct case in defense, concluding with this witness and any other witnesses you may have, and the documents you may desire to present?

DR. VORWERK: For the direct examination I will need about half an hour. There will be no other witnesses.

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

(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 2 May 1947.)