1947-05-02, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS R0MBERG — Resumed
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, at this time I would like to clarify the difficulty with Document NO 1602-PS. It seems that this document exists in better condition than the photostat originally put in as an exhibit, and contains the paragraph that I was about to read from the English translation. Now, when this was introduced before the International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal prosecution saw fit to only introduce the pertinent sections to their case, namely, the first paragraph, the third paragraph, and the last two paragraphs, and they had what they referred to as a partial translation of the document and indicated it was a partial translation by so heading it "Partial Translation of Document 1602-PS" and indicated the blank spaces by dots.
Now, what happened when our document book was put together. The prosecution here desired to use the same document and only the same portions thereof that had been used before the IMT and, apparently when they re-translated the document or recut the stencil and certified it by a different individual, they inadvertently didn't indicate that this was a partial translation and, by the same token, the document that went in was one that was hazy and they could not read it, so when they cut the stencils for the German copy the German copy had the hazy one to go by and were unable to include these words.
Now I will pass this good copy of the original exhibit up to you for your perusal, as well as the type of translation that went in before the IMT, and I only want to use the portion that was used at that time, which is contained in our document book number 2 in the same manner.
THE PRESIDENT: What paragraphs?
MR. HARDY: The paragraph is the first paragraph — now this is of our document book now, the translation we have now I want to use it as is.
But it is paragraph number 1 in the German — number 2 and 3, in the German, and then the last two brief paragraphs in German before where the signature appears of Rascher. And you will note the copies as such. I have here another mimeographed German copy, two copies of it, that contain it in the same manner as this here, that I just received that I can give the defense counsel for their use. I will have other mimeographed copies of the German cut and deliver it to them later. I want to pass this up.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a complete translation of the document?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution didn't see fit to translate the document in its entirety because of the immateriality of the other paragraphs. If Your Honor requests it, we will have it.
THE PRESIDENT: As long as this confusion has occurred, the Tribunal desires the entire document translated—
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: —furnished to German counsel and to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there will be no question but what counsel for both sides have the entire document before them.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I notice also the stenographic notes there. If those could be translated, have them also, if they can be read. I don't know whether they can or not.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I object to the submission of this document for the following reasons. This document was submitted by the prosecution before. It has been ascertained that within this document there is a discrepancy between the version in the English document text and the version in the German document text. The German text says "illegible" while the English text contains this portion of the document. I should like to state that if a document is illegible for the purpose of copying it must also be illegible for the purpose of translation, which apparently was not the case.
Is this document now being submitted to complete the previous submission, or is this a completely new document?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is a very simple hurdle due to the confusion, then I will offer this as cross examination document and assign it the same number that it has now and use it here now, the paragraph, in the same manner as if we were introducing a new document.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: You say that this photostatic copy which has now been furnished the Tribunal is a correct photostatic copy of the original?
MR. HARDY: That is right.
JUDGE SEBRING: May we not meet the objections then by having the interpreters who are here in the courtroom read this document, translating it as they go and read it into the record?
MR. HARDY: That would be perfectly suitable, Your Honor. Do you mean the document in its entirety?
DR. VORWERK: I believe I understand the prosecutor correctly if I believe that this document NO 1602-PS is withdrawn as the original document and he now wants to submit to as a document for cross examination.
MR. HARDY: It is immaterial the manner in which I do it, Your Honor. I don't think the objection here has any basis.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the Tribunal now has before it a good clear photostat of the entire document in German. If the translators will now read that document, and it will be of course translated into English for the record, will that satisfy you? Will that be a satisfactory solution for you? The entire document then will be read into the record. You may examine the photostat of the entire document in the German language.
MR. HARDY: He has a copy of it in the German language, Your Honor. — mimeographed.
THE PRESIDENT: A copy of the entire document?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a satisfactory procedure to you?
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, the point is whether this document is to be submitted merely for identification, for cross examination of the defendant, or whether it is submitted as a document and is accepted by the Court as a document exhibit. In the latter case it would have to be given to me 24 hours beforehand.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not impressed with that objection. That is the general rule but unless counsel shows some good reason why in this instance the rule should be enforced, the matter coming up, the tribunal would not be inclined to cause delay and confusion by simply waiting 24 hours for you to read what you can read now. It is an unfortunate error but there was nothing intentional about it. The employee who copied the document simply neglected to state that it was a partial copy instead of a complete copy and that man, the person who certified to it to be a true copy, also neglected to state that it was not a complete copy but a translation merely of a portion of the document. In other words, those who prepared this document, the stencils for the English document book simply copied the sheet which was in the record as it was introduced before the International Tribunal. It was a careless mistake but it is easy to see how it could have happened.
DR. VORWERK: Then I will consider the suggestion of the President acceptable.
MR. HARDY: Now is it my understanding, your Honors, you want the interpreters to read the German and translate it here into the record?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that is necessary. I think if the counsel for the prosecution has the entire document translated into English and stencils are cut and counsel receives a mimeographed copy, counsel for the prosecution may now examine the witness as to the portion of the document which he desires. I can see no reason for an objection. It will do no harm to the defendant. You see that this document will be furnished in a completed form to the defense counsel as soon as possible.
MR. HARDY: In order to do that I request of the Secretary General that the Prosecution be permitted to retain this document Exhibit 44 in it's possession until we may check it for safe-keeping.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that the document will be available in its complete form by Monday?
MR. HARDY: I hope so.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, Dr. Romberg, you have stated here that Mr. Rascher exhibited to you a letter at this conference in Munich, concerning the fact that Himmler ordered these experimental subjects must be volunteers. Now I want to read you this portion of this document, which incited this alleged Himmler letter. I will start with the third paragraph of the German which reads as follows:
For the time being I have been assigned to the Luftgaukommando [Air District Command] VII, Munich, for a medical course. During this course, where researches on high altitude flights play a prominent part (determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes), considerable regret was expressed at the fact that no tests with human material had yet been possible for us, as such experiments are very dangerous and nobody volunteers for them.
I put, therefore, the serious question: can you make available two or three professional criminals for these experiments? The experiments are made at permanent Luftwaffe Testing Station for Altitude Research, Munich. The experiments, from which the subjects can, of course, die would take place with my cooperation. They are essential for researches on high altitude flight and cannot be carried out, as has been tried with monkeys, who offer entirely different test-conditions. I have had a very confidential talk with a representative of the air forces surgeon who makes these experiments. He is also of the opinion that the question could only be solved by experiments on human persons.
And then the signature of Rascher appears on the document. Now, do you still maintain that after receiving that letter Himmler says you will use volunteers?
A: In my opinion there is very little connection. This letter is very old. It is dated 15 May, 1941. It obviously records Rascher's first ideas in this direction about experiments. It says, for example, that no experiments could be performed with human beings, yet, and there is proof against this in the work done in our institutes, where many doctors and their associates volunteered for experiments up to at least 17 kilometers, but it is much higher than the ceiling of the fighter planes presently in use mentioned here.
Q: Now, Dr. Ruff, states that Dr. Weltz and all of these people arrived at that conclusion, they wished to experiment on the Dachau concentration camp inmates early in 1941.
Now isn't this the beginning?
A: That they wanted such experiments in 1941? No, nothing was said about that?
Q: No this is the beginning. Now they are just starting and ask Himmler to find criminals for these experiments simply because nobody will volunteer for them. In other words, if they could have got volunteers they wouldn't have had to resort to Dachau concentration camp inmates, very simple.
A: Not I asked Himmler, but Rascher asked Himmler.
Q: That is right. That is what I am talking about, Rascher asked Himmler?
A: And what he says here is incorrect in many respects. He says no experiments have been performed, that is not true, and the suggestion to use feeble minded people which he makes is absolutely worthless. Dr. Ruff has already spoken about that.
Q: Now let's go to the next letter in that document book. You may return that document. It is on page 54 of the document book 2. Unfortunately this document doesn't contain a date. However it states:
Dear Dr. Rascher:
Shortly before flying to Oslo, the Reichsfuehrer SS gave me your letter of 15 May 1941, for partial reply.
I can inform you that prisoners will, of course, be gladly made available for the high flight researches. I have informed the Chief of the Security Police of this agreement of the Reichsfuehrer fuehrer SS, and requested that the competent official be instructed to get in touch with you.
That is initialed Rudolf Brandt. Now this is the letter which gave Mr. Rascher the authority to use concentration camp inmates, is it not? Isn't it authority to use prisoners for the experiments, and that the particulars will be outlined by the Chief of the Security Police, doesn't it say that?
A: That is an agreement of the Reichsfuehrer to this first suggestion of Rascher of May, 1941, but no details are set forth.
Q: That is right. It is an agreement to allow Rascher to experiment at Dachau or at any concentration camp, and to get prisoners there from, because of the fact Rascher stated in the letter which incited this answer that he couldn't get volunteers for such a program, isn't that what these two letters convey to us?
A: Dr. Rascher had to deal further with this problem. There was no doubt further correspondence.
Q: But you don't know that, do you? You don't know that? You are assuming that?
A: No, I don't know what correspondence there was.
Q: Your only answer to it is an imaginable letter from Himmler stating they must have volunteers, isn't that it?
A: I do not see that. I stated there was a letter from Himmler.
Q: We don't have it here. I just assume if there was such a letter we would have it here. We have most of them talking about selecting and setting aside experimental subjects, and Himmler then in that letter from Rudolf Brandt and his other letters talked about persons who were condemned to death, if he successfully lived through the experiment, or whereas he was recalled to life, he may be pardoned to the concentration camp for life, yet in all of these letters Mr. Himmler never mentions that they must be volunteers.
This is not present in a one of the documents in this case.
A: There aren't very many letters on it. This letter for example says nothing about pardoning, and Himmler mentioned that in a letter.
Q: And perhaps that is the first time he mentioned it. I don't think we should quibble about that any more. Let's go on to another subject.
Now concerning the low pressure chamber, when Ruff sent this low pressure chamber from his institute in Dachau, did you accompany the drivers from Berlin to Munich with the chamber?
A: Whether I went with them? No.
Q: After the chamber arrived in Dachau, according to the testimony of Neff, I believe, you assisted in assembling the chamber so that it would be in its proper form and useable, is that correct?
A: After the chamber arrived in Dachau, I went out to Dachau together with Rascher and Rascher gave the instructions what had to be done, an electric connection had to be laid and what else was necessary to use the chamber.
Q: Well, did you arrive at the same time the chamber arrived or did you arrive at some later date?
A: I arrived in Dachau with Rascher when the chamber was already there.
Q: Well now, to clarify things, we want to get these things straight in mind. When did the experiments begin?
A: The first beginning was actually on the 22nd and 23rd of February.
Q: When did you make up your mind that was the date when the experiments began?
A: They were supposed to begin on that day but I don't know whether any experiments were actually carried but on that day. At any rate they were stopped almost immediately.
Q: So were there on the 22nd of February, you said that on direct examination, if you remember?
A: Yes, I was there on the 22nd or the 23rd, yes.
Q: When did you suddenly discover you were at Dachau on the 22nd day of February? When did you remember that, or have you always remembered you were in Dachau on the 22nd day of February?
A: No, I just remembered that and here when Neff in his examination told about this, that we watched his birthday table, then I remembered that fact, and also I know I must have been there on that day and the next day because I can remember the birthday table.
Q: Well didn't you make an attempt here to impeach the credibility of Walter Neff in stating you were not in Dachau on February 22nd? Defense counsel here made an issue of that, that you were not there, and now do you decide that the testimony of Walter Neff was quite credible?
A: My defense counsel didn't do that. I believe that was Dr. Sauter.
Q: That is correct. It was Dr. Sauter, and I will read it to you, Page 357 of the record:
Q (By Dr. Sauter): I should like to put something else to you. Dr. Romberg, will tell you under oath that he on the 22nd of February, 1942, the date you mentioned yesterday, was not present, and he knows that exactly for the following reason, and I am telling you this in order to enable you to refresh your memory. The family Romberg had expected the birth of a child on the 9th of March, and for that reason Dr. Romberg stayed at home until the 9th of March with his wife, and it was only on the 10th of March 1942 that he went to Dachau.
Now, Dr. Sauter is an honorable man. You told him under oath that you were never there at that time. What made you change your mind?
A: Of course, I never told Dr. Sauter that I would testify under oath that on the 22nd of February I was not in Dachau. I only told Ruff I knew very well that I was in Berlin on the 9th of March because I was expecting the birth of the child at that time. That Dr. Sauter interpreted that, that because I know for sure that I was in Berlin on the 9th of March I must not have been in Dachau on the 22nd of February, I had nothing to do with that.
Q: I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not you misled Dr. Sauter, but he seemed to be quite emphatic about the fact that you would testify under oath, and I would be willing to consider that Dr. Sauter thought that, too. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't think Dr. Sauter would say such a thing unless you had either told him or unless he reasonably believed that that was what you told Ruff. Be that as it may, we will go on. On February 22, 1942, the experiments began; is that correct?
A: I can't tell you exactly whether any experiments were performed or not. That was a Sunday. Probably we didn't do any work on that day, but we broke off the experiments immediately, and postponed them until the beginning of March.
Q: Until the beginning of March. Now, how many series of experiments did you have? Four, wasn't it? Four series, so to speak? You had four different copies in your report?
A: Yes.
Q: How long did it take you to complete each series of experiments?
A: I can't say exactly in detail. Sometimes they were going on at the same time, not one after the other, but they were carried out parallel. Until all four series were concluded, it took until about the 19th or 20th of May.
Q: Now, when did the first death occur?
A: That must have been the end of April.
Q: That was the end of April? End of April. Then almost immediately thereafter you returned to Berlin, didn't you, after that death episode?
A: Yes.
Q: And how long did you remain in Berlin?
A: I didn't stay long at first. I went back again, as far as I recall, and then there was the incident with the barometer, so that —
Q: Now, just a moment. We will get to that. After you went to Berlin the first time, that is, after the death, the death happened about the end of April, then you went to Berlin. Then when you returned, as I understand it, you witnessed another one or two deaths, is that right? That was before the barometer incident; is that right?
A: No, the barometer incident must have been right after I returned from Berlin after Dachau.
Q: The barometer incident was after you returned to Dachau, that is, after the first death. That is the barometer incident. All right. Now, after the barometer incident, that must have been now almost the first of May, wasn't it? The barometer incident? You must have stayed in Berlin a week or better.
A: It took quite some while to have the barometer repaired.
Q: How long did you stay in Berlin after the first death and until the time you returned and found the barometer broken?
A: Only a few days.
Q: Well, how many days? Can't you be a little more specific, two, three, four, five, six?
A: After I returned from reporting the death, perhaps four, five days.
Q: All right. Four, five days. That takes you nearly to the first of May when the barometer was broken, is that right? Almost the first of May.
A: It could be about that time.
Q: And now when did the second and third death occur?
A: That was later, after I came back with the repaired barometer.
Q: How long did it take to secure the barometer? About two weeks?
A: Of course, I don't know exactly. I don't think it took quite two weeks. It wouldn't have taken that long.
Q: Well, we will say it took about a week. That will bring us up to the 7th of May, wouldn't it? Then the two deaths occurred after you got back from Berlin with the barometer, isn't that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And they occurred how long after that time? When you came back with the barometer, I assume you used the pressure chamber before Rascher did. I assume you carried on some of your work before Rascher did, and then the two deaths occurred. Now, it must have been a period of a week or two weeks, or something like that, wasn't it?
A: I am sure that after I came back with the barometer I performed some experiments. I was trying to get our experiments finished.
Q: Well now then how long before the completion of your experiments did the deaths occur? The two deaths.
A: About a week before the end of the experiments.
Q: About a week. You are crowding that in pretty closely now. Think hard. About a week, is that right? The death didn't occur almost a month before the conclusion of the experiments, did it?
A: No, that is about right for the first death.
Q: Alright, then, on the 20th Day of May the pressure chamber left Dachau and went back to Berlin, is that what you wish to tell us?
A: Yes.
Q: It did. Well, now, after you got the pressure chamber back at Berlin were you there when it got back to Berlin?
A: Yes, I was in Berlin, too.
Q: How badly smashed up was it when it got back to Berlin, or was it in good order?
A: When it came back to Berlin there was nothing broken.
Q: It was in usable form?
A: Yes.
Q: Now we are going into Mr. Neff's testimony. Do you recall that Mr. Neff stated that he sabotaged the chamber at Dachau? Do you recall that?
A: Yes, I remember that.
Q: And now you come along and state that the barometer was broken when you returned from Berlin, which more or less corroborates the testimony of Mr. Neff that the chamber had been damaged, doesn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Mr. Neff stated that you went to Berlin to get spare parts to repair the barometer, or the pressure chamber, and that it took you nearly two weeks, he stated, to get the parts, isn't that right? That is what Neff told us.
A: Yes, that is about what he said.
Q: Then by that token he said that was the reason why experiments were still going on in the month of June, isn't that right?
A: Yes, He even said that they lasted till the beginning of July.
Q: That's right. Well now, here we have a strange thing. Defendant Ruff Document Book, this is Exhibit 10, Document No. 6, in the Document Book Ruff No. 1, which is the affidavit of Dr. Max Matthes. On page 22 of the Ruff Document Book, the second paragraph, Dr. Matthes says as follows:
Only at the time of my conversations with Dr. Romberg, did I also learn that a low pressure chamber had come back from Dachau. According to my recollection, the low pressure chamber must have come back to the Institute in May, 1942. I can remember the date because after the return of the low pressure chamber I was ordered by Dr. Ruff to take a trip to Cologne in order to procure spare parts. I made this trip, and on that occasion I was in my home town of Bonn. That was in the time from 1 June to 10 June, 1942, so that the low pressure chamber must have been returned to the Institute in May, 1942.
Now, here is a representative of Ruff's getting spare parts between the dates 1 June and 10 June to repair a low pressure chamber, and you recall that Mr. Neff said that he sabotaged the chamber in the latter part of May, and that Dr. Rosenberg, was two weeks getting the spare parts to return to Dachau to repair said chamber and that he returned about the middle of June. Now, isn't this coincidental, Doctor?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: It certainly is, isn't it?
A: But I think I can explain it. The barometer was repaired in Berlin by the Kutz firm which repaired barometers and which had supplied the barometer in the first place. And Matthes' trip to Bonn —
Q: To Cologne. He was in Bonn, his home —
A: Yes, Bonn was his home town. His trip to Cologne had nothing to do with the repair of the barometer. If I remember correctly, Ruff would probably have known this better — the firm which undo the pumps was located in Cologne, pumps for low pressure chambers.
Q: What were you getting spare parts for if the low pressure chancer was in good condition when you brought it back to Berlin? What did you need parts for at that time? That was an unnecessary trip to take a man from his home town and send him all the way to Cologne to get parts when they weren't needed.
A: The parts were needed. I do not know —
Q: You stated here just a minute ago that the chamber was in good condition. Now, let's make up our minds, Doctor.
A: I don't have to make up my mind. The pumps which Matthes picked up in Cologne — I don't even know whether they were for this low pressure chamber or whether they were needed for one of the other mobile low pressure chamber which were also in operation. This work book of Fohlmeister which was submitted here, it shows that there were several low pressure chambers in Berlin. That book mentions a low pressure chamber at the time when the other chamber was at Dachau. It was still under construction and the pumps were probably for this other chamber. If you have the book there — that work book — you can see that clearly.
Q: Well now, let's discuss another section of this low pressure chamber transfer. Who gave you the authority, and Ruff the authority to remove the low pressure chamber from Dachau to Berlin on the 20th day of May, 1942?
A: Who authorized Ruff?
Q: Yes.
A: Probably that was done with the Medical Inspectorate just like the transfer down to Dachau, in order to have travel orders. In this case, it was a little different because it was sent by railroad.
Q: That's right. He couldn't remove it without authority from above, could he? At least, that's what he tells us.
A: Take it out of Dachau?
Q: Yes.
Q: You didn't need permission from above, meaning from the Luftwaffe, so much as permission from Himmler and Rascher particularly, to get it out of Dachau.
Q: Well, you mean to say that Dr. Ruff could have removed the low pressure chamber from Dachau at any time he so saw fit?
A: No, he certainly couldn't.
Q: That's right. That's what he says. He couldn't.
A: Yes.
Q: Well now, let's look at Mr. Milch's letter on page 77 of Document Book Number 2. This happens to be dated the 20th of May, 1942. It is Document 343A-PS, Page 77 of the English. Now let's read this:
Dear Wolffy:
— It is addressed to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Karl Wolff from Field Marshal Milch. —
In reference to your telegram of 12 May, our medical inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Rascher will be made available until further order in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of these measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at this time.
The low-pressure chamber will not be needed for these low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau.
I convey the special thanks, etc.
Signed "Milch".
Now, here on the 20th of May, Milch is just beginning to discuss the fact that it should no longer remain in Dachau. He thinks it is still in Dachau, doesn't he? You haven't received orders to remove it yet. How did you remove it? Let's turn to the next letter, Doctor.
A: I removed the chamber by saying to Rascher, who wanted to carry on the experiments, "Rascher, there's no point in your trying to keep the chamber here any longer. You will only succeed in doing so for two or three weeks, at the most. It will be better if we stop with the chamber now and perform new experiments later", and Rascher agreed to this. I called Ruff up and said, "Ruff, I've managed it. We can take the chamber away." Ruff sent the drivers down and the chamber was taken out of Dachau, and that's how it happened.
Q: Well now, here we have another letter, fortunately, dated 4 June 1942, on page 78, Document Book Number 2, and this is from Milch to Hippke. It reads as follows:
According to the agreement with the Reichsfuehrer SS the low pressure air chamber for experiments in the neighborhood of Munich is still to be available for two months longer.
Moreover, the Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher is, in addition to his tests in the Luftwaffe, to be on duty for the present for the purposes of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Heil Hitler, Yours, Milch.
He sent a copy to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff.
Now, doesn't it appear that Walter Neff's memory is much better than yours?
A: No, I know very well that the chamber was already gone at that time; that the high altitude experiments had been concluded. That is, in part, clear from the letter which Rascher himself wrote to Hippke.
Q: Let's turn to the next letter, NO. 284, on page 79. Just turn the page:
Dear Dr. Rascher:
Your letter of 5 June 1942 —
Now we're up to the 5th of June, and, according to these documents, the chamber is still there.
Your letter of 5 June 1942, to Reichsfuehrer-SS was handed SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of Reichsfuehrer-SS Personal Staff, for further action, on whose behalf I wish to inform you that in keeping with an order of Field Marshal Milch the low-pressure chamber is to remain available an additional two months for experiments.
Field Marshal Milch also ordered that in addition to your experiments for the Luftwaffe, also you are to continue working until further notice for the purposes of Reichsfuehrer-SS.
Now, according to this letter — not according to your opinion, but according to this letter, the chamber is still at Dachau, isn't it?
A: No, I don't see that. The letter is nothing but —
Q: Well, we'll let the Tribunal decide. Tell me —
A: May I say something?
Q: Certainly. Go ahead.
A: This letter is merely one to pass on the letter from Milch which has just been read. That is, the letter of the 4th of June, Exhibit 36.
Q: Right.
A: And Milch writes that the chamber is to stay for two more months.
Q: That's right.
A: Whether Milch, when he wrote this letter, actually knew that the experiments had already been stopped and wrote this letter nevertheless; or whether he didn't know it, I can't judge.
Q: Yes, but you couldn't remove this chamber — either you or Ruff — without the permission of Hippke or Milch. Don't forget that. You couldn't remove it. You didn't have the authority to take it out of there after you had one death occur — to stop these experiments of Rascher. You had to leave it there because you would need a superior order. Now, here are, more or less, orders telling you to leave it there for two months, didn't they?
A: The higher orders needed to remove the chamber had to come from Himmler through Rascher. He had to agree to returning the chamber.
Milch himself, or Hippke, as the letter of the 20th of May shows, could say that the chamber was not needed by them. What had to happen happened — that Rascher approached Milch, through Himmler, and asked to be able to keep it longer and Milch writes, probably knowing that the chamber had already left: "Yes, you can keep it longer." Besides, as far as the breaking off of the experiments is concerned, which according to the appearance of the documents, lasted two months beyond the 4th of June — that was far into July — I should like to refer to the letter of Rascher of the 5th of June, 1942, Document No. 283, Exhibit 82. Rascher writes:
A few days ago I was called into Hippke's office for a conference When I told him that the report on all the experiments was not available yet, he did not demand any report.
Rascher himself writes on the 13th of June:
A few days ago I saw Hippke
— that is, let us say, on the 12th of June, and he also writes:
the complete report is not finished
which indicates that the experiments were already finished at that time.
Q: Of course, that can be interpreted that the experiments were not finished and you had to finish them up before you could finish the report. There are two ways of interpreting that, Doctor.
Now, tell me, Doctor Romberg, after the chamber finally did get back to Berlin and the experiments were concluded — whether it be the time you state or the time that is borne out by the documents and the testimony of Walter Neff — then, as you have pointed out in your direct examination, Mr. Rascher received an assignment from Himmler later in the year, that is, in the fall or winter of the year, and one of these assignments, you have ably pointed out, was again research with low pressure chamber and in the same field. Now, did Rascher ever get a low pressure chamber again? In late 1942 or 1943?
A: No, he did not.
Q: You have stated that he couldn't get one all over Germany, didn't you? You stated on direct examination that he tried to get one and he couldn't get one?
A: No, I did not say that. In my direct examination I merely quoted the individual documents showing Rascher's efforts to get a new low pressure chamber.
Q: Well, he didn't get one, did he?
A: To my knowledge and to the knowledge of the Medical Inspectorate which we contacted later, he did not receive any chamber.
Q: Did he get your chamber?
A: Ours? No.
Q: He must have gotten some chamber because he conducted experiments in 1943 with a chamber. Here in the Sievers Diary which is Document No. 538 contained on page 63 of Document Book Number 3, is an entry under date of April 6, 1943, the eighth entry made by Sievers reads as follows:
Continuation of the low pressure chamber experiments.
Now, it appears that he had some sort of chamber down there, doesn't it? Was it yours?
A: What was the date of this entry?
Q: I believe I said the 6th of April 1943, and it is in the Sievers Diary. No need to look at it, Doctor. I quoted it to you.
A: No, I don't have it here anyhow. I just want to say that might have something to do with Document NO-270, Exhibit 110, in Document Book 3, where Rascher tells about his conference with Hippke. Again, he says that he wants to conduct low pressure chamber experiments with me at the same time when he was in Berlin. Anyhow, he went to see Sievers and again told him that he wanted to continue the low pressure chamber experiments, just as he had told Hippke.
Q: Well, let's go on, Doctor. Now, Dr. Romberg, you, and your chief, Dr. Ruff, maintain that all you were interested in was what the title of your official report said:
Rescue from High Altitudes.
And that you merely took people up and down, quickly, up by explosive decompression, and down by free fall, or parachute and that you were not interested in anything else. Is that right? That was your primary interest — in simple language.
A: That was our primary interest.
Q: Well, now, I want to turn to Document Book 2 again, page 91. This is Document NO-402, your report. This will be on page 16 of the German; not of the Document Book, but of the German document itself.
Now, on page 16 of the original, the last paragraph on the page, you say there in the report — and by the way I might ask you — that was your signature on the report, was it not?
A: Yes.
Q: You say there:
In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon posthypoxemic twilight state remains somewhat of a riddle.
What's the riddle?
A: One could not say exactly whether these severe failures were caused alone by the lack of oxygen, or whether they might have something to do with the bends disease — caisson disease — or the bends disease.
Q: So, then, you were interested, according to your own report, in that problem of gas or air bubbles. And your friend Rascher obliged, supplied the answer to the riddle, didn't he? He killed a few people for you, right in your presence. You were there. You watched the autopsy. He showed you the bubbles in the brain, in the brain's blood vessels — the bubbles which were caused by the decompression. That was the answer, wasn't it — to the riddle? You thought it was.
A: No. First of all, Rascher was not my friend. And "bends", as quoted here in connection with the decompression which were experienced because this was a well known problem which had often been complained of, and there existed quite a bit of literature, it was known particularly by the Navy in regard to caisson disease. — It was not really a new problem. The finding of air bubbles in an autopsy is not in itself an explanation of these failure symptoms. One might be able to determine that in a very careful examination if one could prove air bubbles in a certain center. But, as far as I know that is very difficult or even impossible because air embolism occurs in surgical cases too, for example, if a vein is cut during an operation, it also occurs —
Q: I think we are familiar with all that, Doctor. The point I am trying to bear out is that I am not trying to indicate that you and Ruff made Rascher do this, or made Rascher kill people, but you let him do it, and you were very glad to have the answer to your riddle. You state in your paper that neither you nor Ruff after the murder saw to it that Rascher was indicted far murder, did you? You needed that information, and you have it here in your report.
A: No, that of course is not right. I must object to that strenuously. The observations which Rascher made, which he gives in his interim reports, he never made them public in any way, and never supplied them to the Luftwaffe, to Ruff, or to me in any way.
He reformed —
Q: Well, Doctor, you go on a little bit in this document, where you and Ruff say — you and Rascher in this report — on the next page, an excerpt:
It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack.
Your chief, Ruff, now has admitted on the stand that pressure drop sickness does not occur if one takes people merely up and down quickly, but that a person has to stay up for some time to develop this pressure drop sickness. Well, who were these people that you refer to in this report when you state "It appeared often." Who do you mean by that? — Just you and Rascher? Certainly you don't mean just the two of you.
A: I am referring, for one thing, also to the experiment which was used for clarification, and also to the slow sinking experiments where these symptoms occurred, which were not clear to us. And as an attempt to explain these peculiar symptoms this experiment was used where, without any lack of oxygen, when sustained for a long time — it says forty minutes there — at thirteen kilometers, a similar severe condition occurred with paralysis of both legs and interruption of the sight which lasted for two hours. A similar condition as in the slow sinking experiments where there was really only a lack of oxygen, and really there could be no bends to judge by the time, but just because the serious symptoms in this one experimental subject, and the serious symptoms on myself were so similar, this experiment on myself is quoted here only for this reason.—
Q: That's right. We will come to that. We will go into that more specifically.
A: —And it is said "it appeared often."
Q: Right.
A: That remained open. We were not able to explain it quite. We meant we tried to explain these symptoms.
Q: Well, Doctor, you and Ruff both here have claimed that your report merely concerned itself with rapid ascent and immediate descent. Now, that was already withdrawn by Ruff when he was on the stand when I confronted him with this part of the report, the self-experiment which you and Rascher had performed because you and Rascher had stayed up forty minutes — I think you stayed up forty minutes and Rascher ten minutes — and then you include this in your report even though this type of research, right here does not fall in with what you claim was your problem at all, does it?
A: No, it does not. Therefore —
Q: That 's right.
A: That is why we didn't perform these experiments on experiment subjects —
Q: And further, Ruff admitted that it was the most dangerous experiment and if it had not been interrupted it might have been fatal, didn't he? Do you think the same as Ruff did?
A: According to my knowledge today, yes. At the time we didn't know about this death yet, which had occurred in such long lasting experiments at a certain altitude. Ruff learned that in the Aero-Medical Center. This knowledge originated in 1946.
Q: How many times did you and Rascher go through this same type of experiment? Only that one time?
A: This experiment — this extremely long one?
Q: Yes, that one.
A: It was performed only once, I am sure, but otherwise we stayed up for a considerable time in other experiments. Then there were minor disturbances.
Q: Then you and Rascher would have only exposed yourselves to such a danger as that? Is that it?
A: We did not deliberately expose ourselves to this danger to make an extreme experiment, but we stayed up there because otherwise in the two or three ascents per day which we usually performed, and afterwards in the second or third ascent we had these symptoms which did not occur the first time.
And we wanted then to determine whether the symptoms were caused by going up three times a day, and, say, ten minutes at a time, or whether the same would occur if one goes up for a half hour.
Q: That has been explained to us fully by Dr. Ruff. But you actually went up to these two heights, 13,000 or 13,500 feet one you stayed there for an extensive length of time on one occasion only. Is that right?
A: That experiment took place at 13 or 13.5 km. That is what it says here.
Q: Yes; and you did it only once?
A: I can't say that with certainty, but we did not do that too often. I would not know of this experiment at all if it were not mentioned in this report.
Q: You just said you did not do it very often; what do you mean when you say here:
It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness (aeroembolism) had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack
Now, doctor, isn't it that you simply in this report did not want to mention the others, because they had died, since you and Rascher never interrupted an experiment because of pain felt by subjects and when it says it appeared often, if certainly did, in Rascher's work at least.
A: I did not quite understand the question, but in any case, "this happened often" that means that the symptoms in the slow sinking experiments, paralysis or interruption of sight, occurred that these symptoms were familiar to those in our own experiments.
Q: Well, now you don't deny the fact that Rascher, supposedly on his own initiative, conducted experiments to determine this gas bubble situation and air-embolism and pressure drop sickness or whatever you want to call it. He did that on the people at Dachau on his own initiative and performed autopsies on them; you saw the autopsies? He did that, didn't he?
A: Of course, he did perform experiments with fatal results, that is proved by the Documents and he apparently had several points in mind, which he wanted to clarify. He actually told me himself that the E.K.G. and Bends was one of the things, he wanted to clear up, he proved they were air bubbles and he wanted to attack this problem, but that is a field which had nothing to do with ours.
Q: But neither did this experiment, which you conducted. You admitted here right now that this one experiment had nothing to do with your field, We'll go on with this report. In the next sentence you state, in the same paragraph:
In this connection, the subjective accounts made by the authors in two experiments, each was interesting. Now what happened to the objective findings, they are only the subjective findings; what happened to the objective findings?
A: Our own observations? I cannot say exactly. My disturbances were described according to the records that Rascher kept. He wrote down my symptoms, I, myself, of course, don't know that in detail. I was so seriously affected, even afterward, that I did not know exactly what had happened.
Q: Well then, you did not know, whether or not you had pressure drop sickness, did you?
A: No, during the experiment, I certainly did not know it.
Q: Well, now here are some tell-tale marks of your connection in that pressure drop sickness which played a definite part. On Page 18 of this report wherein you state: this is in the English copy at the top of page 92, the first paragraph, the last phrase in the last sentence, Your Honor, — where you state there and I quote:
so that the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested.
Now, you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness, than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you.
A: No, the air bubbles which one sees in an autopsy are not proof of this, they don't necessarily have anything to do with it. For example, if in a case of embolism, if it is caused in draining a lung, besides the small blood vessels are generally cut and gas embolism is caused in the blood stream and sometimes this occurs in fatal operations, but it is not necessarily true that people who die of gas embolism during an operation, have, or must have such symptoms.
One cannot say that the picture of gas embolism, necessarily leads to the symptoms. On the other hand, one cannot say, if there are these symptoms in a death. In an autopsy, one must have to find bubbles or if they are found if they have anything to do with the symptoms, but the symptoms are not necessarily connected with these bubbles.
Q: But, you say here, I quote:
That the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested.
Now, you could not have concluded that from your subjective experiences could you?
A: Oh, yes, bends was not a new problem in aviation medicine, the whole field of bends or caisson disease, or whatever you want to call it, is a very old problem. In the Navy it is called Caisson-disease and it is called the same thing in America, I believe.
Q: Now from your subjective experiences you could have stated that was due to oxygen intoxication, paradoxical effect of oxygen administration, or anything else in the world; couldn't you?
A: I don't think I understand the question, would you mind repeating it?
Q: I said, you could have from you subjective experiments you related here, when you expedited the subjective experiences, I said what you see in this report, from the face of the report itself and on the face of your experiences; that this condition, which you describe, could have been due to anything else in the world, it could be due to oxygen intoxication, to a paradoxical effect of oxygen administration or any other cause or reason for it; is that true?
A: No, lack of oxygen could not have been the cause in our self experiment, which is described here, and the time of lack of oxygen was only about 5 seconds.
The lack of oxygen was certainly not the only reason for those symptoms. On the other hand it was noteworthy that in these experiments there was paralysis and interference with sight after these five seconds of lack of oxygen. It was a unique condition; First there were for complaints and then 5 seconds of lack of oxygen and then suddenly these serious interruptions with the sight and paralysis, for this reason this circumstance is used to attempt to use the unique conditions in these low sinking experiments. Now Caisson disease was nothing new, some effect of it, for example, the disturbance of the eye sight, the central loss of sight in the middle of the field of vision, that is suffered by almost everyone who was in the low pressure chamber frequently and the only explanation was, there must be small air bubbles, which don't even have to be in the circulatory system, which can be anywhere in the tissues and which lead to pain, which is called bends. Then such cases are repeated in the tissues, it leads to paralysis and when in the brain it leads to disturbance in the sight. That was know, and particularly Ruff and Becker-Freyseng worked on this problem in the medical center, because this matter had not been cleared up. It was claimed, and known that such various complaints occurred, but it was not clear what caused the symptoms and this had not been cleared up by the fatalities which occurred repeatedly in the case of Caisson sufferers, if they are not taken to a hospital in time.
Q: Well, doctor, all that information is of course valuable, but be that as it may, here we have a report. A report is, as I understand, a listing of what a researcher found out during the course of the research work.
Now you have made those statements in this report, which is a report of your work at Dachau, listed what you discovered there and you have stated that you have found this phenomena, this combination of the pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack and you say it is suggested; how did you determine that; were you just guessing, just guessing?
A: It was not "just guessing", it was a theory which could be used to explain the matter and for that reason, I did write:
it often seemed that the lack of oxygen was combined in some instances with pressure drop sickness.
That is a scientific hypothesis.
Q: Well, as a matter of fact, doctor, you didn't have to guess, did you? All you had to do was ask Rascher?
A: Rascher in his experiments as we know from the interim reports did not learn anything in this respect. No results are mentioned in the interim reports in that direction. Besides Rascher did not inform me of their result of his own work.
Q: He didn't have to inform you — you stood there and watched it. He didn't have to inform you at all?
A: Yes, I watched one autopsy. That was my duty.
Q: Sure, that certainly was. Now Ruff has admitted here that the atmospheric difference between the ground level and the altitudes at which you were operating was not sufficient to make any experienced aviation medical man to think of pressure drop sickness. That is something akin to the caisson disease, the bends and so forth. Now, wasn't it Rascher's air bubbles and his dead men that made you think of it?
A: No, certainly not. It was the observed disturbances gave rise to this thought. I have said that such air bubbles can appear and often do appear without any such disturbances.
Q: Well now, doctor, when again did the first death occur?
A: About the 1st of April, I said.
Q: Now, how did the death occur? Did they take the man up too high, and have him stay there too long. Tell us the particulars of why that man died?
A: It was an experiment at, I believe 13 or 14 kilometers. Rascher obviously stayed too long at the same altitude so that probably there was a fatal air embolism which caused death.
Q: Well, now at this first death, how did you happen to be there?
A: I already said that Rascher frequently performed experiments for which he had an assignment from Himmler, which he was performing in addition to our joint experiments, and sometimes I watched these experiments, just as in our institute I sometimes watched the centrifugal experiments of Ruff, although I was not working on them myself.
Q: Well you were not assigned to watch these, were you?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: How did you know Rascher was going to perform an experiment at this time?
A: I didn't know it beforehand. Generally, I was at the experimental station and at the low pressure chamber anyhow and Rascher carried out experiments with a different man, outside of our series.
Q: And hadn't you just carried on an experiment before and within the same period, with one of your men?
A: No doubt. We carried out experiments every day on our own people.
Q: That is strange then. You probably carried out a couple of experiments, and then Rascher said, wait a minute now, Dr. Romberg, we will have an experiment for Himmler. This has nothing to do with you, step aside, you get out of the way a bit, I am going to experiment on this fellow for Himmler. Is that what he said to you?
A: No, it wasn't like that.
Q: Then how did you differentiate between the Luftwaffe experiments and the SS experiments?
A: I know what experiments I performed myself.
Q: Yes, but you were collaborators, weren't you? You were ordered by Ruff to go down there and collaborate with Rascher, weren't you?
A: Yes, for these experiments for rescue from high altitude. We worked together on that.
Q: Now these three deaths that took place, how did the second death occur?
A: The second death?
Q: Yes.
A: As far as I recall that was an experiment at a much higher altitudes, higher than 14, it might have been 17, and probably there was again a fatal embolism. After a certain time at this altitude the subject suddenly died.
Q: Tell us about the third death?
A: The third death was just like the second one.
Q: How about the other deaths?
A: I don't know. I can only judge from the reports where Rascher reported these deaths to Himmler.
Q: Well now Mr. McHaney interrogated you on the 30th day of October 1946. At that time you told him that you knew that more than three fatalities occurred, and you thought it was approximately five to ten people died in these experiments. Didn't you tell that to Mr. McHaney last October?
A: I said that, yes. I said that in the Milch trial too.
Q: How did you know about that? Where did you get that knowledge that other deaths occurred?
A: I learned that from the other prisoners who told me about it when the experiments were broken off. They said they were really glad that it was finished. I said, "why", and they said: "Because things have happened." They weren't definite, but I concluded that there had been other deaths.
Q: Well weren't you ashamed when you heard of that from the inmates at the conclusion of the experiments sometime in June or July? Weren't you ashamed you had been associated with Rascher in his murder mill?
A: The situation was not simple for me. I didn't want to have anything more to do with these experiments; that can be seen from the fact that I interrupted them.
Q: Well now in the course of these deaths, just what were you doing yourself? Were you just standing there looking in the window or were you operating some of the apparatus for Rascher?
A: No, I have already said that at the first time I was looking at the electro-cardiogram, the point of light that follows the heart.
Q: Then you were working with Rascher. You were studying the electro cardiogram? You were working with Rascher under Ruff's orders.
You worked with Rascher on that experiment and studied the electrocardiogram?
A: No, I didn't collaborate with Rascher. I happened to be watching this experiment and I saw the electro-cardiogram, and when I saw a critical point was being reached where I myself would have stopped the experiment, I said to Rascher.
Q: Well what did it require at that particular point to stop the experiment? Suppose you were operating the controls that Rascher had in front of him or the controls on the pressure chamber. At that particular point, the fatal point where you noticed on the electrocardiogram, when you were studying it, what could you have done if you were operating it to stop the experiment and save the person from dying? What would have been the quickest thing to do, pull a valve or what? This is a simple question, doctor. I think you can answer it briefly. Did you turn a crank, or push in a plug or button, or throw off a valve, or how would you save him?
A: Do you mean if that had been my own experiment?
Q: Yes, what would you have done at the moment to save the man, if you saw he was going to high, what was the crucial thing to do to stop the experiment?
A: I have to ask you again. Do you mean what I would have done in my own experiment with my own experimental subject, or what I could have done to make Rascher stop his experiment?
Q: I am not asking you either question. I am asking you what could have been done to stop the experiment at that particular point. How would you stop it, how would anybody stop it, what did you do with the equipment to stop the experiment so that he would not die? Is there a button you push, or what is there?
A: Rascher had a control in his hand with which he regulated the altitude. He would have had to turn that so that the pressure would be increased, that is, the altitude would be reduced in the chamber.
Q: Well now, on these chambers, you do understand how all of the equipment works, don't you? It is elementary to you, isn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: And you were thoroughly familiar with the running of that chamber, weren't you?
A: Yes, I knew that.
Q: You had experimented with it yourself?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: You were connected with an institute for aviation research?
A: Yes, I was an employee of Ruff's.
Q: And you could determine from a study of the electro-cardiogram that the subject in that particular chamber at that time was reaching an altitude whore it might well result in death? You could determine that from your experience in the field of aviation medicine, couldn't you?
A: When death occurs exactly I couldn't tell because I had never experienced any deaths in this sphere. I have already said that I myself, if this were my own experiments, would have stopped.
Q: Well now for the first time I have hoard it — it doesn't appear in your affidavit and it never appeared in your interrogations before this but here for the first time in your direct examination you testified that you warned Rascher; you said: "Now be careful there, Sigmund, let's be careful, you are going to high." Now did you say that? If you did you must have known that death was going to come out of this thing, doctor?
A: No, I din't know that exactly. I only knew it was a critically high point. I didn't say "Sigmund", I called him Rascher: But as far as I know in my interrogation here I said that. I pointed this out to Rascher. This is not the first time I have said that.
Q: Well now while Rascher was operating those controls could he himself see the electrocardiogram?
A: Yes, he could.
Q: Well now could you, with your arms reach out and point out the Tribunal how far the controls were from the electro cardiogram, how far away was he from this physically? Was he where he could look over and study it here, and just what was his position with reference to the electro-cardiogram.
A: Yes, I can show you. Here pointing was the window where Rascher was watching the experiment, and to the left about that far, was the machine which he had to regulate the altitude and to the right was the electro cardiogram.
Q: Why couldn't you just reach right over there and turned that wheel and save that man's life.
A: I said to Rascher he should go down.
Q: I am asking you a question: Why couldn't you? You were standing at the electrocardiogram. You weren't ten miles away. Why couldn't you have reached over and turned that wheel and save that man's life. You could have, couldn't you?
A: If I said that to him and he didn't do it—then I would not have been able to achieve anything by force. I would have had to beat him down, or something.
Q: I agree with you, Dr. Romberg, that perhaps scientists are not good boxers or wrestlers, but Mr. Rascher was not a six foot six, perfect Nordic specimen; he was in fact a man smaller than you were. You were physically better than he was and you could well have reached over and turned that wheel and saved that man's life, and then discuss with him later by use of words— as you say, words are so important, you can do more with words than you can with physical strength. Then you could have discussed the problem with him intelligently with words. And if you couldn't have gotten further with words, then you could have walked out and gone back to Berlin, and let him do it as he wished. Now, you were in a position to reach over and turn that wheel, weren't you, weren't you?
A: No, since I said that to Rascher, and he didn't do it, he obviously didn't intend to do that. If, at that moment, I had attacked him by force—
Q: You wouldn't have had to attack him—just reach over and turn the wheel. Don't touch Rascher—just his hand—just turn the wheel. Very simple.
A: He had the wheel in his hand. If he doesn't do anything when I tell him to, he wouldn't do it if I try to turn it. He would simply have gone on with the experiment.
Q: You were bigger than Rascher, weren't you?
A: It may be yes, I was a little taller.
Q: Well, now, after the person died, you make it ridiculous that you might well have reported him to the police for murder. Why didn't you do that? It is a logical thing to do when a man commits murder. It isn't so ridiculous to turn in a murderer.
A: It looks like murder now, and now that we know all about it we can decide that, but at the time I knew that Rascher was a Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe —
Q: Let me ask you one question. When you saw this dead man, what did it look like then? It might look like murder now, right in this courtroom, but you saw that dead man lying there—what did it look like then?
A: It was an experiment with fatal result. Such experiments do happen in the world, and nobody says it is a murder.
Q: Well, now you saw the autopsies too, didn't you? Did they perform an autopsy on that man?
A: Yes; I said that already.
Q: And after having objected, as you say you did, both while the man was in the chamber and the altitude was increasing, and then objecting after the man died—you still watched the autopsy after all this argument you had with Rascher?
A: I didn't think it was nice at all. Rascher had continued the experiment too long, and the man died. But whether he deliberately intended to murder him—I couldn't say. But a death had occurred, and so I watched the autopsy.
Q: Now, at this time when this death occurred, Rascher was in the Luftwaffe, wasn't he?
A: Yes.
Q: You were in the Luftwaffe—a civilian employee of the Luftwaffe?
A: No; I was an employee of the German Research Institute for Aviation. We did not belong to the Luftwaffe; therefore we did not wear a uniform.
Q: Well, you were doing work for the Luftwaffe?
A: In part we worked for the Luftwaffe, too. But we also worked for industry.
Q: So then you reported this death and all these deaths, as a matter of fact—but you reported this first death to Ruff immediately, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he do about it? Did he call the police?
A: No, as he said himself, he did not. The police were not competent in the case of Rascher. He was a number of the Luftwaffe; Luftwaffe courts were competent. Ruff reported it to Rascher and his superior the Chief of the Medical Service.
Q: Well, then after this first death, how does it happen that Romberg didn't turn up his coat collar and go out to get in the tractor part of the chamber and drive it to Berlin? Why didn't you got that chamber right out of there immediately? You saw deaths there. Why did you stay around?
A: We talked about that for a long time, and as Ruff mentioned that we deliberated what we should do. It was clear that Ruff would report it; we didn't have to think about that. We also realized that we would achieve nothing with Himmler by going to him and saying Rascher performed an experiment and a person died. Himmler would probably have said, " I know I gave him the orders. That is none of your business."
For this reason we decided that I should go back, that our experiments should be completed so that we could say the experiments had been concluded; the chamber will not be needed any more. And then, in this way, after the experiments were concluded Rascher gave his approval and Himmler gave his approval—the chamber could be removed from Dachau to make any further work impossible.
Q: The fallacy of all that story is that you had ample opportunity to just not repair the barometer. Here you were, trying to find a scheme and a way to quickly get that thing out of there, that chamber out of Dachau, and here was a broken part. The only way to get it repaired was to go to Berlin to get the parts, and Mr. Neff was so disappointed, he said his story was, he was disappointed that you had returned with the part and fixed it, when he had sabotaged it.
But you story is even far more fantastic. You said that you rushed right back in a mater of a 2, 3, 4, 5 days, instead of two weeks, like Neff said, rushed right back to get it in order, and then two people died after you put it back into operation again. It certainly was an active way to stop Rascher's work—wasn't it?
A: I believe if it was compared with what Rascher intended to do-as the documents say; what I read this morning—it was a very effective method.
Q: It certainly was.
Well now, doctor, you then still had—after you even cleared out of Dachau entirely, get out of Dachau altogether—the Chamber was retired to Berlin, whether it be May or July or August. Then you still associated yourself with Rascher when you reported and you wrote that report about the film, and the unfortunate fact that Milch didn't show up for the showing in September. So still even in September you were still friendly with Dr. Rascher and working with Dr. Rascher, the man that had proved himself to you to be a murderer, didn't you?
A: It was not so clear to me that he was a murderer—neither morally or legally is it quite clear, I said already —
Q: Now, at that time, you must recall that you have stated here on this witness stand that you personally saw three deaths, and that at the completion of the experiment—and you bring it way back in May that your inmates told you that there were some ten deaths. And now, with that in view, you knew this, you say—according to your own testimony in the month of May?
My word! In September you are still associating yourself with Rascher—proud to be with him, weren't you?
A: No, I was certainly not proud of working with Rascher. After Himmler gave me orders to perform cold experiments I could have worked with Rascher all I wanted to.
Q: When did Rascher give you the recommendations for a medal? When did that occur?
A: Recommendation?
Q: Didn't Rascher recommend you for the medal that Himmler gave you?
A: To what extent that came from Rascher, I don't know exactly. It was doubtless so that Rascher, himself—if it was he who handed in my name—wanted the War Merit Cross First Class. He told me himself that he already had a Second Class, and he wanted the First Class. Rascher no doubt wanted to bribe me in a sense to give him back the low-pressure chamber. He also wanted to continue with the experiments. He hoped that I would work with him again. What I said here about my attitude to Rascher, I did not tell Rascher personally, of course. I couldn't.
Q: Well, you were given a medal, weren't you? Yes or no.
A: Yes, I got it.
Q: Who gave you the medal?
A: I received it by mail with a document which was signed by Keitel.
Q: Keitel? And what did you get the medal for?
A: For services in the field of aviation research the War Merit Cross Second Class was awarded.
Q: And the documents which show that Rascher recommended you to Himmler for that medal, as I recall?
A: Yes, I have seen that in the documents too.
MR. HARDY: I have one more question, Your Honor. It will only take me a few minutes and I will be through.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
Q: Now, the Nurnberg conference on freezing took place in October, didn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: You were there?
A: I was there.
Q: Ruff was there?
A: Ruff was there.
Q: You stated, on direct examination, that it was obvious that deaths occurred in the course of those experiments?
A: I didn't say that it was clear. I said that it was clear to me personally just as the witness Lutz here testified that it was clear to him.
Q: It was also clear to you, from the report given, that deaths had occurred? Is that what you are trying to tell me? Or was it clear to you because of the fact that Holzloehner had told you. How was it clear to you that deaths had occurred?
A: It was clear to me because I myself had seen that Rascher had had deaths, because I had broken off my work with him for that reason, taken the chamber away for that reason, refused to perform the cold experiments with him; and, therefore, I assumed that Rascher had had deaths again in the cold experiments, and if Holzloehner talked about deaths at the conference, obviously they were deaths which occurred thanks to the work of Rascher and Finke. I personally assumed that these were deaths that had occurred through cold experiments, but this was not obvious to every one.
Q: Now, did Ruff realize that persons had died in freezing experiments?
He was there at the meeting.
A: I don't know what Ruff said anymore.
Q: What has he said here.
A: I don't know exactly. I believe he said he didn't realize it.
Q: And now you realized, on one hand, that deaths occurred in the high altitude experiments and you realized that deaths occurred in the freezing experiments. You were at a conference in October for freezing experiments, and, at such conference, there were several men there of considerable importance. Did you objects to these wholesale deaths as a result of the experiments in the Dachau concentration camp, to any one? An active objection?
A: Actively, no. I didn't do anything but what I had done before. The deaths which I knew about positively I had reported to the Luftwaffe, to Racher's personal chief and —
Q: (Interrupting) Now, as a physician, a man who was fully aware of the manner in which Rascher worked and surely realized, sitting in that conference in October that even further deaths were occurring in Dachau, did you object then, as a physician? Did you stand up and object or didn't you go to somebody and say "This must be stopped"?
A: No, I did not. There were other people there who realized it too, who were much more powerful than I.
Q: Well, then, you didn't go anywhere or actively object at that meeting? Did you?
A: At this meeting, no. I didn't do anything active. I had done that already.
Q: Then I can assume that it didn't bother you one iota if every inmate of the Dachau concentration camp was killed, did it? It didn't bother you at all?
A: It would have bothered me very much. I personally broke off the high altitude experiments for that very reason and took the chamber away. I acted against Hitler 's orders and against my signature when I reported the matter to Ruff which was certainly not without danger, so as to stop the high altitude experiments. The Rascher experiments in this way, and I can say, that he didn't carry out any more experiments.
Q: One other question. You were down there as a subordinate of Ruff in Dachau, weren't you? A subordinate of Ruff, according to Ruff's own testimony.
A: I was an associate of Ruff, yes.
Q: It was your duty to report to Ruff, wasn't it, the workings and the activities of your experiments?
A: Of course.
Q: No further questions, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Dr. Romberg, at the time this first death occurred in the Rascher experiment, who was assisting Dr. Rascher at the time as a technician?
A: Working the controls. He did that himself as I have described. In the motor car, where the pumps were, it was probably Neff or Sobotta; he often did that. Or some other prisoner who knew something about auto mechanics. Those three people always took care of the motor.
Q: Do you know that to be a fact at that time this first death occurred?
A: That it was one of these three who was in the pump car?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, it certainly could have only been one of those three because nobody else had any business in that car. These two experimental subjects and Neff were the ones who always took care of the pump because they understood those things.
Q: I understood Dr. Ruff to say, on this examination, that the minimum requirements for the conduct of an experiment was one doctor and one technical assistant, Now, who was present, assisting Dr. Rascher, at the time the second death occurred?
A: That was surely the same situation. To go into Ruff's testimony when he said technical assistant he no doubt meant some one to take care of the pump. In the DVL that was generally the mechanic, Fohlmeister, or one of the apprentices in the work shop. In Dachau, there was no special employee or any one from the DVL present, but since the pumps were built very simply anyone could take care of them who know a little bit about auto mechanics and so it came about that one of these people always took care of it.
Q: Who was present as a technician or technical assistant at the time the third death occurred that you witnessed?
A: The situation was surely always the same. I cannot say exactly which of these men happened to be present in this case.
Q: Approximately when did the first death occur?
A: At the end of April.
Q: 1942?
A: 1942, yes.
Q: When did the second death occur?
A: That must have been about May. Perhaps about the 12th to the 15th — about the middle of May.
Q: When did the third death occur?
A: I believe that was on the next day or the second day afterwards.
Q: When the first death occurred, who assisted in taking the dead experimental subject out of the chamber?
A: I can't say for certain, but it was probably so that Rascher sent Neff over to the mortuary to announce it and that two prisoners came from there with a stretcher to take the body away.
Q: Where was the autopsy performed?
A: In the mortuary which belonged to the hospital.
Q: Who assisted in taking the dead victim out of the chamber when the second death occurred?
A: That was in the same way. The prisoners who worked in the mortuary, who were assigned to the mortuary, took away the body.
Q: Who assisted in taking the victim out of the low pressure chamber when the third death occurred?
A: That was no doubt the same two prisoners who took the body away from the chamber on a stretcher.
JUDGE SEBRING: I have no other questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 5 May 1947)