1947-05-05, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United states of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please, Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court save the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness. I have a note from the prison physician certifying that Defendant Oberheuser is unable to appear in court today. She will be excused pursuant to this certificate, it appearing that her absence will in no wise prejudice her case.
Counsel may proceed.
Dr. HANS ROMBERG — Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the Defendant Romberg):
Q: Mr. Romberg, what activities, in detail, were involved in taking core of the electro-cardiogram?
A: Attending to the electrocardiogram began with putting the arm bands connected with the metal plates on the arm of the subject and starting the current. This had to be done before the experiment began. Then the apparatus had to be cut into the circuit, the little dot that registers the movements on the film had to be started, and then this moving point of light had to be observed, and at the moment when you wanted to record the motion the film had to be set in motion and this registered the actual electrocardiogram curve.
Q: Now I can repeat then, in order to be perfectly sure that I am right, that attending to the electrocardiogram in detail involves the following activities: first, putting on the electrodes, secondly, cutting in the machine itself, the amplifier, then adjusting the point of light, then observing the point of light, and, fifth, setting the film in motion. Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Now, will you please concentrate on the experiment in which the first death took place. In this experiment, who took care of putting on the electrodes?
A: Rascher, since this was his experiment, and since he laid particular importance on registering the electrocardiogram.
Q: Why was Rascher so interested in registering the electrocardiogram record?
A: That probably interested him particularly. He had already spoken of Fahrenkamp. As we have now seen from the documents, he intended to work out the whole thing and evaluate it with Fahrenkamp.
Q: You have said, though, that Fahrenkamp was not present at these experiments.
A: That is correct, the experiments were broken off first.
Q: Was Fahrenkamp a specialist in any field?
A: He was a heart specialist, so far as I know.
Q: In other words, you believe that Fahrenkamp was to have been included in these experiments because they were experiments in which the activity of the heart and thus the control of the heart activity through the electrocardiogram played an important role?
Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is so. That can be seen from Himmler's letter.
Q: What letter are you referring to?
A: The letter of 13 April, 1971 b PS, Exhibit 51.
Q: And are you, therefore, of the opinion that in these experiments which Rascher performed, alone he was particularly interested in the activity of the heart and therefore in observing the electrocardiogram?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you also of the opinion that even if you had wanted to attend to the electrocardiogram Rascher would not have permitted it because thus he would have been leaving up to you what was the most important thing to him in his own experiment; is that correct?
A: Yes, he was interested primarily in the electrocardiogram, and he had to check it himself.
Q: Now, to return to the experiment in which there was the first death. You said that Rascher himself put on the electrodes. Now, who cut in the amplifier?
A: Rascher himself did that, and he also adjusted the point of light.
Q: And who observed the electrocardiogram during the experiment?
A: Also Rascher.
Q: In your affidavit, this is the first document in prosecution document book number 2, it states that you had studied the electrocardiogram during this first experiment Now, let me ask you, Mr. Romberg, this word "study", was that a word that you chose?
A: No, I probably said that I took a look at it, or something of that sort, but I certainly didn't say "study", because this was such a minor thing for me that when I drew up this affidavit I didn't lay any great importance on it.
Q: Do you remember the interrogation on the basis of which this affidavit was drawn up?
A: Not in detail.
Q: Do you remember whether in that interrogation you gave an answer to each individual question?
A: I can't say that for sure today but I certainly did not use this word "study" when I gave my answer.
Q: If you wanted to characterize this situation correctly, what word would you substitute for the word "study"?
A: Well, I probably said at that time that I looked at the electrocardiogram.
Q: You mean to say, then, that your activity at the experiment was not one of supervision in which you observed the electrocardiogram, but you wanted to say that because you were present you more or less by accident cast a glance at the electrocardiogram, which draws attention to itself anyhow because it contains an electric spark which from time to time lit up and moved. Is that correct?
A: Yes, there is a point of light moving on a little screen.
Q: In this first fatality who started the film in motion?
A: Rascher did, on the basis of his constant observations there ; when he wanted to have a part of the experiment registered on the screen he cut the film in.
Q: I assume further that running this machine involves also turning off the film. Now who turned off the film and took it out?
A: That was done by Rascher also, and he sent it to be developed.
Q: Now, according to what you have said, there are six stages in attending to the electrocardiogram; now if the Prosecution is of the opinion that in this experiment you took care of the electrocardiogram, then you must have done all of these things yourself; now which of these six individual activities did you carry out in the experiment in which the first death occurred?
A: None of them.
Q: Did you take part in this experiment in any other way than by attending the electrocardiogram?
A: No, Rascher was in charge of the experiment, and of course he did everything.
Q: But as Rascher's assistant or for Rascher you could have done certain things or you could have taken care of the electrocardiogram or gone on an errand of some sort in support of the experiments of Rascher, but now concentrate on the experiment which had the first fatality and tell me, since you have already said you didn't attend the electrocardiogram, did you do anything else in this experiment?
A: No, and Rascher was very much concerned to carry out his experiments himself when he was in charge of the experiments.
Q: Am I correct in my assumption that the experiment could have been interrupted by turning a little wheel?
A: Yes.
Q: Who took care of this wheel, and when he turned the wheel what happened?
A: This wheel controlled the entry of the air into the chamber. Rascher had the wheel in his hand, and by turning this wheel one way or another he regulated the altitude.
Q: Did Rascher have this wheel only occasionally in his hand, or did he have it in his hand throughout the experiment?
A: You had to keep it in your hand all of the time in order to regulate the altitude.
Q: Now, I ask you, would it have been possible for you to reach this wheel without attacking Rascher first?
A: Since he had it in his hand, I should have first had to remove his hand from the wheel.
Q: Then it is correct for me to assume that in order for you to stop the experiment prematurely you could only have done something if you had attacked Rascher?
A: Yes.
Q: How for the second experiment, the one that involved the second fatality; now in this experiment who took care of the electrocardiogram?
A: Rascher must have, but I don't know about this in detail any more because I didn't pay any attention to it.
Q: Now please just think of this second experiment; did you not see the dotted light that moved in the electrocardiogram?
A: In the second experiment I was in the anteroom of the chamber because we had just finished performing experiments ourselves, and I was still engaged in evaluating the experiment just concluded; thus I didn't pay too much attention to these details.
Q: Were you present at all three of these experiments only because you were still evaluating the experiments you had just carried out on rescue from high altitude and just happened to be at the chamber still, is that correct?
A: Yes, I always evaluated these experiments sitting on the bench in the chamber because the tables of altitudes were in there, and I transferred my notes to the record book.
Q: We have heard here from various witnesses, particularly prosecution witnesses, that at most of Rascher's experiments you were not present. Now, according to what you have just said, your presence in these three cases where there were fatalities is to be attributed solely to the fact that Rascher's experiments took place altitude and that for that reason you were still jotting down notes on these experiments and happened by accident to be still at the chamber, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In this second experiment where you were sitting and making notes, did you see the electrocardiogram?
A: No, I did not observe it.
Q: Was this the only experiment that Rascher carried out at that particular time or had he performed other ones previously alone, one or two or three or four or five perhaps?
A: He had carried out others before, I think about three.
Q: And then in the fourth one on that day there was a fatality?
A: Yes.
Q: In this second fatality, did you warn him?
A: No, I didn't pay much attention to it. I couldn't see a fatality was imminent.
Q: Do you know for sure that you didn't warn him?
A: Since I didn't observe the experiment I certainly did not warn him.
Q: If you had observed it you would have warned him?
A: Certainly.
Q: Then am I correct in saying roughly the following: So far as you observed the electrocardiogram in this second experiment and realized that the experimental subject was in danger, to that extent you warned him, but you do not remember whether you realized it and whether you observed the electrocardiogram. Is that correct?
A: No, I did not observe it.
Q: And consequently you could not have warned him.
A: That is so.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, we are all fully aware that the bench has granted considerable latitude to both prosecution and defense counsel during the course of examination, but it seems to me that defense counsel this morning has just been giving us a parade of leading questions and answering for the defendant. I request that the questions put to the defendant be put so that the defendant can answer them and not defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel has been asking leading questions. I suggest that the questions be asked in such a manner as not too closely to suggest to the witness the answer. Counsel may proceed.
Q: Then, in this second case of death, witness, did you attend to the electrocardiogram or take an active part in the experiment in any other way?
A: No, as I have already said, I did not.
Q: And, now, how about the third fatal experiment of Rascher in your presence?
A: The situation was similar, namely, first we had carried out experiments and then Rascher had carried out experiments and, for this reason, I was still in the low pressure chamber.
Q: Do you know whether, in the case of this third experiment, you warned Rascher?
A: No, since I paid no attention to that experiment, or rather to the electrocardiogram, I didn't warn him.
Q: The prosecutor has charged you with not knowing the names of the experimental subjects. What was your training in the Wehrmacht?
A: I had basic training in 1936 and 1937 for two months and subsequently was in maneuvers on two occasions.
Q: Now, do you remember the name of the man who gave you basic training?
A: No.
Q: As I remember, you took a trip through France with Lutz and the low pressure chamber. Can you remember anyone who, on the occasion of your trip through France with the chamber, made a high altitude experiment with it?
A: No, I remember there were a couple of Knight's Cross bearers, but I certainly don't remember any names.
Q: When did you conclude your maneuvers with the Luftwaffe?
A: Summer of 1939.
Q: And since then you have not been a soldier?
A: No.
Q: In other words, throughout the entire war you were not a soldier but a civilian?
A: That is correct.
Q: In the three fatal experiments of Reseller's did you carry a weapon?
A: No, I didn't carry a weapon nor did I even own one as a civilian.
Q: Did you wear a uniform during these experiments?
A: No, I didn't even own a uniform. I was a civilian.
Q: Did Rascher wear a uniform in these experiments?
A: Yes, of course, he wore his Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] — Captain's uniform.
Q: Did he carry a weapon?
A: Yes, he always carried his revolver.
A: Now, if you had wanted to interrupt these experiments for any reason, you, as a civilian, would have had to attack a Captain in the Wehrmacht and hinder him by force in the execution of his duties? Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Is it correct that if you had wanted to interrupt this experiment, you, as a civilian, without a weapon, would have had to attack an officer who was carrying a weapon? Is that correct?
A: Yes, that's what I should have had to do.
Q: Before the first fatal experiment, did not Rascher say to you at various times that these were not the experiments that you were carrying out in common, but that these were experiments that he was carrying out alone on Himmler's orders and which had nothing to do with you?
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, this defeats me. Doesn't defense counsel know what a leading question is?
I suggest that the Tribunal instruct defense counsel in those matters.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I am about to ask when, in what words, and on what occasion Rascher told the witness that these were his own experiments and not common experiments.
MR. HARDY: That's very true, Your Honor. He is about to ask that, but no evidence to date has brought out the fact that Rascher had said that.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. VORWERK:
A: To answer your question, I already said in my direct examination that when Rascher began experiments of his own in addition to our common experiments, and I asked him about them, he told me that the experiments had been ordered by Himmler and that they were to be the means through which he hoped to qualify as a professor.
Q: Did he ever threaten you — saying that if you tried to interfere in these experiments —
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, you're propounding a strictly leading question by asking the witness if Rascher said to him certain things. Ask him what Rascher said to him and then the witness can testify as to what Rascher said. That makes the question not a leading question. When you repeat Rascher's words to the witness, you are asking leading questions. Just ask the witness what Rascher said upon a certain occasion.
BY DR. VORWERK:
Q: Mr. Romberg, did Rascher, on any occasion, say anything to you about his own experiments?
A: As I just said, he told me that these experiments did not concern me; that they were his experiments and that he was carrying them out on Himmler's orders.
Q: When did he say this?
A: He told me this when he began his experiments while we were still carrying on our other experiments — namely, before this first fatality.
Q: Did he say this to you once or several times?
A: He said several times that these experiments had been ordered by Himmler, and particularly, when I objected to these experiments after the first fatality, he said again that this did not concern me; that I should not bother myself about matters that were not my concern. Ho had the orders and he had to carry them out.
Q: Were there threats connected with what he said?
A: Well, he didn't threaten me openly, but I do remember that he once said that if I didn't stop objecting he would cancel my pass while I was in the camp.
Q: What would this have meant?
A: That would have meant that I couldn't leave the camp any more.
Q: What were your human relations with Rascher? Is the prosecutor correct in his assumption that you were good friends; that you used the familiar form of the personal pronoun, and that you called him Sigmund?
A: No, that is not true at all. I addressed him always with the formal personal pronoun. My relations with him were purely official and I called him Mr. Rascher.
Q: Can you find anything in the correspondence or the documents that could substantiate this point of view of the prosecutor?
A: No, I know of no evidence for that in the documents and, in fact, there are, in the documents, several statements of Rascher's — in the documents which have been submitted — which reveal that he was hostile to me.
Q: Since you were opposed to Rascher's experiments, is one correct in assuming that you regarded these three fatalities as murder, pure and simple?
A: No, I couldn't regard these experiments as just plain murder because he had been ordered by the very highest authorities to carry out these experiments. I, however, wanted to have nothing to do with them, and that was why I reported to Ruff.
Q: In cross-examination, the prosecutor said that it wouldn't have bothered you a bit if all the inmates of Dachau had died. Do you think you can prove the contrary?
A: I certainly didn't expect that charge, because, subjecting myself to personal danger, I was the one who organized getting the chamber out of Dachau. I was the one who reported, and I refused to have anything to do with any subsequent experiments of Rascher's.
Q: And why did you act in this way?
A: My reason was that I didn't want to have anything to do with these experiments of Rascher's, and it was my opinion that these experiments were valueless and not necessary for the Luftwaffe or for aviation research, so that experiments which do not fulfill a pressing or urgent purpose should not be carried out under such conditions as these.
Q: The prosecution is further of the opinion that no other fatalities could have occurred if the barometer which you had had repaired had not been repaired. Is that correct?
A: Rascher would certainly have been able to get hold of such a barometer, perhaps he could even have got one in Schongau at the airfield in his office, or, at least, a similar instrument.
Otherwise, in view of the assistance and the top priority that he was given by the SS, he certainly would have been able to get hold of such an instrument. In other words, the important thing wasn't that we repaired this barometer.
Q: Now another question, Mr. Romberg. How long were you ordered to stay in Dachau?
A: Until the experiments on rescue from high altitudes had been concluded.
Q: After these experiments were concluded you would not have been under orders to stay in Dachau even if the chamber had remained there?
A: I personally could have left, of course, just as the chamber was in Dachau before I got there; so after my experimental series was finished I could have loft and the chamber could have been removed from Dachau later, either by Rascher or the camp administration.
Q: Moving the chamber form the Camp was not your job?
A: No.
Q: What was the reason that you acted over and beyond your orders?
A: I did everything I could to get Rascher's promise to move the chamber, although, he didn't want to give that consent and it is quite clear that I stayed until the very last moment, until I was absolutely sure that the chamber was going to be moved from Dachau. That was the reason why I stayed there.
Q: What was the lowest decoration for a soldier in Germany during the war?
A: So far as I knew, it was the War Merit Cross, 2nd Class.
Q: And what was the lowest decoration for a civilian?
A: Also the War Merit Cross, 2nd Class.
Q: And what Decoration did you receive?
A: The War Merit Cross, 2nd Class.
Q: You were present at the Nurnberg Cold Conference?
A: Yes.
Q: If you realized that concentration camp inmates had been used in the freezing experiments, why did you not raise an objection at this conference?
A: I saw at this conference that the experiments had been carried out on official orders. I had already clearly expressed my personal opinion of these experiments before. Ruff had passed this information on. And at the Nurnberg Conference there were much higher offices or ranks represented, who in part may also have realized it. I know, for example from what Dr. Alexander has said that many of them realized this, but that they said nothing. My position during this whole time was so weak, on the one hand, because of the refusal to Rascher and Himmler, and on the other hand it was quite clears so that I really saw no reason for my raising an objection at this Nurnberg conference.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has several questions to propound to the witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Dr. Romberg, as I understand your testimony, you and Dr. Ruff, were ordered to Dachau to collaborate with Dr. Rascher in a series of tests to determine the possibilities of rescue of high altitude?
A: Yes.
Q: And while you were there you were actually under the command of Dr. Rascher?
A: I was not under Rascher's command as a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe. I was under the command really of the camp commander while I was in the camp.
Q: But so far as the experiments themselves were concerned and the control over the low pressure chamber, Dr. Rascher had responsibility in that particular, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Before you and Dr. Ruff what to Dachau to perform your experiments had similar tests been made by the German Luftwaffe or for the benefit of the German Luftwaffe?
A: You mean similar experiments?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, in the DVL we carried out similar experiments, and at other institutes also, working for the Luftwaffe similar experiments were carried out.
Q: In others words, the experiments that had been carried out prior to that time did not differ from the experiments that you carried out at Dachau?
A: This was a continuation of an experimental series which was already under way and as is always the case in experimental series, differed from preceding experiments changing the conditions increasing the altitude, the cold, etc.
Q: Just what were your attempting to determine in the Dachau experiments that had already been determined or ascertain by your previous tests?
A: The main task was to investigate rescue at heights as great as 20 kilometers to find out whether rescue of airplane crews is possible at such a high altitude at all.
Theretofore it had been ascertained that the crew survives the explosive decompression which occurs at such an altitude when the pressure cabin develops a leak, and now we wanted to find out whether the person could be brought safely to earth from this altitude.
Q: Who gave the order for you and Ruff to conduct these experiments?
A: That was arranged by Ruff in his talk with Professor Hippke, the Medical Chief.
Q: Was the order a written or an oral order?
A: So far as I know, it was an oral order of Professor Hippke.
Q: From whom did you learn this fact?
A: From Dr. Ruff.
Q: Before going to Dachau, did you or Ruff discuss your assignment with anyone — other, of course, then the discussion that you said you had with Weltz in Berlin in December 1941 or January 1942?
A: After the discussion that Ruff had first with Weltz and then with me, Ruff went to Hippke and got his approval, and the next discussion took place with Weltz in Munich.
Q: In other words, at the time that you and Ruff had the discussion with Dr. Weltz, the approval for those experiments or the tests at Dachau had not yet been approved by Hippke?
A: Yes, when Weltz came to Berlin for this discussion and discussed this problem with Ruff he had already told him that in the summer of 1941 Hippke had given his approval on principle for such experiments and that Hippke, along with Kettenhoff and Rascher, had discussed the question of these experiments.
Q: Now, who did you understand that Hippke had given the approval to that Weltz told you about — to Rascher?
A: Just what took place in detail at these conferences I can't say because I wasn't present; it was a discussion in which Professor Weltz, Kottenhoff, and Rascher talked with Hippke about the experiments, and at this discussion Hippke gave his approval on principle.
Q: Then, after the Weltz conference, as I understand it, Dr. Ruff went to Hippke, to confirm the approval and to get actual approval of your test team, Ruff and Romberg, and he came back and reported that fact to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Then later, in January or February 1942, you and Ruff went to Munich and had a conference with Weltz and some other gentlemen?
A: That is right, yes.
Q: After Ruff returned from getting his approval from Hippke, but before you and Ruff had your conference with Weltz in Munich in January or February 1942, with whom did you discuss this assignment?
A: Only with Dr. Ruff.
Q: You are quite confident, then, that neither you nor Ruff discussed this assignment with anyone else prior to that Munich meeting?
A: I certainly didn't talk about it, and Ruff only talked about it to Weltz on the occasion of that first visit in Berlin.
Q: Was the reason for that the fact that was a more or less secret or confidential assignment?
A: It was an experimental series, involving experiments at high altitude, in this case up to 20 kilometers, so that a technical development was apparent from the problem as given. New all experiments in which the subject of the assignment or the title of the report shows a technical development of the planning of a technical development of some sort, were always secret; in fact, they were top secret.
Q: In the tests that had been conducted by you and Ruff, prior to your going to Dachau, can you state how many experimental subjects had been used?
A: The experiments in our institute — I know most about them — for the first experiments in parachute descents from 12 kilometers, we used six or seven experimental subjects; for the explosive decompression we used just about everyone available at our institute, namely about eight at the most.
Q: Now, before you would begin an experiment of that kind, the ones you conducted in Berlin, I suppose that it would be an important thing to know something about the physical health of your experimental subject prior to the time you begin; would that not be true?
A: In our Berlin experiments, we did not give the experimental subjects a physical examination every time. We knew the men, because they were almost always the same people. On the other hand, sick people, people for instance with a heart defect, were not among them; therefore, a special examination was not necessary.
Q: In other words, these men at Berlin, I take it, were men in the air force; and you had the personal data on them; you knew their names, their ranks, their age, their heart condition, their blood pressure, perhaps the condition of their other vital organs.
They had had to undergo a complete physical examination, as a matter of fact, before they were ever admitted into the air force, is that not correct?
A: No, that is not quite correct, because we were a civilian institute and the experimental subjects were ourselves, our own associates. I was the experimental subject, let us say, for an experiment of Ruff, and our mechanic Fohlmeister, whose book has been submitted here, was frequently a subject in experiments, and other associates of mine were also experimental subjects. None of these were members of the Luftwaffe, but civilians whom we knew personally, but not in such great detail as would result from reading a report on an army physical examination.
Q: Well, they had undergone physical examinations of one sort or another, had they not?
A: Well, we asked our associates whether they were in good health, whether they had a heart defect, etc., but we did not give them a real physical examination, such as was given to determine physical fitness for the air force.
Q: How would they know they were in good physical health? Suppose that I, for example, presented myself to you for an examination and said that I was in good physical health. It wouldn't necessarily follow that that would be a true statement of fact unless you knew something about my heart condition, my blood pressure, and the like, would it?
A: Yes.
Q: Then I suppose that when a test was run every day in your Berlin tests you might run one test or two tests, perhaps something of that sort? — then in order to accumulate your scientific data or your final analysis and reports, I assume that you would have a card for the experimental subjects; "A", let us assume, and on that you would set out your findings as to "A" in a particular experiment of a designated kind, conducted at a certain time, and you would show the result of that test, all on the one card; is that correct?
A: We did not have a special card for every experimental subject, but entered this data in a record book. Supervision of their state of health were undertaken at regular intervals, not in connection with the specific experiment, but we took x-rays, an electro-cardiogram, and in this way kept an eye on their over-all state of health.
Q: Precisely. Then, when you would finish with an experiment, perhaps you would have had lot us say, for example, 100 tests on various experimental subjects. At the end of that one hundred tests could you look at your minutes, or your card, or your file, or whatever you maintained, and determine how many and what kind of tests each of the experimental subjects had undergone during the course of the research experiment; I am talking about in Berlin.
A: Yes, we could see that from the record book.
Q: In other words, it would be impossible to have any sort of an experiment for the purpose of research findings that would be worth anything, unless you had kept meticulous records from which the final report could be made; is that not correct?
A: Yes, of course we always kept a record book of such experiments.
Q: When did you actually arrive at Dachau, prepared to begin the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A: I arrived, about the 20th of February. Things did not start off right then, but we went out for the first time on the 21st or 22nd of February; the 22nd was Sunday, so it might have been the 23rd. Then there was the difficulty with Rascher's orders, and the experiments were broken off again by the Reichsfuehrung [Reich Leadership]. Rascher went to Schongau and I returned to Berlin and waited for news from him, as to when things had finally been put in order. I was certainly in Berlin on March 9th and on the 10th or 11th, I probably again arrived at Dachau, and on this day the actual experimental series began.
Q: Then you would say that your first tests began on 10 — 11 March, 1942?
A: Yes; I cannot say for sure, whether or not on the 23rd or 24th of February a couple of experiments were performed; however, the real work began on the 10th or 11th of March.
Q: Can yon recollect what day the tests were finally concluded? I am speaking of the Ruff-Romberg tests.
A: The experiments came to an end one or two days before the chamber was taken away; the last day was spent in packing, and the chamber was driven out of the camp of Dachau on the 19th or 20th of May, while I was personally present.
Q: During that period, from your arrival until the chamber was finally taken away, how many tests were actually made in your experiments?
A: It is hard to give the precise number, but there were certainly between two and three hundred experiments.
Q: And these two and three hundred tests, as I understand it, were for the purpose of determining the possibility of rescue at high attitudes; that is to say about 20,000 meters?
A: Yes, that was their purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)