1947-05-05, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 5 May 1947.)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS ROMBERG — Resumed EXAMINATION BY THE COURT (Continued)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Dr. Romberg, in the conduct of your tests in the Ruff, Romberg, Rascher experiment, what data or information was it necessary for you to record in regard to each test in order to get a true picture of that test?
A: In the experiments involving a relatively low altitude, the experimental subjects themselves wrote numbers from 1000 on up, or wrote their names. In experiments involving higher altitudes or in the little chamber, was difficult to write, there was a sort of telephonic connection with the experimental subject. The subject had earphones on and had a microphone so that one was able to ascertain how he reacted when spoken to, and so that one could answer certain questions, questions about their mental condition, whether they were perfectly clear, and so forth. Also, and this is very important, they were obliged to pull the parachute release on their own initiative without being told to, thus proving that they were completely in possession of their faculties, and they recognized the situation in which they found themselves.
Q: And all of that data or information then was recorded by you and preserved?
A: Yes, that was written down.
Q: Upon what was it written?
A: Usually during the experiment it was written on a piece of paper.
Sometimes it was written directly into the record, otherwise, it was entered in the record after the experiment, also the numbers and names, the writing tests, that the experimental subjects conducted while in the chamber, were preserved.
Q: In other words you preserved the name of the experimental subject, the day and hour, I suppose, upon which the test was made, and his reactions during the course of the test. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: So that when you finished with your series of experiments you could look at this record, you could tell the name of each experimental subject, the date and time upon which he had been subjected to an experiment and his reactions during the course of each separate test, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is so'.
Q: Who recorded that information?
A: During the experiment itself Rascher or myself wrote down these individual data, we made notes regarding the time when the person recovered consciousness and these were the data on which the report was subsequently worked out.
Q: And that course of procedure was followed throughout the entire course of the 200 to 300 tests?
A: Yes.
Q: And during the 200 to 300 tests you used 10 to 15 selected volunteer subjects?
A: Yes.
Q: And for the 200 to 300 tests you always used the same 10 or 15 subjects?
A: Yes.
Q: And each time an experimental subject would be presented to you or to Rascher in your presence for the conduct of the Ruff — Romberg experiments, I suppose you either asked him his name or ascertained his name from the record so that you could compare the data for the test on the particular day with the previous tests, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you had finished the 200 or 300 tests you then were in a position to ascertain over the course of the experiment how many tests each volunteer had undergone?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: And it was from those separate lists as to each experimental subject, it was from those that you made your recommendations to higher authority for leniency for the experimental subjects?
A: Recommendations for leniency were not made by us, at least not by myself. This was a matter which Himmler had arrogated to himself from the very beginning. We of the DVL had no influence on this.
Q: How would Himmler know who to extend leniency to unless somebody gave him the names of the experimental subjects who had successfully completed the tests?
A: There was certainly the camp card index file on all those who participated in the experiments. These people had moved and moreover lived in separate barracks so that their names could at any time be ascertained. The intermediary who had contact with the camp commander and with Himmler and who had received the authority from Himmler was Rascher. We had no direct contact with Himmler, written or otherwise.
Q: Then that was a matter that was left, so far as you and Ruff were concerned, that was left to Dr. Rascher?
A: Yes, he was the one who from the very beginning had received the authority and permission from Himmler.
Q: Dr. Romberg, how many test runs on experimental subjects had you completed when to your knowledge Rascher began his first independent experiment under his separate order from Himmler?
A: About half of them. That would be roughly one hundred or perhaps a little more than a hundred experiments.
Q: What was the approximate date upon which you gained knowledge that Rascher was conducting independent experiments?
A: The beginning or the middle of April, at any rate after Easter of 1942.
Q: Then from about 11 March 1942 to the middle of April 1942 you had run a little more than one hundred of the two hundred or three hundred high altitude tests that you were going to run in your experiments?
A: Of course I can't tell you exactly, but that is what I estimate it to be approximately.
Q: How many test runs on volunteer experimental subjects had you completed when to your knowledge the first death occurred in Rascher's independent experiments under Himmler during the latter part of April 1942?
A: That was the end of April. It might have been as many as 200 roughly, experiments that had been concluded by that time, perhaps even more.
Q: How many test runs had you completed when to your knowledge the second death occurred in Rascher's independent experiments under the separate order of Himmler?
A: That was just at the very end of the experiments were almost through with them and didn't have so many experiments left. We were just doing the last ones at great altitudes.
Q: How many do you think you still had to do?
A: That is very hard to say, but you have to draw a distinction between those that would have been done if the experiments had continued in a normal way and those that we did to bring the series to adequate conclusion. It is specifically mentioned in the report, for example, that out of 21 intended experiments only one was carried out. Consequently you cannot evaluate the conclusions reached as well as if they had been carried out on a great number of persons.
Q: But you don't know how many more experiments or tests you probably had to run after the second death?
A: If we had continued at the same rate as we had intended there would have been another 30 or 40 more, but since the experimental series was limited thereafter less experiments were actually carried out before we reached the end.
Q: Now, I understand that the second death occurred on one day in May and the third death occurred the next day, is that correct?
A: Yes, and that was about the middle of May.
Q: How many test runs did you make on your own experiment after the third death occurred, not how many you had originally started to run, but how many you did actually run?
A: That could only have been very few, because after the third death the chamber was soon taken away, namely on the 19th, so that it might have been another 10.
Q: You said this morning that the reason you knew of the death of the second and third, experimental subject in the Rascher test was because of the fact that upon the same day and prior to the deaths you had just finished conducting one of your own Romberg-Rascher experiments, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Exactly what data were you recording at the time Rascher was conducting his experiment in which the second death occurred?
A: I don't quite understand the question, what data I had?
Q: This morning you said, that you were not at the controls at the time the death occurred to the second experimental subject, but that you were somewhere around the low pressure chamber writing up your data, because you had just completed a test, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now what data were you writing up?
A: After the experiments we wrote down the length of time and the altitude and so to speak we drew the curve in which the descents occurred, and then we entered in the book exactly what altitude corresponded to any particular status of the experimental subject. The altitude was measured by a column of quick-silver, while for the practical evaluation we had to know the exact altitude at which the person gained or lost consciousness. Consequently the gauge on the column of quick silver had to be translated into terms of altitude and meters. That was the work that had to be done after the experiment.
Q: Where were you doing that work?
A: Usually I sat in the room in the low pressure chamber where the decompression chamber was located. This was a large truck, like a furniture van, and there was an ante-room, and in the end was a bench and a table with the EKG apparatus on it, and sitting on this bench I usually wrote up my notes, and perhaps I referred again to the quick silver barometer if I hadn't gotten some of the figures. That is why I did this work in the low pressure chamber van, but of course not in the chamber itself.
Q: And that is where you were at the time Rascher's second death and the third death occurred with his experimental subjects?
A: Yes.
Q: How far would you estimate that you were sitting from the controls?
A: About two or two and a half meters.
Q: Who was manipulating the controls at the time?
A: Rascher was carrying out his own experiments, and consequently manipulated the levers of the EKG, and the other instruments himself, when he was doing the experiment.
Q: Was there anyone there helping him at the time?
A: No, no one.
Q: Where were you, when that experimental subject was first brought into the chamber; were you sitting in the anti-room working up your data?
A: When the experimental subjects came up, yes, I was certainly in the low pressure van.
Q: Yes, I am talking about the experimental subject who came there then?
A: Yes.
Q: They gave you the impression of men, who understood they were there as volunteers for high altitude experiments that were being carried on within proper limits?
A: Yes.
Q: How long was it after the completion of your experiment; let us consider now the day the second experimental subject met his death; how long a time was it between the conclusion of your experiments, the Ruff-Romberg experiments and the beginning of the Rascher experiments, wherein the experimental subject met his death?
A: Rascher did not carry out the experiments right away, which led to the death. Before the fatal experiment, he carried out other experiments.
Q: How many other experiments?
A: I think in this case there were three.
Q: Three experiments prior to the time of the experiments in which the man met his death?
A: That is right.
Q: How long had the second subject been in the chamber before he came to his death?
A: I cannot tell you that for sure because I did not pay any attention.
Q: How long were you in that anti-room after you completed your experiments writing up your report?
A: I must have been there about one hour.
Q: Then, during the course of the hour, two or three experiments were conducted, which had no fatal consequences and the fourth one began all within the period of an hour?
A: Yes.
Q: After each of those experiments were concluded, the ones that did not result in death; did Rascher make notes of what had happened to the test subjects?
A: During the experiments Rascher wrote down his notes.
Q: Wrote down the notes, watched the altitude gauge, observed the cardiogram, manipulated the pressure wheel and did everything necessary to carry out the experiments and to record the data?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember, who brought those experimental subjects that day to the chamber?
A: I don't know for certain, but I believe it was an SS man from the camp who brought them.
Q: Do you know where they came from?
A: No, that I do not know.
Q: Did they come from the same quarters that your ten or fifteen men came from?
A: No, they came from somewhere in the camp.
Q: Had you and Rascher had any discussion on that day — by the way, what time was it that the death of the second experimental subject happened?
A: In the late forenoon, I should say around noon.
Q: So that you had completed your experiments then certainly by eleven o'clock of that morning?
A: Yes, by that time we had concluded our own experiments.
Q: Had you and Rascher had any discussion between the time of the conclusion of your experiments at eleven o'clock and the experiments when the second death occurred?
A: No, we certainly did not talk with each other very much. I probably said I was going to evaluate my material there, but we did not, as I said, talk with each other very much.
Q: Now, after this death occurred, the second death, how many experiments did you conduct on the same day after that on your own, the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A: I believe that I carried out no further experiments on that day.
Q: What about the third death?
A: The situation was similar. I do not know if this was also in the morning, but I believe it was. We had carried out our own experiments and Rascher did his subsequently.
Q: Now, let us consider for a moment the occasion when you witnessed the death of one of Rascher's experimental subjects; the first death you say you witnessed during the latter part of April, 1942; did you know this experimental subject?
A: No, I did not know him personally; he was one of Rascher's own subjects.
Q: Had he been used by Rascher for any other experiments prior to that time?
A: That I really cannot tell you, I did not know him, but it is quite possible that Rascher had used him for other ones.
Q: Had you ever seen him before?
A: No, I cannot recall that I had.
Q: Did you know his name?
A: No, I did not know his name.
Q: Did you know his nationality?
A: No, I heard him speaking and he spoke German with Rascher.
Q: Was he one of the ten or fifteen men, who had been selected for the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A: No, he certainly was not.
Q: Was he one of the 60 or 70 inmates who had first volunteered, from whom you had selected some ten or fifteen subjects?
A: That I cannot say because I don't know whether he was one of them.
Q: What time of day did this death happen?
A: That I cannot say for certain, but I believe that it was around noon or after luncheon.
Q: Had you conducted any experiments that day?
A: Yes, we had.
Q: How many?
A: I really cannot tell you. At that time we had conducted a relatively large number of experiments, but I really cannot give you precise figures.
Q: Did you conduct any on that day after the death?
A: No, I don't believe so.
Q: Do you remember whether or not the first experimental subject who died, was unconscious at the time he was taken from the low pressure chamber?
A: No, when they were brought out, they were certainly dead, not simply unconscious.
Q: I am talking about the first man.
A: You mean in our own experiments or do you mean in Rascher's experiments.
Q: I am talking about the Rascher experiments, that first man who came out of there, whom you say died; was he dead when taken from the chamber?
A: Yes, he certainly was. He died at the high altitude or during the descent. I believe that he died while he was at the high altitude and died of air embolism.
Q: Was that test suddenly brought to an end, or was it concluded as it would have been if a man would not have died?
A: I don't know how long Rascher would have conducted this experiment, had the man not died.
Q: Well, how did you or Rascher know that the man was dead while he was still in the low pressure chamber?
A: I did not pay very close attention to this, but Rascher certainly saw this from the electrocardiogram and probably also from the respiration of the subject and for that reason brought him down from the high altitude.
Q: In other words, those machines would not operate, they would go dead in effect because there was nothing to register; is that correct?
A: What machines do you mean?
Q: The electro-cardiogram.
A: I did not lock at it very closely, but if the man was dead I assume there would be nothing to register.
Q: That is what I am trying to get at; who took the first subject from the chamber?
A: Rascher sent over to the morgue and two prisoners came with a stretcher and took him away.
Q: Whom did he send to the morgue?
A: So far as I knew, he sent Neff over to the morgue.
Q: Was there anyone else around there at the time besides Neff?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Who was running the engines at the time?
A: The controls ran throughout the entire experiment, the pumps did not have to be manipulated, only the air pressure was regulated, the access of air to the chamber and that regulated the altitude.
Q: I understand. Was the mechanic around there at the time, Sobotta, or your unknown man whose name you do not know?
A: I really cannot tell you whether one of them was in the back of the van in the machine room. There was another truck next to the van, which contained the machines; now whether one of them was in there, then I don't know. The pumps operated, whether someone was there all the time or not.
Q: Well, if he was there you did not see him?
A: No, I could not have seen him because he was inside the van.
Q: When you began your experiments that morning, who started the engines and who was in charge of them for the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A: In the morning, someone, usually Sobotta or Neff, came around and set the motors in motion.
Q: Do you remember who did it that morning?
A: No, I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember who was there as a mechanic at the time of the second death?
A: No, I don't.
Q: At the time of the third death?
A: I also cannot say, it was certainly one of the three, but just who it was I don't know.
Q: In the case of the second death; who took the man out of the chamber.
A: The situation was the same. Rascher sent someone over to the morgue. The prisoners came from there with a stretcher and took away the corpse.
Q: The same is true in regard to the third death?
A: Yes.
Q: And in each case, it would be Neff, Sobotta, or your unknown mechanic, the man whose name you do not remember?
A: Who was at the pump, you mean, or who was sent over to the morgue?
Q: Yes, who was sent to the morgue in each case.
A: That was probably not Sobotta or the other, because they were busy with the motors. It was probably Neff or one of the others who belonged to that group. Sobotta and the other man were usually busy, as I said, with the pumps and motors and didn't run errands as often.
Q: In other words, when Rascher conducted his experiments, he always had Neff there or Sobotta there to run errands or to do things of that sort, should it become necessary, is that correct?
A: Practically, the men were always at the station. The room they lived in was only a few meters from the van so that actually they were always available and it sufficed simply to yell in order to get one of them.
Q: In other words, if anything should happen in the chamber, then a simple yell would bring Sobotta or Neff or the other man to the chamber, because they lived only a very few meters from where the experiments were being conducted.
A: Yes, they lived close by.
Q: All of your experimental subjects lived right there so that you could have them as you needed them?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: And you think that on the occasions of these deaths, if Neff or Sobotta was not at the pressure chamber or at the engine in the van, that Rascher simply yelled for someone in barracks close by to come out?
A: He simply had to leave the van and go to the barracks and yell and somebody would surely come.
Q: And you think that is what he did on each of these three occasions?
A: Yes, that is what I believe.
Q: Then it was a reasonable thing to assume that those experimental subjects knew that Rascher was conducting experiments, as well as yourself, and that he was conducting independent experiments?
A: They certainly knew that.
Q: And they knew that sometimes you were there writing up your data at the same time that he had been conducting the experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: Has there any occasion when you acted as an experimental subject in the low pressure chamber while Rascher manipulated the controls from the outside?
A: Yes, that happened several times.
Q: When was that?
A: When I went with the experimental subjects into the chamber for a slow sinking descent, for example from 12,000 or 13,000 kilometers, in order to watch the writing tests that they were doing. Then Rascher stayed outside and manipulated the chamber. I also carried out explosive decompression experiments during which I was inside the chamber and Rascher was outside. In the experiments described in the report, the experiments on myself, Rascher was inside but who was outside, I don't know, it can't have been Rascher in this case.
Q: When you were inside was there anyone outside with Rascher, or was he doing the whole thing by himself?
A: He was outside and took care of the machinery, yes.
Q: No one was assisting him at the time?
A: No, it wasn't necessary.
Q: When was this?
A: I was in several times.
Q: Name the dates.
A: I can't tell you really. I was in there in the beginning, when we made the experiments at twelve or thirteen thousand meters altitude and I was in there at the conclusion and several times in between, but I can't fix the precise days.
Q: Were you in there as an experimental subject any time after you had seen the first, the second, or the third experimental subject in the Rascher experiment die?
A: Yes — I carried out an experiment at 19 kilometers, which certainly took place after the first fatality — not after the second or third fatality, however.
Q: And no one was at the controls but Dr. Rascher?
A: That's right.
Q: And you had full confidence in him at the time?
A: I was convinced that in the experiments that we were carrying on continuously, nothing would happen, and for that reason I went in as an experimental subject.
Q: What would have prevented Rascher from putting you through the same course that he put the experimental subject through?
A: Today I wouldn't go in, now that I know what I know, but at that time I had no reason to assume that he was going to kill me in an experiment.
Q: After he had already conducted one experiment in which, from your observation the experimental person would die, and you remonstrated with him after that, you were still willing to go back into the chamber, and did go back?
A: In this experiment, I wasn't in a position to say death must occur. I would, however, say it was dangerous and that I myself would have interrupted the experiment. On the other hand, the experiment scheduled was a free falling experiment. In the experiment in which I participated, they exactly laid down how high I was to go and how far I was to fall. I was was examined on account of the experiences gained by the experiments that nothing would happen and I had no reason to believe that Rascher would suddenly change the program and change the descent in any way, so that something might happen.
Q: Before either of these three deaths occurred, did Rascher show you an outline of the test upon which he was about to embark? In other words, as to the first experiment did he have a statement there of the kind of experiment he was going to conduct?
A: I don't know whether he had one. At any rate, he didn't show it to me. He always said that these experiments did not concern me; that they were orders that he had received; and that I shouldn't worry about them. He did not let me in on that experiment, but kept me at a distance.
Q: And that was also true in regard to the nature of the experiments at the second death and at the third death?
A: Yes.
Q: When was the first time that you conducted an experiment after you witnessed the death of the first experimental subject in Rascher's experiments in April?
A: When, after that death, did I carry out an experiment in the frame work of my own program, you mean?
Q: Of course, that's what I'm talking about.
A: I certainly carried out experiments on the very next day and then I went to Berlin. I didn't go to Berlin on the same day, but carried on the experiments further until my departure.
Q: What was your purpose in going to Berlin?
A: The reason was the death that had occurred. I told Rascher, however, that I wanted to visit my wife who was about to have a child.
Q: Whom did you see in Berlin?
A: First I went home; saw my family, of course. Then I went out to the DVL in Adlershof and saw Ruff.
Q: What did you tell him?
A: I told him that in these experiments that Rascher was carrying out, he had had a death yesterday or the day before; that I had seen from the electrocardiogram that it seemed to me as if the experiment should be interrupted and that I told him this. He, however, did not interrupt the experiment on my suggestion.
I told him that these experiments were nothing that I wanted to have anything to do with. Ruff was of the same opinion and we discussed how we could bring these experiments to an end.
Q: Did Ruff advise you to return to Dachau?
A: We talked about that at great length, about how we could best do what we wanted; but we both saw clearly that we could not simply tell Rascher or Himmler, for instance, that a fatality had occurred and consequently the experiments would have to stop. What we would have to do would be to bring our experiments to a conclusion and then take the chamber out and away from Dachau.
Q: When Rascher's experimental subject died in the low pressure chamber in April — that's the first subject — I believe you said he was taken to the morgue for the purpose of an autopsy. Where was the morgue in relation to the location of the low pressure chamber?
A: One had to go through another barracks and then through a long corridor leading through a camp street or a court. Exactly what distance that was I don't know precisely now. I estimate that it was approximately a hundred meters.
Q: On the day on the death, which you say occurred about midday, you had completed your experiments perhaps an hour prior to that time?
A: Yes, we carried out experiments in the morning. When we were through, I don't recall exactly.
Q: Then what did you do with your experimental subjects? They went back in the barracks?
A: Every one of our experimental subjects went back to the billets after the experiment was over.
Q: That billet was just several meters from the chamber?
A: Yes, that wasn't far at all.
Q: Neff, Sobotta, and your other man whose name you don't know lived there?
A: Yes, they lived there too.
Q: How long after the death of the first subject was it before the autopsy took place?
A: I can hardly tell you that exactly; but I should think it was about half an hour later.
Q: Who was present?
A: Rascher, I, and the inmates from the pathological station, nobody else.
Q: Is that what you would call the dissection room, the inmates of dissection room?
A: Yes; yes, that's right.
Q: In other words, there were present at the autopsy you, Rascher, two men from the dissection room. Was Neff there?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Was Sobotta there?
A: No, I am sure Sobotta wasn't there. He had nothing to do with it.
Q: What was actually done at the autopsy?
A: It was a normal autopsy. The skull, the breast, and the abdominal cavity were opened.
Q: Is that all?
A: Yes, that was a complete autopsy. That is what is ordinarily done in an autopsy.
Q: Just open the breast, skull, and the abdominal cavity and your autopsy is over?
A: First the breast is opened; then the abdominal cavity is opened; cut at the end the skull. Then the individual organs are opened, the heart, lungs, as is necessary in the case of a normal autopsy.
Q: Now, what is the purpose of all this? Why in this particular case did you want an autopsy? You knew the man was dead, didn't you?
A: I didn't want to carry out this autopsy, but Rascher.
Q: I understand; but I'm talking about the man Rascher. Why should there have been an autopsy?
A: Well, I can't tell you that. I think probably in order to find out the cause of death.
Q: I thought you said that it was because of the fact that the man had been subjected to high altitude for so long a period of time that his heart failed; his heart just stopped. Wasn't that the cause of death?
A: Well, whether the heart stopped because of its work, because of not being able to carry out its work, or whether it was because of a central paralysis starting from the brain, one cannot tell. It is the sane as in the case of anesthesia, in the case of a chloroforms anesthesia. Then the heart can stop because of the effect of the anesthetic, but the heart can also stop whenever the heart is overburdened. It is hard to say in detail what the cause of the death was.
Q: Well, what did Rascher find out was the cause of death in this particular case? He was the one who performed the autopsy, wasn't he, Doctor?
A: As far as I could see he couldn't find the exact cause of the death. At any rate, I couldn't clarify the cause myself.
Q: Did he make any statements in your presence at the time as to what he considered the cause of death?
A: Yes, In the case of this autopsy air bubbles were found; and he thought that these air bubbles would have something to do with it, although I personally am not at all convinced that one can say that with certainty.
Q: Where were the air bubbles found?
A: They were found in the various blood vessels.
Q: All over the body?
A: Yes; at any rate as far as the body was autopsied. Whether air bubbles were existent in the legs I cannot say.
Q: Well, did you agree in your own mind with the cause of death as concluded by Dr. Rascher? Did you think it was caused from air bubbles?
A: I can hardly imagine that the visible ones were the cause because such visible air bubbles often occur as a result of a surgical interference and do not necessarily lead to death. In my opinion it was a sudden central failure caused by perhaps a disturbance of the blood flow. However, I cannot say that exactly.
Q: Do you know of deaths caused by a sudden central failure due to stoppage of the blood flow? Is that a known cause of death in medical circles?
A: I know it now because of the experience of the American air forces when they tried to examine the fitness of their flyers. In six cases during a prolonged stay — I think that in twelve kilometer altitude — a sudden death occurred; and since there is no physician present during these American tests but only some sergeant or corporal, I only know of this from what they said. But judging from the entire description, they cannot have been any other cases of death, but caused by sudden embolisms.
Q: Did you know that fact at the time of the death of the Rascher subject? Did you have that medical knowledge?
A: No, I only know that now.
Q: Then how could you disagree with Rascher's diagnosis about the matter if you didn't have that knowledge that you now say you have?
A: At that time we only knew of the corresponding cases from the submarine crews who had suffered from similar symptoms in the case of rescues from U-boats that had been sunk. In the sane way a number of death cases are known from commercial medicine in the case of caisson workers. People like that, whenever they were found unconscious in the street, were always carrying a certificate describing them as caisson workers who were to be taken to the next hospital as quickly as possible. Thus the principle of this illness is generally known also in commercial medicine.
Q: Well, it is very much the same thing, then, as the card that a diabetic carried, who may have some sort of a stroke as a result of either lack of insulin or insulin shock? Isn't that what you are trying to say, generally speaking?
A: Well, the purely medical progress is different; but diabetics generally carry a certificate with them stating that they are suffering from diabetes and that this and that measure would have to be taken in case of their falling unconscious.
Q: Was a written record of the findings of the autopsy of that first death made by Rascher?
A: Yes, Rascher noted down all the data on the individual death certificate. He had the intention of evaluating them in some way.
Q: That is true in regard to all three deaths, I suppose, for the second and third deaths? You witnessed the autopsies and very much the same procedure was followed as at the first autopsy?
A: No, I wasn't present during the other autopsies because Rascher didn't ask me to attend. At that time my relationship to Rascher was already strained because of the interruption of the experiments.
Q: Did you see or read or hear the report or written record of the findings on the autopsy that was made by him in the case of the first death.
A: No, I did not see it.
Q: But you saw him making certain notes. Did he discuss with you as one professional man would likely do with another what he thought he was finding, as he made the examination?
A: Yes, he particularly pointed out the air bubbles he had found and expressed that thought when writing down the findings.
Q: Now, then, so far as that autopsy was concerned, what possible use could be made of those findings so far as they would constitute information to medical people who were interested in flying, that is, in aviation medicine, or, to people who were interested in that type of medicine where men are engaged in working under water, or in caissons, under tremendous pressure; what possible use could be made of those findings?
A: Well, I think that one could not use his notes very well because of a singular case of death, since its cause is very hard to determine. One needs large experiences, such as commercial hygienists would have in their corresponding field, and if such a hygienist who was very well acquainted with the subject had been able to look at these findings, I am sure he would be able to draw some conclusions from it.
Q: What conclusions do you think he could have drawn?
A: If he would compare that finding with other findings of caisson death cases, and which are known from that caisson literature, he could have brought the whole thing on the same denominator. However, in one individual case it is very hard to draw any conclusion.
Q: How many cases would it take Dr. Rascher to really come to any real conclusion about that matter?
A: That is very hard for me to say, because I am no expert in this field. An expert in the caisson field does not only know of the accidents which he himself had witnessed, but he is well acquainted with the literature on the subject, and with findings of other physicians, and from all that he draws his own conclusion.
Q: What about an expert in the high altitude fields. If, for example, you had a record for a case history of 500 deaths resulting under the same conditions as that Rascher did, and when you performed your autopsy air bubbles were found throughout the blood vessels. Would you from that be able to gain a certain knowledge that would be valuable in flying?
A: In the entire literature about aviation medicine, I know of no case where air bubbles had been described. That is probably because during an air accident a considerable time passes until an autopsy is made possible. In addition the bodies or corpses in the case of an air accident are usually mutilated, so that aviation medicine has no practical finding. At any rate, I know of none in Germany.
Q: Then the only way you would be able to determine findings would be if there had been or to be a series of experiments in which you had used experimental subjects, in which the men were subjected to same experiments that Rascher subjected them to, conducted over a great period of time, with a great many men, and, if considerable aid in aviation medicine, would it not?
A: That is not quite correct. Certainly in order to clarify the findings, one ought to have the possibility to perform autopsies on a number of corpses under suitable conditions.
That question itself, however, bears no interest for aviation medicine. Cases of death had not been observed on hand with air bubbles, and there was no reason to do that. There was no reason to assume that this condition had played any role in cases of death. This was a field which was alien to aviation medicine research. However, alien, this can be seen from the fact that although I saw one such case by accident, I never again dealt with the question. I might, however, for instance, have done the same thing, using animals as experimental subjects, if I had had any practical interest in that field, or had expected any benefit. This is a procedure that does not matter at all. For that reason there was no interest in carrying out a larger number of experiments.
Q: I believe you said in your testimony Friday that you know of at least two or three, of the men connected with the experiments who were recommended for leniency, or commutation for their criminal sentences because of their participation in the experiments. Who were these two or three men?
A: No, I only know what can be seen from the documents here. Sobotta had been pardoned by these people.
Q: In addition to that, the two inmates in the dissection room had been offered, or recommended for some sort of leniency. Is that what is shown here by the documents; these are the two or three men you referred to?
A: I found that out here on the basis of documents.
Q: But except what you found out on the basis of these documents, would you know that anybody was recommended for leniency?
A: No, I can only repeat what I have already said, that this had been promised to these persons at the outset. Himmler made more premises to them when he visited the camp, and reported the very same thing, when I reported to him, namely, that these people were to be released. Rascher also concerned himself with working on these releases, what actual work had been done, and to what extent Himmler did not keep his promise, I don't know.
Q: But so far as you are concerned, you made no recommendations?
A: No, I could not do that.
Q: When did you talk with Himmler?
A: Beginning or middle of July 1942.
Q: What about?
A: I already mentioned that Rascher suddenly telephoned me in Berlin, and told me that both of us were to report to Himmler; that we were to leave that very same night. Sleeper tickets were already prepared. Then the next evening we reported to him about these experiments on the basis of a typewritten report, which then was already finished.
Q: What day was that; all you know is in July sometime?
A: Well, as I saw from the documents, it may be, well, before the 14th or 13th of July, because Rascher refers to that day in speaking about the report to Himmler. It is possible that it was that day, otherwise, I could not have remembered the date exactly.
Q: But at the time of the conference, you and Rascher were there together with Himmler, making an early report on the results of your experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: At that time did Rascher also make a report on his experiments?
A: No, at any rate, those experiments were not at all touched on in my presence. He spoke to Himmler once more the next morning, and it is possible that on occasion of ths conference he said something to him about that. At any rate we only discussed experiments of persons rescued from high altitude, and Himmler said that Goering was to be informed about the results of this experiment as quickly as possible.
Q: In your presence Himmler made no reference to Rascher's experiments?
A: No, nothing at all was said about it.
Q: And Rascher made no mention to Himmler of Rascher's experiments?
A: No.
Q: Afterwards did you have a conference with Goering, or reported to Goering on the subject of your experiments?
A: No. Himmler said during that conference that the results were of extreme importance, and that we were to report them to Goering, if possible. However, that did not materialize, and I assume that the report which was to take place at Milch's place, which also did not take place, was to have been the substitute for the planned report to Goering. As can be seen from the document, Rascher obviously had been very interested, and always he turned to either Himmler or Brandt whether the report would be made, obviously because of his personal ambition that it was of great value to report to Goering or Milch.
Q: You meant Karl Brandt or Rudolf Brandt?
A: I mean Rudolf Brandt. The letters were always addressed to Rudolf Brandt.
Q: After the barometer and low pressure chamber was broken by Neff, I believe you said that you had it replaced. Then was it broken? I have forgotten.
A: According to my memory, that was at the end of April. I was in Berlin and then returned. Then the barometer was suddenly broken. I took that broken barometer back to Berlin to have it repaired.
Q: And when was the low pressure chamber again in working order?
A: I can not tell you that exactly, but I should say that it was on the 10th or 12th of May, or somewhere around there.
Q: How many tests were made in the Ruff-Romberg experiments after that?
A: After the return?
Q: And after the low pressure chamber had again been put in working order.
A: Yes. Perhaps about 50. Well, I don't think that there were so many as that. I can't give you the exact figure. I think there were a little less than 50.
Q: How many tests did Rascher conduct after that, to your knowledge?
A: Well, I can only remember the days when I was present. Then there were about three on one day, and a similar number on the next day. I don't know exactly what he did, because he may have worked nights or evenings.
Q: How many deaths occurred in Rascher's experimental subjects after the repair of the low pressure chamber?
A: The two cases of death which I have already mentioned.
Q: Now, then, as I understand it, you finally made a report on the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: That appears here in the Prosecution document book?
A: Yes, that is that report.
Q: And that was compiled and your conclusions were drawn and your recommendations were made on the basis of certain research data made at Dachau; is that correct?
A: The report was made on the basis of my record about the experiments. In that report, certain recommendations are made for the future development.
Q: What became of those records which you made the basis for this report which is here in evidence?
A: My record, you mean?
Q: Whatever records you used.
A: I don't know what happened to it finally. It was in Berlin in the safe. Whether these records were destroyed, together with all the other secret files when the Russians came to Adlershof or whether the Russians have removed these files, I don't know, because I was not with the DVL at the end of the war. I think that Ruff would probably know about that. That is to say, if he remembers what the records were that were destroyed when the Russians marched into Berlin.
Q: Now, as I understand it, you are unable to say what the names of your ten to fifteen experimental subjects were, what their nationalities were, or for what purpose they had been incarcerated at Dachau? You say you don't recollect that?
A: Yes, I don't remember all the names of the individual people, as I already said. That all of them were German I know exactly because I spoke to them. They wore the green badge of the professional criminals, and they also told me why they were there. Why every individual was there and what his name was, of course, is difficult to say.
Q: Do you remember any of the names?
A: Apart from the four whom I mentioned yesterday, I do not remember any.
Q: What four?
A: Sobotta, Klos, Rockinger, and Zoslak.
Q: Neff, Sobotta —
A: I didn't mention Neff.
Q: But there was Neff; there was Sobotta, and who was the next one?
A: Rockinger.
Q: How do you spell that?
A: R-O-C-K-I-N-G-E-R.
Q: And who was the fourth one?
A: Klos, K-L-O-S.
Q: Do you remember one more?
A: Zoslak, Z-O-S-L-A-K, or C-K; I'm not sure which.
Q: Where was Rockinger from?
A: I can't tell you that. I don't know where he was from.
Q: Where was Klos from?
A: I really don't know where they all came from. I think that one of them came from Western Germany, but I really can't tell you that with any amount of exactitude.
Q: Where did Zoslak come from?
A: I can't tell you that either. I don't know where he came from. I believe he came from Silesia, but I really don't know that exactly.
Q: These were all German nationals who were criminal prisoners who had been condemned to death and who had volunteered for the experiments?
A: No, they were not sentenced to death, but they were sentenced to preventive custody, because of their repeated crimes as professional criminals.
Q: Do you know the names of the two inmates of the dissection room who were promised leniency or recommended for leniency? Was that Klos and Zoslak?
A: No, I really don't know their names.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions of the witness on the part of Defense Counsel?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I had assumed that Defense Counsel had finished redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense Counsel has, but they may examine the witness on the testimony that has been put in since that time.
This examination, Counsel, will be limited to the questions propounded to the witness after the Defense had rested.
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Mr. President. Dr. Sauter, Counsel for the defendants Blome and Ruff.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Witness, during your present examination, you were telling us about a prisoner at Dachau who had been arrested and put into Dachau because he had denounced some undertaking of the SS. You know whom I mean?
A: Yes, that was Neff.
Q: Who was it?
A: Neff.
Q: He was a political prisoner, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: What badge did this Neff wear?
A: He were a red badge.
Q: A red badge. Was Neff also used for experiments?
A: Neff, as I already said, participated in experiments himself because he volunteered for them, and on his own initiative he participated in these experiments, the same way as I did.
Q: Witness, you were asked about the conditions in Dachau, and I would be interested in the following: When you entered the camp of Dachau were you able to move about freely?
A: No, I could not.
Q: What was the situation?
A: I had the order to go straight to the experimental station and otherwise was not allowed to move around freely in the camp, for instance, going to other blocks. I was limited to going straight to my experimental station.
Q: I assume that when you came to Dachau, you had to report at the gate; is that right?
A: Yes, I had a pass which I had to show there.
Q: Could you then walk alone to these barracks, or were you accompanied by a guard?
A: Afterwards I was allowed to go there myself, but at the very beginning a guard of the SS accompanied me. It said on the pass that I had to go from Gate I or something like that up to Block 5, and it also said that I had to use the shortest way to that block. This is customary in the case of official buildings in Germany. When one goes to a certain office, one had always to choose the shortest way.
Q: Witness, is it correct that you were expressly ordered not to speak to any one from the gate to the barracks except to experimental subjects?
A: I have already said that I was obliged not to speak to any of the inmates and to stay only at those places where my presence was officially necessary, and I had to sign a paper to that effect. There were limitations upon my freedom, and many witnesses have confirmed that.
Q: Now, if I understand you correctly, you could learn about the conditions as they prevailed in the concentration camp only by listening to what the experimental subjects or the Capos or perhaps Rascher had told you. Other inmates, on the other hand, could not toll you anything; is that right?
A: Yes. Do you mean Neff when you say Capo?
Q: Yes.
A: Well, Neff certainly was not a Capo. I don't know exactly what a Capo is, but I think he holds a high rank among inmates.
Q: At any rate other inmates of the camp could not tell you anything about the conditions and the method that prevailed in the camp?
A: No. Naturally I only spoke to Neff and my own experimental subjects.
Q: You were asked what you spoke to these experimental subjects about, and you answered that by way of telephone you always managed to speak to them. You were outside the chamber, and the experimental subjects were inside the chamber, and you were able to speak by way of telephone?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, I assume now that in particular after the conclusion of any single experiment you had repeated opportunity to converse closely with the experimental subject. In particular I am wondering whether you didn't discuss with the experimental subject after the conclusion of the experiment what the subject experienced during the experiments, whether he suffered any pain, whether he suffered any dizziness, or whether the ears had heard, and then on the occasion of these conversations, you were not at all controlled by the SS men, and therefore were in a position to speak quite freely with these experimental subjects, including private conditions.
A: Naturally such conversations were not controlled, unless, of course, Rascher was present, but he was not always present. Then, of course, I could speak to them, but I must say that even on the occasion of these conversations I never heard any details about the concentration camps, particularly details as I know them now. I cannot imagine that anything like that had happened at that time in Dachau. I am sure that they would have told me that once in a while. It may well be, of course, that in principle they didn't discuss such matters.
I would rather believe though that they didn't tell me anything of that nature because they didn't have any such experiences themselves.
Q: Doctor, whenever you conversed with the experimental subjects after any experiment, I assume you attached particular value to whether any pain had arisen during the experiments with the experimental subjects, is that right?
A: Well not quite, because we knew that during high-altitude sickness they couldn't suffer any complaint. It is well known that in the course of high-altitude sickness the experiment is completely foreign to the person undergoing it as if he was under an anesthetic, the same way that a person isn't asked after an anesthetic whether he felt something because it is known he couldn't feel anything.
Q: But, Doctor, one does know, and we laymen also knew it, that preceding unconsciousness there is a certain stage where one does feel something because one still does retain a certain amount of consciousness, and also as a layman one knows there is a certain stage after awakening from unconsciousness where one does feel something. I am interested to know whether before the beginning, of unconsciousness and after this state disappeared the experimental subjects complained about a pain, for instance, about pains which arose up to the point of unconsciousness or about certain after-effects after unconsciousness. That is what I am interests to know, especially did they have any pains, did they complain on any pains before or after unconsciousness?
A: No, they did not, and I am not at all surprised, because I personally had suffered from altitude sickness so often, that I know this condition from my own experiences, and I am sure that Dr. Ruff would have told you the very same thing.
The beginning of high altitude sickness is similar to intoxication. The transitory period to complete unconsciousness, is similar to alcohol intoxication. However, that lasts vary shortly, only a few seconds. Then awakening is very similar. There is a small, a very short phase where the subject does not know where he is, and there are no complaints, as I know from many experiences myself.
Q: Witness, a little while ago a complete copy of the document, 1602-PS, was submitted to you. I think you have it before you.
A: I am afraid I didn't receive it today. I had it on Friday.
Q: But you do know that document, don't you?
A: I believe I do. I think I remember it approximately.
Q: Now, I would be interested in the following matter in connection with that document. Did you at that time when making the acquaintance of Rascher know, or did you assume that Rascher had already carried out the experiments with a low-pressure chamber at an earlier date?
A: Naturally he said that he had worked in the field of aviation medicine.
Q: With the low-pressure chamber?
A: Yes.
Q: And in this document which I just mentioned, 1602-PS, the letter by Rascher to Himmler, the word "low-pressure chamber" is not at all mentioned. Rascher is speaking of experiments, and he asks the Reichsfuehrer Himmler for a number of professional criminals for these experiments. However, he does not mention a low-pressure chamber.
Witness, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in this document Rascher is writing, and I quote:
The experiments are very dangerous.
Then in another passage he writes, and I quote again:
Experiments in which experimental subjects may, of course die.
And then there is a third passage where it says, and I quote:
Insane people con also be used as experimental material.
These three sentences are not correct if we assume the testimony of the defendant Dr. Ruff here to be correct, and these sentences can neither be correct if your own testimony should be taken as being correct. Both of you have testified here that the experiments do not incur any danger whenever they are orderly performed, and I am now speaking of the high-altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg. Ruff has told us that insane people could not be used because of well known reasons. And in spite of that Rascher is stating these three sentences which I just read. Can you explain that in any way?
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, I strenuously object to any further questioning long these lines by Dr. Sauter. He has asked this witness on the witness stand whether or not these experiments were painful, just what the subjects endured during the course of these experiments, and the witness has answered him. What more can he do?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the question is proper. The witness may answer.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Now, Witness, I was putting three points to you taken from Rascher's letter, whom you at that time designate as an expert in this field. Here he is laying down three sentences which do not correspond with your and Dr. Ruff's testimony.
How can you explain that?
A: This letter bears an early date, May, 1941, and obviously it is the outcome of a spontaneous idea on the part of Rascher. He was an impulsive man, and immediately sent a letter to Himmler with that contents. The fact that he speaks about the dangerous aspect would not be conspicuous in its self. I think that whenever one makes a demand to the competent supreme authority to give their permission for such experiments to be carried out on prisoners, it is more ample to exaggerate rather than minimize in case something should happen to the experimental subject. In this case one has nothing to reproach to oneself, in case something should happen. I don't think that this sentence is conspicuous, and one could even assume it to be rather sensible of him not to say that he is sure nothing will happen but to say that people may die. To what extent he was already viewing some concrete plan for his own experiments I cannot say. However, I don't think that he already had any plans at this early date. I can hardly imagine it.
Q: How do you explain the third sentence about the insane? According to your opinion such a sentence could not be understood at all as being uttered by an expert.
A: Well, both of us already testified that insane people could in no case be used for our experiments. Whether he already had some special experiments in mind and was planning them, which were perhaps to be carried out with insane people, I cannot say of course.
Q: Dr. Romberg, you are here starting a trend of thought which I didn't want to mention before, in order not to be accused of putting a leading question to you, but you gave expression to the thought which I personally had in mind.
It is correct, and I am sure that you confirm it because we already heard it, that in addition to high-altitude experiments, Dr. Rascher was carrying out other experiments. That is a well-known fact here, is it not? Now, could it possibly be assumed that these three sentences which I just read to you, (a) about the dangerousness of the experiments; (b) about the possibility of the death of any experimental subject; (c) about the possibility to use insane people, that these sentences could be interpreted as applicable to the other experiments which Rascher was carrying out in addition to your high-altitude experiments, which were for the purpose of rescue from high altitude. Could not these sentences be applied there?
A: Certainly for these experiments he could have used insane persons because there was no great cooperation necessary on the part of the experimental subject.
Q: Then you probably also will confirm that these other experiments of Rascher, the experiments he carried out on his own initiative were much more dangerous because people actually died. Now if you once more recall that letter of Dr. Romberg, is it your opinion that Rascher in the case of this letter, dated 15 May 1941, which was long before your experiments, perhaps did not at all think about the high altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg but was thinking of his own experiments, or are you not of that opinion?
A: Well I am sure he did not think of our high altitude experiments because this was a very special subject which resulted from our special field of activity at the DVL. Naturally this was not something which was not accessible to every one in aviation medicine. He certainly did not think of that. To what extent he at that time was already planning the experiments which he carried out a year later is, of course, very difficult to say.
Q: Now something else, Dr. Romberg —
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal recess at 1535 hours.)