1947-05-08, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the 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 May 8 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in the court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. GEORGE WELTZ — Resumed

CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Weltz —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just one moment.

The Tribunal desires to meet three members of the German counsel, to be chosen by the German counsel, at a quarter before four this afternoon in the Judges' anteroom to discuss the matter of the time to be allowed counsel for argument at the close of the case. If counsel for the defendants will choose a committee of three to meet with the Judges this afternoon at a quarter before four, the matter will be discussed.

Counsel may proceed.

CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Weltz, at the close of yesterday's session we had taken up the meeting in Munich in January 1942, and you stated that Ruff, Romberg, Rascher and yourself were present at that meeting.

Now, between the meeting in Munich and your meeting with Ruff in Berlin, did you then inform Rascher that you had successfully received the support of Ruff and Romberg, so that Rascher then could carry out work in high-altitude research at Dachau?

A: Certainly, otherwise Rascher would not have come to this meeting. I had to invite Rascher to this meeting, and one of the purposes of this meeting was to acquaint Ruff and Romberg with Rascher.

Q: Now, after the meeting had assembled I presume that you had one or two stops to consider. First of all, did the four of you discuss the necessity for the experiments, bearing in mind, of course, that all four of you were familiar with this field of research, Ruff, Romberg and yourself being more particularly experts in the field.

A: We acquainted Rascher with the program; Rascher in his turn told us what the conditions were. He showed us the Himmler letter that has been mentioned here; and the program was already laid down. There was no further discussion of the program. The program was already clear at Adlershof.

Q: This letter that you have referred to, that Dr. Romberg referred to, did you have the opportunity to read that letter of Himmler's?

A: Yes, Rascher showed it to us in this meeting.

Q: Can you substantially tell this Tribunal just what that letter contained?

A: The letter contained the statement that Himmler gave his permission for experiments in Dachau, that these experiments were to be undertaken on habitual criminals, that these habitual criminals were to be volunteers, and that they were to receive a suitable mitigation of punishment.

All these facts were certainly set forth in the letter.

Q: Well, now, doesn't it seem strange to you, Dr. Weltz thinking logically for the moment, that Himmler in his letter authorizing Rascher to conduct experiments at Dachau, would have interposed the remark in his letter that the subjects to be used must be volunteers, in view of the letter of 15 May 1941, wherein Rascher wrote to Himmler and told Himmler that volunteers could not be had and that it was necessary that criminals be set aside for use in those experiments?

A: Of course, I don't know what Himmler and Rascher discussed, but if I can speculate on this subject, I should think that it obviously became clear to Rascher that the question of the volunteers played a great role when he talked to Kottenhoff. Kottenhoff expressed to Rascher scruples to the effect that criminals were not the persons for the experiments that Rascher and Kottenhoff were planning, because they could not be volunteers in effect. In the experiments planned by Rascher and Kottenhoff extensive cooperation of the experimental subjects was counted on, because we had found out in our experiments with rabbits that the respiration had to be carefully regulated if altitude adaptation was to be achieved. And Kottenhoff had misgivings about whether persons who were forced to submit to the experiments would so regulate their respiration voluntarily. That is I presume, why this question of whether the subjects were volunteers played such a great role with Rascher all of a sudden, because Rascher realized from his discussion with Kottenhoff that the question of the subjects' being volunteers was very important.

Otherwise, of course, I do not know how these letters came about nor just what happened between Rascher and Himmler.

Q: Now, how elaborately did Himmler express the view that the subjects to be used in these experiments must be volunteers, that is, in that letter which Rascher produced at the January 1942 meeting at your institute?

A: It was simply mentioned that the subjects should be volunteers. There was nothing in the letter about the way the selection was to be made.

Q: Now, doesn't it seem inconsistent to you, or doesn't the document 1971B-PS which is on page 64 of the English Document Book, which is the letter from Himmler to Rascher which he received after Himmler had previously received Rascher's interim report, that he sent this letter to Rascher wherein he stated, one, this experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned, to death, and so on? Isn't the element of the voluntary nature of the subjects conspicuously absent from this letter?

A: I don't have this letter before me.

Q: Do you have Document Book No. 2 there?

A: No.

MR. HARDY: Produce German Document Book No. 2 please.

(Whereupon book delivered to the witness).

Q: Now this letter says:

1. This experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned to death. 2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to be taken into consultation on these experiments. 3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart, the experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine whether those men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life. Heinrich Himmler.

Now we don't see the word "voluntary" mentioned in this letter, do we, Doctor?

Q: I believe that this letter obviously refers to Rascher's experiments, and not to ours. We did not carry out any experiments on which we had to see how long the heart continues to beat after altitude sickness; Rascher in his relations with Ruff, Romberg, and me.

Q: Now, Doctor, I can well see that you are now going to draw this line of demarcation between Rascher's experiments, and the Ruff-Romberg experiments, and there is no point in our arguing further on this letter, but I do wish to call your attention to this letter where Himmler now, you stated, wrote to Rascher before this time, and stated that the subjects were to be pardoned. Now, in this letter he states that they are to be pardoned if they are killed, and then called back to life — then you will grant them a pardon to be put in a concentration camp for life. Now that's the only instance wherein we see the "pardon" clause coming forth, isn't it?

A: I don't know whether what Rascher told us always was the same as what he discussed with Himmler. I can only say what Rascher told us, and I can only refer to this one statement of Himmler's that I saw, and there is no doubt that the question of the voluntary subject played a role in the discussion between Kottenhoff and Rascher, and that our entire discussion with Ruff and Romberg also involved the voluntary element in a very important role.

Now I do not know whether Rascher got a separate letter from Himmler stating this, or how it was.

Q: Now one brief question along those lines. Isn't it true, or won't you concede, that, after reading this letter which is in Document Book No. 2, and you say that you saw another letter from Himmler, which unfortunately we do not have here in evidence, doesn't it seem to you that the attitude of Heinrich Himmler changed considerably, keeping both letters in mind?

A: What I heard about Himmler's attitude here, if I evaluate that now, then I must say that Himmler's attitude did change radically.

Q: You don't have to go into a long discussion, Doctor, on Himmler's attitude. I am talking about the two letters. You saw one letter wherein you state that Himmler elicited that the experiments must be performed upon criminals, for one, and, two, they must be volunteers, and, number three, they will be given a pardon. Now you say you saw another letter of Himmler's wherein he said that the experiments can continue on persons condemned to death, and secondly, that if anyone dies or becomes unconscious in the course of the experiment, and they are called back to life, then they may be pardoned to a concentration camp for life. Now do those two letters one of which you saw, which this Tribunal and I unfortunately have not seen, and, the letter which we have before us, do they exhibit the attitude of one man on the same subject consistently?

A: Whether or not they were to be volunteers is, as far as I can see in this Himmler letter, Document 1971-B-PS, not mentioned. It does not say that they should be volunteers, nor does it say that they should not be volunteers.

Q: That is right.

A: In other words, this letter which I know only from the records — does not appear to me to exclude the possibility that at another time Himmler wrote a letter in which the condition was laid down that the subjects should be volunteers, particularly since Rascher had to know that the question of their being volunteers was a very important point to us.

Q: Now, Doctor, at this same meeting in January 1942, the question of the use of the low-pressure chamber arose, and, I assume, it was agreed that Ruff and Romberg would bring their low-pressure chamber down to use at Dachau. Now, did they agree to move this chamber to Dachau directly, and what was the reason for stopping off over night at the Institute Weltz? This seems to me of considerable interest here.

A: Ruff testified on this at great length. During the discussion in my Institute in Munich, the individual conditions weren't laid down under which the chamber could be used. If I understood Ruff correctly, the camp commandant made these demands directly of Ruff, and I knew nothing. When the chamber came I was told that the papers and the key to the chamber were to be left with me. Ruff has already explained that. The Berlin drivers arrived in the late afternoon: the chamber was not left at my Institute, however, but was left near the station, and on the next day the SS drivers came to me and fetched the papers and the key, and drove the chamber on.

Q: These experiments, now Doctor, were to be performed on habitual criminals; the criminals were to volunteer, and they were to receive a pardon after they had undergone the experiments. What was the reason for the secrecy in the planning of these experiments, if everything concerning them was honorable?

A: Ruff has testified regarding this point; the secrecy was determined from two points of view. The Luftwaffe required a secrecy of a limited sort because of the nature of the assignment was such as to indicate that a high altitude machine was under development in Germany; all these developments on research assignment were to be kept secret until they were finished, and, when they had been concluded, either they became secret once for all, they were made partially open to the public or entirely open. The decision as to this was, sensibly enough, always reached only after it was ascertained what the experiments had produced in the way of results. Now, while developments were underway, they were all secret. In contra-distinction, to my basic research on animals, which were always open experiments.

That was the reason for secrecy demanded by the Luftwaffe. Now, the SS also demanded secrecy, because of the concentration camp. This was a general demand of the SS. It was not because we were now performing experiments, but these were permanent secrecy requirements pertaining to the concentration camp. There were two sorts of secrecy, and two rules on secrecy.

Q: Well, now, Doctor, you state that in the Himmler letter he merely stated that the subjects to be used must be volunteers, that he gave no particulars, nor did he not set forth any regulations for the selection thereof. Hence, it follows that Ruff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz, at the meeting in Munich at your Institute, January 1942, must have set forth a prescribed course to follow in the selection of volunteers. Now will you please tell the Tribunal just what steps you outlined for the selection of your volunteers?

A: These points were not decided on at the discussion at my Institute, but at a discussion one or two days later with the camp commander at Dachau, when we drove out to Dachau.

Q: You mean to tell me that at a scientific discussion in your Institute, when it was secret, wherein you had to ask Mr. Lutz and Mr. Wendt to leave the room, and that the paramount thought in your mind was that the subjects to be used were volunteers, that you didn't at that time discuss how they were to be selected before you met the concentration camp commandant? The basic problem here was the selection of the inmates to be used, if it wasn't the basic problem, you didn't have to go the concentration camp; do you mean to tell me that you four gentlemen with college educations, members of the medical profession, didn't discuss such an important problem at your meeting in Munich?

A: I do not see why you think this is a problem. We could find out the whole technical side of it and the setup only by seeing the camp commander, and that is the reason we went one or two days later to Dachau. It was only there that the technical details were discussed. We knew at the meeting in Munich that they were to be volunteers, but without exact knowledge of the living conditions, regulations, etc., in the camp we could not decide whether they should be chosen at roll-call or in some other way. All these things we had to leave to the camp commander, and had to wait till he made suggestions.

Q: Just a moment, Doctor. You have stated now that you couldn't tell whether you would have to get them from the roll-call or whet you must do. Then you must have talked about it at the Munich meeting. You couldn't have ascertained these things unless you chatted about it or agreed on something at the Munich meeting. Now, what did you agree upon? You must have said, "We can't decide on this volunteer business until we get to see the concentration camp commandant. But above all, the man must be healthy; the man must volunteer; he must be warned of the hazards of the experiments; we must thoroughly discuss these experiments with each inmate to be used so that we will be sure that he will cooperate in the manner that Kottenhoff has elaborately outlined; didn't you agree on those things, or were you negligent in your preparations?

A: That was no problem for us. From the very first the offer made to us had been for volunteers, and we had no reason to doubt this question or to discuss it. We merely had to see to it that the conditions promised us were fulfilled regarding the voluntary consent, there was no great discussion, because that was simply the prerequisite that was taken as a matter of course, and it was not discussed.

Q: I can understand that it was no problem for you at that time. But it is the big problem today. That is way you are here, because you didn't consider it a problem then. Be that as it may, then you went to Dachau. You arrived at Dachau, and then you discussed the nature of the volunteers. Now tell the Tribunal just what regulations you set up for the selection of these volunteers. Now carefully did you outline to the concentration camp commandant what type of subject you wanted?

A: Schnitzler, the adjutant of the Reichsleitung [Reich Leadership], informed the camp commander in our presence that his orders from Himmler were, one, that Himmler had given his permission for these experiments; two, that all of us were to participate in them; three, that they were to be volunteers and that they were to be habitual criminals. Then, between Schnitzler, Rascher, and the camp commander, there was a brief discussion, in which they decided that they would take the prisoners from block such- and — such. These numbers did not mean very much to us, and then we found out that the camp commander—

Q: Well, now, just a moment. The decided they would take the subjects from one block or another block; they specified what blocks that they were going to ask for volunteers? Is that it?

A: Yes.

Q: Continue. Go ahead.

A: The camp commander said, "Well, if these are the conditions, then it will be best to take the prisoners from such and such a block."

Q: Now, what were these conditions again?

A: Ruff has already said that. We said that these conditions were to correspond to the average requirements of the Luftwaffe.

Q: Well, now, did you then, while all of you were there, the gentlemen who had arranged the plans for these experiments, have the selection of the volunteers take place so that you would be able to ascertain whether or not you could use them?

A: No. That was decided on later.

Q: You mean any man who volunteered would be of use to you if he was healthy?

A: He had to meet certain requirements, and we knew Himmler's order which Schnitzler communicated to the camp commander in our presence. We knew what sort of a group of people they were to be. They were to be habitual criminals, and so forth. We knew all that. There was no room for any doubt or any uncertainty in this matter.

Q: You have conclusively stated that a subject to be used in the course of these experiments must be a man who is willing fully to cooperate. He must be a person as outlined by Kottenhoff on Page 11 of your document book, wherein Kottenhoff states:

Rascher came to me after the lecture and spontaneously made the proposition to conduct the above under No. 10 further described high-altitude adaptability tests, which since 1937 I had planned to conduct on Luftwaffe physicians and pilots, on professional criminals. I explained to him that the experiments in question could only succeed if the test persons, overcoming the respiratory inhibitions at this altitude, could considerably increase their respiratory activity intentionally (by exerting their will power); furthermore, that they had to carry out this forced respiration in a certain rhythm, mainly using abdominal muscular pressure (stomach respiration) and in a horizontal position.

This increased respiratory activity could only be done voluntarily and should, under no circumstances, be interfered with the thought of a possible danger of life in these experiments. Therefore, the only persons qualified for the experiments would be those who really volunteered without any compulsion and who could be convinced that these experiments were not dangerous. Even at that time I expressed my doubts whether people other than Luftwaffe physicians and pilots were suitable for the experiments planned.

Now, Doctor, as an expert, keeping in mind Kottenhoff's recommendations which you have supplied here in evidence, which you obviously were aware of prior to the time you visited Dachau, wherein you made arrangements for the selection of the inmates, why didn't you—being the expert that you are, having full knowledge of another expert's views on these matters—why didn't you then, yourself, inasmuch as Rascher was to act as your subordinate in these experiments, Romberg to act as Ruff's subordinate, why didn't you then carefully ascertain the subjects to be used and be certain that they would conduct themselves in the manner outlined by yourself and by Kottenhoff, so you would be sure of no mistakes?

A: That is what we did. Ruff has testified at length on this, pointing out that even for this different group —

Q: Ruff never talked to one of these subjects. What do you mean, Ruff testified at length? He never spoke to one. You never spoke to one, and Romberg could remember the names of only two or three, maybe four.

Who did speak to these people? Rascher? Did you leave it up to Rascher?

A: If the experimental subjects did what was expected of them as volunteers, pulled the parachute release, described what they experienced during their reactions, then Romberg must have spoken with them beforehand. The whole matter was settled as far as I was concerned by the fact that, against my will, I was eliminated by Rascher—against my will, at the beginning of the experiments.

Q: We'll go into that a bit later, Doctor. Now, you state Romberg testifies that they pulled the rip cord, that they pointed to their ears, that they did everything as instructed. Can you answer me this question: Suppose tomorrow morning you decide to do a high-altitude experiment, and I am an inmate of a concentration camp, and you say to me, "I am going to use you in an experiment today." I am not volunteering, Doctor. "I am going to use you in an experiment today, and this experiment is dangerous. If you don't pull the rip cord at such and such time, if you don't tell as what is happening to you, how you are feeling, how your ears are, if you don't respond to our questions quickly, you'll die." How do you think Mr. Hardy is going to conduct himself in that low-pressure chamber? I imagine I would conduct myself much better than the average volunteer, wouldn't I?

A: I am afraid that I didn't quite understand the purport of the question.

Q: I state again: you are going to conduct an experiment. This is hypothetical. I am an inmate of a concentration camp. You come to me and say, "You, I am going to use you in this high-altitude experiment right now."

I am not volunteering. You are taking me by force, in the manner in which they took them by force in the typhus experiments and other experiments in concentration camps. Then you say to me, "You are going into this chamber. We are going to take you up to 15,000 feet, or 45,000 feet"—whatever you select. You say that you want me to pull a rip cord at a certain time and that if I go unconscious, when I come to again you are going to ask me questions and you want me to answer the questions and that you want me to point to my ears when I feel pain in my ears, or whatever you wish me to do. You are instructing me. And then you say to me, "Mr. Hardy, if you don't follow instructions, you will die. If you do follow instructions, nothing will harm you. You will be perfectly all right." Now, don't you suppose that one Mr. Hardy will conduct himself in a manner in that chamber wherein you can get all int information you need? I don't want to die, Doctor.

Q: To this I can say two things. First of all, I wouldn't have taken you if you had not been a volunteer, because it was our plan and our intention from the very beginning to take only volunteers, so that proposition which you have suggested is fallacious. That situation would never have arisen. I would never have forced you.

Secondly, if we had taken concentration camp inmates in large numbers and wanted to get true information from these people, then these people, if they had been forced, would probably have had enough sense to give us all sorts of wrong information so that they could sabotage the experiment, and thus all this information we got would be scientifically useless to us.

Q: Now, Doctor in the course of these experiments — this is purely a technical question, and you being a man who has worked with low-pressure chambers for a considerable length of time, having had one in your own institute — and there is an element of curiosity on my part-suppose I had volunteered for these experiments. Or suppose I volunteered for the von Kennel experiments in Heidelberg or high-altitude experiments anywhere, conducted in a manner as you say the Ruff-Romberg experiments were conducted, and I had volunteered to be willing to submit myself to a series of experiments. Now, being a layman, I don't know just how much of that I could stand. Now, how long could I stand these experiments—one individual? Now, you would use me, we'll say, in twenty experiments or twenty-five experiments. Could I stand twenty experiments? Could I stand fifty experiments? How long could I stand that, and over what period of time?

A: That depends on the nature of the experiment, but our long-time Luftwaffe doctors, like Ruff and Romberg, for example—and I could name you others—prove that you can stand thousands of experiments over the course of years without anything radical happening to you.

Q: Could I stand, we'll say these explosive decompression experiments—could I stand two each day for thirty days?

A: You would have to find that out. You don't say right at the beginning, I am going to carry out experiments for 30 days with the experimental subject, but after you have done one experiment you reflect on how it turned out.

Q: Have you found in you experience along these lines that sometimes you use a subject once and you find that you cannot use him again? That must occur quite often.

A: Spreading the experimental subjects out over a long period of time was done, as Ruff also said, not because the experimental subjects were exhausted nor because their condition was bad. They were spread out over a long period of time in order to keep the experimental subjects from adapting themselves to high altitude, the condition, for example, the mountain climber in the Himalayas artificially creates in himself so that he can climb higher. Now, a person who has become adapted to high altitudes in this way is no longer an index of what an average person. When Romberg spread the experiments with any one person out over a long period of time, that was not because the man would not have been capable of being experimented on the next day, but to avoid this adaptation to high altitudes on the part of the subject.

Q: Now, how many times have you yourself been subjected to high altitude experiments?

A: I have gone through a large number of low-pressure chamber experiments, and today I cannot —

Q: Would you say you have gone through thirty-five, forty-five, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, how many?

A: I can't remotely estimate that today. That covers a number of years, many years.

Q: Well, how long after you had undergone these experiments did you become acclimated to them, so to speak? Did you become accustomed to the high altitude after ten experiments, after going through it ten times, or after going through it five times, or how long before you became accustomed to high altitudes?

A: I didn't work personally in this field, namely the field of adaptation to high altitudes, but people in my institute did. That was the work —

Q: Well, Doctor, what I am trying to arrive at is, when does a person cease to be useful as an experimental subject? I imagine Ruff is not useful now as an experimental subject because he has subjected himself to these experiments so many times that he has become adapted to high altitudes, and the same for Romberg.

A: Adaptation to high altitudes is not something that lasts for the rest of your life, but something which at first rapidly and then more slowly is lost again. One can assume that if a person has not been in a low-pressure chamber for three or four months he has returned to a normal state.

Q: On an average, can't we strike an average from your experience in this field on how long it takes for a person to become adaptable to high altitudes? I should think that would be a very important problem in aviation medicine, inasmuch as you could then just take low-pressure chambers and march your pilots into them and keep them in there so long each day, for a period of thirty or forty days, and then they could go and fly and it wouldn't have as much effect on them. How long can you undergo this before you become adapted to the high altitude?

A: That is a very important problem in aviation medicine, and has already been dealt with by a number of people, such as Luft and Lupitz, but I myself did not work in that field and consequently cannot tell you anything about it from my own experience.

Q: You mean that you are not qualified to determine when a person is adaptable to high altitude?

THE INTERPRETER: He misunderstood the question. Ask it again.

A: I can tell by looking at a person. If today he is subject to altitude sickness at 7,500 meters, and then a week later he can stand 10,000 meters. Then I know he has adapted himself. This adaptation varies of course with the individual. — With one person it is quicker, with another slower.

It is hard to give figures for that.

Q: Say you used a subject on Monday and put him up to 8,000 feet, 8,000 meters, pardon me, and then you used him on Tuesday and you put him up to 8,000 meters again on Tuesday. Then you used him on Friday and put him up to 8,000 meters again on Friday. Over that period of five days, would it be rather likely that on the third occasion he may not get sick? Would it be as close as that or would the series have to go into ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty times, or would it be one or two times, and after one, two, three, or four times he may become adapted to 8,000 feet, or 8,000 meters?

A: The first reactions occur as soon as the second or third time and increase thereafter. It does not happen all of a sudden. It is a gradual adaptation of the body which begins slowly with the second or third ascent, and then it gradually reaches a maximum above which it does not rise.

Q: Then would you say if you used a man, say four times a week for a month, would it be very likely that he would be adapted to high altitudes then?

A: Four times a month, did you say?

Q: Four times a week.

A: Four times a week? Yes, after four times a week a certain effect on him would doubtless be noticeable.

Q: Well then, in the course of experiments it would be necessary, if you were going to conduct a large number of experiments, to have perhaps a suitable number of subjects available, wouldn't it? If, for instance, you were going to conduct one hundred experiments, and you were going to conduct that one hundred experiments in a period of one month — do you follow me, Doctor, one hundred experiments in one month — you would have to divide that up so you would have twenty-five experiments per week. Twenty-five experiments per week. Now, how many subjects would you need to perform twenty-five experiments per week? Would you need twenty-five subjects or would you need say five subjects and give each one of them an experiment each day, and then, of course, after you gave one of them an experiment each day he may become adapted and you may not be able to use him any longer.

Am I thinking clearly on this subject?

A: This question cannot be decided in general terms, because you are just giving me a general outline and are not telling me what the experiments are to be like. If you want an answer, you must tell me specifically just what these experiments are, how rapidly the ascent is, at what altitude the man remains, all these things determine how the body reacts to altitude.

Q: Let's say that they are experiments wherein a man is going to be taken above 12,000 feet, like Ruff and Romberg's experiments. Say they are experiments just of that nature. Now, if you had one hundred experiments to perform in the short time of one month, not three or four months, but one month, then how many subjects would you, as an expert in this field, require, because, you see, you have to perform five experiments a day, because you usually don't work Saturdays and Sundays, I assume. Do scientists work Saturdays and Sundays?

A: Whether Romberg worked on Saturdays and Sundays I don't know.

Q: Now, you have about five experiments to conduct each day. Now, how many subjects would you use each day? Would you use merely five subjects a day, in other words, you would have five subjects to use for the twenty-five experiments that week, and one man would undergo five experiments in a week, or how would you plan it out if you had just one month to do it in? You had to perform about one hundred experiments to collect the data necessary. How many subjects would you have volunteered, would you accept?

A: The answer depends on various considerations. If I have nothing else to consider I can use each person only once and simply order as many experimental subjects as I need for each experiment.

Q: Would that be the best thing to do?

A: This solution would have both advantages and disadvantages. It would doubtless have the advantage that there would be no adaptation to high altitude. On the other hand, it has certain advantages for an experiment you can form some medical opinion as regards any one person, about that person's general qualifications and resistance; there are advantages and disadvantages in this plan.

Now, the other extreme would be to have just one experimental subject. In that case I would have to decide by the subject's reaction how often I could carry the experiment out without the subject's adapting himself. This is something I cannot answer theoretically, because the figures vary with the individual.

Q: Now, Doctor, you have here the hypothetical question of one hundred experiments in one month. Each block is a week, four blocks, giving us twenty-five experiments per week. Now you are planning your experiments at the outset to conduct one hundred experiments, and you only have a month because of the fact that the Aero-Medical Center in Heidelberg would only let you use the air-pressure chamber for one month. They have to have it back. What would you say would be the desirable number of subjects? Would you consider using five, just five men and putting the five men through five experiments each day or each week, pardon me. Would you use five men and put each one of them through five experiments a week, or would it be better to use ten men, twenty men, or thirty men, when you only have such a short space of time to conduct your experiments?

A: If I had a short time I presume I should use a relatively large number of experimental subjects so that I could spread them out better. That would be a matter of course. If I have more time I can get along with fewer subjects. Since I myself haven't worked in this field of explosive decompression, as you know, I don't have any personal experiences in this matter.

Q: You would be a little bit cautious about using just five men, for this period of a month? wouldn't you? Just five men.

A: I never gave much thought to the question of the number of experimental subjects, under the conditions you cite.

Q: Do you mean you arrange an experimental plan and don't give thought to something like that? I should think that would be quite important, doctor, just how many subjects you need, because you have to have them on hand. If you were performing experiments in your Institute in Munich and using Luftwaffe volunteers or, say, citizens of Munich, and offering them 200 dollars to volunteer or something like that. Then you'd have to determine how many you would need available. Would you say you could use 5 men for 100 experiments to be performed in one month and use them safely and get good results? In other words bear in mind that man has to go through an experiment each day, pretty near, in other words, he has to go through 25 experiments in 30 days?

A: I have already said that the question is not simply one of the experiments and the numbers involved in the experiments, but it is important how often and how frequently a person is subjected to high altitude during the experiments. And as I have already said, I don't know how explosive decompression and parachute descent affect adaptability to high altitude, because as I say I haven't worked in that field. I know nothing about it. If I were doing this I would carry on with a certain number of persons as long as the results seemed to be homogeneous and as soon as there was deviation in the results, I would get more subjects.

Q: You say that you don't know much about the field of explosive decompression, that you perhaps never specialized in it and never conducted any experiments in it, then what in what in the world were you doing by arranging for Rascher to conduct experiments if you don't know anything about it, you don't know whether a man can go over 12,000 feet or not and not suffer —

JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, you keep referring to 12,000 feet. I think if you will look at the record you will find it is 12,000 meters. I think you will find also when you referred to the Dachau experiments that over the period of time of two months or perhaps a little longer, that is to say from about 10 or 11 March until 20 May when the chamber was supposed to have been removed, there were between 200 and 300 experiments, with about 50 per cent of them made about 14 or 15 kilometers, which would be 14,000 or 15,000 meters not 15,000 feet.

Q: That's what I meant, Your Honor, in as much as Judge Sebring has got to the point for us, would you kindly tell me, Doctor, whether it would be feasible from the 10th of March to the 20th of May? — Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg maintains that the first experiment took place on the 22nd of February 22 they discontinued until Rascher came back from Schongau. He returned from Schongau and Romberg returned from Berlin where he was visiting his wife, about 10 March, and they started the experiments 10 March, from 10 March to 31 March, you have approximately 20 days, the month of April which is approximately 30 or 31 days, and you have 20 days in May, so you have there a total of some 70 days, which is less than two and a half months, in a period of two and a half months you performed nearly 300 experiments on 7 to 12 subjects; doesn't that seems to be quite a number of experiments to require one man to endure during a period of two and a half months?

You divide 12 into 300 and then divide 7 into 300; that is undergoing a considerable number of experiments, isn't he?

A: Yes, are you talking about the effects on their general health, or are you talking about the effects as regards adaptation to high altitude?

Q: No, I am not, I am not talking about the effect on their general health. I am referring to their adaptability to high altitude, and whether or not they would continue to be useful in the experiments as experimental subjects, and bearing in mind of course, as Judge Sebring pointed out, that these men are going 50 per cent of the time above 14,000 meters.

A: Big figures seem to make a great impressions on you, but I and Ruff have already told you that the ultimate altitude is not alone important, but just as much depends on the time. Whether the subjects adapt themselves or not in a certain experiment, that I can see; in the program that Romberg drew up, I believe there was serious adaptation to high altitude.

Q: You have stated that it is possible that a person could be adaptable to one height in a period of three or four or five experiments; now, suppose you were experimenting and as soon as you saw he was adapted, would you drop him out?

A: I didn't say that after three or four experiments the subjects adapt themselves. I said that if you are trying to achieve adaptation to high altitude and arrange the experiments so that a high degree of acclimatization will result, then you can start seeing results after two or three ascents, that is what I said.

Q: Well, as soon as you see the result, then you would not use the man in further experiments, would you?

A: If in the course of an experimental series I see that the subject is becoming adapted and disrupting the experiment, then of course I don't use that subject any further.

Q: Well, the other angle, what about the health of the subject undergoing we will say such a large number of experiments in the course of a month as 25, or 20 experiments in two months, would that have anything to do with it?

A: Let me clear this up. Adaptation to high altitude is not an injury to one's health, but it is a reaction which is sometimes deliberately induced, by sending people to the mountains, for example. It has nothing to do with damage to one's health. It is a perfectly normal condition, one that results naturally in high altitudes in the mountains, and a condition which a person voluntarily brings about if he is going to spend his vacation in a high mountain terrain. No injuries to the person's health are to be expected, I can think of no case, except for one or two cases where there was some question of tuberculosis having resulted after a large number of experiments. As I say, except for those cases in the course of perhaps millions of ascents I know of only two cases where TB resulted, in doubtful connection with high altitude. In other words, for all this is of no consequence, because it is much too rare.

For all practical purposes damage to health is non-existent in high-altitude experiments.

Q: Well, now, Doctor, going back to the subjects used at Dachau, did you ever personally talk to one of the subjects used?

A: No, from what I have said it must be pretty clear that I didn't. I was in Dachau only at this one discussion before the beginning of the experiments, and never again.

Q: I see, and the discussion that you had at Dachau was merely the preliminary meeting, and the inmates were selected at a later date; you didn't even see the inmates?

A: The principles were discussed, according to which the subjects were to be selected. They were of course actually chosen later. I know nothing more about all these events, because I was no longer informed of what was going on.

Q: Now, you didn't see the subjects, and you now testify before this Tribunal under oath from your own knowledge that the subjects used were volunteers?

A: Since I never saw them, I can't testify on that subject at all. I can only say that it was agreed with the camp commander what the nature of these experimental subjects was to be. That is the extent of my knowledge on the matter. After that I know nothing.

Q: Well, now, after that meeting, can you tell us whether or not you discussed the nature of the subjects, that is the character of the subjects with anyone; did anyone afterwards tell you where they got the volunteers?

A: I told you in my direct examination how things continued as far as I was concerned.

I heard nothing more about the progress of the experiments. Rascher was in Schongau and that was the reason why I asked Rascher through the letter him to report on what was going on. Rascher told me that he was still in Schongau, that the experiments in Dachau hadn't started yet.

MR. HARDY: At this time I would like to ask the court reporters to clarify the record wherein I have referred to figures, namely 8,000, 10,000, 14,000, or 15,000, if I have used the word feet, kindly strike that and include the word meters. I used the word feet erroneously.

This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)