1947-07-17, #7: Doctors' Trial (mid afternoon)

Dr. Sauter, counsel for defendant Siegfried Ruff, presents his closing argument

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: It is the intention of the Tribunal to hear the personal statements on the part of the defendants on Saturday. The arguments will be concluded by the end of tomorrow afternoon. These personal statements on the part of the defendants will be made by each defendant from the dock. Each defendant will step to the door of the dock before which will be placed the microphone. These personal statements on the part of each defendant are, of course, not intended to be arguments. The defendants have testified at length from the stand, their counsel have argued the matter, we have heard the counsel on oral argument and the counsel will file a brief, the length of which depends upon the sound discretion of each counsel. It appears to the Tribunal that under these circumstances that a personal statement by each defendant not to exceed ten minutes for each one might be sufficient. I would be glad to hear from counsel as to whether or not they think that this will be sufficient and if not sufficient, why not.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe that in the name of all the defendants and the defense that the time limit of about ten minutes per defendant is sufficient. If a defendant would like to have eleven or twelve minutes, I am sure some defendants will take some minutes less. I believe that we can be in agreement with the proposal of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: My eye-sight possibly would not be very good in watching the exact ten minutes each defendant will speak, if they do not exceed that limit more than a minute or so. It will be understood then that each defendant will make his personal plea from the box beginning Saturday morning. Very well, counsel, that is understood.

I understand from the interpreter that the translations of the arguments on behalf of the defendant Ruff have not yet been received.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor, it just arrived.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now hear the arguments on behalf of counsel for the defendant Ruff — the translation has been received.

DR. SAUTER: For the defendant Ruff:

Your Honors, I have a detailed piece of writing which I have submitted on 1 July. I have submitted the evidence in the case of Dr. Ruff and judged them objectively, and then in a supplement of 1 July 1947, submitted on the 8 July 1947, I have also explained my position to the testimony of Dr. Ivy in detail and I have determined that the conception of Dr. Ivy in all important points agrees with the views and practices of Dr. Ruff, and, that, therefore, Dr. Ruff, is also from the point of view of Dr. Ivy not guilty in that view either. The brief for the length of time does not enable me to present these statements of Dr. Ivy which are also important for this trial but I would like the Tribunal to take note of my written presentation in the case of Dr. Ivy in the trial brief of the prosecution. I could not answer to the trial brief of the Prosecution because I have not yet received it. If I can get this before the verdict I would like to answer to it.

Now, Your Honors, I turn to the plea which I have written as an introduction, from which I shall quote the following:

The defendant Dr. Ruff is charged only with the high altitude experiments which were carried out by his collaborator Dr. Romberg in cooperation with Dr. Rascher in the Dachau concentration camp. He was never accused on any other count by any one; the completely negative results of the trial make it so self-evident that the conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution does not include Dr. Ruff, so that we need not waste a word about it.

This fact in itself already constitutes a certain exceptional position for the defendant Dr. Ruff in this trial, because most of the other participants must defend themselves against a series of different charges; on Ruff, however, only on this one.

Then from pages 1 to 12, the first chapter of my written statement, I have represented Dr. Ruff as a man and scientist, as he is described by all of his collaborators, and as a scientist all of them emphasize his personal courage in these self-experiments, his responsibility and his consideration for experimental subjects and his scientific achievements.

These recommendations have to more value because as far as the evidence goes the Prosecution was not able to produce a single witness who testified against Dr. Ruff unfavorably as a man or a scientist.

I now continue with the second chapter of my plea in which I have examined the experiments. These presentations are to be found on page 5 and the following pages, under the Roman Numeral II. I have said the following there:

The proceedings of this many months old trial have clearly shown that Dr. Ruff is innocent and that these experts were right who from the outset and in spite of all suspicions were convinced of the innocence of Dr. Ruff, and who openly testified to Dr. Ruff's innocence.

Certainly Dr. Ruff agreed to and approved it that high-altitude tests with a low-pressure chamber of the Reich Air Ministry were performed by his co-operator of many years, Dr. Romberg, together with Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Dr. Rascher, in a concentration camp, using concentration camp inmates as experimental subjects. He agreed to it after the performance of urgent experiments in the Dachau concentration camp had already been, on principal, agreed upon and approved by Professor Dr. Hippke and Prof. Dr. Weltz.

Therefore, the question arises whether these high-altitude experiments were already illegal for the reason that THEY WERE PERFORMED ON CONCENTRATION CAMP INMATES.

This question must be denied; for only such inmates were used for the experiments who had VOLUNTEERED for them, or who at least were regarded by Ruff as volunteers and could be regarded as such in view of the whole situation, and no one could reproach him for having erred in this respect because other persons had perhaps deceived him about these facts.

2) There are, however, some witnesses who apparently maintain that the prisoners used in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were not volunteers, above all the witnesses Vieweg and Neff are of this opinion.

a) During his direct examination of 13 December 1946 (German examination records page 464 and following ones) the witness Vieweg mentioned a series of experiments of different kinds which were performed at the Dachau concentration camp. Referring in particular to the high-altitude experiments there, which alone can be considered in the indictment against Dr. Ruff, he states firstly (pages 475-476) that high-altitude experiment with the low-pressure chamber were performed on ten patients:

For these experiments frequently also patients and male nurses, also, were used who during the experiments were seen in the corridor of the adjacent hospital ward.

— with which Vieweg apparently waster to point out that those "patients" and "also the nurses" were as volunteers; the ten "OFFICIAL EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS" had been well fed and supplied with smokes. (page 476/485) but in addition these ten so-called "exhibition-patients", a large number of people had been selected from the camp who were "always being sent to the high altitude experiment institute". In that way a block leader (Blockaeltester) who probably suffered from pneumonia a few hours later was in the sick bay mortuary; the same happened in the Malaria department of the witness Vieweg:

one day a patient who had some differences with Zill, the leader of the camp for protective custody, was sent to the experimental institute; he (Vieweg) found him in the mortuary the next day. He (Vieweg) knows by hearsay that a great number of patients who took part in these experiments had died and ended up in the sick bay mortuary

(page 476).

Between the lines of this rather obscure and vague statement one may read that, according to Vieweg's statement these further experimental subjects took and especially those who had died during the experiments DID NOT belong to the ten "official experimental subjects" and had not been volunteers. However, in the direct examination by the Prosecution the witness Vieweg did not express himself explicitly about this alleged compulsion of the so-called experimental subjects.

During the cross-examination by the defense counsel of Dr. Romberg the witness Vieweg (page 485) explained his expression the "ten exhibition patients". The ten selected patients who were used for the high altitude tests had been accommodated in a special room and had been well nourished (page 485); they had been exhibited, and they had been presented to Himmler during one of his visits. Himmler made them big promises, if they survived, they would be dismissed — these 10 patients had been drawn into the experiments; — they had told him (Vieweg) that they were very exhausted by the whole affair.

BUT AS FAR AS HE COULD REMEMBER THEY ALL SURVIVED (page 486/489). On questioning the witness Vieweg repeatedly stated (page 486/487/489) that as far as he could remember Dr. Rascher had carried out the experiments himself; the only thing Vieweg could state (page 487) about a participation of "Luftwaffe officers" in these high altitude experiments, was that some Luftwaffe officers "had also been there". But he could not say anything about the actual participation of the Luftwaffe officers. From the description on page 501 "these two gentlemen of the Luftwaffe" certainly were not identical with Ruff and Romberg. He himself (Vieweg) had only talked with these ten official experimental subjects, the so-called "exhibition patients". But not with any of the other experimental subjects. He himself had never observed that these other prisoners were used for high altitude tests, but he had been told about it frequently. Vieweg repeatedly stated that the ten official experimental subjects had still been alive at the end of the experiments (page 489) that NO DEATHS had occurred among them.

So much for the statement of the witness Vieweg; of course it is unreliable because it does not establish a clear distinction between these high altitude experiments authorized by Ruff and carried out with the cooperation of Dr. Romberg, and other experiments in the low pressure chamber which Rascher undertook by order of Himmler, without the authorization or previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff and without the cooperation of Dr. Romberg. This distinction, which is of decisive importance in judging this case, only appears in Vieweg's statement insofar as the ten official experimental subjects (the so-called "exhibition patients") were exclusively used for the first experiments (Ruff-Romberg-Rascher), whereas other prisoners were used for the other experiments (Rascher alone). Of course, the significance of this distinction was not clear to Vieweg at that time and could not be observed by him, because Vieweg did not know anything at all about Dr. Ruff's activity and since he did not know anything at all about the agreements which had been reached between Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher.

Apart from these obscurities one has to regard THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS VIEWEG WITH THE GREATEST CAUTION for another reason: For Vieweg is the witness who, with unusual unscrupulousness, committed plain perjury in the sessions of 13 and 16 December 1946. He tried first (page 474 fg.) to give the impression that he had been sent to the concentration camp without any reason, that he had been committed for "political protective security." This representation of the witness Vieweg is completely in accordance with his previous behavior, because formerly he had generally pretended to be politically persecuted an innocent man who had been thrown into a concentration camp without ever having learned the reason. Under this false presence he offered himself as witness for this Trial, and because of this misrepresentation he was presented as a witness by the prosecution whom he had deceived. However, in the cross examination Vieweg had to admit that in 1934 he was sentenced to four respectively six years PENAL SERVITUDE FOR FORGERY OF DOCUMENTS AND FRAUD, that is to say for COMMON crimes, which, as a rule, have got nothing to do with politics. On repeated questioning the witness Vieweg stated again and again (page 483 fg.) that he could NOT REMEMBER having received any other previous conviction in addition to these four respectively six years penal servitude. He insisted on this statement, even though he had been repeatedly reminded that he was under oath; his stereotype phrase was, he could not remember, he even emphasized: "That he deposed this under oath" (page 484) and he continued to insist on his statement even though he was told that his previous convictions could be determined without difficulty since his files had been sent for (page 484).

Now, to compare the testimony given under oath with the list of convictions of the witness Vieweg, which was submitted as Document Ruff No. 24, in Document Book Ruff, Supplement V, page 93.

Besides the four respectively six years of penal servitude which he admitted, the witness Vieweg received in reality NOT LESS THAN SIX PRISON TERMS prior to 1934, among them five years penal servitude and five years loss of civil rights for repeated severe thefts.

This extract of the penal register shows WHY the witness Vieweg had such a "bad memory": He never was politically persecuted, as he pretended to be, but he is the type of incorrigible professional criminal who could not be changed or educated even by the most severe penalty. If ANYBODY deserved to be sent to the concentration camp it was this Vieweg. But even the five years he spent in the concentration camp did not help him any. For now he is again in prison, in Bamberg, where charges were brought against him on 5 March 1947 at the District Court of Bamberg for forgery of documents and fraud, as well as for five cases of repeated theft, for attempted abortion, for active bribery and for Black Market dealings.

This incorrigible professional criminal allowed himself to be presented here as star witness for the prosecution against an honorable, blameless citizen, as which Dr. Ruff emerged in the course of this Trial. Can the court base its verdict on the statements of a person like Vieweg, who on top of everything shamelessly lied to the Tribunal and committed the worst possible perjury.

b) The other witness presented by the Prosecution for the Dachau experiments is Walter Neff; he is at present in the Dachau camp for war criminals and will soon have to stand trial himself before the American Tribunal, for experiments in which he took an active part.

I skip the next few pages of the plea where I state that this other witness of the Prosecution, the witness Neff, according to his own testimony was a multiple murderer, that he is fully conscious of his murders, without any kind of conscience he boasted of them and believes he will escape by implicating other defendants, for instance Ruff. But I want to draw your attention to the testimony which I regard important that a Jewish tailor — it is to be found on page 12 which I presented in my plea.

I read on page 12:

Special attention must be attached to the witness Neff's further assertion regarding a Jewish tailor who worked in the sick bay. Neff called Dr. Romberg's attention to the fact that this man was not sentenced to death, and Romberg thereupon immediately went to Rascher with Neff in order "to set matters straight". Upon intervention by Dr. Romberg, Rascher then actually sent the tailor back; when the accompanying SS man again threatened the Jew, Rascher again intervened and "immediately had the man (the tailor) brought to safety in the bunker" (p. 655). Again, in the case of a second inmate, a Czech, who unjustly and without his consent had been brought in for the experiments, Dr. Romberg according to Neff's report intervened on behalf of the prisoner, with the result that Dr. Rascher entered a complaint against the criminal SS man with the Camp Commander Pierowsky. Thereupon the SS man was immediately transferred to Lublin; in that way the Czech was SAVED FROM CERTAIN DEATH BY DR. ROMBERG (page 655, 719).

This testimony of the witness Neff plays an important part in answering the question whether or not the experimental subjects used were volunteers, and also, what Dr. Romberg, and therefore Dr. Ruff, knew about them, and what Dr. Romberg's attitude was toward this question. In this connection, Neff said:

Romberg, Ruff's deputy, therefore, did not want any dangerous experiments; he tolerated no murder and considered only experiments with volunteers.

That is literally what the witness said.

My further statements on page 12 and 13 of the plea then point to the decisive fact that Neff evidently could not distinguish on the one hand between those experiments which were conducted with the approval of Ruff and were carried out without any deaths at all, and between the experiments which he conducted himself and which Rascher undertook on the authority of Himmler and in which deaths occurred.

I also want to read what I have written on page 13.

However, Neff's testimony does show that the selection of the experimental subjects was carried out in two different ways: For the "dangerous experiments" Rascher ordered the subjects through the local headquarters, and they were brought by the SS; they were therefore people condemned to death (page 663); for the "serial experiments" on the other hand, and "for most of the Other experiments which took place that's what the witness said, the people were brought to the experimental station from the blocks, that is, from the camp", (page 657) by the block leaders, etc. (page 663). These "serial experiments" were obviously the experiments approved by Ruff and Neff expressly establishes that "volunteers reported for these experiments" (pages 657/712)! He even gives the reasons why the prisoners volunteered for these: because Rascher, and Himmler too, had promised various inmates "that, if they participated in the experiments, they would be given a better labor assignment" (page 657) and even as Himmler promised that they would be discharged (page 712). Such volunteers reported to Rascher on their own initiative (according to the witness) as he went through the camp, without any special efforts having been necessary to find volunteers (witness Neff, page 657).

There can be no doubt that these volunteers, estimated by Neff to be about 10, are identical with the 10 "official experimental subjects" or "exhibition patients" mentioned already by the witness Vieweg, and it is noteworthy that Dr. Ruff, too, in his testimony always told of 10 or 12, or at the most 15 persons from the very beginning, of course (he did not count them himself) who were regularly called in for the high altitude experiments and who he saw himself, when, a single time, he was present for observation and checking at the experiments in Dachau; this number Dr. Ruff had mentioned at a time when Neff's and Vieweg's testimony was not avail able.

He therefore could not have anticipated that these witnesses would confirm his figure as correct.

I have further stated on pages 15 and 16, where I first mention the numerous contradictions in the testimony of Neff, on page 15, under #3, I continue:

There can be no doubt that, if these statements by Neff were true, it would have been easy for the Office of the Public Prosecutor to produce numerous other witnesses, who, likewise, had been inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau, who had perhaps experienced these experiments themselves, or who had spoken to subjects of these experiments or had even observed the experiments. However, not a single outsider, not a single incontestable witness, has been produced although half a year has elapsed since the days when, here in the courtroom, one could not fail to realize to what an unreliable and untrustworthy class persons of the caliber of Vieweg and Neff belong. This fact very strongly indicates that obviously no other witnesses are available or could be made available who could confirm that the experimental subjects who were used in the Ruff-Romberg altitude tests were not volunteers.

Let the fact be mentioned here, for the sake of comparison, that in the case of the Gebhardt sulfonamide operations, for example, one-half dozen incriminating witnesses were brought from Poland and Russia and were interrogated here as witnesses. Why was not a single trustworthy witness produced from among the Dachau experimental subjects and placed in the witness box? Because no one could be found who could confirm the untrue allegations of a Vieweg and a Neff. On the other hand, during the trial a whole series of persons, who deserve a great deal more belief than Vieweg and Neff, affirmed with certainty that all the experimental subjects in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were volunteers and that from the very beginning an indispensable condition which was demanded and assured was that the subjects were voluntary.

Then, in this connection, Your Honors, on page 16 to 18 I have collected the testimony by a series of witnesses who have testified here regarding the subject of voluntary experimental subjects, Dr. Lutz, Hielscher, Hippke, and General Wolff, and I have then, on page 18, given the result of all these testimonies by witnesses and have collected it.

If one takes all these statements by witnesses together, which certify that the experimental subjects in the Dachau high altitude experiments of Dr. Ruff and Romberg were volunteers, it cannot be doubted that the concordant statements by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Weltz are absolutely true; these are defendants, it is true, but from all sides testimony is given of their irreproachable professional conception. Although they are now sitting in the dock, their precise and clear statements deserve far more belief than the changing and contradictory statements of a habitual criminal, who has committed a downright perjury in this court, or of a murderer, who actually belongs far more in this dock.

I then come to page 19, to the results under #5:

There can be no doubt that the experimental subjects for the Dachau high altitude experiments were volunteers, at least as far as the experiments authorized by Ruff are concerned. Whether volunteers reported for the extra-experiments continued by Dr. Rascher, or whether the prisoners were forced into these experiments by Dr. Rascher, does not need to be examined, because Ruff and Romberg did not participate in these experiments in any way.

But even if any doubt as to their having volunteered were possible, it cannot be denied that Ruff and Romberg were firmly convinced that all their experimental subjects actually were volunteers; this was stipulated from the very beginning and in all discussions of Dr. Ruff with Hippke, Weltz, and the representative of the SS; therefore Ruff could always be convinced that only volunteers were actually concerned.

Dr. Ruff's conviction was strengthened through personal conversation with various prisoners on that day on which he himself went to Dachau to control the execution of the experiments and to ascertain that everything was carried out in a completely orderly manner.

And finally, in this connection, it cannot be overlooked that Dr. Ruff, as he has stated under oath, confirmed by numerous affidavits in Document Book Ruff, never at any other time in his life worked with involuntary experimental subjects.

Just because he considered it as an indispensable provision for the success of the experiments that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that they themselves cooperate, Dr. Ruff never thought that the Dachau prisoners were not fully and completely in agreement with the experiments, especially since Romberg told him, during his first visit in Berlin, that all conditions for the experimental subjects were fulfilled and that they were, therefore, German voluntary and criminal experimental subjects.

In Chapter 3 of my written plea I have then stated my attitude toward the problem of prisoners as voluntary experimental subjects and I have written about this on page 21 as follows:

The expert, Professor Dr. Leibbrandt, has held to his one-sided opinion also in this respect, and has advocated the theory that prisoners can never be regarded as volunteers. This opinion is doubtlessly false; in other times, the expert perhaps would not have supported it. For the administration of justice in other cases also accepts legally binding statements of prisoners and does not think of declaring them legally ineffective only for the reason that the prisoner in consequence of his imprisonment finds himself in an embarrassing situation and therefore not completely master of his own free will.

One surely is not mistaken in supposing that none of the defendants, even if he has even such great experience as a medical man, at that time thought of all the possibilities without exception which we have to consider now, where since many months we have to search for the legal basis of the whole problem of human experiments, and have to think of all eventualities. According to his sentiment, at that time, each physician and research man said to himself: If the experimental subject agrees to the experiment, everything is all right. For this always appeared to the physicians to be the highest principle: an experiment is legal if the experimental subject agrees to it, provided that the physician observes the necessary care when performing the experiment.

As proven here by this trial, there exists in no country a written law regulating the legal conditions of experiments on humans. On the other side, however, the human experiment is such a far-spread and often such an indispensable matter that one might speak of a conventional law, which generally and tacitly is accepted and acknowledged by the whole world. The defense of some of the defendants has demonstrated to the Tribunal in its document books the opinion of the whole world on this conventional law, in the most varying degrees, from the absolute harmless to the absolute deadly experiment, and has certainly therewith compiled valuable material which is suitable for forming the basis for a codification of this medical conventional law and to show safe future roads for the development of justice in this sphere. Lacking a written law, the physician and research man even today can only recognize the conventionally legal concept as a rule for his conduct as expressed in international medical literature. Experiments on which, time and time again, reports were made in this international literature without meeting any opposition do not constitute a crime in the medical conception. From nowhere a plaintiff arose from the side of the responsible professional organization or from that of the administration of justice to accuse the experiments described in the literature as being criminal. On the contrary, the authors of those reports regarding their human experiments gained general recognition and fame; they were awarded highest honors; they gained historical importance. And in spite of all this, is what they reported on supposed to have been a crime? No! In view of the complete lack of written legal norms, the physician who generally knows only little about the law has to rely on, and refer to, the admissibility of what generally is recognized as admissible all over the world.

The defense is convinced that the Tribunal, when referring to the decision of this problem without being prejudicial, will first gain the understanding from the large number and multiplicity of experiments performed all over the world on healthy and sick persons, on prisoners and free people, on criminals and on the poor, even on children and mentally ill persons, how the medical profession in its international totality answers the question for the admissibility of human experiments not only theoretically but also by practical examples.

It is psychologically understandable that German research men today will have nothing to do, if possible, with human experiments and try to get away from them, or that they would like to describe them as inadmissible even if before 1933 they perhaps were of the opposite opinion. However, experiments performed 1905-1912 by a highly respected American in Asia for the fight against the plague, which made him famous all over the world, cannot and ought not to be labeled as criminal because a Blome is supposed to have performed the same experiments during the Hitler period (in fact, however, were not performed at all), and experiments for which, before 1933, a foreign research worker, the Englishman Ross, was awarded the Nobel prize for his malaria experiments, do not deserve to be condemned only because a German physician performed similar experiments during the Hitler regime. One should not say that experiments, because of different diseases or different drugs from those referred to in this trial, because of this difference had nothing to do with the counts of the indictment of the present trial, and that therefore they are of no importance as evidence. In the foreground there stands the basic question for the conditions under which such experiments are permissible; whether they refer to plague or typhus, to tuberculosis or jaundice is a secondary question which concerns more the medical expert than the jurist.

Decisive for this trial is the Question: Did the conditions under which experiments were performed by the defendants find their international recognition even for such experiments which were performed by foreign research workers with the approval of all civilized humanity?

If one wants to arrive at a just and satisfactory decision, one must disregard the fact that here German research workers are accused. On the contrary, one has to strive toward obtaining an international basis to represent the present international opinion on human experiments and which for decades, if not for centuries, will form the base for the permissibility of human experiments.

We, as jurists, can only render a service to the development of medical science and therewith to humanity if we endeavor to establish a doubtlessly clear view of today's international opinion on human experiments, if these experiments were performed by Germans or by foreigners.

When reading this international literature, however, there cannot be any doubt that the volunteering of the experimental subjects warrants in every case the legality of human experiments, and that, therefore, the more sentimental attitude of our research workers was right, when because of their knowledge of international literature they made the question of the legality of human experiments depend in the first place on the voluntariness of the experimental subjects.

2) As far as one can see, the international medical literature up to date nowhere represented the opinion that the consent of a prisoner was ineffective because for reason of his imprisonment, he had no free will. On the contrary: In many cases it has taken an important stop forward, and has frequently, without meeting any opposition, reported on experiments performed on prisoners, THE CONSENT OF WHOM WAS NOT REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL. Many experiments which partly were reported here in the verbal procedure, partly described by the document submitted by the Defense, demonstrate clearly that obviously everywhere the opinion prevailed that regarding prisoners, in particular such who were SENTENCED TO DEATH, THE CONSENT OF THE PRISONER WAS REPLACED BY THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORITIES TO PERFORM IMPORTANT HUMAN EXPERIMENTS and even such experiments which were very dangerous and with which fatalities occurred in a more or less large number; because also the published reports talk about the number of deaths in the described experiments, partly slightly camouflaged but to a large extent publicly, without the research worker or the reader realizing that MURDEROUS ACTIONS were being reported, because otherwise the reaction would have been a completely different one.

3) The question becomes particularly acute if these experiments were carried out in a TOTALITARIAN STATE or during a total war. It is not the point in this connection whether a dictatorial regime is desirable or should be rejected, neither whether a war as such appears to be criminal (for example because it will be judged as an aggressive war later on); the attitude that under such exceptional conditions, as they are the case in a dictatorship or total war, even life-endangering experiments on human beings may perhaps be more justified than under normal conditions is obviously based on the thought that the state governed by dictatorship may and will ask for greater sacrifices, also from criminals especially during total war.

As a matter of fact the thought appears to have occurred to many a defendant during this trial; If during a total war the state asks everybody to be ready at any time to serve at the front, and if during the aerial war every woman and every child at home is exposed daily and every hour to mortal danger, many a citizen would, think it unsatisfactory if especially a criminal, who is burdened with heavy guilt or may even have committed a crime punishable with death, remains free of all danger, in other words would be in a better position than the upright citizen.

It appears now that many an experimental subject who was used at that time for experiments was of the same opinion, because the witness Karl Wolff stated on oath that the prisoners with whom he spoke in Dachau said, that "they would contribute voluntarily to Germany's war effort and show a sign of their actual good well". (see document book Ruff, document No. 21, page 86). The same ideas were also stated by various defendants during their interrogation.

4) The attitude toward this problem is extraordinarily difficult, as exceptional circumstances have to be considered which were never thought of earlier; for example, with the question which positions have to be taken in the framework of this problem, particularly by POLITICAL prisoners, or with the difference, whether a death sentence has been passed by an Ordinary Court or by a political Special Court, has earlier apparently not concerned itself with the medical-legal literature for the authorization of human experiments.

With regard to the case Ruff, these difficult questions need perhaps not be examined any further, because it has been established without doubt as was stated from a different side that Ruff was convinced that the experimental persons had volunteered and could be convinced according to the position of the case.

5) In this connection one has repeatedly asked, whether Ruff had convinced himself in Dachau, whether the experimental persons used there were actually condemned PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS, whether he had examined the PERSONAL records of these prisoners for this purpose, further whether he had made sure if the special privileges promised to the prisoners (as for example their amnesty) were actually given to them later on etc. However such exaggerated demands could not be made of the attitude of professional duty of that time to Dr. Ruff, if one does not want to be unfair to him. Dr. Ruff had never been in a concentration camp otherwise; his short single visit on that day in March 1942, when he was in charge of the high altitude experiments, was the only contact which he had in all his life with the concentration camps; the quiet and reserved scientist had never heard anything in his institute about the cruelties as they took place in the concentration camps, and as we learned of them in this court room. Therefore the thought never occurred to him that he was deceived in Dachau; as a matter of fact he never doubted that the things he was told by the competent authorities were the absolute truth and therefore there was no cause for him to check what he had heard as to its accuracy. And then one ought not to disregard the position of Dr. Ruff in his only visit to the Dachau concentration camp in March 1942. He had to be glad that he was allowed inside the camp as a civilian; inside the camp he was not allowed to move one step of the prescribed way, the guard who accompanied him saw to it that Ruff did not see any more than he was supposed to be shown, end that he could never speak a word with anybody in the camp except with the few experimental subjects.

It would be strange were one to believe that Dr. Ruff could at that time actually could have asked to have a look into the personal files of the prisoners or to ascertain himself about the pardon which was supposed to be given later on. The conduct of the prisoners themselves and the discussions he had with them were actually such that any suspicion in the direction indicated could and actually did not occur to Dr. Ruff.

Therefore in the case of Dr. Ruff one has to remember that experiments on VOLUNTEERS are generally permissible and that the voluntariness is also present and has to have in mind if a PRISONER submits to the experiment. This is obviously also the interpretation of the verdict of the American Military Tribunal II against Field Marshal MILCH of 16 April 1947: MILCH knew from the very beginning that experiments were carried out on prisoners in Dachau; in spite of that the Tribunal acquitted him on that count. This would not have been possible if the Tribunal had denied on principle the idea of a prisoner volunteering; because in that case Milch would have had to be sentenced already because he allowed experiments to be carried out on prisoners, but besides that in the verdict against Milch of 16 April 1947 it makes as difference whether a prisoner who allows himself to be used as an experimental subject is a political prisoner or a criminal prisoner or whether the sentence on the prisoner was passed by an Ordinary Court or a political Special Court. It would be incomprehensible now if the Tribunal were to take a different attitude to these questions in the case of Dr. Ruff, than Tribunal No. 2 took in the case of Milch.

Your Honors, in chapter four of my written plea, I have on pages 28 to 46 proven that the high altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg in Dachau at that time were absolutely necessary for Germany at war. Further that these experiments were not extended on principle beyond the solution of the problems which were presented and considered necessary.

I have further proven that Ruff after the completion of his own experiments, after he received notice of Rascher's experiments, went away from Dachau to Berlin immediately afterwards in order to bring back the chamber.

Finally, that the experiments were prepared scientifically well and were conducted correctly.

In the last chapter of my written plea on pages 48 to 62, I have stated that the experiments of Ruff and Romberg were absolutely not dangerous to life, that they were carried out without any incidents, that in these experiments of Ruff and Romberg there were no pains and damage to health to the experimental subjects and that none had any fears.

All of these statements I cannot develop in detail because of the length of time involved, but I assume that the defense counsel for the other defendants will continue to discuss this matter when their turn comes.

On page 62 of my written plea, I then come to the following conclusions:

Dr. Ruff only did what his superiors ordered him to do. If these thus have failed may they be taken to account.

DR. Ruff had no doubts concerning the orders of his superiors for his assignment was urgently necessitated in the interest of his country, engaged in the most difficult war, and of its aviation; if Dr. Ruff at the time had read the entire international literature about medical experiments on human beings he would have been able to learn that experiments much more exerting and much more dangerous than those with which he was familiar, which he knew and planned, were being conducted all over, and also with prisoners, and perhaps are still being conducted without the competent authorities or medical societies declaring them impermissible and intervening against them.

In long years, Dr. Ruff has proven to be a particularly conscientious and considerate research man who devoted his entire past activity primarily to save endangered human lives. Neither can he be blamed for having collaborated for a short time with Dr. Rascher. He (Rascher) has been assigned to him as associate by his highest superiors; he had to rely upon that; if they ordered him to work together with a man who, LATER on, turned out to be a criminal, no liability can be charged to Dr. Ruff. When Dr. Ruff saw through this colleague, forced upon him, and realized his criminal activities, he immediately cut off all relations to him on his own initiative avoided any further collaboration with him and thus probably prevented much toward further disaster.

Your Honors, when at the end of tin trial I consider Dr. Ruff in this way in all these long and hard months when I came to know him, my distinct impression is that this kind scientist with his high type of knowledge and his many years of experience in this special field, that this honest man which we have become acquainted with during these months and in whom we can find no fault, this unselfish and responsible researcher, who only thought of his work and thought of others who were in the most danger of their lives, made it his task to save lives. This man does not belong in prison, he should rather continue his research work in the interests of all people and for the salvation of threatened human lives.

I confess quite frankly, Your Honors, to have the deepest impressions that I take with me from this trial and among those impressions is that Dr. Ruff at the end of his scientific assignment of Dr. Ivy, this American scientist and researcher when he asked him to continue certain experiments in the states and to undertake some research in their common special field and to clarify a certain problem, a problem which has as its one purpose to save threatened human lives. Dr. Ruff has not forgotten his task in life and has a consequence has remained faithful to his work. He does not think of liberty and a future for himself, but merely of his great interest in aviators, whom he loves to help no matter what nationality. You, as judges, have the opportunity to let Dr. Ruff continue his job. Field Marshal Milch was acquitted as far as the Dachau altitude tests are concerned, Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke was not indicted at all. Under these circumstances, justice demands that Dr. Ruff be acquitted.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few moments and when we reconvene will hear arguments on behalf of the defendant Romberg.

(A recess was taken.)