Q. Yes.
A. We offered them nothing on our part. We had no possibility of doing so, because the recompense would have to be determined by the office that had charge of these people, namely Himmler, only he could promise recompense, and see to it that it was given, and as the witness Neff here has testified, he promised these people that after the experiments they would be pardoned.
Q. Now, inasmuch as you and Romberg were involved in these experiments, did you yourself make any attempt to investigate the status of a prisoner after he had been subjected to the experiments in the high altitude research work?
A. After carrying out those experiments when Rascher came to us to turn in in opinion, we asked how this business of pardoning prisoners was coming along. Rascher said that he had seen to that, and thereafter we did not concern ourselves with this matter, because that was not our job and was not within our power. That was the job of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q Of course Rascher never exhibited to you the letter that he received from Heinrich Himmler stating that Rascher had the power to pardon some of these inmates after they had once gone through the experiments to the extent that they had died and if they could have been recalled to life that their sentences could have been committed to life imprisonment in the concentration camp; did he call that to your attention which was the offer that these inmates had?
A No, I saw that letter here for the first time among the Documents.
Q Well, now, as I understand it from direct examination, you maintain that there are actually two sets of experiments at Dachau in the field of high altitude research, namely, those experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and those experiments for the benefit of the SS, conducted solely by Rascher as ordered by Himmler and the experiments that were conducted by Ruff and Romberg; is that correct?
A Yes, that is true to the extent that on the one hand there were experiments in descent from high altitude and on the other hand, as can be seen from the documents; there was not one experimental series but several short ones which Rascher carried out on Himmler's orders.
Q And these are the experiments where death occurred; is that right, the Rascher experiments, the SS experiments, so to speak?
A Fatalities occurred in Rascher's experiments and in the experiments concerning high altitude there were none.
Q Now, when these gentlemen from the concentration camp volunteered for the experiments, was is not clear to these subjects that they were, volunteering for the experiments to be conducted under the guidance of Ruff an Romberg rather than the fatal experiments to be conducted under Rascher independently?
A That was told to the persons who volunteered individually for the experiments that, of course, I cannot report on to you, because I was not present; but what they were told was that these were high alti tudc experiments and that so far as could be seen , these experiments were not dangerous to life.
When Romberg went to Dachau, he told the experimental subjects precisely just what the nature of the experiments was to be. This was necessary so that the subjects would be in position to participate in a sensible manner in these experiments, namely should be able to do what was expected of them in the experiments. The experimental subjects that we had for your experiments, were certainly told at considerable length what these experiments had as the goal and they were also certainly told that there would not be any serious danger as fatalities or death.
Q One last question along these lines; Doctor, in the course of these experiments who determined whether or not the volunteer was a volunteer for Rascher or for Ruff and Romberg. In other words, when an experimental subject entered the prison chamber, was he given a tap on the shoulder, was he told you are Rascher subject, you are Ruff's experimental subject, or did they wear jerseys, one having SS on it and the other Luftwaffe?
A I have already said that the experimental subjects, who participated in cur experiments, were kept permanently at this experimental block, that they were there throughout the whole period and participated in all the experiments in high altitude and that nothing happened to a any of them. I remember the witnesses Neff and Vieweg testified and both of these collaborated with this.
Q Did you check on the status of each and everyone of the experimental subjects that were set aside, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher experiments, namely 60 subjects.
A I did not quite understand the question.
Q You have stated here that some sixty experimental subjects were set aside in one group to be used in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher experiments, after the conclusion of the experiments, did you check and can you tell this Tribunal under oath that each and every one of those sixty experimental subjects are now living?
A I believe there must have been an error in translation. I did not say that sixty persons were reserved for the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher experiments, I said that from a number of about sixty of these prisoners about then or fiteen were chosen, who were constantly present at the experimental station, as experimental subjects.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o' clock tomorrow morning.
( The Tribunal recessed until 09,30 Hours, 30 April, 1947).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in 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 defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR.SIEGFRIED RUFF - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Ruff, continuing our discussion regarding the subjects used in the experiments at Dachau, you maintain that all subjects used in the Rascher, Romberg Ruff high-altitude experiments were volunteers. Who told you these subjects were volunteers?
A. In my direct examination I said that before the experiments I was first told about them and then Hippke corroborated this statement, furthermore, this was also corroborated by Rascher in the discussion in Weltz's Institute, and fourthly, it was corroborated by the camp commander, and after the experiments began , when Romberg was in Berlin for the first time to report to me, he again corroborated the fact that the subjects were volunteers.
Q. What did Dr. Weltz have to do in this picture, did he participate in the selection of the inmates to be used?
A. I said during the discussion in my institute in Berlin Professor Weltz told me what sort of persons the experimental subjects were, namely, that they were criminals, that they were volunteers.
Q. I asked you a question, you can answer it very briefly. Did Dr. Weltz participate in this selection of the inmates to be used for these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did Professor Hippke participate?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Romberg, did he participate?
A. No.
Q. Then it is possible that those three gentlemen didn't know whether or not they were volunteers, isn't that so?
A. These three gentlemen had been told that these experimental subjects were volunteers, moreover --- when Romberg came to Berlin ----
Q. Who told them?
A. Probably Rascher. I don't know the details.
Q. Then you actually don't know who told them that these subjects were to be volunteers?
A. That is so, except for Romberg, because when Romberg told me that these people were volunteers he had already conducted experiments in Dachau, and what he told me was based on his own information.
Q. Now you have also told us that the subjects used were either men condemned to death or habitual criminals in every instance. What do you consider to be an habitual criminal?
A. I consider an habitual criminal to be a per son who by committing several crimes has demonstrated that he is a recidivist, in other words, a criminal who is condemned by a regular court to be kept in jail for the general good of society.
Q. Now I notice on page 89 of document book number 2 which is the report signed by Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher signed the draft thereof, which is document NO-402, and on page 14 of the original copy of that particular report, which is your report, there is described there the conditions of an experiment, and just what happened to one of the subjects experimented upon, how he answered each question, and so forth.
In parenthesis you will note in that report that this inmate is described "in civilian life a delicatessen dealer". The German, I believe, should be translated to mean "delicatessen owner", rather than dealer. Now, it is important, isn't it, to note, Dr. Ruff, that the gentleman used in this experiment was a delicatessen dealer? Does that fit into the framework of being a person who is considered to be an habitual criminal?
A. I see no contradiction between the fact that a man is on the one hand an owner of a delicatessen and on the other hand an habitual criminal. There is no contradiction there. It seems to me that persons from every profession or class of society can commit crimes and thus can become habitual criminals. I recall to your attention the prosecution witness Vieweg who was by profession a worthy book binder, and yet he had committed a long series of crimes and is at the moment under indictment in Bamberg for, I believe, 7 or 8 crimes for abortion, for arrogating to himself the title of physician, --major theft, fraud -
Q. We won't go into the category of Vieweg. I want to ask you now why the words in parenthesis were found as they are in the report, and why they weren't set down in the following manner: In civilian life "a professional criminal", that would have been more appropriate, would it not?
A. No, I don't believe so. Could you please give me the precise page where this is to be found?
Q. On page 14 of the original copy. Page 89 of the English.
A. Now, I can tell you about this. This is the description of an experiment in great detail. For every minute of the experiment there is an indication of what the experimented subject is doing, and it is here stated that the experimental subject, in the twelfth minute after he reaches sea level, himself asks: "May I slice something?". And, then, as an explanation of why a man should ask something as strange as that, there is, in parenthesis, the explanation of what he was in civilian life; namely, a delicatessen dealer. The indication that he was of that profession explains why he asked if he could slice something such as wurst or....
Q. (Interrupting) How will did you know this particular man, Doctor?
A. I personally didn't know him at all.
Q. You didn't know whether or not he was just a delicatessen dealer who was perhaps put into the Dachau concentration camp because he was a Jew?
A. That I cannot tell you.
Q. Yet you were willing to sign your name to a report which, very elaborately, describes what happens to a human being and did not know who that particular human being was, or what his status was in the Dachau concentration camp?
A. In my direct examination, I said already that all the experimental subjects whom I saw when I was in Dachau wore the green sign that meant they were habitual criminals, and that the persons used in our experiments were housed all together in one room. That, in addition to this, I inquired when I was in Dachau just what crimes these individuals had committed and that I found out that one of them was a counterfeiter, and another was a habitual cheater.
Several such crimes were named to me. That had to suffice for me. Moreover, we had to depend on the use of whatever the executive organ of the state made available to us in the way of habitual criminals for these experiments.
Q. Now, what was the manner in which these criminals volunteered for the experiments?
A. When the subjects turned up for the experiments you did not have the impression at all that they were, in any way, coerced to take part in these experiments. They participated in the experiments with interest; were, for instance, interested in seeing what altitude a person, who just concluded the experiment before the one they were to take part in, had recovered consciousness, at what height they had handled the parachute. They discussed the experiments among themselves; they would talk shop: One would say: "I woke up at 7,000." The other would say: "I woke up at 6,500." The entire attitude in these experiments showed clearly that these experimental subjects were not only volunteers but were participating in the experiments with personal interest.
Q. I can quite agree with you that they wore tremendously interested in what was happening in that chamber. I imagine I would be too if I were one of those so-called "volunteers". But, now I ask you again, how did they volunteer?
A. By applying for the experiments.
Q. Well, did they call these men in and ask them if they wanted to volunteer, or did the men just walk up and say: "I want to go into that chamber and volunteer for these experiments." How did it happen that they volunteered? What was the particular surroundings of this volunteer business?
A. In my direct examination I have already explained that a number of persons volunteered for these experiments and one of the prisoners told me that it was approximately sixty. Of those sixty, the experimental subjects were selected whose age and physical condition made them good subjects for the experiments. These experimental subjects were collected in a room at the experimental station and, throughout the entire three months which the experiments lasted, they stayed in this room at the experimental station.
Q. I have heard all that, Doctor.
I'm asking you again, and for the third and last time, how did they volunteer?
A Very simple question.
Do you know or don't you?
A. I'm sorry to say I don't understand the question.
Q. Well, then, in other words, you don't know how these men volunteered for this experiment. You don't know whether they went up and said to the concentration camp commandant "Please, I want to take part in this experiment", or whether the concentration camp commandant called them into his office and said: "Gentleman, do you wish to volunteer for this experiment?" Hod did they volunteer?
A. So far as I know, during formations in the camp, and there were two or three every day, they were asked to volunteer for the experiment.
Q. They were asked?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, that's all you know about it.
A. That's all I know about it.
Q. You don't know whether the concentration camp commandant, or Rascher, or whoever it may have been, published a bulletin, and placed it on the bulletin board which said "Volunteers wanted"? Such a thing as that you' ve never heard?
A. No, I never heard about it.
Q. You do not know whether these men volunteered at the point of a gun, do you?
A. I know for certain that they were not forced to volunteer at the point of a gun. In my direct examination I have already explained....
Q. (Interrupting) Just a moment, Doctor. How could you know for certain if you weren't there when these inmates were selected? You're pretty positive now. You state for certain you don't know whether these men wore coerced or seduced or whatever it may be, or forced into these experiments. You weren't there. You really don't know, do you?
A. I have already explained in my direct examination that, for the experiments we carried out for rescue for high altitudes, it was now possible to work with persons who were not volunteers since it was necessary that the experimental subjects show original initiative, that they should be interested in the experiments. Otherwise, we should not have been able to obtain the results that we did.
Q. Of course, that is argumentative and we will leave that for argument in briefs, Doctor. Let's go on.
Now, after you had had this meeting in Dachau and it had been established that the experiments were to take place and the concentration camp commandant had offered to supply the electricity, etc., you then returned to Berlin, is that correct?
A. After the discussion in Dachau, we went back to Berlin, yes.
Q. When did you return to Dachau again?
A. Me?
Q. Yes.
A. During the first weeks of the experiments.
Q. Now, experiments had been conducted between the time you left Dachau in the first instance and returned? There had been some experiments in that interval had there not?
A. Yes, experiments had boon carried on in that interval.
Q. Did you receive reports daily or weakly, or in what manner, from Romberg during the course of these experiments?
A. At irregular intervals I received reports from Romberg.
Q. Well now, what was Romberg's status here actually? I haven't got it clear yet. Romberg was your immediate subordinate in your institute in Berlin, wasn't he?
A. He was one of my co-workers and was subordinate to me.
Q. And he was still subordinate to you while he was working with Rascher, was he not?
A. That is so, yes.
Q. Are you willing to assume full responsibility for any work that Romberg was engaged in?
A. I am ready to take the responsibility for the experiments that were approved by me; namely, the experiments in rescue from great heights.
Q. Of course, as I understand it, anything that Romberg did was approved by you, wasn't it?
A. Romberg went to Dachau with a very specifically set down assignment; namely, to carry out experiments in rescue from great heights and, of course, I must take the responsibility for that assignment I gave to Romberg.
Q. Well now ,actually, what was the assignment that you had given Romberg when he left Berlin? Now, bear in mind that you had experimented at great length with this thigh altitude business in your own institute in Berlin, and I imagine that Dr. Benzinger had done the same in Rechlin, and there had been extensive experimentation along those lines. Now, what was the purpose in setting up Dachau? Was there something new to be found or what was it? What was the instruction you gave Romberg?
A. The experiments we carried out in our own institute were, as I have already described, the first part of several experimental series to clarify the question of rescue from great heights. This first part, which was carried out by ourselves through experiments on ourselves, concerned itself with rescue up to the heights of 12 kilometers; namely, in altitudes in which already many of our war planes flew. Now, the second part of these experimental series concerned heights from 12 to 20 kilometers and, so far as this particular series was carried out in Dachau, it included the experimental testing of the question up to what height a parachute descent with or without oxygen, with parachute unfolded or not can be carried out.
Q. Well, then, in brief, Dr.Ruff, the series of experiments which had been conducted in your institute in Berlin went to a limit of 12,000 meters.
A. That is right.
Q. And then it was your express purpose to continue on your research work at Dachau and to investigate the situation in an altitude from 12,000, to 20,000 meters, is that correct?
Q. Well, why couldn't you have investigated the situation between 12,000 and 20,000 meters in Berlin without going to Dachau?
A. We could have done that in Berlin also. I have already described, already told you what the reasons were for my proposing that the second part should be carried out at Dachau.
Q. It wasn't because of the fact your co-workers or yourself perhaps were obviously reluctant to try to go up to such heights as you had planned to put these prisoners at, was it?
A. No, that was not our reason, because as I have already told you in my cross-examination, I had already conditioned a part of the second half of the experiments in our own Institute namely that part which involved explosive decompression. In my cross-examination I described a few of the experimental series which we carried out in the course of last 10 years at my Institute. If I had taken more time on that I believe this idea that we did not want to subject ourselves to such experiments ourselves would not have been brought up at all.
Q. Well, Doctor, there is evidence here in this same report, and I will hesitate a moment for tho sake of clarity, when I refer to your report that means the report or Romberg and Rascher with reference to the two reports of Rascher; in your report, Document NO 402, there is evidence your co-workers Rascher and Romberg made a half hearted attempt to go above 12,000 meters, and they went to 12,500 or 13,500 meters. As said in this report they stopped the experiments because of the intense pain they experienced, isn't that so?
A. No, it is not quite so.
Q. Didn't you say that in the report, Doctor?
A. I have the report here.
Q. I will read it to you, Doctor. It shows here on Page 91 of tie English the case of Rascher and Romberg and there experiment there, and two-thirds of the way down the page it states: "At the same time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe, so that at last the discontinuance of the experiment became necessary." Well, now, didn't Rascher and Romberg have to quit after they had reached 12,500 or 13,500 meters, respectively?
A. That is so, and again it isn't so. Now, I didn't make myself quite clear about this yesterday, and consequently I should like to repent it. There is an essential difference between whether the experimental subject stays above 12,000 motors for 100 seconds order 40 minutes like in this case. These experiments on themselves by Romberg and Rascher have nothing to do with the descent experiments, suck as they were carried cut on the experimental subjects. I explained yesterday why they carried out these orientation experiments on themselves at all, that is to say when they were with the experimental subjects several times a day in the chamber then after the second or third ascent they felt pain but not in the first ascent. In other words, the pain increased with the number of ascents per day. And now in order to ascertain whether this pain are so because they had made several ascents, in other words, because of the number of ascents or whether the pain was caused by a protracted stay at great heights, therefore these experiments were undertaken and they then knew that the pain did arise or could arise for that reason.
These experiments are mentioned in this report in order to clarify certain symptoms on the part of the experimental subjects. That is the reason why they are mentioned here, and that is why they were each carried out by Rascher and Romberg. It would have made no sense to carry out these experiments on the actually experimental subjects themselves, because first of all the subjects themselves felt no pain, because they remained at the altitude a vary brief time and secondly --
Q. Just a moment, I hope you appreciate I an a very simple person, and it is hard for me to understand some of these things. If you make them briefer then I can understand them better. Then the purpose of this experiment of Rascher and Romberg was to see how long they could stay there; is that what you are trying to tell me, just to see how long they could stay at that height; was it the time limit that they were trying to overcome or what was it?
A. No, they didn't want to find out how long they could stay there, they simply wanted to ascertain whether if you stayed at that altitude for along time one felt a similar sort of pain, such as the pain they felt when they had entered per day several times in order to observe the experimental subjects.
Q. Then it was a time factor that was involved?
A. It was to be cleared up whether the pain that the people conducting the experiments felt depended on the number of ascents per day or whether the length of time that they spent at the altitude was cumulative in its effect.
Q. Then it did become a problem to you particular researchers just how long a man could remain at that altitude?
A. No, the time limit and experiments in rescue from great heights was permanently definitely determined, When a man jumps from an airplane and does not open his parachute he falls about a thousand meters in 10 seconds.
On the other hand, the nan who opens his parachute immediately descends in the open parachute at the rate of perhaps one thousand meters in one minute. The so time limits have been ascertained in aviation practice, and there was no reason to do any changing of the time proportions.
Q. And then when these deaths occurred in the Rascher experiments what caused these deaths from your knowledge here? Probably you don't know because you weren't there when that occurred at Dachau, but from your knowledge of the documents what caused these deaths?
A. In tho case of the first fatality I heard of there is probably why I or no one else could tho cause of death for sure. Now from what I know today, namely what I have known since 1946, it is my point of view that this fatality occurred because tho subject stayed at a great height, for too long time, namely between 12,000 and 14,000 meters, because one of several small gas bubbles formed in the blood stream and one of the gas bubbles lodged in the little space between the spinal column and the brain. It there stopped up an artery and lead to death. I have come to this conclusion by analogy with the accidents I know of that occurred in the American Air Force, which again could be traced back to the reason.
Q. This air bubble you speak about, what would that be more precisely called; would that have any connection with this embolism, would that be one and the same thing you are referring to now?
A. That is the same thing, yes. That is also the same as pressure drop sickness.
Q. What is pressure drop sickness, would that be caused from an air embolism?
A. Pressure drop sickness does not occur as a result of an air embolism. The converse is the case. When you are suffering from pressure drop sickness an air embolism can be arised. I am not quite sure whether I make myself clear on this.
Q. That is quite clear. Now, this particular phononoma of a gas bubble in the blood stream, you say perhaps is the cause of death of that first person in the Rascher experiment; anyone would not be able to determine that when it happens, that you only learned over a period of a number of years after you had soon a number of other experiments, and the things that happened in the other experiments, is that right?
A. On the basis of one such individual fatality it was certainly not possible to determine the cause. Only the repetition of similar such do the would lead one to the conclusion that that was the cause of the death. I should like to emphasize that this is only my personal opinion that this was tho cause of death, and I readily admit that they might have died for other causes. However, that is the only diagnosis I could find.
Q. Well, was this condition you have explained here at that time, we are going back to the Rascher experiment, -- at that time was it something now, the condition you have just determined now to perhaps have been the cause of the death in 1942, was that condition as compared in high altitude research something new, in other words did Rascher accidentally discover something new, and not know about it?
