THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you were asked previously whether Doctor Rascher received orders from the Reich Research Council were you not? You answered that question with, yes: and, you added that Sievers gave these orders coining from the Ahnenerbe. Do you know what position Sievers held?
A. Doctor Rascher told me that Sievers was the Vice-president of the Reich Research Council. That is the reason why I came to the logical conclusion that every order coming from Sievers also came from the Reich Research Council.
Q. Well, that was a conclusion, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if I was to tell you that Sievers was the manager of the Ahnenerbe would you still retain your conclusion?
A. If it was to be wrong that Sievers was the Vice-president of the Reich Research Council, then my conclusion mus be erroneous.
Q. Witness, it was both -- he was the Deputy Manager of the Reich Research Council and also the Manager of the Ahnenerbe. Do you still retain your conclusion?
A. If he was both, then, I still remain at my assumption namely, that the orders which came from Sievers also went over to the Reich Research Council.
Q. Witness, yesterday you stated that you saw the defendant, who is the first one in the first row, in the Concentration Camp at Dachau. When was that?
A. It was during the time from 1941 until the end of 1942. I Could not determine the exact date.
Q. Witness, where did you see him?
A. It was in the Concentration Camp of Dachau, and within the hospital at Dachau.
Q. Who was he accompanied by?
A. I do not know.
Q. When did, he speak to?
A. I merely know that he came with a number of officers, and I only remember it because he was -- I remember him because he was with high SS officers.
Q. Did you, at that time, know what position he held?
A. No, I do not know that now.
Q. Was that discussed at that time? Was it not said that he had a special position?
A. We inmates naturally discussed our visitors as to who they were. In this case I did not learn who this man was -- this man who was visiting us.
Q. Would you have not found out that he was the escort physician of the Fuehrer? Would that not have been conspicuous enough for every no to know about it?
A. You have to consider that we inmates -
Q. (Interposing) Witness, will you answer that question, yes or no? After that you can make explanations.
A. Will you then repeat the question?
Q. Would it not have become known in the camp that the escort physician of the Fuehrer was the visitor there?
A. No, it does not necessarily follow because we inmates only got to know the names of the visitors if we listened to the conversations, and if, during the conversations, a name was mentioned, we knew that one person came for a visit.
Q. Was his name mentioned?
A. No, I do not remember his name being mentioned in that connection. They were visitors, and they inspected the hospital without speaking to any one.
Q. Well, how could you recognize the defendant here in the dock?
A. I should like to say because he has a very remarkable face.
Q. Did you see pictures in the newspapers about this trial before this date?
A. I saw a description in Dachau -- I think it was the Southern German newspaper, but I did not see a picture.
Q. Did you see that man for any length of time in that camp or was it just temporarily?
A. Only temporarily.
Q. The defendant contest ever having been there? Is it not possible that you are mistaken?
A. I try to be truthful in all of my testimony.
Q. Please answer, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. You recognize the defendant Sievers again?
A. I saw Sievers so often and I spoke to him so often that it is impossible to receive myself about him.
Q. Did he, at that time, look as he does new?
A. No.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions.
BY DR. SERVATIUS.
Q. Witness, you ware just asked how you were able to recognize the defendant Brandt. He is the first person in the first row. I should now like to ask you to look at the second man sitting in the second row: that is the defendant Ruff. How do you recognize him? Does he have such an outstanding fact, too? Just look at him! And, I should like to remind you, before giving your answer that according to your own testimony of yesterday you recognized that man, and you said that you had only seen him for one single time, and that was five years ago. Well, how do you recognize that man?
A. That was the time when the experiments started, and I should like to say that it was a completely new period for me. Ruff, in addition to that, was in uniform. In uniform -- at least, the man who accompanied Doctor Romberg was in uniform.
Q. Witness, I should like to point out to you that this man, whom you recognized again or whom you said you recognized again, Doctor Ruff, and he did not wear a uniform at all. What you have just said; namely, that you recognized this man because of his uniform, is obviously untrue, and I am going to prove that you you.
A. I did not say that I recognized the man because of his uniform, but what I said was that ho was in uniform.
Q. No, I put it to you that he was not in uniform. I found out about that especially, and that world have been the next question anyway -- to find out whether this man was in uniform or not. And, now, I ask you to answer my question, finally. How did you recognize the defendant Ruff? The second man in the second row. How do you recognize him again? Because of his uniform or because of his outstanding face or why do you recognize him
A. Of you place yourself in the position of an inmate, just imagine officers arriving in uniform and starting with the an inmate. Romberg, just as Rascher, very often discussed Ruff, and the fact that Ruff always had participated on this aviation experiment was greatly discussed. During the first visit, that is, at the beginning of the aviation experiment, these three gentlemen arrived, and I stated that Ruff was present at that time;
that first day -- Romberg will have to confirm this; he will have to confirm that on that day not only he and Doctor Rascher were present, but also a third person.
Q. I should like to put something else to you: Doctor Romberg will tell you, under oath, that he, on the 22nd of February 1942, the date you mentioned yesterday, was not present. And, he knows that exactly for the following reason, and I am tolling you this in order to enable you to refresh your memory: The family Romberg had expected the birth of a child on the 9th of March, and for that reason Doctor Romberg stayed at home until the 9th of larch with his wife. And, if was only on the 10th of March 1942 that he went to Dachau. And, on that occasion Doctor Ruff said he was not present, and I am soon going to tell you when Doctor. Ruff arrived at the scene for the first time. And now, I am again asking you to answer that question. Arc you still saying, today, in spite of what I put to you, that Doctor Ruff was present on the 22nd of February 1942; that is, on the first day, during those experiments at Dachau?
A. I maintain that on the 22nd of February experiments were conducted for the first time; and I maintain that Romberg was there in Dachau that day; and I know it exactly because in the room where Romberg and Rascher were there was a table whore gifts were laid; and it was very embarrassing to me that the gentlemen arrived on that particular day. If I have to correct myself in any way, it could only be that on that day it was not Ruff but another Luftwaffe officer; but I am quite sure that Romberg and Rascher were in Dachau of the 22nd of February. I me net the only witness for that. There are many more witnesses.
Q. I am mainly interested in the defendant Ruff; the second man sitting in the second row; but I must again revert to the question which you have not yet answered; namely, how you here in this courtroom recognized the defendant Ruff Go ahead and answer.
A. How do you recognize the man?
Q. Don't ask me any questions. Just answer the question which I just put to you.
A. I just recognize him.
Q. Before you spoke about a uniform. The man isn't wearing the uniform at all. You spoke about tho outstanding features of the defendant. Will you perhaps maintain that Dr. Ruff has any outstanding feature and that was the reason why you recognized him? You only saw him once in your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, how did you recognize him?
A. If you meet people under these circumstances; then you do recognize them again; and if you ask me about details, I cannot tell you any. I am merely saying that I recognized the man again.
Q. But you cannot tell us how?
A. I recognized him generally because of his face because that is how you generally recognize a man.
Q. And how about this question of the uniform in order to conclude that point? Are you still saying that this man wore a uniform?
A. I said that the man who came with Romberg and Rascher on tho 22nd of February wore a uniform.
If Ruff later arrived there in civilian clothes and was present, I have already stated that that was possible; but I did sec Dr. Ruff at the beginning of the experiments.
Q. Did you speak to Dr. Ruff at all?
A. No.
Q. You did not speak to him?
A. No.
Q. Didn't he introduce himself?
A. It wasn't customary that an officer introduced himself to an inmate.
Q. Well, I just wanted to establish that he didn't introduce himself.
A. No.
Q. And you weren't introduced to him either?
A. No.
Q. You never spoke to him?
A. No.
Q. But you did recognize him here again?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know that this Dr. Ruff was a defendant here and that he was sitting in the defendants' dock? Did you know that yesterday when you entered this courtroom?
A. I approximately knew the names of the persons who were indicted from the newspaper.
Q. Did you know that from that newspaper, the Southern Germany newspaper, where the pictures of these defendants were carried?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. No, I am quite sure that the edition that I read did not carry any photographs.
Q. And you did not receive a picture of the defendants' dock?
A. No. I was at the Bunker in Dachau.
Q. But with reference to your testimony of yesterday and today you had been interrogated a.bout it previously?
A. Yes.
Q. Here in Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. When for the last time?
A. During the course of the last six days.
Q. The last six days repeatedly?
A. Yes, repeatedly.
Q. About the subject to which you testified here?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, I have another question. You know that this low pressure chamber with which the high altitude experiments were conducted--you know that this low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau after a few months?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that your chief, Dr. Rascher, repeatedly tried the following months to get this low pressure chamber back from the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. Do you know that it was for that reason that Dr. Rascher, for instance, turned to Standartenfuehrer Sievers, whom you recognized; that he turned to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff; and to the Reichsfuehrer-SS?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know that these gentlemen whom I just mentioned to you wrote to the Luftwaffe, that is, Dr. Hippke, the chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe, and to General Field Marshal Milch, asking them to return this low pressure chamber to Dachau? Do you know about that?
A. I know that Rascher tried to get this man back to Dachau and for that reason he turned to the Reichsfuehrer Repeatedly.
Q. Repeatedly?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that the low pressure chambers were not returned in spite of that; and do you know why?
A. No.
Q. Did Dr. Rascher tell you anything about that?
A. He only said that "I shall be able to persuade the Reichsfuehrer that these chambers be carried back to Dachau."
Q. Witness, you told us yesterday that during the first three weeks approximately the experiments with the low pressure chamber were conducted without any incidents?
A. Yes.
Q. And then one day Dr. Rascher told you that he was going to carry out serious experiments, and for that reason he saw to it that a certain number of Russians were put at his disposal? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You further t Id us that these experiments were conducted at night after Dr. Romberg, who is the fourth gentleman sitting in the second row, had left?
A. No.
Q. You said that yesterday.
A. No, these first experiments were conducted during the whole day; but Romberg was not present that day.
Q. Do you know what these serious experiments consisted of? How could you differentiate the serious experiments from the other experiments during which Romberg was present?
A. Rascher referred to the so-called sudden decrease of pressure, I have to express myself as a layman. The experimental subject was placed into a small chamber and was placed into a high altitude of approximately five to eight thousand meters. Suddenly this altitude was increased to an altitude of sixteen thousand and higher; and this sudden increase, this sudden change of pressure, caused death. This is how Rascher killed most of the experimental subjects.
Q. But he only started with these experiments about two weeks after the harmless experiments?
A. According to my recollection, yes. Whether such sudden decrease or increase of pressure experiments were conducted before that I don't know.
Q. And Rascher started with these serious experiments at the time when Dr. Rascher was not present?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defense, you will please refrain from propounding your questions quite so quickly and give the witness a chance to answer and give the translator an opportunity to complete the translation.
Q. During the earlier experiments where no incidents occurred and which only lasted approximately three weeks, you stated yesterday that ten inmates were sleeted as the official experimental subjects. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they criminal inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. They were all criminals?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether these ten criminal experimental subjects were especially well treated?
A. Yes.
Q. They received better nourishment? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. They received cigarettes?
A. Yes.
Q. And the witness Vieweg told us for you that they Were strong men -- is that right? Is that Vieweg's expression, "strong men"?
A. I think they were people of a medium body construction, medium physical construction.
Q. Witness, you told us yesterday how you sabotaged the continuing of the experiments; for instance, the low pressure chambers. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You told us that you took a little file and you filed this glass tube where the mercury rises and falls?
A. Yes.
Q. You further told us that as soon as the pressure was increased, the damaged tube could not stand the pressure and then burst as a result; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, do you really want to maintain that?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, just consider the following point. You made a mistake in your way of thinking, and you thought that you could improve your situation by telling us that. The higher tho airplane rises the lower is the pressure. The mercury tube does nob rise when the airplane rises but falls down, pressure decreases and you made this mistake. After I put that to you, do you still want be maintain your erroneous description under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. And then I shall put another point to you where you made a mistake. You told us yesterday that on this glass tuba where the mercury rises and falls there was a little glass vessel which also burst when the measuring apparatus burst, and this little vessel at the bottom, where the mercury was, also burst. Avon that statement of yours is erroneous and untrue for this glass vessel about which you told the Tribunal yesterday, in reality consists of metal, and now I am asking you again, are you still maintaining your obviously untrue statement of yesterday about this point, in spite of your oath?
A. Yes.
DR. SAUTER: In that case, I have no further questions, Mr. President.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. VORWERK: (Defense counsel for Romberg)
Q. Witness, assuming you were in a position to give us exact details, I can only say give us an expert opinion about medical matters, I should like to find out about your medical career.
Did you receive any Medical education?
A. No, in no way at all.
Q. You had no Medical education whatsoever?
A. No.
Q. Do you think that a nan who received no medical education at all could adopt an attitude towards the questions, which you did yesterday, in an exact and true manner?
A. As far a I gave my answers yesterday I always emphasized that this was an opinion. To what extent it is an expert judgment I cannot decide, and this has to be left to the experts.
Q. Now, if I understand you correctly, you want to say that you do not consider yourself competent for an export opinion on medical questions?
A. Yes.
Q. You just told Dr. Sauter that you were interrogated on this subject here in Nurnberg for approximately six days. Were those the only interrogations about that subject, or were you interrogated at an earlier date?
A. I was interrogated about these natters at an earlier stage, also.
Q. When was that?
A. That was June, July and August, 1945.
Q. Does your testimony of June and July, '45 tally with the testimonies that you made before this high Tribunal here yesterday and today?
A. During these months I was not interrogated about the manner in which the experiments were conducted, but mainly about medical matters as far as I remembered them.
Q. I only mean with reference to the questions which were put to you at that time and now, docs your testimony tally?
A. In all my statements I try to tread on a correct road and say the complete truth, and I think that the answers that I gave at that time have to tally with the answers I an giving today.
Q. But you don't know that exactly, do you?
A. Well, I don't knew exactly what questions were put to no at that time.
Q. So if I summarize your answer, you are saying that as far as you remember your testimony of June-July, 1945, tallies with the testimony that you made before this Tribunal?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I should like to draw your attention once more to the high altitude experiments. When did you see Dr. Romberg for the first time?
A. After the vans arrived. That was at the end of January or February. Romberg have us directives how those vans were to be installed, and I then saw him on the 22nd of February, 1942.
Q. Did he give you those directives?
A. There were craftsmen there who were composed of inmates and they were the ones who received those directives.
Q. When was that?
A. That was at the end of January or the beginning of February.
Q. Well, at that time you saw Dr. Romberg for the first time?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you known Dr. Rascher before that?
A. No, I had met Rascher in the camp on two or three occasions and I really not him for the first time at the aviation experimental station.
Q. Well, when did you see Rascher for the first time in the camp?
A. It is very hard to say that. That was during 1941.
Q. Did you still know about Rascker's activity, what he did in the camp when you saw him for the first time?
A. I know that be was collecting blood of cancer diseased persons in order to conduct experiments.
Q. Did Rascher tell you who had commissioned him to conduct high altitude experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did you later learn from Dr. Rascher or somebody case under whose orders Dr. Rascher was conducting these experiments?
A. I did not learn that directly from either of these two gentlemen as to who exactly gave the order for these experiments.
Q. In your testimony of yesterday you differentiated clearly, and I mean within the framework of these high altitude experiments, between certain series of experiments. For instance, you stated that for the first series of experiment the normal series, ten inmates were placed at the disposal?
A. That's right.
Q. And then these subjects were experimented upon. You stated that these ten inmates were criminal inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. You further state that beyond that Dr. Rascher, after the conclusion of the experiments with the ton inmates, was conducting further experiments with other inmates in addition to the ten?
A. It really wasn't the case that only these ton experimental subjects were used, but that a number of other inmates were taken to the experimental station to be experimented upon.
Q. But do you know what the aim was that was thought to be achieved by carrying out these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Do you know that a report was made with reference to these experiments?
A. I only know that after the conclusion of the experiments Rascher stated that now these experiments were to be exploited scientifically and that Rascher went to Munich. I know no details about any contents of such a report.
Q. Do you know whether these experiments were actually concluded? Since a report was made the outsider would naturally think that these experiments were concluded. Do you know anything about that?
A. No, I only know Rascher said that there was a let to be done yet and he was going to try to keep the vans there.
Q There is something not very clear about that. It is hard to understand that a report was made about these experiments and on the other hand it is hard to understand that Rascher tried to keep these chambers in the concentration camp of Dachau or to get them back. Really, it seems to me if the experiments were concluded then why did Rascher want it sent back? Can you clarify that?
A I can only give my opinion about that, which is that Rascher was a very ambitious man and he wanted to continue these experiments on his own initiative. Furthermore, during the experiments in which Dr. Romberg was not present or. Rascher experimented on his own initiative and he wanted to proven Romberg from knowing about it, otherwise he wouldn't have conducted those experiments during the night when Romberg was absent.
Q Now if I understand you correctly, the van was originally brought to Dachau to perform a certain series of experiments and that Rascher only conceived the idea later to perform the further experiments which went beyond the original series of experiments, are you of that opinion?
A Yes, I share that opinion although I think it is plain that considering the ten ones who were selected originally for the experiments they were given the assurance that nothing would happen to them.
Q Who gave them that assurance?
A Rascher, he gave this assurance to these ten comrades.
Q He mentioned that to you?
A Well he didn't have to mention it to me. However I had to undergo a number of experiments, but this assurance was not given to me.
Q In the beginning of the experiments wasn't it obvious to you that considering the talks which Rascher and Romberg had that no one but the ton were to be used wasn't that quite obvious to you?
AAt the beginning?
Q At the beginning of the experiments, yes that is what I am asking you, wasn't that obvious to you?
AAt the beginning of the experiments it could be assumed that only the ten experimenters were to be used.
Q Do you know that on the part of the camp administration a directive went to the inmates stating that they could volunteer for these experiments, and could then expect to be released, or at any rate receive more favorable treatment?
A It is not known to me that this was in any any publicized by the damp administration.
Q But you aid state yesterday that a number of the experimental subjects volunteer?
A It was only possible that the man concerned approached Dr. Rascher directly, which was difficult, and Dr. Rascher was frequently asked and quite often an inmate who had been assigned to hard work and knowing that he would get better treat out somewhere else would put himself at the disposal of these experiments, and in addition at the time the Reichsfuehrer visited the camp it wan promised to the inmates.
Q Who promised that to them? Did you hear that?
A Yes.
Q Do you know the words he used?
A On the visit of May 5th experiments were conducted in the presence of the Reichsfuehrer and at that time the Reichsfuehrer said theses people who are undergoing experiments, if they survive they can be released
Q You said that it was clear to you or obvious to you at the beginning of these experiments that only these ten persons were to be used. According to your opinion, wouldn't that have been obvious to Dr. Romberg too?
A Yes.
Q So you can that Dr.Romberg participated in this series of experiment with the intention of experimenting on these ten persons?
A Yes.
Q And in addition you say that Rascher three weeks later was conducting certain experiments, experiments which went beyond the original intention. So far it has not become obvious what the purpose of those experiments was. It appears to me that the purpose was to determine how the electrocardiograph recorded the dying person's heart reaction, can you say something about that with reference to the purpose which Rascher wanted to achieve with reference to his experiments, I mean the experiments, which went beyond the ton persons?
A His purpose was to use the electrocardiograph on dying persons, it was obvious, and I refer to the time when the electrocardiograph was used on persons whose heart was still beating, but I don't know what purpose Dr. Rascher had in mind. I hadn't known in the case of the first one, and no electrocardiograph recording were made.
Q Who was present during these times?
A It was Dr. Rascher, Hautpscharfuehrer Endes and an SS man who was unknown to me.
Q Didn't you receive knowledge later what purpose Dr. Rascher wanted to achieve with the further experiments? Did he intend to conduct a certain series of experiments or were they individual experiments, or didn't he know perhaps exactly what no wanted or did he want to kill people?
A The purpose of these current killings by Rascher is not known to no. At that time I was completely new to the entire sphere and it was impossible for me to make any observation. I cannot state anything in that regard.
Q The purpose of the experiments which were ordered by the Luftwaffe Research institute, where they were originated, and if I shall tell you that if the report which was submitted to the High Tribunal where it was stated people can be saved from high altitude, or rather from the dangers arising from high altitude, and at that time Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg conducted these experiments an these ten or after inmates, according to your opinion, was it necessary in order to test the possibility of saving people from high altitude, was it necessary to kill people for that purpose?
A No, we were told, or rather I was told by Dr. Rascher that these experiments were being conducted because during the parachute landings at Crete many German parachutists landed in a dead condition, and that was the reason for the series of experiments.
Q So you state it was not necessary to conduct these experiments to kill people for that purpose? Did experimental subjects die during the day? In the report which was submitted to the Tribunal by the Prosecution, it was stated that during these high altitude experiments there was no loss of life. Do you know whether these experimental subjects lost their lives?
A I know that a number of persons lost their lives during the experiment which were conducted in the day time, but it is possible these experiments were not included in the report, but I am sure there were victims during the day.
Q We previously merely differentiated between the series of experiments which Romberg and Rascher conducted by order of the Luftwaffe Research Institute and such experiments which Rascher conducted because of his own interest or by personal order of Mimmler. Now did Rascher only conduct these later experiments during the night or also during the day?
A He also conducted them during the day.
Q. Was it possible for you at that time to determine which experiments were conducted by order of the Luftwaffe Research Institute, by Rascher and Romberg; and which experiments were conducted by Rascher personally on his own initiative or by order of Himmler?
A. It is impossible for me to differentiate here as to just who ordered those individual experiments.
Q. Now if; in this report about the experiments which were ordered by the Luftwaffe Research Council; it was mentioned that people did not lose their lives during these experiments, would you say that was a lie, or would you say that this series of experiments which were selected for that report was merely with reference to the normal experiments where the ten persons were used?
Before you reply; I should like to point out to you that at that time there was no reason to state in a report that experimental subjects did not die, if they actually did, because nobody would have prosecuted the people concerned anyway.
A. If in that report on the experiments which you have mentioned there was no mention of any case of death, then in my opinion the number of death cases was willfully kept out of the report. During the time the report was made the persons who made that report know clearly that there were a number of death cases during the course of these experiments.
Q. You do not differentiate sufficiently. Please think very carefully. I spoke about two kinds of experiments: I spoke about the ones which were conducted by Romberg and Rascher by order of the Luftwaffe Research Institute and secondly, I spoke about the experiments which Rascher conducted either because of his lust for murder or because of Himmler's order. Would it not ha been possible that all cases of death occurred in the latter series of experiments, and that for that reason this series of experiments was excluded from the report to the Luftwaffe Research Institute?
A. In fact, the position was that Romberg was present during some experiments which resulted in death. I cannot differentiate as to where the orders for the individual experiments came from, or rather, in whose interests they were made; it is impossible for me to decide that.