In contrast to this on returning from visits to the front, he gave repeated examples of how the Allied Command respected the Red Cross, contrary to propaganda statements."
I think I shall skip the next paragraph and I shall continue with Paragraph c. Well, I don't think I have to read that either, it mainly repeats his political attitude and this also applies to Paragraph d. I ask you to take notice of these paragraphs and I will continue with Figure E.
"e) As far as I know, Dr. Ruff was not in close contact with the SS. As he was by nature against all extremists, he could not very well agree with the radical demands of this organization. He saw in the racial doctrine, as did every educated man, a crude conclusion based on the mental capacity of the masses, from insufficient scientific material, and therefore completely distorted; their attitude toward the churches, their system of supervision and spying, their penal institutions (concentration camps) and their political intolerance were in contrast to his tolerant nature; or respect for the rights of the individual, willingness to listen to the opinions of others, and a desire to extend the scientific and human horizon were inborn in him.
"3) I myself did not belong to the party and its branches, neither in actual fact nor in sympathy."
I don't think I have to read the last. Then follows the certification.
In this connection, Mr. President, I offer to the Tribunal as further evidence Document No. 4, which is to be found in Document volume Ruff, which you will find on Page 12 of the Document Book. This will be Exhibit No. 2. It is an affidavit of a certain architect called Hermann Brenner, who from the year 1928 until April of 1945 was a member of that Institute.
In other words, for seventeen years he was in a position to acquaint himself with the situation. I don't have to read this affidavit in its entirety, but I ask you to take notice of it. I merely want to read the second paragraph under 2 and the last paragraph under figure 3. Under Figure 2 it says and I quote:
"It was well-known in the German Experimental Institute for Aviation that Dr. Ruff carried out a series of experiments in aviation medicine on his own person. This was in conformity with his own ideas and with the principles of the Institute, which laid down that, if any important experiments were to be carried out on human beings, he and his colleagues must be the first to volunteer for such experiments (aviation experiments, low pressure chamber experiments)."
I am now going to read the last paragraph under Figure 3:
"Dr. Ruff naturally took part in these debates as well, expressing himself just as unreservedly as all the others on the subject of the State Leadership. When for example the subject of the killing of parachutists came up - I do not know if such an order did exist - Dr. Ruff was strongly opposed to such an idea as being, in his opinion, not only a contradiction of the principles of decent warfare, but also of his sportsmanlike opinions as an aviator."
This affidavit is certified also in the proper way.
Witness, one witness who has testified here, said that you were not considered to be nominated for a professorship; is that correct and what is the true situation? I merely am putting that question to you because from various sides I have been informed that you were an authority and renounced authority in your special field?
A I think that I received in 1936 a lecturer assignment regarding aviation matters at the University of Berlin.
During the winter semester, 1937 to 1938, I qualified as a lecturer at the Medical Faculty of the University of Berlin and during the year of 1941 was released from the research department of the Aviation Ministry or rather was suggested as a research lecturer. Opinions had to be expressed by two or three professors on this suggestion. In my case one was Professor Rein, who was and is today the physiological expert at the University of Goettingen and the present rector of that University. The other was Professor Strughold, who was at that time the head of the Aviation Medical Institute of Berlin and is at present ordinarius for physiology at the University of Heidelberg and scientific collaborator of the Aero Medicine Center, U.S. Army Airforce. The third was Professor Knothe, at that time Professor for xray at the University of Berlin and the head of the Experimental and Lecture Department of the Luftwaffe. Now he is the head of an x-ray department at Honover. At that time, I was not promoted to a professorship and in the year 1944 I heard from the referendum for research work in the Aviation Ministry that the application, dated at that period had not been approved, because I was considered by the party agency that had been asked, as completely lacking party interest and party activities. In the year of 1945 another such request was made by the Aviation Department, but because of the eminent collapse nothing was done.
Q Mr. President, I received the qualifications written at that time about Dr. Ruff from the University of Goettingen. These qualifications originate from the Ordinarius for Physiology, Professor Dr. Rein, who is at present lecturer of the University at Goettingen. I offer this as evidence and it is to be found in the Document Book Ruff, Document 5 on Page 16 - Pages 16 to 19.
This opinion as Dr. Rein has his signature and is certified by a notary:
"I know all the details of the scientific accomplishmemts of Dr. med. habil. Siegfried Ruff. His work is distinguished by its objectivity and its reliability, and is often highly original. He was unusually fortunate in dealing with the problems of practise by modern scientific methods, and thus was able to achieve many important results. I was convinced that he was completely master of the secondary and basic sciences of his field of work, and that he constantly endeavored to keep up with their advances. I am convinced that, scientifically, Dr. Ruff is full of promise; the intensity of his work shows an increasing curve. I think that he fully deserves the title of Professor of research."
There is a second expert opinion by this Dr. Rein, director of the University of Goettingen, which can be found on page 18 of the Document Book and which is also concluded in Exhibit 3. I am not going to read it because it conforms to the opinion written in 1941 and it merely refers to the three years that have elapsed, and is just as favorable as the preceding opinion.
In this connection, Mr. President, I am now offering an affidavit by the previously mentioned Dr. Strughold, dated 28 January 1947, to be found in Document Volume Ruff, Document 9, on pages 31 to 34. This affidavit was certified in the customary manner by the competent officer of the Air Medical Center in Heidelberg, and I shall read it because it is of special significance when judging the character of Dr. Ruff and because this Professor Doctor Strughold is an expert who has not been equalled by anyone in Germany.
MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, I don't think it is necessary for Dr. Sauter to read each and everyone of these character reference affidavits, giving the background of the Defendant Ruff, into the record. He has read one quite extensive affidavit, which I did not bother to object to the reading of because I thought if he read one, he might let up and not read the rest of them, but it appears that Dr. Sauter intends to read each and every one of them. I think he can well ask the Tribunal to take notice of the affidavits without reading them here.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I would like to follow this suggestion, if the Prosecution would abide by similar principles, but up to the moment I have never experienced it that in a case where the prosecution would have a number of incriminating witnesses, say ten, would say that I am going to read one such statement of the witness and I ask you to take notice of the others. If ten prosecution witnesses are available, I am sure all ten of them will march up and give evidence. I am of the opinion, if I have 10 witnesses, who are testifying on behalf of my client, I should be permitted to offer the evidence. I am sure the Tribunal will permit me to read half of them.
Mr. President, this reading of affidavits is 10 times more expedient than bringing witnesses over here and questioning one after the other, for one or two days. I think I shall have only one witness whom I shall examine here and I think I will finish in a short period of time. I am of the opinion that these affidavits are very important for the judgment of the personality of the Defendant Ruff, because he has come into this trial in a very unfortunate manner. During the course of the proceedings, I shall submit quite a number of affidavits and I shall ask you to only take notice of them, but I shall ask to read the most important ones.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has very largely yielded to the opinion of counsel as to what affidavits should be read and what portions of the affidavits should be read and what should simply be submitted in evidence, when submitted to the Tribunal for consideration. Of course, character witnesses testify only for the defendants; these affidavits, concerning the character of a defendant, are not particularly helpful when read into the record. It is quite proper for counsel for the defendant to read striking paragraphs and important portions of them, but these exhibits which are in the record and admitted in evidence before the Tribunal, will all be considered and be given the same consideration as if they had been read in their entirety in the record. In some ways it may almost be imagined they will receive more attention, because in reading through a long record, one comes to lengthy affidavits, one might then go back to the Document books and read the affidavit, which is he therein contained. The Tribunal will, as it has before, except in cases where the privileges are abused, allow counsel for the defendants to use their best judgment in reading affidavits, or those portions of them, which they desire to put into the record. The affidavits, of course, are of two classes; factual affidavits and affidavits as to character, and for the factual affidavits a much greater reasons exists for the reading of those into the record and putting them before the Tribunal than is true in the case of character affidavits.
At the present we will leave the matter to the best judgment of counsel as to what affidavits, or portions of them should be read and what should simply be admitted in evidence.
Of course, counsel for all parties might probably be again reminded, they will be called upon, to furnish trial briefs to the Tribunal, and in the trial briefs they will call attention to these portions of the record, whether in the Document Book or in daily transcripts, on which they particularly deny; but actually in a record of this length the Tribunal will rely very strongly on trial briefs, submitted by counsel for the respective defendants and in those briefs, ample opportunity will be afforded, counsel to call attention, and it will be their duty to so do, and to call attention to those portions of the record, which they deem particularly pertinent to their client's case. Counsel may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the affidavit with which I am dealing now seems to have significance because it's author, Professor Strughold, was in ansolute opposition to the National Socialist regime, as he says, furthermore, he studied in the United States of America for a number of years while he carried on his research work. I am going to skip the introduction of this affidavit in order to oblige the Prosecution. For the same reason I am not going to read figure I, where it is explained what scientific achievements the defendant Ruff has to show. I should only like to read one sentence in Figure I. Here it says:
"It is noteworthy that he, Dr. Ruff, carried out on himself all important extreme experiments and, particularly that he undertook himself dangerous undertakings in aeroplanes. In the same way, he also made altitude experiments on himself, although that was not primarily in his own special sphere."
This is all I am going to read of Figure I. These sentences are very important, because it has been said here in the court room that the most important thing of any research work is the experiments of the researcher on himself. I was not going to read the paragraph about the political attitude of Dr. Ruff in #2 and I am merely asking the Tribunal to take notice of it. It confirms with the explanation by other witnesses. On the other hand, I would like to read the paragraph 3 where it says the following about the personality of the defendant, as a researcher and practitioner, and I quote:
"Dr. Ruff was intent on creating a good scientific reputation for his Institute. There were no signs of an unhealthy ambition to be seen in him. He was unassuming, friendly, very ready to help, and took a great interest in the members of his Institute. He was moreover very self-sacrificing. He carried out all important and dangerous experiments on himself. In particular his numerous acceleration experiments are responsible for the fact that his health (circulation) suffered considerably, a fact which was demonstrated in the past year by an oedema of the legs in the evenings, which persisted for weeks at a time.
In summing up, I can say this: Dr. Ruff is a scientist of extraordinary experimental talent and ingenuity, who made outstanding contributions to the development of air travel, particularly in the sphere of high speed flying, and to research into the cause of accidents. To a great extent, he obtained these results, especially in the aircraft experiments which were not always completely under control, by carrying out the experiments on himself. In experiments on others, he would hardly have neglected, because of his own personal attitude, the precautions which medical conscience prescribed."
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Ruff, I am now going to continue and I will ask you the following: What was the main activity of your institute, of which you were the head. What experiments were carried out in your institute?
A. As I already said before the entire work of the institute developed, on the basis of the knowledge of the caurs of air accidents. In the institute inself there were three main spheres of work, one was pure air accident science. This included air accident statistics from a medical point of view, and in the second sphere of work, the special questions of speed in air flight was worked upon, and in the third sphere of work there were questions of high altitude, the question of the prevention of accidents was in the foreground.
Q. The experiments which were carried out in the spring of 1942 at Dachau, were they something extraordinary, or did they fall within the every day practice of your institute? In that connection, could you perhaps give us a closer insight as to the extent of the experiments in your institute.
A. At first, I should like to answer your first question. The experiments which were carried out with my approval and my permission by my collaborator Romberg at Dachau were absolutely within the framework of the experimental work such as was carried out in our own institute upon ourselves.
To state the amount of all the series of experiments which we carried out in the course of these ten years would go much too far. Therefore, I should only like to give you a few examples from which one can see what the course of our work was. For instance, through accident reports we gained knowledge that during a certain period of time in sport aviation, glider aviation, a number of fatal accidents occurred, because the passengers in the planes, when landing on the ground, or rather crash landing on the ground, received serious injuries, for instance, the tearing of the liver and the spleen, stomach etc. Within a short period of time, amounting to perhaps six months or nine months, forty persons died. We had to explain how these accidents came about and how they could be prevented. In order to do that it was necessary to establish what strain the stomach could take from the stomach belt to which the flier is attached. We tried to imitate such strokes as they occurred during flight to the extent at which it became unbearable, that is until the belt was torn, and then we were in a position to state the means with the help of which such injuries could be avoided.
Owing to these experiments there was practically no accident of that kind in the subsequent period.
In another experimental series we had to clarify the question of how many dives a flier would be able to carry out from the medical point of view. We used an army diving plane where we carried out experiments amounting up to thirty dives a day. The pilot on those occasions was present, being the man in charge of the experiment, and the experimental subject, and another experimental subject was seated on the second seat. While the experimental subject who sat in the co-pilot's seat changed with someone else after a certain number of tests, the pilot, as the man in charge of the experiment, and experimental subject, carried out all tests.
All together we carried out 800 such dives in the course of three months and we only interrupted these experiments when we found signs of exhaustion of the heart and blood circulation of the pilot.
A. (Continued) A further experimental series was to determine the effect of vibrations and shakings on the occupants of a plane. These experiments were carried out partly in the plane and partly on certain shaking tables. In the case of these vibration experiments strong disturbances in the nervous system become apparent which are registered by certain methods. My assistant Wisehoefer found his death during one such experimental flight. This was not because of medical reasons but because of a technical error in the flight. -Then there was another experimental question concerning parachute jumping up to what speed the unprotected face of the pilot is not exposed to injury. These experiments were partly carried out in the plane by the experimental subject going out into the air after a certain speed was reached, exposing the face to the air current, and after that, by some means, the person was brought back into the plane. In cases of high speeds such experiments were carried out in a wind tunnel. During such experiments we went to 820 kilometers per hour speeds. And, in order to give you some idea, of what that means, one can say that with over 800 kilometers there is a wind pressure of over 3000 kilograms per one square meter. In order to explain it a little better one may point out that a normal ceiling in an office building takes three hundred to three hundred fifty kilos per square meter. In the case of this speed of the wind, which corresponds to 3,000 kilograms per square meter, the air becomes very hard. Even the smallest bits of dust enter the skin as if they were projectives, and the skin of the face becomes so worn and so effected that after the experiment several experimental persons had their faces covered with blood on the pores of the skin. -- Then experiments were carried out in order to ascertain what the shocks were that a person could stand after the parachute had unfolded. During these experiments the spine is very strongly strained. Also these experiments were carried out to the limits of what was necessary for practical flying. Furthermore experiments were carried out in the question of what would happen if in the pressure cabin of a plane -- this is a cabin where the crew of a stratospheric flight plane are being housed.
This has the pressure which corresponds to do out 3000 meters and if this cabin suddenly should leak because of a gun shot or because of a window pane breaking, the people inside can experience an acceleration of altitude compared to 3 to perhaps 15 thousand meters within a period of time of 1/10 of a second. Since it was not at all clear whether the human organism could stand it, we, in the same way as other nations, carried out such experiments. -- A further question which will effect us later is the question of parachuting from high altitudes which was dealt with by us in self-experimentation. I should like to limit myself to these examples, and I should only like to read a number of these experiment series just by naming their titles: Experiments on the effects of certain laughing-gas concentrations, which is a narcotic gas; examination of the damage of ears by noise; examination of the resistance of the human spine against shocks as occur when planes are landing; examination of the physiological basis when building catapult seats; examination what affects resistance at high altitudes etc. The number of these experimental series could be increased as desired.
Q. Mr. President, I should like you to take notice of Document 19. It is to be found in Document Volume Ruff, Supplement No. 1. This document will receive Ruff Exhibit No. 5. This is a compilation of the publications of the defendant, in which he constantly reported to the public on the experiments which were carried through, and on their results. I ask you to take notice of that document. -- Dr. Ruff, we have already seen from your description that all these experiments were apparently carried out in the interest of aviation, is that correct, or were other experiments carried out?
A. No. All these experiments were in the interest of aviation, and as I said before they were mostly in the interest of the prevention of accidents or the dimunition of damages in case of accidents.
Q. Do you think you can say that all of these experiments were actually necessary in the interest of the Aeronautics and personnel?
A. It is my opinion that this was so.
Q. During these experiments did there occur any fatal accidents which effected either experimental subjects or the people in charge of the experiment or any assistants. I am particularly referring to the high altitude experiments such as they were carried on at Dachau in the year of 1942?
A. In the entire German Aviation Medicine, although thousands and thousands of experiments were carried out, we only had two fatal cases. One occurred in the year of 1937 in the Himalayas where one aero medical scientist when carrying out medical experiments in the mountains received his death because of an ice avalanche. This was not due to his medical experiments. The second case of death which occurred in the entire Aviation Medicine in Germany, was the death of my assistant Wiesehoefer.
Q. You have already mentioned, that, haven't you?
A. Yes, I mentioned that before. The death of this man also was not due to medical conditions but merely duo to a technical error in the plane.
Q. Dr. Ruff, in the affidavits read which it is already repeatedly mentioned, you carried out all experiments first upon yourself, where you were putting yourself at disposal as an experimental subject. During those experiments which you performed upon yourself, did you experiments any personal damage of health, etc?
A. Then carrying out these many diving flights experiments, a condition of exhaustion of heart and circulation appeared which never quite left me.
But it on the other hand is not particularly dangerous.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, at this time the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 28 April 1947, 0920, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in 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.
SIEGFRIED RUFF - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Ruff):
Q. Dr. Ruff, I would like to remind you that you are still under oath. Before the adjournment we discussed the experiments which you generally performed in your institute and it would interest me new to hear something from you as to what extent you were yourself an experimental subject, and I am not only speaking about the Dachau experiments but all the others.
A. The experiments in our institute were performed upon my collaborators and upon myself in the case of 90 percent of the experiments. In the case of certain experiments which were not carried out for purposes of research but in order to teach the crews which had to fly in high altitude, soldiers were furnished to us by the Luftwaffe, and we carried out high altitude experiments with them in order to show them what effects high altitude has on human organisms. To a very slight extent we also used one or the other members of the experimental institute for aviation for our experiments.
Q. All these were voluntary subjects, were they?
A. Yes, as far as this concerned experimental research they were voluntary people. However, the soldiers were detailed by the Wehrmacht for these lecture experiments.
Q. Do you know whether the detailing of soldiers of the Wehrmacht for those experiments was in any way something special or whether that is also the case with other nations who carried out aviation research?
A. This is customary with all air forces because it has shown itself that it is necessary to make the crews acquainted with how high altitude would affect them.
Q. Dr. Ruff, could you estimate approximately what the amount of all the experiments was which you carried out during those years at your institute?
A. We never counted them, but a superficial estimation of that amount would show that it is somewhere between nine to twelve thousand.
Q. In that case the amount of experiments carried out at Dachau was only very small in comparison?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you gain any personal advantages because of your numerous experiments upon your own persons?
A. No, on the contrary my collaborators as well as I had to pay our own life insurance.
Q. Did you have any disadvantages because of these experiments on yourself? I am thinking in particular about disadvantages of health.
A. I already said Friday that we had no very serious incidents in the course of these experiments, and that in effect any lasting damages to health did not occur.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to ask you to accept an affidavit which mainly deals with the general aspect of these experiments. This is Document No-8 to be found in Document Book Ruff on pages 27 to 30. This document originates from a physician, Dr. Loeckle, who from the year of 1937 on was a member of that institute and personally participated in numerous experiments.
He confirms mainly that all the experiments carried out by Dr. Ruff were at first performed by him as experiments upon himself, that is, Dr. Ruff, and that his assistants in the institute were acting as voluntary experimental subjects.
I ask you to take notice of this document, and I should only like to read a few excerpts of a very important nature on page 2. I shall read the paragraph before the last. Here the witness says from his own experience, and I quote:
"The danger of the different experimental conditions could never be settled ahead. We therefore always proceeded with the greatest possible care and took all imaginable precautions. The demands were only increased gradually. We worked exclusively on voluntary experimental subjects; I never heard of a single case when anyone was induced to undergo certain experiments or was forced in any way. Some employees of the institute, who had an aversion towards certain experiments, did not, of course, have to take part in them. I cannot remember any incidents worth mentioning. Minor complaints, such as headaches, over-tiredness, and similar complaints were observed occasionally. Of course, the Primum Nil Nocere was the motto for all work. There never was even the slightest suspicion that any unscrupulous experiments were carried out or any atrocities committed."
I shall skip the next paragraph and I shall now read the last paragraph. It says:
"Dr. Ruff showed the same courage and devotion to duty, in research duties, which he was working on himself; he was always the first to undergo the dangers which, at the beginning, could never be calculated, and he always cooperated also as an experimental subject in the experiments of others. As head of the institute, Dr. Ruff always showed an exemplary, liberal attitude. In that period of intolerance and force, of spiritual rape and suppression of individuality, he always appeared to me to be an estimable representative of true humanity."
The witness furthermore describes the liberal attitude of Dr. Ruff. He says at the end:
"I cannot believe that Mr. Ruff ever took part in any unscrupulous experiments and I am convinced that if ever at that time he came across atrocities, even in the research, he would have opposed them with all his might. Furthermore, I never heard that Dr. Ruff worked on other than voluntary experimental subjects; I consider this out of the question in view of his whole attitude."
This is an affidavit and I should like you to take notice of its entire contents. It was certified in the customary manner.
There is another aff. davit with similar meaning by a certain Franz Scheiber.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you assign to this exhibit?
DR. SAUTER: The exhibit which I have just submitted, or rather the document which I have just read, Document No. 8, will receive the exhibit number 6, Ruff No. 6.
Regarding the general aspect of the experiments, the physician Dr. Scheiber makes a general statement. This affidavit you will find in document Ruff under No. 1, Exhibit No. 7. I ask you to take notice of this affidavit in its entirety. I shall only read a few paragraphs on pages 2 and 3. This Doctor Scheiber, from whom this affidavit originates, is a physician who ever since 1936, that is, for a period of eight years, had collaborated with Dr. Ruff, and had had occasion to make his very close acquaintance. In his affidavit he at first describes the entire attitude and professional conception of Professor Ruff, and then he says on page 2 at the bottom: "These demands made on the experimental persons were unpleasant to bear individually, but all --"I don't think the interpreters have these document books, Your Honors.
INTERPRETER: The interpreters have the document book.
at
THE PRESIDENT: The translation did not come through/first, doctor.
DR. SAUTER: I shall start once mere on page 2 at the bottom of the page and I quote:
"These demands were disagreeable, but out of all the experiments known to me, not one person undergoing an experiment suffered any kind of bodily injury. I would certainly have noticed such cases because I could follow these experiments from a medical point of view, and also I was well informed of everything that went on in the Medical Section of the Experimental Institute for Aviation."
THE PRESIDENT: From what part of the exhibit are you reading?
DR. SAUTER: Document No. 1, page 2, the bottom of page. I think it is the last paragraph. I think you will find it also in the English document book.