I ask you to take into consideration that all the witnesses who have testified up to this moment have said under oath that as a rule such experiments were not performed with inmates, especially not in a concentration camp.
A. In December 1941, Prof. Weltz visited me at my institute. We discussed a few questions of an aviation-medical nature in which both of us w re interested, and on this occasion also discussed the problem of saving people from high altitudes. Prof. Weltz had received a report about experiments which We had performed in regard to that subject. The report comprised experiments for the purpose of saving people from high-altitudes, up to altitudes of 13,000 meters. We spoke about the continuation of these experiments which we planned-a second part of these experiments--and on that occasion Prof. Weltz suggested to me to carry out this second part of the experiment on inmates at Dachau.
One of his assistants, a certain Dr. Rascher, had received Himmler's approval to perform high altitude experiments at Dachau; so that it would be quite possible to perform these experiments at Dachau.
Q. Dr. Ruff, you said the beginning of your negotiations about Dachau started in the year 1941. That was December 1941. I should like to remind you that in the Prosecution Document Book No. II a letter was submitted which at that time was sent by Dr. Rascher on already the fifteenth of May 1941 to the Reichsfuehrer-SS. This is Document 1602-PS, Exhibit of the Prosecution 44. In this letter, which originates from May 1941, Rascher writes, and I quote:
"The experiments are performed at the experimental station for high-altitude research, and cannot be carried out on monkeys, as was the case up to this period of time, since there are entirely different situations in the case of the monkey." Dr. Rascher continues:
"I discussed these matters confidentially with the representative of the Air Fleet Physician who is carrying out those experiments, and he is also of the opinion that the problems in question can only be carried out by performing experiments on human beings."
Dr. Rascher, in parentheses, adds: "As experimental material, feeble-minded people could also be used."
How, I am asking you, Dr. Ruff, when in December 1941 you were at first concerned with the performance of experiments in a concentration camp, had you then known of the proceeding negotiations between Dr. Rascher and Reichsfuehrer-SS? And, in particular, had you not known of that letter which I just mentioned, dated the fifteenth of May 1941? Weren't you participating in those negotiations, Doctor?
A. This letter, itself, and its contents, I learned for the first time here upon looking at this document book. During my conversation with Weltz in December 1941, he told me, however, that already a few months earlier a conference had taken place between Rascher and the then Medical Inspector, Hippke; and that Hippke had already agreed to these experiments in principle. From this remark, I could have, of course, deduced that there had been some negotiations pending during the proceeding months, but I knew no details about them.
Q. Witness, in the letter which I just mentioned, dated the fifteenth of May, 1941, Rascher writes to Himmler; and there is the following sentence there, and I quote; "The experimental subjects could also die."
Now, on the other hand, you are telling us--and that also becomes apparent from the affidavits of various witnesses--that the experiments which you were carrying out entitled no danger to life. Now, Dr. Ruff, can you tell us how this apparent contradiction can be clarified, or can you perhaps tell us what experiments were meant by Dr. Rascher in his letter of the fifteenth of May, 1941, when he took into consideration the possibility of the death of experimental subjects?
A. I didn't know at that time what experiments Rascher was intending, and I had had no knowledge of that letter, For that reason I cannot say today what experiments Rascher was referring to on the basis of that letter.
Q. In that case, you still don't know that today?
A. No.
Q. During those negotiations which you carried on with Prof. Weltz and later with Dr. Rascher, did Rascher make the suggestion to you that feeble-minded people were also to be used for those experiments--the same suggestion which is contained in the letter of the fifteenth of May, 1941? What would your attitude have been? Or What was your attitude to any such suggestion?
A. Rascher never made this suggestion to use feeble-minded people for these experiments; and, seen from an experimental point of view, it would have been entirely impossible for us to use feebleminded persons for these experiments.
Q. Why?
A. During those experiments we needed the cooperation of the experimental subjects. During the experiment, the experimental subject had to carry out reasonable reactions, and these are matters for which feeble-minded people could not be used.
Q. Dr. Ruff, Mrs. Rascher has stated in a letter, which was already submitted here, addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS, dated 24 February 1942, contained in a Document of the prosecution, page 59, Document No. 263, Exhibit 47, that Dr. Hippke and Dr. Weltz were delaying the begining of the experiments continuously, although Hippke and Weltz knew the importance of the experiments. Frau Dr. Rascher continues: " In December of 1941, Dr. Weltz got in touch with the chairman of the Aerial research institute at Berlin - Adlershof and asked whether the chief, Drs. Ruff and Romberg could make the experiments with Dr. Rascher. These two persons immediately agreed and delivered the low pressure chamber and came here. There was a conference between Rascher, Romberg and Ruff at Dachau." Are these statements correct, and I am referring particularly to the time where Frau Dr. Rascher says the first conference took place in December 1941?
A No, some of the details are incorrect in that letter; however, these details are of no special importance. For instance, I was never the chief of the German Institute for Aviation, but Frau Rascher possibly did not know these things. It is correct that in December of 1941 the conference just mentioned between Professor Weltz and I took place, and in the course of this conference Professor Weltz made the suggestion to me to carry out the second part of our experiments for the purpose of saving people from high altitude in Dachau.
Q Where were these conferences with Professor Weltz held?
AAt my institute in Berlin.
Q Did Professor Weltz come to you in Berlin for the particular purpose of getting your cooperation concerning these experiments with you that were to be carried out in Dachau; or why was it Professor Weltz came to you?
A No, Professor Weltz visited me once or twice a year. We usually discussed scientific problems, and within the frame-work of these conversations touched upon the question of saving people from high altitude. On this occasion Professor Weltz made this suggestion to me.
Q. You say that the first suggestion for the execution of experiments in concentration camps was made by Professor Dr. Weltz; at any rate you were approached with it by him, and at that time you had known him for some time?
A Yes.
Q What impression did Weltz personality make on you at that time?
A I had known Professor for many years. As far as I know, he was at that time an Oberstabartz of the Luft waffe, and he was also the head of the testing station for the effects of high altitude or the Aviation Medical Institudo at Munich, both of us belonged to the Luftwaffe. As a scientist, Professor Weltz enjoyed the highest reputation within Aviation Medical and also within the x-ray research work. His own scientific work, as well as the work published by his institute, were always considered to be reliable. He had had considerable practice in x-ray, which showed to what extent he was regarded by his patients and his colleages. The relationship of our institutes toward one another was a friendly one, and I already mentioned that he came to visit me once or twice a year. On the other hand, whenever I had an opportunity to do so, I visited him at his institute in Munich. Therefore, I was certain on the basis of my acquaintance and knowing Weltz, that he did not suggest anything to me at that time where he himself had any legal or ethical misgivings.
Q Dr. Ruff, when Professor Weltz made the suggestion with you, or did you ask him, what kind of experimental subjects were to be used; of course it was natural that they were inmates, but what other qual ifications did they have to have and what did you discuss in that regard with Professor Weltz?
A Naturally, we discussed that point, which was possibly the most important point during our conversation after his initial suggestion. Professor Weltz told me that we were concerned with professional criminals in the case of these experimental subjects who could volunteer for these experiments.
Q Did you agree to that suggestion immediately, or did you voice any misgivings?
A I told Professor Weltz that I would have to take this matter under consideration, that I would further discuss it with Dr. Romberg, who was in charge of the experiments for the purpose of saving people from high altitude, and that in particular, I would have to discuss this matter with the Medical Inspector Hippke.
Q What further action did you take in that matter?
AAfter Professor Weltz departure, either on the very same day or the next day, I dicussed this with my collaborator, Dr. Romberg; and when he also agreed to carry out these experiments, under the conditions as stated by Weltz, I visited the Medical Inspector Hippke and asked him whether it was true that he had already agreed to these experiments in Dachau in principle. This he affirmed, and I received permission from him to carry out those experiments on the inmates in Dachau and to use a mobile low pressure chamber for that purpose, which belonged to the Medical Inspectorate, but which at that time was with us at the experimental institute.
Q Professor Hippke, who after all was your highest superior; didn't he discuss with you what kind of experimental subjects you were to use; did Professor Hippke know who was to be used and did you say anything to him about that?
A Professor Hippke told me on the occasion of this conversation that we were here concerned with professional criminals, who were in a position to volunteer for these experiments and who after the experiments were to be rewarded in some form by either sentence or complete pardon.
Q Witness, why weren't these experiments performed in your Berlin Institute also instead of goin to Dachau?
A. In that connection I have to speak at some great length. In the spring of 1941 we investigated low pressure chambers and demonstrated them to the crews on the Western Front. During such experiments Romberg and I participated. We used that opportunity of informing ourselves at individual fighter units whether they had experienced any medical difficulties. All of the units complained that the pilots were not clear as to how they would have to act in the case of parachute descents from high altitudes. In the German air force there was at that time no oxygen apparatus available for the case of parachute descent. The crew feared that after their parachuts had unfolded and they were descending, that when landing on the earth or in the water, they would still suffer altitude injuries or would drown. We couldn't help them on that question since we had no experimental basis for any information.
After our return we reported to the medical inspectorate about that question, and we received the order to carry out experiments for the purpose of saving persons from high altitudes. The technical progress of high altitude flying had reached the following stage: Fighter planes in large numbers were flying at the front which were reaching ten thousand to 11 thousand kilometer altitudes. The fighter planes of our enemies, however, could reach higher altitudes. For that reason it was worked with haste in all research institutes and all motor factories to find a way to increase the high altitude performance of the motors. Apart from these normal planes which were already flying at the front, we had a rocket fighter plane which was still in its testing stage. This was the Mcsserschmidt 163. With that plane it was possible to reach ten to twelve thousand meters within a space of two minutes. The summit altitude of that plane depended only upon the fuel which the plane was carrying. For jet propulsion is completely independent of height. Furthermore, larger motors were being constructed and larger planes were being built which could reach altitudes of at first 16 thousand meters. On the basis of this stage of technical development, there was the energetic demand to clarify the question of how human beings could, be saved from high altitudes up to 20,000 meters.
The technical development had gone beyond the results obtained in aviation medicine; and as I said before, we had no medical basis at all to effect any saving from high altitude. In accordance with the urgency of the problem, this task for the saving from high altitudes was divided into many stages. At first, the question of saving from high altitude up to 12 kilometers was clarified; and this was considered to be the most urgent question, since we already had a number of planes already in action which would, achieve that height. The experi ments for that purpose were carried out at our institute. The second point which was to be clarified, was to ascertain whether escaping from 20,000 meters height, with or without oxygen, is possible. As a subdivision to this question we had to clarify whether a very sharp decrease in pressure in a short time can be tolerated by human beings. For instance, jumping the pressure from 12 to 20,000 meters. This question was dealt with by us after the experiments of 12,000 meters, and we experimented upon ourselves. This problem was simultaneously worked upon by a number of other Institutes. The actual bailing out experiments, from 20,000 meters height were clarified, at Dachau.- Subsequently the influence of cold had to be cleared up in these heights. There are temperatures as low as minus 50 to 60 degrees. These experiments were also worked upon at our institutes while experimenting upon ourselves. Throughout those questions we were concerned with urgent, practically important question for aviation. After these experiments the technicians were to be told what special safe-guarding equipment was to be constructed in order to save people from the respective altitudes, and these experiments were to provide a basis in order to give directives to the crews as to how to act during the parachute descent from various altitudes.
DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, you could recess here, because the defendant is embarking upon a new paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well, the Tribunal will be in recess.
( A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness may proceed.
WITNESS: Before the recess I was just describing what reasons led to the experiments about escaping from high altitude. In order to be able to answer all the questions resulting from this problem efficiently, the results would, of course, have to be sufficiently guaranteed. There could not be any question of coincidence or accidental result since, otherwise, the technical developments for the apparatus would be put into false channels. Accidental results would result in directives for the aviators which might be false, and they might lead to accidents, even to fatal accidents. In order to safeguard such results of experiments adequately, it is necessary to carry out experiments on a large enough number of experimental subjects or to repeat the experiments on a smaller number of persons so often that accidental results are eliminated in the results. At our institute, when Weltz suggested to me that the experiments should be carried out in Dachau, there were only five or six experimental subjects available in the persons of my associates and myself, but since several other series of experiments were going on at the same time, these experimental subjects were involved in two or three experiments at the same time in part and were at the limit of their capacities. Moreover, we had just carried out a series of experiments with sudden drop in pressure, and these numerous increases of altitude had made some of us adapt to these heights because, if one carries out numerous ascends in altitude, the body gets used to the altitude. It becomes more resistant to altitude and, of course, such persons can no longer be considered normal subjects. For us in the institute it would, therefore, have been possible only to carry out the experiments through the course of many months; but the task was very urgent. For this reason, I agreed with Professor Weltz suggestion to carry out the second part of the experiments in Dachau.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, I understand that a larger number of experimental subjects were needed for these experiments, but would it not have been easier, perhaps, to take medical students, or soldiers, or other volunteers, who might have been hired for pay?
A Before the experiments we had repeatedly attempted to get medical students, for example, for experiments. That had not proved itself at all, specially when the experiments lasted for a considerable time. The medical students, in general, could not devote enough time to those experiments and, after two, three or four experiments, they suddenly stopped coming, or some governmental regulation suddenly called them away to other quite different things - to work on the harvest, or to carry out large collections, or something like that. To get soldiers for the experiments was perhaps theoretically possible. In practice, however, it was said: "We do not have enough soldiers to give you experimental subjects for your experiments. The soldiers have other things to do. We cannot let them go for two or three months." To hire volunteers was impossible because in the time of 1942, there was no one in Germany in the age group any more which we needed and in the physical constitution which we needed. All these people were either in the army, or were working at something which, of course, made it impossible for them to be available to us for any length of time.
Q Now, before I go over to your discussion with Dr. Rascher, I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of a document which is in the Document Book Ruff, Supplement 2, Document #20. It will be Exhibit #8. Exhibit #8, Document #20, Supplemental Book 2. This is an affidavit of a Dr. Ing. Rolf Schroedter. This witness was an engineer by profession. From the summer of 1940 on he was a technical officer in the Luftwaffe. That is, during the period of the Dachau high altitude experiments. He had to test the planes and investigate accidents. He is, therefore, a special expert who can evaluate the necessity of the experiments undertaken by Ruff. In the first part of his affidavit, which I shall not read, the witness first describes his own work and the reasons for his being an expert.
On page 2, in the second paragraph, I should like to read some passages:
"From the activity as a technical officer, I can give the following facts from my own knowledge about the stage reached in high altitude flying:
"During the campaign in France in 1940, the altitude requirements of the aircraft were still comparatively low. In the fall of 1940, however, they grew by leaps and bounds. The formations attempted to outclimb each other to obtain a better attacking position. The altitude possibilities of the planes were fully utilized, and flights were often made to an altitude of 10 to 11 kilometers. New types of aircraft, with higher altitude ranges, were demanded. At this time, most pilots had very little knowledge and experience concerning correct conduct in high altitudes, and accidents were caused by the slightest carelessness or defect. It was of considerable importance that, through a clarification of the problems involved in parachuting from heights of up to 12 kilometers, the men at the front were able to receive essential instructions about conduct while parachuting from aircraft. It could be seen, even at that time, that an increase in speed and altitude would be technically possible in the near future. The Chief of the Messerschmidt-Development Office, at that time, incidental to a tour of the front in Spring 1941, promised only a gradual improvement of the Me 109 (that is, Messerschmidt 109), but he already talked about a great leaps in progress in new types.
In the years 1941-42 the fighter aircraft Me (Messerschmidt) 163 was tried out in action. It was a small single seater rocket plane using liquid fuels which gave a quite extraordinary performance although later, after a long period of development, it gained no great importance in action. The rocket engine was independent of the oxygen from the air and thus altitude had no significance in its performance. The maximum altitude which could be reached had practically no limit except the pilot's ability to endure high altitudes. The climbing speed reached with 170 meters per second, nearly ten times the performance of any other existing aircraft. Altitudes of twelve to fourteen kilometers were reached in less than three minutes climb and in some instances greater altitudes up to 15.5 kilometers were reached if the pilot cut out the engine a few seconds too late. In new aircraft models the demands of high altitude flying were met by installing pressure-cabins. Plans of this kind were made by all firms engaged in the development of new models, especially Junkers, Henschel, Arado, Blohm & Voss. Some series of the fighter types Me 109 which were in action were also equipped with pressure-cabins.
"The use of pressure-cabins in action depended on the stage of development of the high altitude engines. The maximum pressure altitude of the engines, that is, the altitude at which the engine still developed its full performance, was continuously increased. For instance, the maximum pressure altitude of the DB 605 was 6 kilometers that of the DB 605 AB was 8.5 kilometers; that of the Juno 213 E was 9 to 11 kilometers. These performances were reached by memos of improved superchargers lader with several stages and gear boxes with two to three gears. Furthermore, exhaust turbine drives for the same purpose were developed by Heinkel, Junkers, and BMW with a maximum pressure altitude of 11 to 14 kilometers. The German Research Institute for Air Transport in adlershof was developing an engine for an altitude of 16 kilometers.
Since the highest altitude a plane can reach is actually some kilometers above the engine's maximum pressure altitude, altitudes of approximately 20 kilometers could be expected in the comparatively near future.
"It was always of tire greatest importance in aviation to know how to rescue the crew from any given altitude. If altitudes of approximately 11 to 12 kilometers are exceeded, the danger for the crew increases tremendously and with it the importance of corresponding safety and rescue devices. In 1941 the accelerated development of high altitude flying surpassed without douot the findings of aviation medicine, while normally aviation medicine should be far ahead of technics, so that the planning and construction of new types of aircraft can be based upon this medical knowledge."
This affidavit in essence confirms what the defendant has already said and is sworn to before the competent authorities. I ask you to take judicial notice of the entire contents.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Now, Dr. Ruff, I come now to your talks with Dr. Rascher. After you had decided in principle to carry out experiments in Dachau, there was a conference between you, Weltz, and Rascher, in Munich. What was discussed, and what was agreed upon on this occasion?
A. Dr. Romberg and I went to Munich to see Prof. Weltz. We met at his institute; and on this occasion Dr. Rascher was also present. He was introduced to us. We discussed the experiments which we intended to carry out in Dachau. Rascher on this occasion showed us a letter from Himmler, which showed that he was authorized to perform high altitude experiments in Dachau, and that for this purpose criminals would be made available, and that they would be given an opportunity to volunteer. Following these experiments they were to be given some lightening of their punishment in some form.
Q. This was the first time you saw Rascher?
A. Yes, this was the first time I saw Rascher. He was introduced to us, both to Romberg and to myself.
Romberg did not know him then either.
Q. He was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe?
A. He was an Oberarzt, or a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q. What impression did Dr. Rascher make on you?
A. He was at that time an Oberarzt or a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe. He had an assured but obliging and correct appearance. During the conversation with him at this discussion and on the following, he showed a good degree of knowledge in all medical fields. He told us about his work for early diagnosis of cancer. He also told of the procedure which he had developed for selection and testing of range finders for anti-aircraft artillery. He said that he had received the War Merit Cross, Second Class, for this work. He told about his surgical training, and during the discussion of the experiments for rescue from high altitude, he showed in all questions in the field of aviation medicine which came up during this discussion a great deal of understanding and good insight. He gave no occasion for any distrust of his character.
What Hippke had months before given Rascher permission for experiments on prisoners gave no cause for misgivings in this respect. Hippke as medical chief Knew Rascher. He had an opportunity to consult the personal files and to see what official and personality characteristics Rascher had. It was a matter of course for me that the medical chief would not ask me to work with a man if he had any objections to this man's qualifications as to character or personality. Moreover, Rascher knew Prof. Weltz. He worked at Prof. Weltz's institute in Munich; and this again could not give me the impression that Weltz would offer me for collaboration a man whom he himself considered unreliable in any way.
Q. Witness, why was another doctor called in; and if another doctor was necessary, why didn't you take another doctor from your institute in Berlin?
Why did you take Dr. Rascher?
A. The approval for the carrying out of high altitude experiments at Dachau had been given to Dr. Rascher by Himmler apparently on the basis of some connections which he had with the SS, which I did not know about at that time. He could not very well be eliminated since he was the one for whom Himmler had given the permission. A second doctor was desirable in carrying out these experiments. Consequently, it was a matter of course to me that Rascher would have to be the second doctor. Moreover, he was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe and, so to speak, an expert in our field. Taking Rascher into the experiments had been agreed upon in the beginning in a discussion with Dr. Weltz. We had agreed on collaboration between Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher, between the Weltz institute and my institute. Hippke, too, had from the very beginning intended this collaboration. For months beforehand he had given Rascher approval for the execution of such experiments. Consequently, as the situation was in my opinion, the only person to be considered as a second doctor was Rascher.
Q. Now, to get into the camp which was hermetically sealed to the outside world, you had to have some permission from some SS authorities: With whom did you negociate and what was agreed upon and what directives did you receive?
A. In the discussion in the Weltz institute, at which Prof. Weltz, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Rascher and I participated, it was agreed that--I believe it was on the next day--we would go together to the Reichsfuehrung SS in Munich; there we would settle a few formalities; and after that we would go out to the concentration camp Dachau, in order to discuss the experiments with the camp commandant. On the next day we visited the Reichsfuehrung SS briefly in Munich. There the questions of the pass and the approval to enter the camp were discussed, since passes to enter the camp were not given by the camp commandant but only by the Reichsfuehrung SS:
and after that we went in a car of the Reichsfuehrung SS out to the Dachau camp.
There when we met the camp commandant and discussed with him the experiments. He asked about their dangerousness. We told him that so far asit was humanely possible to judge one would not have to expect deaths, or any other damage. Since he had no doubt been oriented beforehand about these experiments, he said that he would give us experimental subjects, such as we needed for our experiments; that he would, no doubt, be able to give us a large enough number, and that he would do whatever was necessary. We discussed with him the question of the quarters as to the experimental subjects, and said that during that time they should not be allowed to work); that they had to have good constant observation, and to have medical observation. We inquired about the food for the camp inmates in general at that time, and we demanded that the experimental subjects should be given additional rations, such as are given to every member of the flying crews. Then we discussed the quality of the experimental subjects, and the camp commandant also told us that these people were professional criminals. Of course, that they were to be given an opportunity to volunteer for these experiments, and that Himmler would, no doubt, pardon these people after the experiments, or give them some other advantage.
Q. Dr. Ruff, when you spoke of these subjects, you have repeatedly mentioned the question of the volunteering of the experimental subjects. You have told us that in all of these discussions you always demanded that these people had to be volunteers. Why, did you at that time in 1942, lay so much stress on the fact these experimental subjects were to be volunteers. Was not that a matter of course?
A. As I already described, from 1934 on I worked almost exclusively on experiments, and the great majority of these experiments were on human beings. Thereby thousands of experiments were carried out, and for all of these experiments only volunteers were used on principle. The majority of these experiments were experiments by my assistant and myself on our own persons. This was a matter of course on the one hand. On the other hand, however, in very many of these earlier tests for reasons of experiments it was absolutely essential that the subjects had to be volunteers.
If, for example, one carried out experiments by infecting the subject with some infectious disease, then after the infection the course of the experiment with the disease is completely independent of the experimental subject himself, and the experiment, or the disease takes its course, which can of course, be influenced by the person in charge of the experiment by therapeutic measures, but it takes its course independent of the will of the experimental subject.
In experiments such as we carried out in our institute, and such as were carried out in Dachau, the person in charge of the experiment is dependent on the good will and cooperation of the experimental subject. If it is not possible to interest the experimental subject in the experiment, it is quite impossible to get useful results. The individual values of the experiment differ so strikingly, that it is not possible to get a clear view of the actual facts. In the case of the experiments such as were carried out in Dachau, experiments for rescue from high altitudes, the experimental subject after having overcome the altitude sickness, as a sign that he was completely capable of acting again, had to pull the ripcord of the parachute. Whether he was able to do so, or not, could not be decided by the person in charge of the experiment, because it was part of the experiment that the subject carry out an order given before the experiment, after having overcome the altitude sickness. Just as a parachutist must when he jumps out at high altitude, as soon as he comes to again, when he wakes up from unconsciousness, he must pull the ripcord to open the parachute.
Q. Well, then, you came to Dachau, and went into the camp. Had you ever seen a concentration camp before that?
A. No, that was the first time I was in a concentration camp.
Q. What did you see of the installations in the concentration camp, and, especially of abuses prevailing in the camp, or crimes committed there, or things that we keep hearing about here?
A. After the talk with the camp commandant, which I have just described took place in his office, we went into the camp proper to look at the place where the low pressure chamber was to be accommodated, and then went to discuss again the spot and the things necessary to manipulate the low pressure chambers. The way to this place, we had to pass the gate, and went through a big open space, which had barracks on two sides, and the experimental subjects were to be housed in one of these barracks. We looked at the rooms, and in this barrack, or the one that connects to it, I am not certain any more, was the hospital of the camp. We also saw the rooms at this hospital. We saw that the medical installations were not only very clean and orderly, but also were considerably better in quality than the facilities which a small district hospital in Germany had, for example. Whether the quantity of facilities, that is, the fact whether the facilities were big enough for the number of inmates of the concentration camp I could not judge at the time, and I can not judge today. Since I don't know how many inmates the camp had, the whole camp of which we saw only a very small part was clean and in good order. We saw a shelter in one of the blocks which was also clean like a military barracks. We also saw a washroom at the disposal of the men which corresponded to the demands of hygiene in all respects. That is more or less what we saw at the concentration camp on this first visit. We, of course, saw nothing of crimes, or of anything like that.
Q. In these discussions with the SS officer of the ReichsfuehrungSS, which you mentioned when you talked to the camp commandant at Dachau, did you hear anything from any other source as to why people were sent to the concentration camp, and what classes of prisoners were there?
A. We knew at that time that in the concentration camps there were two types of prisoners. We knew that on the one hand there were criminals, and we knew that on the other hand there were political prisoners. About other differentiations we knew nothing. On the visit to Dachau some other categories were mentioned to us, which I don't remember today.