That is, the practical value, although the problem of the effects of cold had not yet been solved.
A Hippke is right in his letter. In the effects of altitude on the human organism, various factors play a role. Not only the reduction of pressure in general; not only tho reduction of oxygen; but also cold. In the altitudes in which our experiments took place, here in Central Europe we have an average annual temperature of about minus 55 degrees - 55 below zero. This cold has to be considered in some way, but is the advantage of high altitude experiments in the low pressure chamber that the individual factors of the effects of altitude can be separated. That is, one always tests the effects of the lack of oxygen or the effects of the lack of oxygen and the lowered pressure, and when one knows the effects of these factors, then one can go on to test the third factor that is, cold. In other branches of medicine one does not, for example, if one wants to study what happens if a human being has malaria and cholera at the same time - I don't know whether that is possible - then one does not infect him at the same time with cholera and malaria, but first, with malaria, and then, if he has survived that, with cholera, in order to study the individual effects first, and then one would infect him with a combination of malaria and cholera. I emphasize that is a hypothetical case. And so it is here in the high altitude experiments. One examines the effect of the lowered air pressure first. Then one adds cold when one knows the first effects. That is what we did. After the end of the Dachau experiments, we continued the parachute experiments in our institute, adding the factor of cold. One sentence about the results. The cold air had no effects on the results.
The results were exactly the sane as without the cold.
Q Dr. Ruff, your low pressure chamber, as you told us yesterday, came back to Berlin in May. On the 2nd of June it was unloaded there. Now, I should like to know - did you, in Berlin, to solve this problem - the effect of cold - perform any further experiments and did you make a report on these experiments which had nothing to do with the ones mentioned here?
A I have already said that we performed extensive experiments with cold. As is customary, a report was issued about these experiments too.
Q Do you have this report or was this report shown to you in your interrogations?
A No, it was not shown to me, but I have it in my possession.
Q. Dr. Ruff, I see your official report of July 1942; I will ask you one more question. In this report experiments on themselves by the two persons in charge, Rascher and Romberg, are described, and considerable pain is described which Rascher and Romberg had to suffer in the experiments which they performed on themselves. I recall that the Prosecutor at one time read this passage from the report and drew the conclusion that in the case of the experimental subjects, that is the outsiders, torcher had occurred. That in other words, these outsider experimental subjects, whether they were volunteers or not suffered exactly the same, almost unbearable pain, as Romberg and Rascher when they experimented on themselves. Now, you, Dr. Ruff, told us yesterday that in so called altitude sickness there is no pain at all; there is unconsciousness, one is not aware of becoming unconscious; later one does not know that one was unconscious, and most experimental subjects have no idea that the experiment has been performed. That is how little they feel of the experiment. That is your description, I believe.
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Now, will you please tell us how do you explain this contradiction; on the one hand Rascher and Romberg suffered such terrible pain in the experiments on themselves; on the other hand you tell us experimental subjects in altitude sickness feel practically nothing.
A. What I said yesterday or Friday is true, that in altitude sickness there is practically no pain; altitude sickness begins unnoticed by the person concerned. He feels nothing. In the two selfexperiments which I reported here this is something quite different. Rascher and Romberg were at an altitude between 12,000 and 13,500 meters. They were breathing oxygen and did not suffer from altitude sickness. They were completely conscious, because I said when breathing pure oxygen the feeling of the human being, that is the altitude up to which he is completely capable of action, is between 12,000 and 13,500 meters. In the altitude between 10,000 and 13,500 meters, approximately, it is possible that in these people who are completely conscious there is pain, these so-called bense.
This is the result of the fact that through the general lowering of the pressure within the tissues of the organism nitrogen is released. This nitrogen collects within the tissue in tiny bubbles. It extends the tissues and thus causes pain. This pain may be completely harmless, just about the same as barely perceptible rheumatic pain. It can be similar to a strong rheumatic pain, but again as in these two cases it may be quite extensive. But to cause this pain it is again necessary that the persons concerned, remain at this altitude for a considerable time. In these experiments of Romberg and Rascher on themselves, which are described in this report, Romberg was at 12,000 meters for 30 minutes in one case, before the pain started, in the second case he was at 13,000 meters for 40 minutes. In the case of Rascher there was much less pain, the time was so much shorter. This bense time for their development requires considerable time. Yesterday I pointed out several times that in German aviation, as well as in the United States Air Force, for example, the groups which have to fly at high altitudes are for training purposes kept at 12,000 meters for some time. They are to become acquainted with these complaints at this altitude and they are explained the cause, they are shown or told that by going down to 8,000 meters say the pain can generally be done away with. In these training tests, therefore, it is necessary to keep the groups up there for some time, simply for the reason that the bense docs not occur until after some time. Another point, did Romberg and Rascher carry out these experiments which actually had nothing to do with the experiments for rescue from high altitude. It is customary for all high altitude experiments in the low pressure chamber that the person in charge of the experiment or some other doctor goes into the low pressure chamber with the subject and watches the subject during the experiments, that is possible only to a height of 13,500 meters. Higher than that the experimental subject and the doctor are subject to the same effects, and therefore there would be no purpose in taking a doctor up to that altitude. Now, Romberg and Rascher performed such experiments several times a day between 10,000 and 13,500 meters, and were in the chamber with several different experimental subjects, and now it was discovered that in the first experiment and every day the doctor had no pain.
In the second experiment in the same day, he had a certain amount of bense and if he performed a third experiment on the same day then he might suffer severally. Now, in order to determine the cause of it, whether the time which was spent at the high altitude is cumulative in its effect or whether the number of flights is the cause, these selfexperiments showed that actually only the time, the amount of time spent at that altitude is important. The experimental subjects themselves did not suffer such pain for two reasons: First of all they were never at such an altitude so long, and in the second place even if they had been there that long they had altitude sickness and did not therefore register any pain.
Q. Dr. Ruff, in order to avoid a confusion about another point in your report, I should like to clear up the following: in your official report on 28 July which you signed, in the experimental subjects you mentioned cramps which wore observed; I understood correctly, Dr. Ruff, did I not, I interpret the report correctly, if I assume these were cramps which occurred during the so-called altitude sickness, it is when the persons were unconscious and when the experimental subject feels nothing either during the time or afterwards, if I understood correctly?
A. Yes, that is correct. I said yesterday that these cramps, as in the case of epilepsy and the cramps caused from therapeutic purposes, these always occur while the person is unconscious, that he is never aware of them and never feels them.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Document Book 2 there are a number of pictures of an experimental subject apparently suffering from altitude sickness, and the Prosecutor said more or less something to this effect, one can merely look at these pictures, then if a layman can see what terrible pain these people must have suffered. Appearances are deceptive in this case and I take the liberty of submitting a book, the original which the defendant Dr. Ruff, and a witness who submitted an affidavit, Professor Strughold, wrote, with pictures on page 144.
I should like to hand this book up to you. Would you please look at it, and then I shall tell you why I am showing you this book.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, has counsel for the Prosecution seen this book?
DR. SAUTER: I am about to give him the book, Your Honor.
DR. SAUTER: Gentlemen; if one looks at these picture one has the impression that it must be terrible pain, which these people are suffering; one may even have the impression that these are experiments where the experimental subjects are enduring such terrible things that they are boat to die. In reality, any aviation expert will tell you that the experimental subject picture here felt nothing at all in these experiments. That is something that we as lay-men cannot understand, but it is so. Look at the last picture, gentlemen, you will see at the left the Defendant Romberg in his normal condition and on the right you will see him in a plane at very high speed completely distorted; he almost looks dead. If, as a lay-man, one looks at the picture one says to oneself the face of Romberg is so distorted that it can never become a normal face again. Nevertheless the man felt nothing in the experiments and the girl, who was also in the picture, who was also so terribly distorted momentarily daring the experiments, she did not feel anything either. When the Defendant Romberg is on the witness stand and has taken the oath, he can state under oath whether he felt anything during these experiments or not.
Gentlemen, I am showing you this book and have shown it to the Prosecution also because it is a practical example to show how easily an experienced lay-man can be mistaken on the basis of such pictures. Perhaps in this connection I can ask Dr. Ruff, who also participated in such experiments as an experimental subject.
Dr. Ruff, I discussed these pictures with you the other day: can you tell us as an expert that these experimental subjects suffered no pain worth mentioning during the experiments, although they look so terrible in the pictures?
A. That is true up to the speeds described here, up to 485 kilometers per hour there is no pain worth mentioning. It must be emphasized of course that these people are completely conscious.
Q. Dr. Ruff, perhaps you can also tell the Tribunal how these pictures were taken very briefly?
A. They were taken while a plane was in a power dive. The person was looking, over the roof of the cabin and the pictures were taken; that is the person was in the complete stream of air.
Q. Dr. Ruff, now I come to the conclusion of the Dachau experiments; I have a few minor questions to ask you.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, these pictures which are offered in evidence in this book refer to a speed test and as far as I can make out have no connection with high altitude experiments.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the Prosecutor is protesting against something that was never claimed. I did not say that these experiments had anything to do with the Dachau high altitude experiments. I submitted the book merely to show you that experiments can be deceptive. As a lay-man, one can assume that someone is in terrible pain but in reality it is harmless. It was for this purpose that I submitted these pictures.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand that counsel for the defendant offered the book in evidence.
MR. HARDY: It was my understanding he had from the remarks of the defense counsel. I object to the book as being immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did you offer this book in evidence or merely using it to illustrate the testimony of the witness?
DR. SAUTER: Only for the latter purpose, only to be able to show it to the witness.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Ruff, you signed an affidavit, I believe it was in October of 1945, Document No. 437, Prosecution Exhibit No. 42, this is in Document Book 2 on page 46. There is a sentence in there, which was read to you the Prosecutor and it reads: "Personally, I would consider these experiments during war-time as to immoral." With respect to this sentence, on the 10th of December here, the Prosecutor said that in this opinion it was quite unusual that you, Dr. Ruff, positively say in your affidavit that you do not consider these experiments immoral, especially in war time. Now, I should like to know what did you mean by this sentence so that a wrong conclusion is to drawn from it?
A. When the Prosecutor showed me this affidavit, which they had formulated, the final sentence was that I considered these experiments permissable in war-time, but that in peace-time I would declare them specifically criminal or immoral. I refused to sign this sentence and a discussion followed, lasting more than an hour. The sentence was changed repeatedly and I repeatedly refused to sign. Finally, I declared myself willing to sign this formulation. That is now this sentence came about. What I wrote in this sentence was my opinion at the time and is so even today. This sentence refers exclusively to the experiments, which were performed at Dachau with my knowledge and approval because the interrogation before the affidavit was written.
Even today, I am of the opinion that I can stand up on this opinion. When I signed this sentence, I was acting on the assumption that they were important experiments, that the experiments were performed on professional criminals, who had volunteered and that after surviving the experiments, these criminals would be given certain advantages. I assumed that as far as my judgment could decide that these experiments were not dangerous and that was the basis for the sentence. Even today I can see nothing immoral in that. At the time the experiments were carried out, we were involved in a very serious war throughout Germany, day after day and night after night, men, women and children and to expect to be killed and possibly by the terrible method of burning to death and millions of people had to give up their lives at the front. Neither then nor now can I see anything immoral in using a professional criminal who volunteers for such experiments.
Q. Dr. Ruff, if the experiments which you approved, that is experiments to rescue plane crews from high altitude, were properly prepared and properly carried out, do you believe that three deaths or five deaths would be possible?
A. No, that would have been quite impossible. It is, of course, not entirely impossible that one death could have occurred by an unfortunate accident or a special circumstance, but with this one death the experiments would have come to an end, because this one death would have shown that from the height they were taking place, one could not count on certain rescue by parachute.
Q. Dr. Ruff, we know from the proceedings so far that after the chamber was returned to Berlin, Rascher, Wolff, even Himmler personally and also Sievers were at great pains to get the chamber back to Dachau, but this was frustrated by the Luftwaffe; did you have anything to do with this; what was your attitude toward this demand of the SS?
A. Yesterday I described briefly that I saw two letters from Wolff. The first was a telegram in May. The second was a letter from Wolff dated the beginning of June. In both cases Hippke agreed with me that Rascher was not to get the low pressure chamber back to Dachau. Of the later letters which are in the documents here I know nothing. Only a few months later I heard from Romberg that Sievers had called him up and had asked him whether he intended to perform new experiments with Rascher at Dachau. He, Sievers, had given the assignment to obtain and buy a mobile low pressure chamber for the SS. I reported this fact to the medical Inspectorate, to Dr. Recker-Freyseng I called his attention to this point and told him that I considered it superfluous for Dr. Rascher, who was still on the Luftwaffe then; even if he was to be assigned elsewhere, he should have his won low pressure chamber.
My attitude toward Mr. Rascher's experiments -and this led to the withdrawal of the chamber and the refusal to grant further experiments--was that I did not see any important, urgent reason to carry out experiments in which deaths could or had to occur. In addition to this attitude towards Rascher's experiments, there was another factor for me personally, which caused me not to collaborate with Rascher at all any more and not to carry out experiments in a concentration camp at all.
That was because of the minor things, above all the fact that during the experiments in the concentration camps one was completely in the hands of the camp commandants, Rascher or Himmler; that one had to subordinate oneself to these people; and that there was painful secrecy, no doubt at the instigation of Rascher, who wanted with this secrecy to avoid any results of these experiments turning up without his name being mentioned. On the one hand, he and Himmler demanded strict secrecy; and, on the other hand, he tried to have these results published. Later I also learned from Rascher that he had sent his own father to a concentration camp, or, rather, that he boasted about the fact that he had sent his own father to a concentration camp.
This showed me that this man had qualities of a character which made it impossible for me to work with him at all.
Q. Then, Ruff, you saw to it that Rascher was not able to experiment with the low pressure chamber at all any more and for this purpose through the co-defendant Becker-Freyseng you confiscated all production in this field for the Luftwaffe? Is that true?
A. No, that is not quite true. I was not able to do that. I was able only to warn the medical Inspectorate and give the suggestion to Becker-Freyseng.
Q. But Becker-Freyseng did confiscate all the production for this purpose in order to frustrate Rascher; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, witness, the witness Neff, whom we have mentioned several times, on the 18th of December stated here that approximately 180 to 200 prisoners had been used for the high altitude experiments, and about 70 to 80 of them had died. Neff did not make a distinction and was not able to make a distinction between the orderly experiments in which Romberg participated and the independent experiments of Rascher of which you knew nothing. Now, I ask you, when did you learn for the first time that 180 to 200 prisoners were used and that no less than 70 or 80 lost their lives? You said yesterday that only about twelve prisoners, between ten and fifteen, and always the same people, were used?
A. I heard these numbers for the first time here during the trial. During the interrogations I did not hear these figures.
Q. Dr. Ruff, you told us that you were told that these people were volunteers. Now, let us take the case that someone, Romberg or Rascher or Neff or the camp commandant, told you, We don't have any volunteers. The are simply assigned. What would you have done then when you know nothing about this trial? What attitude would you have taken then?
A. Then as well as today I would have refused to accept these prisoners. I would have had to refuse them. I have said yesterday that in our experiments for rescue from high altitude we were dependent on the active cooperation of the experimental subjects. The experimental subjects had to be interested in the experiments; otherwise, it was impossible to carry out the experiments properly. Even under the conditions prevailing at the time under the power of the commandant or Himmler I would have been able to refuse these experiments without any personal danger to myself by saying, "We cannot use involuntary subjects. It may be all very well from the legal point of view, but for these experiments we cannot use anyone except volunteers. These experiments can be performed only on volunteers." That would have been my point of view at that time; and I still hold this same position today.
Q. Dr. Ruff, you told us yesterday that Dr. Romberg had a definite program to clarify an important question for the Luftwaffe and that he had gone to Dachau with this program. Your report of the 28th of July 1942, the official report, which we discussed before, does it show that the Dachau, experiments, that is, the experiments which you approved, were actually limited to the necessary experiments, that is, the experiments which were necessary to clarify this problem for the Luftwaffe?
A. That is expressly mentioned several times in the report. On page 2 of the report it says, I quote: "I had to dispense with detailed clarification of purely scientific questions for the time being. On page 15 it says, I quote: "Since the slow sinking experiments without oxygen had reached the limit apparently, sinking experiments were carried out from higher altitudes with oxygen." On Page 16 it says, I quote: "Sinking experiments with even higher altitudes were not performed, since in practice there is no necessity to use the open parachute at such altitudes and expose oneself to the danger of freezing."
On the same page, in the next paragraph, it says, I quote: "Three falling experiments were begun at 14,000 meters in order to avoid having too large a number of experiments." On page 20 it says, "Experiments with explosive decompression without previous oxygen respiration were not carried out because we were working on the assumption that in combat the enemy pressure cabin planes can fly with an eight kilometer atmosphere." These quotations, I believe, show that the experiments were limited to what was absolutely necessary.
Q. Witness, Neff told us that in an alleged high altitude Experiment one experimental subject died and that then at 10,000 meters within the chamber an autopsy was performed. When did you first learn of this case?
A. I heard of this for the first time when Neff said that on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Dr. Ruff, we shall be finished in two or three minutes with the direct examination. We have only a few questions yet to put. Aside from the high altitude experiments with the low pressure chamber Dr. Rascher carried out numerous other experiments, for example the freezing experiments, the low temperature experiments, etc., which lead to many deaths or to severe damage to the subject's health; when and how did you hear of Dr, Rascher's further experiments?
A I knew only of low temperature experiments. I was at the freezing conference which has frequently been mentioned here in Nurnberg, and heard there Professor Holzloehner's report. When hearing this report did not have the impression that Dr. Holzloehner had had fatalities in his experiments. The preparation was such that one would certainly think when he was speaking of fatalities he was speaking of Seenot fatalities. It was known that Holzloehner had previously had a station to alleviate sea distress in the North Sea, and that he had complete experience about sea distress there. On this occasion I heard of low temperature experiments being carried out, that Himmler had told Rascher to carry out freezing experiments was known to me previously because when Rascher and Romberg reported to Himmler, Himmler mentioned this order to Rascher in some way and asked Romberg to participate in the experiments. At that time Romberg refused to do so on the grounds that he was not a specialist in this field. The Institute had never concerned itself with sea distress problems, and when he returned from this report to Himmler Romberg told me about this and asked me in case a request should be directed to the Institute that Romberg should participate in these experiments, -- I should help him to avoid participating in them. However, such a request never came. Otherwise, I never heard of any other experiment of Rascher either before or after that.
Q At the freezing conference in 27 October 1942 you were present?
A Yes, this was an Aviation Medicine Conference. There were several such, and even if the field under discussion there was not specifically our field, nevertheless, we were asked to attend these conferences, and if we had time to we participated in them.
Q In other words, you were there only as an auditor?
A Yes.
Q Because you were ordered to do so?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Ruff, you are also charged with conspiracy, in other words, conspiracy with all the other defendants, and those you were made co-responsible for everything that the other members did; for this reason it would interest me to know what relationship you had with the other members in the dock, and what relationship did you have with the experiments carried out by the doctors?
A Before I came to Nurnberg I knew of the co-defendants personally only Professor Schroeder; Professor Rose very slightly, we had seen each other once or twice; Dr. Romberg, of course; Dr. Becker Fryseng, Professor Weltz and Dr. Schaeffer. I met Dr. Schaeffer in 1945. I knew by name Professor Brandt, Professor Handloser and Professor Rostock, also Professor Gebhardt and Sievers, and otherwise no one. The others I knew neither personally or by name. I had professional relationships only with Professor Schroeder, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Becker Freyseng and Professor Weltz. Regarding experiments that are here under consideration, and on account of which the other defendants are accused, I heard here in Nurnberg as I have already said, only the freezing experiments, and in 1945 or the beginning of 1946 when I saw a report I had occasion also to find out about the drinking water experiments. It is of course to be understood that I may have heard something at the end of the war to the effect that experiments were being carried out to make sea water potable, but I cannot recall that, however, only of the experiments I heard of at the end of 1945 or the beginning of 1946.
Q Dr. Ruff, since you are speaking now of the drinking water experiments, I should like to direct your attention to what has been put in evidence in this case, namely the minutes of a meeting on the 19 of May 1944 in Document Book 5, exhibit 133, Document 177, these are minutes of a meeting in the Reich Air Ministry.
The Technical Office there from the rest of the distributors, it shows that a copy of these minutes was sent to your Institute, at least it is so stated, and under the list of those to whom the minutes were to be sent the Institute for Aviation Medicine, DVL, Berlin Adlershof, is mentioned. A representative of your Institute was not present at the conference of 19 May 1944, that is to be seen from the list of those present. However, among those present under No. 14, Unterarzt Dr. Schaeffer is mentioned. However, he did not belong to your institute, but to the so-called Luftfahrtforschungs Institute of the Reich Air Ministry, in other words, the Institute which Professor Strughold was in charge of, but Professor Strughold's Institute is not among these to whom the report is distributed, although a professor from that institute was present. Now, I shall be interested, to know whether in 1944, at any rate before the end of the War, you saw these minutes of May 1944; were they brought to your official attention?
A I cannot recall this document, and I believe I should remember it had been brought to my attention. Moreover I can't quite see why this report, these minutes should have been sent to me, because as I said before our Institute never concerned itself with any of the questions involved in sea distress, in other words, they did not concern themselves with making sea water potable.
Q Did Professor Strughold's Institute concern itself with that?
A Yes, they did, yes.
Q Did you not assume, Dr. Ruff, that the name of your Institute was included by accident in the name of those to which these minutes were distributed, because your Institute is almost identical in name to Professor Strughold's Institute?
A I consider that possible, but I do not know.
Q Dr. Ruff, in the course of the trial we have heard of numerous medical conferences, for example the regular conferences of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht meeting in St. Johann, Tyrol, Berlin, Hohlychen, and so forth; did you yourself take part in such conferences, or was your institute Represented there?
A I never took part in the conferences of the Consulting Physicians since I was not the consulting physician of any branch of the army. My co-workers also did not take part in any such conference, and I did not receive the reports from them.
Q Dr. Ruff, you knew of the experiments in Dachau, I should like to know now did you otherwise in a concentration camp or a prison or penitentiary, carry out experiments with prisoners or participate in such experiments?
A Neither before or after the Dachau experiments did I carry out experiments in a concentration camp or a prison or penitentiary.
DR. SAUTER: No more questions in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defense counsel desire to propound questions to this witness?
DR. WILLE: Dr. Wille for Weltz.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Dr. Ruff, let me ask a few questions. To compare, Professor Weltz, let me ask first of all that I gathered from your direct examination that you had known Professor Weltz possibly for a long time, as colleagues you had mutual respect and esteem, and therefore you may be able to state that all your agreements were carried out in this respect also?
A Yes, I have already said that when Professor Weltz made this opinion that experiments be carried out in Dachau I had known him for many years, and that I had no reason to suppose he was proposing any experiments which he considered unethical or about which he had any legal assumptions.
Q In order to clarify this matter, namely the matter of this affidavit, I should like you to describe briefly just what I am talking about here in Document NO-437, page 46, of the German Document Book, page 46 in the Document Book, you said "I believe that Weltz told me in December he wanted me to carry out experiments in the concentration camp of Dachau; it would be well if specialists in this field would help in these experiments, and for this reason Weltz got in touch with me.
