Q During your direct collaboration with him could you over say that he didn't seem reliable to work on his own initiative?
A No. On the contrary Romberg distinguished himself in all his experiments by his particular care and particular reliability. With no qualms at all I could let him carry out any experiments as the responsible experimenter. I had no occasion to warn him in any way about anything but he experimented with the greatest of circumspection.
Q In view now of the possibility of giving pain to the experimental subject I should like to know what the nature was of those various experiments that you mentioned yesterday? Which was the one that was the most likely to cause pain?
A I believe that of all the experiments that we ever carried out those were subjectively the most unpleasant, namely the most painful, concerning research int the effects of cold and oxygen.
In these cases, before the real experiment, the subject was subjected to temperatures as low as 40 centigrade below zero for an hour or more. The subjects were lightly clothed. These experments were, at least to me, the most unpleasant.
Q. You are speaking now of high altitude experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. I was not referring to high altitude experiments, but I was referring to experiments such as you referred to yesterday. Yesterday you listed a whole number of experiments that were not high altitude experiments but which were necessary for research int aviation problems. Now, I want to ask you whether high altitude experiments were more painful than other experiments you carried out?
A. No. In my direct examination I said that the greatest part of the high altitude experiments were completely painless, namely all these in which one experiences high altitude sickness.
Q. Was it necessary that the experiments carried out in Dachau within the framework of your program all had to load to high altitude sickness?
A. Yes, in all cases there was altitude sickness that lasted for a greater or shorter length of time.
Q. You said that during altitude sickness the experimental subject feels no pain, is that so?
A. Yes. The subject is unconscious and feels no pain.
Q. Is the subject susceptible to pain up to the moment when the sickness occurs, or is it possible that the experimental subject up to that moment is subject to conditions that cause him pain?
A. I described the course that altitude sickness takes, and I said at first that if the oxygen supply is interrupted at a certain altitude, then for a short period of time -- and that period of time depends on how high the subject is - the experimental subject is fully capable of action. At that moment he is susceptible of feeling pain.
Q. Up to the moment - please answer this question whether up to the moment when high altitude sickness occurs, the experiments carried out in the framework of your program in Dachau - could cause pain to the experimental subject?
A. No.
Q. Further, according to what you said one would not feel pain during altitude sickness. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Could the experimental subject suffer pain from the moment of waking up on?
A. After the experimental subject regained consciousness it was possible for him to suffer pain because he was capable of action then.
Q. In the Dachau experiments was there cause for pain to the experimental subject after regaining consciousness?
A. No, but after he regained consciousness and was descending he could fool pressure on the car drums.
Q Was there subsequent pain as a result of these experiments?
A No.
Q Do you remember that Dr. Romberg at the beginning of the experiments took an electrocardiogram of each experimental subject, took one also during the experiment, and a third electrocardiogram after the experiments? Did you know that?
A Yes, I knew that, because that was necessary if we wanted to be able to say in the report later that there was no lasting dilatorious effect.
Q These electrocardiograms that were taken three times on each experimental subject which Romberg took with him to Berlin-Adlershof, did you see them?
A Yes.
Q Were you present when they were evaluated?
AAs far as I know, I was not.
Q Do you know, from this evaluation that was undertaken, that no lasting harmful effects were observed at that time in the case of the experimental subjects?
A Yes; I did see the results of the final evaluation.
Q Who showed this to you?
A Dr. Romberg.
Q In other words you know even at that time this and didn't find it out here?
A Yes, that is so.
Q Now, regarding the dangerousness of these experiments, an I to believe that the experiments that are the most painful are not also the most dangerous?
A Yes, that is so. You have to distinguish in such experiments between subjective pain and the danger. These can be two quite different things.
Q From all experiments in your experience that you described yesterday which do you think are the most dangerous?
A I should say that experiments to ascertain the influence of flying with the person lying parallel with the motion of the flight, in which the head is toward the outside, on the centrifugal machine. I should say that is the most dangerous of all.
Q You consider that more dangerous than high altitude experiments?
A In general, yes.
Q This experiment that you just described, was that carried out in Dachau?
A No, they were carried out by our institutes as self-experiments.
Q I am speaking now only of high altitude experiments. Please disregard the other experiments. In your opinion, what is the most dangerous experiment that you ever carried out in a low pressure chamber?
A The most dangerous experiment within the framework of our high altitude experiments including the Dachau experiments - and I am now referring to high altitude experiments - of all of them I consider most dangerous the one Romberg carried out on himself and which is mentioned in the report. I did not know this from what I knew at this time but from what I learned since. I believe in this experiment Romberg came close to death.
Q What is that experiment and why do you consider it the most dangerous.
A Romberg experimented on himself at 13,500 meters in which he suffered severe experiences of blinding, paralysis, etc.
Q But, don't you believe that the experiments at the height of 20,000 meters are more dangerous?
A The dangerousness of high altitude experiments docs not depend exclusively on the altitude but depends on lack of oxygen to which the body is subjected. That is to say, I can conduct experiments at 20,000 meters that are relatively not dangerous and carry out relatively dangerous experiments at 13,000 meters. If in one case, at 20,000 meters the stay is very brief, and in another case, at 13,000 meters, I let the person stay for a long time.
Q Before the beginning of the Dachau experiments it was clear to you what sort of experiments were to be carried out?
A Yes.
Q Let us take the average experiment, such as was carried out in the framework of the Dachau experiments, let us compare it to other high altitude experiments such as you were accustomed to carry out. Were the Dachau experiments more dangerous than other high altitude experiments you were accustomed to carry out?
A On the average they were certainly no more dangerous than experiments we carried out at our institute.
Q Were they more dangerous than those carried out at the Aero Medical Center?
A No, and particularly in view of present experiences we know that the experiment we carried out in Heidelberg were considerably more dangerous to life than the bailing out experiments.
Q Now one other question. Am I correct in saying that there was a research assignment already in existence when the Dachau experiments began, and this assignment concerned rescue from groat heights?
A Yes, that is so.
Q Is it also correct that you received this assignment from the Air Ministry via Hippke and concerned itself with rescue from high altitudes?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Is it further true that you had already carried out a series of experiments to solve this problem?
A Yes, that is so.
The PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened, at 1330 hours, 29 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. VOWERK (Counsel for the defendant Romberg):
Q. Dr. Ruff, before the recess we had stopped at the statement that the Dachau experiments represented a part of those experiments which were part of the program of saving people in high altitudes, that is to say, that before the Dachau experiments began there were in your institute experiments carried out on the question, as well as subsequent to the Dachau experiments, on the same subject, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. During the first conferences with Rascher was there any mention to the effect that experimental subjects might die?
A. In the first discussions with Rascher we spoke of the danger involved in the experiments, and on this occasion as well as later when we talked to the camp commander at Dachau we pointed out that in our opinion, that is, in human judgment, no deaths were to be reported.
Q. During the first conference with Rascher did you think that he purely wanted to participate in the high altitude experiments, or could you see from his whole attitude that he wanted to go beyond that and make experiments of his own whether on his own initiative or by Himmler's orders?
A. At this discussion in Munich and in the discussions afterwards not a word was said about any other experiments which were planned or were to be carried out. We discussed merely the experiments for rescue from high altitude.
Q. Did Rascher not at that time already mention that he intended to make his thesis to be a lecturer - in the field of high altitude experiments? Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Did Rascher at that time show that, apart from the high altitude experiments, he also had to make experiments in order to he able to write his thesis in this field?
A. I don't know anything about that. In any case, I do not recall such statements on the part of Rascher in connection with the discussion in Munich at that time.
Q When did you, for the first time, tell Romberg about Weltz proposition?
A Following Weltz visit to my institute in Berlin - either on the same day or the next day.
Q Did you, at that time know that Rascher was a member of the SS?
A No, I did not know that when Dr. Weltz was in Berlin. I don't believe that I heard anything about Dr. Rascher's belonging to the SS.
Q When did you first hear that Rascher had been given permission by Hippke to make high altitude experiments at Dachau?
AAt this first discussion with professor Weltz, Professor Weltz told me that the Medical Inspector Hippke, a few months before that, had already given his fundamental approval for such experiments in Dachau.
Q Would it therefore be correct to say that Rascher both had the permission of Hippke to carry out the experiments and Himmler's approval to carry out the experiments?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Do you believe that Rascher would have made experiments in Dachau if the DVL had not participated?
A Yes, I am convinced of it.
Q Do you believe that the DVL would have made experiments in Dachau if Rascher would not have taken part at all?
A The question is not easy to answer. The prerequisite for the participation or the execution of these experiments at Dachau was that some one had the permission to perform such experiments in Dachau, and that was Rascher.
Q Let me put my question a different way. Do you believe that the DVL, even if it had wanted to, would have been in a position to carry out experiments in Dachau without Rascher?
A No, I consider that impossible.
Q But you are of the opinion that Rascher, without the DVL, would actually have made such experiments?
A I am convinced of that, yes.
Q But you know that Rascher did not possess a low pressure chamber. Do you believe that Rascher's connections would have been sufficient to obtain a low pressure chamber?
A I am convinced that if Rascher had gone to Himmler, and Himmler had demanded that a low pressure chamber be put at his disposal, that he would have received it.
Q Are you of the conviction that by yours or Romberg's measures the low pressure chamber was, in fact, removed from Dachau earlier than Rascher actually intended it to be?
A Yes, I believe that that is proved by the documents we have here too.
Q Do you also believe that by Romberg's presence in Dachau, Rascher was impeded in his experiments or, at least, limited, and up to a certain point was prevented by that presence?
A That is, for me at least, clear from what we have learned in the, course of the trial here. The witness Neff, for example, says that Rascher always took advantage of the time when Romberg was not there - that is, in the, evening - for his experiments. If Romberg had not been present, he would, no doubt, have had the whole day for such experiments and would, no doubt, have carried out more experiments then he actually did.
Q Do you agree with me in this idea that first of all Rascher would have carried out his experiments in Dachau even without the DVL, and that, secondly, he would have been less interrupted in his experiments, and, thirdly, that he could have kept the low pressure chamber as long as he regarded it as necessary, or as long as Himmler gave him his permission? Do you believe that these ideas are correct?
A I am convinced of it.
Q How many experimental subjects with green triangles did you see?
A I can't give you the exact figure - ten to fifteen approximately.
Q Did you see where those people were billeted?
A Yes, during the day that I was at Dachau I was practically all the time at the low pressure chamber or in the room adjacent to the billet of these men.
Q And all the experimental subjects whom you saw on that occasion were wearing a green triangle, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q When did you, for the first time hear that Rascher, apart from those experiments to rescue people from high altitudes, used the same low pressure chamber, which was used for those experiments, without your and Romberg's knowledge, made experiments of a different kind?
A I heard that for the first time when Romberg came to Berlin and reported the fact to me, and I believe on the same occasion he reported that a death had occurred.
Q You don't know whether Romberg told you before the first fatality occurred?
A No, I don't remember that.
Q Do you regard it as possible that Romberg talked to you about this and that you might have forgotten it?
A That is possible.
Q Now, when you heard about the first fatality did you modify your program to rescue people from high altitudes or did you leave it as it was? Did you change it or shorten it?
A We shortened it.
Q Did that not endanger the result of the whole experiment?
A No, the result was not endangered. The experiments were not shortened to that extent. We would merely dispense with a few minor things which were not essential.
Q What was your first reaction when you heard about the first fatality?
A My reaction was that I completely agreed with Romberg that our experiments had to be concluded quickly so that we could prevent Rascher's continuing his experiments.
Q Did you not conceive the idea of desisting altogether from further experiments?
A We did think of that briefly.
Q And why did you give it up?
A We decided against it because, in the first place, our experiments which had already been carried out would have been in vain, but, secondly, and especially because, by giving up our experiments, we would not have prevented Rascher's experiments. What we were primarily interested in was, on the one hand, to complete the experiments but, on the other hand, to see to it that the low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau; but that was possible only by completing our experiments so that we could say that the experiments for which the chamber was sent to Dachau are completed, and we also said the chamber is urgently needed. Only in this way could we even think of getting the chamber out of Dachau.
Q How was it then not to interrupt the experiments rather than choose the other way?
A Would you please repeat the question? I didn't hear the beginning.
Q Whose idea was it to determine not to interrupt the experiments but take the other way? Would it not have been possible to break off the experiments altogether?
A I believe that this idea originated with Romberg. If I remember correctly, my first reaction was that I said: "All right, you are in Berlin, you will stay here and we'll stop the experiments."
Q Would it have been possible at that time to break off the experiments and get back the chamber?
A It would have been possible merely to break off the experiments. It would not have been possible to get the chamber back.
Q I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to the witness on the part of defense counsel?
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Witness, you have described in a general way the low pressure chamber and the experiments that you say were carried out with this chamber. Will you please tell the Tribunal just exactly what equipment and machinery is necessary for the conduct of high altitude experiments.
A Yesterday I said that the chamber itself consists of a room which is sealed against pressure. The door of this chamber is constructed in such a way that the inside of the chamber is sealed hermetically against the air from outside. In the chamber itself there are benches and tables to accommodate the person conducting the experiment and the subject, and also in the chamber, for each person, there is a supply of oxygen. There is a so-called "lung automat" - that is, a apparatus which controls the supply of oxygen to the inmates of the chamber in such a way that during the inspiration phase of breath, oxygen is supplied and during the expiration, no oxygen is supplied. This control of the supply of oxygen goes through a tube and is connected to the mask which the inmate of the chamber wears. The oxygen which is supplied through this apparatus comes from a bottle of compressed oxygen - that is, a steel container in which the oxygen is under high pressure. This oxygen is supplied to the "lung automat" through a thin tube. In the chamber there is also a valve so that the experimenter, who may be in the chamber too, will be able to start a descent. Now, the chamber is connected by a system of tubes with valves to a number of pumps - to one or several pumps - and these pumps pump the air out of the chamber. The speed with which the air is pumped out can be regulated by a valve which is outside the chamber at the controls. In the chamber, in general, there is also a meter which gives approximately the altitude. There are also sprays and medicine for reviving the subjects in the chamber. In addition to the tubes leading to the pumps, there is another system of tubing which leads to the fresh air outside. The other end of this tube opens into the chamber. Between the two ends of this tube there is a valve which one can open and close. For decent, this valve is opened and air is introduced into the chamber.
This increases the pressure and this brings about descent. Outside of the chamber, at the controls, there is another altimeter which consists of the mercury column which measure the altitude exactly. That is, the altitude not read directly, in general, but the pressure in millimeters of mercury which is later calculated to what altitude this indicates.
Q. Will you please explain to the Tribunal the procedure which you would use for conducting what you called explosive decompression test; how are the men seated, how are they equipped, and what is the precise procedure for such a test?
A. If we start with the conditions of this mobile chamber which was used at Dachau, the big low pressure chamber itself is rather a big room which has room for 10 or perhaps as many as 12 persons. In this big chamber no explosive decompression tests can be carried out. For such tests there is in addition to the big chamber a small chamber which can hold two people at the most. The two people sit on a small bench facing each other. The small chamber is otherwise equipped just like the big one is, hermetically sealed. It has windows for observation. It has telephone communications and between the big and the small chamber is a very big valve with two openings of about 15 centimeters diameter each. In order to carry out such an explicit decompression test the big chamber is pumped out to a certain altitude. After this has been done the subject enters the small chamber. Depending on the experiment he is either with or without oxygen equipment. There is a telephone, and the subject goes into the chamber. and now in Dachau the experiments were generally performed in this way. There is a slow ascent to 8 or 10,000 meters, generally with oxygen. This altitude for beginning the experiment as chosen because in the military planes the crews who normally fly in pressure cabins under pressure corresponding to 3,000 meters, have instructions as soon as there is any danger to reduce the pressure in their cabins so that it will correspond to 8,000 meters. The purpose of this was that the crew should be forced, even before the acute danger existed, to use their oxygen equipment because they could not fly at 8,000 meters without oxygen, so that if something actually does happen they have already their oxygen equipment on. Now, I come back to our experiment. The subjects go up slowly to eight to ten thousand meters, they were generally left there for a few minutes, so that they would be given an opportunity to get rid of the gas from their bodies.
In the stomach there is always a little air or gas that expands When the altitude increases, and they were to get rid of this gas, so that it would not expand further at greater altitude, and interfere with breathing. The same conditions exist in practice. Then came the experiment proper, this experiment consisted of two parts, the explosive decompression and the following parachute jump. That follows the explosive decompression to the altitude for a parachute jump. A slow ascent to this altitude is not possible, I have already said that above 13 or 14 thousand meters altitude sickness occurs. If one had gone up to these altitude slowly one would arrive at the desires altitude with an air sick subject that would not have corresponded to the conditions of practice. Now, to get back to our experiment, the explosive decompression follows; this is brought about in the following way between the big chamber and the small chamber, the big valve is opened. The air is suddenly drawn from the small chamber into the big chamber. The pressure between these two chambers was coordinated. Such sudden rises are not possible with pumps of normal dimensions. Now, the experimental subjects were at the altitude for the beginning of the actual experiment, and start the part of the experiment in which we were interested.
Q. How long did it take to decompress the small chamber so that the compression in the small chamber would be the same as it was in the large chamber?
A. about one second. The actual speed of this adjustment depends on how the valve is manipulated, but It would be about one second.
Q. Then when that occurred and the pressures were equalized how did this complete the experiment to simulate a parachute jump down to a ceiling where a person could exist without the aid of oxygen, and could simply get their breathing substance from the air itself, wasn't that the second phase of this experiment?
A. That was the experiment proper. The part of the experiment which we were primarily interested in there. After the altitude for the experiment had been reached the subject remained for a few seconds at this altitude. The purpose of this was to simulate as closely as possible the conditions of practice, because if there is such explicit decompression within a plane it takes a certain length of time before the crew members can jump. After a few seconds of waiting at this altitude the pressure in this small chamber was increased. That is the descent was broken, and the speed of this increase of pressure was so regulated that it corresponded to the speed of falling without a parachute, and in other experiments it corresponded to the speed of falling with an open parachute. With this falling speed so regulated the chamber descended to zero meters, and that was the end of the experiment. That we were interested in, in these experiments, was to determine whether and when the experimental subjects were able to carry out an order or instructions which had been given before the experiment after overcoming altitude sickness. That is a person in an airplane is told after such a thing happens to you then to jump first. You don't do anything and when you come to without then you pull the rip cord of your parachute. The same thing was said to the experimental subjects, and after they came to after suffering altitude sickness they manipulated a lever which in the experiment represented the rip cord of the parachute. In manipulating this lever the experiment was actually ended, and then the chamber was brought down to zero meters. That actually had nothing to do with the experiment.
Q. From the time that you would embark on one of these experiments until you considered the experiment at an end; what length of time would be required?
A. That differed greatly, It depended on whether these were slow sinking experiments, that is experiments to assimilate falling with a parachute or free falling experiments, which corresponded to falling without a parachute. Roughly, one can say the following without making too great a mistake; one can conclude for the falling experiments: 10 seconds per 1,000 meters; for the sinking experiments per 1,000 meters - one minute. I believe that is accurate enough for these conditions, but in the original of our report there is an exact chart of the time that the individual experiments took.
Q. You could recollect then what would be an average time for the completion of an explosive decompression test from the time that the experimental subject actually took is seat in the small chamber until you carried through the assimilation of depressurized small cabin and the descent down to zero; would take twenty minutes, thirty or five minutes, what length of time would it take?
A. For one experiment, I would like to submit the figure for the highest altitude 21,000 meters, rising to 8,000 meters, it taken two or three minutes, weight measure 5 minutes, that makes 8 minutes. The other rise to 21,000 meters, one can ignore as far as time is concerned, that is about one-tenth of a second. Then the acent from 21,000 let us say to 10,000 meters is where the actual experiment is really finished normally if there is no difficulty with the ear, it would take two or three minutes; that would make a total of twelve or thirteen minutes for the experiment.
Q. Then, you would say that from the time the experimental subject actually seated himself in the chamber until the experiment was concluded it consumed somewhere between twelve end fifteen minutes?
A. That is about right, yes.
Q. Now, during all that period of time I understand that certain observations were being made by physicians, technicians, researchers or attaches to regard Behring results, I suppose the pulse counts, cardiogram and that sort of thing; is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. To conduct such an experiment, now I mean the explosive decompression test; how many physicians, technicians and attaches were normally necessary to manipulate the chamber and the air pressure and to check and to tabulate the results?
A. For such an experiment, if I should give the minimum personnel, we needed a doctor to observe the subject and one technician to manipulate the chamber to take care of the pumps, to be in the machine room, etc. The observing doctor, if it was an experiment on the small chamber, could look from the window into the chamber and with his left hand regulate the decent.
Q. Then, you say that for this explosive decompression test, the matter could satisfactorily be concluded with one doctor and one technician; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is the minimum.
Q. In the tests you conducted how many doctors, technicians and attaches did you have?