In other words, report that immediately to Hippke?
A. On a day that followed this conference. Of course, I don't know today whether one or two days later after I had discussed this proposal with Romberg I went to Hippke and also discussed this problem with Hippke. On this occasion I became convinced that Hippke had given his approval in principle months ago for experiments in Dachau and on this occasion got Hippke's approval for the experiments and for the use of the low pressure chamber for this.
Q. As a matter of fact, Hippke had talked to Rascher and Weltz prior to the time he visited you, that is Weltz visited you, isn't that right?
A. Yes, Hippke told me that, namely that a few months ago Rascher and Koppenhoff, I do not know whether Weltz took part, had a discussion with him in Munich about the question of high altitude experiments.
Q. Hippke at that time approved of the experiments, didn't he, as planned?
A. When I was with Hippke he gave his approval for these experiments.
Q. Well, now then you proceeded to have a meeting in Munich at Weltz's Institute. When did that meeting take place?
A. I can't remember that for sure today but it was in the beginning of 1942.
Q. Who was present at that meeting?
A. Present - Professor Weltz, Dr. Rascher, Dr. Romberg and myself.
Q. Wasn't Dr. Lutz and Dr. Wendt the there
A. Drs. Lutz and Wendt were not present at this discussion.
Q. Well, now, don't I recall Dr. Lutz stating here that you and Romberg visited the Institute in Munich and upon arrival he met with you at the same time with Wendt and then Weltz, Rascher, Romberg and yourself got to the part of this discussion which would involve the work to be done at the Dachau Concentration Camp. Thereupon Lutz and Wendt were asked to leave the room. I believe you will find that in the record of this trial on page 279 and that is the testimony of Lutz. Well, now did you talk to Lutz about these matters to any extent at all prior to the time Lutz was asked to leave the room?
A. Of course, when I was there in Munich in the Institute I also spoke with Lutz.
Q. Were Lutz and Wendt men who had done considerable work on high altitude research work with animals?
Q. Of Lutz I know that he had done work in the field of high altitude experimentation.
Q. Well, then why would it be necessary or why was it necessary to ask Lutz, a man who had considerable knowledge of high altitude research, to leave the room?
A. This request that Lutz should leave the room was not known to me. I heard his testimony here but with the best will in the world I cannot recall that upon this occasion Lutz was sent from the room. Please keep in mind that this took place about five years ago and I am quite willing to admit the possibility that some such thing did happen. On the other hand I believe that Lutz's failure to participate in this discussion is nothing so very unusual. As I imagine that in my institute received visitors, let us say Professor Wendt and Lutz, and we had something to discuss then I should have thought it a matter of course to ask my collaborators who were in the same room to leave the room.
I think that is so a matter of course the two wouldn't have to do much talking about it.
Q That's very true, but we first must consider that when the witness Lutz was here in this court room he stated that he was offered the position that you had relative to Rascher at Dachau. In other words, Weltz had asked Lutz to collaborate with Rascher at Dachau and Lutz said here on the stand that he considered himself not ruthless enough to conduct high altitude experiments on human beings in concentration camps. That is on page 269 of the record. Do you recall that?
A Yes, I remember that testimony.
Q Well, taking that into consideration, it would appear that Lutz would have had some interest in this particular conference, would he not, had it not been determined by the members of this conference that they wanted it kept secret?
A It seems to me that the opposite is the case. If this really was the case, as you have described it; namely, that Weltz asked Lutz ahead of time to carry on the experiments and Lutz here states that he didn't feel himself ruthless enough to carry out such experiments, then there certainly wouldn't have been any reason to send him from the room.
Q Well, now, you apparently did not agree with the attitude that Lutz exhibited here before this Tribunal when he stated, on page 302 of the record, that he himself would not have carried out such experiments on a god, much less on a human being.
A Mr. Prosecutor, I believe I have to correct you here. In the German record of what the witness said - at least, as I understood it he never testified that he wouldn't have carried, out such experiments, even on a dog, such as we carried out on human beings. The witness did not say that. The witness said he did not feel himself to be robust enough for such experiments.
Q Yes, you will find that, Doctor - I won't argue with you on that point... You will find that on page 269 of the record - "robust" - and you will find, on page 302, the expression I quoted to you. In addition, to that, Dr. Wendt also refused to participate in these experiments. Now, inasmuch as you are an expert in this field of research, why do you suppose these two gentlemen, who were also men of considerable reputation in the field of high altitude research, had such strenuous Misgivings about conducting experiments at Dachau?
A. Let me point out first of all that, at that time, I did not know that these two gentlemen had allegedly received an offer from Weltz to carry out such experiments and had refused. I still doubt that. And I believe that the witness Wendt will in the course of this week, testify on this matter. It is very hard for me to say why these men refused to accept Weltz's offer. Yesterday I described the experiments that we carried out on ourselves. I told you the conditions under which I gave my approval for these experiments in Dachau and I can say for myself that I had neither legal nor moral misgivings about these experiments. As you have seen from the testimony of prosecution witnesses here -first Leibbrandt -the physician can take the point of view that he repudiates all human experiments. That is one point of view which everyone must respect. On the other hand, there are physicians who embrace a different point of view.
Q. Well now, when was the low pressure chamber ordered down to Dachau?
A. Again I can't tell you the precise day. It was after the 12th of February. I know that on the 12th of February the chamber was still in Berlin and the chamber must have gone to Dachau after that date; roughly, at the end of the first half of February or the beginning of the second half of February.
Q. Well now, prior to the ordering of the low pressure chamber to Dachau had you yourself been to the concentration camp - that is, prior to the time the low pressure chamber arrived?
A. Yes, I have already said that after this discussion in Weltz's institute - I believe on the next day - there was a discussion in the concentration camp of Dachau with the camp commander.
Q. When did Rascher and Romberg and yourself select the volunteers to be used in the experiments?
A. Neither Romberg nor myself chose these volunteers. Before Romberg came down to Dachau for these experiments, of these sixty persons who had applied Rascher Chose those who Were suitable for our purposes.
Q. Well now, after the low Pressure chamber arrived in Dachau, did the experiments begin immediately?
A. I can't say that for sure today. The witness Neff testified that on the 19th of February, or perhaps on the 22nd of February, if I remember correctly, the experiments began. It is also possible that the first experiments took place on this day, but the documents show that there was then a pause of a considerable length of time because there were some difficulties with Rascher, and then, at the beginning of March, the experiments really began. That is what I know on the basis of the documents and Neff's testimony. Of my own knowledge I don't know that.
Q. Well now, the volunteers were selected after the pressure chamber had arrived at Dachau, is that right? In other words, the experiments began some time after the pressure chamber arrived? Now, did they then select the particular subjects to be used or accept the volunteers after the arrival of the low pressure chamber?
A. I can't answer that in detail. I was not at Dachau when the chamber arrived, nor was I there at the beginning of the experiments. Thus, I cannot answer that question with Precision.
Q. Well, you have stated here that your reason for accepting this invitation to participate in these experiments at Dachau was because of the fact that the subjects to be used were volunteers. Now, didn't you yourself, acting as a prudent person, ascertain the existence of a group of volunteers before you sent this chamber to Dachau? Suppose you sent the chamber all the way to Dachau and you couldn't get a volunteer, which obviously was the case? You sent the chamber to Dachau before you even had ascertained whether or not any one had volunteered for these experiments, didn't you?
A. That is so, yes. But the situation was that the camp commander told us during this discussion that we should have no difficulty in find ing enough volunteers.
He asked us, nevertheless, to keep the number of prisoners whom we should need to a minimum since he needed all the inmates of the camp for work.
Q. Well now, Doctor, you apparently received the authorization from Hippke prior to the time that you sent the chamber to Dachau. Now, this chamber was a mobile chamber, was it not?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. That is, the chamber itself was mounted onto a tractor?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. And it was possible for the chamber to be driven from Berlin to Dachau on the Autobahn, I presume?
A. Yes.
Q. Well now, you sent the chamber first of all to Munich to Weltz's institute, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why was the chamber sent to Weltz's institute rather than having been sent directly to Dachau?
A. In my direct examination I explained that yesterday. The chamber, on its way to Dachau, went via Munich. During the discussion with the camp commander in Dachau we talked about whom the drivers should turn to. The chamber belonged to the Luftwaffe and should certainly be turned over to a member of the Luftwaffe. Moreover, we did not know when the chamber would reach Dachau. It was winter, there was snow, so that you couldn't foresee when the chamber would arrive. Rascher was not at Dachau but was either in Munich or Schongau, and while we were discussing these things the camp commander asked whether the drivers were informed what sort of experiments were to take place. We, of course, denied that because it was not our custom to tell the drivers what sort of experiments we were doing. And then the commander said, "If that is the case, then I want that chamber to stay in Munich for the time being because, otherwise, the drivers will spread some rumors to the effect that the people to be used in it are about to be chosen. For this reason, on the wish of the camp commander, the chamber stayed in Munich
Q. Well, as a matter of fact it only stayed in Munich until such time as it got dark, didn't it, and then they drove it into Dachau, that is two SS men came from Dachau and relieved the DVL drivers after dark and drove the chamber to the Dachau concentration camp, isn't that exactly what happened?
A. I don't believe that is so. I wasn't present, but from what I heard the drivers reached Munich in the evening, left the papers and keys to the chamber with Weltz, and then in the course of the next day the chamber was sent on to Dachau. This is the first time I heard that the chamber was taken to Dachau under cover of darkness. on the contrary I believe that the chamber reached Munich on a February afternoon when it was already dark, and the papers were delivered and then when daylight came on the next day and the chamber was sent on to Dachau. That is the way I see it.
Q. Now, Doctor, when was the first time that you talked to any of the subjects that were being used in these experiments?
A. When I was in Dachau to take a look at the experiments.
Q. Did you ever personally stop one of the subjects and ask him "did you volunteer for this experiment?"
A. No, I have already said that I already knew that these subjects were volunteers. When Romberg was in Berlin for the visit and after the experiments started he told me about the quality of these experimental subjects, consequently I had no occasion to inquire about that again. I received a sort of indirect corroboration of this when I asked one of the experimental subjects how many persons had applied and I received the answer "about 60" In other words, I did't ask directly whether experimental subjects were volunteers because as I have said I knew that already.
Q. Now, we have heard here in this courtroom the opinion of Professor Leibbrandt, Rose, Sievers and others as to the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment; what is your moral attitude about the capacity of a prisoner to volunteer for an experiment?
A. It is my opinion that a prisoner is altogether in a position to volunteer for an experiment. From the purely legal point of view so far as I can judge the prisoner is altogether in a position to carry out legal business, consequently he can also decide whether he is to participate in an experiment or not.
Q. Well, then it is your opinion that a person, even though incarcerated can actually in the direct sense of the word, volunteer for a medical experiment?
A. I am of that view, that both a prisoner or a non-prisoner can volunteer for experiments.
Q. If that be the case why was the criminal status of these subjects to be used in the high altitude experiments of any consequence?
A. Of course, it is easier in experiments to give approval if the subjects are habitual criminals and not some other people who because of their ideology or politics or some other reason are being kept prisoner. I am of course of the opinion that I am permitted to carry out experiments on political prisoner if these gentlemen volunteer. But regarding the possibility of carrying out experiments on political prisoners, there was no discussion on that occasion at all. Then Weltz made this proposal to me and told me that Hippke had given his permission, I asked who these prisoners were and he told me that they were habitual criminals who had volunteered. Thus the question whether or not we might experiment on political prisoners never came up in this connection.
Q. And it is your contention that the persons used at Dachau were not only subjects condemned to death, but also included habitual criminals, that is people with 10, 20 or 30 years sentence, is that right?
A. The experimental subjects which were used in our experiments, namely the 10 or 15 who were always at the experimental station, were not persons condemned to death so far as I know, rather this was a group of experimental subjects who were under protective custody.
Q. How, what did you or your group offer these habitual criminals?
A. You mean the recompense that they should receive?
Q. Yes.
A. We offered them nothing on our part. We had no possibility of doing so, because the recompense would have to be determined by the office that had charge of these people, namely Himmler, only he could promise recompense, and see to it that it was given, and as the witness Neff here has testified, he promised these people that after the experiments they would be pardoned.
Q. Now, inasmuch as you and Romberg were involved in these experiments, did you yourself make any attempt to investigate the status of a prisoner after he had been subjected to the experiments in the high altitude research work?
A. After carrying out those experiments when Rascher came to us to turn in in opinion, we asked how this business of pardoning prisoners was coming along. Rascher said that he had seen to that, and thereafter we did not concern ourselves with this matter, because that was not our job and was not within our power. That was the job of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q Of course Rascher never exhibited to you the letter that he received from Heinrich Himmler stating that Rascher had the power to pardon some of these inmates after they had once gone through the experiments to the extent that they had died and if they could have been recalled to life that their sentences could have been committed to life imprisonment in the concentration camp; did he call that to your attention which was the offer that these inmates had?
A No, I saw that letter here for the first time among the Documents.
Q Well, now, as I understand it from direct examination, you maintain that there are actually two sets of experiments at Dachau in the field of high altitude research, namely, those experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and those experiments for the benefit of the SS, conducted solely by Rascher as ordered by Himmler and the experiments that were conducted by Ruff and Romberg; is that correct?
A Yes, that is true to the extent that on the one hand there were experiments in descent from high altitude and on the other hand, as can be seen from the documents; there was not one experimental series but several short ones which Rascher carried out on Himmler's orders.
Q And these are the experiments where death occurred; is that right, the Rascher experiments, the SS experiments, so to speak?
A Fatalities occurred in Rascher's experiments and in the experiments concerning high altitude there were none.
Q Now, when these gentlemen from the concentration camp volunteered for the experiments, was is not clear to these subjects that they were, volunteering for the experiments to be conducted under the guidance of Ruff an Romberg rather than the fatal experiments to be conducted under Rascher independently?
A That was told to the persons who volunteered individually for the experiments that, of course, I cannot report on to you, because I was not present; but what they were told was that these were high alti tudc experiments and that so far as could be seen , these experiments were not dangerous to life.
When Romberg went to Dachau, he told the experimental subjects precisely just what the nature of the experiments was to be. This was necessary so that the subjects would be in position to participate in a sensible manner in these experiments, namely should be able to do what was expected of them in the experiments. The experimental subjects that we had for your experiments, were certainly told at considerable length what these experiments had as the goal and they were also certainly told that there would not be any serious danger as fatalities or death.
Q One last question along these lines; Doctor, in the course of these experiments who determined whether or not the volunteer was a volunteer for Rascher or for Ruff and Romberg. In other words, when an experimental subject entered the prison chamber, was he given a tap on the shoulder, was he told you are Rascher subject, you are Ruff's experimental subject, or did they wear jerseys, one having SS on it and the other Luftwaffe?
A I have already said that the experimental subjects, who participated in cur experiments, were kept permanently at this experimental block, that they were there throughout the whole period and participated in all the experiments in high altitude and that nothing happened to a any of them. I remember the witnesses Neff and Vieweg testified and both of these collaborated with this.
Q Did you check on the status of each and everyone of the experimental subjects that were set aside, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher experiments, namely 60 subjects.
A I did not quite understand the question.
Q You have stated here that some sixty experimental subjects were set aside in one group to be used in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher experiments, after the conclusion of the experiments, did you check and can you tell this Tribunal under oath that each and every one of those sixty experimental subjects are now living?
A I believe there must have been an error in translation. I did not say that sixty persons were reserved for the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher experiments, I said that from a number of about sixty of these prisoners about then or fiteen were chosen, who were constantly present at the experimental station, as experimental subjects.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o' clock tomorrow morning.
( The Tribunal recessed until 09,30 Hours, 30 April, 1947).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR.SIEGFRIED RUFF - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Ruff, continuing our discussion regarding the subjects used in the experiments at Dachau, you maintain that all subjects used in the Rascher, Romberg Ruff high-altitude experiments were volunteers. Who told you these subjects were volunteers?
A. In my direct examination I said that before the experiments I was first told about them and then Hippke corroborated this statement, furthermore, this was also corroborated by Rascher in the discussion in Weltz's Institute, and fourthly, it was corroborated by the camp commander, and after the experiments began , when Romberg was in Berlin for the first time to report to me, he again corroborated the fact that the subjects were volunteers.
Q. What did Dr. Weltz have to do in this picture, did he participate in the selection of the inmates to be used?
A. I said during the discussion in my institute in Berlin Professor Weltz told me what sort of persons the experimental subjects were, namely, that they were criminals, that they were volunteers.
Q. I asked you a question, you can answer it very briefly. Did Dr. Weltz participate in this selection of the inmates to be used for these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did Professor Hippke participate?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Romberg, did he participate?
A. No.
Q. Then it is possible that those three gentlemen didn't know whether or not they were volunteers, isn't that so?
A. These three gentlemen had been told that these experimental subjects were volunteers, moreover --- when Romberg came to Berlin ----
Q. Who told them?
A. Probably Rascher. I don't know the details.
Q. Then you actually don't know who told them that these subjects were to be volunteers?
A. That is so, except for Romberg, because when Romberg told me that these people were volunteers he had already conducted experiments in Dachau, and what he told me was based on his own information.
Q. Now you have also told us that the subjects used were either men condemned to death or habitual criminals in every instance. What do you consider to be an habitual criminal?
A. I consider an habitual criminal to be a per son who by committing several crimes has demonstrated that he is a recidivist, in other words, a criminal who is condemned by a regular court to be kept in jail for the general good of society.
Q. Now I notice on page 89 of document book number 2 which is the report signed by Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher signed the draft thereof, which is document NO-402, and on page 14 of the original copy of that particular report, which is your report, there is described there the conditions of an experiment, and just what happened to one of the subjects experimented upon, how he answered each question, and so forth.
In parenthesis you will note in that report that this inmate is described "in civilian life a delicatessen dealer". The German, I believe, should be translated to mean "delicatessen owner", rather than dealer. Now, it is important, isn't it, to note, Dr. Ruff, that the gentleman used in this experiment was a delicatessen dealer? Does that fit into the framework of being a person who is considered to be an habitual criminal?
A. I see no contradiction between the fact that a man is on the one hand an owner of a delicatessen and on the other hand an habitual criminal. There is no contradiction there. It seems to me that persons from every profession or class of society can commit crimes and thus can become habitual criminals. I recall to your attention the prosecution witness Vieweg who was by profession a worthy book binder, and yet he had committed a long series of crimes and is at the moment under indictment in Bamberg for, I believe, 7 or 8 crimes for abortion, for arrogating to himself the title of physician, --major theft, fraud -
Q. We won't go into the category of Vieweg. I want to ask you now why the words in parenthesis were found as they are in the report, and why they weren't set down in the following manner: In civilian life "a professional criminal", that would have been more appropriate, would it not?
A. No, I don't believe so. Could you please give me the precise page where this is to be found?
Q. On page 14 of the original copy. Page 89 of the English.
A. Now, I can tell you about this. This is the description of an experiment in great detail. For every minute of the experiment there is an indication of what the experimented subject is doing, and it is here stated that the experimental subject, in the twelfth minute after he reaches sea level, himself asks: "May I slice something?". And, then, as an explanation of why a man should ask something as strange as that, there is, in parenthesis, the explanation of what he was in civilian life; namely, a delicatessen dealer. The indication that he was of that profession explains why he asked if he could slice something such as wurst or....
Q. (Interrupting) How will did you know this particular man, Doctor?
A. I personally didn't know him at all.
Q. You didn't know whether or not he was just a delicatessen dealer who was perhaps put into the Dachau concentration camp because he was a Jew?
A. That I cannot tell you.
Q. Yet you were willing to sign your name to a report which, very elaborately, describes what happens to a human being and did not know who that particular human being was, or what his status was in the Dachau concentration camp?
A. In my direct examination, I said already that all the experimental subjects whom I saw when I was in Dachau wore the green sign that meant they were habitual criminals, and that the persons used in our experiments were housed all together in one room. That, in addition to this, I inquired when I was in Dachau just what crimes these individuals had committed and that I found out that one of them was a counterfeiter, and another was a habitual cheater.
Several such crimes were named to me. That had to suffice for me. Moreover, we had to depend on the use of whatever the executive organ of the state made available to us in the way of habitual criminals for these experiments.
Q. Now, what was the manner in which these criminals volunteered for the experiments?
A. When the subjects turned up for the experiments you did not have the impression at all that they were, in any way, coerced to take part in these experiments. They participated in the experiments with interest; were, for instance, interested in seeing what altitude a person, who just concluded the experiment before the one they were to take part in, had recovered consciousness, at what height they had handled the parachute. They discussed the experiments among themselves; they would talk shop: One would say: "I woke up at 7,000." The other would say: "I woke up at 6,500." The entire attitude in these experiments showed clearly that these experimental subjects were not only volunteers but were participating in the experiments with personal interest.
Q. I can quite agree with you that they wore tremendously interested in what was happening in that chamber. I imagine I would be too if I were one of those so-called "volunteers". But, now I ask you again, how did they volunteer?
A. By applying for the experiments.
Q. Well, did they call these men in and ask them if they wanted to volunteer, or did the men just walk up and say: "I want to go into that chamber and volunteer for these experiments." How did it happen that they volunteered? What was the particular surroundings of this volunteer business?
A. In my direct examination I have already explained that a number of persons volunteered for these experiments and one of the prisoners told me that it was approximately sixty. Of those sixty, the experimental subjects were selected whose age and physical condition made them good subjects for the experiments. These experimental subjects were collected in a room at the experimental station and, throughout the entire three months which the experiments lasted, they stayed in this room at the experimental station.
Q. I have heard all that, Doctor.
I'm asking you again, and for the third and last time, how did they volunteer?
A Very simple question.
Do you know or don't you?
A. I'm sorry to say I don't understand the question.
Q. Well, then, in other words, you don't know how these men volunteered for this experiment. You don't know whether they went up and said to the concentration camp commandant "Please, I want to take part in this experiment", or whether the concentration camp commandant called them into his office and said: "Gentleman, do you wish to volunteer for this experiment?" Hod did they volunteer?
A. So far as I know, during formations in the camp, and there were two or three every day, they were asked to volunteer for the experiment.
Q. They were asked?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, that's all you know about it.
A. That's all I know about it.