A Pressure fall sickness has nothing to do with the lack of oxygen. I have already described during my direct examination that there is a certain zone, namely, the zone between 12 and 14 kilometers, or let's say, 12 and 131/2 thousand kilometers; and in this altitude there is no sickness among the passengers nor pilot of a plane. That is to say, if they are adequately supplied with oxygen. But drop pressure fall diseases can occur. In other words, this proves that pressure falls have nothing to do with the supply of oxygen. That is an entire different matter, pressure fall sickness occurs as a result of the general reduction of the air pressure in which the person finds himself.
It is similar to the symptoms that occur when a deep sea diver rises from a considerable depth and does not do so slowly enough; in other words, the pressure on him is reduced. It is similar to the socalled caisson sickness. This is the same sort of disease that you notice with persons who have to work in caissons when they come from the caisson, which is a chamber under pressure. If they come from it too rapidly then they have similar symptoms as one finds in pressure fall symptoms. But what I am saying now is not something that was learned from these experiments of Rascher's; it is something that has been known for a long, long time.
Q I see.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, Doctor, we have about completed our discussion of this business of air embolism end I have gathered from what you have told me that in your experiments on rescue from high altitudes you were not particularly interested in collecting data on pressure drop sickness or air embolism, were you?
A. That is correct.
Q. Hell, now did the problem of pressure drop sickness or air embolism enter at all into your research on rescues from high altitude at that time or later on after the Dachau work or during the course of your time at the Aero Medical Center? Did this problem of pressure drop sickness or air embolism ever enter into any of your research on rescues from high altitude?
A. Regarding the complex of questions concerning itself with protection from high altitude this did not bother me. After the Dachau experiments I personally concerned myself with pressure fall diseases. This was from the year 1945 to 1946 at the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg.
Q. Well, was there anything found in your experiments on rescue from high altitude that could have contributed to the problem of whether or not pressure drop sickness with air embolism was present in addition to the oxygen lack? You understand the question?
A. I don't understand you.
Q. I ask again. Was there anything found in your experiments on rescue from high altitude that could have contributed to the problem of whether or not pressure drop sickness with air embolism was present?
A. No, not really. These experiments had had nothing to do with the reason for the origination of this pressure fall disease.
Q. I see. Well now, Doctor, in this Document 402, which is on page 82 of the English copy, Document Book II, which is Exhibit No. 66. For your convenience, Doctor, I have the original here that I will pass up to you so that you can follow it better.
Would you kindly keep it in the order which it is now in. Now, on the first page there appears there your signature. Is that correct? Is that your signature?
A. Yes, that is my signature?
Q. Also the signature of Romberg?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. The first page is a cover letter to the report itself, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Well now, how many copies of this report did you make in the first instance?
A. I cannot tell you that exactly as to the number. I estimate that approximately a dozen of those reports were sent, which would mean a dozen of those copies, but that is only a approximation.
Q. What did you do with the first, the original copy? Did you keep that yourself, the original report, and just send out the copies?
A. I am sure that one of these reports was kept by us.
Q. I see. Well, now I notice here that this report is addressed to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Berlin, and it states, "Inclosed we submit copies No. 2, 3, and 4 of the report on the experiments on rescue from high altitude for your files." And your signature appears. Well now, you were not connected with the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Your experiments were separate and apart from the Reichsfuehrer-SS. How do you account far addressing these reports to him?
A. The Reichsfuehrer-SS has demanded that all reports about these experiments would have to go through him. He was the man in whose sphere the experiments were carried out and he wanted these reports to be sent to him at first.
Q. I see. Well now, Doctor, this report here doesn't contain any of the information that is set forth in some of the Rascher reports. For instance, the deaths, etc. How does that happen?
A. Because the fatalities which occurred during the experiments of Rascher had nothing to do with our experiments - experiments for the rescue from high altitude - and didn't occur there.
As a result there was no reason to incorporate these deaths in that report.
Q. Well, now. Rascher had these deaths that were connected with his research for air embolism and likewise that had nothing to do with your particular phase of the experiments, did it?
A. The experiments which were carried out by Rascher for reason of research in air embolism have nothing to do with the experiments carried out for the purpose of rescue from high altitude.
Q. Is that why you had no mention of air embolism in your report? That's why you didn't bring that factor up, isn't it, because it had nothing to do with you and you hadn't heard about it?
A I said, daring my direct examination, what I heard about Rascher's experiments from Romberg when a death occurred. He told me that Rascher wanted to take notes of the register of the electrocardiogram in the case of this pressure fall sickness. What I knew when this report was compiled was, first, of all, that Rascher, in addition to our experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitude, was carrying out other experiments and that, in the course of these experiments which were carried out by order of Himmler, deaths occurred. As to the manner of the experiments Rascher was carrying through, I only knew that he was using the electrocardiogram in the case of these pressure drop sickness. This is all I knew about these other experiments when compiling my report. In other words, I knew exactly that deaths which occurred during Rascher's experiments had nothing to do with the experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitudes. For that reason, there was no occasion to incorporate these death cases in that report for two reasons: one, that they did not occur during our experiments; and, secondly, the other experiments were only known to me in very broad outlines and I only knew about a part of these experiments. You can see from Rascher's intermediate reports that he had carried out a number of various experiments. For that reason, I could not embark on the idea to incorporate any thoughts that Rascher may have had, during the course of his experiments, in my report.
Q Well then, all this material that Rascher had collected concerning air embolism, since you didn't discuss it with him, since you didn't know about it, had no knowledge about it at all at that time, until such time as you were served with these documents in this case -is that the reason why this report contained or made no mention of the data concerning the facts that Rascher found in connection with this air embolism business?
A No, this report, as it is stated here, is a report for the purpose of rescuing people from high altitudes. The additional experiments of Rascher had nothing to do with these experiments. Even today, after these intermediate reports are available to me, I can still say that these experiments had nothing to do with the experiments for the purpose of rescue from high altitudes, and that was the reason.
Q Well, Doctor, we won't linger on this any longer. We will go to page 91 of your own report. Obviously, you slipped up when you wrote this. Page 91 of the English which is page 16 of the original document, Doctor, and it will be the last paragraph on page 16 of the original document. Do you have that?
A Yes.
Q Now, it starts off: "In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and body functions (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon posthypoxemic twilight still......"
A Just a moment. Page 16 of that report starts with a different text.
Q This is on the last paragraph of the page - of 16 of the report.
A Yes, thank you.
Q And I will start again:
"In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbance and body failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post--hypoxemic twilight still remains something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness (aeroembolism) had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack."
Now, how did you know that it "happened often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack" had it not been for the fact that Mr. Rascher, Mr. Romberg, and Mr. Ruff had their heads together in each and every one of these experiments?
A I didn't understand the question.
Q Well, first of all, tho first sentence says that "a large number of the experiments found the cause of the severe mental disturbances and body failures" and then you state in the last four - five words "the twilight still remains something of a riddle."
Now, didn't Mr. Rascher supply the answers to that riddle when you go on to state "It appears often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness air embolism, had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack?" Now, I ask you, how did you know air embolism without Rascher's work?
A There is no mention of this air embolism. I note the sentence "It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack". This is entirely different and has nothing to do with what you have just said. You cannot say, as I already stated before, that pressure drop sickness and gas embolism is the same. I tried before to explain that, in the case of the pressure drop disease, gas embolism can appear. That, of course, is not absolutely necessary and does not follow. Therefrom our knowledge came which enabled us to discuss this question as to whether air pressure sickness would play a part in these serious symptoms can be seen on the next page. On the next page we have the two experiments by Romberg and Rascher......
Q. Just a moment, Doctor.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the copy which is available to the Prosecutor must in some way be different to the original, which is before me and which was also available to the defendant Ruff. The Counsel for the Prosecution has repeatedly road "pressure drop sickness, Air embolism, etc." He wrote that twice. In our original however, there is no work mentioned of "air" or "embolism." I should like to point that out to you at thim time so as to avoid the Prosecutor reading a text to the defendant, which is probably just an error on the part of the Prosecution. I want to state expressly that in the German copy and the original there is no mention of embolism.
MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor. The English contains the word in parenthesis "air embolism" and the German original text docs not. We will go on, Doctor.
Q. Now, on page---
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, if what the Prosecutor has just said is correct I ask that the Document Book be rectified accordingly. Secondly, it may be expedient to explain at this moment how it is possible that an expression is introduced into a document which is not contained in the original, and it must of necessity mislead any person reading that document. I don't think that this is a tenable situation where such an erroneous expression gets into a document which is available to the Tribunal and upon which the Tribunal has to base its judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: Several times during the course of this trial similar errors have occurred and have been discovered. These matters are rather serious and when matters like this are found, the document book, the the original and the copies in the possession of the Tribunal should be corrected so they speak the truth and show correct translations of the original documents.
These errors are serious and cause a great deal of delay in the trial and a great deal of trouble for counsel and for the Tribunal. Some of the errors are apparently interpolations which have been inserted in the document, by whom or under what circumstances, of course, the Tribunal is not advised, but any such errors as this which are found should be immediately corrected by preparing the sheets, the mimeographed sheets calling attention to the volume and page where the error is found, and also the correct translation.
Q. Well, now, Dr. Ruff, is pressure drop sickness in an average or standard German dictionary defined as air embolism or vice-versa?
A. No.
Q. Is it common to say---
A. One has to distinguish there between two matters, firstly, pressure drop diseases are used in the English usage as bense and chokes, and then there is another designation "air embolism." Air embolism, however, does not at all mean gas embolie. These are two entirely different expressions. Air embolism in the English usage means that the complaints arise through the release of nitrogen within a person's body. It isn't a very exact designation. Gas embolie in medicine and air embolism are two entirely different matters.
Q. Well, now, will you explain to us how you found that it appeared often as though the phenonoma of pressure drop sickness had combined the pressures of severe oxygen lack?
A. I said that after these sentences it is explained how this conclusion could be drawn. It was drawn as a result of the self-experiments by Rascher and Romberg, then that experiment pressure drop sickness--
Q. Just a moment. It appears from the Rascher-Romberg experiment that they had performed on themselves, is that what you mean?
A. Yes, it says that in this regard observations are important carried out upon the person. I will read in this connection "the subjective accounts made by the authors in two experiments each were interesting." This is the following sentence.
Q. It says hero it appears often now, in what other experiments did it appear?
A. In the case of these drop experiments from a 15 kilometer altitude during which these more severe symptoms of altitude sickness appeared, and which are explained in detail in this report. It seemed as if during this sickness the lack of oxygen and the pressure drop sickness combined.
Q. Well, now, I wash you would turn to page 95, which would be page 22 of the original, and this is section 3, that is Roman numeral III entitled "Discussion of the Results."
A. Discussion of the Results,
Q. Do you have that?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, it says here "The descending experiments without oxygen show that the limit for a safe escape with an open parachute lies approximately at a jumping altitude of 13 Kilometers." That is 42,700 feet. "Since in a jump from 13 kilometers recovery of consciousness occurred only 1.6 kilometers."
And so one must always consider the possibility of landing in an unconscious condition with all the attendant dangers. Well, now, it is apparent that you have decided that a safe altitude is 13,000 meters, is that correct?
A. Yes, 13,000; yes, it is said here 13,000. The conditions as they are entitled in this sentence, nonoxygen and pressure drop sickness, which means a descent when the parachute was unfolded, and in that connection the limit was considered to be 13,000 meter. That is correct.
Q. Did you actually sent men up to an altitude higher than 13,000 meters?
A. Yes, that is true---
Q. And how do you justify doing that; 13,000 meters is determined to be the highest you can go and still be safe?
A. Firstly, the determination of this save limit was only possible after the conclusion of the experiment. I can only determine a limit if I notice when reaching that limit that I can go on no longer, and after having concluded some experiments subsequently which had gone beyond this limit. Say that for practical conditions I would have to consider that the limit lies at 13,000 meters, The conditions which prevailed when we lay down the limit of 13,000 meters were only derived after having experienced a 15,000 meter height. After these experiments I could say that in an altitude of 15,000 meters a flyer who has no oxygen at his disposal and whose parachute is unfolded at 15.000 meters cannot be saved without injuries, because when landing on the ground he is still unconscious and that when landing on the ground he could of necessity be injured or in case of dropping into the water he would drown.
Q. Well, then, you do agree, inasmuch as you were unable to determine before the experiments started, just how high a man could go up, but these were extremely dangerous; were they not, these experiments?
A. These are two different matters, the ignorance whether one can ascend to those limits or not and the danger which may be incurred through the experiments. They have nothing to do with one another. I should like to give you an example, I should like to assume if a human being can carry out one hundred knee bonds, unless I can experiment on him, I don't know. On the other hand, you cannot maintain that I could say whether this is dangerous or not, because I don't know before hand if it is possible for him to carry out one hundred knee bonds or or not.
Q. Would it not have been then the proper thing to experiment first in any of the things, which you speak of in the report, to experiment on animals to determine the effect there before having resorted to human beings?
A. Naturally, we also performed animal experiments, but these animal experiments can only roughly inform us. In this report you find a comparison made between animal experiments, which were carried out by Lutz at the Institute of Weltz and our experiments and the results of these two experiments do not only differentiate themselves from a quantitative point of view, but also from a qualitative point of view; that is the altitude which you can use by using an animal can never by the same, as you use when using a human being, it can be higher or lower. Here we not only have a quantitative difference in the experiments, but we found that we also had a qualitative difference. In other words, the reaction of the animal conducted experiments was entirely different from that of experiments on human beings.
Q. Just a moment, you said that Lutz and Wendt experimented on animals and you gained your knowledge from Lutz and Wendt is that right; and that is, why it was not necessary for you to experiment on animals; is that what you are trying to tell me?
A. No, perhaps I did not express myself clearly, All I said, was that a proof is to be found, that such experiments cannot be carried out on animals, in this very same Document, where the results of the animal experiments carried out by Lutz and Wendt are Doing compared with the experiments on human beings. The results of the animal experiments, carried cut by Lutz and Wendt were not known to us when we executed these experiments and this is something which is actually contained in the report. This only came to cur knowledge after the end of the experiments.
Q. Then, how do you justify experimenting on human beings before you experimented on animals; Lutz and Wendt used animals, you did not even go that far.
A. I was just saying that naturally we were carrying out experiments on animals before the experiments on human beings, in order to clarify the trend to which these experiments would have to be molded. Yesterday, I tried to explain that there are a number of questions which crop up in medicine, especially aviation medicine, which cannot be clarified. by the use of animals. The responsibility for not having carried out those experiments on animals instead of human beings, I can well assume as a scientist and as a physician.
Q. May I call it to the Tribunal's attention on page 96 of the English Document Book, Ruff's report states: "Unfort unately this work was not available to us during these experiments, so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and derived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the authors," Well, Dr. Ruff, when did Romberg first report the death to you?
A. Naturally, I cannot state today exactly, but I should say it was in April.
Q. March maybe or April of 1942, is that it?
A. I did not say anything of March, I spoke here of April.
Q. You said downstairs in answer to Mr. Denny that you assumed it was in March of 1942; now do you assume that it was in April rather than March?
A. When answering Mr. Donny's questions, I never said March.
Q. Well, now, when you received this report from Romberg about the death of an inmate, just what did Romberg tell you?
A. I have tried to explain it several times. Romberg came to Berlin and reported to me that Rascher, by order of Himmler, was carrying out other experiments than ours designed for the rescue of high altitude and during this other experiment a case of death had occurred. He further said that during the experiments, which Rascher was carrying out , he intended to study the heart in the case of pressure drop sickness.
Q. Now, was this the first time that you realized that there were actually two sots of experiments going on; the Rascher , Ruff and Romberg experiments and then the Rascher experiments which he did exclusively; when this report was reported, was this the first time you realized you were cooperating with Rascher only in the Luftwaffe experiments?
A. When Romberg at that time came to Berlin, I heard as far as I know for the first time that there existed at all, in addition to cur experiments for the protection from high, altitude other experiments, which were carried out by Rascher by order of Himmler.
Q. Well now, upon receiving the report from Romberg about this then what did you do?
A. I already stated what we considered about the matter. We came to the conclusion that it would be best to conclude the experiments as quickly as possible. I had reported this matter to Hippke and Romberg returned to Dachau in order to conclude the experiments, subsequently the chamber was taken from Dachau.
Q. While we are on the point of the chamber, you state that the chamber was taken from Dachau by rail ; that you loaded it on a railroad, in connection with the book which Dr. Sauter presented to you in direct examination and that it took some eight hours to load the chamber; I presume it took nearly eight Hours to unload the chamber. Would it not have been easier to load the chamber on a truck and drive to Berlin; was there a gasoline shortage?
I did not got any answer.
THE INTERPRETOR: I did not come through.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Will you start again please.
A. From the Document , which was submitted by Dr. Sauter yesterday from the book of my mechanic, I said there is no indication about the time, which was necessary for the loading of the low pressure chamber, with the exception that my mechanic had to work on a contain day for so many hours when unloading the chamber. From these hours of work, one cannot conclude the entire amount of hours, which were necessary for the loading or unloading of that chamber.
The transport back of this chamber by rail actually resulted on the basis of the lack of fuel. There we were not concerned with gasoline, but with diesel oil. As I already said during my direct examination, diesel oil was terribly scarce in Germany and was essentially reserved for the submarines. It was impossible to receive permission for a journey from Munich to Berlin and got the corresponding amount of diesel oil for that purpose. That is the reason why the chamber was transported by rail.
Q. Well, now after these deaths were reported to you, or after this first death, did you order any steps to be taken with reference to Rascher?
A. I stated that our experiments were to be concluded as quickly as possible and that we tried to get the chamber out of Dachau.
Q. I ask you again, did you take any steps against Rascher?
A. No, I did not take any steps against Rascher. I could not do that.
Q. Here is a person who had died and you have not done anything about it; is that right?
A. It is correct that a person died; it is not correct that I did nothing about it. I saw that this chamber was removed from Dachau, which meant that Rascher was deprived of the opportunity of carrying out future experiments.
Q. Now, did Romberg report any other deaths to you?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q When?
AAs I said already during my direct examination that during the time which elapsed between the return of Romberg and the final return of Romberg to Berlin, we were repeatedly in telephonic contact with one another. During one of these telephone conversations, and as far as I remember the last one, Dr. Romberg told me Rascher was carrying out further experiments and on that occasion he indicated something had happened again. After his return to Berlin he confirmed my assumption which I had during tho telephone conversation and actually told me another two persons had lost their lives during these Rascher experiments.
Q Did you do anything about that?
A There was nothing for me to do. The chamber at that time had already been removed from Dachau. Tho experiments had already been concluded and when I reported this matter to Hippke that the chamber had been returned, I at first told him verbally about the result of the experiments and at the same time informed him about these facts.
Q Was Rascher still in the Luftwaffe at that time?
A Rascher at that time still belonged to the Luftwaffe. I believe that at that time he was trying to be transferred to the SS. Rascher, therefore, from a military point of view belonged to the Luftwaffe, but as it has become evident from a number of documents, he has been made available to the SS or rather Himmler.
Q Well now would you tell us just what function the electrocardiogram served?
A The electrocardiogram served the purpose to master the electrical vibrations which occurred in the heart whenever it is active. Each muscle and every other tissue produces by it activity an electrical current. In the case of the heart this current is rather strong and one easily succeeds in registering this electrical current in the heart.
Q Well no do you use an electrocardiogram each time you are conducting one of these high altitude experiments?
A No, I cannot answer that question exactly, but I don't believe that in the case of all experiments electrocardiograph registers were made.
Q Was it used in the high altitude experiments?
A. Yes.
Q Well now, if Romberg was using the electrocardiogram in these experiments, he was doing that for the benefit of the Rascher, Ruff and Romberg work, wasn't he?
A He used the E K G whenever it seemed advisable to him when carrying out experiments for tho purpose of rescue from high altitudes. Apart from using it during the high altitude experiments, he used the E K G in order to supervise and observe the experimental subjects. Before the beginning of the experiments he registered the heart of the experimental subjects.
Q That is right. Lot's look at Mr. Romberg's affidavit, which is document NO 476, on page 2 of Document Book 2. This is the paragraph No. 6 in the affidavit, No. 6: "I witnessed the death of three of Dr. Rascher's human experimental subjects during the experiments. The first death occurred in the latter part of April, and on this particular occasion I was studying: the electrocardiogram by using the experimental subjects."
Romberg was your subordinate, wasn't he?
A Yes, that is true.
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination by defense counsel?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Dr. Ruff, I should like to clarify a number of points which have been raised during the course of your examination which require clarification.
Counsel for the Prosecution has repeated your testimony regarding the voluntary nature of the experimental subjects and he stated that according; to your testimony sixty experimental subjects were selected at Dachau, and I think ten or fifteen of these sixty were actually used for the experiments. In order not to allow any erroneous opinion appearing I shall ask you once more. Did the Camp Commandant or Dr. Rascher or any one else select a group of sixty experimental subjects who were then to be used for the experiments, or is it rather true as you already stated during your direct examination that this group of approximately sixty persons volunteered and then, Rascher, Neff or any one else selected from these sixty volunteers those persons who were to be used for these experiments on a certain date? How was the true situation?
AAlready yesterday I have tried to illustrate that point. According to my information sixty persons all together volunteered. Of these sixty people, approximately 12 were selected, who, because of their health and physical condition, complied with the conditions which we needed for our experiments. These ten or twelve experimental subjects were housed together in tho experimental station throughout the entire length of the experiment. These ten or twelve persons, are the experimental subjects were for the experiments as it is stated in our report.
Q This, I think, finally clear up that point. The second correction, Dr. Ruff, when describing these experimental subjects, you repeatedly used the expression "Sicherheitsverwahrung?", people in protective custody, and you said that these were profession criminals who had been placed into protective custody and for that reason were sent to Dachau. I heard in the meantime that this expression "sicherheitsverwahrung" was in the English translation expressed as protective custody. The difference is the following: The "sicherheitsverwahrung" of which Dr. Ruff was speaking, according to German law, could only be used in the case of professional criminals, and was ordered by the court. Protective custody on the other hand, which is a very similar expression, although containing a different content, has nothing whatsoever to do with justice or any court.
It was carried out mostly for political reasons, completely arbitrarily, and without any justice or sentence. Dr. Ruff, is it correct what just told you?
A Yes, it is true.
Q I would now like to rectify a further error. At the beginning of the trial a witness Lutz was heard who at one time had been employed at Professor Weltz office. Dr. Lutz at that time stated he was principally opposed to experimental subjects because he wasn't robust enough, he wasn't rough and strong enough. Then using this expression "robust" under quotation marks, he was asked what he really meant by it. As I see from the record of the 12th of December, he replied, and i quote:
"I should like - and, then a little pause, and the sentence wasn't completed. When the witness continues, and quote: "It is even difficult to take a dog for experiment who has a soulful look in his eyes," end of quote. So far the testimony of the witness Lutz, who, I think is still today in the Dachau concentration camp as an old Austrians SS nan, Dr. Ruff was told that Dr. Lutz's testimony road as follows, and I quote: That is what I understood from the German translation, it was said that Lutz wouldn't even carry out the experiments on a dog that Ruff had been carrying out or, human beings. I am sure that this repetition of Dr. Lutz testimony was erroneous, and I should like to rectify that in order to prevent the defendant Ruff from being incriminated by an erroneous statement in the record.