Q. Dr. Ruff, the question of whether animal experiments could have been used instead of your experiments was discussed; and you st ted that in the case of the high altitude experiments which you were to carry out the use of animal experiments was often impossible. I am now asking you, Dr. Ruff, is it correct that during your high altitude experiments--and I am in particular referring to the altitude sickness which plays a part--the essential points consist of the fact that the experimental subject, after awakening from unconsciousness, reaches out above his head and then pulls the lever of the parachute with all his strength, Naturally a guinea-pib cannot be trained sufficiently to cause it to pull the lever of the parachute after awakening. You will agree with me there, won't you.
A. This is no doubt correct.
Q. Dr. Ruff, upon a question by the prosecutor, you said--or at least you said when he asked you--that you didn't know who exactly told you that these persons at Dachau were volunteers. That is, at any rate, how your answer sounded, even though you may protest against it at the moment. You were asked: "Was Dr. Romberg present? Does he know it from his own knowledge? Was he there when these people were asked? You said, "No." Then you were asked: "Was Hippke there?" and you said "No", and so forth, until at the end it was that, "In that case, you don't know who exactly told you that these people were volunteers." Then you answered, and I quote: "That is correct."
I believe that you really wanted to say something else because in addition to Dr. Romberg and Dr. Hippke outher people confirmed it to you that these persons were volunteers.
Who were these other persons?
A. Prof. Weltz, Rascher, and the camp Commandant.
Q. Weltz, Rascher, and the camp Commandant. Rascher and in particular the camp Commandant were in fact the people who had personally spoken to the prisoners?
A. Yes.
Q. I have just heard that in the question of this dog there was another error; that the sound of the translation was to the effect that the Austrian SS nan who is now in Dachau, was to have Stated that he wouldn't even kill a dog. There is no word of killing. We are only concerned with an experiment on a little dog who looks at one with a mournful expression in its eyes, that's all.
MR HARDY: Your Honor, would you please advise defense counsel to ask his question rather than just talk to the witness? He hasn't asked a question yet in that last remark.
DR. SAUTER: The last thing I said naturally was no question. In that case Mr. Hardy is completely correct. It was merely a correction of an error in translation. Naturally I cannot put that in the form of a question; I can only make a statement.
MR HARDY: Your Honor, may I suggest that these corrections of translations could take place after he finishes his redirect examination?
THE PRESIDENT: It might well be convenient if those corrections were written out, typewritten, and handed to the Tribunal and to opposing counsel at one time.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Ruff, I should like to draw your attention, to another document and should like to ask you to tell us how exactly you interpret that document; in other words, what conclusions you derive from it.
This document can be found in Document Volume Number II on Page 79. This is a letter by Dr. Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer SS. It is dated the 11th of May 1942. If you will look at the second paragraph, you will find that it starts with the words, "tonight..." and there you will find the sentence and I quote: "He(and that means a certain Dr. Fahrenkamp) intends to report to you about his own opinion regarding my heart experiments."
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give as the page in the English Document Book of this document?
THE INTERPRETER: This is found on Page 74 of the Document Book Number II,
DR. SAUTER: Page 74 of the English Document Book, second paragraph, middle of the second paragraph. ".... He intends to report to you about his own opinion regarding my heart experiments Dr. Fahrenkamp gave to you himself. From our conversation (Dr. Rascher's conversation) I have the impression that a great field of work will open up to me yet."
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Ruff, if you now compare this quotation to the intermediate secret report which Rascher submitted to the Reichsfuehrer Himmler before your official reports, behind your back, won't you find a clear confirmation that these experiments of which you are now speaking to us were special experiments of Rascher's and were always actually claimed by him as being his own experiments, having nothing at all to do with your experiments?
A. This letter, Document No. 220, which you just submitted to me, is the accompanying letter to the intermediate report dated the 11th of May. This is the secret intermediate report dated the 11th of May and addressed to Himmler.
In my opinion it becomes clearly evident from the paragraph that in the case of these heart experiments they are concerned with Rascher's experiments; and it furthermore becomes evident from that paragraph that Rascher intended to carry out yet a large number of experiments in order to clarify these questions. Of this opportunity, however, he was deprived by the transport of the chamber back to Berlin.
Q. Now, a last question, Doctor. In all the letters which reached me and in all affidavits which I have submitted to the Tribunal, you wore described to us as a particularly conscientious and careful researcher and a man filled with a love for truth. Doctor, within five or six months, during which you have been in solitary confinement, you had sufficient opportunity to search your conscience and to ask yourself whether, during those Dachau experiments in which you wore mixed up in such an unfortunate manner, you acted justifiably or whether you committed a mistake.
At the end, Doctor, I want to ask you about this-and don't think now about the end of the trial but just give me your answer as a man who loves the truth. Please answer the question, if today from the point of view of your conscience you are now judging your acts at that time, if you yourself take your conscience into account do you feel today that you acted correctly, or is it your feeling today that you committed crimes; that you committed an error? Mill you please answer this and tell the Tribunal honestly and openly in the conclusion of your examination?
A. I can assure you that even after serious deliberation I have a free conscience. If I have made a mistake, it was only perhaps that I gave my approval to working with a man like Rascher; but that Rascher was a criminal I found out only after the war and chiefly during this trial.
In the year 1942 when these experiments took place, I knew nothing of all that. Rascher to me meant the serious officer who never gave any occasion for criticism; and if his superior considered him to be a seriously-thinking officer, I certainly could not think of judging him as a criminal.
The conditions under which the experiments were carried out in Dachau on voluntary people, on professional criminals, in my opinion were not objectionable; and that is even my opinion today. The manner in which the experiments were carried out was unobjectionable. They were carried out scientifically, prepared scientifically; and they were necessary. After all these considerations I can even today say that my conscience as a human being and as a researcher is free.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions on the reexamination of the defendant Ruff.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have some other questions to put to this witness before he is dismissed from the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 30 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF - Resumed RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Ruff, in clarification of this translation, the word "aero embolism", you have implied that aero-embolism is not a constant feature of the condition known as pressure drop sickness, also known as decompression caisson disease, or the bends. Now, in fact it is not only a constant feature of it, but in English it is actually used as a synonym. Now I would like to show you and the Tribunal a standard medical dictionary, namely, Dolans American Illustrated Medical Dictionary published by. W. B. Sanders in 1944, and on page 214 you find that bends is a name for caisson disease, also for aero-embolism. This makes the translation as set forth in the English here perfectly correct. In addition, caisson disease is defined on page 448 as, and it states, "it is due to the release of bubbles of atmospheric gases in the body." Now, this caisson disease is also synonomous with your pressure drop disease, both of which are caused by decompression. Then you find decompression defined on page 410 of this same dictionary, which states, "the removal of pressure or compression force, particularly the slow removal of pressure from deep sea divers and caisson workers to prevent the onset of bends."
Now, Dr. Ruff, we have here a German dictionary -
A Lot me say one thing about the definition you just read to me. If the translation of that definition was heard correctly, then the definition in that dictionary is altogether wrong, because both the caisson disease and the bonds do not arise if the pressure is gradually raised or rather, lowered. On the other hand, these diseases occur if the change of pressure is relatively rapid. For this reason there are legal regulations of how caissons are to be used, for instance, at what rate the pressure in the caisson is to be reduced, namely, a change of 1-2 atmospheres cannot be made in less than half an hour.
In other words, if the translation of the definition you read was correct, then that definition in the dictionary is wrong.
Q Well, now, here you find a German dictionary wherein we have marked this. I would like to have you read this as marked. This is a standard German dictionary, Meyer's. Where it is marked there -- I have it marked for you, doctor. Would you read that definition, please. Would you road that aloud, please.
A (Dictionary handed to witness) "Caisson disease occurs in persons who are subject to a high air pressure, workers under air pressure, and such people. (The laws for the protection of workers should be referred to, page 771.) The sudden appearance of gases absorbed by the blood at higher than normal pressure when the pressure is suddenly reduced, leads to obstructions and stoppages which cut off parts of the body from blood circulation. This is fatal in the brain, causes hommorhages in nose, stomach and so forth. Compare also mountain disease, and see also professional diseases in the same dictionary." This is Meyer's Konversations Lexikon of the year 1925. At this time very little was known about pressure fall disease if anything at all. Here again the same mistake is made that has occasionally been made here in the trial. Here the caisson disease, for example, is brought into relation with mountain sickness. Now mountain sickness is an altitude sickness which rests on a lack of oxygen, whereas the caisson disease, rather the symptoms that result from caisson disease, result from the change of pressure. Now, the confusion of these two terms in this dictionary shows that the editor of this particular definition was not an expert in this field.
Q Well, now, these three dictionaries, the two I called to your attention so far, do show that the pressure drop disease, decompression disease, the bends, caisson disease and aero-embolism, are used interchangeably with each other, don't they, the dictionaries do? However, you maintain that these dictionaries are incorrect, is that right?
A The dictionary that I have here before me is certainly not correct, and I've already told you what things can be compared, namely, pressure fall disease, caisson disease and the bonds can be compared with one another. They are altogether similar. They arise roughly in the same manner only with the difference that the differences in pressure in aviation are less than one atmosphere, because the pressure of zero atmospheres is reached only at the height of 400 kilometers, namely, where you reach the total vacuum of outer space. In caisson disease, on the other hand, work is done under some circumstances under a pressure of two, three or four atmospheres. In other words, the difference in pressure in caisson disease, or in caisson work, is much greater than a difference in pressure that is possible in aviation. That is the reason why the symptoms of caisson disease are more severe than the symptoms of pressure fall disease in aviation. But in principle you can equate these three diseases, namely, pressure fall disease, bends and caisson disease. But there is a quantitative difference though the causes of them are by and large the same.
A. (Continued) Now what you cannot equate with these three diseases is air embolism because, as I said this morning, there is air embolism not infrequently in the case of operations. And, this air embolism in the case of operations can have nothing to do with any change of air pressure. In other words,this is something quite different. On the other hand it is correct that in the disturbances after reduction of pressure air embolism can occur. They do not necessarily have to but they may. In other words you cannot equate caisson disease or pressure fall disorders with air embolism.
Q. Well, now was Dr. Rascher, when he used air embolism, was he using it correctly in his sense.
A. When he said - I don't know just where he said it if he said it - that an air embolism had been discovered; then he actually had found in the heart or in a blood vessel greater or smaller amounts of air, and that is air embolism.
Q. Well, let us go on and get your opinion of this other definition in another dictionary. This is Taber's Encyclopaedia Medical dictionary, and under bends, on page B 20, records: "Bends (caisson disease)" and then it states as follows:
"Pain and weakness caused by increased atmospheric pressure. This brings about the absorption of atmospheric gases other than oxygen, particularly nitrogen. Release of pressure releases this nitrogen from solution in the blood and causes formation of gas bubbles in the tissues. Treatment: Decompression or increased pressure reapplied until nitrogen is redissolved in the blood when gradual sustation of the pressure is induced."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, there seems to be some trouble with the translation.
MR. BROWN: You are goint much too fast.
MR. HARDY: We will repeat. "Pain and weakness caused by increased atmospheric pressure. This brings about the absorption of atmospheric gases other than oxygen, particularly nitrogen. Release of pressure releases this nitrogen from solution in the blood and causes formation of gas bubbles in the tissues."
Then they have here "Treatment: Decompression or increased pressure reapplied until nitrogen is redissolved in the blood when gradual sustation of the pressure is induced."
Now, doesn't that convey the same thought that pressure drop sickness, decompression disease, the bends, caisson disease, and air embolism are used interchangeably?
A. Now, first of all, if the translation was correct I heard the statement that raising of pressure causes molestation. That is not so; it is the reduction of pressure that can cause suffering, because when I rise up in the air I do not raise the pressure but I lower it, and in caisson disease difficulties do not arise when pressure is increased, namely when people go into the caisson but symptoms occur when the workers leave the caisson. In other words, when the pressure on them is reduced.
Q. Well, now let's go to the next. The Encyclopaedia Americana has a very elucidating paragraph "written by no less a man than Smith Ely Jelfy. Now this here - I will read slowly for the benefit of the translator - shows unmistakably that air embolism is a constant feature of decompression disease. This is on page 150. Caisson disease is a disorder popularly known as the bends, occurring among workers in compressed air who are submitted to a pressure of two or three atmospheres, as are tunnel workers. The symptoms of the disease do not appear while the workman is under compression but come on after decompression when some minutes or even hours have elapsed. Symptoms were at first thought to be due to mechanical pressure, which by producing changes in the distribution of the blood, caused congestion of the blood when pressure was removed. This, however, is contrary to the adaptability of body fluids to pressure and does not agree with experimental evidence. The gas emboli theory is now generally accepted. According to this theory, blood in compressed air absorbs an increased amount of oxygen and nitrogen, which under compression is distributed to the fluids of the various parts of the body.
If now rapid decompression takes place, bubbles of gas form in the blood more rapidly than the gas can be cast off by the lungs, and numerous capillary emboli result. These then cause pain in local regions, either by direct or mechanical force, or by cutting off the local blood supply. There may be more or loss general pain involving two or three or all of the extremities and sometimes severe abdominal pain with prostration, which in rare cases results in unconsciousness, collapse, and death. These symptoms are due to the presence of spinal cord or brain lesions - the results of the gas emboli in the blood vessels of the central nervous system. Vertigo with deafness and labyrinth hemorrhage are sometimes present and probably point to embolism in the labyrinth. Dypsnea in the sense of constriction in the chest are also sometimes present but not always fatal. The most successful treatment is that of recompression with gradual decompression carried on in a mechanical air lock. This is now required by law in some countries. Prophylactic measures are carried out by careful examination of the workmen and the elimination of these unfitted for work in compressed air. Predisposing factors are youth or too advanced age, alcoholism, organic disease, or fatness. New men should be given short shifts and workmen should be carefully supervised. Fatigue is also a factor. Certain countries and states already have laws regulating shifts and providing for gradual decompression gaged according to pressure undergone, which are the chief preventive measures."
Now, can it not be said in view of that that air embolism can have other causes, but caisson disease is always due to air embolism?
A. First of all, since you spoke a little too fast the translation was somewhat fragmentated. The first part you read corroborates what I said a little while ago. In your other dictionary you read that caisson disease arrises through the increase in pressure.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, it appears to the Tribunal that these rather complicated and technical translations may not make the matter clear to the witness. I think these definitions as read by counsel should be carefully translated into.
German and with the English volumes be submitted to counsel for the defense, so that he may study them and make his answers more intelligent and more satisfactory to all concerned.
MR. HARDY: I will do that a later date, Your Honor. At this time I merely wanted to point out that it is consistently in most dictionaries a synonomous term.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that. We understand your position, but the question is whether or not the witness, having had these translations read to him only, whether he thoroughly understands the definition and is competent to discuss them. That could be done at a later time with those carefully made translations, with the English dictionaries for examination by defense counsel, should be furnished to the defense who may be allowed to consider them and discuss them later.
Q. Professor Ruff,this report which is document NO-402 -- when did you and Romberg and Rascher write that report?
A. I didn't write this report at all. The report was written by Rascher and Romberg. I simply signed it.
Q. When did you receive the report, to sign it?
A. When was it finished?
Q. Well, what date? Can you tell me that? Do you know off-hand? The report is dated 28 July 1942.
A. The date is as you said it -- the date is on the report.
Q. Then in other words, Ruff and Romberg wrote this report and then submitted it to you. Did you at any time offer any suggestions for this report?
A. Rascher and Romberg wrote this report and gave it to me to be countersigned.
Q. Well, did you have any corrections or anything to say about the report, or did you first of all see a draft of the report and then have an opportunity to correct it?
A. It is possible, but I can't tell you that in detail today. But, I have already said in my direct examination that through my countersignature I took responsibility for the scientific deductions set forth in this report. That is the meaning of my signature.
Q. And even after having heard of the deaths at Dachau you were still willing to associate your name with Rascher on this report?
A. We had to issue a report oh these experiments in some form or another. We had to report on what had been done there. That this report was signed by the two workers that worked on the experiments is of course quite understandable, and moreover it was regular procedure that the leader of the institute would have to put his name to it also. The fact that I knew Rascher had carried out experiments and had deaths did nothing to change this.
Q. Well, now as a result of this work, Dr. Romberg received a medal, didn't he -- the War Merit Cross, I believe?
A. After he visited Himmler in the Fuehrer's Headquarters, a few weeks or months later, he received the War Merit Cross, Second Class.
Q. Did you also receive one?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Who recommended Romberg for the War Merit Cross? Did you recommend him?
A. No.
Q. Well, who recommended him?
A. I have seen from the documents that that on Rascher's suggestion, at least, I think that's to be found in a document; namely, Sievers made this recommendation. I am not sure of that, but that seems to be my recollection.
Q. It could have been Rascher, however, that recommended him, couldn't it?
A. I can't tell you.
Q. However, you were not recommended for the War Merit Cross to Himmler -- just Romberg -- is that right?
A. No, I was not suggested for that decoration. There was no reason to either, because if any one was to be suggested for a decoration because of this experimentation it certainly wouldn't have been I because I didn't carry out these experiments. I was simply the Chief of the Institute.
Q. Well, suppose you had not sent this low pressure chamber to Dachau how would they have carried out the experiments?
A. I don't understand that question.
Q. Well, if they didn't have a low pressure chamber in Dachau then there wouldn't have been any low pressure experiments in Dachau obviously.
Q. The low pressure chamber came from your institute?
A. The low pressure chamber was the property of the Medical Inspectorate and, on Hippke's approval, was sent to Dachau.
Q. And it was Professor Weltz that requested that the low pressure chamber be brought to Dachau?
A. I didn't know that.
Q. I'm asking you that.
A. I repeat, I knew nothing to the effect that Prof. Weltz had asked that the low pressure chamber be taken to Dachau.
Q. Nell, it actually was your low pressure chamber, assigned to your institute, wasn't it. owned by the Luftwaffe?
A. No, that was not a low pressure chamber of our institute. It had just come from the firm and was to be used in the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt. It was to be equipped with the inter-com system and so forth. It was not actually assigned to our institute for use, but just so we could make these alterations in it.
Q. Well, who was it assigned to? Was it a new one that had just been built?
A. It was a new chamber that had just been manufactured by the firm, and which was sent to us at the institute because we, on the orders of the Medical Inspectorate, were to put in the inter-com system and the oxygen system. We, in this case, means the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt, which had the experts and technicians who usually put this same sort of equipment in air planes.
Q. Well now in summation, how did you happen to become involved in these experiments at Dachau?
A. In my direct examination and in my cross-examination by you this morning I said several times that in 1941, about December, Professor Weltz visited me in Berlin in my institute.
Q. Well, had it not been for Professor Weltz' visit you would not have gone to Dachau, is that right?
A. That's possible yea.
Q. No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions of this witness by defense counsel in connection with the cross-examination?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, it was my intention to ask the defendant Ruff a number of questions to clarify the question of embolism, since the question has been pursued so stubbornly by the prosecution; however, I shall wait to see what clarification of this point the prosecution later submits and, for my part, I shall make the necessary counter-clarifications and submit them to the Tribunal in writing. I believe that would be better, than if we should here discuss a problem about which lawyers, in effect, cannot take any attitude. However, I should like to point out one thing. This morning the question, so far as I appraised it, was not whether the word"embolism" could be translated by such and such a word, or whether it meant this or that, but what struck me as important was that the principal question that in a document where the word "embolism" is not found the word "embolism" is added, and chat the German translation is given to us with the usual certification that it is a verbatim copy. To that I objected today. I shall not make any further statements on this subject, but shall simply ask the witness Ruff one or two further questions.
MR. HARDY: I went to clarify to the Tribunal this ambiguity that Dr. Sauter is trying to more or less imply that we stuck the word "Air-Embolism" in a document to create a confusion.
I have checked up with the Translation Division and the translator apparently at that time - she isn't here at this time - but the Chief told me that the Translation Division, when they come across such a word and they nave two meanings or another meaning, that they put in parenthesis an alternative meaning, and this here is just another meaning or another translation for the word in German. That's how the confusion arose. It was not put in to confuse the Bench or to create an interference as Dr. Sauter is trying to put forth here.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, when that expression appears it has appeared in several of the documents - and when that appears should not that fact be made apparent to the Tribunal?
MR. HARDY: Yes, it should, Your Honor. But, at this particular time, it was not made apparent to me either, Your Honor, and I obviously went along the same course, but not intentionally.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:Dr. Ruff, at the end of the cross-examination you were asked by the prosecutor about your responsibility for the defendant Dr. Romberg.
You were shown Romberg's affidavit of 1 November 1946, #6. This is in Document Book #2. #3 reads:
"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. On this particular occasion I was studying the electrocaoriograph of the human experimental subject then being tested. After the death of this human experimental subject I raised objections to Rascher and also informed Ruff concerning the matter.
Thereafter two other deaths occured on different days in May."
You were asked whether this Romberg was your co-worker and whether you were his superior, and you answered these questions in the affirmative. You were then asked if you were responsible for what Romberg did and you also answered that in the affirmative. Now, tell me what your point of view previously was end what your point of view now is with regard to this question: Dr. Romberg received a very precise working program from you regarding what he was to do with Rascher. Outside of this work program, Dr. Rascher carried on experiments of his own behind your back. Now, in the experiments that took place according to the program nothing happened, but in Rascher's own experiments something, did. Now, I want to ask you, in view of what you were charged with this morning, is it your point of view that you responsibility for your co-worker, Dr. Romberg, regarding the Dachau experiments - speaking now entirely in general- extends so far that you would consider yourself responsible for any possible cooperation by Romberg in Rascher's own experiments, or is it your point of view that you knew nothing of these matters, that you didn't approve these matters, and that, accordingly, you are not responsible for what Romberg did in that field? Now, please think about that and answer.
A. Dr. Sauter, I believe that is a question which I, as a physician, can answer only with great difficulty. I believe that is a purely legal question. I personally do not feel myself responsible which I neither requested, nor approved or knew of, but, that however, is my personal opinion and I believe the question is a purely legal problem.
Q. But, in your personal opinion, it is a matter of course to you that you are not responsible for what Romberg did under those circumstances?
A. Yes, that is my personal opinion.
Q. Now, in this question or responsibility I should like to bring up something else, Dr. Ruff. You signed the one report officially which Romberg and Rascher drew up. You co-signed this report, and you told us this morning that you thus undertook a certain responsibility for this report. I believe you said that you took the responsibility for this report. I believe you said that you took the responsibility for the scientific evaluation of the results of those experiments.
A. I said that I thereby undertook the responsibility for the scientific conclusions that were drawn from the experiments described in the report, the theories that the two workers pursued when they drew their conclusions from the experiments. I said that I agreed with those theories and, to that extent, also personally take over the responsibility for that.
Q In other words, you undertake the responsibility for the correct evaluation?
A Yes.
Q I ask you this because you were the chief of an Institution. Is it your point of view that by cosigning this report, which two other researchers worked out, you thus take the responsibility for the experiments themselves? In other words that by co-signing this report you take co-responsibility for the experiments, for any irregularities that might have taken place during the experiments, or any harm that might have been done?
A I don't know, but I don't believe that my signature to this report can be construed as my taking responsibility for the experiments. Every scientist knows who reads such a report, if the chief of the Institution has co-signed, every scientist knows that the Chief of the Institution was not present at each experiment and himself carried out the experiments. That is a matter of course.
Q Now, a last question. It was previously said that Dr. Romberg had received the War Merit Cross, 2d Class. The Judges probably have no idea what sort of a decoration this is. It could be a very high decoration or could be a very low one. Please tell me, is it correct that this is the lowest class of decoration that exists in Germany, the very lowest decoration one could receive?
A That is true as of the year 1942, yes.
DR. SAUTER: No further questions.
DR. WILLE: Wille for Weltz.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Dr. Ruff, you said on a question from the Prosecutor that without a visit from Professor Weltz to you in Berlin it was inconceivable to you that the Dachau experiments would have taken place; I believe to have understood the meaning of your answer, but I don't want a false picture to be created here. Now, let me ask you, you will agree with me that it was a matter of your own decision that on Dr. Weltz' suggestion you arranged that the experiments in Dachau should be carried out?