A Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I had sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments, just from curiosity, just as in our institute if there were centrifugal experiments in our institute, I sometimes watched them too. There was no reason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out of curiosity; that was how it happened I was present by accident at the experiment, and I looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. One can see from the electrocardiograph on the screen a little point of light which moves, and that is determined by the heart activity. When it seemed to me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart activity was getting less, I said to Rascher: "You had better stop now."
Q And what did Rascher do?
A Nothing, he didn't react to it. He stayed at that altitude and later death suddenly occurred.
Q When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you that the person would die in the next second?
A No, of course not, first of all I had never even seen a death from high altitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn't know that and in the second place this death certainly resulted from an air embolism and, therefore, suddenly, and in the third place the electrocardiogram change was dangerous. I myself would have stopped the experiment at this stage but he didn't and I only said that because I would have stopped the experiment that moment.
Q Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment?
A It was not possible in view of Rascher's position that I should object, but I told him such things should not happen.
Q And what else did you do?
AAfter this death I went to Berlin and I told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed with me that the death should not be allowed to occur in high altitude experiments and never had occurred before, but since Rascher carried out these experiments for Himmler on a man who was condemned to death, we saw no way to prevent Rascher after we gave the report officially. What Rascher said in general when objections were made, I mean he simply referred to the orders from Himmler and the fact that he was covered by them. To remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler's and Rascher's will was quite impossible. To give this death as a reason for removing the chamber was still more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would not have re-acted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might have started proceedings for treason or sabotage of an essential war experiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature in a concentration camp, and like every visitor to a concentration camp I had to sign a statement that everything I saw here and so forth in the camp would be kept secret. Besides, at the beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram from Himmler which ordered silence about these experiments. A specific obligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since I had reported that that matter to Ruff against the obligation to secrecy I also had to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could not give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau, aside from the fact it would not have had any success.
A Therefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility was for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber removed, giving the excuse that is w s needed at the front. On the other hand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be told that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so that we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau. Otherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered that the experiments should be continued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the clarification of the question of rescue from high altitude, and he would doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and have arranged to keep the chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at the front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the experiment and would not have released the chamber.
If I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried out the experiments for rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would doubtless also have continued his own experiments. That was the reason why I reluctantly went back to Dachau.
Q Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin?
A The purpose was this report to Ruff.
Q Was that the only purpose?
A Yes.
Q How did you explain this trip to Rascher?
A I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife's condition. My wife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going to Berlin.
Q How long were you in Berlin?
A Only one or two days then I went back to Dachau.
Q Now, before you left did you make sure of whether Rufi had done anything in response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the chamber out of Dachau?
A Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so that I really did not know what was going on and what would be accomplished.
Q Did you notice anything special when you came back to Dachau? Did you notice anything social about the chamber?
A Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already said; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer, repaired.
Q How long did you stay in Berlin this time?
AAs long as the repairing too-about two weeks.
Q Then during this time there were no experiments?
A No.
Q Then did the experiments begin again?
A The beginning of day or the middle of May I went back with the repaired apparatus; and then we concluded the experiments as quickly as possible.
Q Did you abbreviate the program which you had laid out or did you change it in any way; or did you keep it the way it was?
A No, we shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various altitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly was possible but in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results.
Q When was the second death where you were present?
A That was soon, a few days after my return to Dachau.
Q Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a way similar to the first case?
A In general, yes. I don't know exactly what happened. As far as I recall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death occured quicker, more suddenly.
Q And when was the third death where you wore present?
A That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day.
Q After these deaths, did you never have any argument with Rascher about his experiments and the way in which he performed them?
A Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which he always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to object again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn't to interfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his patience, and we got rather excited.
I asked him why he was carrying out these experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he was checking the problem of caisson diseases, bends, aero-embolism, that he had to clarify it because Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man during an autopsy under water to prove these air bubbles in the blood. Also the question of the electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified as Himmler had given him s special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was to do this work together with him. He wanted to qualify as a professor with Schittenhelm with this work.
Then he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to be continued) that Prof. Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that people condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course, be pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I could read Himmler's signature and whether I wouldn't be satisfied with that.
Q Was this the letter from the Prosecution Document Book 11, 1971bPS, Exhibit 51?
A Yes, 1971-(b)-PS, as Exhibit 51.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, can you give me the page of the English Document Bock on which that exhibit appears?
DR. VORWERK: Page 64.
Q And what does this letter indicate?
A It showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments that he had complete, official coverage) that the subjects were to be pardoned. It says so in the letter, "Of course the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life."
Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page it says that this order from Himller goes to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and to SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, with a copy for their information.
Q Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter?
A Since I had been prevented from doing anything by this letter, then I calmly asked him what idea he had of these experiments; what he wanted to do; what he wanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that he would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various reasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of death at high altitude, with the change in severe altitude sickness, with later recovery, and also in the hospital in Munich he had taken electrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau he said he had also registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by shooting. If he had really compiled all this material and had evaluated this material together with heart specialists, it was, of course, quite valuable.
Q. Are you of the opinion that the experiments which Rascher performed were performed in order that the might qualify as a professor?
A. Whether that was the main purpose or not I cannot say. That certainly played a role in it but they certainly were ordered by Himmler.
Q. Now, are you of the opinion that these experiments were ordered by Himmler at his suggestion or that Himmler ordered them before he went to Himmler?
A. That is difficult to say. It probably developed gradually on the basis of his reports. The reports are written in such a way that he presents the results as very important. Thereupon Himmler ordered that the experiments be continued.
Q. But, it is no doubt a fact that Rascher at that time had a great deal of material in order to be able to qualify as a professor?
A. Yes, he doubtless had.
Q. Was Faherkamp called up n t corroborate in these experiments?
A. No. He kept saying that Fahrenkamp was to come, that he was going to work with him, and evaluate the electrocardiograms. Sat, as least during my time, he aid not come to Dachau. In any case I never saw him. In the last few days a big electrocardiograph came, a. big Siemens machine, such as we had in our institute. I knew it and I told Rascher that he wouldn't like it because this Siemens machine is very sensitive to all electrical disturbances. One can work only in areas free of any interferences.
You said Rascher snowed you the letter in which Himmler ordered the continuation of the experiments and the pardoning of the experimental subjects?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he also show you a telet pe saying that pardoning would not effect Russians and Poles. This is in Document Book II of the Prosecution, page 69 in the German, document 1971-G-PS, Exhibit 53, page 66 in the English. Page 66 in the English Document Book.
A. No he did not show me that. He could n t snow me that. It is d ted 31 October 1943, a time when the high altitude experiments had long been concluded. It is introduced into the Document Book at this point because it refers to this letter of 13 April. In response to this teletype, the affidavit which was given to me for signature contained a sentence which was wrong - that the experiments had seen performed primarily on Russian or Poles. But since I never saw a Russian or Pole at the experimental station I had to cross out this statement and the interrogater said that didn't make any difference, that there were documents to prove this fact. It seems to me that it is proven that no Russians or Poles were used in the high altitude experiments, but only in October 1943 during the could experiments after the Holzloe ner period.
Q. Here when the witness Neff w s examined you heard that he spoke of an autopsy in the low pressure chamber.
D. you remember that?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. Now what about t is autopsy in the low pressure chamber?
A. I cannot remember this at all. I cannot say whether or in what way it took place.
Q. When did yo. hear of it for the first time? When did you hear for the first time that this incident was supposed to have happened?
A. From Neff here. Neff said that I had altitude sickness and was unconscious in this experiment and I received somewhat when the altitude was reduced and made signs to Rascher that he was to stop the experiment and that I wanted to get out of the chamber. But, Rascher ordered me sent to higher altitude without paying any attention to my signs. And, I became sick again and unconscious again. He also aid that I did not have any part in the autopsy in any way because of the severe altitude sickness which was no doubt combined with decompression disease. I was, no doubt, unconscious. In other experiments at Dachau I frequently had often altitude sickness. I cannot say anything about an individual experiment.
Q. Neff also reported here, as you recall, an incident with a tailor. Do you remember this incident?
A. Yes. I remember it. Neff told of two cases when I was supposed to have intervened. I can remember only one with this tailor which was about the middle of April. In any case, it was after Sievers's visit, which was in the first days of April. If it had been before this visit Rascher certainly would have told Siveres all about it as he told Professor Wuest later. It was about as follows: Neff met me in the hull, or in the office, and said t me - he said something wrong was going to happen in the chamber. Rascher had ordered a prisoner to be brought as an experimental subject. This man was not a volunteer and was not condemned to death ans was being brought by an SS man, against his will. He knew it himself because knew the man. He was a tailor who was working in the work shop. He told me to go and see Rascher and try to prevent it.
I went to see Rascher immediately and asked him what was going on and asked him who this subject was and told him Neff knew the man who was a tailor and know something was wrong. Rascher questioned the SS man who had brought the tailor and it was actually discovered that the tailor was neither condemned to death nor had he volunteered for any experiment.
Q Now, didn't you become suspicious?
A Well, Rascher went away to clear up the matter with the SS man, whether ho was supposed to bring this man up, etc. He discovered the SS man had taken the matter in his own hands and, first of all, he sent the tailor back to his work shop. When the SS man threatened the tailor again Rascher said he had reported the incident, and soon after that the Camp Commandant came and Rascher told him about the whole incident indignantly. He demanded the SS man be punished, and I can recall that afterwards ho talked to me about this SS man and said that those wore perhaps not the worst ones but such a man could not be allowed to stay in the concentration camp service. He did consult the Camp Commandant and did probably dispense with the charges against him and finally got this man sent to the Eastern front in a penal company. That ho reported to the Camp Commandant and this immediately happened convinced me that things in the concentration camp were correct:
Such excesses of individuals which could happen were immediately settled and punished. After this incident Rascher made me give my word of honor that I would not say anything about the whole matter. I was obligated to secrecy about the experiments and what I saw in the concentration camp but for this thing he felt certain personal responsibility and such an incident might start rumors and put the concentration camp in a bad light. Since this matter was settled immediately quite officially by Rascher I gave him this promise. Later on we went to East Prussia when we met Professor Wuest on the train. He told Professor Wuest of this incident with all details. He expressed his indignation and he spoke to Wuest for a long time whether immediate transfer to the front would be enough punishment and Professor Wuest assured him that he had acted correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will not be in process until 1:30.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 1 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS ROMBERG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for tho Defendant Romberg):
A. Mr. Romberg, before the noon recess you were describing to tho Tribunal tho incident with the tailor. Do you know whether something actually happened in that case to tho effect that the SS man who had brought tho tailor along was hold to account?
A. Yes, at any rate ho was removed from tho camp. Rascher told me that ho was transferred, and Neff also stated here that he was removed.
A. Neff went on to toll about a second incident where as a result of your intervention an experimental subject was not admitted to tho experiment. Do you remember that second incident?
A. No, I do not remember that.
A. That was Neff's position during these experiments and what was his attitude towards them?
A. Neff did not play any essential part for mo during these experiments and he did not come at all into the foreground. He was tho block oldest of our experimental subjects who were living at the block and as a former nurse of that station he was to assist us whenever necessary. Ho had certain qualifications in his capacity as a male nurse that Neff apparently played a certain double roll during these experiments only became clear to mo here. At that time I hod tho absolute impression that Neff was feeling as a prisoner and had the same attitude towards Rascher's experiments as I. This is tho only way one can explain that I spoke to Neff about my attitude towards Rascher's experiments and that I told him that I would endeavor to got tho chamber away from there through tho help of Milch.
If I had considered Neff as a Kapo, as a man who was against the inmates, I would never have spoken to Neff about Rascher and bis experiments in a rejecting and critical manner. I cannot imagine the fact that Neff know about Rascher's experiments that had a fateful result, or that ho had any knowledge of them. I can only explain that if ho had known about them Rascher would have told him to keep everything secret. Naturally, be must have kept strictly to that directive since any betrayal of Rascher world have had tho most serious consequences for Neff.
In addition, Neff had boon promised release the same way as all other experimental subjects and was actually released on March 1944. Any such promise, of course, had a fateful importance for Neff and that way perhaps explains his peculiar behavior. In spite of that, there can be no doubt that Neff with his innermost fooling was on the side of tho inmates. This is confirmed by the fact that after the war he went back to Dachau and once more went into the ranks of the inmates, and also that he handed to the American Troops all incriminating material about tho SS there and told about the invalid action. Furthermore, this shows that ho found bis place within the ranks of the victims of Fascism. Many of his exaggerated and incorrect testimonies can be explained by the testimonies which may incriminate himself too.
Q. What are the testimonies that you consider to be exaggerations, or that you consider to be false testimonies, and to what extent do you believe that these testimonies were incorrect? 6809
A. I can only explain that in a few individual cases. For instance, Neff is always speaking of ten women who were used during these experiments. In the documents, however, only four are being mentioned.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, whenever the defendant or defense counsel are referring to statements of the witness Neff, would they kindly refer to the page number of the record?
BY DR. VORWERK:
Q We're here concerned for example with experiments on Russian officers - experiments on two officers, if you remember, Jr. Romberg. These are testimonies which can be found on page 675 and 676 of the German transcript. What is it you can say about these experiments and Heff's explanation that he is giving in connection with that experiment?
A I'm not an expert in cold questions, but I think that the description of this experiment is largely exaggerated. I think it is impossible that it could have been carried out in that manner. I have looked through the cold questions as they become apparent, for instance, the Document 428, Exhibit 91, on page 4 of that report, and I also looked at the Document No. 401, Exhibit 93, which is the report on the cold conference held at Nurnberg, on page 43 of the report. According to these descriptions of the other cold experiments, the regor begins to appear after a very short time, after approximately ten to twenty minutes, and makes any movement or speech on the part of the experimental subject impossible. After, at the latest one hour, unconsciousness appears. Neff, on the other hand, states here that these two Russian officers, even after a period of three hours, were speaking to one another and were in possession of their full consciousness and then he said that they even shook hands. I can not imagine that this period of time could have elapsed. The same becomes apparent from the American work on cold questions where it is stated that, in case of sea rescue, the rigor occurs after a very short time, approximately ten minutes, and this regor would make any entry into the rubber rescue boat impossible.
Q Neff, on page 694 of the German transcript, goes on to say that Rascher was producing cyancali tablets which were to be swallowed by the inmates.
Some of the people had died under severe pain. At the end he says "Among our comrades we said, by way of figure of speech, and I quote, they are producing a drug which would kill us very quickly as soon as something happens."
A Well, he is contradicting himself here by saying that the inmates lost their life under severe pain. Then he goes on to say they found a drug by which they can die without pain. But, it is well known that potassium cyanide kills without any pain.
Q I have just been informed, Mr. President, that, through error, the release of Neff was stated as being in the year of 1945 instead of the year 1942. It should be 1942.
Regarding the voluntary aspect of the experimental subjects, Neff, on page 656 and 657 of the German transcript, as well as on Page 711 and 712 of the German transcript, states as follows, and I quote:
"A volunteering for these experiments was made possible when the person concerned turned to Rascher on his own initiative. That was not difficult because Rascher was around the camp a lot. Naturally, every prisoner who is hungry and is working on a difficult detail, knowing that at the experimental station he would receive better nourishment, will try to get there. In addition, the Reichsfuehrer SS promised the inmates that they would be released."
What can you say about this testimony of Neff's?
A The first testimony, where he says that of two hundred experimental subjects only ten were voluntary, and this latter testimony that you mention can not be brought into conformity, and, therefore, contradict one another. In addition, I think that the number of two hundred experimental subjects is largely exaggerated.
Q Let us now revert to the experimental subjects. What badges did the experimental subjects wear who wore at disposal for the experiments for rescue from high altitudes?
A They had badges as they were worn by professional criminals.
Q Were they green only, or were other badges among them?
A No, all these badges were green. All, with the exception of Neff, who was wearing ared badge, but he was not a real experimental subject.
Q Did Neff participate in any experiments as an experimental subject?
A Yes, he did, and. he offered himself to them.
Q Do you remember the badges which were worn by the experimental subjects who were used for Rascher's experiments? What kind of badges were they? Were they criminals? Were they political prisoners? What can you say about that?
AAs far as I saw the experimental subjects, and you must keep in mind that I only saw a small part of them, they wore green badges and were thereby designated as criminals. There were, however, a few red. ones among them who had been sentenced because of high treason or such similar offenses.
Q The witness Neff, who testified here, was also heard in the Milch trial which was running simultaneously to this one. Do you know that?
A Yes.
q The witness says here, on page 973 to 974 of this record, and I quote:
"It was my impression that Dr. Romberg was not in complete accordance with the experiments Dr. Rascher was performing, and intended to get the chambers away from the camp as quickly as possible. Rascher, on the other hand, was attempting the contrary. He wanted to keep the chambers as long as possible in the concentration camp. To what extent Dr. Romberg succeeded in getting the chambers away earlier, or rather, to what extent Rascher succeeded in keeping them there for a longer period of time, I don't know."
Did you speak to Neff at that time to the effect that it was your wish to remove the chambers from the camp as quickly as possible?
A Well, he is saying that. I discussed this matter with him at that time for the reason I stated before; namely, that I considered Neff as Rascher's opponent. Rascher, of course, wasn't allowed to learn about that, and it is for this reason that Neff knows that I endeavored to get the chamber away.
Q Well, how were these experiments finally stopped?
A. The basis for this stoppage was the agreement reached between Hippko, Ruff and myself. We intended to pretend there was an urgent reason for the chamber being removed, and thereby stop the experiments. It w s difficult, however, to execute that plan. Neither towards Himmler nor towards Rascher could we cite tho reason as to the fatalities caused by Rascher. Tho only thing we could say was that those chambers were used for air accidents. This, of course, wasn't a very strong reason. Rascher when I returned from Berlin and made tho first indications that tho chambers was to be used and when I told him that we would have to finish tho experiments very quickly, Rascher didn't react to that at all, but told me that he would intervene with Himmler and Milch and got the permission for a longer usage of tho chamber, something which ho in effect achieved. However, when Milch's order to that effect came the chamber had already boon removed. Tho basic prerequisite for getting the chamber -way was to bring the experiments for rescue from high altitude to a quick conclusion and in addition to finish the film which w-s to be taken about these experiments, as a result of Himmler' order. Only by fulfilling these two demands which were made by Himmler was he in a position to influence Rascher to agree to tho temporary removal of that chamber. I explained to him that there would be little sense in getting a permission for the chamber to be retained for a further period of two or three weeks and told him that I was sure that one needed the chamber at the front very quickly. I suggested to him tint it would be a muck better way to get this chamber at a later date to Dachau through other moans for a longer period of time. I told him that ho could then carry out the work which he was ordered to do by Himmler.