I said that he also could participate once more in tho experiments for tho purpose of saving people from high, altitudes. Only by using this tactic was it possible that Rascher didn't oppose the removal of the chamber and that ho didn't succeed to get an order to the contrary from Himmler or Milch. It can hardly be conceived that ho would have succeeded in getting such an order through. He actually did that, and one can see it by looking at tho letter from Milch to Wolff, this is Document N0261, Exhibit 63, in Document Book II dated 4 June 1942. In conclusion I should like to state once more that at no time would it have boon possible for anyone, not oven Milch or Hippko to remove tho chamber against Himmler or Rascher's will from tho concentration camp.
Q. When was tho chamber removed from tho camp?
A. That was on tho 19th or 20th of May. At any rate before tho order Hippke's or Milch's dated the 20th of Hay, Document 343PS, Exhibit 62, could have achieved any effect. That was on tho 19th or 20th of May, and not at the beginning or end of June as Neff said here or in August as the Prosecutor says.
Q. How is it that you know exactly that the chamber left tho camp on tho 19th or 20th of May?
A. Fortunately I have in my possession a few firm dates about this experimental series which do give mo some hints. At first it w s tho birth of my child, date 19th of March at which time I wont to Berlin. Since tho birth was originally expected on tho 9th of March I know I was then in Berlin. As I said before I returned to Berlin on tho 19th or 20th of March and then I also know that I went to Berlin for Easter, and that I stayed there a few days after Easter. I know that I was in Berlin on the 1st and 2nd of May, and I also know that I stayed in Berlin for sometime because then the barometer was repaired.
I also know that Whitsun occurred on the 24th of May and I know that in tho week before Witsun I had already loft. That was on a Tuesday or Wednesday. I spent a few days at tho DVL, and I know that oven after Witsun I didn't return to Dachau. For that reason I know exactly that tho chamber was removed on the 19th or 20th in tho week before Whitsun.
Q. Dr. Ruff, who was here yesterday or the day before as a witness, has made statements to tho effect that a detailing to a branch of the DVL at Dachau was not possible; what is your attitude to that question; will you explain that as briefly as possible?
A. Dr. Ruff has said that in essence. When tho experiments start Rascher was still detailed to the institute of Woltz, which was a military agency of tho Medical Inspectorate. Later Rascher suggests, or we know from the letter of Mrs. Rascher, Document NO 264, Exhibit 60, that to detail him to tho Branch at Dachau of the DVL. Wolff writes the same thing in his letter to Hippke. This can be explained since Rascher nor any other SS agency were clear about the organization of the DVL. We after all were no military organization , and Rascher neither during the experiments nor later when ho was in Berlin for the purpose of working out the report was detailed to the DVL. Therefore, it was impossible for him to be detailed to any branch which after all was non-existent. If in effect any such details had boon made objection would have been raised in tho Personnel Department and we would have found out about it. At any rate I didn't personally hear or see of any such details. I really didn't know when ho left tho Weltz Institute. I only know that the ack-ack Artillery School at Schongau had boon stated in his orders because ho often wont to this place by car and on that occasion ho told mo that ho would have to be officially detailed there since otherwise his car would have to be stopped.
For tho purpose of his Dachau journios ho had received special permission by tho Reichsfuehrer SS. Tho expression DVL "branch" therefore is wrong and any military transfer there is impossible.
Q. Has it often happened that air force officers had boon detailed to Adlershof to the DVL there?
A. Yes, we had Luftwaffe officers working with us. They were detailed to us by tho Medical Inspectorate who knew the situation and who didn't detail them to us directly, but to tho air school at Adlershof, or to some air force institution there for the purpose of actually working with us.
Q. Therefore, you are of tho opinion that any detailing of air force physicians was impossible to your institute because your institute wasn't a military one, do I understand you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you arrive in Berlin after tho conclusion of tho experiment?
A. I already said on the 20th of May. I am sure that on that date I was again in Berlin. A few weeks elapsed, perhaps two or three weeks until Rascher arrived in Berlin in order to work out tho mutual report about the experiments. He had not been detailed to us, oven for that period of time. He merely received guest travel orders which authorized him to enter tho terrain of tho DVL.
Q. How was this chamber sent -- by rail or by car to Adlershof?
A. As Ruff said yesterday, it came back by rail because we did not have enough diesel oil for that purpose.
Q. How was the research report compiled, the report on the research of saving people from high attitude?
A. Rascher, as I said, came to Berlin in the beginning of June and together we started writing the report on the basis of my book and that is the report which is available here. Rascher insisted on pointing out the necessity for a continuation and extension of the experiments. I had no objection to that because I personally intended to continue these experiments too. In particular, to find out what the effects of cold were in the case of a parachute descent. Of course, our opinion as to the experiments differed. Rascher intended to continue the experiments in Dachau on inmates, but I intended to carry them on at my institute, DVL, but I did not speak about that.
When at the end of the report I added the sentence that no cases of death had occurred in these experiments, Rascher had no objection at all. This is a clear proof that Rascher considered the experiments, which he performed by order of Himmler, as his personal work and property. These experiments had nothing to do with the experiments conducted for the purpose of rescuing people from high altitude. When taking into consideration Rascher's personality, there can be no doubt that Rascher would have had no inhibitions to introducing a report about death cases in a top secret document if such cases had occurred in the latter report. Regarding the cold experiments, which Rascher wrote together with Holzloehner and Fink, there were many reports about cases of death.
In addition, I would never have been irresponsible enough to introduce a research report, which was to be the rescue basis for our future flights and experiments and which was to influence the air-force, in which I concealed such a decisive point as this would have had the most serious consequences for the future. It is really not necessary to speak about it; it is just out of the question.
Ruff never would have countersigned any such report. At that time there was really no reason to keep quiet about any cases of death, because no one really would have held me to account for causing any cases of death.
Q. The witness, Neff, has testified here that you yourself had served as an experimental subject during these experiments. Up to what altitude did you ascend?
A. I participated in a number of experiments. At one time I was the accompanying physician in the experiments and went up to 12,000 to 13,000 meters and then I participated in a number of self experiments, which have been discussed here. In addition there was explosive decompression experiments of a pursuit descent at 19 kilometers without a supply of oxygen.
Q. In July of 1942a report was made to Himmler, together with Rascher; how did this report come about and what happened there?
A. In July -I have forgotten the exact date -- Rascher suddenly appeared in Berlin. He telephoned me at the D.V.L. and asked me to meet him. I left Adlershof and met him in Berlin. He told me that both of us had been ordered to go to the Fuehrer's headquarters to report and we both went to the Reichsfuehrer SS office in Berlin. There they already had our train tickets ready for us. Then we heard the film about the experiments, went to my department and I telephoned Ruff. I told him about the matter. Then, I had to change, pack, and we loft the same evening. We had a special train with sleepers on the train. Rascher met Professor Wuest, who also was going to the Headquarters on this journey and ho told him once more about the notorious reports about the taylor.
Q. When did you arrive at the Headquarters?
A. The next morning; we went by car to Himmler's special train, which had not yet arrived, but which was due to arrive that evening. He arrived late that night and he heartily greeted Rascher. On this occasion, Rascher introduced me to Himmler. We went to a conference room and Himmler asked us to report to him about the high altitude experiments.
We did that by reading to him the conclusions we had arrived at, as they can be found in the report here. Himmler was rather satisfied and said we should report to the Reich Marshal too.
He said that he had been with Goering for one week and they had reached a good understanding. He then pointed to the gold flying badge with diamonds which he had just been given by Goering. I had noticed that badge before and had silently thought that this highest civilian decoration, which Himmler was wearing and which up to that time was only used in the case of being committed during very dangerous test flights, was possibly the reward given to Himmler for having forgone his original wish to getting his own airforce with the SS, which was his wish-dream and that Rascher also mentioned that to me. After the high altitude experiments, Himmler started to speak about the cold experiments and gave the orders to prepare them.
Q. Did Himmler say anything further about the cold experiments?
A. Yes, he mainly emphasized that these experiments were of great importance for the army, navy and airforce. He went on to develop a number of tests about those experiments and their execution. For instance, he gave the order to Rascher that he should go to the rescue stations for people who were shipwrecked at the North Sea and find out how the community population wore reviving their shipwrecked people. He went on to say that the population had found out very good and well proven means to revive people, like with herbs, tea, coffee or things like that and at any rate one must take the experiences gained by the population into consideration. He said he could well imagine that a fishwoman could well take her half frozen husband into her bed and revive him in that manner and everyone said that animal warmth had a different effect than artificial warmth. He went on to say that Rascher should have experiments to that effect and he would have to take into consideration the popular means used by the population. 6821
Q. What was your attitude toward these statements made by Himmler?
A. Prompted by a sober and materialistic attitude, I did not think very much of these mystic methods and therefore raised an objection against that sort of experiment. I said that the main consideration was how to rewarm people, whether to rewarm them quickly or slowly and if you experiment around too long you will lose lives. There was a painful silence and after that I noticed that this was not the place for any contradiction.
Q. Was Professor Wuest present during that conversation?
A. Yes, he had come along with Himmler and he was present there.
Q. Did anyone object to your objection?
A. No, certainly not with words, but the silence which occurred meant much more than "words could have meant. Later Rascher gave me a severe reprimand and he asked me if I was entirely mad. He thought I was made to contradict the "Reichs Heini" as he expressed himself in that manner.
Q. Did Wuest's remarks to Sievers refer to that situation about which Sievers has testified here?
A. Yes, it can only be in reference to that situation.
Q. Sievers says upon pages 58 to 69 of the German transcript, and I quote: "Wuest once told me about a conference which took place at the field headquarters of Himmler in the presence of Romberg and Rascher. In that connection he said the young man had come to his attention, although he had forgotten his name. Romberg not only opposed Himmler, but beyond that made long statements, This caused an embarrassing silence among the people present." Is that the incident?
A. Yes, I am sure it must have been that.
Q Did Himmler say anything else during that conference?
AAfter this embarrassing silence was over, Himmler spoke about the demands that that total war effort made on us and he said that it wasn't asking too much to use concentration cam inmates for these experiments, who were not helping at the front. This is the way these people could rehabilitate themselves, people condemned to death could thereby be pardoned, and they could be given an opportunity to fight at the front. He further said that whoever didn't understand that could not have understood that in this war it was a matter of life or death for Germany. Then he went on to speak about the losses in the East and particularly the losses of the SS and how his heart was bleeding every time he heard that another thousand of his wonderful boys had died.
Q What impression did these statements make on you?
A Well these were words that actually made sense considering this serious situation at that time. However, I was firmly decided never again to cooperate with Rascher.
Q And what happened afterwards, was the film shown?
A On, yes, afterwards we went into a room and there the film about the experiments was shown. Himmler was very satisfied with the film and the experiments and he thought that those experiments were f extreme importance for the Luftwaffe and that they would save the lives f many a pilot. Afterwards we saw it in the news reel and in the Russian military film.
Q that was your impression about the entire conference y u had with Himmler?
A Well, at that time I did have a very strong impression about this conference. These serious conditions, I heard about the losses in the East and about the total war effort were in such strong contradiction to what I had read in the press, that I would perhaps even have participated in the cold experiments as they were performed by Rascher and the carelessness he had shown toward human life.
For that reason, when Himmler asked me to participate in the cold experiments I tried to get away from that duty and I succeeded in doing so.
Q Therefore, although you were selected for these experiments you refused to take part, is that right?
A Yes.
Q When did Rascher first plan to carry out the cold experiments, so far as you know?
A During the high altitude experiments in Dachau he collected literature on the subject, and no doubt had it planned, and whether it was Himmler or Rascher I don't know. He also showed me the work by Smith and Fay about the treatment of cancer with cold and he asked me to work on these planned experiments with him, but I always carefully tried to get out of it. When he was in Berlin working on the report of the DVL he got to know my work and I was able completely to convince him I was not the right man for these experiments and that it was too far away from my field of interest and my field of work and Rascher stopped trying to persuade me to work on the cold experiments. I was, therefore, unpleasantly surprised when Himmler suddenly personally gave me the assignment to carry out the experiments with Rascher. When he gave me the assignment I tried to get out of it by saying I was already overworked at the DVL. He immediately offered me assistance to get free from the DVL and I gave up objecting. I thought it would be possible to get free by myself and I decided to disappear inconspicuously just as in the high altitude experiments and I succeeded in doing so.
The next time I saw Rascher at the aviation ministry when the film was shown, I, of course, did not bring up the subject of the cold experiments, and he himself did not mention it either. I was all the more astonished then when Rascher in October appeared in Nurnberg with Holzloehner and they had already completed the experiments.
Q. Did you ever ask Rascher whether the experimental subjects were pardoned or released, the people who had participated in the high altitude experiments?
A. Once when we visited Himmler, Himmler said that the people would be released and when I met Rascher in Nurnberg at the cold meeting, I asked him and he said that they had been released.
Q. You v.ere just speaking of a film shown in the Reich Aviation Ministry, and you no doubt wrote a brief report on it. That is document book No. 2 of the Prosecution, NO 224, Exhibit 76; when was this film shown?
A. I know the date only from this report which I wrote and which is in the document book. I know from that it was on the 11th of September. I was on a trip at that time. I was on leave and the invitation or the order to attend this showing of the film was sent after me. I went to the Reich Aviation Ministry on that date and I met Rascher there. The rest of the meeting is described better in this file note than I can reproduce it from memory. After the unsuccessful attempt to show it, Milch had failed to turn up and Rascher refused to toll me about these experiments without the presence of Milch. This had annoyed the doctors who were interested. Rascher immediately tele phoned Mr. Sievers and told him about the failure of the showing very indignantly, because his vanity was hurt.
Sievers, who was just about to go on a trip, asked both of us to came to the railroad station and when we met him there he tried to calm Rascher down and thought that nothing could be achieved with excitement. He asked me to write a brief note about what had happened that morning and to send it to him. He asked about the film and when we told him we had left the film in the Aviation Ministry he advised us to go get the film because of the obligation to secrecy, but I was not able to do so until the next day.
Q. Did you hear anything more about the film later?
A. No, I never heard anything more about it.
Q. In Prosecution Document Book No. 2 there are a number pf pictures. Did you take these pictures?
A. No, I did not take these pictures. I can say the following about these pictures. When these pictures were shown to me during an interrogation, I was told they came from a motion picture film' and the prosecution said the same thing here. I thought that meant the film which I knew the motion picture of the experiments when I was present, but when I looked at the pictures I was immediately able to see that four of them at the most could have come from that motion picture. I assumed that Rascher might have taken another film behind my back. In the meantime I have realized, having looked at the pictures closely, that not a single one of them comes from that motion picture. I know that because in the film which was taken in the experiments there was a clock in the background and instruments in the foreground. That was necessary in order to be able to use the film later. It was possible only as the time and altitude were always registered on the film.
Also Rascher had put mounter suits on the experimental subjects during the picture.
Q. In these pictures which are in Document Book II are there no instruments and no clock?
A. No, I've looked at them carefully. That could not be overlooked. That was a big clock with a big second-hand which was beside the head of the subject.
Q. That is proof to you that these pictures do not come from the film?
A. That they do not come from the film, yes. The witness Neff, who was probably present when these photographs were taken, immediately realized the difference when the pictures were shown to him here. He says on Page 661 of the German transcript, I quote: "When the film was taken the prisoners were given a civilian suit and it could not be seen that they were prisoners. These are photographs; and I know that when prisoners were photographed, they were given a fairly clean suit with no insignia. That is why one could not see on the photographs or in the film who these people were or what insignia they wore."
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I wish to clarify for the record that it is not known to me that the prosecution offered these pictures in Document Book II as extracts from the film that was purported to have been shown at the RLM but merely as photographs which were found among the personal effects of Dr. Sigmund Rascher in his home in Munich; and I want it to be clear that the film that was shown at the Ministry is not in the hands of the prosecution. Had said film been in the hands of the prosecution, it certainly would have been shown here during our case in chief; and we will are in search of such films.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I should like to have the explanation of the prosecution that the pictures in Document Book II are not submitted as having been taken during the experiments for rescue from high altitude. If I understood the prosecutor correctly that is the explanation he just made.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the prosecution does not state that these pictures were not taken during the course of those experiments.
I am merely trying to clarify it that these photographs which have been offered in evidence and are contained in Document Book II are not extracts of the film, that is, as far as we know. It may well be that the same type pictures appear on the film; but the prosecution has not seen the film that was shown at the RLM and does not have the film that was shown at all. The first four pictures in Document Book II have been properly identified by no less than defendant Romberg himself; and the remainder of the pictures have been identified by the witness Neff when he was here on the witness stand. We contend that these are pictures of the experiments at Dachau.
DR. VERWERK: I ask that the transcript show that these pictures do not come from the film which was taken of the experiments for rescue from high altitude.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show the statement of counsel for the prosecution. That is as far as the Tribunal will go in the matter; and counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
THE WITNESS: May I say something else about these pictures? BY DR. VERWERK:
Q. Please do.
A. I said at the beginning that when I was shown these pictures I was told that they came from a motion picture film; and the prosecution said the same thing here. I thought that might mean a Leica film, for example, not necessarily a motion picture. Only when the pictures were shown to me did I think that they meant that it actually came from a motion picture and thought that it might have come from this motion picture of the experiments. Since I did not know those photographs but only knew the motion picture, I assumed in the beginning that they were the same thing; but because the instruments are lacking and because of the testimony of Neff, it is clearly proved that not a single one of these pictures comes from the motion picture but from a private film in the possession of Rascher, a Leica film, photographs which he probably took for his private work or for his work to qualify as a professor.
Q. When was the Cold meeting in Nurnberg?
A. That was in October.
Q. How did it come about that you participated? Did you know from the lecture which you heard that there had been deaths during the cold experiments?
A. First of all my participation was a matter of course because it was a meeting of aviation medicine, of aviation doctors.
It was just coincidence what it was a Cold meeting. I participated in almost all such meetings; and, besides, I was interested in the cold problem since I was at the time planning to carry out cold experiments with the low pressure chamber, experiments which were later carried out.
As for this second question, whether I knew that any deaths had occurred, one must make a strict distinction between my personal judgment and that which was clear to the general public. Besides, one must not over-estimate the attention attracted by such a meeting. I did not approve of Rascher and his experiments personally. I had broken off the low pressure experiments for that reason and had refused to participate in the cold experiments as Himmler had wished.
If now in Nurnberg Holzloehner spoke of observations of cold persons and said that he had collaborated with Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke, if he spoke of observations on dead persons, I personally, since I was prejudiced against Rascher, almost automatically assumed that this referred to the experiments, especially since after Holzloehner's lecture Rascher spoke in a bad external form and said that Himmler had taken the responsibility for this and ordered strict Secrecy. But in his lecture Holzloehner had spoken of the experience of rescue from sea, animal experiments, human experiments, and had confused them in such a way that the listener who was not prejudiced would have assumed that the results were experience from cases of rescue at sea. This is especially true of people who knew how extensive this sea rescue service was, who knew of its great success, and who knew that Finke and Holzloehner had worked together in the sea rescue service.
Q. Now, Mr. Romberg, one more question on the previous matter on the pictures. In your presence during the Dachau experiments, were any other pictures taken, whether films or individual pictures, any others besides the ones which form the motion picture which was later shown at the Aviation Ministry and to Himmler?
A. No, knew only that motion picture. That is why I thought of it first when I was shown the pictures.
Q. Then you did not take any other pictures?
A. No.
Q. Did Rascher take any other pictures during the experiments for rescue from high altitude?
A. No; at least not in my presence.
Q. Aside from you two, did any third person take other pictures aside from t his motion picture?
A. I don't know whether anyone else took pictures.
Q. As far as you were present?
A. No.
Q. Later did you do any further work in the field of high altitude?
A. Yes. That was really my field of work; but I also worked specifically on the question of parachuting from high altitudes or rescue from high altitudes, the cold work which Dr. Ruff has already mentioned, parachute jumping, and cold and lack of oxygen, great altitudes, and time reserve experiments -- that is, staying at high altitudes with simultaneous lack of oxygen, and with cold. During the cold experiments we first worked on the question of parachute jumping, as the more important question; and the second thing was the question of the simultaneous effect of lack of oxygen and cold while remaining at high altitudes. These were experiments on ourselves, together with the associates. As Ruff has already said, we wore light clothing and wont down to as far as 45 degrees below zero as long as two hours.
One report each was written on the two series of experiments.
DR. VORWERK: In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to submit from Document Book Romberg Document Number 1, the affidavit of Dr. Walter Freitag. I should like to submit this as Exhibit 1. In the first paragraph of this affidavit the affiant speaks of his work with the defendant Romberg from 1939 on at the Institute for Aviation Medicine.
I should like to read the second paragraph. I quote: "Dr. Wolfgang Romberg was diligent and industrious and carried out his tasks conscientiously and to the best of his ability. The experiments, in particular the work in the low pressure chamber on the effects of oxygen deficiency at normal temperatures and in the cold (up to minus 45 degrees C.) required considerable mental concentration as well as extreme physical exertion. Dr. Romberg was always the first to submit to those experiments. The importance of his personal effort is especially emphasized by the large number of tests and experiments. The elucidation of a number of individual questions was probably only made possible by this effort."
Then there follows a judgment of the character of the defendant. Then I shall read the last sentence: "I am convinced that he planned and performed the experiments on inmates from an absolutely moral standpoint and that he, just as Dr. Ruff, was the victim of mean, treacherous deception." There follows a signature and certification. It is dated the 28th of January 1947.
DR. VORWERK: As Romberg Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I submit the next affidavit by Dr. med. Werner Loeckle. First the affiant speaks of his own work and how he got to know the defendant. Then, in the second paragraph he describes individual experiments. Later he speaks of the volunteer nature of the experiments, of the carefulness of the defendant in all his experiments, that the subjects were volunteers. Then I should like to read on page 5 of the paragraph that starts a little above the middle of the page. I quote:
"I met Dr. Romberg as a member of the institute round about 1938 or 1939. He was mainly concerned with questions of high altitude physiology, and participated in most of the planning of the experiments, where he proved to be an intelligent and circumspect, extraordinarily cautious and conscientious adviser. He always paid special attention to all security installations and precautions. Nearly all the people working there confidently asked his advise when dangerous or us yet unknown experimental conditions had to be tested. He always undertook the training of now assistant personnel, and his efforts were extremely successful. He always took part himself as an experimental subject in the experiments necessary for his own work and for the work of other members of the institute even if the experiments were unpleasant or dangerous. Romberg only worked with volunteer experimental subjects: I think he would never had made use of any forced 'readiness to volunteer'. In view of his character I consider it to be quite out of the question for Dr. Romberg to have taken part in unscrupulous experiments or in cruelties.
"A Closer acquaintance with Dr. Romberg, showed his political attitude to be open to the world and definitely above the narrow nationalistic ideas prevailing at the time.
His objections against certain measures of the regime were well thought out and were not without a certain grim sense of humor.
"Long conversations with similar minded persons in his room were a real consolation, to us in those abnormal times. It was Dr. Romberg who skillfully provided a possibility to listen to foreign radio stations in the institute."
And follows the signature and certification.
In view of the political attitude of the defendant I should like to submit Document Romberg No. 3 as Exhibit No. 3. This is an affidavit of Mrs. Nadja Bartsch of the 20 February 1947 and she says: I quote the first paragraph:
"I have known Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg since the summer of 1943 as an extraordinarily helpful physician and cotenant. On closer acquaintance with him and his family I found him to be the strongest opponent of National Socialism. We all constantly listened together to foreign broadcasts both in his rooms and ours and our conversations were anything but pro-nazi.
"I should like to remark here that as a non-aryan, I would never have associated with anyone who had other ideas.
"When I heard of the accusations made against Dr. Romberg, I could hardly believe them, for I know no one among my acquaintances who was such a fanatical opponent of National Socialism and, on the other hand, was such a helpful physician and man."
There follows the signature and certification.
As Romberg Document No. 4 I should like to submit the affidavit of Fritz Ebmeyer which will be Romberg Exhibit No. 4. This is dated 19 February 1947. I quote - first paragraph:
"I have known Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg since 1943. When the Nazi authorities refused me permission to marry my fiancee, who, according to the regulations in force at tho time, was of mixed descent Grade II, Dr. Romberg showed his political views by advising me to wait patiently as this regime could not last muck longer and then I should be able to marry. After the collapse in 1945 I married my fiancee.
"If Dr. Romberg had any pro-Nazi feelings, my fiancee and I would have had nothing to do with him or his family. Apart from the foreign broadcasts, to which I constantly listened at his home, it was his truly fanatical anti-National-Socialist attitude which supported me in my views."
There follows the signature and certification.
Now let's got back to the high altitude experiments, Dr. Romberg. I should like to ask you why did you not forcibly prevent Rascher from breaking off the experiment when you saw that it might be fatal?
A. You mean prevent him from carrying the experiment on?
Q. Yes.
A. Basically I can say the following. An academic man and a scientist by virtue of his education and training is hardly able to attack some one physically and achieve anything by brute force. I personally am not a violent man or a boxer I think you will be willing to believe. For myself specifically and for a scientist in general to make his ideas prevail by violence. He relies more on words or arguments on his powers of persuasion.