Then you said, around the middle of the paragraph: "Dr. Ruff was first approached to assist in the high altitude experiments at Dachau by Dr. G.A. Weltz, Chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich. This was in December 1941 or January 1942. Dr. Weltz advised Ruff that Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a doctor in the Luftwaffe and also a member of the SS, was to perform the high altitude experiments. Weltz wanted an expert to work with Rascher on these experiments."
Witness, now we have heard your testimony and also that of Dr. Ruff. And Dr. Ruff, in particular, told us in detail about the conference between himself and Prof. Weltz. That conference, if I understood Ruff and you correctly, was aimed at Dr. Weltz's making the suggestion to have the second part of your experiments which you, yourself, had conducted in Aldershof as experiments on yourself; to transfer to Dachau, to experiment on inmates. And that that possibility was made available by Dr. Rascher.
In your testimony here it looks as though Weltz or Rascher had planned experiments for Dachau, and as rhough for those experiments which Weltz planned, you or Ruff respectively were called in as experts to assist in the experiments. May I now ask you, witness, to tell me which opinion is the correct one: first one which I have deduced from yours and Ruff's testimony--or the opinion which seems to become clear in your affidavit?
A. In the discussion with Weltz-- that is, the discussion between Ruff and Weltz--I was not present, as Ruff has already said.
My knowledge of this discussion is based on what Dr. Ruff told me later, and as ha explained it that within a general discussion about important questions of aviation medicine, the problem of rescue from high altitude came up, and this possibility of obtaining experimental subjects for those experiments because Dr. Rascher had the permission to use them, was also discussed. The formulation in the affidavit did not come from me personally. It was submitted to mo in this form. If I did not object to this expression: "...approached to assist... as an expert, it was because my memory of what Dr. Ruff told me about the discussion with Weltz was not in contradiction to it. Some agreement on the experiments had been reached in this discussion.
Q. Now, today, witness, you know from Dr. Ruff's report how this discussion went, and surely you will agree with me that it would be more correct to say that some of your research program, the program of Dr. Ruff, or the DVL, had to be continued in Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Very well, Now, another question, witness. As we know, you collaborated for some time with Dr. Rascher in Dachau, and I may assume, that Dr. Weltz was mentioned in these experiments. On those occasions did Dr. Rascher ever tell you that he and Dr. Weltz differed very considerably in certain points?
A. Yes, he talked about that repeatedly.
Q. Can you give us more details of these differences? Were they concerned with the facts perhaps that Prof. Weltz, wished to supervise Dr. Rascher, who at that time, was still a member of his institute, whereas Dr, Rascher in his turn did not like that supervision?
A. Yes, that was said. The telegram from Himmler played an important role, saying that the experiments were to be kept secret.
Rascher took this telegram to Weltz, showed it to him, and he told him that he was not allowed to give him any reports because of this telegram.
Q. That telegram you saw yourself witness; did you?
A. Yes. Rascher showed it to me too, of course, to emphasize my own obligation to secrecy.
Q. Do you still recall the wording of that telegram?
A. I believe it was teletype; it was very short. It said only that the high altitude experiments in concentration camp Dachau were to be kept secret, absolutely secret to everyone. I am not sure; it have said "Top Secret".
Q. And, as you said yourself, Rascher showed this telegram to Dr. Weltz, and thereby avoided Weltz's supervision. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I was not there, but he told me that he had showed it to Weltz.
Q. Yes.... very well. Now, did Rascher, as far as you were concerned, make any remarks on Prof. Weltz's character?
A. Yes; he said that he was a strong Catholic, I believe he called him a "black" fellow, who collaborated with the circles of Catholic activists, and who, therefore, would not be suited to collaborate with such experiments or to learn about them.
Q. May I, therefore, understand you to the effect that Rascher did not like Prof. Weltz, and declined to have anything to do with him just because of his Christian attitude?
A. Yes.
Q. Very well. One final set of questions, witness. When, for the last time, did you talk to Prof. Weltz about the Dachau experiments?
A. I cannot remember the time exactly; it was certainly before the actual start of the experiments--when I talked to Prof. Weltz the last time.
Q. Do you, by any chance, know witness, whether your last conversation with Dr. Weltz took place before the teletype was shown to Weltz by Rascher-- or afterwards?
A. My last talk to Prof. Weltz was before this teletype.
Q. Before the teletype. Now, do you have any indication, witness, for the fact that Prof. Weltz knew anything about the actual experiments themselves?
A. No.
Q. You said just now that you and Weltz saw each other for the last time before the actual experiments really started. That is correct, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact whether or not Prof. Weltz received any reports on the carrying out of the experiments?
A. He did not receive any from me. As far as I know he did not receive any at all.
Q. Can you tell us, witness, whether Rascher perhaps on some occasion reported to Weltz about the experiments, perhaps on the fatalities which occurred at the time too?
A. No; I considered that quite impossible on the basis of this telegram.
Q. Now, I should like to go back finally to your affidavit, in order to make it quite clear. This is Document NO-476 on page one of the, Document Book II; in Figure 10.
Once again you talk of Prof. Weltz, and you said, it is the second sentence: "Dr. Weltz certainly never expressed any moral scruples against these high altitude tests since it was he who originally asked Dr. Ruff and me to assist Dr. Rascher."
The question of any assistance given we have already discussed. I need not go into that now, only to clarify matters I would like you, witness, to tell us what experiments you are talking about here when you say that. After all, we know now that there were two experiments going on at Dachau; first, your experiments; that is to say, the experiments called "rescue from high altitudes", and second, the experiments made by Dr. Rascher alone. To what experiments do you refer here when you say these things in this paragraph?
A. Of course, the experiments for rescue from high altitude. This expression was originally not in the affidavit. I added it specifically in order to indicate that Weltz had no scruples against these experiments which he had previously discussed with Ruff.
Q. Now, since you told us, witness, that Professor Weltz was informed neither by you or by Rascher on the conduct of the experiments, you wish, therefore, to say, if I understand you correctly, that Professor Weltz had no scruples against the planning of the experiments for; after all, that was all he knew?
A. Yes, he could naturally only object to what he knew about the experiments.
Q. Thank you very much.
May it please your Honors, I have no further questions.
BY DR. HOFFMAN (Defense Counsel for the defendant Pokorny):
Q. Witness, after the end of the war were you a prisoner of war or an internee in some camp?
A. Yes, I was an internee for one year in camps in the British Zone.
Q. Did you, in those camps, ever hear any conversations about sterilization operations?
A. Yes, in the Camp Esterwegen, where I was last, there was a Dr. -- Dr. Meyer. He told me, when I asked him why he was interned that he was charged with performing sterilization operations in Holland.
Q. Did he also tell you when these operations were carried out? In what year?
A. I am not sure of the year. I think that it was about 1941 or 1942.
Q. I see. I have no further questions.
BY DA. WEISGERBER (Defense Counsel for the defendant Sievers):
Q. Dr. Romberg, from what time onwards did you know the codefendant Sievers?
A. I met him for the first time when he came on a visit to Dachau during the high altitude experiments shortly before Raster, 1942.
Q. The high altitude experiments were in full swing at the time, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. And prior to that time, you did not know him? How often did you see Sievers at Dachau?
A. Only this one time, at this visit.
Q. And on that occasion, you were present too?
A. Yes.
Q. How did it come about that Sievers took any part in those experiments? Was that because Rascher invited him?
A. I don't know exactly how that happened. Rascher only said that Sievers came from the Ahnenerbe. I don't believe that he came especially for these experiments, but he was coming anyhow and that he would look at the experiments. Whether he was invited to do so, or why Sievers came, I don't know.
Q. And on that experiment Sievers was merely a spectator?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Sievers ever suggest that he had orders to be present in the experiments as an expert?
A. No, of course not.
Q. Therefore, the scientific side of the experiments was no concern of his?
A. No.
Q. Were they any fatalities in the experiments Sievers saw?
A. No.
Q. The tasks and functions of Sievers which he carried out in Dachau -- did you know any details about that?
A. No, no details. I just know that Rascher told me that Sievers was the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe and had something to do with administration or personnel questions there.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact whether Sievers had anything to do with the selection of the experimental subjects?
A. No, he certainly had nothing to do with that.
Q. Now, to sum up. I come to the result that the experiments made would have been made just the same whether Silvers was there in some capacity or whether he would not?
A. Yes, the experiments had begun before he was there.
Q. In your direct examination, you mentioned that you reported to Himmler in his field headquarters. At that time, was Professor Wuest present?
A. Yes, he was there.
Q. And did you know who Professor Wuest was? What his functions were?
A. Yes, Rascher had told me that on the train on the way and when we met Professor Wuest. Rascher told me afterwards that Wuest was, I believe he said, the curator of the Ahnenerbe and Rector of the University of Munich, and that he was the superior of Sievers in the Ahnenerbe.
Q. Then you said that, on that occasion, reference was made to further experiments, that is to say, freezing experiments. You explained that, in those experiments, the rewarming with animal warmth was to be carried out. Can you tell us whose idea was this? The Prosecution described those things as though that method of rewarming was Sievers' brain child.
A. I believe that I was present at the birth of this idea, so to speak, when Himmler gave Rascher the assignment to go around the sea rescue stations in the North Sea -- and inquire what remedies the . people applied in such cases of rescue of frozen sailors, and he said that he could imagine that a fisherman's wife would simply take her half-frozen husband into her bed and warm him up that way. That was not a particularly striking suggestion at the time. I believe that this is done along the coast, but as I saw the suggestion turn up again here, I, of course, am horrified too.
Q. Can you recall whether Himmler, at that time, ordered Rascher to have these rewarming experiments carried out through using the body warmth of women?
A. No, he certainly did not give the assignment yet at that time. The matter was simply discussed in conversation about the possibilities for rescue.
Q. And, in that conversation, Professor Wuest was present, was he not?
A. Yes, Wuest was present.
Q. Now, did Wuest make any objection to such a proposition?
A. No, Wuest certainly made no objection.
Q. In that conversation on cold experiments and anything connected with cold experiments, did Sievers come into that at all.
A. No, his name was certainly not mentioned.
Q. Through the intimate contact between yourself and Rascher, which was the result of the experiments, you certainly heard him mention something about the fact that he wished to be transferred to the Waffen-SS?
A. Yes, he had spoken about that repeatedly. Perhaps during the high altitude experiments, but I don't believe so, but he certainly spoke about it when we were to report to Milch in the Aviation Ministry when we did not quite succeed.
Q And did Himmler give any indication that he himself wished Rascher to be transferred to the Waffen-SS?
A When I visited him? At that meeting?
Q Yes, or did Rascher tell you anything of that description?
A Rascher told me about it, but I don't believe it was mentioned during the discussion.
Q At least, not while you were present still because you said before that there was another conference on the next day?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Now, my final question, Dr. Romberg, would you please take up once again your document book concerning high altitude experiments and, in particular, your affidavit which has been mentioned so often before. That is Document 476, Exhibit of the prosecution #40, on page 1 of Document Book 2. On Page 3, at the bottom: "Wolfram Sievers of the Ahnenerbe Society of the SS was also familiar with these experiments and was in Dachau several times when they were being conducted."
The word "familiar" - has it been put there at your request? Because, as I recall, Sievers has been there only once as a mere spectator and that he is not a scientist, I am rather surprised at that term "familiar".
A. That formulation of all these affidavits did not originate with me. I want to say that he know about these experiments and that at one occasion he had watched one in Dachau and I saw him personally at the experimental station.
Q. In other words, that he knew of the experiments -- those things which he had seen himself?
A. Yes, apparently he knew that experiments were carried out and he knew what he had seen during the visit.
Q. My final question, any reports, oral reports or reports in writing, were they sent to Sievers or the Ahnenerbe, as far as you know?
A. Not to my knowledge. I do not know exactly, however, but I assume that one copy of the research report was sent to the Ahnenerbe
DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions of the witness by defense counsel? There being none, the prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Romberg, where did you study medicine, doctor?
A. Berlin and Innsbruck.
Q. Were you ever in the Wehrmacht?
A. Yes, in 1936 end 1937, that is, December 1936 to January 1937 I had two months basic training in the Luftwaffe and then two periods of additional training so that at the beginning of the war I was an Upterarzt in the reserve.
Q. When were you first assigned to the German experimental station for aviation, the DVL?
A. I never was in an experimental station but from 1 January 1938 I was in the DVL in Adlershof.
Q. Was it because of your position in the DVL and your work in the field of aviation medicine the reason why you were not in active duty with either the Luftwaffe or some other branch of the Wehrmacht?
A. Yes, I was declared essential for that agency, the DVL, so that I could serve in the DVL during the war.
Q. Well now, you have expressed here in the course of your direct examination by virtue of some affidavits which you have introduced in evidence that you were an anti-Nazi. Is that the impression you want to create upon this Tribunal?
A. I didn't ask for these affidavits, rather they were sent to me so that I had no influence on the way these affidavits were expressed, particularly the Jewish one from Berlin.
Q. Were you a member of the Nazi party, doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you join?
A. 1 May 1933.
Q. You joined very early, didn't you?
A. That was the time when quite a number of people joined the party, right at the beginning. I was a student at Innsbruck at the time and joined on 1 May 1933.
Q. Was it to your advantage during the course of the time you were a student to be a member of the Nazi Party?
A. No, it had no influence on my studies.
Q. You joined by choice?
A. At that time I thought that good would come of it.
Q. Now, doctor, you have stated here on direct examination the first time you heard about the experiments to be conducted at the Dachau concentration camp was when Ruff informed you he had a visit from Professor Weltz, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. After Professor Weltz paid a visit to Ruff, how extensively did you and Ruff discuss the visit of Professor Weltz?
A. That lasted a half an hour or perhaps as much as an hour for sure
Q. At that time was it established that the concentration camp inmates were to be subjects used in the experiments?
A. Yes, as I recollect, that was already said in this conversation.
Q. Then it is true that Professor Weltz informed Ruff that it was the plan to conduct these experiments at Dachau on inmates of the concentration camp?
A. Yes, that was essentially the contents of that conversation between Weltz and Ruff.
Q. Well then, in a matter of a few days you and Ruff proceeded to Munich for a conference, is that correct?
A. Christmas intervened there, so probably it was about a month later when that trip took place.
Q. Now, when you arrived at Professor Weltz's institute in Munich, you found Rascher present, is that it?
A. As I remember, he wasn't there at the beginning. He came later. We arrived first.
Q. And that was the first time you ever met Rascher?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss among yourselves at that time - that is the conference wherein Weltz, Rascher, Ruff, and yourself took part - the purpose of these experiments?
A. Well, the purpose was also discussed although it had already been established before that on the basis of the decision and we went to Munich in the first place to carry out these experiments.
Q. Well now, in this preliminary meeting what was the point which you were trying to establish? Was it research into high altitudes above 12,000 meters?
A. It was the pressing program of finding out how to rescue people from those altitudes.
Q. And this would be the first time in this particular field that such research was to be conducted, is that it - that is, higher than 12,000 meters?
A. No, we had already gone higher at a slower descent from 15,000 and a rapid descent from 17,000, not only we in our institute but also other institutes in Germany had already done this.
Q. And then, of course, the all important problem came up at this discussion in Munich that the inmates of the concentration camps would be used, and now you state Rascher had a letter from Himmler granting him authority to carry out these experiments at the Dachau concentration camp and to use the inmates therein. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal as much as you can remember just what this letter said?
A. I can't say for sure any more now. Rascher read it aloud to me. Roughly it said that the approval in principle for Rascher to carry out the experiments in Dachau was still given and that criminal prisoners were to be used who volunteered.
Q. Did it contain the words "criminal inmates would be used and that the inmates were to he volunteers"? Did it specifically state that in Himmler's letter?
A. "Criminal inmates" was certainly not in the letter but the word "criminal" was in it.
Q. Was the word "volunteer" in it?
A. Yes, that word was in it.
Q. Go on. What else did the letter contain?
A. I don't believe there was much more in it. There was some notice that other offices were to be informed and then there was the signature.
Q. There was definitely a pardon clause contained in Himmler's letter, was there?
A. Yes, that was in there.
Q. Well now, these experiments that you were conducting were to he in an altitude higher than 12,000 meters, and I call your attention to the fact that Dr. Ruff said that in Berlin they had only gone up to 12,000 meters, that is, prior to the Dachau experiments, so far as his particular research was concerned. Wasn't it a very dangerous situation, one wherein it would he difficult, more than difficult, to receive volunteers?
A First of all, I don't believe Ruff said here that they had gone only to 12,000 meters because he knows very well that we had conducted experiments at higher altitudes at the Institute and that he had participated in them. I don't remember what his precise words were, though. You never know ahead of time how dangerous such experiments are going to be. That was the case, also, with our own experiments. It was a further ascent such as was gradually taking place in aviation regarding speed and altitude and the size of the machines, etc.
Q Well, now, what was the date of this Himmler letter? Do you recall?
A No. I don't know the date. It was certainly in the year 1941, before the conversation.
Q And you were sure that Himmler specified persons to be used to be volunteers?
A Yes.
Q Well, now, who requested Himmler that subjects be set aside for the high altitude experiments?
A These negotiations had taken place before, between Rascher and Himmler. We didn't know the details. Rascher, however, showed us through this letter that he had permission and plenipotentiary powers from Himmler.
Q I see. Well, now let us turn to page 53 of Document Book No. 11, which is Document No. NO-1602-PS--the fifth document in the book. This is a letter from Rascher to Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler, dated 13 May 1941. I ask you now to refer to the second paragraph. I will read from it: "For the time being I have been assigned to the Luftgaukommando VII, Munich, for a medical course. During this course, where researches on high-altitude flights play a prominent part (determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes), considerable regret was expressed at the fact that no tests with human material had yet been possible for us, as such experiments--" Does the interpreter have the letter, Document N0-1602-PS, 53 of the English.
I am starting with the second paragraph.
Do you have the Document Book No. II?
INTERPRETER: The texts don't seem to correspond. If you will read slowly the interpreter will keep along.
MR. HARDY: Well, there only three sentences in the first paragraph. It begins with the fourth sentence. It begins: "For the time being I have been assigned to Luftgaukommando VII, Munich, for a medical course." Do you have it, Mr. Brown.
INTERPRETER: Texts don't correspond in German and English.
MR. HARDY: Well, they corresponded before, Mr. Brown, some three or four months ago. It is obvious that you have the wrong book then.
INTERPRETER: I have 1602-PS, on page 53.
MR. HARDY: That is right...the letter. I will read the entire letter; then maybe it will help you. "1602-PS." Do you have the letter in the German book? "Dear Reicnsfuehrer. My sincere thanks for your cordial wishes and flowers on the birth of my second son. This time, too, it is a strong boy, though he has come 3 weeks too early. I will permit myself to send you a picture of both children at the opportune moment."
"For the time being I have been assigned to the--"
THE INTERPRETER: At this point the texts deviate from one another.
MR. HARDY: Well, we will go back to that. Will you please chock that immediately? We will go back to that at a later date. It is important that you check it immediately, please.
DR. VORWERK: (Counsel for the defendant Romberg) Mr. President, in the German Document Book II, page 54, there is in this document, the part that the prosecutor wishes to read is designated as "illegible."
In other words, it is not contained in the German document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, is the photostat of the original available here?
MR. HARDY: No, Your Honor, that is in the hands of the SecretaryGeneral.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Secretary-General will please bring to the Prosecution, a part is obviously not contained in the copy of the document book which is in the original. Now, if this part is subsequently to be put in, this would, in effect be submitting a new document. Therefore, I request that the prosecutor be instructed to show us this document twenty-four hours before he wishes to put in evidence.
MR. HARDY: Of course, in cross-examination I don't have to follow that rule. May I ask the court reporter to kindly read the next sentence after the first paragraph where I stopped reading and it becomes incoherent to read in the next sentence? Pardon me--the German; contained in the German document.
INTERPRETER: In the German book, this is the word -
MR. HARDY: All right, what comes after that -- the first full sentence that corresponds is the sentence in German, and that corresponds in the English document book--about three-eights of the way down the page: "The experiments are made at Permanent Luftwaffe Testing Station for Altitude Research--" that sentence is in the eight line of the second paragraph.
INTERPRETER: (Reads from German text)
MR. HARDY: I will proceed, Your Honor, and wait for the original exhibit. Of course, in this discussion, Your Honor, the Defense counsel must bear in mind that this document was presented to him--a photostatic copy thereof--and will be the same as the exhibit, whereas the document book may well have that marked "illegible." He has had a photostatic copy of this document--as it is in evidence--since December the 4th 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is much interested, of course, in the accuracy of these document books. They desire to have that matter carefully checked.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q We will go back to that point, Dr. Romberg;
Now, after Dr. Rascher has exhibited the Himmler letter to you which indicated subjects to be used, must be criminals, and that they must volunteer. Did you after that time positively establish that each subject used was a volunteer?
A You mean later, when the experiments were actually carried out?
Q Yes.
A With the experimental subjects for our experiments--I had talks at some length during the course of time--and they corroborated that.
Q Well, now, you have testified that you used some ten to fifteen experimental subjects in experiments over which you and Ruff had some control. How long did you use these ten to fifteen subjects?
A Throughout the whole course of the experiments; they were available for the experiments and were used in them.
Q In other words, you had those subjects available from--according to your own testimony now--the twenty-second of February until the time that the experiments were completed--which you say was about the twentieth of May?
A Yes.
Q So you had them the whole month of March, April; nearly the whole month of May. That was ten to fifteen subjects. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did you talk to each and every one of those ten or fifteen subjects?
A In the course of time I spoke personally with all of these men on all sorts of subjects; on their having been sentence, on what their previous sentences had been, on their position in the camp, and why they had volunteered for the experiments.
Q How many times was each subject of this small group submitted to an experiment--or subjected to an experiment?
A I should say about twenty--for each person.
Q Twenty times each person went through an experiment! Well, now, in the course of nearly three months you subjected each one of these subjects to perhaps twenty experiments apiece. Now, kindly, for the Court record, give us the names of some of these subjects. You must have well known their names after working with them for such a length of time as that. How many names can you remember?