I think it is exemplary, isn't it?
A. I don't knew just what the general procedure was with pardons in such cases as this. In general people condemned to death are happy if they are pardoned just as long as they don't die; now whether a person condemned to death could be set scott free I don't know, I can't judge. However, this was Himmler's directive. It was sent to the necessary offices, to the Chief of the Sipo, Gluecks, and so forth, and here it says people condemned to death are to be pardoned to concentration camp for life.
Q. Now, in the course of your experiments you only used so you and Ruff say, from 10 to 15 experimental subjects, all volunteers. Was it made clear to this group of experimental subjects, that is the one in the Rascher experiments and the one in the Ruff-Romberg experiments, and according to Ruff that numbers in the hundreds and up to 80 wore killed eventually in high altitude experiments. Now, was it made clear to these subjects when they volunteered for periments what they were volunteering for; did the subject know whether or not he was volunteering for the Ruff-Romberg or Rascher experiment, or merely for the Rascher experiment; how did he know when he got into the experimental chamber who was going to work on him, how did he know that?
A. Our men lived at the station and carried on the experiments continously, and I told them exactly what experiments were to be carried out and to what purpose they served. The other experimental subjects whom Rascher used, I had nothing to do with. Neff says they wore brought to the station with SS guards of some sort and that Rascher then carried out the experiments with them.
Q Well now,Doctor, each and every time an experimental subject entered the low pressure chamber, did you look at him and make sure ho was one of your ten or fifteen?
A If these were my experiments, then I usually called the people myself in person, and said whose turn it was. I had a list to see that the experiments were evenly divided among the experimental subjects.
Q Well, you took a list; what did you call them; numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten; or did you call them by names?
A The names were there.
Q You only remember three names and you used to call them by name?
A I remember four names.
Q Four out fifteen and you used to call these men by name and make sure, one would not have twenty times in the chamber and the other five; you wanted them to file in evenly, yet you can remember only four names of such an important project.
A That was five years ago and I carried out so many experiments during that time at Dachau and was in the office too, I cannot tell you the names of the people at the institute either.
Q Yet, whenever a person entered that experimental chamber, you knew whether or not it was one- of your men?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q And you checked up each and every test on these individuals and made sure that a wringer was not wrong in on you; did you?
A I knew who these men were.
Q Well now, what is your moral attitude, Dr. Romberg, as to the capacity of a prisoner or a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment? You have heard here at this Tribunal, some say that a prisoner could not volunteer for anything, some think he could and some think he was co*erced. What ever tie situation may be, what is your attitude concerning the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for a medical experiment.
A May I go into this in some detail?
Q Certainly.
A First we must discriminate in principle between what the state does and what the Doctor does. That the state can take criminals condemned to death and make them available for experiments and does so.....
Q Doctor, just a moment. Please, before you go into the attitude of the state and the doctor, let us go into this phace, whether or not a person incarcerated in prison can himself, of his own violation, volunteer for an experiment, regardless of state laws or of doctors. Do you think when a warden of a prison or a concentration camp commandant comes up to an inmates and says, "Will you volunteer for this experiment?" do you think he conscientiously volunteers; what is your attitude on that? You have heard it in the courtroom, you have heard three or four versions; now I want to hear your version.
A Yes of course. It is my view that we must discriminate between the philosophical freedom of determination and actual freedom of determination. The philosophical freedom of determination, I don't know anythink, nor docs anyone else know of freedom determination. Then we arrive at a decision, there is no such think as philosophical freedom. The person, of course, is also not free in the use of his will, but on the other hand, he is completely free in his choice between the various possibilities that he is confronted with.
For instance, if a man is condemned to death, he goes back to his cell nd finds a letter saying that if he volunteers for an experiment that is dangerous to life, he will be pardonned. You don't have to issue an order for him to do this, He is perfectly free to accept his death sentence or to go through the experiment. This is, of course, an extreme example.
Another example is a man sentenced to a long term who volunteers for malaria experiments, he is asked also, if he wants to volunteer .and ho can make a perfectly free choice. He is condemned to ten years imprisonment, he has the choice, does he want to accept the future of malaria, or ten years in prison.
With in this possibility, he is perfectly free in his decision. That the situation exercises certain eo ercion on him, is quite clear. That is nothing unusual as far as the doctor is concerned. I have already said that the state apparently recognised the fact that a person can volunteer, because all over the world it has given prisoners a chance to volunteer.
The second question is what is the doctor's position? He always says the state is the law and secondly, the doctor is perhaps more accustomed to formulating a decision, when there is a coercion element in the situation than other people. He is inclined to regard such conditions as voluntary conditions. For example, decisions for women in child delivery are made in event of a caesarean operation. The doctor does not arrive at that decision because he wants to, but because the situation makes it necessary. He has to confront himself with the problem, perhaps if I should let it be a natural birth it will be successful and perhaps not. He has to draw his own conclusions in this situation. Perhaps if a person is wounded and says I was asked at that time whether I wanted my arm to be amputated or not and I said I don't want it to be amputated and you can see new I have my arm. Undoubtedly there are such cases. The doctor has to say honestly to the patient that in his knowledge and to the best of his knowledge your life is in danger, if we don't amputate this arm. Now, make up your mind, if we don't amputate, you are in great danger, if we amputate you are bound to recover, but you won't have one arm. Now, from the tale told by this man, who did not permit the amputation, we know that, and there are some people who desire to let the amputation take place and some people who desire not to, they are in a situation, where by fate they are under coercion. Fate has placed them in this situation, and it is one which the doctor is more familiar with, because again and again comes upon such patients.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, we will suspend the examination at this time for a moment. The Tribunal would like to examine German Document Book 2. Will counsel hand a copy to the Tribunal?
MR. HARDY: I will check my files on this Document. It may be that one of the photostats are missing.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to examine that Document book.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, would not the official text of the document, as it appears in the record of the International Military Tribunal Trial disclose the status of this.
MR. HARDY: That may net have been used before the I.M.T., I am not sure, Your Honor. It has an I.M.T. number, I don't know, whether it was used or not, can you ascertain that?
JUDGE SEBRING: They quote on the Niebergall affidavit here, "I certify that Document No. 1602-PS was introduced into evidence as Exhibit Nc. U.S.A. 454 in the Trial by the International Military Tribunal of Hermann Goering, et al."
MR. HARDY: I will check the original in the I.M.T. file.
JUDGE SEBRING: U.S.A. 454.
THE PRESIDENT: This document, as it appears in the German document book, varies greatly. There is more text in the German than in the English document book. They do not correspond. Now the photostat as returned hero manifestly, contains much more text than appears in the English document bock. The English opens with a short paragraph of four lines, then follows a long paragraph and then two very short paragraph. Now the photostat shows either three very long paragraphs or two long ones and two short ones. Now, the certificate, attached to this document in the English document book, certified that the English translation is a true and correct translation of the original document, which it manifestly is not. The first page of the photostat shows double printing, what happened, I cannot tell, the double printing is there together with a white blur, which makes part of it illegible. Now this document, according to the certificate attached thereto, was admitted before the International Military Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: It appears there are obviously two different documents, your Honor, I will have it checked in my files and the files of the International Military Tribunal and I will try to report on it at 1:30 if I can do that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is much interested and is quite dissatisfied that we have in cur document bock a manifestly incorrect translation of an important document, together with a certification that it is true and correct.
MR. HARDY: It is surprising to me that this was not noticed as this document was placed in its entirety into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a peculiar circumstance, the Tribunal is confronted with. I will return the German document and original photostat and counsel will make an investigation of the result.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS R0MBERG - Resumed
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, at this time I would like to clarify the difficulty with Document NO 1602-PS. It seems that this document exists in better condition than the photostat originally put in as an exhibit, and contains the paragraph that I was about to read from the English translation. Now, when this was introduced before the International Military Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal prosecution saw fit to only introduce the pertinent sections to their case, namely, the first paragraph, the third paragraph, and the last two paragraphs, and they had what they referred to as a partial translation of the document and indicated it was a partial translation by so heading it "Partial Translation of Document 1602-PS" and indicated the blank spaces by dots.
Now, what happened when our document book was put together. The prosecution here desired to use the same document and only the same portions thereof that had been used before the IMT and, apparently when they re-translated the document or recut the stencil and certified it by a different individual, they inadvertently didn't indicate that this was a partial translation and, by the same token, the document that want in was one that was hazy and they could not reed it, so when they cut the stencils for the German copy the German copy had the hazy one to go by and were unable to include these words.
Now I will pass this good copy of the original exhibit up to you for your perusal, as well as the type of translation that went in before the IMT, and I only want to use the portion that was used at that time, which is contained in our document book number 2 in the same manner.
THE PRESIDENT: What paragraphs?
MR. HARDY: The paragraph is the first paragraph - now this is of our document book now, the translation we have now I want to use it as is.
But it is paragraph number 1 in the German - number 2 and 3, in the German, and then the last two brief paragraphs in German before where the signature appears of Rascher. And you will note the copies as such. I have here another mimeographed German copy, two copies of it, that contain it in the same manner as this here, that I just received that I can give the defense counsel for their use. I will have other mimeographed copies of the German cut and deliver it to them later. I want to pass this up.
TEE PRESIDENT: Have you a complete translation of the document?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution didn't see fit to translate the document in its entirety because of the immateriality of the other paragraphs. If Your Honor requests it, we will have it.
THE PRESIDENT: As long as this confusion has occurred, the Tribunal desires the entire document translated--
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: ---furnished to German counsel and to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there will be no question but what counsel for both sides have the entire document before them.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I notice also the stenographic notes there. If those could be translated, have them also, if they can be read. I don't know whether they can or not.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I object to the submission of this document for the following reasons. This document was submitted by the prosecution before. It has been ascertained that within this document there is a discrepancy between the version in the English document text and the version in the German document text. The German text says "illegible" while the English text contains this portion of the document. I should like to state that if a document is illegible for the purpose of copying it must also be illegible for the purpose of translation, which apparently was not the case.
Is this document now being submitted to complete the previous submission, or is this a completely new document?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is a very simple hurdle due to the confusion, then I will offer this as cross examination document and assign it the same number that it has now and use it here now, the paragraph, in the same manner as if we were introducing a new document.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: You say that this photostatic copy which has now been furnished the Tribunal is a correct photostatic copy of the original?
MR. HARDY: That is right.
JUDGE SEBRING: May we not meet the objections then by having the interpreters who are here in the courtroom read this document, translating it as they go and read it into the record?
MR. HARDY: That would be perfectly suitable, Your Honor. Do you mean the document in its entirety?
DR. VORWERK: I believe I understand the prosecutor correctly if I believe that this document NO 1602-PS is withdrawn as the original document and he now wants to submit to as a document for cross examination.
MR. HARDY: It is immaterial the manner in which I do it, Your Honor. I don't think the objection here has any basis.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the Tribunal now has before it a good clear photostat of the entire document in German. If the translators will now read that document, and it will be of course translated into English for the record, will that satisfy you? Will that be a satisfactory solution for you? The entire document then will be read into the record. You may examine the photostat of the entire document in the German language.
MR. HARDY: He has a copy of it in the German language, Your Honor.
mimeographed.
THE PRESIDENT: A copy of the entire document?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a satisfactory procedure to you?
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, the point is whether this document is to be submitted merely for identification, for cross examination of the defendant, or whether it is submitted as a document and is accepted by the Court as a document exhibit. In the latter case it would have to be given to me 24 hours beforehand.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not impressed with that objection. That is the general rule but unless counsel shows some good reason why in this instance the rule should be enforced, the matter coming up, the tribunal would not be inclined to cause delay and confusion by simply waiting 24 hours for you to read what you can read now. It is an unfortunate error but there was nothing intentional about/it. The employee who copied the document simply neglected to state that it was a partial copy instead of a complete copy and that man, the person who certified to it to be a true copy, also neglected to state that it was not a complete copy but a translation merely of a portion of the document. In other words, those who prepared this document, the stencils for the English document book simply copied the sheet which was in the record as it was introduced before the International Tribunal. It was a careless mistake but it is easy to see how it could have happened.
DR. VORWERK: Then I will consider the suggestion of the President acceptable.
MR. HARDY: Now is it my understanding, your Honors, you want the interpreters to read the German and translate it here into the record?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that is necessary. I think if the counsel for the prosecution has the entire document translated into English and stencils are cut and counsel receives a mimeographed copy, counsel for the prosecution may now examine the witness as to the portion of the document which he desires. I can see no reason for an objection. It will do no harm to the defendant. You see that this document will be furnished in a completed form to the defense counsel as soon as possible.
MR. HARDY: In order to do that I request of the Secretary General that the Prosecution be permitted to retain this document Exhibit 44 in it's possession until we may check it for safe-keeping.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that the document will be available in its complete form by Monday?
MR. HARDY: I hope so.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, Dr. Romberg, you have stated here that Mr. Rascher exhibited to you a letter at this conference in Munich, concerning the fact that Himmler ordered these experimental subjects must be volunteers. Now I want to read you this portion of this document, which incited this alleged Himmler letter. I will start with the third paragraph of the German which reads as follows:
"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 are very dangerous and nobody volunteers for them.
I put, therefore, the serious question: can you make available two or three professional criminals for these experiments? The experiments are made at permanent Luftwaffe Testing Station for Altitude Research, Munich. The experiments, from which the subjects can, of course, die would take place with my cooperation. They are essential for researches on high altitude flight and cannot be carried out, as has been tried with monkeys, who offer entirely different test-conditions. I have had a very confidential talk with a representative of the air forces surgeon who makes these experiments. He is also of the opinion that the question could only be solved by experiments on human persons."
And then the signature of Rascher appears on the document. Now, do you still maintain that after receiving that letter Himmler says you will use volunteers?
A. In my opinion there is very Little connection. This letter is very old. It is dated 15 May, 1941. It obviously records Rascher's first ideas in this direction about experiments. It says, for example, that no experiments could be performed with human beings, yet, and there is proof against this in the work done in our institutes, where many doctors and their associates volunteered for experiments up to at least 17 kilometers, but it is much higher than the ceiling of the fighter planes presently in use mentioned here.
Q. Now, Dr. Ruff, states that Dr. Weltz and all of these people arrived at that conclusion, they wished to experiment on the Dachau concentration camp inmates early in 1941.
Now isn't this the beginning?
A. That they wanted such experiments in 1941? No, nothing was said about that?
Q. No this is the beginning. Now they are just starting and ask Himmler to find criminals for these experiments simply because nobody will volunteer for them. In other words, if they could have got volunteers they wouldn't have had to resort to Dachau concentration camp inmates, very simple.
A. Not I asked Himmler, but Rascher asked Himmler.
Q That is right. That is what I am talking about, Rascher asked Himmler?
A. And what he says here is incorrect in many respect He says no experiments have been performed, that is not true, and the suggestion to use feeble minded people which he makes is absolutely worthless. Dr. Ruff has already spoken about that.
Q. Now let's go to the next letter in that document book. You may return that document. It is on page 54 of the document book 2. Unfortunately this document doesn't contain a date. However it states:
"Dear Dr. Rascher:
Shortly before flying to Oslo, the Reichsfuehrer SS gave me your letter of 15 May 1941, for partial reply.
"I can inform you that prisoners will, of course, be gladly made available for the high flight researches. I have informed the Chief of the Security Police of this agreement of the Reichsfuehrer fuehrer SS, and requested that the competent official be instructed to get in touch with you."
That is initialed Rudolf Brandt. Now this is the letter which gave Mr. Rascher the authority to use concentration camp inmates, is it not? Isn't it authority to use prisoners for the experiments, and that the particulars will be outlined by the Chief of the Security Police, doesn't it say that?
A. That is an agreement of the Reichsfuehrer to this first suggestion of Rascher of May, 1941, but no details are set forth.
Q. That is right. It is an agreement to allow Rascher to experiment at Dachau or at any concentration camp, and to get prisoners there from, because of the fact Rascher stated in the letter which incited this answer that he couldn't get volunteers for such a program, isn't that what these two letters convey to us?
A. Dr. Rascher had to deal further with this problem. There was no doubt further correspondence.
Q. But you don't know that, do you? You don't know that? You are assuming that?
A. No, I don't know what correspondence there was.
Q. Your only answer to it is an imagineable letter from Himmler stating they must have volunteers, isn't that it?
A. I do not see that. I stated there was a letter from Himmler.
Q. We don't have it here. I just assume if there was such a letter we would have it here. We have most of them talking about selecting and setting aside experimental subjects, and Himmler then in that letter from Rudolf Brandt and his other letters talked about persons who were condemned to death, if he successfully lived through the experiment, or whereas he was recalled to life, he may be pardoned to the concentration camp for life, yet in all of these letters Mr. Himmler never mentions that they must be volunteers.
This is not present in a one of the documents in this case.
A. There aren't very many letters on it. This letter for example says nothing about pardoning, and Himmler mentioned that in a latter.
Q And perhaps that is the first time no mentioned it. I don't think we should quibble about that any more. Let's go on to another subject.
Now concerning the low pressure chamber, wnen Ruff sent this low pressure chamber from his institute in Dachau, did you accompany the drivers from Berlin to Munich with the chamber?
A. Whether I went with them? No.
Q After the chamber arrived in Dachau, according to the testimony of Neff, I believe, you as isted in assembling the chamber so that it would be in its proper form and useable, is that correct?
A. After the chamber arrived in Dachau, I went out to Dachau together with Rascher and Rascher gave the instructions what had to be done, an electric connection had to be laid and what else was necessary to use the chamber.
Q Well, did you arrive at the same time the chamber arrived or did you arrive at some later date?
A. I arrived in Dachau with Rascher when the chamber was already there.
Q Well now, to clarify things, we want to get these things straight in mind. When did the experiments begin?
A. The first beginning was actually on the 22nd and 23rd of February.
Q When did yo. mame up your mind that was the dace when the experiments began?
A. They were supposed to begin on that day but I don't know whether any experiments were actually carried but on that day. At any rate they were stopped almost immediately.
Q. To were there on the 22nd of February, you said that on direct examination, if you remember?
A. Yes, I was there on the 22nd or the 23rd, yes.
Q. When did you suddenly discover you were at Dachau on the 22nd day of February? When did you remember that, or have you always remembered you were in Dachau on the 22nd day of February?
A. No, I just remembered that and here when Neff in his examination told about this, that we watched is birthday table, then I remembered that faot, and also I know I must have been there on that day and the next day because I can remember the birthday table.
Q Well didn't you make an attempt here to impeach the credibility of Walter Neff in stating you were not in Dachau on February 22nd? Defense counsel here made an issue of that, that you were not there, and now do you decide that the testimony of Walter Neff was quite credible?
A. My defense counsel didn't do that. I believe that was Dr. Sauter.
Q That is correct. It was Dr. Sauter, and I will read it to you, Page 357 of the record: "Q (By Dr. Sauter) I should like to put something else to you. Dr. Romberg, will tell you under oath that he on the 22nd of February, 1942, the date you mentioned yesterday, was not present, and he knows that exactly for the following reason, and I am telling you this in order to enable you to refresh your memory. The family Romberg had expected the birth of a child on the 9th of March, and for that reason Dr. Romberg stayed at home until the 9th of March with his wife, and it was only on the 10th of March 1942 that he went to Dachau." Now, Dr. Sauter is an honorable man. You told him under oath that you were never there at that time. What made you change your mind?
A Of course, I never told Dr. Sauter that I would testify under oath that on the 22nd of February I was not in Dachau. I only told Ruff I know very well that I was in Berlin on the 9th of March because I was expecting the birth of the child at that time. That Dr. Sauter interpreted that, that because I know for sure that I was in Berlin on the 9th of March I must not have been in Dachau on the 22nd of February, I had nothing to do with that.
Q. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not you misled Dr. Sauter, but he seemed to be quite emphatic about the fact that you would testify under oath, and I would be willing to consider that Dr, Sauter thought that, too. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't think Dr. Sauter would say such a thing unless you had either told him or unless he reasonably believed that that was what you told Ruff. Be that as it may, we will go on. On February 22, 1942, the experiments began; is that correct?
A. I can't tell you exactly whether any experiments were performed or not. That was a Sunday. Probably we didn't do any work on that day, but we broke off the experiments immediately, and postponed them until the beginning of March.
Q. Until the beginning of March. Now, how many series of experiments did you have? Four, wasn't it? Four series, so to speak? You had four different copies in your report?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you to complete each series of experiments?
A. I can't say exactly in detail. Sometimes they were going on at the same time, not one after the other, but they were carried out parallel. Until all four series were concluded, it took until about the 19th or 20th of May.
Q. Now, when did the first death occur?
A. That must have been the end of April.
Q. That was the end of April? End of April. Then almost immediately thereafter you returned to Berlin, didn't you, after that death episode?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did you remain in Berlin?
A. I didn't stay long at first. I went back again, as far as I recall, and then there was the incident with the barometer, so that...
Q. Now, just a moment. We will get to that. After you went to Berlin the first time, that is, after the death, the death happened about the end of April, then you went to Berlin. Then when you returned, as I understand it, you witnessed another one or two deaths, is that right? That was before the barometer incident; is that right?
A. No, the barometer incident must have been right after I returned from Berlin after Dachau.
Q. The barometer incident was after you returned to Dachau, that is, after the first death. That is the barometer incident. All right. Now, after the barometer incident, that must have been now almost the first of May, wasn't it? The barometer incident? You must have stayed in Berlin a week or better.
A. It took quite some while to have the barometer repaired.
Q. How long did you stay in Berlin after the first death and until the time you returned and found the barometer broken?
A. Only a few days.
Q. Well, how many days? Can't you be a little more specific, two, three, four, five, six?
A. After I returned from reporting the death, perhaps four, five days.
Q. All right. Four, five days. That takes you nearly to the first of May when the barometer was broken, is that right? Almost the first of May.
A. It could be about that time.
Q. And now when did the second and third death occur?
A. That was later, after I came back with the repaired barometer.
Q. How long did it take to secure the barometer? About two weeks?
A. Of course, I don't know exactly. I don't think it took quite two weeks. It wouldn't have taken that long.
Q. Well, we will say it took about a week. That will bring us up to the 7th of May, wouldn't it? Then the two deaths occurred after you got back from Berlin with the barometer, isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they occurred how long after thAt time? When you came back with the barometer, I assume you used the pressure chamber before Rascher did. I assume you carried on some of your work before Rascher did, and then the two deaths occurred. Now, it must have been a period of a week or two weeks, or something like that, wasn't it?
A I am sure that after I came back with the barometer I performed sons experiments. I was trying to get our experiments finished.
Q. Well now then how long before the completion of your experiments did the deaths occur? The two deaths.
A. About a week before the end of the experiments.
Q. About a week. You are crowding that in pretty closely now. Think hard. About a week, is that right? The death didn't occur almost a month before the conclusion of the experiments, did it?
A. No, that is about right for the first death.
Q. Alright,. Then, on the 20th Day of May the pressure chamber left Dachau and went back to Berlin, is that what you wish to tell us?
A. Yes.
Q. It did. Well, now, after you got the pressure chamber back at Berlin were you there when it got back to Berlin?
A. Yes, I was in Berlin, too.
Q. How badly smashed up was it when it got back to Berlin, or was it in good order?
A. When it came back to Berlin there was nothing broken.
Q. It was in usable form?
A. Yes.
Q. Now we are going into Mr. Neff's testimony. Do you recall that Mr. Neff stated that he sabotaged the chamber at Dachau? Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. And now you come along and state that the barometer was broken when you returned from Berlin, which more or less corroborates the testimony of Mr. Neff that the chamber had been damaged, doesn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Then Mr. Neff stated that you went to Berlin to got spare parts to repair the barometer, or the pressure chamber, and that it took you nearly two weeks, he stated, to get the parts, isn't that right? That is what Neff told us.
A. Yes, that is about what he said.
Q. Then by that token he said that was the reason why experiments were still going on in the month of June, isn't that right?