He reformed......
Q. Well, Doctor, you go on a little bit in this document, where you and Ruff say...you and Rascher in this report... on the next page, an excerpt: "It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack." Your chief, Ruff, now has admitted on the stand that pressure drop sickness does not occur if one takes people merely up and down quickly, but that a person has to stay up for some time to develop this pressure drop sickness. Well, who were these people that you refer to in this report when you state "It appeared often." Who do you mean by that?....just you and Rascher? Certainly you don't mean just the two of you.
A. I am referring, for one thing, also to the experiment which was used for clarification, and also to the slow sinking experiments where these symptoms occurred, which were not clear to us. And as an attempt to explain these peculiar symptoms this experiment was used where, without any lack of oxygen, when sustained for a long time -it says forty minutes there -- at thirteen kilometers, a similar severe condition occurred with paralysis of both legs and interruption of the sight which lasted for two hours. A similar condition as in the slow sinking experiments where there was really only a lack of oxygen, and really there could be no bends to judge by the time, but just because the serious symptoms in this one experimental subject, and the serious symptoms on myself were so similar, this experiment on myself is quoted hero only for this reason.---
Q. That's right. We will come to that. We will go into that more specifically.
A. ---And it is said "it appeared often."
Q. Right.
A. That remained open. We were not able to explain it quite. We meant we tried to explain these symptoms.
Q. Well, Doctor, you and Ruff both here have claimed that your report merely concerned itself with rapid ascent and immediate descent. Now, that was already withdrawn by Ruff when he was on the stand when I confronted him with this part of the report, the selfexperiment which you and Rascher had performed because you and Rascher had stayed up forty minutes -- I think you stayed up forty minutes and Rascher ten minutes -- and then you include this in your report even though this type of research, right here does not fall in with what you claim was your problem at all, does it?
A. No, it does not. Therefore....
Q. That 's right.
A. That is why we didn't perform these experiments on experiment subjects...
Q. And further, Ruff admitted that it was the most dangerous experiment and if it had not been interrupted it might have been fatal, didn't he? Do you think the same as Ruff did?
A. According to my knowledge today, yes. At the time we didn't know about this death yet, which had occurred in such longlasting experiments at a certain altitude. Ruff learned that in the AeroMedical Center. This knowledge originated in 1946.
Q. How many times did you and Rascher go through this same type of experiment? Only that one time?
A. This experiment - this extremely long one?
Q. Yes, that one.
A. It was performed only once, I am sure, but otherwise we stayed up for a considerable time in other experiments. Then there were minor disturbances.
Q. Then you and Rascher would have only exposed yourselves to such a danger as that? Is that it?
A. We did not deliberately expose ourselves to this danger to make an extreme experiment ,but we stayed up there because otherwise in the two or three ascents perday which we usually performed, and afterwards in the second or third ascent we had these symptoms which did not occur the first time.
And we wanted then to determine whether the symptoms were caused by going up three times a day,and, say, ten minutes at a time, or whether the same would occur if one goes up for a half hour.
Q. That has been explained to us fully by Dr. Ruff. But you actually went up to these two heights, 13,000 or 13,500 feet one you stayed there for an extensive length of time on one occasion only. Is that right?
A. That experiment took place at 13 or 13.5 km. That is what it says here.
Q. Yes; and you did it only once?
A. I can't say that with certainty, but we did not do that too often. I would not know of this experiment at all if it were not mentioned in this report.
Q. You just said you did not do it very often; what do you mean when you say here; "It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness (aeroembolism) had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack?" Now, doctor, isn't it that you simply in this report did not want to mention the others, because they had died, since you and Rascher never interrupted an experiment because of pain felt by subjects and when it says it appeared often, if certainly did, in Rascher's work at least.
A. I did not quite understand the question, but in any case, "this happened often" that means that the symptoms in the slow sinking experiments, paralysis or interruption of sight, occured that these symptoms were familiar to those in our own experiments.
Q. Well, now you don't deny the fact that Rascher, supposedly on his own initiative, conducted experiments to determine this gas bubble situation and air-embolism and pressure drop sickness or whatever you want to call it. He did that on the people at Dachau on his own initiative and performed autopsies on them; you saw the autopsies? He did that, didn't he?
A Of course, he did perform experiments with fatal results, that is proved by the Documents and he apparently had several points in mind, which he wanted to clarify. He actually told me himself that the E.K.G. and Bends was one of the things, he wanted to clear up, he proved they were air bubbles and he wanted to attack this problem, but that is a field which had nothing to do with ours.
Q. But neither did this experiment, which you conducted. You admitted here right now that this one experiment had nothing to do with your field, We'll go on with this report. In the next sentence you state, in the same paragraph:
"In this connection, the subjective accounts made by the authors in two experiments, each mas interesting. Now what happened to the objective findings, they are only the subjective findings; what happened to the objective findings?
A. Our own observations? I cannot say exactly. My disturbances were described according to the records that Rascher kept. He wrote down my symptoms, I, myself, of course, don't know that in detail. I was so seriously affected, even afterward, that I did not know exactly what had happened.
Q. Well then, you did not know, whether or not you had pressure drop sickness, did you?
A. No, during the experiment, I certainly did not know it.
Q. Well, now here are some tell-tale marks of your connection in that pressure drop sickness which played a definite part. On Page 18 of this report wherein you state: this is in the English copy at the top of page 92, the first paragraph, the last phrase in the last sentence, Your Honor, - where you state there and I quotes "so that the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested." Now, you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness, than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you.
A. No, the air bubbles which one sees in an autopsy are not proof of this, they don't necessarily have anything to do with it. For example, if in a case of embolism, if it is caused in draining a lung, besides the small blood vessels arc generally cut and gas embolism is caused in the blood stream and sometimes this occurs in fatal operations, but it is not necessarily true that people who die of gas embolism during an operation, have, or must have such symptoms.
One cannot say that the picture of gas embolism, necessarily leads to tho symptoms. On the other hand, one cannot say, if there arc these symptoms in a death. In an autopsy, one must have to find bubbles or if they are found if they have anything to do with the symptoms, but the symptoms are not necessarily connected with these bubbles.
Q. But, you say here, I quotes: That the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested." Now, you could not have concluded that from your subjective experiences could you?
A. Oh, yes, bends was not a new problem in aviation medicine, the whole field of bends or caisson disease, or whatever you want to call it, is a very old problem. In the Navy it is called Caisson-disease and it is called the same thing in America, I believe.
Q. Now from your subjective experiences you could have stated that was due to oxygen intoxication, paradoxical effect of oxygen administration, or anything else in the world; couldn't you?
A. I don't think I understand the question, would you mind repeating it?
Q. I said, you could have from you subjective experiments you related here, when you expedited the subjective experiences, I said what you see in this report, from the face of the report itself and on the face of your experiences; that this condition, which you describe, could have been due to anything else in the world, it could be due to oxygen intoxication, to a paradoxical effect of oxygen administration or any other cause or reason for it; is that true?
A. No, lack of oxygen could not have been the cause in our self experiment, which is described here, and the time of lack of oxygen was only about 5 seconds.
The lack of oxygen was certainly not the only reason for those symptoms. On the other hand it was noteworthy that in these experiments there was paralysis and interference with sight after these five seconds of lack of oxygen. It was a unique condition; First there were for complaints and then 5 seconds of lack of oxygen and then suddenly these serious interruptions with the sight and paralysis, for this reason this circumstance is used to attempt to use the unique conditions in these low sinking experiments. Now Caisson disease was nothing new, some effect of it, for example, the disturbance of the eye sight, the central loss of sight in the middle of the field of vision, that is suffered by almost everyone who was in the low pressure chamber frequently and the only explanation was, there must be small air bubbles, which don't even have to be in the circulatory system, which can be anywhere in the tissues and which lead to pain, which is called bends. Then such cases are repeated in the tissues, it loads to paralysis and when in the brain it leads to disturbance in the sight. That was know, and particularly Ruff and Becker-Freyseng worked on this problem in the medical center, because this matter had not been cleared up. It was claimed, and known that suck various complaints occurred, but it mas not clear what caused the symptoms and this had not been cleared up by the fatalities which occurred repeatedly in the case of Caisson sufferers, if they are not taken to a hospital in time.
Q. Well, doctor, all that information is of course valuable, but be that as it may, here we have a report. A report is, as I understand, a listing of what a re searcher found out during the course of the research work.
Now you have made those statements in this report, which is a report of your work at Dachau, listed what you discovered there and you have stated that you have found this phenomena, this combination of the pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack and you say it is suggested; how did you determine that; were you just guessing, just guessing?
A It was not "just guessing", it was a theory which could be used to explain the matter and for that reason, I did write; "it often seemed that the lack of oxygen was combined in some instances with pressure drop sickness". That is a scientific hypothesis.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, doctor, you didn't have to guess, did you? All you had to do was ask Rascher?
A Rascher in his experiments as we know from the interim reports did not learn anything in this respect. No results are mentioned in the interim reports in that direction. Besides Rascher did not inform me of there result of his own work.
Q He didn't have to inform you -- you stood there and watched it. He didn't have to inform you at all?
A Yes, I watched one autopsy. That was my duty.
Q Sure, that certainly was. Now Ruff has admitted here that the atmospheric difference between the ground level and the altitudes at which you were operating was not sufficient to make any experienced aviation medical man to think of pressure drop sickness. That is something akin to the caisson disease, the bends and so forth. Now, wasn't it Rascher's air bubbles and his dead men that made you think of it?
A No, certainly not. It was the observed disturbances gave rise to this thought. I have said that such air bubbles can appear and often do appear without any such disturbances.
Q Well now, doctor, when again did the first death occur?
AAbout the 1st of April, I said.
Q Now, how did the death occur? Did they take the man up too high, and have him stay there too long. Tell us the particulars of why that man died?
A It was an experiment at, I beleive 13 or 14 kilometers. Rascher obviously stayed too long at the same altitude so that probably there was a fatal air embolism which caused death.
Q Well, now at this first death, how did you happen to be there?
A I already said that Rascher frequently performed experiments for which he had an assignment from Himmler, which he was performing in addition to our joint experiments, and sometimes I watched these experiments, just as in our institute I sometimes watched the contrifugal experiments of Ruff, although I was not working on them myself.
Q Well you were not assigned to watch these, were you?
A No, I didn't.
Q How did you know Rascher was going to perform an experiment at this time?
A I didn't know it beforehand. Generally, I was at the experimental station and at the low pressure chamber anyhow and Rascher carried out experiments with a different man, outside of our series.
Q And hadn't you just carried on an experiment before and within the same period, with one of your men?
A No doubt. We carried out experiments every day on our own people.
Q That is strange then. You probably carried out a couple of experiments, and then Rascher said, wait a minute now, Dr. Romberg, we will have an experiment for Himmler. This has nothing to do with you, step aside, you get out of the way a bit, I am going to experiment on this fellow for Himmler. Is that what he said to you?
A No, it wasn't like that.
Q Then how did you differentiate between the Luftwaffe experiments and the SS experiments?
A I know what experiments I performed myself.
Q Yes, but you were collaborators, weren't you? You were ordered by Ruff to go down there and collaborate with Rascher, weren't you?
A Yes, for these experiments for rescue from high altitude. We worked together on that.
Q Now these three deaths that took place, how did the second death occur?
A The second death?
Q Yes.
AAs far as I recall that was an experiment at a much higher altitudes, higher than 14, it might have been 17, and probably there was again a fatal embolism. After a certain time at this altitude the subject suddenly died.
Q Tell us about the third death?
A The third death was just like the second one.
Q. How about the other deaths?
A I don't know. I can only judge from the reports where Rascher reported these deaths to Himmler.
Q Well now Dr. McHaney interrogated you on the 30th day of October 1946. At that time you told him that you knew that more than three fatalities occured, and you thought it was approximately five to ten people died in these experiments. Didn't you tell that to Dr. McHaney last October?
A I said that, yes. I said that in the Milch trial too.
Q How did you know about that? Where did you get that knowledge that other deaths occurred?
A I learned that from the other prisoners who told me about it when the experiments were broken off. They said they were really glad that it was finished. I said, "why", and they said: "Because things have happened." They weren't definite, but I concluded that there had been other deaths.
Q Well weren't you ashamed when you heard of that from the inmates at the conclusion of the experiments sometime in June or July? Weren't you ashamed you had been associated with Rascher in his murder mill?
A The situation was not simple for me. I didn't want to have anything more to do with these experiments; that can be seen from the fact that I interrupted them.
Q Well now in the course of these deaths, just what were you doing yourself? Were you just standing there looking in the window or were you operating some of the apparatus for Rascher?
A No, I have already said that at the first time I was looking at the electro-cardiogram, the point of light that follows the heart.
Q Then you were working with Rascher. You were studying the electro cardiogram? You were working with Rascher under Ruff's orders.
You worked with Rascher on that experiment and studied the electrocardiogram?
A No, I didn't collaborate with Rascher. I happened to be watching this experiment and I saw the electro-cardiogram, and when I saw a critical point was being reached where I myself would have stopped the experiment, I said to Rascher.
Q. Well what did it require at that particular point to stop the experiment? Suppose you were operating the controls that Rascher had in front of him or the controls on the pressure chamber. At that particular point, the fatal point where you noticed on the electrocardiogram, when you were studying it, what could you have done if you were operating it to stop the experiment and save the person from dying? What would have been the quickest thing to do, pull a valve or what? This is a simple question, doctor. I think you can answer it briefly. Did you turn a crank, or push in a plug or button, or throw off a valve, or how would you save him?
A Do you moan if that had been my own experiment?
Q Yes, what would you have done at the moment to save the man, if you saw he was going to high, what was the crucial thing to do to stop the experiment?
A I have to ask you again. Do you mean what I would have done in my own experiment with my own experimental subject, or what I could have done to make Rascher stop his experiment?
Q I am not asking you either question. I am asking you what could have been done to stop the experiment at that particular point. How would you stop it, how would anybody stop it, what did you do with the equipment to stop the experiment so that he would not die? Is there a button you push, or what is there?
A Rascher had a control in his hand with which he regulated the altitude. He would have had to turn that so that the pressure would be increased, that is. the altitude would be reduced in the chamber.
Q Well now, on these chambers, you do understand how all of the equipment works, don't you? It is elementary to you, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q And you were thoroughly familiar with the running of that chamber, weren't you?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q You had experimented with it yourself?
A Yes, of course.
Q You were connected with an institute for aviation research?
A Yes, I was an employee of Ruff's.
Q And you could determine from a study of the electro-cardiogram that the subject in that particular chamber at that time was reaching an altitude whore it might well result in death? You could determine that from your experience in the field of aviation medicine, couldn't you?
A When death occurs exactly I couldn't tell because I had never experienced any deaths in this sphere. I have already said that I myself, if this wore my own experiments, would have stopped.
Q. Well now for the first time I have hoard it - it doesn't appear in your affidavit and it never appeared in your interrogations before this but here for the first time in your direct examination you testified that you warned Rascher; you said: "Now be careful there, Sigmund, let's be careful, you are going to high." Now did you say that? If you did you must have known that death was going to come out of this thing, doctor?
A No, I din't know that exactly. I only knew it was a critically high point. I didn't say "Sigmund", I called him Rascher: But as far as I know in my interrogation here I said that. I pointed this out to Rascher. This is not the first time I have said that.
Q Well now while Rascher was operating those controls could he himself see the electro cardiogram?
A Yes, ho could.
Q Well now could you, with your arms reach out and point out tho Tribunal how far tho controls were from tho electro cardiogram, how far away was he from this physically? Was he whore ho could look over and study it here, and just what was his position with reference to the electro-cardiogram.
A Yes, I can show you. Here pointing was tho window where Rascher was watching tho experiment, and to tho left about that far, was tho machine which ho had to regulate tho altitude and to the right was the electro cardiogram.
Q Why couldn't you just reach right over there and turned that wheel and save that man's life.
A I said to Rascher he should go down.
Q I am asking you a question: Why couldn't you? You were standing at the electrocardiogram. You weren't ten miles away. Why couldn't you have reached over and turned that wheel and save that man's life. You could have, couldn't you?
A If I said that to him and he didn't do it--then I would not have been able to achieve anything by force. I would have had to beat him down, or something.
Q I agree with you, Dr. Romberg, that perhaps scientists are not good boxers or wrestlers, but Mr. Rascher was not a six foot six, perfect Nordic specimen; ho was in fact a man smaller than you were. You were physically better than he was and you could well have reached over and turned that wheel and saved that man's life, and then discuss with him later by use of words-- as you say, words arc so important, you can do more with words than you can with physical strength. Then you could have discussed the problem with him intelligently with words. And if you couldn't have gotten further with words, then you could have walked out and gone back to Berlin, and let him do it as he wished. Now, you were in a position to reach over and turn that wheel, weren't you, weren't you?
A No, since I said that to Rascher, and he didn't do it, he obviously didn't intend to do that. If, at that moment, I had attacked him by force-
Q You wouldn't have had to attack him--just reach over and turn the wheel. Don't touch Rascher--just his hand--just turn the wheel. Very simple.
A He had the wheel in his hand. If he doesn't do anything when I tell him to, he wouldn't do it if I try to turn it. He would simply have gone on with the experiment.
Q You were bigger than Rascher, weren't you?
A It may be yes, I was a little taller.
Q Well, now, after the person died, you make it ridiculous that you might well have reported him to the police for murder. Why didn't you do that? It is a logical thing to do when a man commits murder. It isn't so ridiculous to turn in a murderer.
A It looks like murder now, and now that we know all about it we can decide that, but at the time I knew that Rascher was a Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe...
Q Let me ask you one question . When you saw this dead man, what did it look like then? It might look like murder now, right in this courtroom, but you saw that dead man lying there--what did it look like than?
A It was an experiment with fatal result. Such experiments do happen in the world, and nobody says it is a murder.
Q Well, now you saw the autopsies too, didn't you? Did they perform an autopsy on that man?
A Yes; I said that already.
Q And after having objected, as you say you did, both while the man was in the chamber and the altitude was increasing, and then object ing after the man died--you still watched the autopsy after all this argument you had with Rascher?
A I didn't think it was nice at all. Rascher had continued the experiment too long, and the man died. But whether he deliberately intended to murder him--I couldn't say. But a death had occurred, and do I watched the autopsy.
Q Now, at this time when this death occurred, Rascher was in the Luftwaffe, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q You were in the Luftwaffe--a civilian employee of the Luftwaffe?
A No; I was an employee of the German Research Institute for Aviation. We did not belong to the Luftwaffe; therefore we did not wear a uni form.
Q Well, you were doing work for the Luftwaffe?
A In part we worked for the Luftwaffe, too. But we also worked for industry.
Q So then you reported this death and all these deaths, as a matter of fact--but you reported this first death to Ruff immediately, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q What did he do about it? Did he call the police?
A No, as he said himself, he did not. The police were not competent in the case of Rascher. He was a number of the Luftwaffe; Luftwaffe courts were competent. Ruff reported it to Rascher and his superior the Chief of the Medical Service.
Q Well, then after this first death, how does it happen that Romberg didn't turn up his coat collar and go out to get in the tractor part of the chamber and drive it to Berlin? Why didn't you got that chamber right out of there immediately? You saw deaths there. Why did you stay around?
A We talked about that for a long time, and as Ruff mentioned that we deliberated what we should do. It was clear that Ruff would report it; we didn't have to think about that. We also realized that we would achieve nothing with Himmler by going to him and saying Rascher performed an experiment and a person died. Himmler would probably have said, " I know I gave him the orders. That is none of your business."
For this reason we decided that I should go back, that our experiments should be completed so that we could say the experiments had been concluded; the chamber will not be needed any more. And then , in this way, after the experiments were concluded Rascher gave his approval and Himmler gave his approval--the chamber could be removed from Dachau to make any further work impossible.
Q The fallacy of all that story is that you had ample opportunity to just not repair the barometer. Here you were, trying to find a scheme and a way to quickly get that thing out of there, that chamber out of Dachau, and here was a broken part. The only way to get it repaired was to go to Berlin to get the parts, and Mr. Neff was so disappointed, he said his story was, he was disappointed that you had returned with the part and fixed it, when he had sabotaged it.
But you story is even far more fantastic. You said that you rushed right back in a mater of a 2,3,4,5, days, instead of two weeks, like Neff said, ruhed right back to get it in order, and then two people died after you put it back into operation again. It certainly was an active way to stop Rascher's work--wasn't it?
A I believe if it was compared with what Rascher intended to do-as the documents say; what I read this morning--it was a very effective method.
Q It certainly was.
Well now, doctor, you then still had--after you even cleared out of Dachau entirely, get out of Dachau altogether--the Chamber was retired to Berlin, whether it be May or July or August. Then you still associated yourself with Rascher when you reported and you wrote that report about the film, and the unfortunate fact that Milch didn't show up for the showing in September. So still even in September you were still friendly with Dr, Rascher and working with Dr. Rascher, the man that had proved himself to you to be a murderer, didn't you?
A It was not so clear to me that he was a murderer--neither morally or legally is it quite clear, I said already...
Q Now, at that time, you must recall that you have stated here on this witness stand that you personally saw three deaths, and that at the completion of the experiment--and you bring it way back in May that your inmates told you that there were some ten deaths. And now, with that in view, you knew this, you say--according to your own testimony in the month of May?
My word! In September you are still associating yourself with Rascher--proud to be with him, weren't you?
A. No, I was certainly not proud of working with Rascher. After Himmler gave me orders to perform cold experiments I could have worked with Rascher all I wanted to.
Q. When did Rascher give you the recommendations for a medal? When did that occur?
A. Recommendation....?
Q. Didn't Rascher recommend you for the medal that Himmler gave you?
A. To what extent that came from Rascher, I don't know exactly. It was doubtless so that Rascher, himself--if it was he who handed in my name--wanted the bar Merit Cross First Class. He told me himself that he already had a Second Class, and he wanted the First Class. Rascher no doubt wanted to bribe me in a sense to give him back the low-pressure chamber. He also wanted to continue with the experiments. He hoped that I would work with him again. What I said here about my attitude to Rascher, I did not tell Rascher personally, of course. I couldn't.
Q. Well, you were given a medal, weren't you? Yes or no.
A. Yes, I got it.
Q. Who gave you the medal?
A. I received it by mail with a document which was signed by Keitel.
Q. Keitel? And what did you get the medal for?
A. For services in the field of aviation research the War Merit Cross Second Class was awarded.
Q. And the documents which show that Rascher recommended you to Himmler for that medal, as I recall?
A. Yes, I have seen that in the documents too.
