A. No, I can only repeat what I have already said, that this had been promised to these persons at the outset. Himmler made more premises to them when he visited the camp, and reported the very same thing, when I reported to him, namely, that these people were to be released. Rascher also concerned himself with working on these releases, what actual work had been done, and to what extent Himmler did not keep his promise, I don't know.
Q. But so far as you are concerned, you made no recommendations?
A. No, I could not do that.
Q. When did you talk with Himmler?
A. Beginning or middle of July 1942.
Q. What about?
A. I already mentioned that Rascher suddenly telephoned me in Berlin, and told me that both of us were to report to Himmler; that we were to leave that very same night. Sleeper tickets were already prepared. Then the next evening we reported to him about these experiments on the basis of a typewritten report, which then was already finished.
Q. What day was that; all you know is in July sometime?
A. Well, as I saw from the documents, it may be, well, before the 14th or 13th of July, because Rascher refers to that day in speaking about the report to Himmler. It is possible that it was that day , otherwise, I could not have remembered the date exactly.
Q. But at the time of the conference, you and Rascher were there together with Himmler, making an early report on the results of your experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. At that tine did Rascher also make a report on his experiments?
A. No, at any rate, those experiments were not at all touched on in my presence. He spoke to Himmler once more the next morning, and it is possible that on occasion of ths conference he said something to him about that. At any rate we only discussed experiments of persons rescued from high altitude, and Himmler said that Goering was to be informed about the results of this experiment as quickly as possible.
Q. In your presence Himmler made no reference to Rascher's experiments?
A. No, nothing at all was said about it.
Q. And Rascher made no mention to Himmler of Rascher's experiments?
A. No.
Q. Afterwards did you have a conference with Goering, or reported to Goering on the subject of your experiments?
A. No. Himmler said during that conference that the results were of extreme importance, and that we were to report them to Goering, if possible. However, that did not materialize, and I assume that the report which was to take place at Milch's place, which also did not take place, was to have been the substitute for the planned report to Goering. As can be seen from the document, Rascher obviously had been very interested, and always he turned to either Himmler or Brandt whether the report would be made, obviously because of his personal ambition that it was of great value to report to Goering or Milch.
Q You meant Karl Brandt or Rudolf Brandt?
A I mean Rudolf Brandt. The letters were always addressed to Rudolf Brandt.
Q After the barometer and low pressure chamber wasbroken by Neff, I believe you said that you had it replaced. Then was it broken? I have forgotten.
AAccording to my memory, that was at the end of April. I was in Berlin and then returned. Then the barometer was suddenly broken. I took that broken barometer back to Berlin to have it repaired.
Q And when was the low pressure chamber again in working order?
A I can not tell you that exactly, but I should say that it was on the 10th or 12th of May, or somewhere around there.
Q How many tests were made in the Ruff-Romberg experiments after that?
AAfter the return?
Q And after the low pressure chamber had again been put in working order.
A Yes. Perhaps about 50. Well, I don't think that there were so many as that. I can't give you the exact figure. I think there were a little less than 50.
Q How many tests did Rascher conduct after that, to your knowledge?
A Well, I can only remember the days when I was present. Then there were about three on one day, and a similar number on the next day. I don't know exactly what he did, because he may have worked nights or evenings.
Q Howmany deaths occurred in Rascher's experimental subjects after the repair of the low pressure chamber?
A The two cases of death which I have already mentioned.
Q Now, then, as I understand it, you finally made a report on the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments ?
A Yes.
Q That appears here in the Prosecution document book?
A Yes, that is that report.
Q And that was compiled and your conclusions were drawn and your recommendations were made on the basis of certain research data made at Dachau; is that correct?
A The report was made on the basis of my record about the experiments. In that report, certain recommendations are made for the future development.
Q What became of those records which you made the basis for this report which is here in evidence?
A My record, you mean?
Q Whatever records you used.
A I don't know what happened to it finally. It was in Berlin in the safe. Whether these records were destroyed, together with all the other secret files when the Russians came to Adlershof or whether the Russians have removed these files, I don't know, because I was not with the DVD at the end of the war. I think that Ruff would probably know about that. That is to say, if he remembers what the records were that were destroyed when the Russians marched into Berlin.
Q Now, as I understand it, you are unable to say what the names of your ten to fifteen experimental subjects were, what their nationalities were, or for what purpose they had been incarcerated at Dachau? You say you don't recollect that?
A Yes, I don't remember all the names of the individual people, as I already said. That all of them were German I know exactly because I spoke to them. They wore the breen badge of the professional criminals, and they also told me why they were there. Why every individual was there and what his name was, of course, is difficult to say.
Q Do you remember any of the names?
AApart from the four whom I mentioned yesterday, I do not remember any.
Q What four?
A Sobotta, Klos, Rockinger, and Zoslak.
Q Neff, Sobotta -
A I didn't mention Neff.
Q But there was Neff; there was Sobotta, and who was the next one?
A Rockinger.
Q How do you spell that?
A R-O-C-K-I-N-G-E-R.
Q And who was the fourth one?
A Klos, K-L-O-S.
Q Do you remember one more?
A Zoslak, Z-O-S-L-A-K, or C-K; I'm not sure which.
Q Where was Rockinger from?
A I can't tell you that. I don't know where he was from.
Q Where was Klos from?
A I really don't know where they all came from. I think that one of them came from Western Germany, but I really can't tell you that with any amount of exactitude.
Q Where did Zoslak come from?
A I can't tell you that either. I don't know where he came from. I believe he came from Silesia, but I really don't know that exactly.
Q These were all German nationals who were criminal prisoners who had been condemned to death and who had volunteered for the experiments?
A No, they were not sentenced to death, but they were sentenced to preventive custody, because of their repeated crimes as professional criminals.
Q Do you know the names of the two inmates of the dissection room who were promised leniency or recommended for leniency? Was that Klos and Zoslak?
A No, I really don't know their names.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions of the witness on the part of Defense Counsel?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I had assumed that Defense Counsel had finished redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense Counsel has, but they may examine the witness on the testimony that has been put in since that time.
This examination, Counsel, will be limited to the questions propounded to the witness after the Defense had rested.
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Mr. President. Dr. Sauter, Counsel for the defendants Blome and Ruff.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, during your present examination, you were telling us about a prisoner at Dachau who had been arrested and put into Dachau because he had denounced some undertaking of the SS. You know whom I mean?
A Yes, that was Neff.
Q Who was it?
A Neff.
Q He was a political prisoner, was he not?
A Yes.
Q What badge did this Neff wear?
A He were a red badge.
Q A red badge. Was Neff also used for experiments?
A Neff, as I already said, participated in experiments himself because he volunteered for them, and on his own initiative he participated in these experiments, the same way as I did.
Q Witness, you were asked about the conditions in Dachau, and I would be interested in the following: When you entered the camp of Dachau were you able to move about freely?
A No, I could not.
Q What was the situation?
A I had the order to go straight to the experimental station and otherwise was not allowed to move around freely in the camp, for instance, going to other blocks. I was limited to going straight to my experimental station.
Q I assume that when you came to Dachau, you had to report at the gate; is that right?
A Yes, I had a pass which I had to show there.
Q Could you then walk alone to these barracks, or were you accompanied by a guard?
AAfterwards I was allowed to go there myself, but at the very beginning a guard of the SS accompanied me. It said on the pass that I had to go from Gate I or something like that up to Block 5, and it also said that I had to use the shortest way to that block. This is customary in the case of official buildings in Germany. When one goes to a certain office, one had always to choose the shortest way.
Q Witness, is it correct that you were expressly ordered not to speak to any one from the gate to the barracks except to experimental subjects?
A I have already said that I was obliged not to speak to any of the inmates and to stay only at those places where my presence was officially necessary, and I had to sign a paper to that effect. There were limitations upon my freedom, and many witnesses have confirmed that.
Q Now, if I understand you correctly, you could learn about the conditions as they prevailed in the concentration camp only by listening to what the experimental subjects or the Capos or perhaps Rascher had told you. Other inmates, on the other hand, could not toll you anything; is that right?
A Yes. Do you mean Neff when you say Capo?
Q Yes.
A Well, Neff certainly was not a Capo. I don't know exactly what a Capo is, but I think he holds a high rank among inmates.
Q. At any rate other inmates of the camp could not tell you anything about the conditions and the method that prevailed in the camp?
A. No. Naturally I only spoke to Neff and my own experimental subjects.
Q. You were asked what you spoke to these experimental subjects about, and you answered that by way of telephone you always managed to speak to them. You were outside the chamber, and the experimental subjects were inside the chamber, and you were able to speak by way of telephone?
A. Yes.
Q. Nell, I assume now that in particular after the conclusion of any single experiment you had repeated opportunity to converse closely with the experimental subject. In particular I am wondering whether you didn't discuss with the experimental subject after the conclusion of the experiment what the subject experienced during the experiments, whether he suffered any pain, whether he suffered any dizziness, or whether the ears had heard, and then on the occasion of these conversations, you were not at all controlled by the SS men, and therefore were in a position to speak quite freely with these experimental subjects, including private conditions.
A. Naturally such conversations were not controlled, unless, of course, Rascher was present, but he was not always present. Then, of course, I could speak to them, but I must say that even on the occasion of these conversations I never heard any details about the concentration camps, particularly details as I know them now. I cannot imagine that anything like that had happened at that time in Dachau. I am sure that they would have told me that once in a while. It may well be, of course, that in principle they didn't discuss such matters.
I would rather believe though that they didn't tell me anything of that nature because they didn't have any such experiences themselves.
Q. Doctor, whenever you conversed with the experimental subjects after any experiment, I assume you attached particular value to whether any pain had arisen during the experiments with the experimental subjects, is that right?
A. Well not quite, because we knew that during high-altitude sickness they couldn't suffer any complaint. It is well known that in the course of high-altitude sickness the experiment is completely foreign to the person undergoing it as if he was under an anesthetic, the same way that a person isn't asked after an anesthetic whether he felt something because it is known he couldn't feel anything.
Q. But, Doctor, one does know, and we laymen also know it, that preceding unconsciousness there is a certain stage where one dues feel something because one still does retain a certain amount of consciousness, and also as a layman one knows there is a certain stage after awakening from unconsciousness where one does feel something. I am interested to know whether before the beginning, of unconsciousness and after this state disappeared the experimental subjects complained about a pain, for instance, about pains which arose up to the point of unconsciousness or about certain after-effects after unconsciousness. That is what I am interests to know, especially did they have any pains, did they complain on any pains before or after unconsciousness?
A. No, they did not, and I am not at all surprised, because I personally had suffered from altitude sickness so often, that I know this condition from my own experiences, and I am sure that Dr. Ruff would have told you the very same thing.
The beginning of high altitude sickness is similar to intoxication. The transitory period to complete unconsciousness, is similar to alcohol intoxication. However, that lasts vary shortly, only a few seconds. Then awakening is very similar. There is a small, a very short phase where the subject does not know where he is, and there are no complaints, as I know from many experiences myself.
Q. Witness, a little while ago a complete copy of the document, 1602-PS, was submitted to you. I think you have it before you.
A. I am afraid I didn't receive it today. I had it on Friday.
Q. But you do know that document, don't you?
A. I believe I do. I think I remember it approximately.
Q. Now, I would be interested in the following matter in connection with that document. Did you at that time when making the acquaintance of Rascher know, or did you assume that Rascher had already carried out the experiments with a low-pressure chamber at an earlier date?
A. Naturally he said that he had worked in the field of aviation medicine.
Q. With the low-pressure chamber?
A. Yes.
Q. And in this document which I just mentioned, 1602, the letter by Rascher to Himmler, the word "low-pressure chamber" is not at all mentioned. Rascher is speaking of experiments, and he asks the Reichsfuehrer Himmler for a number of professional criminals for these experiments. However, he does not mention a low-pressure chamber.
Witness, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in this document Rascher is writing, and I quote,: "The experiments are very dangerous." Then in another passage he writes, and I quote again, "Experiments in which experimental subjects may, of course die." And then there is a third passage where it says, and I quote, "Insane people con also be used as experimental material." These three sentences are not correct if we assume the testimony of the defendant Dr. Ruff here to be correct, and these sentences can neither be correct if your own testimony should be taken as being correct. Both of you have testified here that the experiments do not incur any danger whenever they are orderly performed, and I am now speaking of the high-altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg. Ruff has told us that insane people could not be used because of well known reasons. And in spite of that Rascher is stating these three sentences which I just read. Can you explain that in any way?
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, I strenuously object to any further questioning long these lines by Dr. Sauter. He has asked this witness on the witness stand whether or not these experiments were painful, just what the subjects endured during the course of these experiments, and the witness has answered him. What more can he do?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the question is proper. The witness may answer.
Q. (By Dr. Sauter) Now, Witness, I was putting three points to you taken from Rascher's letter, whom you at that time designate as an expert in this field. Here he is laying down three sentences which do not correspond with your and Dr. Ruff's testimony.
How can you explain that?
A. This letter bears an early date, May, 1941, and obviously it is the outcome of a spontaneous idea on the part of Rascher. He was an impulsive man, and immediately sent a letter to Himmler with that contents. The fact that he speaks about the dangerous aspect would not be conspicuous in its self. I think that whenever one makes a demand to the competent supreme authority to give their permission for such experiments to be carried out on prisoners, it is more ample to exaggerate rather than minimize in case something should happen to the experimental subject. In this case one has nothing to reproach to oneself, in case something should happen. I don't think that this sentence is conspicuous, and one could even assume it to be rather sensible of him not to say that he is sure nothing will happen but to say that people may die. To what extent he was already viewing some concrete plan for his own experiments I cannot say. However, I don't think that he already had any plans at this early date. I can hardly imagine it.
Q How do you explain the third sentence about the insane? According to your opinion such a sentence could not be understood at all as being uttered by an expert.
A Well, both of us already testified that insane people could in no case be used for our experiments. Whether he already had some special experiments in mind and was planning them, which were perhaps to be carried out with insane people, I cannot say of course.
Q Dr. Romberg, you are here starting a trend of thought which I didn't want to mention before, in order not to be accused of putting a leading question to you, but you gave expression to the thought which I personally had in mind.
It is correct, and I am sure that you confirm it because we already heard it, that in addition to high-altitude experiments, Dr. Rascher was carrying out other experiments. That is a well-known fact here, is it not? Now, could it possibly be assumed that these three sentences which I just read to you, (a) about the dangerousness of the experiments; (b) about the possibility of the death of any experimental subject; (c) about the possibility to use insane people, that these sentences could be interpreted as applicable to the other experiments which Rascher was carrying out in addition to your high-altitude experiments, which were for the purpose of rescue from high altitude. Could not these sentences be applied there?
A Certainly for these experiments he could have used insane persons because there was no great cooperation necessary on the part of the experimental subject.
Q Then you probably also will confirm that these other experiments of Rascher, the experiments he carried out on his own initiative were much more dangerous because people actually died. Now if you once more recall that letter of Dr. Romberg, is it your opinion that Rascher in the case of this letter, dated 15 May 1941, which was long before your experiments, perhaps did not at all think about the high altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg but was thinking of his own experiments, or are you not of that opinion?
A Well I am sure he did not think of our high altitude experiments because this was a very special subject which resulted from our special field of activity at the DVL. Naturally this was not something which was not accessible to every one in aviation medicine. He certainly did not think of that. To what extent he at that time was already planning the experiments which he carried out a year later is, of course, very difficult to say.
Q Now something else, Dr. Romberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal recess at 1535 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 May 1947, 10930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
The Tribunal has another question to propound to the witness.
HANS ROMBERG - Resumed.
EXAMINATION.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. DR. Romberg, we were speaking yesterday about the experiments or tests that were conducted by Dr. Rascher and you say that those tests or experiments were under a separate order from Himmler and had nothing to do with the Ruff-Romberg experiments. How many tests did you see Rascher make, either while you were present or while you were in the proximity of the low pressure chamber apparatus?
A. Starting from the middle of April approximately -- that is, from the time that I knew about these experiments and he told me about them -- he experimented often, referring to the clarification of questions, but these experiments did not lead to any fatal cases.
Q. I understand that, but how many such tests would you think that he ran from the middle of April on, at least while you were there.
7030a
A I saw directly myself or, at least, I was in his proximity when he experimented daily or almost daily. It is very difficult for me to estimate the number of experiments because I didn't page any particular attention to them at the time. I am sure, however, that between fifty and one hundred experiments were carried out.
Q That is, from the middle of April until you left there?
A Yes.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for defendant Ruff any further questions to propound to the witness?
A No.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel have any questions to propound to the witness. Counsel for the defendant may propound questions to the witness if the answers given to the questions propounded to the defendant by the Court affect his client. Are there any other questions?
DR. VORWERK (Defense counsel for defendant Romberg): Dr. Romberg you replied yesterday to a question of Judge Sebring to the effect that, before the beginning of the Dachau experiments, similar experiments on the same subject were already carried out by you in Adlershof during which you used seven experimental subjects, who were members of your Institute at Adlershof. You further said that these experiments extended over a period bf approximately four months and that, during those four months, approximately two hundred such experiments were carried out, during which you reached an altitude of seventeen kilometers.
A Yes, that's right. These were the explosive decompression experiments.
Q Did the experimental subjects that you used there exercise any other activity but being experimental subjects.
A Naturally, and that was the difficulty with our work. That was one of the reasons why we accepted the offer at Dachau. All these persons had their normal jobs to do.
Ruff was the head of the Institute. I had my own activity to fulfill and that was the case with every one else too. The experiments were continuing during our time of duty. At the same time, another difficulty arose because of the fact that we couldn't concentrate on one series of experiments for any long period of time but whenever good flying weather came about we had to carry out a number of experiments in airplanes for several days running. When there was bad weather, we concentrated our work on the low pressure chamber and the contrifugal chamber.
Q. Were other experiments but these two hundred altitude experiments carried out with these experimental subject?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for prosecution may crossexamine.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION.
BY DR. HARDY:
Q. May it please Your Honors. Dr. Romberg will you kindly explain to the Tribunal, in German medical terms, just what a pathologist is and what his duties are?
A. A pathologist is a physician who has specialized in the changes which are caused by illnesses in the human body and which are determined after death has occurred. To examine these matters carefully is the task of the pathologist.
Q. Then, in order to examine these matters, is it necessary for him to perform autopsies?
A. Yes, in order to examine these matters he has to carry out an autopsy.
Q. I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. VORWERK: I have no further questions, Mr. President, and this concludes the evidence on behalf of the defendant Dr. Romberg. With the approval of the High Tribunal, I should like to reserve the right to submit a number of affidavits which may arrive in the future.
7032a
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may submit affidavits when they are in proper form to be submitted to the Tribunal before the close of the case.
Defendant Romberg will resume his place in the dock.
The Tribunal will now proceed with the case against the defendant Weltz.
DR. WILLE (Defense Counsel for defendant Weltz): Mr. President, with the approval of the High Tribunal, I shall start to submit evidence on behalf of the defendant Weltz. I may perhaps point out the subject of my evidence. The indictment does not charge Professor Weltz to have participated personally and directly in the Dachau experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher. The Prosecution does charge, however, that he participated in the work and is co-responsible for the work of Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff by giving the inventive for these experiments and, for that reason, would also have to bear responsibility for the experiments. The prosecution also believes to have some points regarding freezing and conspiracy with which to charge him, without giving further particulars. I should like to ask you that I be permitted to submit my evidence in the following sequence: At first, I should like to ask the Tribunal to permit me to call the defendant Weltz personally into the witness stand. In addition, the prosecution has approved that the witness Dr. Wendt from Karlsruhe be permitted to testify here. Wendt is the former assistant of Professor Weltz. Furthermore, in order to submit proof, I have submitted two document books to the Tribunal, including twenty-two documents. These documents contain, among others, the affidavits by eleven witnesses, mostly co-workers or professional colleagues of Professor Weltz. Before I start the direct examination of the defendant, I shall read an affidavit of Dr. Werner Knothe at Karlsruhe. Reading this affidavit will make it unnecessary for me to ask the defendant about various phases of his professional life and will, therefore, contribute towards the shortening of the proceedings. I am now handing to the Tribunal the document Weltz #14, which I shall designate as Exhibit #1. I shall only read this document where Professor Knothe mentions the professional life of Professor Weltz.