Chapter VII: Extracts From Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (1)

A. Medical Experiments

1. HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving high-altitude experiments (par. 6 (_A_) of the indictment). During the course of the trial, the prosecution withdrew this charge in the cases of Karl Brandt, Handloser, Poppendick, and Mrugowsky. Only the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were convicted on this charge.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the high-altitude experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 92 to 113. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Ruff and Sievers. It appears below on pages 114 to 140. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 140 to 198.

b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS RUFF, ROMBERG, AND
WELTZ_

Early in the war it was deemed necessary to conduct research in the field of high altitudes because of the higher ceilings reached by the Allied fighter planes. This created the problem of availability of human experimental subjects, inasmuch as animal experimentation was considered inadequate. The heights involved were 12,000 meters to over 20,000 meters, hence it goes without saying that such experiments were very dangerous and, as indicated by the evidence, volunteers were not to be had. This difficulty was overcome by the use of concentration camp inmates without their consent. The first indication of this criminal plan appears in a letter from Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician, in a letter to the Reich Leader SS dated 15 May 1941:

“For the time being, I have been assigned to the Luftgau
Kommando VII, Munich, for a medical selection course. During
this course, where research on high-altitude flying plays a
prominent part, determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the
English fighter planes, considerable regret was expressed that
no experiments on human beings have so far been possible for us
because such experiments are very dangerous, _and nobody is
volunteering_. I therefore put the serious question: is there
any possibility that two or three professional criminals can be
made available for these experiments?” [Emphasis supplied.]
(_1602, PS, Pros. Ex. 44._)

It further appears in this Rascher letter of 15 May 1941 that Rascher had conferred with another Luftwaffe physician and that a tentative agreement had been reached wherein it was determined that the experiments on the concentration camp inmates, in which the experimental subjects were expected to die, would be performed at the “Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe” at Munich:

“The experiments are being performed at the Ground Station for
High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe [Bodenstaendige
Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at Munich. The
experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may
die, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely
essential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot,
as it had been tried until now, be carried out on monkeys,
because monkeys offer entirely different test conditions. I had
an absolutely confidential talk with the representative of the
Luftwaffe physician who is conducting these experiments. He also
is of the opinion that the problems in question can only be
solved by experiments on human beings.” (_1602-PS, Pros. Ex.
44._)

* * * * *

Weltz testified that a meeting took place in the summer of 1941 on the occasion of a visit by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke to Luftgau VII. (_Tr. p. 7056._) In a discussion between Weltz, Kottenhoff, and Hippke, Hippke gave his approval in principle to the experiments if they were deemed necessary. (_Tr. p. 7065._) In the course of the summer of 1941, Rascher went to Weltz and proposed the slow-ascent experiments, but Weltz turned them down as unnecessary. (_Tr. p. 7176._) This testimony of the defendant Weltz clearly indicates the jurisdiction Weltz had over Rascher’s activities. This refusal to permit the performance of slow-ascent experiments bears out the contention of the prosecution that the defendant Weltz had the power and the authority to intervene at any time. Weltz’ actions throughout the entire development of the plans for the experiments were not merely negative. He was in full accord with the entire enterprise and he realized that Rascher did not possess the necessary qualifications to conduct these experiments without the assistance of a specialist in this particular field of aviation medicine. Furthermore, although Rascher was attached to Weltz’ Institute he had no other definite work. (_Tr. pp. 7078 and 7187._) To find a specialist to collaborate with Weltz and Rascher proved to be a difficult task. Weltz first approached members of his own institute, namely Lutz and Wendt, men of considerable reputation in this field, but to no avail. Wolfgang Lutz appeared before this Tribunal and testified that Weltz requested his assistance, as well as the assistance of Wendt, but that they both refused on moral grounds. (_Tr. p. 269._) Weltz did not deny this, but contended that his questions to Lutz were purely rhetorical. (_Tr. p. 7069._)

The inability to interest a specialist in the field of high-altitude research to collaborate with Rascher explains the cause for the lapse of time between the date of the authorization by Himmler and the actual date of the commencement of the experiments, viz, July 1941 to February 1942. Weltz was not a specialist in high-altitude research. Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania, and Rascher was comparatively a novice in this field.

The next step taken by Weltz, which led to the completion of the plans to conduct the high-altitude experiments on human beings at the Dachau concentration camp, was his invitation to the defendants Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. These two men were experts in this field and were interested in further research in altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters. Weltz testified that he made a trip to Berlin and that Ruff accepted his invitation to collaborate with Rascher. (_Tr. p. 7188._) The evidence shows that Weltz approached Ruff and Romberg as he needed expert assistance. (_NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47_; _NO-191, Pros. Ex. 43_.) The defendant Ruff stated that he first heard of the plan to carry out research on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp from the defendant Weltz and that Weltz desired collaboration between Romberg and Rascher and between Weltz’ Institute and Ruff’s Institute. (_Tr. p. 6653._) Furthermore, Ruff testified that Weltz stated:

“It is, of course, best if you or Romberg take part in these
experiments because Romberg had already carried out such
parachute descent experiments and is therefore the man who knows
about the whole problem of rescue from high altitudes.” (_Tr.
pp. 6654-5._) Ruff further testified that Weltz suggested that a
new series of experiments in parachute descents from great
heights should be carried out at Dachau on prisoners. (_Tr. p.
6653._)

From this moment on, the experimental program started to move as a mutual undertaking. This is better stated by the defendant Weltz:

“This was to be a mutual undertaking, during which Ruff was to
detail Romberg and I was to detail Rascher. Ruff naturally was
to be chief of Romberg and I, as a matter of course, was to be
Rascher’s chief. Ruff couldn’t give any orders to Rascher.
Rascher was a captain in the Medical Corps and Ruff was a
civilian. I couldn’t give any orders to Romberg because Romberg
was a civilian while I was a soldier. Naturally, this is how the
distribution was. It had to be that way. Furthermore, it was
clear that I couldn’t in any way retire. I could not just leave
Rascher to Ruff. It was quite clear that I had to participate in
these experiments by exercising supervision, but not by actively
participating.” (_Tr. p. 7079._)

This evidence certainly rebuts Weltz’ vague contention that he was not in search of specialists in high-altitude research to collaborate with him and Rascher. Without the efforts of Weltz the experiments could never have taken place. In brief, to conduct these experiments at altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters Weltz found it necessary to secure the assistance of experts in the field, as well as a low-pressure chamber which would meet his needs. Ruff and Romberg possessed both, and in the above manner Weltz skillfully engineered the whole plan.

Immediately after Weltz had completed his negotiations with Ruff, he called a meeting at his institute in Munich, wherein discussions of a technical nature concerning the experiments were held. At this meeting, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz were in attendance. This meeting was at Weltz’ Institute and Weltz presided over the meeting. It was further decided that a second meeting was to be held at Dachau a few days later in order to make the necessary arrangements with the camp commander. This trip took place in order to discuss technical preparations with the camp commander, and to arrange details concerning the selection of the experimental subjects. Again, Weltz, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher were in attendance, in addition to Piorkowski, the camp commander, and Schnitzler of the staff of the Reichsfuehrung SS. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40_; _NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47_; _Tr. pp. 7086-7_.)

After the arrangements with the camp authorities at Dachau had been completed, the shipment of the low-pressure chamber from Berlin was the next problem to overcome. As pointed out earlier, Weltz desired the low-pressure chamber which was possessed by Ruff and Romberg for use in the experiments at Dachau. It is interesting to note that Weltz had had a low-pressure chamber available in his own institute from 1938 on (_Tr. p. 7178._), and that Weltz testified that volunteers from his student body or from the Luftwaffe were available. (_Tr. pp. 7180-83._) Despite this, it was necessary to resort to the concentration camp for inmates and, in order to conduct the experiments, a mobile pressure chamber had to be brought down from the Ruff Institute in Berlin, as the low-pressure chamber in the Weltz Institute was not mobile. The mobile low-pressure chamber from Ruff’s Institute at Berlin was driven to Weltz’ Institute in Munich and arrived in the late afternoon. This chamber was driven to Munich by employees of the DVL and turned over to Weltz. On the following day, SS drivers came from Dachau, received the keys to the chamber and drove it to the concentration camp. (_Tr. p. 7199._) The purpose in camouflaging this activity was to deceive the employees of the DVL because Weltz and Ruff did not want them to know that the low-pressure chamber was to be used in an experimental program at a concentration camp. This is borne out by the fact that a completely new set of drivers came from the concentration camp to take the chamber to Dachau. This particular action of secrecy is noticeable when it is considered that Dachau is merely 12 kilometers from Munich and actually the DVL drivers had to go out of their way to deliver the chamber to the Weltz Institute. Ruff testified that the secrecy in the transfer of the chamber to Dachau was for security reasons. (_Tr. p. 6550._)

From the evidence thus far summarized, and indeed from Weltz’ own admission, it is clear that he must be found guilty of the high-altitude crimes committed in Dachau. This was a criminal undertaking from its inception. It was known to all concerned that the proposed experiments were certain to result in deaths and that they were to be performed on nonvolunteers. That is proved by the very first letter to Himmler. Weltz supported the ambition of his subordinate, Rascher, to perform the experiments on behalf of the Weltz Institute. He secured the collaboration of Ruff and Romberg. He obtained the consent of Hippke and a research assignment from the Referat for Aviation Medicine under Anthony and Becker-Freyseng. He took care of the technical arrangements and participated in conferences with Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher which decided on the experiments to be performed. Weltz did more in having the experiments performed than anyone else. His guilt is clearly established on this evidence alone. It is not disputed that Rascher was subordinated to him until February 1942. Weltz’ main defense is that he had Rascher transferred from his institute late in February 1942 and, hence, cannot be held responsible for what happened thereafter. Even if true, this is no defense. Weltz had long since participated in the criminal enterprise. He cannot be heard to say that “Yes, I did all that, but I’m not responsible for the actual consequences which my acts were expected to bring about.” The deaths which occurred in these experiments were foreseeable from the beginning. Weltz does not escape responsibility for those deaths, even if it were true that Rascher was not subordinated to him when they occurred. But that is not true, as the evidence proves.

The actual date of the commencement of the experiments at Dachau was 22 February 1942, which was recalled by the witness Neff because it was his birthday. (_Tr. p. 606._) From this point on, the defendant Weltz takes the position that he had no knowledge of the work and that, in fact, Rascher was relieved from his command. Weltz admitted that it was his obligation to supervise Rascher and that the existing arrangement between Ruff and Weltz was that this was to be a joint undertaking. Ruff exercised supervision over Romberg, and Weltz was to exercise supervision over Rascher. Weltz conceded that he was Rascher’s disciplinary superior and was responsible for the scientific programs to which he assigned Rascher. (_Tr. p. 7088._) Despite this chain of command and working agreement, Weltz takes the position that Rascher endeavored to work independently and that he did not desire to report to Weltz. (_Tr. pp. 7088-9._) It became necessary for Weltz to order Rascher to report to him twice a week and, as a result of this order, Weltz alleges that Rascher came to him in the middle of February and that they had their first conversation since the meeting in Dachau and on that occasion, Rascher informed Weltz that the experiments had not even started yet and that he had nothing to report. (_Tr. p. 7089._)

Weltz testified that Anthony, under whom Becker-Freyseng worked in the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, in Berlin, telephoned him to inquire how the Dachau experiments were progressing and that he could only reply that nothing had been reported to him. Rascher reported to him for the second time, whereupon Weltz informed Rascher that a telephone call had come through from Berlin and that he wanted to have some clarification as to how things stood at Dachau. Rascher did not want to report anything to Weltz at the second conversation, and Weltz maintains that he told Rascher that he was going to Berlin to clear up the situation and obtain a clear decision whether or not Rascher was to report to him. Then, on the occasion of the third visit from Rascher, Weltz, expecting a sharp argument, asked Wendt of his office to come into the room, and on that occasion he confronted Rascher with the alternative either to report to him or to leave the institute. Weltz asserts that at that time Rascher showed him a telegram from Himmler, which read: “Experiments are to be kept secret from everyone.” (_Tr. p. 7089._) Thereupon, Weltz maintains that he ordered Rascher from his institute and that he then composed a letter, together with Wendt, to the Luftgau and asked for Rascher’s immediate transfer and that within a few days Rascher’s assignment had ended. (_Tr. p. 7090._)

The memorandum of Nini Rascher to Himmler of 24 February 1942 shows that at that time Rascher was still subordinate to Weltz. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) She reviewed the history of the experiments and pointed out that on 24 July 1941 Rascher, Kottenhoff, and Weltz were to be in charge. Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania in August and thereby excluded from the group. She stated that it was Weltz’s task to initiate the technical execution of the experiments. Apparently because of a fear of moral objections on the part of Hippke, Weltz had postponed the beginning of the experiments but had finally secured Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. A conference took place in Dachau between Piorkowski, Schnitzler, Weltz, Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff. Weltz had given the assurance that he would take care of the authorization for Rascher. Mrs. Rascher complained that on 18 February, after Rascher had carried out all the preparatory work, Weltz stated: “Now that you have removed all obstacles from the path of Romberg with the SS, the authorization must be handled differently.” Mrs. Rascher stated that both Romberg and Rascher agreed that Weltz was not needed anymore and that both opposed his attempts to oust Rascher in favor of himself.

Weltz contended that the truth of the matter was that he wished to get rid of Rascher, and that Mrs. Rascher had misrepresented this to Himmler so that it would appear that he was trying to eliminate Rascher in order to keep the work exclusively to himself. (_Tr. p. 7099._) There can be no question that Mrs. Rascher was quite correct in her analysis of the situation. What possible reason could Weltz have for desiring, just before the experiments began, to eliminate Rascher unless he wished to participate himself personally and thus secure a larger share of the scientific credit? Certainly he had supported Rascher from the very inception of the proposal to perform the experiments. Be that as it may, the proof shows that Rascher continued to participate in the experiments as a subordinate of Weltz. This is clearly proved by a file memorandum of Schnitzler of the SS office in Munich, dated 28 April 1942. (_NO-264, Pros. Ex. 60._) This memorandum shows that Rascher was still subordinated to Weltz, and that Weltz was insisting on active participation in the experiments and full responsibility. The RLM [Reich Air Ministry] had inquired of Weltz how long the experiments would last, and whether it was justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long. Rascher, who was chafing under his subordination to Weltz, requested that his assignment be changed to the DVL [German Aviation Research Institute], Dachau Branch.

Weltz’ only reaction to this document was that the date was wrong and should read 28 February 1942 instead of 28 April 1942. (_Tr. p. 7099 ff._) Weltz conceded on cross-examination that, assuming the date 28 April 1942 was correct, then of course Rascher was still his subordinate at that time. (_Tr. p. 7232._) The file memorandum of Sievers dated 3 May 1942 settled this question beyond any doubt. This memorandum reads as follows:

“SS Untersturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher reported in Munich
on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference with
Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz. Weltz requested that Dr. Rascher be
withdrawn if by Friday, 1 May 1942 he (Weltz) were not taken
into consultation regarding the experiments. The Reich Leader SS
was informed accordingly. He ordered SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff
on 30 April 1942 to send a telegram to Field Marshal Milch
requesting that Dr. Rascher be ordered to the German Aviation
Research Institute [Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt],
Dachau Branch, and there to be at the disposal of the Reich
Leader SS.” (_NO-1359, Pros. Ex. 493._)

After having been confronted with this document Weltz in effect conceded that his previous testimony about the transfer of Rascher had been, to say the least of it, incorrect. He said:

“Yes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If I had
this file note of Sievers in addition to my other documents, I
would have known that the note of Schnitzler was correct, and
that there must be another possibility to explain Mrs. Nini
Rascher’s letter. This letter, on the other hand, cannot be
explained now. I can only try to reconstruct the dates from the
documents which were available here, since I no longer know them
today.” (_Tr. p. 7239._)

On redirect examination by his defense counsel, Weltz was asked again to clarify the situation with respect to Rascher’s subordination, and he replied:

“Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to
naught, I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way
to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.” (_Tr. p.
7251._)

In a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Wolff it is again made evident beyond any doubt that Rascher was subordinate to Weltz:

“In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector
reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the
SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation
of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However,
the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to
perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared
in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major (M. C.)
Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M. C.)
Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition
to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps.”
(_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._)

Thus it is clear that Weltz must be held responsible for the numerous murders which resulted during the high-altitude experiments in Dachau. Not only did he participate in plans and enterprises involving the commission of these experiments, but he also was the direct superior of Rascher who, together with Ruff and Romberg, actually executed the experiments.

_Status of Prisoners Used in the Experiments_

After Weltz had successfully secured the collaboration of Ruff and Romberg, he held a meeting at his institute in Munich late in December 1941, or early in January 1942. (_Tr. p. 6657_; _Tr. p. 7086_.) Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher attended this meeting primarily to lay the groundwork for the technical arrangements necessary to perform the work at Dachau. It is alleged by all the defendants that the question regarding the status of the prisoners to be used was discussed and that Rascher had assured them that the subjects would be exclusively volunteers. (_Tr. p. 7086_; _Tr. p. 6232_; _Tr. p. 6869_.) In fact, the defendants state that Rascher exhibited a communication from Himmler which provided that the subjects must be volunteers under all circumstances. (_Tr. p. 6869._) Unfortunately, this letter has not been produced by the defense. Needless to say, the defendants take the position that such experiments were to be performed on habitual and condemned criminals and that considerations were to be offered to said “volunteers” in the event of their surviving the experiments. As a matter of fact, Romberg explicitly states that he saw the “Himmler letter” and he was able to observe the words “criminal” and “volunteer” therein. (_Tr. p. 6870._)

The assertion on the part of the defendants that Himmler had ordered that the criminals used be volunteers is ridiculous and incredible when one considers that Himmler instructed Rascher to pardon these unfortunate inmates only if they could be recalled to life after having been subjected to the type of experiments outlined in Rascher’s first interim report, wherein it is shown that the experimental subjects had stopped breathing altogether and their chests had been cut open, i. e., autopsy had been actually performed on them. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._)

In this instance, Himmler graciously stated:

“3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart, the
experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as
to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should
such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person
condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for
life.” (_1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51._)

It is absurd to give any weight to the allegation that Himmler provided that the subjects were to be volunteers. These men knew that volunteers could not be secured and that was the very reason for going to Himmler. This is shown in the letter from Rascher to Himmler requesting that criminals be made available due to the fact that “nobody is volunteering.”

The defendant Ruff admitted on the stand that the experiments conducted on themselves and colleagues in Berlin concerned altitudes up to 12,000 meters and that the question of what would happen between 12,000 and 20,000 meters was subsequently investigated at Dachau. (_Tr. p. 6679._) It is obvious, therefore, that Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher were unwilling to perform such investigations on themselves.

The evidence has proved that the subjects used in the high-altitude experiments were not, with a few minor exceptions, volunteers. The inmates were simply selected at random in the camp and forced to undergo the experiments. Russians, Poles, Jews of various nationalities, and Germans were used. Russian prisoners of war were included, as were many political prisoners. Approximately 180 to 200 inmates were experimented on, about 70 to 80 being killed as a result. Not more than 40 of these had been “condemned to death.” Among those killed were political prisoners. (_Tr. pp. 613-18_; _also Tr. p. 432_.) This testimony of Neff, who was the inmate assistant in the experiments and who identified Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz, is corroborated by Rascher’s cable asking if Himmler’s amnesty rule applied to Russians and Poles who had been extensively used in the experiments. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) The nationality and status of inmates were easily discernible from the badges worn on their uniforms. Ruff and Romberg could have told from these that foreign nationals and political prisoners were being used. (_Tr. pp. 616-7._)

The witness Neff’s testimony reveals that approximately 10 prisoners were selected as permanent, experimental subjects, but they were not volunteers. (_Tr. pp. 611, 622, and 430._) There were, however, a few “volunteers” according to Neff. He stated that “there were certain volunteers for these experiments, because Rascher promised certain persons that they would be released from the camp if they underwent these experiments.” (_Tr. p. 614._) Neff clearly pointed out that in view of the way the prisoner subjects were selected and used it was not possible to know who were volunteers, if any, and who were not volunteers. (_Tr. pp. 606-26._) They were not brought in and used as a separate group. Moreover, the evidence shows that these promises were not kept. (_Tr. p. 615._) The only evidence of a release is the case of Sabota, as outlined by Neff, and in that case he was sent to an undesirable special SS commando group. No death sentences were commuted.

The defense claims for Ruff and Romberg that the experiments at Dachau were divided into two groups. The first group, the so-called Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments, was noncriminal, while the second group, the Rascher experiments, encompassed all the crimes. They contend that the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments were conducted independently of the Rascher experiments and that the 10 original subjects mentioned by Neff and Vieweg were used exclusively for the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments. Despite the testimony of the witnesses and the weight of the documentary evidence, they would have the Tribunal believe that by a wondrous working of fate these were all volunteers and no crimes occurred. This defense is of course inapplicable to Weltz. Rascher was subordinated to and subject to his orders.

It should be noted that Romberg and Rascher who tested themselves in the altitude chamber at Dachau with an air pressure equivalent to 12,500 and 13,500 meters altitude respectively, for 30 to 40 minutes, discontinued these experiments on themselves because of intense pain. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Yet, these men proceeded, as proved by their own joint report, to conduct experiments on prisoners which they would not perform on themselves.

The experimenters took no responsibility or even interest in seeing to it that the alleged promises made to the subjects to induce them to “volunteer” were kept. (_Tr. p. 6993._) Although Romberg said he had no channel to Himmler, he also admitted he visited Himmler with Rascher in July 1942. (_Tr. pp. 7015-6._)

In this connection, we must consider the convenient line of the defense. By limiting the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments to the 10 subjects, we find that they further allege that no deaths occurred in those experiments as opposed to a considerable number of deaths in the Rascher work. But the witness Neff, in describing the first day of the experiments, emphatically stated that the first series of experiments _was not carried out on volunteers_. Furthermore, the defendant Ruff was also present during these experiments. (_Tr. p. 622._) The defendants’ contention that the experiments were in two groups is _explicitly denied_ by Neff. He testified that Romberg not only experimented with Rascher on the original 10 subjects, but also on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction fabricated by the defendants cannot possibly be credited in the light of Neff’s testimony. On being asked the question whether Romberg experimented only on the 10 original subjects, Neff replied:

“Experiments were conducted not only with these ten persons but,
for example, in a series of experiments which Romberg also
conducted on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction
which the defense counsel tries to make between experiments
included in the report to the Luftgau or of death—it is
impossible for me to make this distinction and to distinguish
between those which fell into one category or the other.” (_Tr.
p. 691._)

Which is to be believed, the testimony of Neff, plus one’s common sense, or the self-serving statements of the defendants? This is a question the Tribunal must answer. There is no such thing as half a murderer. These defendants are responsible for those murders or they are not responsible. There is not one scintilla of evidence to support the ridiculous contention that a group of volunteers, segregated for use by Romberg, wore different colored shirts so he could tell them apart and were treated with the greatest deference. But that is just what Ruff and Romberg ask the Tribunal to find. It is absolutely impossible in the face of the record.

This, alleged disassociation of Ruff and Romberg from the “crimes committed exclusively by Rascher” is in complete contradiction to the acts of these defendants during the experiments, which after all speak much louder than their present testimony. Neff testified that Romberg personally witnessed at least five deaths during the experiments, and that he made no effort to stop them nor did he even protest after the event. (_Tr. p. 619._) Romberg admitted seeing three deaths and that he knew that five to ten other murders took place in his absence. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) The first death Romberg saw, he said, occurred in April. He reported this to Ruff. _Yet the experiments were not discontinued._ They went on to the end of June and still more deaths occurred which Romberg saw. _To say the least of it, these defendants made themselves a party to murder by continuing the experiments._ This is true no matter how innocent they may have been up to the first death. They were duty bound to stop the experiments immediately, remove the chamber, and force a court martial of Rascher. They did none of these simple and obvious things. They did not for the very reason that deaths were expected from the very beginning and were a part of the experimental plan. Romberg saw these men die and did absolutely nothing. It was within his power to save them at the time. He said he was operating the electrocardiograph. He knew precisely by their heart action when the subjects were in danger of dying. He also knew this from his knowledge of reaction to high altitudes. He could see and read the pressure gauges. He could have turned the pressure down and saved their lives by simply moving the gauge which was within arm’s reach. He was a bigger man than Rascher. Force could have been used if necessary. Not only did he do nothing while the helpless victims died before his very eyes, but he assisted in the autopsies.

After all these murders had occurred and were known to them, Ruff and Romberg still went on. They issued a joint report on the experiments in the name of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher in July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) They were still collaborating with this admitted murderer and gave him the cover of their scientific reputation. Romberg received a medal for his work in the experiments on the recommendation of Rascher. (_1607-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 65._) Romberg was still supporting Rascher in September 1942 and was to have made an oral report to Milch on the experiments with Rascher. He wrote a memorandum on Rascher’s behalf explaining that the report was not given because Milch was unable to receive them at the scheduled time. This same memorandum, signed by Romberg, proves that _he was anxious to continue high-altitude experiments with Rascher and asked for Milch’s permission_.

He wrote:

“Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he was willing to report to the
State Secretary (Milch) our wishes concerning the distribution
of the report and the continuation of the experiments. * * *
Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, still on 11 September, our
wishes concerning distribution and confirmation of the
experiments to the State Secretary. The State Secretary had
approved the distribution schedule, and said that a continuation
of the experiment was not urgent.” (_NO-224, Pros. Ex. 76._)

In the meantime, the murderous freezing experiments had been started with the Luftwaffe team of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher. Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz all heard the report of those experiments in Nuernberg in October 1942. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Hippke himself wrote his special thanks to Himmler on 8 October 1942, and said: “When the work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be allowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher?” (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72._)

* * * * *

_Analysis of the Experiments_

The experiments at Dachau in the field of high-altitude research were conducted to determine human reactions to altitudes above 12,000 meters. The defendant Romberg stated that four series of experiments were conducted (_a_) slow descent without oxygen, (_b_) slow descent with oxygen, (_c_) falling without oxygen, and (_d_) falling with oxygen. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) The first two tests were designed to simulate descent with parachute open while the latter two a free fall from an airplane before the parachute opens. As pointed out in Dr. Rascher’s first interim report on the experiments, an additional problem was to be solved, namely, the determination whether the theoretically established norms pertaining to the length of life of human beings breathing air with only a small portion of oxygen and subjected to low pressure correspond with the results obtained by practical experience. This interim report of Rascher’s states as follows:

“2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being
above the normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been
conducted at all, since it has been a foregone conclusion that
the human experimental subject (Versuchsperson-VP) would suffer
death.”

The experiments conducted by myself _and Dr. Romberg_ proved the
following:

“Experiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen
and the low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did
not cause death. Altogether 15 extreme experiments of this type
were carried out in which none of VP died. Very severe bends
together with unconsciousness occurred, but completely normal
functions of the senses returned when a height of 7 km. was
reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering during the
experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time the
experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they
did not indicate any abnormal changes during the following days.
The extent to which deterioration of the organism may occur due
to continuously repeated experiments can only be established at
the end of the series of experiments. _The extreme fatal
experiments will be carried out on specially selected VP’s
otherwise it would not be possible to exercise the rigid control
so extraordinarily important for practical purposes._” [Emphasis
supplied.] (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._)

Thus, it is clear that the experiments were planned and executed with the _intention_ that some were to terminate fatally. This report covered the period up to the first week in April and mention of deaths and autopsies is made. This quite obviously was the instance when Romberg says he saw his first death and autopsy, although he tends to place the date as the latter part of April. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) If the experiments had been stopped there the lives of many subjects would have been saved.

The defendants argue that, while the experiments may have killed persons, they did not involve torture and pain. This is on the theory that the subjects lost consciousness before any sensation of pain. This anomalous defense is completely disproved by the photographic exhibits showing the expressions of pain of the subjects. (_NO-610, Pros. Ex. 41._) as well as the defendants’ own report on the experiments. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The reaction of one subject was described in terms such as “severe altitude sickness, spasmodic convulsions”. In a self-experiment by Romberg and Rascher, the latter’s reactions were described as follows:

“After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the
right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg
which increased continually as though Ra’s [Rascher’s] whole
right side were being crushed between two presses. At the same
time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were
being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe so
that at last the discontinuation of the experiment became
necessary.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._)

There is no case on record where an experiment on an inmate was discontinued because of pain.

Ruff and Romberg take the position that they would be most unwilling to kill prisoners in the course of an experiment. They insist that their experiments with Rascher were concerned with the problem of explosive decompression and on parachute descent from high altitudes, whereas Rascher alone worked on sojourn or a more prolonged stay at high altitudes, and that it was in Rascher’s experiments that prisoners were killed. This again is the artificial division of the experiments into the criminal and noncriminal which has already been proved to be spurious. But here again, the two self-experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher included in their joint final report as mentioned above _were experiments on prolonged stay at high altitude, a subject which they now claim was exclusively Rascher’s_. The only reason that this experiment did not end fatally was the fact that it was interrupted in time because of intense pain. Moreover, on page 11 of the final report by Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz the following is said: “This is worthy of special attention because in this case a person has fully recovered mentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. (27,230 ft.), after 3 minutes of the most severe lack of oxygen, _while in altitude endurance experiments_ at this altitude severe altitude sickness sets in after about 3 minutes.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Here, again, it is proved from their own report that Ruff and Romberg, as well as Rascher, were concerned with sojourn at high altitudes.

Experiments, in which prisoners were killed, are reported in Rascher’s report to Himmler of 11 May 1942. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) Some prisoners were killed by keeping them at 12,000 meters without oxygen for 30 minutes; one was killed at 20,000 meters when exposed there for about 6 minutes without oxygen. These prisoners were autopsied to ascertain if bubbles of gas, called air embolism in Rascher’s report of 11 May 1942, were present in the blood vessels of the brain and other organs when dissected under water. Some “Jewish professional criminals” who had committed “Rassenschande” (race pollution)[18] were killed for another reason:

“To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as
mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the
following was done: After relative recuperation from such a
parachute descending test had taken place, however before
regaining consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until
they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of
the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of
air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary
vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.”
(_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._)

It should be noted that these murders were committed in connection with the _parachute descending tests_, not prolonged stay at high altitudes, and this was the very subject being studied by Ruff and Romberg. Romberg testified that he was present at the death of three of these prisoners, one in April and two in May 1942, and witnessed an autopsy of one, in which gas bubbles were present in the blood vessels of the brain. He reported these deaths to Ruff. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff testified Romberg was present in five cases where fatalities occurred (_Tr. pp. 619, 692._) and Romberg admitted that he knew that five to ten other experimental subjects were killed while he was not present. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff stated that Romberg actively participated in the majority of the experiments. He observed the experiments, took notes, and studied the electrocardiogram and thus was able to determine when an experimental subject in the chamber was about to die. (_Tr. p. 651._)

It is incredible that Dr. Ruff was not informed regarding the finding of bubbles in the blood vessels of the brain since such observations in human beings who have died following too rapid atmospheric decompression is a very, very unique event, though bubbles had been observed many times prior to 1942 in the blood vessels of laboratory animals. It is inconceivable that Dr. Ruff, or anyone else in the field of aviation medicine, had not heard of the bubble theory of the cause of joint pains, coughing, blindness, or paralysis, or the symptoms of the pressure drop sickness, which may occur on exposure to high altitude, since this theory was well known in literature and text books of aviation medicine available since 1938. How else would Rascher have had occasion to look for the bubbles? He either learned of the theory during a course in aviation medicine or was told about it by Ruff and Romberg, who knew much more than Rascher about aviation medicine.

It is fantastic that Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher did not have in mind the observations of bubbles in the blood vessels of the murdered prisoners, when, in the final joint report of 28 July 1942, they wrote:

“In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the
actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily
failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon
post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It
appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness
had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack”. (_NO-402,
Pros. Ex. 66._)

It has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated with decompression or pressure-drop sickness may be due to the formation of gas bubbles (air embolism) in the blood vessels of the brain or in the regions of the joints or in the blood vessels of the lungs. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain, they are supposed to cause a physical or mental disturbance or paralysis. When the gas bubbles collect in the region of the joints, they are supposed to cause pain in the region of the joints. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels in the lungs, they are supposed to cause the chokes or attacks of coughing. That has been a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20 years, and an expert in the field of aviation medicine could not have been unaware of it. (_Tr. pp. 9098-9._) Since Rascher had observed bubbles as is described in his report of 11 May 1942, and since Ruff and Romberg had complete knowledge of the deaths, obviously these important findings of Rascher on air embolism did not escape the attention of Ruff and Romberg. It can only be concluded that these findings, which resulted from intentioned deaths, form the basis of the paragraph quoted above from the final report. Because of the nature of the subject matter, and a prior knowledge of the observations in the autopsies in the experiments, the ideas expressed in the paragraph quoted above cannot be separated from those in the Rascher report of 11 May. So testified the expert witness Dr. A. C. Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9151._) All of this proves again that the testimony of Ruff and Romberg to the effect they had nothing to do with the so-called “Rascher experiments” is completely false. Even though deaths are not specifically mentioned in the joint report of 28 July, it is clear from Dr. Ivy’s testimony that the findings in the death cases form the basis for a part of that report.

Ruff and Romberg would have the Tribunal believe that the experiments were completed and the chamber removed from Dachau by 20 May 1942. Since Romberg knew of and reported on the deaths to Ruff in April, there clearly was no excuse whatever to leave the chamber in Dachau for even another day. But according to their own story, it stayed until 20 May and Romberg saw two more men killed. They attempted to gloss over their criminal participation in these later murders by saying that the chamber could not be moved without orders from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. Be that as it may, such a technical violation of moving the chamber without orders is hardly comparable to the crime of leaving the chamber for further experiments by a man whom they admit they knew to have been a murderer. Indeed, any decent superior who was not himself a party to the crime, as they actually were, would undoubtedly have court-martialed Ruff and Romberg for leaving the chamber there, not to speak of Rascher.

But it is not true that the chamber left Dachau on 20 May 1942 as they perjuriously stated. They seized upon this date from Milch’s letter to Wolff stating that the chamber was needed elsewhere. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) There clearly was an intention to transfer the chamber, but it was _not_ in fact moved and this was undoubtedly due to the joint efforts of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher. Romberg was anxious to continue his criminal work with Rascher in September 1942 as has been pointed out above. In any event, on 4 June 1942, Milch authorized retention of the chamber in Dachau _for two more months_. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) On 25 June this order was passed on to Rascher by Heckenstaller, adjutant to Wolff, reference being made to a letter of 5 June from Rascher. (_NO-284, Pros. Ex. 64._) These documents prove beyond doubt that the chamber remained in Dachau until July 1942.

The testimony of Neff not only proves that the experiments continued until July 1942 but also that Romberg was presented with a remarkable opportunity to discontinue the experiments without any trouble whatever. Neff stated that Romberg told him in the latter part of May that the chamber was to be transferred (undoubtedly as a result of Milch’s letter of 20 May which was later countermanded) and, under the impression that Romberg might not be in favor of any continuation of the experiments, he sabotaged the chamber by breaking a glass barometer in order to make sure the chamber would be sent away. Instead of seizing this opportunity for stopping the experiments by removing the damaged chamber, Romberg rushed to Berlin, obtained spare parts, and in a matter of 2 weeks had the chamber functioning again for more murderous experiments. (_Tr. pp. 623-4._) The chamber was used for another 3 weeks after it was repaired and five persons were killed on the last day of the experiments. (_Tr. p. 624._) Although the defense attacked Neff on cross-examination concerning the sabotage of the chamber (_Tr. p. 663_), by the time Romberg took the stand they admitted the chamber was damaged but moved the whole incident to the month of May instead of June. (_Tr. p. 6905._) This was obviously done on the theory that the Tribunal could be deceived into believing that very few experiments could have been conducted in May since they contend the chamber was moved on 20 May. But the documents and Neff’s testimony clearly established that the chamber was there until July. Moreover, it matters little whether the chamber was damaged in May or June. Romberg in no event took the opportunity to stop the experiments on the ground of unavailable spare parts, although this opportunity would not have been needed if he really wanted to discontinue them. He need have done nothing more complex than to have sent the chamber away or left himself.

Ruff’s and Romberg’s guilt is beyond doubt when we consider that they did not take the opportunity to withdraw after the first death of an experimental subject in April 1942. Romberg admitted his presence at the death of this first subject. (_Tr. p. 6924._) He was studying the electrocardiogram at the time of the experiments (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40_), but he would have the Tribunal find that he was an innocent bystander who was privileged to do nothing. This was just another “SS experiment” according to Romberg. But Romberg admitted that he was working the electrocardiogram and was studying the point of light that follows the heart. When he saw that the critical point had been reached, he said he spoke to Rascher (_Tr. p. 6927_), but to no avail as Rascher continued the experiment until death resulted. This testimony of assumed impotence when a man was slowly killed before his eyes is an insult to one’s intelligence. Romberg was the senior scientist and was fully aware of the fact that the danger zone had been reached as he was thoroughly familiar with the equipment being used. He has outlined for the Tribunal the proximity of the electrocardiogram to the controls of the chamber (_Tr. p. 6929_), and it is inconceivable that Romberg could not have taken the necessary action to have spared this experimental subject’s life if he had so desired. The inescapable fact is that these deaths were part of the plan and Romberg not only had no desire to interfere but was very much interested in the cause of death through air embolism.

Assuming that Romberg was opposed to this fatal experiment, it is impossible to understand why he did not take the appropriate action to have Rascher prosecuted for this premeditated murder. The fact of the matter is that Romberg merely reported this death to Ruff (_Tr. p. 6932_), and no appropriate action was taken by Ruff either. Although alleging an objection to this fatality, Romberg admits participation in the autopsy of the unfortunate victim. This autopsy clearly bore out the fact that air embolism was the cause of death. When asked if he participated in this autopsy, Romberg answered, “Yes, I watched one autopsy. That was my duty.” (_Tr. p. 6924._) Romberg testified that he saw two other deaths and that air embolism also caused those. (_Tr. pp. 6925-6._)

Ruff and Romberg lay great stress on the point that deaths are not mentioned in the joint report of 28 July 1942 of Romberg, Ruff, and Rascher. This, of course, is a very understandable omission, but it in no way proves that they are not responsible for those murders. Indeed, the joint report of 28 July 1942 (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66_) is identical with Rascher’s report of 11 May 1942 (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) except for the specific mentioning of the deaths. For example, paragraph 3 of the Rascher report is a summary of part III-1, pages 3 to 18, and part III-2, pages 18 to 19 of the joint final report. Paragraph 4 of Rascher’s report contains results set out in part III-4, pages 21 to 22, of the joint final report. Paragraph 5 of Rascher’s report is identical with part III-3, pages 19 to 21, of the joint final report. Paragraph 6 of the Rascher report where the pervitin experiments are mentioned is alluded to in the pervitin data in the joint final report on page 18. Paragraph 7 of the Rascher report contains the conclusions incorporated in the joint final report and gives details on the gas bubble data which are referred to on pages 16 to 18 of the joint final report, but from which is omitted reference to the autopsy results of the murdered prisoners. These various passages were compared by the witness Ivy and he concluded that they refer to the same subject matter. (_Tr. p. 9097._)