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._)
Ruff attempts to explain the omission of mention of deaths in the final
report on the ground that the deaths did not occur as a result of their
experiments on rescue from high altitudes (i. e., parachute descending
tests), but rather in Rascher’s own experiments with which they had
nothing to do (i. e., prolonged stay at high altitudes). (_Tr. p.
6592._) It has already been proved that the basic premise to this
spurious argument is completely false, since Ruff and Romberg themselves
were not interested in sojourn at high altitudes. The self-experiments
of Romberg and Rascher were just such tests and they are specifically
mentioned in the final report. These involved a stay of 30 to 40 minutes
at altitudes between 12 and 13.5 kilometers (39,400 to 44,290 feet). But
so also is the minor premise wrong. _Deaths were deliberately brought
about in the course of the parachute descending tests._ In these tests
it had been noted that the subjects suffered from spasmodic and clonic
convulsions together with paralysis. This is reported in paragraph 3 of
Rascher’s memorandum of 11 May 1942 on the experiments and also on pages
13 through 18 of the final report. In his memorandum, Rascher stated:
“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.”
[Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._)
_This proves beyond any doubt that murders were committed in the
parachute descending tests of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher._ Ruff again
tried to deceive the Tribunal by testifying that it was substantially
impossible for air embolism to form in parachute descending tests. This
is obviously disproved by the statement of Rascher quoted above and by
the reference in the final report, already mentioned above, which
alludes to this same problem. But the lie was also squarely nailed by
the expert witness Ivy, who testified that it was possible for air
embolism to form in subjects who were at altitudes above 12,000 meters
(39,400 feet) only 3 minutes, that is to say, subjects who bailed out at
15,000 meters. Bubbles may form as low as 30,000 feet. (_Tr. p. 9102._)
Thus, the defense that no deaths occurred during the experiments
concerning rescue from high altitudes is completely spurious.
Moreover, it should be noted that while the joint final report does not
describe any of the death cases, it also _does not deny_ that deaths
occurred. On page 25 of the original, it says: “In conclusion, we must
make it particularly clear that, in view of the extreme experimental
conditions in this whole experimental series, no fatality and no lasting
injury _due to oxygen lack occurred_.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The
deaths described in Rascher’s report quoted above _were not due to lack
of oxygen_ but were deliberate killings to investigate air embolism.
But even the experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz admit were
planned and performed under their responsibility were highly dangerous
to the life and health of the subjects. Both Ruff and Romberg agreed
that 12,000 meters was the upper limit of safety and that experiments of
the type they performed above that altitude were hazardous. The
description of the reaction of the subjects as set forth in the final
report proves that the subject suffered severe convulsions and prolonged
periods of disorientation. The expert witness Ivy pointed out that the
experiments described in the final report of Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz
were highly dangerous for the following reasons:
“I consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period
of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For
example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty
minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty
to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to
which to expose the brain. I agree that * * * the
electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of these subjects
was not momentarily affected or significantly affected by this
prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not
show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain
were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is
learning, and we know that the learning process is rather
sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the
possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged
exposure to oxygen lack would have been to have determined the
I. Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to
learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a
prolonged period of oxygen lack.” (_Tr. p. 9036._)
Dr. Ivy testified that the experiments described in the final report had
reached the physiological limit and that work was being done in a very
dangerous and hazardous zone as far as the welfare of the experimental
subjects was concerned. He said that he should be reluctant to perform
such experiments even on himself and that he would prefer to depend upon
that degree of accuracy which could be obtained from calculations of the
results of animal experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9081, 9112, and 9197._)
Finally it should be noted that the experiments were neither necessary
nor a scientific success. “Necessity of the State” has been much used by
the defendants as if it were a defense. This is clearly unfounded even
though necessity, military or otherwise, be assumed. It is to be
supposed that each defendant _thought_ there was some necessity to what
he was doing. This is no defense. Rascher thought the same thing. It was
deemed necessary to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of persons in
concentration camps. It was deemed necessary to murder millions of Jews.
The slave labor policy was bottomed on necessity. If that is a defense,
then these trials lose all meaning. But, on the other hand if it is
proved that these experiments were not necessary, not of scientific
value, then it makes the guilty even more guilty. The brutal sacrifice
of human life was to no avail. And such was the case here. Hippke, Chief
of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, when writing his thanks to
Himmler on 8 October 1942 said the following:
“It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of
parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important
factor, namely, cold has so far not yet been taken into
consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the
entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in
actual practice will very likely prove to be far more
unfavorable than in the present experiments.” (_NO-289, Pros.
Ex. 72._)
When asked his opinion concerning the necessity for the typical
experiment described on page 13 of the final report of Ruff, Romberg,
and Rascher, the witness Ivy testified:
“I do not believe that it was necessary to do this experiment in
order to determine the equipment to supply aviators who have to
bail out of an airplane at high altitude.” (_Tr. p. 9035._)
The witness Ivy stated further that the information which was obtained
by these experiments on concentration camp inmates could have been
obtained from animals as indicated by the results of Lutz’ and Wendt’s
animal work referred to in the final report. The differences in the
reactions of human subjects and animals, as reported by Lutz and Wendt,
were not sufficient to warrant the carrying out of these hazardous
experiments on human beings. (_Tr. p. 9036._)
* * * * *
c. Selections From the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT RUFF_[19]
* * * * *
Certainly Dr. Ruff gave his agreement and approval to high-altitude
tests with a low-pressure chamber of the Reich Air Ministry being
performed by his collaborator of many years, Dr. Romberg, together with
Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, in a concentration camp, using concentration camp
inmates as experimental subjects. He agreed after the performance of
urgent experiments in the Dachau concentration camp had already been
agreed upon in principle and approved by Professor Dr. Hippke and
Professor Dr. Weltz.
Therefore, the question arises whether these high-altitude experiments
were already illegal for the reason that they were performed on
concentration camp inmates.
This question must be denied for only such inmates were used for the
experiments as had volunteered for them, or who at least were regarded
by Ruff as volunteers and could be regarded as such in view of the whole
situation, and no one could reproach him for having erred in this
respect because other persons had perhaps deceived him about these
facts.
There are, however, some witnesses who apparently maintain that the
prisoners used in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were not volunteers.
Above all the witnesses Vieweg and Neff are of this opinion.
During his direct examination on 13 December 1946 the witness Vieweg
mentioned a series of various experiments which were performed at the
Dachau concentration camp. Referring in particular to the high-altitude
experiments there, which alone can be considered in the indictment
against Dr. Ruff, he states firstly that high-altitude experiments with
the low-pressure chamber were performed on 10 patients; “for these
experiments frequently patients and also male nurses were used who
during the experiments were seen in the corridor of the adjacent
hospital ward.”
By this Vieweg apparently wanted to point out that these “patients” and
“also the nurses” were not volunteers. These 10 “official experimental
subjects” had been well fed and supplied with smokes, but in addition to
these 10 so-called “exhibition patients”, a large number of people had
been selected from the camp who were again and again sent to the
high-altitude experiment institute. That happened to a block leader who
probably had pneumonia a few hours later and ended in the sick bay
mortuary. The same happened in the malaria department of the witness
Vieweg. One day a patient who had some differences with Zill, the leader
of the camp, concerning protective custody, was sent to the experimental
institute, and he (Vieweg) found him in the mortuary the next day. He
(Vieweg) knows by hearsay that, “a great number of patients who took
part in these experiments died, and ended up in the sick bay mortuary.”
(_German Tr. p. 476._)
Between the lines of this rather obscure and vague statement one may
read that, according to Vieweg’s statement, these further experimental
subjects, and especially those who had died during the experiments, did
not belong to the 10 “official experimental subjects” and had not been
volunteers. However, in the direct examination by the prosecution the
witness Vieweg did not express himself explicitly about this alleged
compulsion of the so-called experimental subjects.
During the cross-examination by the defense counsel of Dr. Romberg, the
witness Vieweg explained his expression, the “10 exhibition patients”.
(_German Tr. p. 485._) The 10 selected patients who were used for the
high-altitude tests had been accommodated in a special room and had been
well nourished; they had been exhibited, and they had been presented to
Himmler during one of his visits. Himmler made them big promises; if
they survived, they would be set free * * * these 10 patients had been
drawn into the experiments * * * they had told him (Vieweg) that they
were very exhausted by the whole affair, but as far as he could remember
“they all survived” (_German Tr. pp. 486, 489_). On being questioned the
witness Vieweg repeatedly stated (_German Tr. pp. 486, 487, 489_), that
as far as he could remember Dr. Rascher had carried out the experiments
himself. The only thing Vieweg could state about participation of
“Luftwaffe officers” in these high-altitude experiments, was that some
Luftwaffe officers “had also been there”. But he could not say anything
about the actual participation of the Luftwaffe officers. From the
description on page 501 (German Transcript) these two gentlemen of the
Luftwaffe certainly were not identical with Buff and Romberg. He himself
(Vieweg) had only talked with these 10 official experimental subjects,
the so-called “exhibition patients”, but not with any of the other
experimental subjects. He himself had never observed that these other
prisoners were used for high-altitude tests, but he had been told about
it frequently. Vieweg repeatedly stated that the 10 official
experimental subjects had still been alive at the end of the experiments
(_German Tr. p. 489_), that no deaths had occurred among them.
So much for the statement of the witness Vieweg. It is, of course,
unreliable because it does not establish a clear distinction between the
high-altitude experiments authorized by Ruff and carried out with the
cooperation of Dr. Romberg, and other experiments in the low-pressure
chamber which Rascher undertook by order of Himmler, without the
authorization or previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff and without the
cooperation of Dr. Romberg. This distinction, which is of decisive
importance in judging this case, only appears in Vieweg’s statement
insofar as the 10 official experimental subjects (the so-called
“exhibition patients”) were exclusively used for the first experiments
(Ruff-Romberg-Rascher), whereas other prisoners were used for the other
experiments (by Rascher alone). Of course, the significance of this
distinction was not clear to Vieweg at that time and could not be
observed by him because Vieweg did not know anything at all about Dr.
Ruff’s activity and since he did not know anything at all about the
agreements which had been reached between Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher.
Apart from these obscurities one has to regard the statement of the
witness Vieweg with the greatest reserve for another reason. Vieweg is
the witness who, with unusual unscrupulousness, committed plain perjury
in the sessions of 13 and 16 December 1946. He tried first (_German Tr.
p. 474_) to give the impression that he had been sent to the
concentration camp without any reason, that he had been committed for
“political protective security”. This representation of the witness
Vieweg is completely in accordance with his previous behavior, because
formerly he had generally pretended to be politically persecuted—an
innocent man who had been thrown into a concentration camp without ever
having learned the reason. Under this false pretense he offered himself
as witness for this trial, and because of this misrepresentation he was
presented as a witness by the prosecution whom he had deceived. However,
during cross-examination, Vieweg had to admit that in 1934 he was
sentenced to 4 and to 6 years’ penal servitude for forgery of documents
and fraud, that is to say for common crimes which, as a rule, have
nothing to do with politics. On repeated questioning the witness Vieweg
stated again and again (_German Tr. pp. 483 ff._) that he could not
remember having received any other previous conviction in addition to
those 4 and 6 years’ penal servitude. He insisted on this statement,
even though he had been repeatedly reminded that he was under oath. His
stereotype phrase was, he could not remember; he even emphasized that he
had deposed to this or that under oath (_German Tr. p. 484_), and he
continued to insist on his statement, even though he was told that his
previous convictions could be determined without difficulty since his
files had been sent for.
Now, let us compare the testimony given under oath with the list of
convictions of the witness Vieweg, which was submitted as Document Ruff
24.
Besides the 4 and 6 years of penal servitude which he admitted, the
witness Vieweg received in reality not less than 6 prison terms prior to
1934, among them 5 years’ penal servitude and 5 years’ loss of civil
rights for repeated grave thefts.
This extract from the penal register shows why the witness Vieweg had
such a “bad memory”. He never was politically persecuted, as he
pretended to be, but he is the type of incorrigible professional
criminal who could not be changed or educated even by the most severe
penalty. If anybody deserved to be sent to a concentration camp it was
this Vieweg. But even the 5 years he spent in the concentration camp did
not help. For now he is again in prison, in Bamberg, where charges were
brought against him on 5 March 1947 at the District Court for forgery of
documents and fraud, as well as for five cases of repeated theft, for
attempted abortion, for active bribery, and for black market dealings.
This incorrigible professional criminal allowed himself to be presented
here as a star witness for the prosecution against an honorable,
blameless citizen, as which Dr. Ruff emerged in the course of this
trial. Can the Court base its verdict on the statements of a person like
Vieweg, who on top of everything shamelessly lied to the Tribunal and
committed the worst possible perjury.
The other witness presented by the prosecution for the Dachau
experiments is Walter Neff.[20] He is at present in the Dachau camp for
war criminals and will soon have to stand trial himself before the
American Tribunal, for experiments in which he took an active part. This
witness Neff, who not only continuously participated in the successful
experiments of Dr. Romberg, but also in the inhuman freezing
experiments, in the deadly “severe experiments” of Rascher, and who
cooperated in many other cruelties, is, I think the last who should
appear as a witness against a man like Dr. Ruff, or condemn him.
Let us recall what this witness said about himself at the close of his
testimony. According to his own admission, he produced three prisoners
(a certain Robert Wagner, a prisoner named Hutterer, and a man named
Sammendinger) for deadly experiments, on his own initiative without
being ordered to do so. According to his own testimony, he delivered
these three people over to a violent death; he murdered them. It is
characteristic of his ethics that he even boasted of this act here in
the courtroom! (_German Tr. pp. 737-739._) That does not trouble his
conscience, as he himself declared under oath (_German Tr. p. 737_); he
is just the type of those inmates who, to quote his own words “were
often worse than the SS in their cruelty and brutality”. (_German Tr. p.
737._) That is the second witness who was presented against Dr. Ruff by
the prosecution. The one, an unscrupulous swindler, an incorrigible
habitual criminal, an old jailbird; and the other a murderer many times
over whose hands are stained with much blood—a murderer who boasts that
he has no conscience. Is the Court to lend credence to such people?
These witnesses quite obviously believed they would be able to elude the
hangman’s noose by saddling other defendants with untrue, fabricated
statements.