A I can only assume, I can't state for certain.
Q Well, let me read you a few excerpts from a diary kept by Sievers and sec if these could refresh your recollection in any way as to what the connection was between Professor Blome and Dr. Rascher.
MR. McHANEY: I am referring to Document 3546-PS, Your Honors, and I read from page 170 the English Document Book Number 3. The first entry I would like to call your attention to is number three. It says; "SS--Mauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher supplied questions fro production of polygal experiments. Professor Blome--polygal report to SS-Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt. SS-Untersturmfuehrer Ebben as manager of polygal production. Color material chemist for L works, test report -on polygal."
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Now, what do you understand all of that to mean, witness? Here we find Professor Blome's name mentioned in connection with Rascher's, apparently relating to the polygal experiments. Can you throw any light on that subject?
A I know that the leadership of the SS was very much interested in polygal Of the color experiments which you have mentioned, I know nothing; and it is to be assumed that Blome was interested in polygal because otherwise it would have been impossible that Rascher could have spoken so often of Blome and I know that ho often visited with hi.
Q Where did Rascher visit with Blome?
AAt Munich.
Q Did you understand that Blome lived in Munich?
A Whether he lived at Munich or whether he had his office there, I don't know, but I assume that that was whore he had his office.
Q How far is Munich from Dachau?
A 18 kilometers.
Q How, another item in this diary of Sievers says, "Professor dome by telephone advised or Reichsfuchrer SS order concerning his work at Dachau and collaboration with Rascher." Do you know what that means?
A I beg your pardon, but I have not exactly understood what was said.
Q This is an entry in Sievers' diary made on the 25th of February 1944. You had just recently gotten back from the front and therefore this matter should have been fresh in your mind. The entry reads, "Professor Blome by CORRECTION SHEET FOR MORNING SESSION 18 DEC.
telephone advised of Reichsfuehrer SS order concerning his work at Dachau and collaboration with Rascher." In other words, Sievers was telephoning Professor Blome and Told him about the Reichsfuchrer SS order concerning Blome's work at Dachau and his collaboration with Rascher. Now, don't you know something about that?
A I know nothing about this telephone conversation. It was difficult from all these facts to know precisely what tho game was because on the one hand Raschor said to Weichs once if Pohl comes to this station and if you disappear and it has to be through the window, don't let Pohl see you because ho will shoot you down. I never knew and neither did Weichs what the background of the story was of that, whether it was an intrigue of Rascher or whether Pohl had something again Weichs. Weichs did not recall that ho ever had any controversy with Pohl. To come back to the telephone conversation, it may nave been so that on the part of tho Ahnenerbe Society and on the part of the Reichsfuehrer there was a great deal of pressure for the production and manufacture of that coagulation drug. Maybe that is what it refers to.
Q. I don' t want to press this point too far, but the entry very clearly says that Blome is to collaborate with Rascher, and I am asking you if that wasn't a fact and don't you know it to have boon a fact that Blome did collaborate with Rascher?
A. I only know that Blome frequently mentioned Rascher -- excuse me -that Rascher often spoke about Blome and that Blome frequently visited Rascher, that it always applied to the case of Feichs and the coagulation drug, that is also clear to me. I have still to say that I myself have never seen Blome at the station.
Q. I want to road you one other entry in this diary. It is dated the 3rd of March 1944. It says: "Conference, Blome, Rascher, Rau, at Professor Thiessen's. L-questions." I ask you if you don't know that the phrase "L-questions" means Lost questions, mustard gas questions'?
A. No, that is not known to me.
MR. HcHANEY: This was Prosecution Exhibit 123, Your Honors.
BY HR. McHANEY:
Q. Do you know whether Rascher over received any research assignments from the Reich Research Council?
A. Yes. The assignments for experiments came from Sievers and I assume that Sievers received these assignments from the Reich Research Council. Direct assignments from the Reich Research Council did not come to my knowledge. At least I do not know of any correspondence which might have come directly from the Reich Research Council that went over the Ahnenerbe Society; that is to say, via Sievers.
Q. Well, you will recall that you got a letter from Rascher in the latter part of 1943 in which he very generously offered to give your wife fifty Reichsmarks a month to help support her ?tile you were in police training. Don'.t you remember that letter?
A. Yes. I wrote to Rascher from the front and I wrote him that he should see to it that my wife should get some support. She received neither any support from the Ahnenerbe Society nor from anybody else while I was at the front. Upon that Rascher answered that he would see to it and that of course he himself was ready to send fifty Marks per month to my wife.
My wife never received anything; she never received a penny from Dr.Rascher.
Q. Don't you recall also, in the same letter, that he told you ho had received a research assignment from the Reich Research Council?
A. I know, but whether 1 have that knowledge from letters from Rascher or from letters which came from Dr. Bunzengruber I can not say for sure. There was some correspondence about the fact that an assignment existed for experiments, to the effect that in the mountains freezing and high altitude experiments should be carried out and that for that he would like to call me back from the front. I may also give some explanation on this point. It is far from me to praise myself and it would bo below my dignity to do so. If Rascher praised me, if he tried to -- and that applied to all his employees --if he tried to recruit those from former inmates, there was a good reason for that, because they were in his hands completely and he knew that from that side there would never any danger occur; because what would it have meant if any statement against it would have come from a former inmate? I think that was the reason why Rascher always recruited from the inmates for his services. It is indeed true that I fulfilled every private wish that Rascher had. I had my definte reasons for that. I remember once Rascher brought shoes that had to be soled and the shoemaker told me: "Yes, for you I will do it but not for Rascher." When Rascher wanted to call for the shoes I told him it wasn't possible for me to got a shoemaker, that he should bo patient, It was about five o'clock in.the evening; he was still in his car. He got out of his car and said: "Now if you won't do anything for mo, then I do not have to be concerned about you." He took a man for an experiment and he conducted a very mean experiment. That taught me that it was better to fulfill all his private wishes than not to do it. At the station there was a tailor, a radio mechanic, a furrier, a carpenter, who only worked for the private interests and private wishes of Rascher, and from that it con bo explained that Rascher praised mo in acme reports, I do not deny this and I do not deny that in some respects Rascher had great confidence in me.
Q. Now, Witness, you say Sievers was a member of the Reich Research Council?
A. Yes. I even assumed that Sievers was vice-president of the Reich Research Council. At any rate, Rascher said so.
Q. Wasn't Blome also a member of the Reich Research Council?
A. That I can only assume. I could not say that with certainty; I do not know it for sure.
Q. Well, how could you assume it? What information do you have which leads you to believe that he might be?
A. I assume it because Rascher and Blome, also Hirth and all those with whom Rascher was in direct contact, all these worked together with the Ahnenerbe Society and also with the Reich Research Council.
Q. Well, you don't exclude the possibility then, do you, Witness, that this research assignment that Rascher received from the Reich Research Council came from Blome rather than Sievers, do you?
A. Are you now asking concerning the coagulation drug?
Q. No. I am asking you about the freezing order which he told you about, that is Rascher told you about in the letter he wrote you while you were in training for the police.
A. An answer to that would only be an assumption, It may be possible, but I could not say with certainty whether is was so or not.
Q. Do you have any information as to whether or not Blome knew about the freezing experiments which were carried cut by Rascher in Dachau? Did he know about those?
A. Very definitely I could not say of course, I could neither see that from any correspondence nor from any other source. I know, however, that at that time Rascher was in contact with Blome and he considered it always to be very dangerous when Rascher went on trips and suddenly came back with a new idea and introduced something new into those experiments.
Q. You mean he came back with some of these ideas after he had made a visit to Blome?
A. This would be saying too much, after he came back from Blome. But that group of doctors with whom he was in contact was a source for instructions, that is to say, for new ideas; about that I have no doubt.
Q. Let's skip on to your knowledge about these poison experiments that Rascher carried out in Dachau. That can you toll us about those?
A. The poison experiments which Rascher carried out in Dachau were conducted very secretly by him. We only saw that he manufactured drugs, that he took cyanide and that he left with these drugs. From people from the crematorium and from the bunker we heard that ho used these drugs there; that is, he told the inmates that they had to take these tablets. They swallowed them and some of them perished under very bad pains. I have never seen these things; neither did Rascher ever speak about this kind of experiments in our presence. But I know that they distributed at least 60 to 80 of these tablets, or rather, that he manufactured at least 60 to 80 of these tablets every day and took them along with him. He always went to the crematorium or to the bunker and that is where he conducted these experiments. Any more definite details are not known to me. It was almost proverbial among ourselves to say: "They are making some sort of a drug now so that they can disappear quickly when things go wrong."
Q. About when did these poison experiments take place?
A. January, February and March '44.
Q. Now can you tell the Tribunal very briefly -- I don't want you to go into much detail -- just what happened to Dr. Rascher?
A. Yes. In March 1944, our attention was called to the fact, by a notice in the newspaper, that a child had been stolen in Munich and the description of the woman supposed to have done it fitted to Mrs Rascher. It was clear to us, especially since the fur coat was described which had been manufactured at the station. It was also remarkable that when this happened I was called to Munich by telephone. I arrived at eleven o'clock at Rascher's apartment and saw the woman who had been brought from the air raid shelter who was given alcohol and also saw the child. The child was pale and hardly had the appearance of a new born child. When the notice appeared in the newspaper it was clear to us that something had gone wrong. However, about six days later there was another notice in the newspaper saying that the child had been returned. I looked for a reason and an excuse to go to Munich again with a comrade to Rascher's apartment to see if the child was there. I saw a child and saw that it was a different one and I asked the main what had happened to the child I saw before. She said the child was sick. About three days later, Mrs. Rascher and Dr. Rascher were arrested. Dr. Rascher was sent to Munich and, on the evening when he was sent to Munich, he called me up by telephone and told me to come to his apartment. I came to his apartment and found that everything had been demolished and Rascher was in his bed. Rascher told me that his wife had been arrested; that the children had been carried away, and that his wife was accused of having stolen a child and that he was confined to his house. He gave me the key for the safe and asked me to bring him certain items. At that time, I used the opportunity to remove several very important documents and, in November 1944, I buried them. Later, I was frequently questioned by the criminal police of Munich about that kidnapping and I have found out from the police that Mrs. Rasher did not only kidnap that one child but all four of them and I was trying to find a motive for that. I could not explain to myself how a woman could kidnap four children and I was told that the Reichsfuehrer had prohibited Rascher from marrying that woman because she could hot have any children. After she had given Rascher two children in this way, he had given him the permission to marry her. It was, however, very interesting that Rascher, in spite of all these things, about four weeks after his arrest was released again and so was his wife.
I was very much worried myself that Rascher would get after us again. Rascher telephoned me that I should, come to him immediately. I went to Munich and Rascher told me I should make inquiries as to whether Pacholek was in the camp. In the meantime. Pacholek had fled. Rascher said that man could be very dangerous to him. He had very carelessly discussed several things with him and he would see to it to prevent that man from making any statements. Thereafter I went to the camp and informed Rascher that the man was not in the camp. I then went to the criminal police in Munich in order to tell them that Rascher intended to do away with the witness. Thereupon Rascher was arrested again, together with his wife. From that moment on. I have not set eyes on Rascher again nor hoard about him. Only when the Americans had arrived did I hear about him again.
Q. Let's go back for just a few questions to the high altitude experiments. What did Romberg usually do while the experiments were being conducted.
A. Romberg watched the experiments, took notes, took the cardiograms. He was also in the experiment van with several subjects to measure the pulse.
Q. New, you say that on occasion he ran the electrocardiogram?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell tine Tribunal what an electrocardiogram is and what it shows.
A. The IKG is an electrocardiogram which, in a photographic way, shows the activity of the heart and from which can be seen how the heart reacts in such altitudes.
A. Can you tell, when you were running that electrocardiogram, when an experimental subject in the chamber was about to die?
A. For the experts it is certainly possible, if the experiment has been pushed to the extent that the man dies. In. these low pressure vans, however, people were trembling and, of course, that trembling showed on many of the cardiograms, but for a doctor it must have been possinic to determine whether dearth would occur or not.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Docs the defense counsel have any questions to ask the Prosecutions's witness on cross examination?
Prior to the opening of the cross examination the Court will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(a recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you were asked previously whether Doctor Rascher received orders from the Reich Research Council were you not? You answered that question with, yes: and, you added that Sievers gave these orders coining from the Ahnenerbe. Do you know what position Sievers held?
A. Doctor Rascher told me that Sievers was the Vice-president of the Reich Research Council. That is the reason why I came to the logical conclusion that every order coming from Sievers also came from the Reich Research Council.
Q. Well, that was a conclusion, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if I was to tell you that Sievers was the manager of the Ahnenerbe would you still retain your conclusion?
A. If it was to be wrong that Sievers was the Vice-president of the Reich Research Council, then my conclusion mus be erroneous.
Q. Witness, it was both -- he was the Deputy Manager of the Reich Research Council and also the Manager of the Ahnenerbe. Do you still retain your conclusion?
A. If he was both, then, I still remain at my assumption namely, that the orders which came from Sievers also went over to the Reich Research Council.
Q. Witness, yesterday you stated that you saw the defendant, who is the first one in the first row, in the Concentration Camp at Dachau. When was that?
A. It was during the time from 1941 until the end of 1942. I Could not determine the exact date.
Q. Witness, where did you see him?
A. It was in the Concentration Camp of Dachau, and within the hospital at Dachau.
Q. Who was he accompanied by?
A. I do not know.
Q. When did, he speak to?
A. I merely know that he came with a number of officers, and I only remember it because he was -- I remember him because he was with high SS officers.
Q. Did you, at that time, know what position he held?
A. No, I do not know that now.
Q. Was that discussed at that time? Was it not said that he had a special position?
A. We inmates naturally discussed our visitors as to who they were. In this case I did not learn who this man was -- this man who was visiting us.
Q. Would you have not found out that he was the escort physician of the Fuehrer? Would that not have been conspicuous enough for every no to know about it?
A. You have to consider that we inmates -
Q. (Interposing) Witness, will you answer that question, yes or no? After that you can make explanations.
A. Will you then repeat the question?
Q. Would it not have become known in the camp that the escort physician of the Fuehrer was the visitor there?
A. No, it does not necessarily follow because we inmates only got to know the names of the visitors if we listened to the conversations, and if, during the conversations, a name was mentioned, we knew that one person came for a visit.
Q. Was his name mentioned?
A. No, I do not remember his name being mentioned in that connection. They were visitors, and they inspected the hospital without speaking to any one.
Q. Well, how could you recognize the defendant here in the dock?
A. I should like to say because he has a very remarkable face.
Q. Did you see pictures in the newspapers about this trial before this date?
A. I saw a description in Dachau -- I think it was the Southern German newspaper, but I did not see a picture.
Q. Did you see that man for any length of time in that camp or was it just temporarily?
A. Only temporarily.
Q. The defendant contest ever having been there? Is it not possible that you are mistaken?
A. I try to be truthful in all of my testimony.
Q. Please answer, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. You recognize the defendant Sievers again?
A. I saw Sievers so often and I spoke to him so often that it is impossible to receive myself about him.
Q. Did he, at that time, look as he does new?
A. No.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions.
BY DR. SERVATIUS.
Q. Witness, you ware just asked how you were able to recognize the defendant Brandt. He is the first person in the first row. I should now like to ask you to look at the second man sitting in the second row: that is the defendant Ruff. How do you recognize him? Does he have such an outstanding fact, too? Just look at him! And, I should like to remind you, before giving your answer that according to your own testimony of yesterday you recognized that man, and you said that you had only seen him for one single time, and that was five years ago. Well, how do you recognize that man?
A. That was the time when the experiments started, and I should like to say that it was a completely new period for me. Ruff, in addition to that, was in uniform. In uniform -- at least, the man who accompanied Doctor Romberg was in uniform.
Q. Witness, I should like to point out to you that this man, whom you recognized again or whom you said you recognized again, Doctor Ruff, and he did not wear a uniform at all. What you have just said; namely, that you recognized this man because of his uniform, is obviously untrue, and I am going to prove that you you.
A. I did not say that I recognized the man because of his uniform, but what I said was that ho was in uniform.
Q. No, I put it to you that he was not in uniform. I found out about that especially, and that world have been the next question anyway -- to find out whether this man was in uniform or not. And, now, I ask you to answer my question, finally. How did you recognize the defendant Ruff? The second man in the second row. How do you recognize him again? Because of his uniform or because of his outstanding face or why do you recognize him
A. Of you place yourself in the position of an inmate, just imagine officers arriving in uniform and starting with the an inmate. Romberg, just as Rascher, very often discussed Ruff, and the fact that Ruff always had participated on this aviation experiment was greatly discussed. During the first visit, that is, at the beginning of the aviation experiment, these three gentlemen arrived, and I stated that Ruff was present at that time;
that first day -- Romberg will have to confirm this; he will have to confirm that on that day not only he and Doctor Rascher were present, but also a third person.
Q. I should like to put something else to you: Doctor Romberg will tell you, under oath, that he, on the 22nd of February 1942, the date you mentioned yesterday, was not present. And, he knows that exactly for the following reason, and I am tolling you this in order to enable you to refresh your memory: The family Romberg had expected the birth of a child on the 9th of March, and for that reason Doctor Romberg stayed at home until the 9th of larch with his wife. And, if was only on the 10th of March 1942 that he went to Dachau. And, on that occasion Doctor Ruff said he was not present, and I am soon going to tell you when Doctor. Ruff arrived at the scene for the first time. And now, I am again asking you to answer that question. Arc you still saying, today, in spite of what I put to you, that Doctor Ruff was present on the 22nd of February 1942; that is, on the first day, during those experiments at Dachau?
A. I maintain that on the 22nd of February experiments were conducted for the first time; and I maintain that Romberg was there in Dachau that day; and I know it exactly because in the room where Romberg and Rascher were there was a table whore gifts were laid; and it was very embarrassing to me that the gentlemen arrived on that particular day. If I have to correct myself in any way, it could only be that on that day it was not Ruff but another Luftwaffe officer; but I am quite sure that Romberg and Rascher were in Dachau of the 22nd of February. I me net the only witness for that. There are many more witnesses.
Q. I am mainly interested in the defendant Ruff; the second man sitting in the second row; but I must again revert to the question which you have not yet answered; namely, how you here in this courtroom recognized the defendant Ruff Go ahead and answer.
A. How do you recognize the man?
Q. Don't ask me any questions. Just answer the question which I just put to you.
A. I just recognize him.
Q. Before you spoke about a uniform. The man isn't wearing the uniform at all. You spoke about tho outstanding features of the defendant. Will you perhaps maintain that Dr. Ruff has any outstanding feature and that was the reason why you recognized him? You only saw him once in your life?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, how did you recognize him?
A. If you meet people under these circumstances; then you do recognize them again; and if you ask me about details, I cannot tell you any. I am merely saying that I recognized the man again.
Q. But you cannot tell us how?
A. I recognized him generally because of his face because that is how you generally recognize a man.
Q. And how about this question of the uniform in order to conclude that point? Are you still saying that this man wore a uniform?
A. I said that the man who came with Romberg and Rascher on tho 22nd of February wore a uniform.
If Ruff later arrived there in civilian clothes and was present, I have already stated that that was possible; but I did sec Dr. Ruff at the beginning of the experiments.
Q. Did you speak to Dr. Ruff at all?
A. No.
Q. You did not speak to him?
A. No.
Q. Didn't he introduce himself?
A. It wasn't customary that an officer introduced himself to an inmate.
Q. Well, I just wanted to establish that he didn't introduce himself.
A. No.
Q. And you weren't introduced to him either?
A. No.
Q. You never spoke to him?
A. No.
Q. But you did recognize him here again?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know that this Dr. Ruff was a defendant here and that he was sitting in the defendants' dock? Did you know that yesterday when you entered this courtroom?
A. I approximately knew the names of the persons who were indicted from the newspaper.
Q. Did you know that from that newspaper, the Southern Germany newspaper, where the pictures of these defendants were carried?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure about that?
A. No, I am quite sure that the edition that I read did not carry any photographs.
Q. And you did not receive a picture of the defendants' dock?
A. No. I was at the Bunker in Dachau.
Q. But with reference to your testimony of yesterday and today you had been interrogated a.bout it previously?
A. Yes.
Q. Here in Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. When for the last time?
A. During the course of the last six days.
Q. The last six days repeatedly?
A. Yes, repeatedly.
Q. About the subject to which you testified here?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, I have another question. You know that this low pressure chamber with which the high altitude experiments were conducted--you know that this low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau after a few months?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that your chief, Dr. Rascher, repeatedly tried the following months to get this low pressure chamber back from the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. Do you know that it was for that reason that Dr. Rascher, for instance, turned to Standartenfuehrer Sievers, whom you recognized; that he turned to SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff; and to the Reichsfuehrer-SS?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know that these gentlemen whom I just mentioned to you wrote to the Luftwaffe, that is, Dr. Hippke, the chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe, and to General Field Marshal Milch, asking them to return this low pressure chamber to Dachau? Do you know about that?
A. I know that Rascher tried to get this man back to Dachau and for that reason he turned to the Reichsfuehrer Repeatedly.
Q. Repeatedly?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that the low pressure chambers were not returned in spite of that; and do you know why?
A. No.
Q. Did Dr. Rascher tell you anything about that?
A. He only said that "I shall be able to persuade the Reichsfuehrer that these chambers be carried back to Dachau."
Q. Witness, you told us yesterday that during the first three weeks approximately the experiments with the low pressure chamber were conducted without any incidents?
A. Yes.
Q. And then one day Dr. Rascher told you that he was going to carry out serious experiments, and for that reason he saw to it that a certain number of Russians were put at his disposal? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You further t Id us that these experiments were conducted at night after Dr. Romberg, who is the fourth gentleman sitting in the second row, had left?
A. No.
Q. You said that yesterday.
A. No, these first experiments were conducted during the whole day; but Romberg was not present that day.
Q. Do you know what these serious experiments consisted of? How could you differentiate the serious experiments from the other experiments during which Romberg was present?
A. Rascher referred to the so-called sudden decrease of pressure, I have to express myself as a layman. The experimental subject was placed into a small chamber and was placed into a high altitude of approximately five to eight thousand meters. Suddenly this altitude was increased to an altitude of sixteen thousand and higher; and this sudden increase, this sudden change of pressure, caused death. This is how Rascher killed most of the experimental subjects.
Q. But he only started with these experiments about two weeks after the harmless experiments?
A. According to my recollection, yes. Whether such sudden decrease or increase of pressure experiments were conducted before that I don't know.
Q. And Rascher started with these serious experiments at the time when Dr. Rascher was not present?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defense, you will please refrain from propounding your questions quite so quickly and give the witness a chance to answer and give the translator an opportunity to complete the translation.
Q. During the earlier experiments where no incidents occurred and which only lasted approximately three weeks, you stated yesterday that ten inmates were sleeted as the official experimental subjects. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they criminal inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. They were all criminals?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether these ten criminal experimental subjects were especially well treated?
A. Yes.
Q. They received better nourishment? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. They received cigarettes?
A. Yes.
Q. And the witness Vieweg told us for you that they Were strong men -- is that right? Is that Vieweg's expression, "strong men"?
A. I think they were people of a medium body construction, medium physical construction.
Q. Witness, you told us yesterday how you sabotaged the continuing of the experiments; for instance, the low pressure chambers. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You told us that you took a little file and you filed this glass tube where the mercury rises and falls?
A. Yes.