However, when making the report, it must have been that these death cases were intentionally omitted from the report to the Luftwaffe.
Q. You stated that out of seventy to eighty death cases you recall five cases where Romberg was present. According to that, he was not present during most of the death cases.
A. Yes.
Q. Who was present during the other death cases, during the sixty-five or seventy-five cases?
A. Mostly an SS man from the camp administration, either the camp commander detail commander, or block commander, and Rascher. Even the camp commander was present during such experiments which resulted in death.
Q. These experiments where sixty-five to seventy-five persons died, were they similar to the ones during which Romberg was present, or were they not? And the experiments which resulted in death and where Romberg was present, were they similar to the ones which were conducted on the original ten persons
A. I must say, according to my layman opinion, that every death case in the air-pressure chamber was brought about willfully and intentionally.
Q. And whose will was that?
A. The will of the person who was conducting these experiments.
Q. And who was conducting these experiments?
A. Rascher and Romberg. Exactly who had the orders, who had the directives and referring to the experiments where Romberg was present, I don't know.
Q. But it is rather peculiar that in sixty-five to seventy-five cases Rascher bore the responsibility alone on his own shoulders, while in five cases both of them carried on this experiment and bore the responsibility. Was your presence voluntary during these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Why didn't you leave?
A. There was martial law in the camp. It was said that whoever did not obey an order given by an SS man would be shot. Secondly, after the incident which I have already told about -- I mean the tailor incident -- if had left that station another person would have come in to my place.
No parson would have been kept out of those experiments and not one victim would have been saved.
Q. Yes, but you would not have been present; another person would have been present.
A. Yes.
Q. You say that it was impossible not to be present, is that right, with the greatest of danger?
A. I have to say-- and I am fully aware of the consequences-- it was not only the martial law, it was not only fear of Rascher that compelled me to stand that situation, but it was my duty to stay there and to prevent everything that could possibly be prevented.
Q. According to your opinion, would it have been possible for Romberg to refuse to appear during these experiments? You have stated, and I remind you of it, that most of the experiments, or the normal experiments, were conduct by Romberg and Rascher and that later in the evening, after Romberg had left, Rascher continued to conduct experiments; and further, that Rascher conducted particularly dangerous experiments when Romberg was not present. Did you have the impression that Romberg, on his own initiative, liked to watch these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that Romberg, if he had had the opportunity, would have preferred to be absent during those five experiments?
A. I am asking myself what really could have happened to Romberg if he said he wanted to leave, and if he did not want to be present.
Q. You think there was no danger for Romberg had he not been present?
What was Rancher's power in the camp?
A. Rascher's power in the camp had no limit, but not at the beginning, Rascher's power increased periodically, and towards the end he was so strong that no one could interfere with him in the camp.
Q. Was Rascher a member of the SS at the beginning of the experiments?
A. I only hoard that Rascher, ever since 1934, was a member of the Gestapo
Q. Was he a member of the SS at the beginning of the experiments?
A. I don't know that.
Q. If you take these matters into consideration, wouldn't you say that Rascher's position was far more powerful than Romberg's?
A. Yes.
Q. And furthermore-- and I am repeating this question-- don't you believe that, judging from his entire behavior, Romberg would have preferred not to be present during these five cases?
A. I have already emphasized, yesterday, that I had the impression that Romberg wanted to withdraw these things, and I should not like to deny that Romberg, under the circumstances, had wanted to withdraw from these five where death occurred. Whether he did not do that because of lack of sufficient courage or for other reasons and yet remained there, I do not know.
Q. But it was not possible for you to find out whether the will to conduct these experiments originated from Rascher or not?
A. It is very hard for me to say yes or no; I can only express my feelings, and my feelings are that the initiator of these things was Rascher.
Q. You said that Romberg was present during these five experiments which resulted in death. Do you recall the details of those five experiments?
A. Surely the details-
Q.(Interposing) I mean, with reference to all five.
A. I cannot make any detailed statement as to what happened in the individual experiments.
Q. Do you remember exactly who was present during the other 65 or 75 experiments which resulted in death?
A. Whether the Commander of the Camp or the Detail Commandant was present or whether anybody was present, I do not know, that is, with reference to the individual cases.
Q. Well, how is it that you just remember that with reference to these 5 experiments?
A. Especially in the case of Romberg, of whom I had the impression that he tried to keep away from these things, it is very clear and obvious that I remember exactly when he was present.
Q. You said that the first experiment took place approximately 3 weeks later. That was after the orderly experiments had already started?
A. Yes.
Q. At tint time you further stated that Romberg was not present?
A. No.
Q. When Romberg came back did you tell him that in the meantime death had occurred during these experiments?
A. No.
Q. When did Romberg for the first time have to recognize that he was concerned with experiments which could result in death?
A. No must have recognized that for the first time when it was tried to persuade Rascher to desist from conducting these experiments which could result in death; and it is then that Romberg for the first time had the certainty that experiments were conducted which could result in death.
Q. What did you tell him? Do you remember what you told him?
A. I know that I met him in the corridor of the hospital and tint he was just about to go to the X-ray Station. I cannot give you the exact words but approximately I told him: "Doctor, murder is happening back thorn. An SS man took a man there. Rascher wants to conduct an experiment which will result in death and I am sure this man was not condemned to death." I told him, "Come along with me," and he wont along with me to Rascher's room, where these matters were discussed. That is my recollection.
Q. How often did you approach Romberg on that matter?
A. Only with reference to these 2 cases which happened on the same day.
Q. And in both cases Romberg successfully prevented these experiments being carried through?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you later approach Romberg since you had such good successes after your original conversation with Romberg?
A. In this case the SS man who worked there in the hospital took an experimental subject there and I know he had never received an order to do that by the Camp Administration However, if the Camp Administration or rather people on the staff of the Camp Administration had people brought to those experiments, I, as an inmate, could not interfere in any way at all.
Q. Could Romberg have prevented it had he wanted to?
A. If the man came from the Camp Administration, Romberg could not have prevented it.
Q. Are you of the conviction that if it had depended on Romberg alone there would not have been any death experiments during those high altitude experiments?
A. I am of the conviction that if Romberg had had the order to conduct these experiments alone, without Rascher, there would have been no death cases.
Q. Now let us turn to this one experiment where you told us about the autopsy at the altitude of 10,000 meters. Wore you at that time in the low-pressure chamber?
A. No.
Q. Where did you observe this from?
A. From the corridor where there were 2 windows I was in a position to observe.
Q. Did you see that Romberg became air sick?
A. Yes.
Q. Who conducted the autopsy?
A. It was conducted by 2 inmates who came from the merge and who were present in the low-pressure chamber.
Q. Did Romberg participate in the autopsy?
A. No.
Q. Were you over actually present in the low-pressure chamber during experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever hear, as Dr. Romberg maintains, that during one experiment when he was present and had not known that it was an experiment which was to result in death after he saw the Ekg (electrocardiogram) he told Rascher that he had to stop under all circumstances because there was an immediate danger? Did you over hear anything about that? Did you hear that Romberg said suck things to Rascher?
A. I can't remember having hoard him make such statements.
Q. Where were you during these experiments? Were you close to them?
A. Sometimes I was near the motor but mostly I was in the dark room with the Ekg strip.
Q. But it is quite possible that Romberg made such statements to Dr. Rascher without your being in a position to hear it?
A. Yes.
Q. During this high-altitude experiment could you not observe, during tho autopsy, I mean, that was performed at 10,000 meter altitude, that Romberg made any signs to Dr. Rascher asking kin to discontinue the experiment?
A. I remember that after Romberg became unconscious and the pressure was considerably decreased until Romberg regained consciousness, that ho wanted to discontinue the experiment and that he made a motion to Rascher indicating that he wanted to go outside. But then Rascher ordered that tho altitude be increased anew.
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for tho Tribunal to recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 18 Dec.
1946)
THE MARSHALL: The Military Tribunal is again in session.
WALTER NEFF -- Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION -Continued BY DR. VORWERK: (counsel for defendant Romberg) Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. HARX: (counsel for defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder):
Q When, on the 22nd of February, 1942, the car with the chamber arrived, were the Luftwaffe personnel with it?
A No, I did not see any personnel with the car.
Q You spoke, when you were examined, that several times high Luftwaffe officers visited the station. Now, I ask you did you know any of these officers visited the station. Now, I ask you did you know any of these officers by name?
A No.
Q Were these officers from the Munich Luftgau district?
A I do not know.
Q You speak of great differences between Dr. Rascher and Prof. Holzloehner; what was the cause of this, and what observation did you make?
A Prof. Holzloehner wanted to conduct the experiments under anesthetics. Dr. Rascher opposed this. I know that in this respect he wrote a report to the Reichsfuehrer criticizing Rascher and Finke for not letting him work, because he wanted to conduct the experiments under anesthetics.
Q Was it not so that Prof. Holzloehner quarreled with Rascher on other parts too? And he wanted to avoid a fatal outcome of the experiments, under all circumstances?
A I know that Prof. Holzloehner did not have any deaths in connection with any experiments with water. The deaths took place in the reviving, in the Holzloehner experiments; but whether there was any quarrel between Rascher and Finke and Prof. Holzloehner in this respect I do not know.
Q Was the separation rather abrupt, or were there several differences between the two, and what was the occasion for the final elimination of Holzloehner? -680
A The elimination of Holzloehner and the substitution of Finke came about, because in the hot water baths they had found, or had sought to find, an aid to the people. A final report was dictated which all three gentlemen signed, Holzloehner and Finke, and Rascher later on.
Q But it was so, was it not, that Prof. Holzloehner wanted to have the experimental subjects treated as painlessly as possible, and Rascher opposed it, and said that the people unconscious to the ice water?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether there was any order or assignment from LuftgauAmt 7?
A I do not know whether there was an order from the Luftgau-Amt 7, or not.
Q Well, did Rascher then report to this Luftgau-Amt 7?
A Yes.
Q Did you yourself see these reports?
A The secretary pf the station, to whom these reports were dictated, had to make three or four copies of these reports. And, as Top Secret, these reports were sent to the Standartenfuehrer Dr. Sievers and to the Luftgau-Amt 7. How long the Luftgau Medical Office received these reports, I do not know. Whether they received them until the end of the experiments, I do not know.
Q You were speaking of a Luftgau Medical Office, but there was no such office; isn't that the Luftgau-physician?
A No. "Luftgau Office" or "Luftgau Medical office; The Luftgau Medical Office 7", Munich I think.
Q Then, there w s a distribution list on those reports?
A Yes.
Q Was it always the same?
A I don't know.
Q Was it changed, from place to place?
A I don't know.
Q Did these reports refer to both to the high altitude experiments and to the cold experiments, or only to the latter?
A I know them only with reference to the latter.
Q Were there any gentlemen from this Luftgau Medical Office Munich 7, as you call it; were any gentlemen present at the station, to your knowledge?
A There were Luft-Gau-officers from the station, but whether they were from the Gau Medical Office or not, I do not know.
Q Could one see, from any indications, whether they were medical officers or whether they were pure Luftgau officers; couldn't you have told whether they were medical officers; wouldn't you have been able to conclude that, from what they said?
A I know that officers with the medical staff were there. The talks were always in Rascher's room, so that I could not know anything about them.
Q Did you recognize the medical insignia?
A Yes, I did.
DR. MARK: Then I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. WILIE: (Counsel for defendant George August Weltz.)
Q Witness, I have a few brief questions to put to you, to supplement your testimony of yesterday and today. You have stated, among other things, that you did not see Prof. Weltz in Dachau, but, If I may say so, that you saw him accidentally one day talking to Dr. Rancher in front of the building of the Luftgau-Kommand in Munich; the question is: Do you remember, approximately what day?
A No.
Q Put, perhaps you can say, since you remember the 22nd of February so well, was it before or after that time, before or after your birthday.
A It was rather late. It was later. It could only have been from the 15 of September, '42, until June '44.
Q That is, at a time when Dr. Rascher had already left Luftgau-Amt 7 in Munich?
A No.
Q Do you know when he left that position?
A I know that he were a Luftwaffe uniform, as far as I can recall, until August '43.
Q The fact in and of itself that he were a Luftwaffe uniform, would not make it rue, that he was assigned to Luftgau 7. No was originally at Schongau.
Now, I come to the next question. In the months of February and March, '42, he was removed from Luftgau 7 and transferred away; did Dr. Rascher ever tell you that he had been transferred away from Luftgau 7?
A No.
Q He never said anything about it to you?
A No.
Q And didn't you know that in February, or in the beginning of March, there were serious differences between Prof. Dr. Weltz and Dr. Rascher; didn't he say anything about that to you?
A During the course of several conversations which I heard, he told me -- well, he didn't tell me, but I heard it -- that he did not take Prof. Weltz' experiments very seriously.
DR. WILIE: That information is very interesting and it brings me to my next question.
Q BY DR. WILIE: Dr. Rascher was greatly interested in Dr. Weltz's animal experiments; that is true, is it not?
AAccording to his statements, yes.
Q Did you notice, or do you have any indication, that Dr. Rascher, and later Dr. Holzloehner, when his experiments had begun, attempted to find out what results Prof. Welts had had with his animal experiments?
A I do not know about that.
Q. Did Dr. Rascher perhaps tell you that Professor Weltz had the ambition of taking over these experiments? Did Rascher ever say anything like that to you?
A. No.
Q. But perhaps you know that professor Holzloehner on occasion came to see Dr. Weltz to compare his experiments on human beings with Professor Weltz's animal experiments, but that Professor Weltz refused? Did you hear anything like that?
A. No, I never heard that there was any exchange of opinion between Holzloehner and Weltz.
Q. But y u know that Professor Holzloehner at the Nurnberg meeting on 10 October 1942 reported on human experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. But you do not know that before that he had asked Professor Weltz to report to him on his animal experiments and that Professor Weltz refused to do so?
A. No.
Q. Now, a little different subject. Do y u know that at about the same time, that is, the summer or fall of '42, Professor Holzloehner wanted to have apparatus, a calorimeter, from Professor Weltz and that Weltz told him, through his assistant, that he refused to turn ever the apparatus?
A. Please tell me what a calorimeter is.
Q. I can't describe it to you at the moment. I can only give you this explanation after consulting with Professor Weltz, but at least you can recognize whether you were ever t here and asked for a calorimeter?
A. No.
Q. Well then, it is n.t necessary for me to describe the apparatus?
A. No.
Q. Do you knew from the fact that you were constantly together with Dr. Rascher how he felt toward Professor Weltz? Did not Rascher ever speak somewhat ironically about the results of these animal experiments?
A. Rascher did not appreciate Weltz's animal experiments I know.
Q. Concerning high altitude experiments and the so-called severe experiments and the serious experiments, I need not go into. They have been asked you repeatedly today, but I should like to come back to one question, one statement cf yours which you made today. You said that once or several times -- I don't remember exactly -- you delivered reports to the Luftgau Medical Office and you said that these were "Top Secret" reports. You can confirm that there was an express notice "Top Secret" on these reports?
A. I recall one report exactly. It had a yellow stripe across the folder. It was sealed and I had to bring back a receipt. Whether it was Geheime Reichs sache or Geheime Kommando sache. I don't know but it was one of the two. I delivered it in the Luftgau Medical Office VII.
Q This term "Top Secret", does it mean anything to you? Do you know how far the obligation to keep such a document secret went?
A. I know only that I was told I must not let it cut of my hands and must only give it to the person to whom it was addressed, if I understand your question correctly.
Q. Yes, you, understood me correctly; and to whom was this one document with the yellow stripe addressed?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember. Perhaps you can tell me one thing, whether the presence of Professor Weltz before the building cf the Luftgau Command in Munich had any connection with the delivery of this report?
A. No.
Q. Did you not consider it possible that it was purely a coincidental meeting of Professor Weltz and Dr. Rascher before this building?
A. Rascher took me with him in his car to Munich. He stopped in front of the Luftgau Office. I stayed in the car and Rascher went into the building on some errand? and then downstairs I saw him speaking to someone and when we got into the car, he said that was Professor Weltz.
Q. Then you know Professor Weltz only from this one meeting?
A. Only from that occasion, and I remember it only because Rascher had frequently mentioned him before that,
Q. Very well, and perhaps you can tell me whether Professor Weltz was wearing a military uniform at that time or whether he was wearing civilian clothes?
A. I remember he was in civilian clothes.
Q. Thank you, that's enough?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN (counsel for the defendant Viktor Brack)
Q. Witness, I have only a few questions to put to you, You mentioned "commissions" which in 1941 and '42 visited the camp of Dachau, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did these commissions include doctors?
A. There were many visits from doctors. To say in detail whether they were definitely medical visits, it is impossible to say.
Q. What was the purpose of the visits of these commissions?
A. Host of these visits were to inspect the hospital, and if it was by doctors, the medical installations?
Q. Then you don't know the names of any doctors?
A. Aside from Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Conti, I don't know the names.
Q. Then you spoke of the regrettable invalid action in Dachau, that was also in '41.
A. It began in the middle of '41.
Q. The middle of '41. Did you know what reasons there were which induced the camp commandant to carry out this inhuman action?
A. After the files had been sent to Berlin, it was our opinion that it was not the responsibility of the camp commandant but that it was ordered from above.
Q. Then you said that the death notices did not give the place in which this invalid actually died, but gave Dachau, that was falsification of the document. Do you know on whose instigation this false information was put into the announcement? -686
A. No.
Q. I have no more questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH (assistant counsel for the defendant Sievers)
Q. Witness, do you know that Himmler protected Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher particularly?
A. I kn w that Mrs. Rascher was a frine of Himmler's. When Rascher began the experiments ho had little power, but his powers were increased in the course of his work.
Q. Was Mrs. Rascher employed in the camp at Dachau?
A. She was frequently in the administration. She was not in the concentration camp itself.
Q. Was it possible to do anything against Dr. Rascher with Himmler, to influence Himmler against Rascher?
A. I cannot give an opinion on that question.
Q. Did you have the impression that Sievers was brutal ward the prisoners, or did he take the part of the prisoners?
A. It is true that Sievers was correct in his treatment of the prisoners,
Q. Was Sievers interested more in the human experiments or in the other developments in the laboratories?
A. I am convinced that Sievers had the same interest in the other experiments as in the freezing experiments.
Q. In Sievers diary it says on the sixth of April '44, "Neff: Instructions given, all work to be continued without Rascher until my arrival on the 14th of April '44. What work does that refer to?
A. Would you give me the first date again?
Q. The Sixth of April 1944, after Rascher's arrest apparently.
A. The transfer cf the station for the production of the blood coagulant to Schlachter was planned. In the meantime, Dr. Rascher was arrested. Sievers, and it was also in our interest, wanted to get to Schlachter.
Rascher's arrest was kept secret. With an SS escort and the five prisoners, I went to Schlachte Whether this was the period in question, I din't know; but I assume that it refers to these things.
Q. During Rascher's arrest did you continue Rascher's work on Sievers' instructions?
A. When Rascher was arrested I went to Berlin on the next day to report to Sievers, and when I explained the thing to him he answered: "Well, yes." Then I was told that Rascher would be the greatest failure of my life. "What doctor can we entrust with the continuation of the work?" And I told him that Dr. Ploetner could be trusted. I know that he would never conduct inhumane experiments. Then Sievers sent me to Schlachter's to continue the work on the production of the blood coagulate drug.
Q. Yesterday you stated that the prisoners did not volunteer for the experiments. Do you know that the prisoners told third persons that they had volunteered?
A. I said that there were individuals who volunteered for the experiments; for the so-called blood coagulate drug experiments. We had many volunteers. The detail instructors consisted of five prisoners and myself and we all volunteered to conduct these experiments on ourselves.
DR. ORTH: I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness on the part of Defense Counsel?
The Prosecution may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Witness; would you describe Sievers as having been a pretty good friend of Himmler?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Sievers ever voice any objection in your presence to the experiments which resulted in the murder of some of the experimental subjects?
A. No.
Q. Now, on the high altitude experiments; do you know whether Ruff or Rase was the superior of Romberg?
A. No.
Q. Didn't you know that Romberg was attached to the Institute in Berlin of which Ruff was the -chief of the medical department?
A. I knew that Romberg came form the Tempelhof Research Institute or something like that but that Ruff was Romberg's superior I did not know.
Q. You didn't know exactly what Ruff's connection with the high altitude experiments was then?
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. Now, you related to this Tribunal the incident where you interceded with Romberg to prevent the execution of the tailor in the low pressure chamberg. Do you remember that?
A. With Romberg, yes.
Q. And Romberg had the courage on that occasion to object to Rascher, did he not?
A. Yes, he went to see Rascher immediately and talked to him.
Q. But he did not object on the occasion of other persons being killed, did he?
A. In the experiments already mentioned, I do not know that he raised any objections or that he opposed it.
Q. Well, didn't the fact that he objected on one occasion and didn't object on others indicate to you something of his attitude toward the death experiments?
A. I must repeat that I had the impression that Romberg would have been glad to disassociate himself from these matters. I did not hear any objection to these matters.
Q. Now, let's go back to the sabotage of the low pressure chamber. I take it that some of the Defense Counsel feel that this probably did not occur and I questioned you at some length yesterday with respect to that matter. You still state that you did, in fact, fill one of the glass gauges on this low pressure chamber and in that way succeeded in having the chamber damaged, is that right?
A. The Defense Counsel may be right that I do not know exactly when the mercury rises, but it is certain that I knew that during the experiment the mercury would rise and I also knew that when someone went into the car, the car would lean a little to that side and that the mercury had to rise. Everything made of glass in this instrument was shattered. Whether the mercury container at the bottom was of glass I don't know, but where the gas went into the mercury container was certainly of glass because that is where I filled it.
Q. And while you arc not an export on these matters, you do know that considerable pressure was exerted inside of that chamber, do you not?
A. I did not understand the question. What do you mean when you say "pressure in the chamber?"
Q. As I understood one of the Defense Counsel's questions, ho was urging to you that, as a matter of fact, apparently, there was not considerable pressure inside of the chamber and that, therefore, it is unlikely that this glass gauge broke. Now I am putting to you that you do know, as a matter of fact, that there was considerable pressure inside of this chamber; isn't that right?
A. In the chamber tho vacuum was withdrawn and the air was thinned. It was to reproduce high altitude conditions. What tho physical process is that it makes tho mercury rise so that one can read the altitude from the height of tho mercury. When an-experiment was made with a closed parachute, for instance the mercury column fell or it rose, one of tho other; I don't know whether it rose or fell. I don't remember exactly, but anyhow, I know that at one time during the experiment it rose.
Q. Now, Defense Counsel has attempted to differentiate between the experiments conducted on the original ten experimental subjects and those which were conducted on other experimental subjects, and he suggests to you that Romberg had responsibility only with respect to the original ten subjects. Is that suggestion correct?
A. 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. Tho distinction which the Defense Counsel tries to make between experiments included in the report to tho 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.
Q. Now, do you remember whether Rascher went off with Romberg after the low pressure experiments were concluded to assist him in writing a report?
Do you remember that?
A. I do not know where the report was made out our by whom. As far- as I could learn, the report was written up in Munich, but after the report was made there were no more experiments since the chamber had already been taken away at that time.
Q. Did Rascher ever tell you that he had recommended Romberg for a modal because of the part he played in these high altitude experiments?
A. Yes, but that was much later, Rascher once mentioned that ho had suggested Romberg for some award to the Reichsfuehrer.
Q. Now, you have stated; as I understand it; that Romberg was certainly present when five experimental subjects were killed; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you do not exclude the possibility that he was present when other experimental subjects were killed; do you?
A. That is possible but I can not say so; I certainly do not remember it.