Q Well, perhaps you could shortly describe that illness using the Latin word or the German word won't help us.
A These are complaints which occur - can occur - after an altitude of 10,000 or 11,000 meters, on the basis that there is a lack of nitrogen. During such experiments a fatality had occurred when for some time he was at an altitude of between 10,000 to 12,000 meters. Dr. Romberg reported to me that during that experiment the Electrocardiogram had registered an irregularity. He warned Rascher that in effect after a little time an electrocardiogram had dropped down end the result was death of the experimental subject. On the basis of this report of Romberg about this one case of death, we had become clear that we would have to conclude our experiments as quickly as possible. Dr. Romberg was only to conclude the very urgent experiments which had to be performed. During that time a film had to be produced about these experiments - ordered by Himmler on the occasion of his visit to Dachau. After this film had been concluded the chamber was to be removed from Dachau as quickly as possible. The difficulty in concluding the experiments presented itself because one could neither tell Rascher nor Himmler that the fatality which had occurred was the real reason.
Romberg therefore was to use the pretense that the chamber was urgently required at the front. For that purpose we naturally needed the authority of our medical inspector, that was Hippke. In this manner it was possible to remove the chamber from Dachau; against Rascher and Himmler's will it would not have been possible.
Q Do you believe that against the will of Rascher and against the will of Himmler you could have removed the chamber out of the concentration camp at Dachau at all, if you hadn't done it through the trick you have described?
A I don't believe I need to go into that at all, that neither Romberg or I would have been in a position to act against the will of Himmler and Rascher to remove anything out of the concentration camp, and certainly not the low pressure chamber.
Q It is true, Dr. Ruff, that on any occasion you were told it would be sabotage and treason if experiments were prevented?
A. When we removed the chamber from Dachau in this way we realized that it was not entirely without danger to us. How dangerous it actually was, we learned only later because it was said that Himmler had said in writing that he considered those who sabotaged such experiments or attempted to sabotage them were traitors.
Q A little while ago you told us that in addition to the experiments which Dr. Romberg was to undertake on your behalf that Dr. Rascher was carrying out other experiments on his own accord, and that there was one death in these other experiments; now when you received this news from Dr. Romberg you no doubt wondered how such a death was possible. I should like to know, on the basis of the description of Dr. Romberg, did it occur to you that in Dachau in these experiments Dr. Rascher carried out on his own accord a crime had been committed; what was your first reaction?
A It never occurred to me that this was a crime. According to our experience, on the basis of thousands of high altitude experiments, one did not need to expect death in these experiments under the assumption that the experiments were carried out properly; but, of course, we realized that somehow, by an unfortunate coincidence, a death could occur. At that time already we could expose our plane crew at a height of 12,000 meters for fifteen minutes in training. During these experiments we never had a death, nor serious incidents; but, nevertheless, it did not occur to me at the time that a crime had been committed here, I considered this an unfortunate coincidence, and it was my point of view that I saw no reason to think that Rascher was carrying out experiments, which were dangerous or which had to result in death.
Q Now, Dr. Ruff, five years have passed since then; now do you still believe today; as you did then, that in such high altitude experiments, when the people are kept at a height of 10,000 to 13,500 meters for some time, that no deaths can occur if the experiments are well prepared and properly carried out?
A No, I am of a different opinion today for the following reason: In the American Airforce, as well as in the German Airforce, these tests at 12,000 meters were carried out for training purposes with a very small difference in the method. In these tests the American Airforce, to which the soldiers were ordered just like in the German Luftwaffe, had several deaths. The difference between the tests in our Luftwaffe and the American Airforce was merely that we kept our crews at 12,000 meters for fifteen minutes, and the American Airforce kept their crews at that altitude up to one hour; and during these experiments for training purposes and not for research purposes, there were several cases of death, and these deaths are described in a paper which was published.
I personally had an opportunity to talk to a sergeant or a corporal, who was present at two of these experiments. He was in Heidelberg, where I was working, and was in charge of the low pressure chamber, and had worked with that formerly in the States. He could not give me any information about the medical aspects of what happened, he merely described the situation to the effect that the experimental subject was perfectly alright at 12,000 meters, then suddenly fell over and when the chamber was brought down, the person was dead. The cause for this sudden death has not been clarified, they are probably the result of the effect that a small gas bubble is formed in the blood at this altitude and this gas bubble reaches the part of the brain which is between the brain proper and the spinal cord, the so-called medulla obligata, that a blood vessel is clogged up there and because of inadequate circulation in this part of the brain, a sudden death is caused.
That the cases of death which occurred to Dr. Rascher in the presence of Dr. Romberg were accidents became quite clear to me in the course of this trial; for if what the witness Neff said here is true, that about seventy to eighty people lost their lives in these experiments, and that Dr. Romberg was present at only some of the experiments, then you well can understand, on the basis of this fact alone, that they were accidents when Dr. Romberg was present, because Dr. Rascher obviously had an inclination to conceal these experiments from Romberg.
I personally can see no reason if he concealed seventy seven experiments, with deaths from him, that he should now let him be present at three.
Q Dr. Ruff, we have reached the stage where you learned that the experiments in Dachau, the experiments which Rascher carried out on his own accord, led to a death, then you gave instructions to stop the experiments and to return the chamber to Berlin, that is where we stopped. In addition to this the instruction which you gave Dr. Romberg, did you do anything else, for example, to avoid independent action of Rascher or to prevent further deaths, etc., what else did you do?
A I have already said, we had wanted to get the chamber back from Dachau with the explanation that it was needed urgently at the front, we needed the cover of the Medical Inspector Hippke. Therefore, when Dr. Romberg visited me in Berlin and reported to me that a death had occurred, I tried to reach Hippke, but I was not able to find him on that day because he was away on a trip. Then Romberg went back to Dachau, but after about two days he came back to Berlin again and brought the damaged meter from the chamber, which the witness Neff told about. Then he remained in Berlin for several days to have this apparatus repaired and went back to Dachau. After that I had an opportunity to talk to Hippke, and I told Hippke how far we had gotten with our experiments. I told him that this death had occurred, and that it was my opinion that the experiments had to be broken off immediately, and that I had already given Romberg instructions to stop the experiments as quickly as possible and got the chamber out of Dachau.
Hippke approved this idea, and ho showed me a telegram from Wolf via Milch to him, in which Rascher demanded that the chamber should stay there two more months. Hippke told me that he wanted to refuse to leave the chamber there any longer, and later he did so.
Q. Do you know yet, Dr. Ruff, what the date of this telegram was?
A. The 12th of May.
Q. The 12th of May, document 343 APS, Exhibit 62 of the Prosecution in document book 2, page 83. Then did you see Hippke again?
A. After the chamber was returned, I went to see Hippke again in the beginning of June. I told him that we had concluded our experiments, that we had succeeded in getting the chamber out of Dachau, that the chamber was back in Berlin, and I told him briefly about the results of the experiments, and what had happened in the meantime. On this occasion Hoppke showed me another letter from Hess by Wolff through Milch to Hippke again, and that stated that Milch had already promised Wolff that the chamber would stay in Dachau two more months. Then Hippke said the facts make this business obsolete, the chamber had already been brought back, and he was going to report this to Milch.
Q. If I understood you correctly, Dr. Ruff, do you mean to say that the first visit which you paid Hippke was before the 20 May, 1942, about the 12th May?
A. Yes, it was before the 20 May, 1942, probably about the 13th or 14th.
Q. And the second visit?
A. That was at the beginning of June.
Q. Beginning of June, 1942? You are obviously referring to this letter of the 4 June, 1942, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Document 261, which Hippke showed you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Ruff, I would be interested in one thing: Can you tell us more or less precisely when the low pressure chamber was returned to Berlin. The statements made so far and the assumptions differ, what do you know today about this point?
A. I cannot give the exact date even today when the experiments in Dachau were finished. They were certainly finished before the 23 May. On the 23rd of May Romberg was certainly back in Berlin. That can be seen from a work book of my chief mechanic.
On the 24 and 25 May, 1942, was a holiday, and on the 28 May the work shop delivered to Romberg the model of a clock, and this clock model was used in connection with the film which was made in Dachau to make titles. It was planted in as a trick shot showing the progress of time during the experiments. From these facts I can say today with certainty that before the 23 May the experiments in Dachau were finished and the chamber was removed from the concentration camp.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this work book of the former mechanic I received yesterday from Berlin. I have it here, if the court is interested in it, I shall, of course, be glad to place it at the disposal of the Tribunal. From the whole manner in which this book is kept, one can so every clearly that it was not made up just new and that this entry was not added now, but that this was the original in which the mechanic Fohlmeister, that is his name, made his entries at that time. The book was to show how many hours this mechanic worked every day together with his assistants. He always writes what work was done in detail, and on the right side he puts down for each day the number of work hours and also the number of over-time hours. I have not been able to present this book earlier because I did not receive it until yesterday, and besides you will not be able to do much with the book, because it is in German. The whole book would first have to be translated and that really isn't worth all of that work, but nevertheless I consider it important that this book, which I showed to the defendant last night, can be used as evidence, because it has great value as evidence to prove the truth of what the defendant Ruff has said, here under oath.
THE PRESIDENT; Counsel, what do you contend this book shows by way of evidenciary matter?
DR. SAUTER: This book shows, for example, that on the 2nd of June, the second day of the 6th month, there is an entry by this man Fohlmeister, stationed at Adlers-hef, that is the town where Dr. Ruff was, chamber to be unloaded, 8-3/4 hours work, 1 hour overtime. That proves in addition to what Dr. Ruff has testified that this chamber, which was not brought back to Berlin by road, but by railroad, arrived on the 2 of June in Berlin in Adlers-Hof, and was unloaded on that day.
That on this date, on the latest, it arrived in Berlin. I merely want to prove at what time the chamber was returned to Berlin, because it has been asserted in another connection, that far into June experiments wore carried out, for which Ruff might be held responsible; and this work book, of which everyone can see it is obviously the original, also shows on the 28th May, an entry: Romberg, film clock, and it says something, "mass" I can't imagine what that means, and neither can Mr. Ruff, 8-3/4 hours and 1-1/2 hours overtime. This, in connection with the testimony of Mr. Ruff, shows that on the 28th May this film clock was made at the institute, which was to be used for a film with this low pressure chamber. I want to prove by means of these entries that on the 2 June 1942 at the latest, the chamber was back an Berlin, having been brought back by railroad. That it left Dachau perhaps two or three weeks before that, and it arrived in Berlin on the 2nd of June. That is the work book and the work which it covers.
Mr. HARDY: I wish counsel would kindly translate the entry again; road this entry again, doctor?
DR. SAUTER: First, what I consider important, there in an entry dated 28 May, 1942, " Romberg film clock, mass," I don't know what that means, "8-3/4 hours, 1-1/2 hours overtime," and under the date of 2-6-42, there is an entry "Station Adlers-hof, chamber unloaded 8-3/4 hours and 1 hour overtime."
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I am quite familiar with the evidence and I can't see the materiality of it. However, if Dr. Sauter wishes to make a document certifying to these two entries, the two extracts of the original, I will have no objection to them being introduced in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you heard the offer of the Prosecution. If you have the two entries you mentioned copied and certified they may be submitted in evidence without objection.
DA. SAUTER: Very well, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that the book itself be submitted to the Prosecution for examination, allow them to examine the book in your presence, or in the presence of anybody whom you choose to designate, and then have the copies made.
DR. SAUTER: I had hoped, Mr. President, that the witness, Fohlmeister, would be here to day and could be called as a witness today or tomorrow and explain his work book, but the witness was not able to act leave to come here from Berlin. There are certain difficulties, and consequently I cannot call this witness, but I shall do what the President suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Counsel for the Prosecution willing to stipulate now, that the record as read in the evidence may be admitted as correct reading, the time book which Counsel had?
MR. HARDY: Counsel for Prosecution is willing to stipulate that, your Honor. However, we are not stipulating as to the fact that as a fact this chamber arrived in Berlin on that date. We would stipulate that the entries are correct. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that. But, Counsel for Prosecution is willing to stipulate that those entries are in the book as read by counsel. Is that correct?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, due to my inability to read the German language I would request that the interpreter here read the same two entries as pointed out by Dr. Sauter, and that will verify the entries and the translation thereof; and then I will be willing to stipulate.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, suppose the entries be examined after the recess this afternoon and the matter can be taken up in the morning. The interpreter can examine the records then with counsel for both parties, and then some stipulation can be reached when the Tribunal opens tomorrow morning.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Ruff, yesterday I showed you this work book. Did you recognize it with certainty as the same work book which was prepared by your foreman, Fohlmeister, at that time under your supervision?
A. Perhaps I may first make a correction -- not yesterday but the day before yesterday. Yesterday was Sunday. Yes, I know the book. That is the work book of my foreman, Fohlmeister.
Q. In that connection then, Mr. President I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of an affidavit Matthes in Document Book Ruff No. 6, Page 20 to 23, Exhibit 10. This Dr. Matthes also worked at the Institute which was headed by the defendant Dr. Ruff. In April 1933 he already met Dr. Ruff, as a definite opponent of the SS and then -- I did not intend to read this document -- but he described in February 1942 he was assigned to the Institute and he says that Rascher says some very derogatory things about Ruff -- that Ruff was no National Socialist, that he refused to give Rascher assistance, that Ruff was sabotaging the war effort, etc.
Then I shall read on page two at the bottom -- it says:
"From these records (says the witness Dr. Matthes) I noticed that in the experiments performed by Dr. Romberg no fatalities or physical damages had occurred, that according to the records all experimental subjects got well over these experiments and recovered soon. Further the records as well as the explanations given by Dr. Romberg showed that he had conducted his experiments by employing all conceivable precautionary measures. The experimental subjects, so Romberg explained to me, had been criminals condemned to death who were later pardoned."
Then the witness speaks about the time of the return of the chamber to Berlin and says -- I read on page 3 then, the last two paragraphs:
"Only at the time of my conversations with Dr. Romberg did I also learn that a low pressure chamber had come back from Dachau, According to my recollection, the low pressure chamber must have come back to the Institute in May 1942. I can remember the date because after the return of the low pressure chamber I was ordered by Dr. Ruff to take a trip to Cologno in order to procure spare parts. I made this trip and on that occasion I was in my home town of Bonn. That was in the time from 1 June to 10 June 1942 so that the low pressure chamber must have been returned to the Institute in May 1942."
I shall not read the last paragraph -- it merely shows that Dr. Ruff took an interest in the relatives of this witness in spite of their Jewish ancestry and that he helped them. And this has been sworn to by the witness Dr. Matthes and certified.
Mr. Ruff, the chamber came back to Berlin. What happened then to this chamber?
A. It stayed in the DVL longer than we liked. First that wasn't too bad, since it had to be checked over and prepared for new use.
A longer stay, as actually occurred was unpleasant because this indicated that the chamber was not urgently needed as we had indicated, that actually in the months of June and July there was no use for the chamber. Only in August the Luftwaffe group turned up and took over the chamber -- and they took it away in August.
Q. I should like the Court in this connection to take notice of an affidavit of Dr. Kellersmann which is in Ruff Document Book, Document 14. That will be Exhibit 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did I understand you to say Document 14?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Document No. 14, Dr. Kellersmann, page 55, Exhibit 11. I do not intend to read the document -- it merely supports the statement just made by the defendant Ruff that the chamber was in Berlin and not used for several months, although the SS, as we know, repeatedly asked for use of the chamber.
Dr. Ruff, when he visited Berlin at the end of April or the beginning of May Romberg told you of only one death -- did you later learn of other deaths and from whom?
A. In the time between Romberg's return to Dachau and the removal of the chamber Romberg called my up once or twice in Berlin -might even have been three times. The first time I informed him that Hippke approved our plan. I informed Romberg that Hippke had already received a telegram from Rancher for use of the chamber for a longer period, and that Hippke intended to disapprove the extension and inform Milch. When Romberg called up again he told me that Rascher had performed further experiments, and from the telephone conversation could draw the conclusion that something had happened again during these experiments. Romberg was not able to say anything more definite on the telephone since all telephone conversations were checked on and he could not tell me over the telephone how the experiment had gone off and what had happened. But, from the conversation I could conclude something had happened. And, I believe that was the same telephone conversation when Romberg told me our experiments were finished and said that Rascher had approved having the chamber returned.
And, then on the basis of this telephone conversation I sent people to Dachau to load the chamber on the railroad there. When Romberg came back to Berlin, he reported to me that in the meantime Rascher had two further deaths. He, Romberg, had been present at the experimental station when these deaths occurred. As far as other deaths from Dachau experiments were concerned I never heard anything about them; and, in particular, I realized on the basis of Romberg's reports that the deaths had occurred during experiments performed by Rascher on instructions from Himmler.
Q. Without your volition?
A. Without my volition, and without my knowledge.
Q. Now, the witness Neff who was examined here in December spoke of five deaths which supposedly occurred during Rascher's experiments when Romberg was present. Did you hear anything about that?
A. No. I did not hear anything about that. I heard about three deaths, and Romberg reported them to me. When Rascher was in Berlin to draw up the report he didn't say a word to me about deaths, nor about his experiments which he had performed for Himmler at all.
Q. Dr. Ruff, you are speaking of experiments which Rascher carried out without your knowledge and without your approval on his own initiative. Apparently he had special orders from Himmler. Do you have any idea today whether these experiments of Rascher's he did on his own accord had anything to do with the problem which was to be solved through your experiments in Dachau, that is, the problem of rescue by parachute from high altitudes; or from your conviction as a specialist, were these independent experiments of Rascher's something quite different?
A. From the intermediate reports which Rascher sent to Himmler, which I saw here for the first time in the document book, one thing is clear; that these experiments have nothing to do with experiments for rescue from high altitudes. What Rascher wanted to clarify is not quite clear to me from these brief intermediate reports. He doubtless had attacked quite a number of questions, did a few experiments each time, and then stopped the experiments and taken up something different. In any case, insofar as one can conclude from these intermediate reports, there was in no case any complete series of experiments. There are at least three, four, Perhaps five problems which he tried to work on - none of which he completed and it seems to me that these experiments were merely orienting experiments and that he intended to clear up these various problems without longer series of experiments, and no doubt he always wanted to have the low pressure chamber in Dachau again for that purpose.
Q. Witness, you are convinced then that in the experiments which were carried out with your approval and with your knowledge -that is the regular orderly experiments - there were no deaths?
A. In these experiments for rescue from high altitude I know that there were no deaths.
Q. The witness Neff, when he was examined here in December, said that Rascher once, by night, allegedly performed experiments with sixteen Russians when Dr. Romberg was not present. The result was that, on the next morning, all of the sixteen Russians were dead. When did you learn of this matter for the first time?
A. I learned of it for the first time when the witness Neff made this statement on the witness stand here.
Q. Do you really believe that in this case one could speak of medical experiments or what is your opinion today, as an expert, about what Rascher's intention could have been in this action?
A. In the low pressure chamber, when it was in Dachau, twelve people could be accommodated at the utmost.
There was room for twelve people to sit on the benches if the people crowded together. If one assumes that the number of sixteen Russians is correct, then there was not room for these sixteen people in the chamber. Moreover, it is impossible to perform an experiment simultaneously on sixteen or twelve or eight at the same time. The chamber has three windows. Even if there is a doctor at each window, observing the experiment, it would hardly be possible for him to observe sixteen people at the same time who all become unconscious in a very short time, have cramps, etc. It is hardly possible. My opinion agrees with that of the prosecution's medical expert that this was not an experiment at all, that this was an execution.
Q. Dr. Ruff, in Document Book 2, there are a number of photographs concerning a man who was subjected to some experiments in the chamber, Do you remember those photographs in Document Book 2?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that there is any evidence as to what the type of experiments was during which these pictures were taken? whether these were the rightful experiments for your institute or whether these were the independent experiments of Dr. Rascher for Himmler?
A. In the form in which the photographs were submitted in the document book these photographs show nothing whatever except that a dead body was dissected. These pictures could be from any pathological institute and could be autopsy. Dr. Alexander, the prosecution's medical expert, was kind enough, however, to give me a few better copies of these pictures, and in these good copies one can see very plainly that in this brain autopsy - in the big vessels of the brain there are more of less large air bubbles. The vessels, in part, looked like strings of pearls. This proves that these dead people died either when surfacing after diving, or died after leaving the so-called caisson, that is the air pressure chambers which are used for work in water, for instance, when bridge pillars are set up, or else that these were deaths from high altitude.
The latter is to be assumed in this case, if one grants that these pictures were actually taken in Dachau. Assuming then that these were people who died from high altitude, then on the basis of this finding of the air bubbles in the blood vessels, they must be people who died after a long stay at altitudes of more than at least 10,000 meters - probably more than 12,000 meters. These gas bubbles in the blood vessels develop at these altitudes normally above 12,000 meters - in the course of a longer stay at these altitudes, since these gas bubbles need a certain period of time to develop, at 12,000 meters, the time is five, six, seven, eight or ten minutes, this could not have happened in the experiments for rescue from high altitude. In these altitude experiments, the experimental subjects, for example, when bailing out at 15,000 meters and falling on the open parachutes - those people were at heights above 12,000 meters for three minutes. This is the longest time which the experimental subjects remained at altitudes higher than 12,000 meters, because, when jumping from 20,000 and 21,000 meters there were no parachute descents with the open parachute but only three falling experiments without the parachutes being opened, and in these experiments the experimental subjects remained one hundred seconds at the maximum above 10,000 meters. The gas bubbles in these pictures therefore show, with the probability that borders on certainty, that these deaths could not have occurred in experiments for rescue from high altitude.
Q. And you conclude, Dr. Ruff, that these films which were found among Dr. Rascher's papers and which were taken into document book #2, have nothing to do with your experiments?
A. That is correct.
Q. Well, then the chamber was returned to Berlin. Who gave the order for this - you or Dr. Hippke?
A. I had told Romberg to see it that we got the chamber out of the camp and then I had men sent down to load it. For the return transport, as well as for the transport down there, Hippke gave his approval.
Q. Now, Dr. Ruff, as we now know, on the 5th of April, 1942, Dr. Rascher wrote to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. He sent him an intermediate report - a secret report which you and Dr. Romberg did not sign. This is Document 1971A. - PS, Exhibit 49 of the prosecution, how do you explain the fact that, in this report which was made behind your back, the affair with the sixteen dead Russians is not even mentioned by Rascher to a man like Himmler, because you know, Dr. Ruff, this intermediate reports mention other deaths, but these sixteen Russians are not mentioned in this report of Rascher?
A. In this intermediate report Rascher speaks of experiments, and I believe the fact that these sixteen Russians are not mentioned supports the assumption of the medical expert of the prosecution, with which I agree, that these Russians were not the subject of an experiment but were executed, and that it was not mentioned for this reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 0930 HOURS, "( APRIL 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al; defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. SIEGFRIED RUFF - Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Ruff):
Q Dr. Ruff, you are still under oath today. Yesterday, Dr. Ruff, you were speaking of the Dachau highaltitude experiments with which you are charged. Today we come to one final subject, that is the reports on these various Dachau experiments. As we have heard, Dr. Rascher on the 5th of April 1942 sent a secret report to the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler -- which is in document book 2, document 1971 APS, Exhibit No. 49, page 62 in the German and 60 in the English. It was read here in the courtroom. In this report - you remember this, Dr. Ruff?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Rascher in the first part describes the experiments which he carried out together with Dr. Romberg, and he concludes this with the sentence, and I quote:
"All the experimental subjects recovered after a certain time at 8 Kilometers and regained their consciousness and the normal functions of their senses." In order to avoid confusion, that refers to the experiments that were conducted together with Romberg. In the second part of the report Dr. Rascher describes the experiments which he performed alone and he writes, I quote: "Only continuous experiments above ten and a half kilometers were fatal. The third experiment of this type was so unusual that - since I carried out these experiments by myself, that is, without Romberg - I called in an SS doctor of the camp. This was a continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12 kilometers on a 37 year old Jew."
Dr. Ruff, this secret report of Dr. Rascher alone seems to be of special significance, therefore, I should like to ask you when did you learn of this secret report of Dr. Rascher for the first time? This is the secret report of the 5th of April 1942 which is signed by Rascher alone.
A I saw this report for the first time when it was submitted by the prosecution here in the courtroom.
Q Dr. Ruff, did you receive knowledge of these experiments of Dr. Rascher concerning which he writes that he carried them out alone, that is, without Romberg, and when he called in an SS doctor as a witness for a third experiment? When did you learn of these experiments?
AAt the same time when this report was submitted here in the courtroom. In the preliminary interrogations I also did not hear anything about these experiments.
Q Witness, according to your expert opinion, these experiments which Dr. Rascher carried out alone and which led to fatal results, did they have anything to do with your own experiments, that is, with the experiments which you approved which were included in the working program for Dr. Romberg and which alone you desired in the interest of aviation?