A I have described already several times how these experiments came to be carried out. Dr. Weltz was not my superior. He visited me as chief of the Munich Institute in my institute. We discussed scientific questions and came to speak of the question of rescue from great altitudes, and on this occasion Dr. Weltz suggested that the second half of these experiments should be carried out at Dachau in cooperation with Rascher. I believe that this clarifies the question you asked.
DR. WILLE: But it was very important to me that I should hear this once again in view of the question the Prosecutor put to you.
DR. VORWERK: Vorwerd for Romberg. I have two or three questions. BY DR. VORWERK:
Q Do you believe, Dr. Ruff, that during the time the chamber was in Dachau, Romberg undertook other experiments than those on the question of rescue from great altitudes?
A I consider that to be out of the question.
Q May I assume that it is your firm conviction that during his stay in Dachau Romberg only took part in experiments which concerned themselves with rescue from high altitudes?
A I assume that to be practically certain.
Q Dr. Ruff, can you tell me who issued Romberg authority for his travel orders when Romberg went to Dachau?
A When an offician trip was to be undertaken the person who wanted to carry out this official trip filled out the travel orders, then I signed them for my Institute, and then they went to the management of the Experimental Institute for Aviation and they approved the trip.
Q In this case then so far as the Institute was concerned these travel orders bore your signature and then were passed on?
A Yes.
DR. WEISGERBER: Weisgerber for Sievers.
Your Honor, I should like to ask one or two questions concerning the relations between huff and Sievers.
Q The Prosecutor has repeatedly pictured Sievers as a person responsible for the execution of a number of experiments such as are here the subject of the charge. Among these experiments are included the experiments here designated as high altitude experiments, the planning and execution of which arc known to you. Now, I should like to find cut the following: Did Sievers have anything to do with the planning and execution of the experiments which were carried out in Dachau so far as you know?
A I know nothing of that. So far as I can recall I never heard Sievers name only after the experiments were concluded, roughly at the time when this report, Document 402 was compiled in Berlin. Therefore I had not heard the name Sievers at all so far as I can recollect. In my opinion he can have had nothing to do with the planning of those experiments and certainly not with the carrying cut of them.
Q Did Sievers have anything to do with making the low pressure chamber available?
A No, certainly not.
Q Do you know whether Sievers had anything to do with the choice of Dr. Rascher as the person in charge of the experiments?
A I never heard anything to that effect, nor can I imagine that that may have been so.
Q Did Sievers have anything to do with the evaluation of the notes that were taken during the experiments or with the preparation of the reports on the experiments?
A This report that is to be found in Document 402 here was compiled in my Institute in Berlin on the basis of the minutes of the experiments. Now, Sievers was certainly not present when the evaluation of these notes was undertaken, because until I reached Nurnberg here I did not know Sievers at all. Consequently, he could not have been in my institute, in Berlin.
Q I again then would conclude that the high altitude experiments were carried out without Sievers having to appear at all?
A I have no reason to assume the contrary.
DR. WEISGERBER: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness?
The Witness Ruff may be excused from the stand and resume his place.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, there arc a number of documents which I should like to submit to you which have so far not been submitted. The first, I have an affidavit contained in Document Book Ruff, Document # 3, to be found on page 10 to 11. This will receive Exhibit No. 12. This is an affidavit made by a certain Adolf Voss -- who from the year 1937 until 1944 had worked with Dr. Ruff with some interruptions, and for that reason is well acquainted with his personality and the entire situation. I should like to ask you to take notice of the contents of that affidavit and I shall only read the last and the one before the last paragraph on page 2 of the document.
I quote. Dr. Wieshofer was a collaborator of Dr. Ruff:
"Dr. Wieshofer, who was a very close friend of mine, told me in 1942 or 1943 that experiments were carried out at Dachau behind Dr. Ruff's back and without his consent. Dr. Wieshofer was very indignant about it but he himself had no detailed information on the subject.
"I have always known and esteemed Dr. Ruff as an upright and decent man. Dr. Ruff proved to be an excellent and careful physician when carrying out experiments with me in low pressure chambers. I never felt that any experiment was badly prepared, scientifically or technically, considering the seriousness of the situation. I cannot imagine that Dr. Ruff risked human lives in Dachau in a frivolous and unscrupulous manner, when making experiments in aviation medicine."
So, for the quotation. I ask you to take notice of the rest of the contents. This affidavit is signed in the proper manner and certified.
As the next document I should like to submit Exhibit No. 13, Document No. 7, which is the document to be found on pages 24 to 26 in Document Book Ruff. This is an affidavit by a certain Dr. Hans Georg Clamann. This witness was an Oberregierungsmedizinalrat at the Aviation hedical Research Institute and therefore a high medical official in the Luftwaffe. I also ask you to take notice of the contents of that affidavit. The witness mentions that he always held Dr. Ruff's character in high esteem and says that he only heard the best about him in his capacity as a human being as well as a scientist. From the affidavit itself I should like to read the following paragraph and I quote:
"As far as the investigations carried out in Berlin by Dr. Siegfried Ruff are known to me, the overwhelming majority were carried out by him and his collaborators as self-experiments.
"Further volunteers were recruited for experiments only because the number of his collaborators was no longer sufficient owing to the urgency of the investigations.
"Dr. Ruff showed a high sense of responsibility in the investigation and, never demanded more of his colleagues than of himself.
"In view of this experience, it appears to me to be out of the question that Dr. Ruff should have carried out experiments which constituted crimes against humanity."
This affidavit, which I just read, is certified in the proper manner.
The next document will receive Exhibit No. 14, Ruff Exhibit No. 14, and it is to be found in Document Book Ruff as No. 10 on pages 35 on. It is an affidavit made by the university lecturer Dr. Otto Gauer, dated 23 January 1947. This affidavit too is sworn to and certified in the proper manner. I attach particular importance to this affidavit because its author, Dr. Otto Gauer, was not only a collaborator of Dr. Ruff for a long period of years but also because this Dr. Otto Gauer is now in the United States active in the same capacity as a researcher as before in Germany. For that reason Dr. Gauer has a very particular expert knowledge of the matters involved here. In the first part of his affidavit the witness describes the defendant Ruff's personality and I shall not read all that in detail. This is as brilliant a characterization of Dr. Ruff's character as was made by all the ether witnesses.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, might I ask counsel that this notation on the back by Dr. Marx has to do with the authenticity of the signature of the affiant, if it was made at the same time, or later here in Nuernberg. There is no jurat on this document; it merely contains the name .of Dr. Marx, who says, "The authenticity of the signature appears to be correct." Does that happen to be a jurat, or what might it be?
DR. SAUTER: May I clarify that point, Mr. President? Counsel Dr. Marx, as you know, is representing a defendant here. Dr. Marx at that time, with my approval, went to Heidelberg and there took this affidavit from Dr. Gauer, which I had arranged for with Dr. Gauer previously. Dr. Marx, if I am not mistaken, had simultaneously obtained an affidavit for the purpose of his own client, which I do not know. Naturally, I did not make this special trip to Heidelberg, but asked Dr. Marx to obtain this affidavit for me.
MR. HARDY: Granted, Your Honor, the defense counsel has authority of the Tribunal to administer an oath and to certify a signature, but I merely want to know if Dr. Marx certified that the signature was correct and saw Dr. Gauer sign it.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Marx went to Heidelberg for that very purpose. He went there in order to obtain an affidavit for his client and for me from Dr. Gauer. That is the reason why neither I nor any other notary could make this certification, but Dr. Marx who was present when the signature was given.
MR. HARDY: I have no objection to this document. I only wanted to know if it was executed in Heidelberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The jurat signed by Dr. Manx contains no date, no place, nor does it contain a. certificate that the witness was sworn. It simply says, "The authenticity of the above signature is hereby certified." As counsel says, no place, no date or any affidavit delivered.
DR. SAUTER: This deficiency of form, which obviously is due to a mistake by Dr. Marx, I shall rectify in the future and I shall see to it that the date and place of this certificate are added by Dr. Marx.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel may proceed with the document now.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, inasmuch as Dr. Sauter is willing to testify that Dr. Marx signed this affidavit in Heidelberg and it is merely a mistake in form, I will not protest it and it won't be necessary for him to do that work.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for the defendant may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.
This witness, endowed with special qualifications, Dr. Gauer states in this affidavit, which he made immediately before his departure for the United States, a number of matters referring to the personality of Dr. Ruff. I shall skip the first part since it entirely conforms with statements made in the other affidavits, referring to Dr. Ruff's character. I shall quote from page 3, the center of the Page. This is to be found on page 37 of the German document book volume:
"In many dozens of experiments I had the opportunity to learn with what extreme caution and sense of responsibility Ruff carried out the experiments. His supreme principle was never in any way to endanger the experimental subject. I never experienced an experiment in which Ruff carried on the strain longer than was necessary for the solution of a certain problem. In Ruff's published work (Aviation Medicine 3, 225, (1939)), Monography of German Aviation Medicine (in print), there are frequent references to the fact that he refrained from adding to the strain after a certain problem had been solved. Experiments with very great strain and experiments of which the consequences could not be immediately foreseen Ruff carried out on himself first, on principle. It is also characteristic that Ruff, after a rebuilding of the experimental installation on the large human centrifuge always insisted on serving as an experimental subject himself for the first test. This attitude created unlimited confidence in Ruff among his employees and among most of his closest collaborators, who always placed themselves at his disposal for psychically and physical extraordinarily exacting experiments. It '-as due to Ruff's experience and caution that out of all of his numerous experimental flights and dangerous experiments, as far as I know, not one serious accident occurred. To sum up, it can therefore be stated that Ruff is a highly qualified scientist, who is distinguished by a particular sense of responsibility.
"With regard to the experiments carried out in Dachau, which are the basis of the indictment against Ruff, I think it highly improbable, for purely objective as well and as for personal reasons, that any initiative came from Ruff in this respect, but I presume that it came from the technical side (Technical Office, REM). As far as I know, high altitude experiments were too far on the margin of his real field of interests. His whole attention, as has already been stated, was centered on the problems of high speed flying and catapault installations, the building of which he had to accomplish in the face of everincreasing difficulties, I presume that Ruff was called to these Dachau experiments because he was the medical scientist who was best acquainted with the development of the stratosphere and rocket aircraft.
As the whole problem of rescue from stratosphere aircraft was a very special science, a short explanation is given, as far as seems necessary to judge the experiments on which the indictment is based.
"The problem of rescue from stratosphere aircraft.
"Importance was attached in Germany much earlier than in other countries to the development of rocket propelled aircraft, which can fly at heights of between 10 and 20 km. Therefore the rescue of aircrews during accidents at such a great height became an urgent aviation medicine problem. These problems, which first became urgent with the development of the Me 163 rocket fighter, retain a great practical importance also for the future, insofar as the development of long distance aircraft for passenger and goods transport will probably culminate in the construction of large stratosphere planes in the not too distant future.
"In stratosphere planes the crew is in an airtight cabin, the so-called pressure body in which the atmospheric conditions necessary for like, such as normal atmospheric pressure, normal temperature and oxygen concentration, are artificially maintained. Outside the cabin the atmospheric pressure is so low, that is, the air so thin, that no human being could live. If the wall of the cabin is damaged, the artificially maintained pressure bursts away, and the crew finds itself with lightening speed in a vacuum corresponding to the altitude of the flight. AngloSaxon aviation medicine created for this process the very pertinent expression "Explosive Decompression". In this way the crew is exposed to double danger.
"Firstly, owing to the sudden decrease in pressure the gas-filled cavities of the body expand with lightening speed. Theoretically, there is a danger that the tissues may tear and other mechanically conditioned disturbances may occur; also the emergence of gas bubbles from the body fluids is to be feared, which may cause circulation disorders, paralysis symptoms and necrosis.
"Secondly, the acute lack of oxygen caused by the cabin being no longer air tight, effects after the socalled reserve interval, high altitude sickness, which finally, if the lack of oxygen continues for too long leads to death by paralysis of the respiratory and circulation centers. Rescue from the stratosphere is only possible by immediate descent into lower, non-dangerous air layers. The question arises here whether the speed of the pilot's descent with an open parachute or the speed of the body falling unimpeded with a closed parachute is sufficient to enable the crew to pass sufficiently rapidly through the danger sphere and to reach the non-dangerous air layers.
The aviation physician whose task it is to clarify the problem of rescue from great heights, has therefore two questions to answer;
"Firstly, are human beings able to endure explosive decompression?
"Secondly, if so, is there a possibility of surviving the lack of oxygen after leaving the 'plane'?
"The first question has been ackled since 1939 in different institutes by self-experiments."
Now there follow a number of tables which I merely ask you to read and I continue reading the affidavit after these tables and I quote again:
"The results were favorable. In particular, the most modern investigation by H.M. Sweeney showed that the resistance of the human body is unexpectedly high against the action of explosive decompression.
"In contract to the numerous investigations on explosive decompression, the only report about which I know on the subject of rescue from altitudes above 12,000 is the DVL report by Romberg and Rascher which forms the basis of the indictment. The enormous experimental expenditure which was made to clarify the effect of decompression on the human body, and which involved a considerable risk for the experimental subject, only has a real practical sense if the second question finds a real practical solution. If we do not wish to stop half way, corresponding experiments are categorically aided by the above named result."
I shall skip the next paragraph. The witness said, as it was stated before, that animal experimentation is insufficient, and on page 7 you have the results of the experiments he made, and I quote:
"The experiments were made in connection with selfexperiments on the possibility of rescue from maximum altitudes of 12,000 m, carried out by Romberg. The first experiment in the series of experiments yielded an extraordinarily important result. During the jump with an open parachute, the so-called descent experiment, from 12,000 meters consciousness is lost after 1 minute 10 seconds. After descending for a further 3 minutes, the experimental subject awakens and is fully capable of action t an altitude of 8.3 km.
"This is surprising insofar as progressively severe nigh altitude sickness develops if the experimental subject is exposed to this altitude for 4-1/2 minutes. The process of the so-called "pre-mobilization" which was observed by previous authors by indication with descent experiments from altitudes lower than 12 km., apparently plays an important and beneficial role at higher altitudes. Its mechanism has not yet been explained. On the basis of this extraordinarily favorable result, the strain was increased step by step in the following experiments. This procedure is usual in experimental medicine. The experiments were finally stopped "because in practice there is no necessity whatsoever to save oneself from even greater altitudes with an open parachute." No death occurred.
"The extraordinarily long periods of unconsciousness are in themselves no proof of a particularly reckless method of experimenting. An experienced altitude research worker is able to judge the actual condition of the experimental subject from the state of breathing and the activity of the heart, and in case of a life-endangering disturbance to stop the experiment by increasing the pressure and administering oxygen. The observer knows that Romberg and Ruff often lost consciousness during their own experiments dispersed the pessimism of numerous research workers who thought that descent from such high altitudes was impossible.
Thus the development of more or less complicated auxiliary installations for the rescue of crews from altitudes up to 20 km, was unnecessary. This result was of extreme value for technics and for the tactics of air fighting."
About subjective troubles daring low pressure chamber experiments, the witness says the following:
"Since there are many wrong ideas current about the subjective troubles during high altitude experiments, the problem is to be discussed in detail in the following way:" Decrease in air pressure decreases oxygen content of air--
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this whole subject has been fully explained by the witness himself on the stand, and I wonder if Dr. Sauter deems it absolutely necessary to read this into the records, and it seems to me ground has been pretty well covered by the defendant himself, he can ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this without reading it verbatim into the record.
DR. SAUTER: I believe, Mr. President, that these statements are perhaps of even more importance for the judgment of this case than a number of statements we have heard yesterday and the day before. This is a witness who is a leading researcher in this field, and who, for that reason, was asked to go to the United States. It is my opinion that the conception of such a witness is this field is particularly helpful to the Tribunal when it wants to master these technical difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may continue to read the document or such portions thereof as he deems important.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection the witness says. I repeat, this to be found on page 42, page 8 of this affidavit, because the prosecution contends these experiments cause special pain:
"If the air pressure is decreased, the concentration of oxygen in the air which is inhaled, correspondingly decreases. The oxygen absorption by the lungs is finally so alight, that the combustion process in the cells can no longer properly take place and the vital functions must cease. At first, the complicated work of the central nervous system is discontinued. First of all spontaneous, and self-control abate, changes of feeling similar to those occuring under alcholic intoxication take place.
Then follow muscular weakness, sleep and unconsciousness. In the final stage of the high altitude sickness the respiratory and circulatory centers are paralyzed as by an over-dose of narcosis. In the initial stage of unconsciousness frequent cramps of various kinds can be observed. Unvoluntary contractions of the facial muscles, leading to grimaces, weeping, laughing, etc. may also occur. These phenomena which may make a ghastly impression on people who know nothing about aviation medicine, take their course subjectively without any kind of trouble. The danger of high altitude sickness is especially based on the fact that it causes only few impressive symptoms, above all neither pain nor heavy breathing. It was for just this harmlessness of the symptoms that the doctors of all nations had to make the greatest efforts to convince the air crews by appropriate instruction of the danger and malignity of the high altitude disease.
"Occasionally, especially during longer spells in high altitudes, pains in the joints and wind troubles may occur.
But they probably did not play an essential role in the experiment put forward, since from the considerable lack of oxygen which was induced, unconsciousness resulted after an average of 30 seconds:
"To sum up:
"Firstly, the question of rescue from extremely high altitudes constitutes a problem of the utmost importance for aviation medicine. The experiments yielded unexpected results which were of importance for technical development.
"Secondly, experiments with animals yield no quantitatively binding values.
"Thirdly, the experiments were carried out on a scientific basis. The experiments were discontinued after a certain practical aim had been attained. No casualties ensued.
"Fourthly, the subjective troubles during experiments with low pressure chamber in high altitudes without oxygen are slight."
The witness in the last paragraph goes on to explain Ruff's self experiments and the self experiments of his collaborators; and he points out that Dr. Ruff always subjected himself first to verydangerous experiments and then the voluntary collaborator of his institute. This affidavit is certified in the proper manner.
I offer as the next document an affidavit by a dentist, Dr. Freitag, as Ruff Exhibit Number 15. This is to be found in Document Book Ruff, Document Number 15, page 57. This is an affidavit of Dr. Walter Freitag, dated the 2nd of January, 1947, which was certified in the proper manner on the 30th of January 1947.
Dr. Freitag, from June 1939, with some small interruptions, up to the year of 1945, was a collaborator of Dr. Ruff in the latter's institute. He participated personally in a number of experiments and he knows the work of the institute very well. In the affidavit, which I will not read in detail, he describes his impression of Dr. Ruff's personality, his demeanor during the experiments, and similar matters. I will ask you to take notice of that affidavit; and I shall dispense with reading it since by and large it conforms completely with observations which other witnesses have made of Dr. Ruff's personality and his behavior.
As a further document I offer to you under Exhibit Ruff Number 16, in Document Book Ruff, page 63, Document Number 16, an affidavit by a woman, Franca von Guaita. She is a German national. I beg your pardon, Your Honor, this is not on page 63 but, rather, on page 52.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of this document?
DR. SAUTER: Document Number 13; and I gave it the exhibit number 16. I repeat, on page 52 of the Document Book, Document Number 13, Exhibit Ruff Number 16, and affidavit by a woman called Franca von Guaita. This affidavit is signed in the proper manner on the 27th of January 1947. This Mrs. Guaita gets into this matter because she was the head of the Film Department in the DVL, of which Dr. Ruff's institute was a part.
In this capacity she dealt with Dr. Ruff's experiments and often was present during the execution of such experiments. I shall confine myself to reading from the 3rd paragraph on page 1 where it says, and I quote:
"During all the experiments which I filmed, I ascertained that Dr. Ruff and his collaborators exposed themselves first to known as well as unknown dangers. His medical colleagues, as well as colleagues from other research institutes of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, volunteered as subjects for these experiments, especially during the war; and thus a great many persons took part in dives, among them, I myself, several times, to operate the film camera. Dr. Ruff himself as pilot took part in all dives which affected health, whereas we took part only once a day."
Then the last paragraph of this affidavit reads:
"Thus I know Dr. Ruff only as a man who fought to save other people's lives; and I consider it entirely out of the question that he ever laid violent hands on anybody."
I ask you to take notice of the rest of the contents of this affidavit.
As Exhibit Ruff Number 17, I offer Document Number 12 in Document Book Ruff -- I repeat, Document Number 12 in Document Book Ruff, on page 49 of the German text. This is an affidavit of Dr. Friedrich Kipp, which I am not going to read. I shall merely ask you to take notice of the contents. This Dr. Kipp for four years, from the year 1942 until the end of 1945, was a scientific collaborator of Dr. Ruff. He also confirmed the point that Dr. Ruff basically was performing all the experiments himself as self experiments and then used his collaborators as volunteer subjects. He says that Ruff was very hard on himself but just as considerate and careful towards his collaborators. He says he was a researcher who was very considerate and conscious of his responsibility.
I should also like to ask you to take notice of the next document, Number 16 in Document Book Ruff, on page 63 of the German text.
I am giving this Exhibit Number Ruff Number 18. This is the affidavit by Master Mechanic Karl Fohlmeister, the very same master mechanic from whom this work diary originated which I yesterday submitted to the defendant Ruff. I ask you to take notice of this affidavit, which is certified in the proper way.
The witness Fohlmeister from February 1937 until April 1945, that is, over a period of eight years, was a co-worker with the physician Dr. Ruff. As a master mechanic he had a special position of confidence. He described the detailed experiments as they were carried out. He goes on to elucidate the part which Ruff played during these experiments; and I shall confine myself to a paragraph at the end of the first page where it says:
"The principle tasks of the institute were primarily the examination of the afflictions of the human body caused by any action resulting from aerial activity. Of the approximately ten male collaborators of the section, those who were mast tirelessly experimented upon were Dr. Ruff, myself, and Dr. Wieshofer, who crashed during a test flight. In this respect, however, the first place goes without any doubt to Dr. Ruff, who always was the first to try out on himself without any personal considerations all the newest experiments. Moreover, his evaluations were always of the highest quality; for instance, those in connection with the effects of centrifugal force. When dives and curves were carried out in the Junker 87, he, as a regular pilot, was the one who was always exposed, while we as experimental subjects, took our turns respectively. In good flying weather, for instance, there was almost continuous activity in the air during which twelve diving and flattening out operations were generally carried out by each individual flight. As already mentioned, however, Ruff always occupied the pilot's seat and flew with each one of us. Operations of this nature have been sufficiently recorded both in pictures and documents. On many occasions I completely lost consciousness during these curvilinear flights. Ruff often suffered from ocular disturbances and severe headaches in the evening."
The witness goes on to describe the difficult experiments in which Ruff was always the first to participate. In particular, he describes the participation of Ruff in the high altitude experiments with low pressure chamber, of cold going down to minus 15 degrees. Then he concludes his affidavit on his last page with the words: "For ten years all of us in the Institute for Aviation Medicine volunteered for all experiments, and primarily our chief as already mentioned; and we all did it only in the interests of health and to protect the lives of others, without receiving any compensation or other reward. We all considered this as understood. Once General Udet gave my chief and me an extra week of furlough. That was all. Therefore, with regard to my previous chief Dr. Ruff, I can only say the best with a clear conscience. And nothing is more applicable to him than the inscription on a cup which he once got for glider flying instruction which reads: "The deed is silent." This was Karl Fohlmeister's testimony, sworn to in the proper manner.
The next document is the Document Number 17, to be found in Document Book Ruff on page 67 of the German text. This will receive Exhibit Number 19. This is an excerpt from a journal -- I think it is either English or an American journal. I have the original available here.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the next document which Dr. Sauter is offering in evidence is an article in a journal, "The Lanclet", dated December 7, 1946, 1946; the article written by Kenneth Mellanby, a man who sat here in the first row, an observer of this trial for several weeks. It is merely his opinion. This is a moral issue of this trial, perhaps an opinion of judgment in his behalf, one which was not drawn at the time of the experiments but one drawn now; and I deem it inadmissible in evidence and object to its admission.
THE PRESIDENT: While, Counsel, some matters contained in this proposed exhibit might be proper matters of argument if counsel for the defense is desirous of so using them; I do not see that this is properly admissible as an exhibit.
It contains no evidentiary matter.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in this trial one can he of a different opinion regarding many issues. You know very well that I hardly submitted any excerpts from literature. In this case, however, I made an exception. That, because this article in a journal originates from a man who himself belongs to the Tropical Hygiene Institute in London; I am sure that he is an expert of highest rank. I am sure that he is an expert who has maintained a certain amount of objectivity in such subjects that form the subject of this trial. However, I shall abide by your suggestion and I shall revert to this matter in my final plea when I shall show you what the conception of unobjectional physicians on the Anglo-Saxon side on these experiments. I shall corroborate that in my final plea.
The next document, Your Honor, which I am going to submit to you can be found in Supplement No. 1 to Document Book Ruff. It bears Document No. 18 of this supplemental volume and will get exhibit No. 19. This is an affidavit by diploma engineer Heinz Ernst Lesser, who for eight years was a co-worker at the institute of Dr. Ruff. This affidavit was sworn to and certified in the proper way. I ask you to take notice of its entire context and I shall only read page 2 of this affidavit, the center of the page, and it reads:
"I thought it particularly praiseworthy that Drs. Ruff and Romberg carried out all experiments on themselves before they repeated them on other persons who volunteered. The work carried out by Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg, as well as those of the other physicians of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation, have contributed towards the solution of many problems of aviation medicine, the greater part of which until 1936 had not been solved and thereby many flying accidents, particularly those due to high altitude unconsciousness, were explained.
"All experiments carried out at the order of the German Experimental Institute for Aviation were made with persons who had volunteered."
The witness goes on to describe in detail that the method developed by Rascher and Romberg was, as he said, an immense contribution for the decrease of death resulting from high altitudes.