Sievers, who was just about to go on a trip, asked both of us to came to the railroad station and when we met him there he tried to calm Rascher down and thought that nothing could be achieved with excitement. He asked me to write a brief note about what had happened that morning and to send it to him. He asked about the film and when we told him we had left the film in the Aviation Ministry he advised us to go get the film because of the obligation to secrecy, but I was not able to do so until the next day.
Q. Did you hear anything more about the film later?
A. No, I never heard anything more about it.
Q. In Prosecution Document Book No. 2 there are a number pf pictures. Did you take these pictures?
A. No, I did not take these pictures. I can say the following about these pictures. When these pictures were shown to me during an interrogation, I was told they came from a motion picture film' and the prosecution said the same thing here. I thought that meant the film which I knew the motion picture of the experiments when I was present, but when I looked at the pictures I was immediately able to see that four of them at the most could have come from that motion picture. I assumed that Rascher might have taken another film behind my back. In the meantime I have realized, having looked at the pictures closely, that not a single one of them comes from that motion picture. I know that because in the film which was taken in the experiments there was a clock in the background and instruments in the foreground. That was necessary in order to be able to use the film later. It was possible only as the time and altitude were always registered on the film.
Also Rascher had put mounter suits on the experimental subjects during the picture.
Q. In these pictures which are in Document Book II are there no instruments and no clock?
A. No, I've looked at them carefully. That could not be overlooked. That was a big clock with a big second-hand which was beside the head of the subject.
Q. That is proof to you that these pictures do not come from the film?
A. That they do not come from the film, yes. The witness Neff, who was probably present when these photographs were taken, immediately realized the difference when the pictures were shown to him here. He says on Page 661 of the German transcript, I quote: "When the film was taken the prisoners were given a civilian suit and it could not be seen that they were prisoners. These are photographs; and I know that when prisoners were photographed, they were given a fairly clean suit with no insignia. That is why one could not see on the photographs or in the film who these people were or what insignia they wore."
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I wish to clarify for the record that it is not known to me that the prosecution offered these pictures in Document Book II as extracts from the film that was purported to have been shown at the RLM but merely as photographs which were found among the personal effects of Dr. Sigmund Rascher in his home in Munich; and I want it to be clear that the film that was shown at the Ministry is not in the hands of the prosecution. Had said film been in the hands of the prosecution, it certainly would have been shown here during our case in chief; and we will are in search of such films.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I should like to have the explanation of the prosecution that the pictures in Document Book II are not submitted as having been taken during the experiments for rescue from high altitude. If I understood the prosecutor correctly that is the explanation he just made.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the prosecution does not state that these pictures were not taken during the course of those experiments.
I am merely trying to clarify it that these photographs which have been offered in evidence and are contained in Document Book II are not extracts of the film, that is, as far as we know. It may well be that the same type pictures appear on the film; but the prosecution has not seen the film that was shown at the RLM and does not have the film that was shown at all. The first four pictures in Document Book II have been properly identified by no less than defendant Romberg himself; and the remainder of the pictures have been identified by the witness Neff when he was here on the witness stand. We contend that these are pictures of the experiments at Dachau.
DR. VERWERK: I ask that the transcript show that these pictures do not come from the film which was taken of the experiments for rescue from high altitude.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show the statement of counsel for the prosecution. That is as far as the Tribunal will go in the matter; and counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
THE WITNESS: May I say something else about these pictures? BY DR. VERWERK:
Q. Please do.
A. I said at the beginning that when I was shown these pictures I was told that they came from a motion picture film; and the prosecution said the same thing here. I thought that might mean a Leica film, for example, not necessarily a motion picture. Only when the pictures were shown to me did I think that they meant that it actually came from a motion picture and thought that it might have come from this motion picture of the experiments. Since I did not know those photographs but only knew the motion picture, I assumed in the beginning that they were the same thing; but because the instruments are lacking and because of the testimony of Neff, it is clearly proved that not a single one of these pictures comes from the motion picture but from a private film in the possession of Rascher, a Leica film, photographs which he probably took for his private work or for his work to qualify as a professor.
Q. When was the Cold meeting in Nurnberg?
A. That was in October.
Q. How did it come about that you participated? Did you know from the lecture which you heard that there had been deaths during the cold experiments?
A. First of all my participation was a matter of course because it was a meeting of aviation medicine, of aviation doctors.
It was just coincidence what it was a Cold meeting. I participated in almost all such meetings; and, besides, I was interested in the cold problem since I was at the time planning to carry out cold experiments with the low pressure chamber, experiments which were later carried out.
As for this second question, whether I knew that any deaths had occurred, one must make a strict distinction between my personal judgment and that which was clear to the general public. Besides, one must not over-estimate the attention attracted by such a meeting. I did not approve of Rascher and his experiments personally. I had broken off the low pressure experiments for that reason and had refused to participate in the cold experiments as Himmler had wished.
If now in Nurnberg Holzloehner spoke of observations of cold persons and said that he had collaborated with Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke, if he spoke of observations on dead persons, I personally, since I was prejudiced against Rascher, almost automatically assumed that this referred to the experiments, especially since after Holzloehner's lecture Rascher spoke in a bad external form and said that Himmler had taken the responsibility for this and ordered strict Secrecy. But in his lecture Holzloehner had spoken of the experience of rescue from sea, animal experiments, human experiments, and had confused them in such a way that the listener who was not prejudiced would have assumed that the results were experience from cases of rescue at sea. This is especially true of people who knew how extensive this sea rescue service was, who knew of its great success, and who knew that Finke and Holzloehner had worked together in the sea rescue service.
Q. Now, Mr. Romberg, one more question on the previous matter on the pictures. In your presence during the Dachau experiments, were any other pictures taken, whether films or individual pictures, any others besides the ones which form the motion picture which was later shown at the Aviation Ministry and to Himmler?
A. No, knew only that motion picture. That is why I thought of it first when I was shown the pictures.
Q. Then you did not take any other pictures?
A. No.
Q. Did Rascher take any other pictures during the experiments for rescue from high altitude?
A. No; at least not in my presence.
Q. Aside from you two, did any third person take other pictures aside from t his motion picture?
A. I don't know whether anyone else took pictures.
Q. As far as you were present?
A. No.
Q. Later did you do any further work in the field of high altitude?
A. Yes. That was really my field of work; but I also worked specifically on the question of parachuting from high altitudes or rescue from high altitudes, the cold work which Dr. Ruff has already mentioned, parachute jumping, and cold and lack of oxygen, great altitudes, and time reserve experiments -- that is, staying at high altitudes with simultaneous lack of oxygen, and with cold. During the cold experiments we first worked on the question of parachute jumping, as the more important question; and the second thing was the question of the simultaneous effect of lack of oxygen and cold while remaining at high altitudes. These were experiments on ourselves, together with the associates. As Ruff has already said, we wore light clothing and wont down to as far as 45 degrees below zero as long as two hours.
One report each was written on the two series of experiments.
DR. VORWERK: In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to submit from Document Book Romberg Document Number 1, the affidavit of Dr. Walter Freitag. I should like to submit this as Exhibit 1. In the first paragraph of this affidavit the affiant speaks of his work with the defendant Romberg from 1939 on at the Institute for Aviation Medicine.
I should like to read the second paragraph. I quote: "Dr. Wolfgang Romberg was diligent and industrious and carried out his tasks conscientiously and to the best of his ability. The experiments, in particular the work in the low pressure chamber on the effects of oxygen deficiency at normal temperatures and in the cold (up to minus 45 degrees C.) required considerable mental concentration as well as extreme physical exertion. Dr. Romberg was always the first to submit to those experiments. The importance of his personal effort is especially emphasized by the large number of tests and experiments. The elucidation of a number of individual questions was probably only made possible by this effort."
Then there follows a judgment of the character of the defendant. Then I shall read the last sentence: "I am convinced that he planned and performed the experiments on inmates from an absolutely moral standpoint and that he, just as Dr. Ruff, was the victim of mean, treacherous deception." There follows a signature and certification. It is dated the 28th of January 1947.
DR. VORWERK: As Romberg Document No. 2, Exhibit No. 2, I submit the next affidavit by Dr. med. Werner Loeckle. First the affiant speaks of his own work and how he got to know the defendant. Then, in the second paragraph he describes individual experiments. Later he speaks of the volunteer nature of the experiments, of the carefulness of the defendant in all his experiments, that the subjects were volunteers. Then I should like to read on page 5 of the paragraph that starts a little above the middle of the page. I quote:
"I met Dr. Romberg as a member of the institute round about 1938 or 1939. He was mainly concerned with questions of high altitude physiology, and participated in most of the planning of the experiments, where he proved to be an intelligent and circumspect, extraordinarily cautious and conscientious adviser. He always paid special attention to all security installations and precautions. Nearly all the people working there confidently asked his advise when dangerous or us yet unknown experimental conditions had to be tested. He always undertook the training of now assistant personnel, and his efforts were extremely successful. He always took part himself as an experimental subject in the experiments necessary for his own work and for the work of other members of the institute even if the experiments were unpleasant or dangerous. Romberg only worked with volunteer experimental subjects: I think he would never had made use of any forced 'readiness to volunteer'. In view of his character I consider it to be quite out of the question for Dr. Romberg to have taken part in unscrupulous experiments or in cruelties.
"A Closer acquaintance with Dr. Romberg, showed his political attitude to be open to the world and definitely above the narrow nationalistic ideas prevailing at the time.
His objections against certain measures of the regime were well thought out and were not without a certain grim sense of humor.
"Long conversations with similar minded persons in his room were a real consolation, to us in those abnormal times. It was Dr. Romberg who skillfully provided a possibility to listen to foreign radio stations in the institute."
And follows the signature and certification.
In view of the political attitude of the defendant I should like to submit Document Romberg No. 3 as Exhibit No. 3. This is an affidavit of Mrs. Nadja Bartsch of the 20 February 1947 and she says: I quote the first paragraph:
"I have known Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg since the summer of 1943 as an extraordinarily helpful physician and cotenant. On closer acquaintance with him and his family I found him to be the strongest opponent of National Socialism. We all constantly listened together to foreign broadcasts both in his rooms and ours and our conversations were anything but pro-nazi.
"I should like to remark here that as a non-aryan, I would never have associated with anyone who had other ideas.
"When I heard of the accusations made against Dr. Romberg, I could hardly believe them, for I know no one among my acquaintances who was such a fanatical opponent of National Socialism and, on the other hand, was such a helpful physician and man."
There follows the signature and certification.
As Romberg Document No. 4 I should like to submit the affidavit of Fritz Ebmeyer which will be Romberg Exhibit No. 4. This is dated 19 February 1947. I quote - first paragraph:
"I have known Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg since 1943. When the Nazi authorities refused me permission to marry my fiancee, who, according to the regulations in force at tho time, was of mixed descent Grade II, Dr. Romberg showed his political views by advising me to wait patiently as this regime could not last muck longer and then I should be able to marry. After the collapse in 1945 I married my fiancee.
"If Dr. Romberg had any pro-Nazi feelings, my fiancee and I would have had nothing to do with him or his family. Apart from the foreign broadcasts, to which I constantly listened at his home, it was his truly fanatical anti-National-Socialist attitude which supported me in my views."
There follows the signature and certification.
Now let's got back to the high altitude experiments, Dr. Romberg. I should like to ask you why did you not forcibly prevent Rascher from breaking off the experiment when you saw that it might be fatal?
A. You mean prevent him from carrying the experiment on?
Q. Yes.
A. Basically I can say the following. An academic man and a scientist by virtue of his education and training is hardly able to attack some one physically and achieve anything by brute force. I personally am not a violent man or a boxer I think you will be willing to believe. For myself specifically and for a scientist in general to make his ideas prevail by violence. He relies more on words or arguments on his powers of persuasion.
That is the general answer. As for the specific question - in Dachau I can say the following; That I had any legal duty or right to interfere by force I cannot imagine. In any case I could not got this idea from the situation. I had special permission -- I was so to speak a guest in the Dachau camp - and I had had to sign a paper saying I was under orders of the camp administration and SS courts, I had to submit to all orders and rulings dealing with the administration of the camp. I could not give orders to any one in the camp, either Rascher or a prisoner. I did not have any right to criticize any orders of the Camp Commandant or to change them or to object to them. I had no supervision over Rascher nor over the prisoners. But Rascher did have supervision over me within the concentration camp. Only in the course of performing our experiments for rescue from high altitude did I have a right to make suggestions and to give advice to Rascher and to our experiments, because of the two men, I had the more experience in this specific field and in that sense I could make suggestions to Rascher or give him advice as is customary among two scientists working together in the same field. And so I was able to arrange for our experimental subjects that I considered necessary and the ordinary performance of the experiments and insist how often they came or that their food should be good, etc. Now, if Rascher in experiments which he was ordered personally to perform for Himmler brought his own experimental subjects to the station, those were men who had been condemned to death or volunteers. If Rascher performed experiments with these men I could watch. I could even advise him to stop. I could point out a danger but I had no right to prevent him even if I had seen that he clearly intended to kill the experimental subjects.
If I had attempted to attack Rascher personally, or knocking him down, since he was a Luftwaffe officer be always carried a pistol he probably would have shot me or he could have had me arrested. In any case I could never have gotten out of the camp. I did not carry any weapons. As a civilian I didn't own one. I could never attack him personally.
The whole idea of an attack on Rascher seems to me too grotesque if I imagine, for instance, that a civilian comes into a research institute in the Luftwaffe, such as a low pressure chamber experiment with fatal results -- Ruff mentioned such experiments here yesterday, for example -- and then simply shoots at the man who has performed the experiment, and besides I should like to say that the whole problem now, looking back on it, looks quite different. The facts were that Rascher was performing experiments which had been ordered. He had the authorization from a competent man in the government. The subjects were volunteers; they had been promised that they would be pardoned. One can, with right, demand that a person object to the execution of a criminal order or to the execution of an order which he does not think is right, although the matter becomes difficult here because not every one is capable of judging every order, but one can hardly demand that a person attack some one else in order to prevent him from carrying out such an order, risking both his own life and the life of the other person. That personal cowardice played no role in my case, I should like to state expressly.
Q. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop Rascher's experiments and did you assume any danger and, if so, what?
A. What I did against Himmler's orders and against my signed promise to keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who passed the information on, was dangerous. One probably understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher's experiments. He confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the debates between Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the prisoners. The low pressure chamber was removed from Dachau, earlier than intended, at our instigation. Against Rascher's and Himmler's wishes it was never returned to Dachau. How great the efforts of the SS were in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with Wolf's telegram to Milch, the 12th of May, which is mentioned in Milch's letter of the 20th of May, Document 343A PS, Exhibit 62, which is denied in that letter.
In answer to further efforts from Himmler, Milch answers that the chamber is to remain two months longer in Dachau. Document 261, Exhibit 63. At this time, we had already removed the chamber. On the 5th of June, Rascher again writes to Himmler about the low pressure chamber. Document 284, Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of the 5th of June. The letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt, says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. There, there is a certain pause in Rascher's and Himmler's efforts, because Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. Rascher does not forget when the film is shown in Berlin in the Aviation Ministry to tell Milch again of his wishes in regard to the low pressure chamber, but hardly has the first phase of the cold experiments -- the series with Holzloehner -- been finished, and he writes on the 9th of October, Document 161 OPS, Exhibit 73 -- writes to Himmler again. He asks Himmler to get him the low pressure chamber so he can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. The letter of the 21st of October, 1942, Document 226, Exhibit 73, Sievers writes to Brandt about the continuation of the high altitude experiments which Himmler wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons, he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in order actually to get the chamber. This happens on the 27th of November, 1942, Document 269, Exhibit 78 -- a letter from Wolf to Milch, on behalf of Himmler. The request for the low pressure chamber, which is expressed in this letter, mentions the opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors and is given definite emphasis. I learned from a telephone call from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a low pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well that Rascher certainly didn't want to have this made public in any way.
Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of this call -- this whole matter-and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here yesterday. In an official letter to various SS Agencies, dated 13 December 1942, Document 1612 PS, Exhibit 79, Rascher is given the assignment to carry out high altitude experiments, by Himmler personally. On the 14th of March, 1943, Document No. 270, Exhibit 110, Rascher tells of his discussions with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low pressure chamber experiments, together with me, and finally, on the 18th of November, 1943, Document No. 1057, Exhibit 463, he tries, through the Reich Research Council, in agreement with Himmler, again to get a mobile low pressure chamber in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher's and Himmler's efforts and, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low pressure chamber at his disposal for experiments.
Q. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements?
A. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher's and Himmler's efforts were. That my conduct under these circumstances was not only cowardly, that it was much cleverer and much more successful. Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I had made the criminative attempt and the attempt which had no prospect of success to prevent him from carrying out these experiments, I would have been killed or locked up and Rascher would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without any restriction.
Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in what did you see such possibility?
A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, for a person who was able, immigration. Second, open resistance which meant concentration camp or death penalty, and to my knowledge, never had any success. Third, passive resistance, the apparent givingin, delaying orders, criticism among one's friends -- what the writers are now calling "inner immigration". But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.
As far as the direction question of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot imagine that, for example, an assistance of a scientist research worker who is performing infections with a fatal disease -- for example, leprosy -- on a prisoner, that the assistant should, by force, prevent the scientist from carrying out this infection. Perhaps, if ho didn't do that, the man might die in knocking the hypodermic syringe out of his hand. I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that, if there should be a trial against this doctor, it should be demanded that an assistant prevent the scientist from doing this.
Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible?
A. Yes.
Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or with the public prosecutor, against Rascher?
A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said: "Rascher has carried out experiments ordered by Himmler -by the Chief of the German Police and what else was he, Reichsfuehrer SS, State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior," they would probably have said: "Well, we can't do anything about it. If he has orders, then we can't do anything about it."
Q. Was Rascher under the jurisdiction of the civilian authorities?
A. No, he wasn't. As a Luftwaffe officer, he was, of course, under the Luftwaffe.
Q. Then you would have had to report him to his superior in the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, and I really did so through my private channels. I went to Ruff and told him about it and Ruff went to Hippke who was Chief of the Medical Service and, in a sense, the supreme superior of the Medical Officer Rascher.
Q. Mr. President, this might be a suitable time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, cam you advise the Tribunal as to how long you expect it will require to present your direct case in defense, concluding with this witness and any other witnesses you may have, and the documents you may desire to present?
DR. VORWERK: For the direct examination I will need about half an hour. There will be no other witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 2 May 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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 2 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges, of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 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. Marshall, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court with the exception of the Defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary-general will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness, according to a note filed by the prison physician. The Secretary-General will file the note.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. HANS ROMBERG - Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the Defendant Romberg):
Q Mr. Romberg, yesterday you answered to my last question, why it was impossible for you by using force to oppose Rascher's experiments and to prove that there would have been no purpose in denouncing him to the Reich authorities. I would now like to ask you, assuming the case you would find yourself in a similar position today, would you take the same attitude as you did then?
A That is, of course, extremely difficult because the conditions are different now. I know Rascher--I know the whole situation. I have of course, often thought about that point. If, my present knowledge, I were again put in the same situation, I am certain that I would act differently.
I would probably go to Berlin after the death and report it, and then I would go home, get a medical certificate saying that I was sick, and write to Dachau and say that I could not come back. What Rascher did then and how the experiments turned out the main thing would be I would be out of it, then I would probably save myself the one and half years in prison and the trial.
Q Is that your true opinion?
A If I think over what I said one of course often imagines that, but I really don't believe I would do that because one can't act against one's inner convictions. I would probably not take this cold calculating point of view and let everything take its course. I would probably go back just the way I did and carry out the experiments, see to it that the chamber could be take away. I would probably do everything just the way I did it then.
MR. HARDY: Your honor, I don't believe the Tribunal is particularly interested in what the Defendant Romberg thought he would have done under the same circumstances if they arose again. This is purely speculative.
THE PRESIDENT: Objections by counsel for the prosecution appears to be well taken. What have you to say counsel?
DR. VORWERK: The defendant has been asked what attitude he would take if he were faced with the same situation which he faced at the time. The Defendant has answered that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to pursue this line any further?
DR. VORWERK: No, he has answered the question.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Proceed.
BY DR. VORWERK (Continuing):
Q Witness, in this court mention has been made that in the course of the high-altitude experiments several visits were paid by some SS officers; were you present in Dachau when these visits occurred?
A The visits in Dachau that I remember are the visits of Grawitz the Reichsartz of the Police, and the visits of Sievers which Sievers has already mentioned here.
And I also know that Himmler was there, that was on Sunday and I was not there that day but later, of course, I was told all about it.
Q Was that the only visit you can recall?
A The only visit of Himmler's, or do you mean the only visit-
Q The only visit by higher SS officers.
A I do not remember any other visits.
Q Your co-defendant Sievers testified here that while he was there he noticed that an experimental subject during the experiments pointed to his ear in order to indicate that the experimental subject suffered from pains in the ear, thereupon, you produced a different altitude. Do you recall that incident, and what have you to say about that?
A It was a sign which we had agreed upon, that they should point to the ear there if they had earache, perhaps during the descent, and that was probably what happened during this visits of Sievers. We always made the descent slower or went up a little again in order to do away with the complaint.
Q Why do you particularly remember that incident while Sievers was there?
A Rascher wanted the descent to be rapid and I stopped it on purpose, and he told me liter, when visitors are there that has to be done quickly and I said, "Whether we have visitors there, or Sievers or somebody else, that makes no difference, the experiments has to be carried out in the same way."