Q Before either of these three deaths occurred, did Rascher show you an outline of the test upon which he was about to embark? In other words, as to the first experiment did he have a statement there of the kind of experiment he was going to conduct?
A I don't know whether he had one. At any rate, he didn't show it to me. He always said that these experiments did not concern me; that they were orders that he had received; and that I shouldn't worry about them. He did not let me in on that experiment, but kept me at a distance.
Q And that was also true in regard to the nature of the experiments at the second death and at the third death?
A Yes.
Q When was the first time that you conducted an experiment after you witnessed the death of the first experimental subject in Rascher's experiments in April?
A When, after that death, did I carry out an experiment in the frame work of my own program, you mean?
Q Of course, that's what I'm talking about.
A I certainly carried out experiments on the very next day and then I went to Berlin. I didn't go to Berlin on tho same day, but carried on the experiments further until my departure.
Q What was your purpose in going to Berlin?
A The reason was the death that had occurred. I told Rascher, however, that I wanted to visit my wife who was about to have a child.
Q Whom did you see in Berlin?
A First I went home; saw my family, of course. Then I went out to the DVL in Adlershof and saw Ruff.
Q What did you tell him?
A I told him that in these experiments that Rascher was carrying out, he had had a death yesterday or the day before; that I had seen from the electrocardiogram that it seemed to me asif the experiment should be interrupted and that I told him this. He, however, did not interrupt the experiment on my suggestion.
I told him that these experiments were nothing that I wanted to have anything to do with. Ruff was of the same opinion and we discussed how we could bring these experiments to an end.
Q. Did Ruff advise you to return to Dachau?
A. We talked about that at great length, about how we could best do what we wanted; but we both saw clearly that we could not simply tell Rascher or Himmler, for instance, that a fatality had occurred and consequently the experiments would have to stop. What we would have to do would be to bring our experiments to a conclusion and then take the chamber out and away from Dachau.
Q. When Rascher's experimental subject died in the low pressure chamber in April-that's the first subject--I believe you said he was taken to the morgue for the purpose of an autopsy. Where was the morgue in relation to the location of the low pressure chamber?
A. One had to go through another barracks and then through a long corridor leading through a camp street or a court. Exactly what distance that was I don't know precisely now. I estimate that it was approximately a hundred meters.
Q. On the day on the death, which you say occurred about midday, you had completed your experiments perhaps an hour prior to that time?
A. Yes, we carried out experiments in the morning. When we were through, I don't recall exactly.
Q. Then what did you do with your experimental subjects? They went back in the barracks?
A. Every one of our experimental subjects went back to the billets after the experiment was over.
Q. That billet was just several meters from the chamber?
A. Yes, that wasn't far at all.
Q. Neff, Sobotta, and yourother man whose name you don't know lived there?
A. Yes, they lived there too.
Q. How long after the death of the first subject was it before the autopsy took place?
A. I can hardly tell you that exactly; but I should think it was about half an hour later.
Q. Who was present?
A. Rascher, I, and the inmates from the pathological station, nobody else.
Q. Is that what you would call the dissection room, the inmates of dissection room?
A. Yes; yes, that's right.
Q. In other words, there were present at the autopsy you, Rascher, two men from the dissection room. Was Neff there?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Was Sobotta there?
A. No, I am sure Sobotta wasn't there. He had nothing to do with it.
Q. What was actually done at the autopsy?
A. It was a normal autopsy. The skull, the breast, and the abdominal cavity were opened.
Q. Is that all?
A. Yes, that was a complete autopsy. That is what is ordinarily done in an autopsy.
Q. Just open the breast, skull, and the abdominal cavity and your autopsy is over?
A. First the breast is opened; then the abdominal cavity is opened; cud at the end the skull. Then the individual organs are opened, the heart, lungs, as is necessary in the case of a normal autopsy.
Q. Now, what is the purpose of all this? Why in this particular case did you want an autopsy? You knew the man was dead, didn't you?
A. I didn't want to carry out this autopsy, but Rascher.
Q. I understand; but I'm talking about the man Rascher. Why should there have been an autopsy?
A. Well, I can't tell you that. I think probably in order to find out the cause of death.
Q. I thought you said that it was because of the fact that the man had been subjected to high altitude for so long a period of tine that his heart failed; his heart just stopped. Wasn't that the cause of death?
A. Well, whether the heart stopped because of its work, because of not being able to carry out its work, or whether it was because of a central paralysis starting from the brain, one cannot tell. It is the sane as in the case of anesthesia, in the case of a chloroforms anesthesia. Then the heart can stop because of the effect of the anesthetic, but the heart can also stop whenever the heart is overburdened. It is hard to say in detail what the cause of the death was.
Q. Well, what did Rascher find out was the cause of death in this particular case? He was the one who performed the autopsy, wasn't he, Doctor?
A. As far as I could see he couldn't find the exact cause of the death. At any rate, I couldn't clarify the cause myself.
Q. Did he make any statements in your presence at the time as to what he considered the cause of death?
A. Yes, In the case of this autopsy air bubbles were found; and he thought that these air bubbles would have something to do with it, although I personally am not at all convinced that one can say that with certainty.
Q. Where were the air bubbles found?
A. They were found in the various blood vessels.
Q. All over the body?
A. Yes; at any rate as far as the body was autopsied. Whether air bubbles were existent in the legs I cannot say.
Q. Well, did you agree in your own mind with the cause of death as concluded by Dr. Rascher? Did you think it was caused from air bubbles?
A. I can hardly imagine that the visible ones were the cause because such visible air bubbles often occur as a result of a surgical interference and do not necessarily lead to death. In my opinion it was a sudden central failure caused by perhaps a disturbance of the blood flow. However, I cannot say that exactly.
Q. Do you know of deaths caused by a sudden central failure due to stoppage of the blood flow? Is that a known cause of death in medical circles?
A. I know it now because of the experience of the American air forces when they tried to examine the fitness of their flyers. In 6 cases during a prolonged stay - I think that in twelve kilometer altitude - a sudden death occurred; and since there is no physician prosent during these American tests but only some sergeant or corporal, I only know of this from what they said. But judging from the entire description, they cannot have been any other cases of death, but caused by sudden embolisms.
Q. Did you know that fact at the tine of the death of the Rascher subject? Did you have that medical knowledge?
A. No, I only know that now.
Q. Then how could you disagree with Rascher's diagnosis about the matter if you didn't have that knowledge that you now say you have?
A. At that tine we only knew of the corresponding cases fron the submarine crews who had suffered fron similar symptoms in the case of rescues fron U-boats that had been sunk. In the sane way a number of death cases are known from commercial medicine in the case of caisson workers. People like that, whenever they were found unconscious in the street, were always carrying a certificate describing then as caisson workers who were to be taken to the next hospital as quickly as possible. Thus the principle of this illness is generally known also in commercial medicine.
Q. Well, it is very much the same thing, then, as the card that a diabetic carried, who may have some sort of a stroke as a result of either lack of insulin or insulin shock? Isn't that what you are trying to say, generally speaking?
A. Well, the purely medical progress is different; but diabetics generally carry a certificate with them stating that they are suffering from diabetes and that this and that measure would have to be taken in case of their falling unconscious.
Q. Was a written record of the findings of the autopsy of that furst death made by Rascher?
A. Yes, Rascher noted down all the data on the individual death certificate. He had the intention of evaluating them in some way.
Q. That is true in regard to all three deaths, I suppose, for the second and third deaths? You witnessed the autopsies and very much the same procedure was followed as at the first autopsy?
A. No, I wasn't present during the other autopsies because Rascher didn't ask me to attend. At that time my relationship to Rascher was already strained because of the interruption of the experiments.
Q. Did you see or read or hear the report or written record of the findings on the autopsy that was made by him in the case of the first death.
A. No, I did not see it.
Q. But you saw him making certain notes. Did he discuss with you as one professional man would likely do with another what he thought he was finding, as he made the examination?
A. Yes, he particularly pointed out the air bubbles he had found and expressed that thought when writing down tho findings.
Q. Now, then, sofar as that autopsy was concerned, what possible use could be made of those findings sofar as they would constitute information to medical people who were interested in flying, that is, in aviation medicine, or, to people who were interested in that type of medicine where men are engaged in working under water, or in caissons, under tremendous pressure; what possible use could be made of those findings?
A. Well, I think that one could not use his notes very well because of a singular case of death, since its cause is very hard to determine. One needs large experiences, such as commercial hygienists would have in their corresponding field, and if such a hygienist who was very well acquainted with the subject had been able to look at these findings, I am sure he would be able to draw some conclusions from it.
Q. What conclusions do you think he could have drawn?
A. If he would compare that finding with other findings of caisson death cases, and which are known from that caisson literature, he could have brought tho whole thing on the same denominator. However, in one individual case it is very hard to draw any conclusion.
Q. How many cases would it take Dr. Rascher to really come to any real conclusion about that matter?
A. That is very hard for me to say, because I am no expert in this field. An expert in the caisson field does not only know of the accidents which he himself had witnessed, but he is well acquainted with the literature on the subject, and with findings of other physicians, and from all that he draws his own conclusion.
Q. What about an expert in the high altitude fields. If, for example, you had a record for a case history of fivehundred deaths resulting under the same conditions as that Rascher did, and when you performed your autopsy air bubbles were found throughout the blood vessels. Would you from that be able to gain a certain knowledge that would be valuable in flying?
A. In the entire literature about aviation medicine, I know of no case where air bubbles had been described. That is probably because during an air accident a considerable time passes until an autopsy is made possible. In addition the bodies or corpses in the case of an air accident are usually mutilated, so that aviation medicine has no practical finding. At any rate, I know of none in Germany.
Q. Then the only way you would be able to determine findings would be if there had been or to be a serios of experiments in which you had used experimental subjects, in which the men were subjected to same experiments that Rascher subjected them to, conducted over a great period of time, with a great many men, and, if considerable aid in aviation medicine, wout it not?
A. That is not quite correct. Certainly in order to clarify the findings, one ought to have the possibility to perform autopsies on a number of corpses under suitable conditions.
That question itself, however, bears no interest for aviation medicine. Cases of death had not been observed on hand with air bubbles, and there was no reason to do that. There was no reason to assume that this condition had played any role in cases of death. This was a field which was alien to aviation medicine research. However, alien, this can be seen from the fact that although I saw one such case by accident, I never again dealt with the question. I might, however, for instance, have done the same thing, using animals as experimental subjects, if I had had any practical interest in that field, or had expected any benefit. This is a procedure that does not matter at all. For that reason there was no interest in carrying out a larger number of experiments.
Q. I believe you said in your testimony Friday that you know of at least two or three, of the men connected with the experiments who were recommended for leniency, or commutation for their criminal sentences because of their participation in the experiments. Who were these two or three men?
A. No, I only know what can be seen from the documents here. Sobotta had been pardoned by these people.
Q. In addition to that, the two inmates in tho dissection room had been offered, or recommended for some sort of leniency. Is that what is shown here by the documents; these are the two or three men you referred to?
A. I found that out here on the basis of documents.
Q. But except what you found out on the basis of these documents, would you know that anybody was recommended for leniency?
A. No, I can only repeat what I have already said, that this had been promised to these persons at the outset. Himmler made more premises to them when he visited the camp, and reported the very same thing, when I reported to him, namely, that these people were to be released. Rascher also concerned himself with working on these releases, what actual work had been done, and to what extent Himmler did not keep his promise, I don't know.
Q. But so far as you are concerned, you made no recommendations?
A. No, I could not do that.
Q. When did you talk with Himmler?
A. Beginning or middle of July 1942.
Q. What about?
A. I already mentioned that Rascher suddenly telephoned me in Berlin, and told me that both of us were to report to Himmler; that we were to leave that very same night. Sleeper tickets were already prepared. Then the next evening we reported to him about these experiments on the basis of a typewritten report, which then was already finished.
Q. What day was that; all you know is in July sometime?
A. Well, as I saw from the documents, it may be, well, before the 14th or 13th of July, because Rascher refers to that day in speaking about the report to Himmler. It is possible that it was that day , otherwise, I could not have remembered the date exactly.
Q. But at the time of the conference, you and Rascher were there together with Himmler, making an early report on the results of your experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. At that tine did Rascher also make a report on his experiments?
A. No, at any rate, those experiments were not at all touched on in my presence. He spoke to Himmler once more the next morning, and it is possible that on occasion of ths conference he said something to him about that. At any rate we only discussed experiments of persons rescued from high altitude, and Himmler said that Goering was to be informed about the results of this experiment as quickly as possible.
Q. In your presence Himmler made no reference to Rascher's experiments?
A. No, nothing at all was said about it.
Q. And Rascher made no mention to Himmler of Rascher's experiments?
A. No.
Q. Afterwards did you have a conference with Goering, or reported to Goering on the subject of your experiments?
A. No. Himmler said during that conference that the results were of extreme importance, and that we were to report them to Goering, if possible. However, that did not materialize, and I assume that the report which was to take place at Milch's place, which also did not take place, was to have been the substitute for the planned report to Goering. As can be seen from the document, Rascher obviously had been very interested, and always he turned to either Himmler or Brandt whether the report would be made, obviously because of his personal ambition that it was of great value to report to Goering or Milch.
Q You meant Karl Brandt or Rudolf Brandt?
A I mean Rudolf Brandt. The letters were always addressed to Rudolf Brandt.
Q After the barometer and low pressure chamber wasbroken by Neff, I believe you said that you had it replaced. Then was it broken? I have forgotten.
AAccording to my memory, that was at the end of April. I was in Berlin and then returned. Then the barometer was suddenly broken. I took that broken barometer back to Berlin to have it repaired.
Q And when was the low pressure chamber again in working order?
A I can not tell you that exactly, but I should say that it was on the 10th or 12th of May, or somewhere around there.
Q How many tests were made in the Ruff-Romberg experiments after that?
AAfter the return?
Q And after the low pressure chamber had again been put in working order.
A Yes. Perhaps about 50. Well, I don't think that there were so many as that. I can't give you the exact figure. I think there were a little less than 50.
Q How many tests did Rascher conduct after that, to your knowledge?
A Well, I can only remember the days when I was present. Then there were about three on one day, and a similar number on the next day. I don't know exactly what he did, because he may have worked nights or evenings.
Q Howmany deaths occurred in Rascher's experimental subjects after the repair of the low pressure chamber?
A The two cases of death which I have already mentioned.
Q Now, then, as I understand it, you finally made a report on the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments ?
A Yes.
Q That appears here in the Prosecution document book?
A Yes, that is that report.
Q And that was compiled and your conclusions were drawn and your recommendations were made on the basis of certain research data made at Dachau; is that correct?
A The report was made on the basis of my record about the experiments. In that report, certain recommendations are made for the future development.
Q What became of those records which you made the basis for this report which is here in evidence?
A My record, you mean?
Q Whatever records you used.
A I don't know what happened to it finally. It was in Berlin in the safe. Whether these records were destroyed, together with all the other secret files when the Russians came to Adlershof or whether the Russians have removed these files, I don't know, because I was not with the DVD at the end of the war. I think that Ruff would probably know about that. That is to say, if he remembers what the records were that were destroyed when the Russians marched into Berlin.
Q Now, as I understand it, you are unable to say what the names of your ten to fifteen experimental subjects were, what their nationalities were, or for what purpose they had been incarcerated at Dachau? You say you don't recollect that?
A Yes, I don't remember all the names of the individual people, as I already said. That all of them were German I know exactly because I spoke to them. They wore the breen badge of the professional criminals, and they also told me why they were there. Why every individual was there and what his name was, of course, is difficult to say.
Q Do you remember any of the names?
AApart from the four whom I mentioned yesterday, I do not remember any.
Q What four?
A Sobotta, Klos, Rockinger, and Zoslak.
Q Neff, Sobotta -
A I didn't mention Neff.
Q But there was Neff; there was Sobotta, and who was the next one?
A Rockinger.
Q How do you spell that?
A R-O-C-K-I-N-G-E-R.
Q And who was the fourth one?
A Klos, K-L-O-S.
Q Do you remember one more?
A Zoslak, Z-O-S-L-A-K, or C-K; I'm not sure which.
Q Where was Rockinger from?
A I can't tell you that. I don't know where he was from.
Q Where was Klos from?
A I really don't know where they all came from. I think that one of them came from Western Germany, but I really can't tell you that with any amount of exactitude.
Q Where did Zoslak come from?
A I can't tell you that either. I don't know where he came from. I believe he came from Silesia, but I really don't know that exactly.
Q These were all German nationals who were criminal prisoners who had been condemned to death and who had volunteered for the experiments?
A No, they were not sentenced to death, but they were sentenced to preventive custody, because of their repeated crimes as professional criminals.
Q Do you know the names of the two inmates of the dissection room who were promised leniency or recommended for leniency? Was that Klos and Zoslak?
A No, I really don't know their names.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions of the witness on the part of Defense Counsel?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I had assumed that Defense Counsel had finished redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense Counsel has, but they may examine the witness on the testimony that has been put in since that time.
This examination, Counsel, will be limited to the questions propounded to the witness after the Defense had rested.
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Mr. President. Dr. Sauter, Counsel for the defendants Blome and Ruff.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, during your present examination, you were telling us about a prisoner at Dachau who had been arrested and put into Dachau because he had denounced some undertaking of the SS. You know whom I mean?
A Yes, that was Neff.
Q Who was it?
A Neff.
Q He was a political prisoner, was he not?
A Yes.
Q What badge did this Neff wear?
A He were a red badge.
Q A red badge. Was Neff also used for experiments?
A Neff, as I already said, participated in experiments himself because he volunteered for them, and on his own initiative he participated in these experiments, the same way as I did.
Q Witness, you were asked about the conditions in Dachau, and I would be interested in the following: When you entered the camp of Dachau were you able to move about freely?
A No, I could not.
Q What was the situation?
A I had the order to go straight to the experimental station and otherwise was not allowed to move around freely in the camp, for instance, going to other blocks. I was limited to going straight to my experimental station.
Q I assume that when you came to Dachau, you had to report at the gate; is that right?
A Yes, I had a pass which I had to show there.
Q Could you then walk alone to these barracks, or were you accompanied by a guard?
AAfterwards I was allowed to go there myself, but at the very beginning a guard of the SS accompanied me. It said on the pass that I had to go from Gate I or something like that up to Block 5, and it also said that I had to use the shortest way to that block. This is customary in the case of official buildings in Germany. When one goes to a certain office, one had always to choose the shortest way.
Q Witness, is it correct that you were expressly ordered not to speak to any one from the gate to the barracks except to experimental subjects?
A I have already said that I was obliged not to speak to any of the inmates and to stay only at those places where my presence was officially necessary, and I had to sign a paper to that effect. There were limitations upon my freedom, and many witnesses have confirmed that.
Q Now, if I understand you correctly, you could learn about the conditions as they prevailed in the concentration camp only by listening to what the experimental subjects or the Capos or perhaps Rascher had told you. Other inmates, on the other hand, could not toll you anything; is that right?
A Yes. Do you mean Neff when you say Capo?
Q Yes.
A Well, Neff certainly was not a Capo. I don't know exactly what a Capo is, but I think he holds a high rank among inmates.
Q. At any rate other inmates of the camp could not tell you anything about the conditions and the method that prevailed in the camp?
A. No. Naturally I only spoke to Neff and my own experimental subjects.
Q. You were asked what you spoke to these experimental subjects about, and you answered that by way of telephone you always managed to speak to them. You were outside the chamber, and the experimental subjects were inside the chamber, and you were able to speak by way of telephone?
A. Yes.
Q. Nell, I assume now that in particular after the conclusion of any single experiment you had repeated opportunity to converse closely with the experimental subject. In particular I am wondering whether you didn't discuss with the experimental subject after the conclusion of the experiment what the subject experienced during the experiments, whether he suffered any pain, whether he suffered any dizziness, or whether the ears had heard, and then on the occasion of these conversations, you were not at all controlled by the SS men, and therefore were in a position to speak quite freely with these experimental subjects, including private conditions.
A. Naturally such conversations were not controlled, unless, of course, Rascher was present, but he was not always present. Then, of course, I could speak to them, but I must say that even on the occasion of these conversations I never heard any details about the concentration camps, particularly details as I know them now. I cannot imagine that anything like that had happened at that time in Dachau. I am sure that they would have told me that once in a while. It may well be, of course, that in principle they didn't discuss such matters.
I would rather believe though that they didn't tell me anything of that nature because they didn't have any such experiences themselves.
Q. Doctor, whenever you conversed with the experimental subjects after any experiment, I assume you attached particular value to whether any pain had arisen during the experiments with the experimental subjects, is that right?
A. Well not quite, because we knew that during high-altitude sickness they couldn't suffer any complaint. It is well known that in the course of high-altitude sickness the experiment is completely foreign to the person undergoing it as if he was under an anesthetic, the same way that a person isn't asked after an anesthetic whether he felt something because it is known he couldn't feel anything.
Q. But, Doctor, one does know, and we laymen also know it, that preceding unconsciousness there is a certain stage where one dues feel something because one still does retain a certain amount of consciousness, and also as a layman one knows there is a certain stage after awakening from unconsciousness where one does feel something. I am interested to know whether before the beginning, of unconsciousness and after this state disappeared the experimental subjects complained about a pain, for instance, about pains which arose up to the point of unconsciousness or about certain after-effects after unconsciousness. That is what I am interests to know, especially did they have any pains, did they complain on any pains before or after unconsciousness?
A. No, they did not, and I am not at all surprised, because I personally had suffered from altitude sickness so often, that I know this condition from my own experiences, and I am sure that Dr. Ruff would have told you the very same thing.
The beginning of high altitude sickness is similar to intoxication. The transitory period to complete unconsciousness, is similar to alcohol intoxication. However, that lasts vary shortly, only a few seconds. Then awakening is very similar. There is a small, a very short phase where the subject does not know where he is, and there are no complaints, as I know from many experiences myself.
Q. Witness, a little while ago a complete copy of the document, 1602-PS, was submitted to you. I think you have it before you.
A. I am afraid I didn't receive it today. I had it on Friday.
Q. But you do know that document, don't you?
A. I believe I do. I think I remember it approximately.
Q. Now, I would be interested in the following matter in connection with that document. Did you at that time when making the acquaintance of Rascher know, or did you assume that Rascher had already carried out the experiments with a low-pressure chamber at an earlier date?
A. Naturally he said that he had worked in the field of aviation medicine.
Q. With the low-pressure chamber?
A. Yes.
Q. And in this document which I just mentioned, 1602, the letter by Rascher to Himmler, the word "low-pressure chamber" is not at all mentioned. Rascher is speaking of experiments, and he asks the Reichsfuehrer Himmler for a number of professional criminals for these experiments. However, he does not mention a low-pressure chamber.