This increased respiratory activity could only be done voluntarily and should, under no circumstances, be interfered with the thought of a possible danger of life in these experiments. Therefore, the only persons qualified for the experiments would be those who really volunteered without any compulsion and who could be convinced that these experiments were not dangerous. Even at that time I expressed my doubts whether people other than Luftwaffe physicians and pilots were suitable for the experiments planned."
Now, Doctor, as an expert, keeping in mind Kottenhoff's recommendations which you have supplied here in evidence, which you obviously were aware of prior to the time you visited Dachau, wherein you made arrangements for the selection of the inmates, why didn't you--being the expert that you are, having full knowledge of another expert's views on these matters--why didn't you then, yourself, inasmuch as Rascher was to act as your subordinate in these experiments, Romberg to act as Ruff's subordinate, why didn't you then carefully ascertain the subjects to be used and be certain that they would conduct themselves in the manner outlined by yourself and by Kottenhoff, so you would be sure of no mistakes?
A. That is what we did. Ruff has testified at length on this, pointing out that even for this different group.....
Q. Ruff never talked to one of these subjects. What do you mean, Ruff testified at length? He never spoke to one. You never spoke to one, and Romberg could remember the names of only two or three, maybe four.
Who did speak to these people? Rascher? Did you leave it up to Rascher?
A. If the experimental subjects did what was expected of them as volunteers, pulled the parachute release, described what they experienced during their reactions, then Romberg must have spoken with them beforehand. The whole matter was settled as far as I was concerned by the fact that, against my will, I was eliminated by Rascher--against my will, at the beginning of the experiments.
Q. We'll go into that a bit later, Doctor. Now, you state Romberg testifies that they pulled the rip cord, that they pointed to their ears, that they did everything as instructed. Can you answer me this question: Suppose tomorrow morning you decide to do a high-altitude experiment, and I am an inmate of a concentration camp, and you say to me, "I am going to use you in an experiment today." I am not volunteering, Doctor. "I am going to use you in an experiment today, and this experiment is dangerous. If you don't pull the rip cord at such and such time, if you don't tell as what is happening to you, how you are feeling, how your ears are, if you don't respond to our questions quickly, you'll die." How do you think Mr. Hardy is going to conduct himself in that low-pressure chamber? I imagine I would conduct myself much better than the average volunteer, wouldn't I?
A. I am afraid that I didn't quite understand the purport of the question.
Q. I state again: you are going to conduct an experiment. This is hypothetical. I am an inmate of a concentration camp. You come to me and say, "You, I am going to use you in this high-altitude experiment right now."
I am not volunteering. You are taking me by force, in the manner in which they took them by force in the typhus experiments and other experiments in concentration camps. Then you say to me, "You are going into this chamber. We are going to take you up to 15,000 feet, or 45,000 feet"--whatever you select. You say that you want me to pull a rip cord at a certain time and that if I go unconscious, when I come to again you are going to ask me questions and you want me to answer the questions and that you want me to point to my ears when I feel pain in my ears, or whatever you wish me to do. You are instructing me. And then you say to me, "Mr. Hardy, if you don't follow instructions, you will die. If you do follow instructions, nothing will harm you. You will be perfectly all right." Now, don't you suppose that one Mr. Hardy will conduct himself in a manner in that chamber wherein you can get all int information you need? I don't want to die, Doctor.
Q. To this I can say two things. First of all, I wouldn't have taken you if you had not been a volunteer, because it was our plan and our intention from the very beginning to take only volunteers, so that proposition which you have suggested is fallacious. That situation would never have arisen. I would never have forced you.
Secondly, if we had taken concentration camp inmates in large numbers and wanted to get true information from these people, then these people, if they had been forced, would probably have had enough sense to give us all sorts of wrong information so that they could sabotage the experiment, and thus all this information we got would be scientifically useless to us.
Q. Now, Doctor in the course of these experiments-this is purely a technical question, and you being a man who has worked with low-pressure chambers for a considerable length of time, having had one in your own institute ---and there is an element of curiosity on my part-suppose I had volunteered for these experiments. Or suppose I volunteered for the von Kennel experiments in Heidelberg or high-altitude experiments anywhere, conducted in a manner as you say the Ruff-Romberg experiments were conducted, and I had volunteered to be willing to submit myself to a series of experiments. Now, being a layman, I don't know just how much of that I could stand. Now, how long could I stand these experiments--one individual? Now, you would use me, we'll say, in twenty experiments or twenty-five experiments. Could I stand twenty experiments? Could I stand fifty experiments? How long could I stand that, and over what period of time?
A. That depends on the nature of the experiment, but our long-time Luftwaffe doctors, like Ruff and Romberg, for example--and I could name you others--prove that you can stand thousands of experiments over the course of years without anything radical happening to you.
Q. Could I stand, we'll say these explosive decompression experiments--could I stand two each day for thirty days?
A You would have to find that out. You don't say right at the beginning, I am going to carry out experiments for 30 days with the experimental subject, but after you have done one experiment you reflect on how it turned out.
Q Have you found in you experience along these lines that sometimes you use a subject once and you find that you cannot use him again? That must occur quite often.
A Spreading the experimental subjects out over a long period of time was done, as Ruff also said, not because the experimental subjects were exhausted nor because their condition was bad. They were spread out over a long period of time in order to keep the experimental subjects from adapting themselves to high altitude, the condition, for example, the mountain climber in the Himalayas artificially creates in himself so that he can climb higher. Now, a person who has become adapted to high altitudes in this way is no longer an index of what an average person. When Romberg spread the experiments with any one person out over a long period of time, that was not because the man would not have been capable of being experimented on the next day, but to avoid this adaptation to high altitudes on the part of the subject.
Q Now, how many times have you yourself been subjected to highaltitude experiments?
A I have gone through a large number of low-pressure chamber experiments, and today I cannot........
Q Would you say you have gone through thirty-five, forty-five, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, how many?
A I can't remotely estimate that today. That covers a number of years, many years.
Q Well, how long after you had undergone these experiments did you become acclimated to them, so to speak? Did you become accustomed to the high altitude after ten experiments, after going through it ten times, or after going through it five times, or how long before you became accustomed to high altitudes?
A I didn't work personally in this field, namely the field of adaptation to high altitudes, but people in my institute did. That was the work.......
Q Well, Doctor, what I am trying to arrive at is, when does a person cease to be useful as an experimental subject? I imagine Ruff is not useful now as an experimental subject because he has subjected himself to these experiments so many times that he has become adapted to high altitudes, and the same for Romberg.
AAdaptation to high altitudes is not something that lasts for the rest of your life, but something which at first rapidly and then more slowly is lost again. One can assume that if a person has not been in a low-pressure chamber for three or four months he has returned to a normal state.
Q On an average, can't we strike an average from your experience in this field on how long it takes for a person to become adaptable to high altitudes? I should think that would be a very important problem in aviation medicine, inasmuch as you could then just take low-pressure chambers and march your pilots into them and keep them in there so long each day, for a period of thirty or forty days, and then they could go and fly and it wouldn't have as much effect on them. How long can you undergo this before you become adapted to the high altitude?
A That is a very important problem in aviation medicine, and has already been dealt with by a number of people, such as Luft and Lupitz, but I myself did not work in that field and consequently cannot tell you anything about it from my own experience.
Q You mean that you are not qualified to determine when a person is adaptable to high altitude?
THE INTERPRETER: He misunderstood the question. As it again.
A I can tell by looking at a person. If today he is subject to altitude sickness at 7,500 meters, and then a week later he can stand 10,000 meters. Then I know he has adapted himself. This adaptation varies of course with the individual.* * With one person it is quicker, with another slower.
It is hard to give figures for that.
Q (By Mr. Hardy) Say you used a subject on Monday and put him up to 8,000 feet, 8,000 meters, pardon me, and then you used him on Tuesday and you put him up to 8,000 meters again on Tuesday. Then you used him on Friday and put him up to 8,000 meters again on Friday. Over that period of five days, would it be rather likely that on the third occasion he may not get sick? Would it be as close as that or would the series have to go into ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty times, or would it be one or two times, and after one, two, three, or four times he may become adapted to 8,000 feet, or 8,000 meters?
A The first reactions occur as soon as the second or third time and increase thereafter. It does not happen all of a sudden. It is a gradual adaptation of the body which begins slowly with the second or third ascent, and then it gradually reaches a maximum above which it does not rise.
Q Then would you say if you used a man, say four times a week for a month, would it be very likely that he would be adapted to high altitudes then?
A Four times a month, did you say?
Q Four times a week.
A Four times a week? Yes, after four times a week a certain effect on him would doubtless be noticeable.
Q Well then, in the course of experiments it would be necessary, if you were going to conduct a large number of experiments, to have perhaps a suitable number of subjects available, wouldn't it? If, for instance, you were going to conduct one hundred experiments, and you were going to conduct that one hundred experiments in a period of one month - do you follow me, Doctor, one hundred experiments in one month - you would have to divide that up so you would have twenty-five experiments per week. Twenty-five experiments per week. Now, how many subjects would you need to perform twenty-five experiments per week? Would you need twenty-five subjects or would you need say five subjects and give each one of them an experiment each day, and then, of course, after you gave one of them an experiment each day he may become adapted and you may not be able to use him any longer.
Am I thinking clearly on this subject?
A This question cannot be decided in general terms, because you are just living me a general outline and are not telling me what the experiments are to be like. If you want an answer, you must tell me specifically just what these experiments are, how rapidly the ascent is, at what altitude the man remains, all these things determine how the body reacts to altitude.
Q Let's say that they are experiments wherein a man is going to be taken above 12,000 feet, like Ruff and Romberg's experiments. Say they are experiments just of that nature. Now, if you had one hundred experiments to perform in the short time of one month, not three or four months, but one month, then how many subjects would you, as an expert in this field, require, because, you see, you have to perform five experiments a day, because you usually don't work Saturdays and Sundays, I assume. Do scientists work Saturdays and Sundays?
A Whether Romberg worked on Saturdays and Sundays I don't know.
Q Now, you have about five experiments to conduct each day. Now, how many subjects would you use each day? Would you use merely five subjects a day, in other words, you would have five subjects to use for the twenty-five experiments that week, and one man would undergo five experiments in a week, or how would you plan it out if you had just one month to do it in? You had to perform about one hundred experiments to collect the data necessary. How many subjects would you have volunteered, would you accept?
A The answer depends on various considerations. If I have nothing else to consider I can use each person only once and simply order as many experimental subjects as I need for each experiment.
Q Would that be the best thing to do?
A This solution would have both advantages and disadvantages. It would doubtless have the advantage that there would be no adaptation to high altitude. On the other hand, it has certain advantages for an experiment you can form some medical opinion as regards any one person, about that person's general qualifications and resistance; there are advantages and disadvantages in this plan.
Now, the other extreme would be to have just one experimental subject. In that case I would have to decide by the subject's reaction how often I could carry the experiment out without the subject's adapting himself. This is something I cannot answer theoretically, because the figures vary with the individual.
Q Now, Doctor, you have here the hypothetical question of one hundred experiments in one month. Each block is a week, four blocks, giving us twenty-five experiments per week. Now you are planning your experiments at the outset to conduct one hundred experiments, and you only have a month because of the fact that the Aero-Medical Center in Heidelberg would only let you use the air-pressure chamber for one month. They have to have it back. What would you say would be the desirable number of subjects? Would you consider using five, just five men and putting the five men through five experiments each day or each week, pardon me. Would you use five men and put each one of them through five experiments a week, or would it be better to use ten men, twenty men, or thirty men, when you only have such a short space of time to conduct your experiments?
A If I had a short time I presume I should use a relatively large number of experimental subjects so that I could spread them out better. That would be a matter of course. If I have more time I can get along with fewer subjects. Since I myself haven't worked in this field of explosive decompression, as you know, I don't have any person experiences in this matter.
Q. You would be a little bit cautious about using just five men, for this period of a month? wouldn't you? Just five men.
A. I never gave much thought to the question of the number of experimental subjects, under the conditions you cite.
Q. Do you mean you arrange an experimental plan and don't give thought to something like that? I should think that would be quite important, doctor, just how many subjects you need, because you have to have them on hand. If you were performing experiments in your Institute in Munich and using Luftwaffe volunteers or, say, citizens of Munich, and offering them 200 dollars to volunteer or something like that. Then you'd have to determine how many you would need available. Would you say you could use 5 men for 100 experiments to be performed in one month and use them safely and get good results? In other words bear in mind that man has to go through an experiment each day, pretty near, in other words, he has to go through 25 experiments in 30 days?
A. I have already said that the question is not simply one of the experiments and the numbers involved in the experiments, but it is important how often and how frequently a person is subjected to high altitude during the experiments. And as I have already said, I don't know how explosive decompression and parachute descent affect adaptability to high altitude, because as I say I haven't worked in that field. I know nothing about it. If I were doing this I would carry on with a certain number of persons as long as the results seemed to be homogeneous and as soon as there was deviation in the results, I would get more subjects.
Q. You say that you don't know much about the field of explosive decompression, that you perhaps never specialized in it and never conducted any experiments in it, then what in what in the world were you doing by arranging for Rascher to conduct experiments if you don't know anything about it, you don't know whether a man can go over 12,000 feet or not and not suffer...
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, you keep referring to 12,000 feet. I think if you will look at the record you will find it is 12,000 meters. I think you will find also when you referred to the Dachau experiments that over the period of time of two months or perhaps a little longer, that is to say from about 10 or 11 March until 20 May when the chamber was supposed to have been removed, there were between 200 and 300 experiments, with about 50 per cent of them made about 14 or 15 kilometers, which would be 14,000 or 15,000 meters not 15,000 feet.
Q. That's what I meant, Your Honor, in as much as Judge Sebring has got to the point for us, would you kindly tell me, Doctor, whether it would be feasable from the 10th of March to the 20th of May? -- Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg maintains that the first experiment took place on the 22nd of February 22 they discontinued until Rascher came back from Schongau. He returned from Schongau and Romberg returned from Berlin where he was visiting his wife, about 10 March, and they started the experiments 10 March, from 10 March to 31 March, you have approximately 20 days, the month of April which is approximately 30 or 31 days, and you have 20 days in May, so you have there a total of some 70 days, which is less than two and a half months, in a period of two and a half months you performed nearly 300 experiments on 7 to 12 subjects; doesn't that seems to be quite a number of experiments to require one man to endure during a period of two and a half months?
You divide 12 into 300 and then divide 7 into 300; that is undergoing a considerable number of experiments, isn't he?
A. Yes, are you talking about the effects on their general health, or are you talking about the effects as regards adaptation to high altitude?
Q. No, I am not, I am not talking about the effect on their general health. I am referring to their adaptability to high altitude, and whether or not they would continue to be useful in the experiments as experimental subjects, and bearing in mind of course, as Judge Sebring pointed out, that these men are going 50 per cent of the time above 14,000 meters.
A. Big figures seem to make a great impressions on you, but I and Ruff have already told you that the ultimate altitude is not alone important, but just as much depends on the time. Whether the subjects adapt themselves or not in a certain experiment, that I can see; in the program that Romberg drew up, I believe there was serious adaptation to high altitude.
Q. You have stated that it is possible that a person could be adaptable to one height in a period of three or four or five experiments; now, suppose you were experimenting and as soon as you saw he was adapted, would you drop him out?
A. I didn't say that after three or four experiments the subjects adapt themselves. I said that if you are trying to achieve adaptation to high altitude and arrange the experiments so that a high degree of acclimatization will result, then you can start seeing results after two or three ascents, that is what I said.
Q. Well, as soon as you see the result, then you would not use the man in further experiments, would you?
A. If in the course of an experimental series I see that the subject is becoming adapted and disrupting the experiment, then of course I don't use that subject any further.
Q. Well, the other angle, what about the health of the subject undergoing we will say such a large number of experiments in the course of a month as 25, or 20 experiments in two months, would that have anything to do with it?
A. Let me clear this up. Adaptation to high altitude is not an injury to one's health, but it is a reaction which is sometimes deliberately induced, by sending people to the mountains, for example. It has nothing to do with damage to one's health. It is a perfectly normal condition, one that results naturally in high altitudes in the mountains, and a condition which a person voluntarily brings about if he is going to spend his vacation in a high mountain terrain. No injuries to the person's health are to be expected, I can think of no case, except for one or two cases where there was some question of tuberculosis having resulted after a large number of experiments. As I say, except for those cases in the course of perhaps millions of ascents I know of only two cases where TB resulted, in doubtful connection with high altitude. In other words, for all this is of no consequence, because it is much too rare.
For all practical purposes damage to health is non-existent in high-altitude experiments.
Q. Well, now, Doctor, going back to the subjects used at Dachau, did you ever personally talk to one of the subjects used?
A. No, from what I have said it must be pretty clear that I didn't. I was in Dachau only at this one discussion before the beginning of the experiments, and never again.
Q. I see, and the discussion that you had at Dachau was merely the preliminary meeting, and the inmates were selected at a later date; you didn't even see the inmates?
A. The principles were discussed, according to which the subjects were to be selected. They were of course actually chosen later. I know nothing more about all these events, because I was no longer informed of what was going on.
Q. Now, you didn't see the subjects, and you now testify before this Tribunal under oath from your own knowledge that the subjects used were volunteers?
A. Since I never saw them, I can't testify on that subject at all. I can only say that it was agreed with the camp commander what the nature of these experimental subjects was to be. That is the extent of my knowledge on the matter. After that I know nothing.
Q. Well, now, after that meeting, can you tell us whether or not you discussed the nature of the subjects, that is the character of the subjects with anyone; did anyone afterwards tell you where they got the volunteers?
A. I told you in my direct examination how things continued as far as I was concerned.
I heard nothing more about the progress of the experiments. Rascher was in Schongau and that was the reason why I asked Rascher through the letter him to report on what was going on. Rascher told me that he was still in Schongau, that the experiments in Dachau hadn't started yet.
MR. HARDY: At this time I would like to ask the court reporters to clarify the record wherein I have referred to figures, namely 8,000, 10,000, 14,000, or 15,000, if I have used the word feet, kindly strike that and include the word meters. I used the word feet erroneously.
This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Weltz, it has been called to my attention during the recess that you and I are conducting our examination much too rapidly, and the court reporters are having considerable difficulty in taking down the testimony, so, if you will attempt to cooperate, I will do the same and see if we can slow down a bit.
Q Doctor, we have heard here in this courtroom the opinion of various persons, namely, Professor Leibrandt, Rostock, Rose, Sievers, and several of the other defendants, concerning the capacity of a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment. What is your attitude about the capacity of a prisoner to volunteer for medical experiments?
A I believe that in this case one must clearly distinguish between the philosophical concept of free will and the legal free will on the one hand, and the natural, scientific determination of our actions. Every one of our actions is of course determined casually by circumstances which have preceded that action, by the nature of one's personality; and, therefore, any will is determined naturally, scientifically by innumerable causes. Quite independent of that consideration is another consideration which confronts me with a choice of whether to do something or not to do it. The poor person who volunteers because of a sum of money I have offered him is certainly not doing that of his own free will, in the other form; he is also being forced to accept money, because of his entire situation; that the other way of looking at it. If I have an opportunity either yes or no without being threatened directly because of my decision, one has to say that the prisoner has the same free right, to decide as is the case with any other human being. That obviously is the general opinion, because, otherwise, one could never submit an affidavit to a prisoner; he decides quite freely whether or not he is going to sign. He can make many other decisions, just as he can make that decision. I was asked in the camp whether I was willing to do a number of things which of course arose from the fact that I was imprisoned. Had I not been imprisoned, nobody would have thought of asking me these questions.
While imprisoned I was in a position to decide freely whether, for example, I wanted to do certain work, for an addition to my rations. This was a completely free decision. I really don't see why a prisoner basically is acting under different conditions than any other person. The prerequisite is, of course, that I am not threatened but am given an opportunity to make this decision freely.
Q Then, in substance, Doctor, it is your opinion that a person even though incarcerated, can actually, in the true sense of the word, be a volunteer for a medical experiment?
A Certainly.
Q Well, now do you think that in the case of concentration camp inmates -- wherein here in Germany we had a unique situation, that you had criminal prisoners and political prisoners -- do you think that applies to either category equally as well?
A There is no doubt in my mind that even in a concentration camp, volunteer decisions could be offered to the persons there in good faith, and that these persons were actually free in their decisions. If I am now subsequently told that did not happen in many cases, I can only say -- and that has already been said by Mr. Lutz -- that it was an enormous surprise for us at the end of the war to learn that these easy conditions of voluntariness were obviously not fulfilled, as we learned through the press. It would have been very easy for the State to comply with these conditions. No expense would have been incurred for the State, and everything could have been done absolutely irreproachably. For that reason, it was an enormous surprise for us that this condition which was so easy to fulfill, was obviously not fulfilled in so many cases.
Q Well, now then, considering the over-all picture of the status of the prisoners in the camp, the only real issue is what the particular prisoner will be offered to undergo the experiment. For instance, a criminal will be offered a pardon, a commutation of his sentence; or a political prisoner could be offered a pardon or a commutation of his sentence; or a political prisoner could be offered better food, like, for instance, you state that you might have been offered additional rations if you did certain duties.
Well, now, when you had this meeting, and Rascher showed you the authority of Himmler to use criminals for experiments: didn't it occur to you that the pardon would be perhaps allowing a criminal who, as you say, was legally condemned, to then return to society and mingle therein?
Didn't that element crop up in your mind?
A If one considers an atonement to society, I don't think that there is any difference whether this atonement takes the form of a certain among of time spent in a prison, or whether it is served by subjecting oneself to danger, in the interest of society. I don't know what the legal aspect is, and I never worried about it. Whether it was legally permissible or not was something for the State to consider. We were merely confronted with the fact than offer had been made to us to carry out experiments under certain conditions which we believed to be irreproachable. That was the situation we faced. It certainly was not our task to change these conditions in anyway. All we had to ask ourselves was this: Are these conditions objectionable, or are they not?
The conditions as they were told to me by Rascher, as they were contained in Himmler's letter, and as I agreed with Ruff, I consider and I want to repeat once more -- to be irreproachable from an international standard, and measured against the strict standards of peace.
Q Well now, were you familiar with the manner in which these subjects used in these experiments were approached?
A How these persons were approached?
Q Yes.
A I already said that the conditions were discussed with Pyrokowsky. After that I didn't learn anything else about the further course of events.
Q Well, now, before you talked -- or, while you were talking with the concentration camp commandant, did you at that meeting -- or did Ruff or Romberg or Rascher; one of your group -- instruct the concentration camp commandant on how many subjects they thought they would need? Did they say, "we will need ten subjects, or twenty subjects, or thirty subjects -and you pick thirty volunteers or a hundred volunteers?"
A Certainly. Naturally, Pyrkowsky would have to know about how many persons were needed.
Q How many volunteers did they decide at that meeting would be necessary?
A I can't remember now whether an exact figure was given.
Q Well, they were supposed to come from certain blocks in the camp, weren't they? You started to name two or three blocks wherein they would go and select the volunteers. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What did the concentration camp commandant say? Simply, we will use them from two or three different blocks" -- or just what was that conversation? Would you repeat it for me, please?
A I remember the following: Schnitzler first informed Pyrkowsky about Himmler's general order. Then we explained the extent of the experiments to Pyrkowsky -- what it was all about. And I am sure that he was given an approximate figure. Then Pyrkowsky considered from which blocks these persons were to be selected.
Q Do you know how many inmates were housed or quartered in one block?
A I know that now, after having lived in these blocks for a considerable period of time myself. Then, of course, I could imagine nothing by the expression "block".
Q Would you tell the Tribunal from your experience in Dachau since the war ended how many people can be housed in one block?
A We were up to 160 persons in a room; three beds, one above the other. There were six rooms.
Q That consists of one block?
A Yes, that was one barracks.
Q Then, in other words, you had six rooms with 260 persons to each room?
A Yes, that was the situation when the rooms were fully occupied, and that is what I experienced.
Q And he set aside two blocks to be used -- or two blocks from which they would select the volunteers?
A That I don't know.
Q I see. Well, you do know that they set aside one block to be used -or did the concentration camp commandant say, well, we will get our volun teers from Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4? Or did he say, we will get them from just Block No. 1?