(eBook PDF) Take a Look: Observation and

Portfolio Assessment in Early Childhood 7th

Edition pdf download

https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-take-a-look-
observation-and-portfolio-assessment-in-early-childhood-7th-
edition/

Download more ebook from https://ebooksecure.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooksecure.com
to discover even more!

(eBook PDF) Take a Look: Observation and Portfolio

Assessment in Early Childhood 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-take-a-look-observation-
and-portfolio-assessment-in-early-childhood-7th-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) Assessment in Early Childhood Education 7th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-assessment-in-early-
childhood-education-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Programming and Planning in Early Childhood

Settings 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-programming-and-
planning-in-early-childhood-settings-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Early Childhood Curriculum: Planning,

Assessment and Implementation 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-early-childhood-
curriculum-planning-assessment-and-implementation-3rd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Inclusion in Early Childhood Programs 7th
Canadian Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-inclusion-in-early-
childhood-programs-7th-canadian-edition/

(Original PDF) Early Childhood Development: A

Multicultural Perspective 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-early-childhood-
development-a-multicultural-perspective-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum:

Best Practices in Early Childhood Education 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-developmentally-
appropriate-curriculum-best-practices-in-early-childhood-
education-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Outdoor and Nature Play in Early Childhood

Education

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-outdoor-and-nature-play-
in-early-childhood-education/

(Original PDF) Partnerships Families and Communities in

Early Childhood 6th

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-partnerships-
families-and-communities-in-early-childhood-6th/
Brief Contents
Part I Principles
CHAPTER 1 Observation: An Introduction 3

CHAPTER 2 Lenses and Filters 46

CHAPTER 3 Observing Through the Lens

of Early Childhood Development 85

CHAPTER 4 Observing Children Through the

Lens of Play 144

Part II Protocols
CHAPTER 5 Narratives 197

CHAPTER 6 Methods of Observing and Recording 233

Part III Priorities

CHAPTER 7 Observing and Evaluating Children’s
Environments 297

CHAPTER 8 Observations That Give Cause for

Concern 364

Part IV Practices in Authentic Assessment

CHAPTER 9 Authentic Assessment and Portfolios 411

CHAPTER 10 Documentation and Reflection 472

CHAPTER 11 Analyzing Observations and Evidence

and Responding to Findings 513

v
 Ensuring There Are High Standards in Authentic 4. Reflect 542
Assessment 521 5. Analyze 542
Documentation as Authentic Assessment 521 Respond to Observational Data and Analysis 547
Context 521 Portfolio Assessment 547
The Roots of Authentic Assessment 523 Rubrics as Part of Portfolio Assessment 555
An Authentic Assessment Continuum 523 The Analysis 555
Triangulation: Strengthening Results 525 Culturally Appropriate Assessment 555
Critical Thinking and Analytical Processes 526 Inquiry and Co-Inquiry in Portfolios 556
A Problem with Critical Thinking 526 Group Observations: Analysis 556
Asking and Answering Questions 527 Analyzing Documentation 557
Intuition 527 1. General Considerations 558
Tacit Knowledge 528 2. Analysis within the Documentation of the Reggio
Analyzing Observations and Other Emilia Approach 559
Evidence 529 3. Analysis within the Documentation of the Project
A. Review the Material 529 Approach 562
B. Develop a Plan for your Analytical Process 529 4. Analysis within the Documentation of the Playing
C. Review What Information the Particular Method to Learn Approach 565
is Revealing 530 5. Learning Stories beyond New Zealand 571
Analyzing Children’s Art 532 Using Observational Data to Plan 571
D. Reduce the Amount of Material 536 Linking Observations and Authentic Assessments to
E. Summarize the Data (Observations and Other Programming 574
Evidence) 537 Individual Program Plans 575
F. Make Inferences and Check Them 537 Observation as Part of Curriculum Planning 581
Inferences 537 Using Planning Models 583
Analysis Flow 540 Planning Models Based on Observation 583
The Intellectual Activity of Analyzing 541 Current Directions in Curriculum Design 583
Why Go through This Complicated Process? 541
Summary 593
How to Make Your Analysis as Strong as
Key Terms 594
Possible 542
Weblinks 594
1. Look: Focus on Current Behaviour 542
2. Record Only What You See Using a Sound Glossary 596
Method 542 Bibliography 610
3. Sort and Summarize 542 Index 521

xii Detailed Contents

Preface
AUTHOR’S NARRATIVE

Courtesy of Sue Martin

Courtesy of Sue Martin

Sue while at The Froebel Institute, London England 1971; Sue, Toronto 2017, with grandchildren

My earliest observational studies of young children were undertaken at the Froebel

Institute in London, England, during the very early 1970s. The idea that even a naive,
young teacher could have something to offer children if their focus was observing really
appealed to me. “The so-called higher learning is usually based on observations which
the simplest person is in a position to make, if he knows how to use his eyes; he can
easily make observations better than those made by the costliest equipment...” (Froebel
1887, p. 148)
The observations I made of children included babies in day nurseries and older chil-
dren in local authority schools (infants and juniors aged four to eight years). I remember
observing one small group of junior boys when they heard that Chelsea had won the FA
cup final—it was 1970. In more serious scenarios, I observed children of various ages at
Froebel’s own independent school, Ibstock Place—some performing a few of the classic,
rather boring Piagetian tasks that demonstrated their understanding, or lack of it, of con-
servation or one-to-one correspondence.
A big learning experience, and for me an emotional journey, started at a hospital
where I observed several children who were warehoused with some extreme special needs.
That is where I undertook my major observational study of children who had untreated
spina bifida and hydrocephalus. In these places I practised my earliest observational skills;
mostly it was for my benefit so that I could acquire the skill of observation. As a young
teacher it was my intention to put this skill to good use in understanding the development
of these children and then for me to be in a better position to respond to their devel-
opmental needs. At that time I was strongly shaped by Froebel’s ideas, but Jean Piaget’s
developmental psychology was starting to influence the lens through which I learned to
see children. Developmental processes and structured domains provided a useful way of
getting to understand what I was observing, and they helped me to know what to look for.
Practice as a nursery teacher (with children aged three to five years) helped me appre-
ciate the realities of the classroom experience and how challenging it is to record obser-
vations and make sense of them while juggling responsibilities. I realized that teachers
needed tools to assist them with the practicalities, and I began my quest to provide them.
My first assistant, a nursery nurse (early childhood educator), and others in that role
taught me much about making observations from the rigours of their training programs.

Preface xiii
 Later, while teaching in colleges and universities in the UK, United States, and Canada,
I came to grips with the problems of those needing skills and knowledge in observation
and portfolio use when preparing to work with children of varying ages in a variety of con-
texts. They needed a thorough preparation to do an effective job in their role as observer,
recorder, and responder. We all grow as we develop personally and professionally. Having
the opportunity to see children in many different contexts; participate in international
organizations concerned with teaching, learning, and children’s rights; and further my own
education has contributed to what is offered in this text. A focus on adult education at
the master’s level (in Vermont) was helpful in understanding how adults learn and how to
provide them with learning experiences I could facilitate. My doctoral courses, especially
those with Dr. Suzanne Miller, and qualitative inquiry at University of Buffalo, New York,
offered almost as much learning as my teaching experience there. Having an established
network of teachers with whom I communicate around the world—from Finland to New
Zealand to Scotland and beyond—is exciting and keeps me fresh and challenged. My own
daughter’s involvement in Waldorf education and my grandson’s schools and child-care
experiences in Ontario have all contributed to my understandings. Researching and work-
ing on my other texts regarding young children have helped.
What started out as a skills-based text situated within a fairly traditional framework
has evolved into a much broader and deeper book. While it still offers help with the
essential skills necessary for good observational work, it also helps the reader—whether a
young early childhood educator or maybe a seasoned teacher—to place their work as an
observer within a culturally sensitive perspective and appreciate the complexities of their
role within their particular context. While at one point the lens we used was predomi-
nantly developmental, that viewpoint has to be challenged, at least in terms of assuming
that it is the only lens. One direction offering us a much wider set of lenses comes from
Vygotsky and socio-cultural theory. Barbara Rogoff has influenced Canadian practice in
education as well as other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, that entertain authentic
assessment more fully. Reggio Emilia’s influence is much stronger in Canada in recent
years, although adapted to practice here in what is a different socio-political climate.
The democratic principles of their programs support efforts to ensure children’s rights are
respected. These are issues that are important to how learning is perceived and how it
should be documented. “Making learning visible” is an idea integral to Reggio Emilia, but
it is becoming evident in curricula and formal documents that do not specify its source;
it is common practice. Similarly, different forms of documentation are practised across
Canada, with some more closely aligned with the Malaguzzi’s original ideas. We cannot
but shift our thinking and practice as we evolve professionally, but how that occurs will
vary. Working on a project for the YMCA of Greater Toronto, we developed a non-
prescriptive curriculum based on play, “Playing to Learn,” and documentation that fit the
responsive approach. That is one example of how forms of documentation are developing.
Margaret Carr’s insightful work has provided us with some very different ways of
thinking about how we can be with children and observe and record their experiences
through learning stories. Canadian Andy Hargreaves offers us insight into the newest
waves of global educational reform and is shaking up some of the traditional ways of
thinking about teaching and learning (Hargreaves 2012). Pasi Sahlberg, a supporter of
Hargreaves and a well-known writer and educator from Finland, the country that leads
the world in education, explains that Finland has no standardized tests (Sahlberg 2011)
and has a culture and belief system close to that of Canada—one that focuses on equity as
a central principle. We are certainly learning from these things, along with learning from
what were probably the biggest errors in early years education—the overly academic cur-
ricula for young children, along with inappropriate testing and what is sometimes called
datafication. There has not been adequate recognition of the needs of Canada’s First

xiv Preface
Nations’ Children, with three-quarters of those children having no access to child care.
My studies and recent experience have made this a pertinent issue. There have been some
changes in the past few years that have led to the development of new kindergarten edu-
cation and early childhood care and education programs across Canada at the provincial
level. Observation, assessment, and documentation requirements for both teachers and
early childhood educators are much clearer in these and are aligned with the philosophies
and pedagogies. Some collaboration between teachers and early childhood educators has
improved; there is also some better continuation of early years programming between
child care and schools. Ontario, as one example of professional recognition, has now real-
ized the value of including the observations of RECEs on kindergarten children’s formal
report cards within the education system.

The readers
Take a Look: Observation and Portfolio Assessment in Early Childhood is intended
for people who seek a deep and reflective approach to working and being with young
children. Most of those who use the book are likely to be learners who are in college or
university programs studying early childhood education or child studies at the diploma or
bachelor’s degree level. Previous editions have been used by master’s level students and
teachers taking upgrading or special certification courses.
Further to those, there may be readers from a variety of experiences and backgrounds:
practising educators, student teachers, kindergarten and elementary school teachers
(K–3), parents of young children, resource teachers, teachers who work with children
who have special needs/special rights, early interventionists, child and youth workers,
play workers, Montessori teacher education workers, inclusion specialists, educational
psychologists, child development researchers, researchers, online course students, child-
life specialists, and social workers. Throughout the book we address readers as educators,
because they are, whatever their specific role.

The text’s philosophy

The philosophy of the book is situated within current early childhood education practice,
but it is forward looking and responsive to individuals. The approach honours the historic
“giants in the nursery” (a phrase coined by David Elkind), including Froebel, Waldorf,
Montessori, Piaget, and Vygotsky. However, their ideas have needed to evolve, and as
they have had a strongly European influence, there was a need for deep research that is
international and reflective of other “ways of knowing.” We look to the future without
making assumptions about technology and social change except the will to work for social
justice.
There is much to be learned from Scandinavian countries, especially Finland, but
their culture differs from Canada’s, so replicating their approach isn’t helpful, except for
some details. The same goes for some approaches in other countries, but New Zealand’s
Maori people contribute to their early years curriculum and provide a model useful for
ours. The oral culture, respect for families, inclusion and small-scale, family-oriented
programming is desirable. Telling stories about our experiences helps us make sense of
our world, and this is true for children too, who can be part of learning story processes.
There is belief that the child is competent, their rights are of paramount importance,
and socio-cultural-political perspectives are essential to understanding who they are.
Families and communities are part of the child’s bioecological system, and that must be
recognized rather than seeing them as only their behaviours. We are fortunate to be able

Preface xv
 to be partners with parents, and they should be respected. Being part of the child’s life is a
significant responsibility and gift. We may collaborate with parents on any child observa-
tion process and offer opportunities for genuine sharing and meaning making. Taking a
look at children must be done through a lens that is shaped accordingly.
There is more than one way of offering a strong and appropriate program for young
children—and many inappropriate ones. Whereas we once saw children from a deficit
point of view, always seeing what they couldn’t yet accomplish, today we can see them
through a lens that is positive, and we build on developmental strengths. Development
unfolds naturally for most children, so observing closely and intervening little is often
helpful. As play is the kingdom of childhood, we should honour play for its own sake and
not only for what adults want to do with it. Play is a vehicle for learning and has enormous
possibilities—ones that we may observe with some reverence. Adult involvement can be
to create play environments, to help facilitate play, and to be play partners, not hijack
that play and spoil it. Academic programming has been shown to be damaging for young
children, although we should not underestimate a child’s learning power. Using a variety
of observation tools helps with understanding what is going on with a child’s development
and learning and what we might do to extend their play. Nurturing intrinsic motivation
is important at any point; our guidance approach needs to be gentle, firm, and supportive.
How we document the processes of development, play, and learning demands knowledge
of methods and specific skills; writing documentation without those, or without a deep
understanding of children’s development, makes the documentation worthless.
Reggio Emilia is far more than an approach or pedagogy; it is a way of thinking and is
steeped in values that emanate from its source. We have had much to learn from its ethos,
and the shift in thinking is not at a surface level; it is about democracy, rights, equity, and
co-inquiry. Its focus turns many traditional ideas on their heads, but how this fits Canadian
communities isn’t entirely clear. We take from it some parts, but that is lip service. Work-
ing with a Reggio-inspired setting warrants some different ways of thinking—a shifting
from positivistic ideas and a rejection of traditional developmental views, especially those
involving normative perspectives. This is a huge leap that is taken tentatively in the text
while being mindful of straddling two main educational views and observational practices.
Observing and documenting a child’s experience has numerous purposes, including
having adults understand it better. Assessment is useful if it is needed and authentic, but
it can be intrusive and detrimental to development if it involves inappropriate testing,
takes time, is stressful, or the results are used to make decisions that are unfair. There are
different ways of satisfying the observational requirements—a ministry’s specifications,
school board guidelines, or perhaps to show how each child has met particular learning
outcomes—but there is no need to compromise with one’s own philosophy. Understand-
ing observation principles and practices and knowledge of different methods of observing
and strong analytical skills may allow for a bridge to be built. Providing suitable docu-
mentation may be possible when they are requiring only formal assessments. Educators
may solve problems this way if they have these skills and knowledge base. The greatest
pedagogical problems come when there is an inability of a program to meet the account-
ability standards that are written in the language of a different paradigm. Take a Look
can teach practising educators to overcome this and addresses the basic challenges of the
student educator.

Instructor Choice
Take a Look may fit one specific course on observation and assessment or on documenta-
tion, or it might supplement one or more child development, curriculum, or guidance
course that has a strong observational component. Some instructors find the text straddles

xvi Preface
several courses in a program, and they might adopt it for use for more than one semester:
for a foundations course, for example, and then for a higher-level documentation courses,
or possibly to provide resources for a course on children who have special needs or rights,
or on observation and planning.
Knowing why educators observe and how it is the essence of practice and guides
all decision making is how the book begins. Understanding the professional principles
and ethical standards associated with observing is the foundation of practice, so the text
explains these early on.
The book offers readers a sequenced approach to learning to look at babies, toddlers,
and young children. There is repetition of the word lens, because it is essential to under-
standing how we see children and what we look for. One component of the lens is the
personal one that automatically shapes what we focus on and makes unintended meaning.
Examining inbuilt biases and a cultural world view are essential. These perceptions are
not necessarily wrong, but a good observer must be aware of them.
Observing through the lens of children’s development provides the backbone of what
to look for in children’s development and helps learners frame most future observational
work. This chapter helps learners link their observational work with child development
studies in a rich way. Having the opportunity to delve into play in an observation book
is unusual in the detail the text offers. Rather than merely explain play only theoreti-
cally, this new edition supplies a wide range of well-defined areas of play, along with clear
observable indicators. These can be used in a variety of ways.
Using narratives can be a challenge, especially for those learners whose first language
is not English or for whom it is a struggle to write. Suggestions are offered to address that,
and several different strategies provide easier ways to do what have always been a descrip-
tive challenge. Combining the variety of narrative options with a toolkit of observation
methods to help solve observational challenges, record patterns of behaviour, and address
the practical issues that most educators encounter rounds out a practical set of useful
methods.
Environments, as well as the children in them, are enormously important. A chap-
ter explores many aspects of how environments contribute to children’s experiences,
especially the importance of outdoor spaces, and greening. Looking for trouble can be a
negative mindset, but a chapter in the text does help educators sort out how they deter-
mine whether what they observe is a cause for concern. There may be developmental
challenges they notice or even potential abuse. The educator will have adequate skills to
navigate some tough decisions about course of action based on those tricky observations.
Portfolios can be much more than a collection of observations, art work, background
information, and so on, but if that were all they were they would be incredibly useful in
providing a through record of a child’s achievements, development, and change. Port-
folios have a multitude of purposes. That chapter outlines building on the skills already
acquired and using the observation techniques learned in earlier chapters. Developmental
profiles are also offered as examples of work done in the UK. Following that is a detailed
exploration of Reggio Emilia’s pedagogical documentation and other documentation
approaches. There is a shift in approach in this chapter to do the work justice, and the
reflective nature of documentation is highlighted with examples. Making meaning is a
part of the ongoing reflective process, and we pick that up again in the final chapter, deal-
ing with analytical processes that can be used with specific observational methods and in
general. Here, learners are supported to think critically and make appropriate judgments
and decisions about children from the observational data they collect. From making
developmental statements about what they recorded, learners are encouraged to respond
to their findings by planning according to various models.

Preface xvii
 Take a Look aims to help readers achieve the following general outcomes:
1. Develop a philosophy of observation and authentic assessment of children, and
articulate how this would work in practice.
2. Recognize the cultural and other lenses through which they observe; be aware of
how they shape how they influence how they perceive children; and collaborate with
parents in observational and assessment processes.
3. Compare and contrast a variety of observation and recording methods, and select
and use those that best meet the needs regarding individual children and children
in groups
4. Gain understanding of children’s development by practising narrative and other
methods of recording children in a wide variety of everyday situations.
5. Observe children engaged in different types of play, using a variety of recording
strategies.
6. Evaluate children’s environments by observing the way they are structured and used
by children.
7. Observe and respond appropriately to causes for concern in a child’s behaviour that
might indicate potential abuse, developmental challenges, challenging behaviour,
health concerns, or other issues.
8. Create a comprehensive observation, documentation, or portfolio record-keeping sys-
tem suited to the needs of an early childhood agency or school (may include achieve-
ment of learning outcomes, screening tools, developmental profiles, etc.).
9. Use documentation in one of several different forms (e.g., Reggio Emilia–inspired or
Playing to Learn) to “make learning visible.”
10. Write meaningful learning stories that capture children’s experiences.
11. Analyze observational, narrative, contextual, digital, or other data to make meaning
and/or create holistic and sympathetic assessments of individual children.
12. Advocate for authentic assessment in the context of cultural sensitivity.

Why Have a Seventh Edition?

The field of early childhood care and education has changed in the years since the first edi-
tions of this text. We are better informed by science, particularly of brain functioning, and
research that helps explain many aspects of children’s development, such as self-regulation
and resilience. Responses to the needs of families and broader social justice issues have
made a big difference to what is being offered, although demand is rarely met for spaces,
and advocates might say there is a long way to go for equity and affordable access to child
care. It is essential for student practitioners to learn about observation, documentation,
and assessment tools that reflect current theoretical perspectives, research, and practice.
Children’s rights are threaded through our work, with the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child impacting practice; these have been driving forces for change.
Respect, permission to observe, and including children in decision making are some of
the practical implications. It is notable that the increasingly strong pull toward Malaguzzi-
inspired influences is raising issues of democracy and children’s rights. Our personal image
of the child has a significant impact on our work; it shapes the lens through which we
see children. Malaguzzi ends his well-known article, “Your Image of the Child,” by saying,
“…[W]e need to give them [children] the recognition of their rights and of their strengths”
(https://www.reggioalliance.org/).

xviii Preface
 At the same time, we have grown as a profession. This is evidenced in several ways,
including improved status and accountability. The recent publication by the Ontario
College of Early Childhood Educators of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice for
Early Childhood Educators is a good example (www.college-ece.ca). Their statements on
curriculum and pedagogy include that ECEs
3. Are knowledgeable about methods in observation, pedagogical documentation,
planning, implementation and assessment in order to support children’s individual and
group learning experiences. (ibid., p. 10)
The Canadian Occupational Standards for Early Childhood Educators provides a
clear outline of what a professional should know and be able to do, including “Use a
variety of observation and documentation techniques” (http://www.ccsc-cssge.ca), and it
specifies how this relates to domains of development as well as play. From how the stan-
dards are written it is clear that children’s development is important, but the way in which
a role is performed is not framed according to one, single pedagogy.
In recent years, we have moved from the more mechanistic styles of observing and
assessing children. These were reliant on ideas of children’s development that assume
that stages are universal across different populations of children. Additionally, in major
work with First Nations, Jessica Ball at the University of Victoria speaks of cultural safety,
permissions, attitudes, the need to triangulate (do three or more observations to check
perspectives), and trying to find culturally relevant ways to observe and assess children
as important; one-size observation or assessment does not fit all. Today, we have a much
wider variety of tools that can assist us to observe in ways that contextualize chidren’s
development as well as see them as individuals.
Whatever the pedagogical approach, it is dependent upon educators observing chil-
dren closely. Educators need observation skills to learn about children, to create suitable
environments for them, and to respond to them sensitively and appropriately. This applies
across all paradigms. Some pedagogies lean toward recording and making meaning from
observations in particular ways, but the starting points are similar, and the techniques
overlap. Early childhood students need to learn about different approaches, even if their
placements require only one kind of practice. To be a professional requires having knowl-
edge that is broadly based and skills that are varied.
Play is the common denominator of all early childhood programs in Canada. The
challenge for many educators is to come to grips with the complexity of play. It is like
quicksand: one minute you think you are holding it, and the next it has fallen through
your fingers. The American Journal of Play recently published an article on “Vygotsky
meets Neuroscience” (Volume 9, Number 2 ,Winter 2017, or http://www.journalofplay.
org) in which Larry Vandervert suggests a theory that culture emerges from the cerebel-
lum. This is not an easy read, but it is an example of the extraordinary material that is
propelling understandings of what we actually observe in play. Play, being playful, see-
ing the potential for using play to facilitate learning and observing, and recording those
things in a variety of ways, with children of different ages, in different contexts, and
involved in different types of play, suggest a vast number of variables. Add to that a list of
possible observation techniques for recording and many ways to make meaning from play
behaviour, and it all points to some of the fascinating challenges.

New Features for the 7th edition

■■ New chapter on observing children through the lens of play featuring detailed
observable indicators of a wide number of areas of play—this is not covered in other
texts.

Preface xix
 ■■ Chapter on observing through the lens of children’s development is moved to the first
section and strengthened, with increased content on what to look for in children’s
development.
■■ New chapter that builds on previous material on Reggio Emilia and pedagogical
documentation, with threads relating to Reggio Emilia and socio-cultural perspec-
tives running throughout the text.
■■ Methods of observing and recording (some that are the more traditional techniques
updated) presented to show how they do not have to be used with biased outcomes
and that they can be part of authentic assessments of various types.
■■ Increased emphasis on the vision, or image, of the child and how that shapes how
educators observe. A chart of various alternative “visions” is offered in this edition.
Also, emphasis is on practice within authentic assessment. Even though many prac-
titioners may not use that term, their practice fits certain values and conforms to
observation practices that are respectful and culturally appropriate.
■■ Great new examples of learning stories, children’s art work, portfolios, and profiles,
as well as sample documentation.
■■ Colour photographs, including a wider variety of children in different settings
(including a children at a forest school, at international locations, First Nations chil-
dren, a Jewish Montessori school, home-schooled children, Syrian refugee children
in BC, outdoor environments, children’s art, home child care, sport, YMCA child-
care centres, Waldorf schools, infants and toddlers, children who have special needs/
rights, UK pupil profiles, learning stories, and teen parent program).
■■ Suggestions to request material from the Instructor’s Manual for further resources
on topics covered in the text as well as further samples, and new content on media
techniques, measuring outcomes, screening and assessment, rating scales and picto-
rial representations, and more.
There are trends in early childhood education in Canada and elsewhere, and these
have informed changes to the new edition. There is a clear shift toward Reggio Emilia–
inspired ideas, even when it is not explicitly stated in documents–many terms are used
that indicated the direction.

General Features of Take a Look

Every chapter begins with Focus Questions that enable readers to review their cur-
rent understanding and skill level, followed by Learning Outcomes that summarize the
knowledge readers will gain from the chapter. When important terms are used for the first
time, they are highlighted. They are listed at the end of the chapter so that they can be
checked, and the definitions are to be found in the Glossary.
Clear explanations of the methods of observation and information gathering are
essential to understanding, choosing, and using each. Definition boxes and Key Features
boxes help readers find basic information quickly and efficiently. Through the Lens of
Special Rights boxes give information on how to observe children with special needs.
Observation Samples that demonstrate good practice for the core observational and
recording methods are included in most chapters. As every observation is unique to the
child, the situation, the observer, and the chosen methodology, an “ideal” is difficult to
supply, but all the samples have identifiable strengths. Learners are asked pertinent ques-
tions to help them appreciate the strengths and challenges of each sample. In some cases,
where samples are lengthy, the first part is offered in the text and the remainder is avail-
able in the Instructor’s Manual.

xx Preface
 Weblinks to useful Internet sites are offered at the end of each chapter. They will
reinforce and extend students’ understanding of that chapter.

INSTRUCTOR’S SUPPLEMENTS
These instructor supplements are available for download from a password-protected sec-
tion of Pearson Canada’s online catalogue (www.pearsoncanada.ca/highered). Navigate to
your book’s catalogue page to view a list of those supplements that are available. Speak to
your local Pearson sales representative for details and access.

Instructor’s Manual (ISBN 978-0-134-88564-3) A significant resource in itself, the

Instructor’s Manual contains history and teaching notes; information on student assess-
ment, including authentic assessment assignments and grading rubrics; and many other
valuable resources. There is material for PowerPoint use, answers to chapter-opening
Focus Questions, and examples of observations to assist learners to understand the poten-
tial of some of the methods. Instructors will also find additional observation and recording
methods, such as rating scales, rubrics, and pictorial representations as well as blank forms
that may be copied that assist observers to carry out standard methods. Complete chapters
about measuring outcomes, screening and assessment, and media techniques, which were
included in earlier editions of Take a Look, are also included in this Instructor’s Manual
package.

Test Bank (978-013-488565-0) Based on the Take A Look, seventh edition text, the
Test Bank contains chapter-specific multiple-choice, true/false, matching, and essay-type
questions and answers to assist instructors in building their tests and final exams.

Learning Solutions Managers Pearson’s Learning Solutions Managers work with faculty
and campus course designers to ensure that Pearson technology products, assessment
tools, and online course materials are tailored to meet your specific needs. This highly
qualified team is dedicated to helping schools take full advantage of a wide range of edu-
cational resources by assisting in the integration of a variety of instructional materials and
media formats. Your local Pearson Canada sales representative can provide you with more
details on this service program.

Preface xxi
 Acknowledgments
“We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit”
Albert Schweitzer

I’ve worked with Pearson since Take a Look was first published in 1994, and I appreci-
ate their support and their commitment to meeting the needs of learners with the right
materials. College and university teachers across the country have supported each edition,
both in its development stages and by using it in the classroom. Several advocacy and
research organizations provided resources and access to key people. Their contribu-
tions have strengthened the content. Of particular help were faculty and staff at Nova
Scotia College of Early Childhood Education, St. Clair College, George Brown College,
McGill University, Ryerson University, Confederation College, York University, Windsor
College, Langara College, Mothercraft College of Early Childhood Education, and
Seneca College; thank you for your help.
Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children provided our family with an education we didn’t
want. Our grandson, Nicky, had two surgeries for brain tumours there, and we were over-
whelmed by every element of their work; from clown to janitor, and nurse to pediatric
neurosurgeon. Nicky’s photos are in these pages, and he is currently back at school. Child
Life specialists at the hospital use play techniques and many of the observational strategies
used here. Their work informed mine.
Educa and Storypark both supplied useful information about online observational
records, portfolios, and documentation, including samples. Snoezelen, a controlled multi-
sensory environment, is used with children with various special needs. Natural Pod con-
tributed material about designing children’s environments, and Community Playthings
was a useful resource for considering environments and aesthetically pleasing wood
furniture and resources on play.
Beyond Canada, I was helped by, among others, the Association for Childhood
Education International, the National Association for the Education of Young Children,
the Center for Research in Early Childhood, the Association for Professional Development
in the Early Years, the National Education Union, the Institute of Education UCL,
the New Zealand Ministry of Education, the University of Oulu, Resources for Infant
Educarers, the International Play Association, UNICEF, the American Journal of Play, the
Association Montessori Internationale, Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education,
Fair Test, the Illinois Early Learning Project, Alliance for Childhood, and Nursery World,
the early years journal in the UK for which I was the education editor over 30 years ago.
Researchers and authors who supported me in my quest include Ioanna Palaiologou,
author of a major text on observation skills used in the UK; Eeva Hujala, who has worked
on electronic portfolios in Finland and, also in that country, Pasi Sahlberg, who has
provided great bridges explaining Finnish education to North Americans; Svane Frode, a
Norwegian architect and designer of play spaces; Mine Conkbayir whose work, recently
published in the UK, on early childhood and neuroscience is shifting understanding in
how we see and work with young children; Guy Roberts-Holmes, a primary/early years
teacher and university professor focused on “datafication” and, particularly, the inap-
propriate use of baseline assessments with four year olds; and Suzanne Axelsson who
is researching at “Interaction Imagination” and documentation of children’s play and
experience.
Susan Stacey from Nova Scotia offered samples and explanations of pedagogical doc-
umentation. She is well-known for her work in emergent curriculum and documentation,

xxii Acknowledgments
and I’m most grateful for her insights. Hy-Lou Grant, a psychotherapist based in Toronto
gave her expertise on gender issues. Freshteh Bibishahrbanoui, the director of a child-care
centre and teacher at George Brown College, was able to offer extensive details of her
program, how it is play based, and how she uses online systems for recording observational
material.
Orah Chaye at Caspian Consulting in Vancouver taught me about the experiences
of Syrian refugees, how their program staff overcame language barriers when observing
the children, and much more. Jane Cawley who was the executive director and teacher
at Nova Scotia College of Early Childhood Educators until her recent retirement has
provided myriad sources, ideas, feedback, and samples with each new edition of Take a
Look. I am so appreciative.
Others who provided guidance and resources are Letha Marchetti, who shared obser-
vational material about various maturational issues regarding physical development and
on her work in vestibular disorders; Alistair Bryce-Clegg, a head teacher and consultant;
Julian Grenier, a well-respected nursery school and children’s centre head teacher and
author; Tom Hobson, known as Teacher Tom, offered insights in progressive play-based
curricula; and Sydney Gurewitz Clemens, a teacher educator who is influenced by Ashton
Warner and Malaguzzi in wanting to see children “with new eyes.”
Practitioners who provided insights and samples make a very long list, and I am most
grateful to all of them. They include Roseann Murphy who was the director of Little River
School based on RIE. She works hard to address matters concerning respect and human
rights, consent, dignity, storage of information, privacy, and permission, and her advice on
children who have suffered adverse childhood experiences was invaluable.
Sarah Jean-Jones in Nova Scotia gave permission for us to use one of her learning
stories, as did Karen Leif from New Zealand. Tom Shea, the “imaginator” at Fafu (UK);
Pat Rambaugh, a play advocate (USA); Tom Drummond, life-long educator (USA) and
Karen Green, an Australian advocate for children’s rights, programs for indigenous chil-
dren, outdoor education, and risky play all shared their insights and experiences.
Several child-care centres and schools contributed to this new edition. A large num-
ber of photos and samples are from the YMCA of Greater Toronto. My thanks to Lorrie
Huggins for enabling that, and to all the children, parents, educators, and management
involved. These centres implement the “Playing to Learn” curriculum that includes docu-
mentation as an integral part of its cycles.
Little Knights Early Childhood Program allowed us to use their photos, and I want to
thank the parents, the educators, and Heidi Wolf the director. D-Dees Day Nursery was
found by chance while viewing photos online. Every aspect of what is offered there is a
rich play-based experience. Thanks so much to Debbie Gunn, and congratulations on her
centre’s many awards. Mahowenchike Family Development Centre in Thunder Bay offers
a program emphasizing identity and self esteem, for both indigenous and non-indigenous
children. This setting is interesting for its physical environment and First Nations pro-
gram influences in play and other experiences.
The Montessori Jewish Day School in Toronto, Ontario, provided a wonderful back-
drop to observe children in a unique environment that blended the implementation of
Montessori principles and classic materials along with Judaic learning. I am most grate-
ful to Regina and Andrea Lulka for the opportunity to research aspects of the programs,
access material about the children, and use photos in this edition of Take a Look.
Donna Himmelman, an experienced kindergarten teacher at the South Shore
Waldorf School in Nova Scotia offered a tremendous amount of information about play
within the Steiner approach, as well as photos and observational information.
The Discovery Child Care Centre and Forest School in Barrie, Ontario, follow an
emergent curriculum philosophy with the broad aim of connecting children with nature.

Acknowledgments xxiii
 Karen Eilerson founded the programs and shared her knowledge and experience, includ-
ing how she developed ways to capture children’s important experiences in different types
of observations, journals, floor books, and portfolios.
Insightful practice in a very traditional English school (dating back to 1549!) was an
unexpected discovery. The UK early years curriculum is extremely demanding for young
children, yet Alicia Blanco-Bayo managed to find ways of making it meaningful and
developmentally appropriate. Her observations and record keeping are extensive, and she
contributed examples of profiles she prepared. I am grateful for her extensive observa-
tional samples as well as her overall support of this project.
Monika Obermeier supplied photos and information illustrating a shelter and pro-
grams for teen parents. The kinds of play observable in these programs have important
characteristics that are relevant to understanding how to observe children at play, plan
accordingly.
Two contributors to my work, Amanda Pelletier (in New York State) and Meagan
McGovern (in Washington State) are reflective home schoolers, and they provided very
broad learning opportunities for their children through play and discovery rather than
formal schooling, which they find may be destructive and harmful to motivation. Ms.
Pelletier, an artist, used extensive journaling to record her children’s work and progress,
and a small representation of their experiences along with photos and observational notes
is included in this edition. I am lucky to be able to share them in this volume.
Numerous parents and children helped support the development of this text and gave
permission for photos and observations of their children to be used to highlight points.
One parent shared observations, photos, and information about her son, along with a
heartfelt message to educators to see her son, who has diagnosed special needs (or special
rights) in a positive way. The following families include those with children who have
given permission to use photos, children’s art work, observations, and/or documentation:
Suganaqueb, Cohen-Gustum, Oaten, Harrison-Tse, Williamson/Burdette, Lewkowski,
McKay, Martin/Ratledge, Shead, Franco, Palmer/Brown, Lakin, Playle/Ducharme, Platt,
Slater, Barry, Joseph, Morris, and McGran.
This edition includes several photos of children from First Nations communities. I
was privileged to be able to form relationships with several extended families but sad-
dened to see up-close the conditions and challenges that so often shaped their lives. In
a land as large, beautiful, and wealthy as Canada, they and their children deserve better.
I am most grateful to the early childhood instructors who reviewed last edition of
Take a Look, supplying useful ideas for improvement, especially the shift to a cultural
perspective and a focus on international best practices: Kathleen Archer, Nova Scotia
Community College; Shirley Bainbridge, Mohawk College; Janet Berezowecki, Assiniboine
College; Georgette Bigelow, Seneca College; Andrea Dawson, Langara College; and
Sheryl Smith-Gilman, McGill University.
I also wish to express my thanks to the editorial and production team at
Pearson Canada: Kim Veevers (Acquisitions); Madhu Ranadive and Katherine Goodes
(Development); Michelle Bish (Marketing); Christina Veeren (Production), and the
various people who contributed by copyediting and proofreading the manuscript and
researching permissions and photos to help complete the Seventh edition.
My own children and grandchildren have contributed to Take a Look. I am grateful
to each of them, with a special nod to my daughter Cassandra for venturing out to shoot
some of the pictures I needed.
My husband Andrew has a background in publishing and copyright, and he has
become practiced at working on my bibliographies, juggling the permissions file, answering
editorial queries, and generally running interference for me. Saying thank you isn’t enough.

xxiv Acknowledgments
 Part One

Principles
Chapter 1
Observation: An Introduction
Chapter 2
Lenses and Filters
Chapter 3
Observing Through the Lens
of Early Childhood Development
Chapter 4
Observing Children Through
the Lens of Play

We need principles to guide us in

With many thanks to Andrew Martin and his young companion.

doing anything important. Observing

babies and young children is impor-
tant because we learn so much from
doing it, and that learning helps us
know how to do a better job working
with children. While looking is what
we do much of the time, learning to
observe takes skill and is founded
on good practice and values that
are part of the professionalism of
educators. Ethical issues and chil-
dren’s rights are particularly signifi-
cant. These are core parts of Canadian
Occupational Standards and Provincial
ethical standards that frame practice.
(See, for example, www.eco.ca/reports/
Capturing the connection between an adult and baby is not national-occupational-standards/.)
always easy, but we need to follow professional principles, As we learn to look with greater
including requesting permission and ensuring that the intention, we appreciate that there
picture is kept confidential and stored securely. However,
photography is a useful tool for observers. continues ▶

1
▶ continues

isn’t only one way of seeing anything

or anyone—particularly young chil-
dren. Becoming aware of our own
cultural lenses, and those of others,
has a significant impact on how we
observe and how we interpret what we
see. There are many other lenses, too,
and they provide fascinating multi-
dimensional possibilities for seeing
children in different lights.
Observing children through the
lens of early childhood development,
helps us keep focus on important
aspects of behaviour and learning.
Knowledge of theories and explana-
tions of young children’s behaviour is
a starting point, but educators need
an understanding of what to look for
as the observe children. Play is prob-
ably the most important activity of
children’s lives, and it has a strong
relationship with their development.
Having a detailed guide to observ-
ing children’s play helps make sense
of something that is complex and
multi-layered.

2 P a r t #1 P aPrrti nTci it pl el e s
 Chapter 1

Observation: An Introduction

Meeting for the first time, these two children take a look at each other. After a few
minutes they were observed holding hands and walking toward a craft table.
Courtesy of Enecita Franco and Simon Martin.

Focus Questions Learning Outcomes

1 Why do you think that observing children is By reading this chapter and applying the ideas to prac-
important? tice, learners will
2 Of the informal observations you have already ■■ identify a variety of reasons to observe young
made, what have you already learned about observ- children
ing children?
■■ recognize and apply the principles of observation
3 What rules should there be about making observa-
■■ discuss issues relating to making observations
tions of other people’s children?

Chapter 1 Observation: An Introduction 3

 People Watching
A mother gazes at her newborn infant. The baby looks at her. At first the baby’s sight is
unfocused, yet she is attracted by the configuration of her mother’s face. The infant is,
perhaps, “programmed” to have this interest. It encourages social interaction and leads
to emotional bonding. Drawn to faces and signs of movement, the infant learns through
watching as well as through her other senses. All babies are born to be people watchers.
Mother and baby look at each other!
“Don’t stare,” says a mother to her young child, in the expectation that she can
shape the child’s instinctive behaviour. Some parents may think that staring is intrusive,
although a child is learning from what she sees. Required behaviour is learned more by
example than by verbal reinforcement; watching others is integral to the process of social
learning.
Have you ever watched the hellos and goodbyes being said at an airport? If you were
not too caught up in your own emotions, you might have wondered about the demonstra-
tions of feeling, the honesty of expressions, or the social or cultural aspects of particular
behaviours. What are the stories behind all those faces? If you have ever done this kind
of thing, then you, too, are an observer.
“I did not expect her to do that,” “She must be frustrated to react that way,”
subjective distorted, partial, and “He is a very quiet person” are all informal but subjective interpretations of
biased, lacking in analysis, or observations. We all observe, deduce, and respond in all of our communications with
unreliable other people. Most adults go through this process without really considering what is
happening.
The same process occurs when we are more conscious of making observations. The
method way of doing things; significant difference is that when we use observation as a method for collecting informa-
some methods are formal tion as professionals, we must do it with intentional focus and do it carefully, systemati-
procedures and may even be cally, accurately, and as with as much detail as possible.
ritualized

Why Observe
We observe children because we are interested in them, and close attention to their
behaviour leads us to understand them. Observation usually allows us to protect, nurture,
and help us know how we can support their learning. Adults involved with young chil-
dren in varying capacities will observe children for a variety of reasons.
research a process of Research Morris (1979) and Quilliam (1994) show that we are innately drawn to
qualitative and/or quantita- children’s faces in a way that makes us want to protect and care for them, as well as to
tive inquiry involving stating
read “their signs.” The interest in faces that the babies have, as we mentioned earlier,
hypotheses (reasoned assump-
tions), testing assumptions is an interest that appears to remain important as we grow to be adults. People are not
using factual observations, all the same—some pay greater attention to people and their environment and are bet-
processing data, and drawing ter placed to gain observation skills. Sallie Wylie’s broad overview statement regarding
conclusions observation captures an excellent response to the question as to why we should observe,
and it applies to situations beyond child care and education: “Observing young children
and recording their behavior is considered essential practice in every quality child care
centre in Canada” (1999, p. 1).
Quite probably, readers of this textbook will have different roles and responsibilities
in working with children. In each part of the role and responsibility there will be aspects
of observation. Some of the roles you might have may concern family relationships, such
as being a parent or uncle to one or more children. There may also be people with whom
you have non-family ties but whose children play a significant part in your life. There
may be friends whose children you spend time with and maybe babysit or coach; you

4 Part 1 Principles
might have varying responsibilities. As an early childhood education student or maybe
as you prepare for teaching or if you are enrolled in a child and youth work program or,
alternatively, one focused on working with children who have disabilities or special needs,
you will be challenged to find out why there is a need to observe children in whatever
situation you find yourself. You will encounter children and observe them as an essential
part of learning about your roles in different work contexts, defining your responsibilities
in each of those settings, discovering much about the children, and revealing who you
are in the lives of children. Coming to understand exactly why observation is important,
and how to observe, is a professional responsibility that drives most of the other parts of
your work.
A common sense answer to the “why observe?” question suggests the response, “so
that the observer learns about the child.” Most students also suggest that they enjoy
observing children, and that’s a really good reason; we should enjoy observing them.
While college and university students are engaged in their own learning, and observa-
tional learning about children is always important, we must always hold in mind that we
observe children, ultimately, for the child’s benefit. Our need is secondary.
There are so many reasons why we observe children that it is difficult to draw up a
list of a manageable size. We will start with two points of view and then expand those
ideas, presenting them in list form so that is easier to access a large number of ideas. Most
readers of this text have a defined professional interest in observing, so the following com-
ment by Sue Wortham and Belinda J. Hardin may be meaningful to you: “Observation is
the most direct method of becoming familiar with the learning and development of the
young child” (2016, p. 129). They affirm that the commonsensical answer is a good one.
The details within the single sentence quoted above offer an answer to the question of
why we observe with three points.
1. Observers learn from observing children—that is somehow part of their professional
role.
2. Observers become familiar with information about a child’s learning.
3. Observers become familiar with information about a child’s development.
Those three things are huge in almost any profession involving children. Observa-
tion guides so much of what we do; the “giants in the nursery,” (a phrase coined by David
Elkind 2015), including Pestalozzi, Montessori, Steiner, Vygotsky, and Piaget, each showed
how important observing children was to developing their perspective, philosophy, or
theories. They each found ways of approaching the three points mentioned above. The
ways in which they described the adult’s observational role, how they perceived children’s
learning, and how they explained children’s development had some similarities, but there
were also deep differences. What is important here is that they each used observing chil-
dren, a process that they appeared to enjoy, to help them understand children’s learning
and development. They developed theories to explain what they saw after reflecting on
their carefully written notes. We are also meaning makers who try to make sense of what
we observe.
In contrast to Wortham and Hardin’s perspective on observation, another approach
has an added dimension, as it has us observe children so that we get to understand both
the children and ourselves. Friedrich Froebel (another of Elkind’s giants of the nursery),
was the “inventor” of the kindergarten—the concept of the child’s garden. He suggested
this dual purpose of observation, although it was probably not his intention for all obser-
vations of children to be thought of having this potential, but this is difficult to discern
from his rambling writing. Froebel’s idea of the dual aspects of observation allows for rich
insights that help us know who we are in the lives of children.

Chapter 1 Observation: An Introduction 5

Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
SECOND FUEHRER DECREE, 5 SEPTEMBER 1943, CONCERNING THE
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

1943 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 533

Second Fuehrer Decree of 5 September 1943, Concerning the

Medical and Health Services
In amplification of my decree concerning the Medical and Health
Services of 28 July 1942 (RGBL. I, p. 515) I order:
The Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services, General
Commissioner Professor Dr. med. Brandt is charged with centrally
coordinating and directing the problems and activities of the entire
Medical and Health Services according to instructions. In this sense
this order applies also to the field of Medical Science and Research,
as well as to the organizational institutions concerned with the
manufacture and distribution of medical material.
The Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health services is
authorized to appoint and commission special deputies for his
spheres of action.

Fuehrer Headquarters, 5 September 1943

The Fuehrer
Adolf Hitler
The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery
Dr. Lammers

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-082

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 7
 FUEHRER DECREE, 25 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE
APPOINTMENT OF A REICH COMMISSIONER FOR MEDICAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES

1944 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 185

Fuehrer Decree of 25 August 1944, Concerning the Appointment of a

Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services
I hereby appoint the General Commissioner for Medical and
Health matters, Professor Dr. Brandt, Reich Commissioner for
Sanitation and Health [Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health
Services] as well, for the duration of this war. In this capacity his
office ranks as highest Reich Authority.
The Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services is
authorized to issue instructions to the offices and organizations of
the State, Party, and Wehrmacht which are concerned with the
problems of the medical and health services.

Fuehrer Headquarters, 25 August 1944

The Fuehrer
Adolf Hitler
The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery
Dr. Lammers
The Head of the Party Chancellery
M. Bormann
The Chief of the OKW
Keitel

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-227

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT II
 FUEHRER DECREE OF 7 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE
WEHRMACHT

Copy

The Fuehrer
and
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht
Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944
Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht [Chief OKW]
Ops. Staff of the Wehrmacht (WFSt)
Org. (I) No. 5008/44g

To obtain a better concentration of powers in the field of the

Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, I order in extension of my decree
of 28 July 1942:
1. The Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht will direct,
as far as the special field is concerned, the Medical Services of the
Wehrmacht and the organizations and services installed within the
framework of the Wehrmacht. He is authorized to issue orders,
within the special field of his jurisdiction.
2. I approve the service regulation for the Chief of the Medical
Services of the Wehrmacht issued by the Chief of the Supreme
Command of the Wehrmacht. It will replace the one of 28 July 1942,
which was in effect up to now.
3. The personal union of the Chief of Medical Services of the
Wehrmacht and the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army/Army
Physician [Heeressanitaetsinspekteur/Heeresarzt] is herewith
cancelled as of September 1944.
[Signed] Adolf Hitler

The Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht

Reference No. 5008/44 secret
Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944
 SERVICE REGULATION
for the Chief of the Medical Services of the
Wehrmacht[15] [Chef W San]

I
Subordination and Powers
1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will be
directly under the Chief of the Supreme Command of the
Wehrmacht. He will have the position of an office chief [Amtschef]
and the disciplinary power according to paragraph 18 of the
Wehrmacht Regulation for Disciplinary Action (WDSTO) and the
other powers of a Commanding General.
2. He has authority according to No. 1 of the Fuehrer Decree
over the following:
a. The Chief of the Army Medical Service, the Chief of the Navy
Medical Service, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe,
the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, and the medical
chiefs of the organizations and services employed within the
framework of the Wehrmacht while they are acting in the area of
command of the Wehrmacht.
b. All scientific medical institutes, academies, and other medical
institutions of the services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS.

II
Duties
1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is the
adviser of the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht in
all questions concerning the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and
of its health guidance,
2. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will direct
all the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht[16] as far as the special
field is concerned, with regard for the military instructions of the
Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the
general rules of the Fuehrer’s Commissioner General for the Medical
and Health Departments.
[page 2 of original]
3. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will inform
the Fuehrer’s Commissioner General about basic events in the field
of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht.
He will represent the Wehrmacht to the civilian authorities in all
mutual medical affairs and he will protect their interests in
connection with the health measures of the civilian administrative
authorities.
He will represent the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht to the
medical services of foreign powers.
4. Other duties of the Chief of the Medical Service of the
Wehrmacht will be:
a. In the medical-scientific field:
Uniform measures in the field of health guidance, research and
the combating of epidemics, and all medical measures which require
a uniform ruling within the Wehrmacht. Evaluation of medical
experiences.
Medical matters of the recruiting system, of welfare and
maintenance and of prisoners of war.
The presidency of the Scientific Senate of the Medical Services of
the Wehrmacht.
b. In the organization and training system:
Uniform and planned direction of the allocation of persons and
material.
Unification of the tables of organization and the tables of
equipment of the medical troops and the equal provision of the
forces with medical personnel.[17]
Direction of a uniform development of the medical equipment.
[A1]
Unification in the sphere of hospital matters, balanced planning,
and allocation of hospitals.
Direction of the distribution of wounded and sick soldiers to the
hospital installations of the Wehrmacht.
Direction of the voluntary sick-nursing within the Wehrmacht.
 Assimilation of the organization and of the training of the new
generation of medical officers. Balancing of the proportion according
to the requirements of the services. Supervision of the ideological
and political training of the new generation of medical officers during
the course of their studies in cooperation with the Reich Student
Leader. Training and advanced training of medical officers.
Direction of a uniform training of the medical subaltern
personnel.[A2]
c. In the field of matériel:
Centralized procurement and direction of fresh supplies of
medical matériel of all kinds for the Wehrmacht.
d. General and fundamental pharmaceutical matters.

III
Special Powers
1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is entitled
to request from the services all records necessary for the
performance of his assignments.
2. He is entitled to express his view on the appointment of
medical officers or medical leaders in the Wehrmacht and also in the
units of the Waffen SS which are subordinated to the Wehrmacht—if
the position is that of a Generalarzt or a higher position. Before
filling these positions, his opinion has to be heard.
3. He is entitled to inspect the medical service, the medical units,
the medical troops and installations of the Wehrmacht after having
informed the high command of the service concerned or the
headquarters of the units concerned. He is entitled to give orders on
the spot in the field of medical service, if these are necessary for the
removal of emergencies and do not disagree with fundamental
orders of the services. He has to inform the high commands of the
services concerned about the results of the inspections and about
the issued orders.
4. Fundamental changes in the organization of the medical
service, in the subordination of medical officers, noncommissioned
officers, and enlisted men and of the officials and employees of the
medical service require the consent of the Chief of the Medical
Services of the Wehrmacht.
5. Deputy of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht
shall be the senior Medical Inspector or the Medical Chief of one of
the services. The Chief of Staff will act as his deputy for routine
duties.
6. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht issues
orders necessary for the performance of his assignments under the
name:
“Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, Chief of the Medical
Services of the Wehrmacht.”
As far as necessary the services will execute his orders and requests
through army channels.
7. For the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht the
new table of organization of 1 April 1944 is taking effect.
The necessary personnel are to be taken from the services, etc.,
above all from their medical inspectorates or offices.

[Signed] Keitel

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-303

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 32

TABLE OF ORGANIZATION OF THE “AHNENERBE” FROM THE FILES

OF THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY

“THE AHNENERBE”
The President
The Reich Leader SS H. Himmler

Trustee
SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Walther Wuest

The Reich Business Manager

SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Wolfram Sievers
 Reich Business Management

Deputy Reich Business Manager

SS Obersturmfuehrer Herbert Menz

Consultant Secretary
Dr. Gisela Schmitz-Kahlmann

The Special Commissioner of the Reich Leader SS

Sturmbannfuehrer Bruno Galke

Administration
SS Untersturmbannfuehrer Hans-Ulrich Huehne

Graduate of a Business College Alfons Eben

The task of the Research and Instruction Group “The Ahnenerbe”
is investigation of space, spirit, accomplishments, and heritage of
the Indo-Germanic peoples of Nordic race, the vivification of the
results of their research and their transmission to the people.

Realization

Establishment of instruction and research centers

Assignment of research work and conduct of research
expeditions
Publication of scientific works
Support of scientific work
Organization of scientific congresses

The Ahnenerbe Foundation

The purpose of the Foundation is to further the endeavors

of “The Ahnenerbe”, registered society, by donations from
the proceeds of the capital of the Foundation and from the
capital itself. To interest people who declare themselves
 willing to put certain contributions either once or at fixed
intervals at the disposal of the Foundation.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-422

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 33

LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO SIEVERS, 7 JULY 1942, CONCERNING

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN “INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH” WITHIN THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY
The Reich Leader SS Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 July
1942
AR 48/6/42
[Stamp]
1. Personal Staff Reich Leader SS
Archives, File No. AR/22/21

SECRET!

1. To the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe

SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers
Berlin-Dahlem
I request the Ahnenerbe
1. to establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research,
2. to support in every possible way the research carried out by
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, and to promote all
corresponding research and undertakings,
3. to make available the required apparatus, equipment,
accessories and assistants, or to procure them,
4. to make use of the facilities available in Dachau,
5. to contact the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative
Main Office [Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt] with regard to the
costs, which can be borne by the Waffen SS.
[Signed] H. H. [Heinrich Himmler]
2. Copy forwarded to the Chief of the Economic and Administrative
Main Office,
SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl
Berlin—Lichterfelde—West
with the request to take note.

By order,
[Signed] Brandt
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
M. 7.7.
Certified True Copy:
Signed M.
SS Obersturmfuehrer
7.7.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-894

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 38

FUEHRER DECREE, 9 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE REICH

RESEARCH COUNCIL

1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 389

Fuehrer Decree of 9 June 1942 Concerning the Reich Research

Council
The necessity to expand all available forces to highest efficiency
in the interest of the state requires, not only in peace time but also,
and especially, in war time, the concentrated effort of scientific
research and its channellization toward the goal to be aspired.
Therefore, I commission the Reich Marshal Hermann Goering to
establish as an independent entity a Reich Research Council, which
is to serve this purpose, to take over its chairmanship himself and to
give it a charter.
Leading men of science above all are to make research fruitful for
warfare by working together in their special fields. The hitherto
existing Reich Research Council which was under the Reich Minister
for Science and Education [Wissenschaft, Erziehung und
Volksbildung] is to be absorbed by the new organization.
The means needed for research purposes are to be established in
the Reich budget as far as they will not be raised from contributions
(for research) of circles interested in research.

Fuehrer Headquarters, 9 June 1942

The Fuehrer
Adolf Hitler
The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery
Dr. Lammers

Table of Organization of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Service, drawn by
the defendant Karl Brandt

[15]
To Wehrmacht in this connection belong: Army, Navy,
Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS units under orders of the Wehrmacht
and the organizations and services engaged within the framework
of the Wehrmacht. [Footnote in original document.]
[16]
Same as Footnote 15 above.
 [17]
As to the Navy these rules will not apply or will apply with
restrictions only to personnel on board. [Footnote in original
document.]
 VII. EXTRACTS FROM ARGUMENTATION AND
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE

A. Medical Experiments

1. HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt,
Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg,
Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility
for and participation in criminal conduct involving high-altitude
experiments (par. 6 (A) of the indictment). During the course of the
trial, the prosecution withdrew this charge in the cases of Karl
Brandt, Handloser, Poppendick, and Mrugowsky. Only the defendants
Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were convicted on this charge.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the high-altitude
experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendants
Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz. An extract from this brief is set forth
below on pages 92 to 113. A corresponding summation of the
evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected
from the closing briefs for the defendants Ruff and Sievers. It
appears below on pages 114 to 140. This argumentation is followed
by selections from the evidence on pages 140 to 198.

b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS

RUFF, ROMBERG, AND WELTZ

Early in the war it was deemed necessary to conduct research in

the field of high altitudes because of the higher ceilings reached by
the Allied fighter planes. This created the problem of availability of
human experimental subjects, inasmuch as animal experimentation
was considered inadequate. The heights involved were 12,000
meters to over 20,000 meters, hence it goes without saying that
such experiments were very dangerous and, as indicated by the
evidence, volunteers were not to be had. This difficulty was
overcome by the use of concentration camp inmates without their
consent. The first indication of this criminal plan appears in a letter
from Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician, in a letter to the
Reich Leader SS dated 15 May 1941:
“For the time being, I have been assigned to the
Luftgau Kommando VII, Munich, for a medical selection
course. During this course, where research on high-altitude
flying plays a prominent part, determined by the somewhat
higher ceiling of the English fighter planes, considerable
regret was expressed that no experiments on human beings
have so far been possible for us because such experiments
are very dangerous, and nobody is volunteering. I therefore
put the serious question: is there any possibility that two or
three professional criminals can be made available for these
experiments?” [Emphasis supplied.] (1602, PS, Pros. Ex.
44.)
It further appears in this Rascher letter of 15 May 1941 that
Rascher had conferred with another Luftwaffe physician and that a
tentative agreement had been reached wherein it was determined
that the experiments on the concentration camp inmates, in which
the experimental subjects were expected to die, would be performed
at the “Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der
Luftwaffe” at Munich:
“The experiments are being performed at the Ground
Station for High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe
[Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der
Luftwaffe] at Munich. The experiments, in which the
experimental subject of course may die, would take place
 with my collaboration. They are absolutely essential for the
research on high-altitude flying and cannot, as it had been
tried until now, be carried out on monkeys, because
monkeys offer entirely different test conditions. I had an
absolutely confidential talk with the representative of the
Luftwaffe physician who is conducting these experiments.
He also is of the opinion that the problems in question can
only be solved by experiments on human beings.” (1602-
PS, Pros. Ex. 44.)

Weltz testified that a meeting took place in the summer of 1941

on the occasion of a visit by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke to Luftgau
VII. (Tr. p. 7056.) In a discussion between Weltz, Kottenhoff, and
Hippke, Hippke gave his approval in principle to the experiments if
they were deemed necessary. (Tr. p. 7065.) In the course of the
summer of 1941, Rascher went to Weltz and proposed the slow-
ascent experiments, but Weltz turned them down as unnecessary.
(Tr. p. 7176.) This testimony of the defendant Weltz clearly indicates
the jurisdiction Weltz had over Rascher’s activities. This refusal to
permit the performance of slow-ascent experiments bears out the
contention of the prosecution that the defendant Weltz had the
power and the authority to intervene at any time. Weltz’ actions
throughout the entire development of the plans for the experiments
were not merely negative. He was in full accord with the entire
enterprise and he realized that Rascher did not possess the
necessary qualifications to conduct these experiments without the
assistance of a specialist in this particular field of aviation medicine.
Furthermore, although Rascher was attached to Weltz’ Institute he
had no other definite work. (Tr. pp. 7078 and 7187.) To find a
specialist to collaborate with Weltz and Rascher proved to be a
difficult task. Weltz first approached members of his own institute,
namely Lutz and Wendt, men of considerable reputation in this field,
but to no avail. Wolfgang Lutz appeared before this Tribunal and
testified that Weltz requested his assistance, as well as the
assistance of Wendt, but that they both refused on moral grounds.
(Tr. p. 269.) Weltz did not deny this, but contended that his
questions to Lutz were purely rhetorical. (Tr. p. 7069.)
The inability to interest a specialist in the field of high-altitude
research to collaborate with Rascher explains the cause for the lapse
of time between the date of the authorization by Himmler and the
actual date of the commencement of the experiments, viz, July 1941
to February 1942. Weltz was not a specialist in high-altitude
research. Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania, and Rascher was
comparatively a novice in this field.
The next step taken by Weltz, which led to the completion of the
plans to conduct the high-altitude experiments on human beings at
the Dachau concentration camp, was his invitation to the defendants
Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. These two men were
experts in this field and were interested in further research in
altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters. Weltz testified that he made a
trip to Berlin and that Ruff accepted his invitation to collaborate with
Rascher. (Tr. p. 7188.) The evidence shows that Weltz approached
Ruff and Romberg as he needed expert assistance. (NO-437, Pros.
Ex. 42; NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47; NO-191, Pros. Ex. 43.) The defendant
Ruff stated that he first heard of the plan to carry out research on
inmates of the Dachau concentration camp from the defendant Weltz
and that Weltz desired collaboration between Romberg and Rascher
and between Weltz’ Institute and Ruff’s Institute. (Tr. p. 6653.)
Furthermore, Ruff testified that Weltz stated:
“It is, of course, best if you or Romberg take part in
these experiments because Romberg had already carried
out such parachute descent experiments and is therefore
the man who knows about the whole problem of rescue
from high altitudes.” (Tr. pp. 6654-5.) Ruff further testified
that Weltz suggested that a new series of experiments in
parachute descents from great heights should be carried
out at Dachau on prisoners. (Tr. p. 6653.)
From this moment on, the experimental program started to move
as a mutual undertaking. This is better stated by the defendant
Weltz:
 “This was to be a mutual undertaking, during which Ruff
was to detail Romberg and I was to detail Rascher. Ruff
naturally was to be chief of Romberg and I, as a matter of
course, was to be Rascher’s chief. Ruff couldn’t give any
orders to Rascher. Rascher was a captain in the Medical
Corps and Ruff was a civilian. I couldn’t give any orders to
Romberg because Romberg was a civilian while I was a
soldier. Naturally, this is how the distribution was. It had to
be that way. Furthermore, it was clear that I couldn’t in any
way retire. I could not just leave Rascher to Ruff. It was
quite clear that I had to participate in these experiments by
exercising supervision, but not by actively participating.” (Tr.
p. 7079.)
This evidence certainly rebuts Weltz’ vague contention that he
was not in search of specialists in high-altitude research to
collaborate with him and Rascher. Without the efforts of Weltz the
experiments could never have taken place. In brief, to conduct these
experiments at altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters Weltz found it
necessary to secure the assistance of experts in the field, as well as
a low-pressure chamber which would meet his needs. Ruff and
Romberg possessed both, and in the above manner Weltz skillfully
engineered the whole plan.
Immediately after Weltz had completed his negotiations with
Ruff, he called a meeting at his institute in Munich, wherein
discussions of a technical nature concerning the experiments were
held. At this meeting, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz were in
attendance. This meeting was at Weltz’ Institute and Weltz presided
over the meeting. It was further decided that a second meeting was
to be held at Dachau a few days later in order to make the
necessary arrangements with the camp commander. This trip took
place in order to discuss technical preparations with the camp
commander, and to arrange details concerning the selection of the
experimental subjects. Again, Weltz, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher
were in attendance, in addition to Piorkowski, the camp commander,
and Schnitzler of the staff of the Reichsfuehrung SS. (NO-476, Pros.
Ex. 40; NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42; NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47; Tr. pp. 7086-7.)
After the arrangements with the camp authorities at Dachau had
been completed, the shipment of the low-pressure chamber from
Berlin was the next problem to overcome. As pointed out earlier,
Weltz desired the low-pressure chamber which was possessed by
Ruff and Romberg for use in the experiments at Dachau. It is
interesting to note that Weltz had had a low-pressure chamber
available in his own institute from 1938 on (Tr. p. 7178.), and that
Weltz testified that volunteers from his student body or from the
Luftwaffe were available. (Tr. pp. 7180-83.) Despite this, it was
necessary to resort to the concentration camp for inmates and, in
order to conduct the experiments, a mobile pressure chamber had to
be brought down from the Ruff Institute in Berlin, as the low-
pressure chamber in the Weltz Institute was not mobile. The mobile
low-pressure chamber from Ruff’s Institute at Berlin was driven to
Weltz’ Institute in Munich and arrived in the late afternoon. This
chamber was driven to Munich by employees of the DVL and turned
over to Weltz. On the following day, SS drivers came from Dachau,
received the keys to the chamber and drove it to the concentration
camp. (Tr. p. 7199.) The purpose in camouflaging this activity was to
deceive the employees of the DVL because Weltz and Ruff did not
want them to know that the low-pressure chamber was to be used in
an experimental program at a concentration camp. This is borne out
by the fact that a completely new set of drivers came from the
concentration camp to take the chamber to Dachau. This particular
action of secrecy is noticeable when it is considered that Dachau is
merely 12 kilometers from Munich and actually the DVL drivers had
to go out of their way to deliver the chamber to the Weltz Institute.
Ruff testified that the secrecy in the transfer of the chamber to
Dachau was for security reasons. (Tr. p. 6550.)
From the evidence thus far summarized, and indeed from Weltz’
own admission, it is clear that he must be found guilty of the high-
altitude crimes committed in Dachau. This was a criminal
undertaking from its inception. It was known to all concerned that
the proposed experiments were certain to result in deaths and that
they were to be performed on nonvolunteers. That is proved by the
very first letter to Himmler. Weltz supported the ambition of his
subordinate, Rascher, to perform the experiments on behalf of the
Weltz Institute. He secured the collaboration of Ruff and Romberg.
He obtained the consent of Hippke and a research assignment from
the Referat for Aviation Medicine under Anthony and Becker-
Freyseng. He took care of the technical arrangements and
participated in conferences with Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher which
decided on the experiments to be performed. Weltz did more in
having the experiments performed than anyone else. His guilt is
clearly established on this evidence alone. It is not disputed that
Rascher was subordinated to him until February 1942. Weltz’ main
defense is that he had Rascher transferred from his institute late in
February 1942 and, hence, cannot be held responsible for what
happened thereafter. Even if true, this is no defense. Weltz had long
since participated in the criminal enterprise. He cannot be heard to
say that “Yes, I did all that, but I’m not responsible for the actual
consequences which my acts were expected to bring about.” The
deaths which occurred in these experiments were foreseeable from
the beginning. Weltz does not escape responsibility for those deaths,
even if it were true that Rascher was not subordinated to him when
they occurred. But that is not true, as the evidence proves.
The actual date of the commencement of the experiments at
Dachau was 22 February 1942, which was recalled by the witness
Neff because it was his birthday. (Tr. p. 606.) From this point on, the
defendant Weltz takes the position that he had no knowledge of the
work and that, in fact, Rascher was relieved from his command.
Weltz admitted that it was his obligation to supervise Rascher and
that the existing arrangement between Ruff and Weltz was that this
was to be a joint undertaking. Ruff exercised supervision over
Romberg, and Weltz was to exercise supervision over Rascher. Weltz
conceded that he was Rascher’s disciplinary superior and was
responsible for the scientific programs to which he assigned Rascher.
(Tr. p. 7088.) Despite this chain of command and working
agreement, Weltz takes the position that Rascher endeavored to
work independently and that he did not desire to report to Weltz. (Tr.
pp. 7088-9.) It became necessary for Weltz to order Rascher to
report to him twice a week and, as a result of this order, Weltz
alleges that Rascher came to him in the middle of February and that
they had their first conversation since the meeting in Dachau and on
that occasion, Rascher informed Weltz that the experiments had not
even started yet and that he had nothing to report. (Tr. p. 7089.)
Weltz testified that Anthony, under whom Becker-Freyseng
worked in the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, in Berlin, telephoned
him to inquire how the Dachau experiments were progressing and
that he could only reply that nothing had been reported to him.
Rascher reported to him for the second time, whereupon Weltz
informed Rascher that a telephone call had come through from
Berlin and that he wanted to have some clarification as to how
things stood at Dachau. Rascher did not want to report anything to
Weltz at the second conversation, and Weltz maintains that he told
Rascher that he was going to Berlin to clear up the situation and
obtain a clear decision whether or not Rascher was to report to him.
Then, on the occasion of the third visit from Rascher, Weltz,
expecting a sharp argument, asked Wendt of his office to come into
the room, and on that occasion he confronted Rascher with the
alternative either to report to him or to leave the institute. Weltz
asserts that at that time Rascher showed him a telegram from
Himmler, which read: “Experiments are to be kept secret from
everyone.” (Tr. p. 7089.) Thereupon, Weltz maintains that he ordered
Rascher from his institute and that he then composed a letter,
together with Wendt, to the Luftgau and asked for Rascher’s
immediate transfer and that within a few days Rascher’s assignment
had ended. (Tr. p. 7090.)
The memorandum of Nini Rascher to Himmler of 24 February
1942 shows that at that time Rascher was still subordinate to Weltz.
(NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47.) She reviewed the history of the experiments
and pointed out that on 24 July 1941 Rascher, Kottenhoff, and Weltz
were to be in charge. Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania in
August and thereby excluded from the group. She stated that it was
Weltz’s task to initiate the technical execution of the experiments.
Apparently because of a fear of moral objections on the part of
Hippke, Weltz had postponed the beginning of the experiments but
had finally secured Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. A
conference took place in Dachau between Piorkowski, Schnitzler,
Weltz, Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff. Weltz had given the assurance
that he would take care of the authorization for Rascher. Mrs.
Rascher complained that on 18 February, after Rascher had carried
out all the preparatory work, Weltz stated: “Now that you have
removed all obstacles from the path of Romberg with the SS, the
authorization must be handled differently.” Mrs. Rascher stated that
both Romberg and Rascher agreed that Weltz was not needed
anymore and that both opposed his attempts to oust Rascher in
favor of himself.
Weltz contended that the truth of the matter was that he wished
to get rid of Rascher, and that Mrs. Rascher had misrepresented this
to Himmler so that it would appear that he was trying to eliminate
Rascher in order to keep the work exclusively to himself. (Tr. p.
7099.) There can be no question that Mrs. Rascher was quite correct
in her analysis of the situation. What possible reason could Weltz
have for desiring, just before the experiments began, to eliminate
Rascher unless he wished to participate himself personally and thus
secure a larger share of the scientific credit? Certainly he had
supported Rascher from the very inception of the proposal to
perform the experiments. Be that as it may, the proof shows that
Rascher continued to participate in the experiments as a subordinate
of Weltz. This is clearly proved by a file memorandum of Schnitzler
of the SS office in Munich, dated 28 April 1942. (NO-264, Pros. Ex.
60.) This memorandum shows that Rascher was still subordinated to
Weltz, and that Weltz was insisting on active participation in the
experiments and full responsibility. The RLM [Reich Air Ministry] had
inquired of Weltz how long the experiments would last, and whether
it was justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long. Rascher, who
was chafing under his subordination to Weltz, requested that his
assignment be changed to the DVL [German Aviation Research
Institute], Dachau Branch.
Weltz’ only reaction to this document was that the date was
wrong and should read 28 February 1942 instead of 28 April 1942.
(Tr. p. 7099 ff.) Weltz conceded on cross-examination that, assuming
the date 28 April 1942 was correct, then of course Rascher was still
his subordinate at that time. (Tr. p. 7232.) The file memorandum of
Sievers dated 3 May 1942 settled this question beyond any doubt.
This memorandum reads as follows:
“SS Untersturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher reported in
Munich on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference
with Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz. Weltz requested that Dr.
Rascher be withdrawn if by Friday, 1 May 1942 he (Weltz)
were not taken into consultation regarding the experiments.
The Reich Leader SS was informed accordingly. He ordered
SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff on 30 April 1942 to send a
telegram to Field Marshal Milch requesting that Dr. Rascher
be ordered to the German Aviation Research Institute
[Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt], Dachau Branch,
and there to be at the disposal of the Reich Leader SS.”
(NO-1359, Pros. Ex. 493.)
After having been confronted with this document Weltz in effect
conceded that his previous testimony about the transfer of Rascher
had been, to say the least of it, incorrect. He said:
“Yes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If
I had this file note of Sievers in addition to my other
documents, I would have known that the note of Schnitzler
was correct, and that there must be another possibility to
explain Mrs. Nini Rascher’s letter. This letter, on the other
hand, cannot be explained now. I can only try to
reconstruct the dates from the documents which were
available here, since I no longer know them today.” (Tr. p.
7239.)
On redirect examination by his defense counsel, Weltz was asked
again to clarify the situation with respect to Rascher’s subordination,
and he replied:
 “Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came
to naught, I should not like to try again. I simply can see
no way to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.”
(Tr. p. 7251.)
In a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Wolff it is again made
evident beyond any doubt that Rascher was subordinate to Weltz:
“In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical
inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments
carried out by the SS and Air Force at Dachau have been
finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems
essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of
experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high
sea, would be important. These have been prepared in
immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major (M. C.)
Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M.
C.) Rascher will be made available until further orders in
addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air
Corps.” (343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62.)
Thus it is clear that Weltz must be held responsible for the
numerous murders which resulted during the high-altitude
experiments in Dachau. Not only did he participate in plans and
enterprises involving the commission of these experiments, but he
also was the direct superior of Rascher who, together with Ruff and
Romberg, actually executed the experiments.

Status of Prisoners Used in the Experiments

After Weltz had successfully secured the collaboration of Ruff and

Romberg, he held a meeting at his institute in Munich late in
December 1941, or early in January 1942. (Tr. p. 6657; Tr. p. 7086.)
Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher attended this meeting primarily
to lay the groundwork for the technical arrangements necessary to
perform the work at Dachau. It is alleged by all the defendants that
the question regarding the status of the prisoners to be used was
discussed and that Rascher had assured them that the subjects
would be exclusively volunteers. (Tr. p. 7086; Tr. p. 6232; Tr. p.
6869.) In fact, the defendants state that Rascher exhibited a
communication from Himmler which provided that the subjects must
be volunteers under all circumstances. (Tr. p. 6869.) Unfortunately,
this letter has not been produced by the defense. Needless to say,
the defendants take the position that such experiments were to be
performed on habitual and condemned criminals and that
considerations were to be offered to said “volunteers” in the event of
their surviving the experiments. As a matter of fact, Romberg
explicitly states that he saw the “Himmler letter” and he was able to
observe the words “criminal” and “volunteer” therein. (Tr. p. 6870.)
The assertion on the part of the defendants that Himmler had
ordered that the criminals used be volunteers is ridiculous and
incredible when one considers that Himmler instructed Rascher to
pardon these unfortunate inmates only if they could be recalled to
life after having been subjected to the type of experiments outlined
in Rascher’s first interim report, wherein it is shown that the
experimental subjects had stopped breathing altogether and their
chests had been cut open, i. e., autopsy had been actually
performed on them. (1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49.)
In this instance, Himmler graciously stated:
“3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart,
the experiments should be specifically exploited in such a
manner as to determine whether these men could be
recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then,
of course, the person condemned to death shall be
pardoned to concentration camp for life.” (1971-B-PS, Pros.
Ex. 51.)
It is absurd to give any weight to the allegation that Himmler
provided that the subjects were to be volunteers. These men knew
that volunteers could not be secured and that was the very reason
for going to Himmler. This is shown in the letter from Rascher to
Himmler requesting that criminals be made available due to the fact
that “nobody is volunteering.”
 The defendant Ruff admitted on the stand that the experiments
conducted on themselves and colleagues in Berlin concerned
altitudes up to 12,000 meters and that the question of what would
happen between 12,000 and 20,000 meters was subsequently
investigated at Dachau. (Tr. p. 6679.) It is obvious, therefore, that
Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher were unwilling to perform such
investigations on themselves.
The evidence has proved that the subjects used in the high-
altitude experiments were not, with a few minor exceptions,
volunteers. The inmates were simply selected at random in the camp
and forced to undergo the experiments. Russians, Poles, Jews of
various nationalities, and Germans were used. Russian prisoners of
war were included, as were many political prisoners. Approximately
180 to 200 inmates were experimented on, about 70 to 80 being
killed as a result. Not more than 40 of these had been “condemned
to death.” Among those killed were political prisoners. (Tr. pp. 613-
18; also Tr. p. 432.) This testimony of Neff, who was the inmate
assistant in the experiments and who identified Ruff, Romberg, and
Weltz, is corroborated by Rascher’s cable asking if Himmler’s
amnesty rule applied to Russians and Poles who had been
extensively used in the experiments. (1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52.) The
nationality and status of inmates were easily discernible from the
badges worn on their uniforms. Ruff and Romberg could have told
from these that foreign nationals and political prisoners were being
used. (Tr. pp. 616-7.)
The witness Neff’s testimony reveals that approximately 10
prisoners were selected as permanent, experimental subjects, but
they were not volunteers. (Tr. pp. 611, 622, and 430.) There were,
however, a few “volunteers” according to Neff. He stated that “there
were certain volunteers for these experiments, because Rascher
promised certain persons that they would be released from the camp
if they underwent these experiments.” (Tr. p. 614.) Neff clearly
pointed out that in view of the way the prisoner subjects were
selected and used it was not possible to know who were volunteers,
if any, and who were not volunteers. (Tr. pp. 606-26.) They were not
brought in and used as a separate group. Moreover, the evidence
shows that these promises were not kept. (Tr. p. 615.) The only
evidence of a release is the case of Sabota, as outlined by Neff, and
in that case he was sent to an undesirable special SS commando
group. No death sentences were commuted.
The defense claims for Ruff and Romberg that the experiments at
Dachau were divided into two groups. The first group, the so-called
Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments, was noncriminal, while the
second group, the Rascher experiments, encompassed all the
crimes. They contend that the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments
were conducted independently of the Rascher experiments and that
the 10 original subjects mentioned by Neff and Vieweg were used
exclusively for the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments. Despite the
testimony of the witnesses and the weight of the documentary
evidence, they would have the Tribunal believe that by a wondrous
working of fate these were all volunteers and no crimes occurred.
This defense is of course inapplicable to Weltz. Rascher was
subordinated to and subject to his orders.
It should be noted that Romberg and Rascher who tested
themselves in the altitude chamber at Dachau with an air pressure
equivalent to 12,500 and 13,500 meters altitude respectively, for 30
to 40 minutes, discontinued these experiments on themselves
because of intense pain. (NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66.) Yet, these men
proceeded, as proved by their own joint report, to conduct
experiments on prisoners which they would not perform on
themselves.
The experimenters took no responsibility or even interest in
seeing to it that the alleged promises made to the subjects to induce
them to “volunteer” were kept. (Tr. p. 6993.) Although Romberg said
he had no channel to Himmler, he also admitted he visited Himmler
with Rascher in July 1942. (Tr. pp. 7015-6.)
In this connection, we must consider the convenient line of the
defense. By limiting the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments to the
10 subjects, we find that they further allege that no deaths occurred
in those experiments as opposed to a considerable number of deaths
in the Rascher work. But the witness Neff, in describing the first day
of the experiments, emphatically stated that the first series of
experiments was not carried out on volunteers. Furthermore, the
defendant Ruff was also present during these experiments. (Tr. p.
622.) The defendants’ contention that the experiments were in two
groups is explicitly denied by Neff. He testified that Romberg not
only experimented with Rascher on the original 10 subjects, but also
on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction fabricated by
the defendants cannot possibly be credited in the light of Neff’s
testimony. On being asked the question whether Romberg
experimented only on the 10 original subjects, Neff replied:
“Experiments were conducted not only with these ten
persons but, for example, in a series of experiments which
Romberg also conducted on a large number of other
prisoners. The distinction which the defense counsel tries to
make between experiments included in the report to the
Luftgau or of death—it is impossible for me to make this
distinction and to distinguish between those which fell into
one category or the other.” (Tr. p. 691.)
Which is to be believed, the testimony of Neff, plus one’s
common sense, or the self-serving statements of the defendants?
This is a question the Tribunal must answer. There is no such thing
as half a murderer. These defendants are responsible for those
murders or they are not responsible. There is not one scintilla of
evidence to support the ridiculous contention that a group of
volunteers, segregated for use by Romberg, wore different colored
shirts so he could tell them apart and were treated with the greatest
deference. But that is just what Ruff and Romberg ask the Tribunal
to find. It is absolutely impossible in the face of the record.
This, alleged disassociation of Ruff and Romberg from the
“crimes committed exclusively by Rascher” is in complete
contradiction to the acts of these defendants during the
experiments, which after all speak much louder than their present
testimony. Neff testified that Romberg personally witnessed at least
five deaths during the experiments, and that he made no effort to
stop them nor did he even protest after the event. (Tr. p. 619.)
Romberg admitted seeing three deaths and that he knew that five to
ten other murders took place in his absence. (NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40.)
The first death Romberg saw, he said, occurred in April. He reported
this to Ruff. Yet the experiments were not discontinued. They went
on to the end of June and still more deaths occurred which Romberg
saw. To say the least of it, these defendants made themselves a
party to murder by continuing the experiments. This is true no
matter how innocent they may have been up to the first death. They
were duty bound to stop the experiments immediately, remove the
chamber, and force a court martial of Rascher. They did none of
these simple and obvious things. They did not for the very reason
that deaths were expected from the very beginning and were a part
of the experimental plan. Romberg saw these men die and did
absolutely nothing. It was within his power to save them at the time.
He said he was operating the electrocardiograph. He knew precisely
by their heart action when the subjects were in danger of dying. He
also knew this from his knowledge of reaction to high altitudes. He
could see and read the pressure gauges. He could have turned the
pressure down and saved their lives by simply moving the gauge
which was within arm’s reach. He was a bigger man than Rascher.
Force could have been used if necessary. Not only did he do nothing
while the helpless victims died before his very eyes, but he assisted
in the autopsies.
After all these murders had occurred and were known to them,
Ruff and Romberg still went on. They issued a joint report on the
experiments in the name of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher in July
1942. (NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66.) They were still collaborating with this
admitted murderer and gave him the cover of their scientific
reputation. Romberg received a medal for his work in the
experiments on the recommendation of Rascher. (1607-A-PS, Pros.
Ex. 65.) Romberg was still supporting Rascher in September 1942
and was to have made an oral report to Milch on the experiments
with Rascher. He wrote a memorandum on Rascher’s behalf
explaining that the report was not given because Milch was unable
to receive them at the scheduled time. This same memorandum,
signed by Romberg, proves that he was anxious to continue high-
altitude experiments with Rascher and asked for Milch’s permission.
 He wrote:
“Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he was willing to report to
the State Secretary (Milch) our wishes concerning the
distribution of the report and the continuation of the
experiments. * * * Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, still on
11 September, our wishes concerning distribution and
confirmation of the experiments to the State Secretary. The
State Secretary had approved the distribution schedule, and
said that a continuation of the experiment was not urgent.”
(NO-224, Pros. Ex. 76.)
In the meantime, the murderous freezing experiments had been
started with the Luftwaffe team of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher.
Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz all heard the report of those experiments
in Nuernberg in October 1942. (NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93.) Hippke
himself wrote his special thanks to Himmler on 8 October 1942, and
said: “When the work will need once more your sympathetic
assistance, may I be allowed to get in touch with you again through
Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher?” (NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72.)

Analysis of the Experiments

The experiments at Dachau in the field of high-altitude research

were conducted to determine human reactions to altitudes above
12,000 meters. The defendant Romberg stated that four series of
experiments were conducted (a) slow descent without oxygen, (b)
slow descent with oxygen, (c) falling without oxygen, and (d) falling
with oxygen. (NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40.) The first two tests were
designed to simulate descent with parachute open while the latter
two a free fall from an airplane before the parachute opens. As
pointed out in Dr. Rascher’s first interim report on the experiments,
an additional problem was to be solved, namely, the determination
whether the theoretically established norms pertaining to the length
of life of human beings breathing air with only a small portion of
oxygen and subjected to low pressure correspond with the results
obtained by practical experience. This interim report of Rascher’s
states as follows:
“2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human
being above the normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have
not been conducted at all, since it has been a foregone
conclusion that the human experimental subject
(Versuchsperson-VP) would suffer death.”
The experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg
proved the following:
“Experiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack
of oxygen and the low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13
km. altitude did not cause death. Altogether 15 extreme
experiments of this type were carried out in which none of
VP died. Very severe bends together with unconsciousness
occurred, but completely normal functions of the senses
returned when a height of 7 km. was reached on descent.
Electrocardiograms registering during the experiments did
show certain irregularities, but by the time the experiments
were over the curves had returned to normal and they did
not indicate any abnormal changes during the following
days. The extent to which deterioration of the organism
may occur due to continuously repeated experiments can
only be established at the end of the series of experiments.
The extreme fatal experiments will be carried out on
specially selected VP’s otherwise it would not be possible to
exercise the rigid control so extraordinarily important for
practical purposes.” [Emphasis supplied.] (1971-A-PS, Pros.
Ex. 49.)
Thus, it is clear that the experiments were planned and executed
with the intention that some were to terminate fatally. This report
covered the period up to the first week in April and mention of
deaths and autopsies is made. This quite obviously was the instance
when Romberg says he saw his first death and autopsy, although he
tends to place the date as the latter part of April. (NO-476, Pros. Ex.
40.) If the experiments had been stopped there the lives of many
subjects would have been saved.
The defendants argue that, while the experiments may have
killed persons, they did not involve torture and pain. This is on the
theory that the subjects lost consciousness before any sensation of
pain. This anomalous defense is completely disproved by the
photographic exhibits showing the expressions of pain of the
subjects. (NO-610, Pros. Ex. 41.) as well as the defendants’ own
report on the experiments. (NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66.) The reaction of
one subject was described in terms such as “severe altitude
sickness, spasmodic convulsions”. In a self-experiment by Romberg
and Rascher, the latter’s reactions were described as follows:
“After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on
the right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right
leg which increased continually as though Ra’s [Rascher’s]
whole right side were being crushed between two presses.
At the same time there were most severe headaches as
though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became
continually more severe so that at last the discontinuation
of the experiment became necessary.” (NO-402, Pros. Ex.
66.)
There is no case on record where an experiment on an inmate
was discontinued because of pain.
Ruff and Romberg take the position that they would be most
unwilling to kill prisoners in the course of an experiment. They insist
that their experiments with Rascher were concerned with the
problem of explosive decompression and on parachute descent from
high altitudes, whereas Rascher alone worked on sojourn or a more
prolonged stay at high altitudes, and that it was in Rascher’s
experiments that prisoners were killed. This again is the artificial
division of the experiments into the criminal and noncriminal which
has already been proved to be spurious. But here again, the two
self-experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher included in their
joint final report as mentioned above were experiments on
prolonged stay at high altitude, a subject which they now claim was
exclusively Rascher’s. The only reason that this experiment did not
end fatally was the fact that it was interrupted in time because of
intense pain. Moreover, on page 11 of the final report by Ruff,
Romberg, and Weltz the following is said: “This is worthy of special
attention because in this case a person has fully recovered mentally
at an altitude of 8.3 km. (27,230 ft.), after 3 minutes of the most
severe lack of oxygen, while in altitude endurance experiments at
this altitude severe altitude sickness sets in after about 3 minutes.”
[Emphasis supplied.] (NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66.) Here, again, it is
proved from their own report that Ruff and Romberg, as well as
Rascher, were concerned with sojourn at high altitudes.
Experiments, in which prisoners were killed, are reported in
Rascher’s report to Himmler of 11 May 1942. (NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61.)
Some prisoners were killed by keeping them at 12,000 meters
without oxygen for 30 minutes; one was killed at 20,000 meters
when exposed there for about 6 minutes without oxygen. These
prisoners were autopsied to ascertain if bubbles of gas, called air
embolism in Rascher’s report of 11 May 1942, were present in the
blood vessels of the brain and other organs when dissected under
water. Some “Jewish professional criminals” who had committed
“Rassenschande” (race pollution)[18] were killed for another reason:
“To find out whether the severe psychic and physical
effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation
of embolism, the following was done: After relative
recuperation from such a parachute descending test had
taken place, however before regaining consciousness, some
VP’s were kept under water until they died. When the skull
and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had
been opened under water, an enormous amount of air
embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the
coronary vessels and the vessels of the liver and the
intestines, etc.” (NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61.)
It should be noted that these murders were committed in connection
with the parachute descending tests, not prolonged stay at high
altitudes, and this was the very subject being studied by Ruff and
Romberg. Romberg testified that he was present at the death of
three of these prisoners, one in April and two in May 1942, and
witnessed an autopsy of one, in which gas bubbles were present in
the blood vessels of the brain. He reported these deaths to Ruff.
(NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40.) Neff testified Romberg was present in five
cases where fatalities occurred (Tr. pp. 619, 692.) and Romberg
admitted that he knew that five to ten other experimental subjects
were killed while he was not present. (NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40.) Neff
stated that Romberg actively participated in the majority of the
experiments. He observed the experiments, took notes, and studied
the electrocardiogram and thus was able to determine when an
experimental subject in the chamber was about to die. (Tr. p. 651.)
It is incredible that Dr. Ruff was not informed regarding the
finding of bubbles in the blood vessels of the brain since such
observations in human beings who have died following too rapid
atmospheric decompression is a very, very unique event, though
bubbles had been observed many times prior to 1942 in the blood
vessels of laboratory animals. It is inconceivable that Dr. Ruff, or
anyone else in the field of aviation medicine, had not heard of the
bubble theory of the cause of joint pains, coughing, blindness, or
paralysis, or the symptoms of the pressure drop sickness, which may
occur on exposure to high altitude, since this theory was well known
in literature and text books of aviation medicine available since 1938.
How else would Rascher have had occasion to look for the bubbles?
He either learned of the theory during a course in aviation medicine
or was told about it by Ruff and Romberg, who knew much more
than Rascher about aviation medicine.
It is fantastic that Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher did not have in
mind the observations of bubbles in the blood vessels of the
murdered prisoners, when, in the final joint report of 28 July 1942,
they wrote:
“In spite of the relatively large number of experiments,
the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and
bodily failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon
post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a
 riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of
pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of
severe oxygen lack”. (NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66.)
It has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated
with decompression or pressure-drop sickness may be due to the
formation of gas bubbles (air embolism) in the blood vessels of the
brain or in the regions of the joints or in the blood vessels of the
lungs. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain,
they are supposed to cause a physical or mental disturbance or
paralysis. When the gas bubbles collect in the region of the joints,
they are supposed to cause pain in the region of the joints. When
the bubbles collect in the blood vessels in the lungs, they are
supposed to cause the chokes or attacks of coughing. That has been
a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20 years, and an expert
in the field of aviation medicine could not have been unaware of it.
(Tr. pp. 9098-9.) Since Rascher had observed bubbles as is described
in his report of 11 May 1942, and since Ruff and Romberg had
complete knowledge of the deaths, obviously these important
findings of Rascher on air embolism did not escape the attention of
Ruff and Romberg. It can only be concluded that these findings,
which resulted from intentioned deaths, form the basis of the
paragraph quoted above from the final report. Because of the nature
of the subject matter, and a prior knowledge of the observations in
the autopsies in the experiments, the ideas expressed in the
paragraph quoted above cannot be separated from those in the
Rascher report of 11 May. So testified the expert witness Dr. A. C.
Ivy. (Tr. p. 9151.) All of this proves again that the testimony of Ruff
and Romberg to the effect they had nothing to do with the so-called
“Rascher experiments” is completely false. Even though deaths are
not specifically mentioned in the joint report of 28 July, it is clear
from Dr. Ivy’s testimony that the findings in the death cases form the
basis for a part of that report.
Ruff and Romberg would have the Tribunal believe that the
experiments were completed and the chamber removed from
Dachau by 20 May 1942. Since Romberg knew of and reported on
the deaths to Ruff in April, there clearly was no excuse whatever to
leave the chamber in Dachau for even another day. But according to
their own story, it stayed until 20 May and Romberg saw two more
men killed. They attempted to gloss over their criminal participation
in these later murders by saying that the chamber could not be
moved without orders from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. Be that
as it may, such a technical violation of moving the chamber without
orders is hardly comparable to the crime of leaving the chamber for
further experiments by a man whom they admit they knew to have
been a murderer. Indeed, any decent superior who was not himself a
party to the crime, as they actually were, would undoubtedly have
court-martialed Ruff and Romberg for leaving the chamber there,
not to speak of Rascher.
But it is not true that the chamber left Dachau on 20 May 1942
as they perjuriously stated. They seized upon this date from Milch’s
letter to Wolff stating that the chamber was needed elsewhere.
(343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62.) There clearly was an intention to transfer
the chamber, but it was not in fact moved and this was undoubtedly
due to the joint efforts of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher. Romberg was
anxious to continue his criminal work with Rascher in September
1942 as has been pointed out above. In any event, on 4 June 1942,
Milch authorized retention of the chamber in Dachau for two more
months. (NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63.) On 25 June this order was passed
on to Rascher by Heckenstaller, adjutant to Wolff, reference being
made to a letter of 5 June from Rascher. (NO-284, Pros. Ex. 64.)
These documents prove beyond doubt that the chamber remained in
Dachau until July 1942.
The testimony of Neff not only proves that the experiments
continued until July 1942 but also that Romberg was presented with
a remarkable opportunity to discontinue the experiments without
any trouble whatever. Neff stated that Romberg told him in the latter
part of May that the chamber was to be transferred (undoubtedly as
a result of Milch’s letter of 20 May which was later countermanded)
and, under the impression that Romberg might not be in favor of
any continuation of the experiments, he sabotaged the chamber by
breaking a glass barometer in order to make sure the chamber