1947-02-25, #4: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

OSKAR SCHROEDER — DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY DR. MARX:

Q: Witness, before the noon recess we were at this question. The Prosecution, judging from the fact you were second highest officer of the Luftwaffe, charges you with special responsibility for high-altitude and cold experiments in 1942 at the Concentration Camp at Dachau. Will you please comment on this?

A: I learned of the high-altitude experiments only here in Nuernberg from the preparations for this trial. I learned of the cold experiments from the reports of the meeting on distress at sea and winter distress which I received at the time when I was still fleet physician of Airfleet 11. I assume that it was in the spring of 1943, for the meeting was in October and by the the time such a report is compiled and printed, a few months pass. I cannot remember exactly, but it probably appeared in the first months of 1943 in my office in Italy. I, myself, did not participate in the meeting at Nuernberg.

At that time, I was in Sicily or in Africa. I received the report. I received several copies of the report which was distributed to the subordinate agencies by my office. I, myself, read it. I noted the work of Holzlechner with great interest for the following reason: The report says, as I was able to see again now, that the experiences were gathered from persons who had been rescued. This reminded me of the time in 1940 when I was in the west with Airfleet 11 and Holzlechner was Chief Physician of a hospital. He was under my command. He had a hospital near the coast. On the road from Calais to Bologna, in a small bathing resort village of Visson, we had established a rescue station for sea rescue. This station had a doctor and several non-commissioned officers from Holzlechner's hospital. This town of Visson is south of Capoe Grisnez.

It has a bathing beach and some dunes from which one can get a very good view of the channel. In clear weather, one can see the English coast and the harbor. One has a good view over the channel. That was the reason we set up a rescue station there.

A second reason was that this district south of Cape Grisnez was the point where our planes flew over the England. Accidents at sea of planes which had been hit usually took place in this area. There could be seen from this point. This rescue station was in a small house. There were a few beds and blankets and drugs and some dressings. And I remember as long as this station was under my command, that was probably a good six months, that there were 10 or 12 cases of persons who had been rescued from sea and brought there.

I must add the rescue station also had a small motor boat with which they could go out to pick up the shipwrecked persons whom they had seen from posts in the dunes. It was frequently possible to observe the crash from the plane into the channel, and then quickly go out there and rescue the pilot. I went past there frequently because the Bologne-Calais read was one of the main roads in that district. Other people had been at sea for sometime were also rescued there and treated at this rescue station. As soon as their condition permitted, they were transferred to the hospital and treated there. This work of Holzlechner's hospital was known to me. So I assumed that this report essentially was based on experience from this station, perhaps supplemented by experiences of other similar stations. We had such opportunities in Norway, too. No one from my office participated in this meeting. So I did not get any personal report about the Nuernberg meeting.

Q: When did you hear for the first time that experiments were conducted in Dachau?

A: I heard that for the first time when the question of sea-water experiments was discussed. And after the various failures, I was looking for a solution. I was told that experiments had already been conducted Dachau and later Holzlechner confirmed this once in a brief consultation. But he said nothing about deaths. I learned things through radio reports in the fall of 1945 when I was a prisoner.

Q: The Prosecution, in the list of participants of the meeting in Nuernberg list Heubner and say he was your expert advisor on sea water experiments. Will you please comment on that?

That is a misunderstanding. That is Huebener with "ue"; the advisor of sea water experiments was Professor Heubener, written "eu", the profess or criminology at Berlin. They had nothing to do with each other. Heubener was a young fellow, and Heubener was a gentlemen of about 17 years experience and a ciminologist.

Q: Professor, you were also brought in connection with the sulfanilaide experiments, what have you to say about that?

A: I learned of that for the first time when I was given the indictment. I knew nothing about the experiments, and I did not know I was supposed to have participated in it. I learned that only from the indictment.

Q: These experiments are supposed to have taken place in 1942 and 1943, where were you?

A: I have already said that here at that time I was in Sicily and in Africa, and the meeting which is referred to was in May 1943. We lost the African Theatre of war in May 1943, and at that time my everything was not concerning these different meetings, but there were several thousand wounded at the time which had been brought back from Africa, and we had no negotiated with the enemy about letting the hospital ships through. I believe I did not know that meeting was taking place at the time. I was busy with other things.

Q: Did you participate in the consulting meeting in Berlin in May, 1943?

A: No, for the same reasons I said before.

Q: Witness, what can you say about the hepatitis experiments which are also mentioned in the indictment. You are also to have known of these experiments?

A: Hepatitis serum for injection which is probably the matter at issue were not given by the medical chiefs.

Q: Now, will you please look at the German document Dock No. 8 about hepatitis. I show you document No. 137 of the Prosecution, page 6 of the German document Book, Prosecution Exhibit No. 189. What conclusion can be drawn from this document?

A: That is a report of the Research assignment being conducted by Haagen. He has put down the assignment which he get from the Luftwaffe, and those which he get from the Reich Research Council. The assignment from the Luftwaffe on yellow fever vaccines, typhus vaccines, and the influenza are open assignments from the Research — Reich Research Council; typhus and hepatitis are top secrets. There is a difference in that alone. The assignments on yellow fever vaccines and typhus vaccine were given in the years of 1941, 1942, 1943, and extended, and they were production assistants. It was not Haagen's assignment to report to us about the Reich Research Council, which were top secret matters. On the contrary, the high degree of secrecy of these assignments obliged him to silence towards the other agencies.

Q: Are you through with this point?

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, now, I shall show you the correspondence between Professor Haagen, Professor Gutzeit and Professor Kalk. That is Prosecutions' documents Nos. 124, 125 and 126 in the German Document Book, pages 11, 14 and 15; Nos. 193, 194 and 195, Prosecution exhibits pages 11, 13 and 14 of the English book. Do you have that?

A: Yes, I have it.

Q: In these documents the names of Dr. Dohmen and Professor Buechner are mentioned. Will you comment on this correspondence as the Prosecution from this report concludes the participation of the Luftwaffe in hepatitis research?

A: No, that is not so, but Haagen had a hepatitis research assignment, as we have seen. Haagen was a hygienist, and primarily he worked on virus research.

It does not need to have this assignment unless he can use those doctors who have something to do with this field, and so he turned to Dueckner, who was the pathological anatomist, who had great experience in pathological anatomy and with hepatitis. Then he turned to technicians like — known technicians like Gutzeit, Dohmen and von Kalk; these were people who in the clinical field were known. Gutzeit was a witness here, and he was able to explain that so far as he was concerned. Kalk is not as yet been heard here, but Kalk was also one of the technicians who had conducted extensive clinical research in Hospitals in the field of hepatitis. He had hepatitis work in the various hospitals where he had his associates working as section physicians, which he controlled. This explains why Haagen contacted those well known gentlemen in order to get a group of really experienced specialists from all the fields concerned; that is, first, the clinic, second, pathology, that was Buechner, and third, virus research, that was Haagen. Gutzeit spoke of the work in the?rou?s which were formed — were to be formed, or were formed for hepatitis research. That is shown from the correspondence here.

Q: Witness, on this point I offer an affidavit from Professor Dr. Kalk, of 17 January 1947. It is in my document book on page 53, and is to be exhibit No. 1, in my document book, but I believe the Tribunal does not yet have the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet received the English Document Book.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, then I ask to reserve the right to read important parts from this affidavit of Professer Kalk later.

Or I ask it be admitted provisionally and I will read those parts. I ask it can be translated.

MR. HARDY: The Tribunal please, I request that the offer of document at this time be forestalled until such time we have the document book in our possession so we may object if necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you seen the English Document Book?

MR. HARDY: We have not seen it at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you have reserved the right to offer this document at an appropriate later time, but as long as the Prosecution and the Tribunal have not the English Document Book, it would not be appropriate to proceed to read it at this time.

DR. MARX: Very well. In the same connection I also offer a report from Professor Halk, which I shall offer and submit to the Tribunal in connection with my other document.

BY DR. MARX:

Q: Witness, do you have connection with the general yellow fever vaccine production?

A: No. Yellow fever vaccine production assignments were given by my predecessor in 1942. In 1943 it was repealed when the African field of war had been lost, and the necessity for having yellow fever vaccine no longer existed. It was purely a matter of production, which was cancelled.

Q: Then, if I understand you correctly, this production assignment went only with the African theatre of war?

A: Yes, only in that connection.

Q: Witness, in connection with the name of Professor Haagen, the term "consulting physician" was mentioned several times. What does this mean to you? What was the position of consulting physician?

A: I believe I can be brief on that point. Handloser has already commented on the position of the consulting physician here. In the Luftwaffe there were consulting physicians. The Fleet Physician had a consulting surgeon, an internal physician, a hygienist, and in the office of the Medical Chief there were also consulting physicians — from six to, later, about twenty.

The activity of the consulting physician with the Medical Chief varied. It depended on the extent to which the consulting physician could coordinate his military and civilian activity. It was in the nature of the position that these consulting physicians often held a high position in civilian life. They were university teachers or heads of large hospitals or heads of institutions, and their civilian professions did not permit that they stop this activity completely. They had to attempt to unite these two tasks. One man had a great deal to do with his civilian work, may have been in charge of a clinic and teaching in a university. He was only available a very little. Others were far removed, and this hampered their activities. Others could get a good deputy in their peacetime work and, in this way, were able to devote wore tine to the office of the Medical Chief. That varied This explains why I in my office had a rather large number of consulting physicians.

I could give only very little work to many of them, with consideration of their civilian activity. I could assign only limited duties to them, so that I could keep them as associates. If I had put too high claims on such a consulting physician, demands might have come from the civilian side, and I might have had to give him up completely. Therefore, I always tried to adjust these things so that I would not have to give up the advice and experience of these gentlemen.

Q: Now, what was the relationship or subordination of the consulting physician to the Medical Chief, if, in addition to his activity, he continued his civilian profession?

A: He was under me only in questions affecting his own activity as a consulting physician. All research work, all affairs of his clinic or his university teaching, or whatever else was his principal position, remained unchanged. They remained under the agency where they had been in peacetime; that is, in most cases, under the Reich Education ministry or the Ministry of the Interior, depending on where his peacetime position was—the Provincial Administration, or something else. I did not have any right to interfere with this activity either.

Q: Professor, will you tell me something about the responsibility of the medical officer in executing his medical service? Now is the responsibility distributed to the loading medical offices for measures which he ordered, and to the subordinate medical officer for measures which he executes? Did you understand the question?

A: Yes. I shall be very glad to discuss this question.

General Hartleben told the Tribunal about this matter a few days ago. He spoke very clearly and, no doubt, convincingly, but in my opinion he was not quite complete, so that one last point remains open so far as the judges are concerned.

The medical officer, like other specialized officers, has a double subordination, as Hardleben said the other day. In the first place, the troop subordination, and a specialized subordination. The superior of the medical officer can be both. He can be a medical and a military superior or only a medical superior. I shall explain this by an example which shows it more clearly.

The battalion physician has his battalion commander as his military superior, and he has his division or corps physician as his medical superior. For this battalion position there is the relationship of subordination in two lines and to two persons—the commanding officer on the one hand and the divisional physician on the other hand, but it can be different.

Let us take as an example a hospital. The chief physician of the hospital is the commanding officer on the one hand, the military superior of all the officers, non-commissioned officers, men and patients at the hospital. On the other hand, however, he is at the same time the medical superior of all the medical officers and so forth in the hospital. He can, for example, give an order: Service in the hospital begins at eight in the morning.

That is a military order. Or: The Section physician of the internal section will held instructions for non-commissioned officers and men tomorrow afternoon. Or: Tomorrow I shall inspect the hospital; section physicians, nurses, non-commissioned officers, and so forth, will be at their posts. Those are clearly military orders. The chief physician in his capacity as military superior can give them.

Now, to stick to this example, the next morning the chief physician begins his inspection tour. In the surgical section he looks at the patient and the case histories. He sees that the case histories are not detailed enough, that some entry is missing, that everything that should be there is not there. Then he can give an order: In two days I want to see these case histories filled out completely.

Now, he comes up to a patient who has just arrived. The section physician presents the patient and explains what his diagnosis is and what treatment he intends to give the patient. The chief physician does not agree. He has the impression that something is overlooked. To take a simple example, the chief physician thinks that it is appendicitis which must be operated on immediately, while the section physician says, "No, I don't need to operate."

Now, the two do not agree. The section physician, who is in charge of caring for the patient, says that it is not necessary to operate. The chief physician, on the other hand has the impression that something must be done immediately.

And now I come to the decisive question: Is it sufficient for the chief physician to say, "My point of view is that this patient needs an operation," and then let the thing go, whether the section physician does it or not? In contrast to the example given before of the case histories, he can not order this patient to be operated on. That cannot be done. He can only express his medical opinion, but the patient must not suffer from this. By announcing his opinion and the doing nothing else, the chief physician would not have done his duty.

Let us carry this example further. The section physician maintains his opinion that the patient does not need an operation. He does not operate, and the patient dies. Then, without doubt, the section physician is responsible. He made a mistake, and he would be punishable, but the chief physician would not be free from guilt, because he had his duty. It is the task of the supervising medical officer to take adequate precautions, although he was of the opinion that the proper medical treatment was not be given, he did not worry about the matter; he let things take their course. He could be called to account too, because he did not see to it that someone else who treated the matter better, in his opinion, was called upon, or, perhaps, that he himself did it.

Here is the distinction: The superior can not give the order for a certain type of treatment. He can only give instructions. The responsibility for medical treatment lies with the doctor actually treating the patient. That is the difference between instructions and military orders in the Medical Service.

Now, I may add one thing which has already been brought up here. On the basis of meetings, directives were issued for treatment. They are included in this matter of instructions. This is something else that has not been brought out enough yet. If we gave instructions which were based on ample experience of qualified and trained doctors, then we had to make available the necessary facilities for such treatment. It was important in this field that the doctor have the facilities, the equipment or the drugs which he needed to carry out his treatment. If we issued such directives for treatment then it was inseparably connected with this that the facilities mentioned were also issued, that the doctor in the field have the opportunity of getting the drugs or the special equipment which he needed for the recommended treament.

Q: Professor, you want to say that the chief must exercise care in the selection of physicians?

A: Yes.

Q: But that then he has no more influence on the execution of the instructions given, unless he has misgivings about the quality of the physician, of that subordinate medical officer?

A: Yes. For that reason, I reserved the right to appoint doctors in the larger hospitals myself in order to be sure that the right people were put in the responsible positions.

Q: Now, I come to the next question. You have spoken several times of research assignments. Will you please tell the Tribunal something about research assignments as issued by your agency?

A: There were two ways for such assignment. One was that the tasks were carried out at our own institutes; the other was that they were carried out in institutes which did not belong to the Luftwaffe. For the first way this developed mostly from the work of the institutes, which partly on the own initiative, and partly from us, obtained assignment. In the second place, there were various possibilities. First, we might learn that some institute or other was working on things which interested us, or that the directors of the institute approached us and asked us for support in some field. Then we examined the matter and the heads of the institute made clear for costs or for personnel needed for the experiments, and then we issued the assignments. The planning — for example, take the typhus vaccine assignments which were renewed from year to year. In 1941 Haagen asked for them and then an extension was asked for repeatedly because the work had not finished.

Q: We'll come to that later. Professor, what can you say about participation in typhus experiments with which you are charged? I shall show you document book 12 of the prosecution, page 79, document number 137 of prosecution, Exhibit 189, Do you have that? From this, the prosecution concludes participation or knowledge of your office concerning the typhus experiments.

A: No; that is the typhus vaccine assignment which was issued to Haagen at that time. This is a production assignment for typhus vaccine, is not a research assignment about typhus. That is now I understand it. It was issued for the first time in 1942, renewed in 1943, and renewed again 1944.

Q: This assignment could not have been given under your —

A: No, it was given in 1942.

Q: Now, will you please look at Document No.131 of the prosecution Exhibit 309, in the German Document Book, page 99, Document Book 12. What conclusions can be drawn from this document?

A: That refers to the same thing that has just been said. I said vaccine assignment, as the text says here:

The research dealing with dry spotted fever vaccine from vitelline sac cultures are to be continued. Therefore the 4,000 RM requested for the research fund are being placed at your disposal.

It is signed by my Chief of Staff, Kant. That explains what I just said. The assignment was issued in 1942, and renewed in 1943 and 1944. I must briefly go into our financial management. I assumed that in 1942, Haagen made an application in which he estimated the cost, but, as is no doubt the case in other countries too, our budget was always only from one fiscal year to the next. That was from the 1st of April to the 31st of March. But, I shall give an example — if Haagen estimated the cost at 12,000 RM, and said from the vary beginning: "I will not use that up in the first year; that will take some time," Then an allowance was given him for 4,000 RM. Then, in the next year, he needed to give only a brief application, and he received another sum for the next year, and that was how it was here. He got this money again. This explains why this research assignment was not shown to me. It was taken care of by my Chief of Staff. It was in his competency to take care of such current matters which were not anything new. That would have been unnecessary delay, if that had been left for me.

Q: Witness, do you know anything about experiments on human beings, conducted, or said to have been conducted by Professor Haagen?

A: No; Haagen never told me of such experiments, either in writing or orally. He did not have any assignments from us which included such work. The yellow fever assignment, had already been withdrawn, and the typhus vaccine assignment, as the document just shown indicates, was an assignment to produce vaccine from vitelline sac; that is, chicken eggs and that has nothing to do with human beings.

Q: What were your personal relations with Professor Haagen?

A: I really didn't have any personal relations with Haagen. I saw him once or twice — once, maybe. Once I visited him briefly in Strasbourg. I was on an inspection trip. I looked at the surgical clinic in Strasbourg, primarily, and the things connected with it. It was under Professor Zugfuehrth, who was a consulting physician under me, and the time was very short, but I was in the Hygiene Institute briefly.

I visited Haagen there. He showed me his institute and I remember particularly from this institute the large supply of animals. He had very well arranged and cared for stalls for animals so that one got the impression, which he confirmed when I questioned him, that his institute did a great deal of work on animals. Our office often had to help him to get experimental animals, but, in the whole institute, the whole arrangement, there was nothing to indicate that there was any connection with experiments on human beings. The persons who were with me at the time will testify, no doubt, confirm that nothing was said about human experiments, but only about animals.

Q: On this occasion, did you see laboratories for the purpose of production of vaccines?

A: Yes, Yes; we went through them.

Q: You were no doubt interested in this production; weren't you?

A: Yes; the instruction rooms, the university was connected with the institute, there was a big lecture hall where a course was taking place and then several smaller laboratories, divided into the various types of vaccines, where vaccines were produced.

Q: Professor, will you tell the Tribunal about your attitude toward experiments on human beings?

A: My attitude no doubt does not differ from that of the scientific world in general, the principles recognized by the scientific world in general. In experiments on human beings, one must differentiate three groups: First, experiments in which certain poisoned, disease, germs, are introduced into human beings. Then, experiments in which vaccines are introduced into the body. And, in the third place, experiments in which the environment is changed. In the experiments under one and two, these experiments take their course through the blood when material has been introduced into the body. In the experiments under three, changes of the environmental conditions, the person in charge of the experiments always has the power of changing the conditions of the experiment immediately. If there is lack of oxygen, one can introduce oxygen. In the case of drinking water experiments, one can give the subject drinking water. In other certain experiments, one can often produce conditions that will restore normal conditions.

Q: What persons or group of persons may conduct such experiments on human beings?

A: Primarily, the physician himself and his assistants, may experiment on themselves. That is common in medical history, and many doctors have been known to have experimented on themselves.

Q: Then you are speaking of experiments in which the doctor experiments on himself to achieve a certain purpose, can the purpose always be achieved by such experiments alone?

A: No, that is not always possible. Often, it is necessary to extend the experiments. It is an old custom, that the assistant or medical student, or Cadet, in the Medical Corps, volunteer for such experiments.

Q: What significance do the war determined conditions have in this connection?

A: The war perhaps created new situations such as epidemics also can create and it can be necessary to use other experimental subjects than the ones just mentioned. The suggestions are given and have been carried out on criminals, who have been condemned to death.

They are given an opportunity to atone for their deed in a different way by volunteering for such experiments.

With all the objections which one could have to such experiments, and which are often expressed, I would still have one thing to say under war conditions; the military superior in war time is often forced to give young enthusiastic soldiers assignments demanded by the conventions of war, which will almost certainly bring about the death of these young soldiers.

If one must give such assignments, then I believe it is possible in these experiments, which I mentioned, first, if they actually have a really vital purpose and the results of which will save the lives of many other people, then I believe one has the justification to order such experiments.

Q: Then, if I understand your correctly Professor, you say that under certain conditions experiments on human beings are permissible?

A: Yes.

Q: How do you imagine such experiments are carried out from your point of view?

A: Of course, such experiments are justified only if all conditions are fulfilled, that is to say if animal experiments, experiments on one's self, and experiments on a small scale have been exhausted, then one can go over to those which were just mentioned, But, I hold the point of view that for the mass of medically necessary experiments, the experiments in the hospital must be the decisive thing, that is the drugs, etc., which are to be tested must be tested on the patients with all the conscientiousness of the doctor, but at some time the thing must be taken out of the laboratory and put into practice — vaccines and drugs equally — but the plunge must be taken in such a way that it does not bring about unavoidable harm. No doubt there will be failures, the drug will fail and it may bring about reactions on a large scale, which had not been foreseen, head sickness or something. Those are things which are always unavoidable, but they are bearable and are justified.

Q: Witness, perhaps you remember Dr. Haagen's report on the observations of a newly introduced vaccine — G.H.B.?

A: Yes.

Q: It is in the German Document Book 12, Pages 120 to 122, it is Document No.130 where this report of Haagen is dealt with; then Haagen's further report, which the Prosecution has submitted, Document No. 302 — Exhibit 302 of the Prosecution. You will find that on Pages 90 and 91 of the Document Book 12, Page 86 of the English translation. Haagen's report is on Page 120 and the other report is on Pages 90 and 91 of the German and No. 86 in the English.

A: This first mentioned report about the vaccine was issued by Dr. Haagen in connection with typhus vaccines with the air fleet. This is an essentially well known vaccine; typhus para-typhoid A & B and cholera. This is a mixed vaccine which other nations have frequently used too. In this type the amount of the various vaccines had been changed. I don't know what the purpose of this kind of simplification was intended for. It had been tested and was to be used on the troops on a large scale. Haagen made a very detailed report and he described high temperatures and 90% fever in one unit and in another 5% to 7%. He described the various effects of this vaccine, but on the whole it was not as advantageous and did not have the effect desired. The loss in efficiency of the troops were quite high on the whole. It was the thing, which I have mentioned before, one must take the plunge with chances and one sometimes has such experiences, but those must be borne in the interest of the community as a whole and do not bring any actual harm to the persons concerned.

The second report is characteristic, because it pertains to the typhus vaccine work which Haagen was to do for us, and as the report shows various methods of vaccine production from chicken eggs. The question was mentioned, which is better and which produces the greatest quantity of vaccine; and Haagen as consulting specialist comments on this question. He comments on the assignment given, he gives the opinion of the Behring work for example on their manner of production.

DR. MARK: Mr. President, the defense case on this point is not yet complete, because I do not have the answer to the questionnaires sent to a former associate of Professor Haagen, Fraulein Kredel. Unfortunately, I learned of the address of this witness too late so that for this reason my letter and her answer were delayed. I ask to reserve the right to submit her answer later, together with my other Documents.

MR. McHANEY: The prosecution would like to observe, at this point, that we will undoubtedly insist that the Witness Kredel, which the defense counsel just mentioned, be called to Nurnberg to testify and we will not look with favor upon the submission of any affidavits or interrogations unless the witness is actually here on the stand. This woman, Kredel, was an associate of Dr. Haagen about whom we have heard considerable during the course of this trial and if the witness does not choose or cannot be brought to Nurnberg, then, of course, the prosecution is going to object to the admission of any statements or affidavits made by her.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it be possible that the Prosecution could be of assistance in securing the attendance of this witness?

MR. McHANEY: So far as I knew, we have never received any address on this woman. If it is furnished to the Secretary General's office, I suppose they have ways of bringing the witness here and the prosecution will be only too glad to assist in bringing her here.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, all applications from the Defense Counsel for the presenting of witnesses goes through the office of the Secretary General and they are examined there.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, it has been requested by three or four defense counsels for the testimony of this witness.

We have always understood that she would be brought to Nurnberg. Now, the defense counsel has just mentioned that they have mailed three or four questionnaires to her and something in the nature of an interrogatory. I would like to point out that the prosecution will most certain object to that when it is offered. We think the witness should be brought here, she worked with Haagen and no doubt she has considerable knowledge of what he did.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, understands your position, Mr. McHaney and the position of the defense counsel as well. Of course, if the attendance of the witness here is impossible, the last part of the affidavit would be eliminated, that is if interrogatories and cross-interregatories should be submitted to the witness.

BY DR. MARX:

Q: Professor, I now came to the experiments on making sea water drinkable. This was the only experiment in which you participated directly and which was conducted under your responsibility; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: I ask you, was this the solving of a problem, which was of great significance from a military and medical point of view?

A: Yes, it was a problem of great importance. To make sea water drinkable on big ships is a question, which has long been solved, but in cases of distress at sea on a rubber raft or life boat to make drinking water out of sea water up to 1944 was an unsolved problem.

Q: Now, why does this circumstance have such great importance?

A: Experiences of distress at sea have shown that the problem of thirst is by far the most serious problem of distress at sea. The freezing which many shipwrecked persons suffer, is doubtless in the final insight also very serious, but not so much psychologically. Frozen persons, lose consciousness in the course of time, while persons suffering from thirst retain their senses and suffer great pain and torture and have often even committed suicide by drowning themselves in the water. For example, it is not hunger that tortures them, but thirst, which makes their suffering unbearable.

Q: Then, as medical chief, you considered it your duty to take advantage of any opportunity to examine it carefully in order to solve this question and to test it for its practical applicability?

A: Yes, that was an urgent question in my sphere of duty.

Q: Now on the basis of your long career in the medical service, did you not have practical experience in this field?

A: Yes, in the Mediterranian. When I was fleet physician in the Mediterranian area, I often had an opportunity to see fliers, who had been rescued at sea and who were in my hospitals. It was always the same question or answer that one was given, when one talked to them about the incident, that the problem of thirst worries was always the greatest.

I remember one case in particular. It was a young pilot, who had been six days and seven nights on a raft in the Mediterranian. He was a student of Natural Science and he had taken a very critical attitude. He had observed his condition very well from his knowledge of biology. I spoke to him one or two days later in the hospital. When he was rescued, he had last all of his supplies and all of his equipment; he had merely his raft and a flare. So, he was on the water for this length of time. In the morning he collected the dew, which had formed on the raft during the night and drank it. He drank small amounts of sea water and that was all that the man drank or ate in these six days and seven nights. He was found in a pretty bad condition, but I saw him about two days after and he was quite recovered. He had been given water, he had eaten and after a few days he was released from the hospital and was given leave, but, within two days he had overcome this period of six days and seven nights without food.

Q: Then it was such a consideration which occasioned you to follow up this problem?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, when did you learn for the first time that this problem had been solved?

A: In May '44, in the first few days, I can't say exactly when, but as far as I recall it was about that time the director of my aviation medical research institute told me — that was Professor Stuckhold — told me that he had found a solution in his institute. He had a young associate there — that is Dr. Schaefer here — who had solved the question.

I was, of course, greatly interested and I asked him to prepare this so that I could look at it. Then a few days later when I happened to be in Berlin I went to the institute and Schaefer showed me his process. That is when I met Schaefer. He mixed sea water with a salt mixture and put the whole thing through a filter, and then he gave me this filtered water for drinking. I drank it, and I can only say it was fresh water. It was quite drinkable. Then I talked to Schaefer about it for two reasons.

In the first place, in order to get a kilo of water one needed 200 grams of this salt mixture. In the second place, a rather complicated filter was needed, and since in the sea emergency equipment — and I was often interested in such matters — we worked with a letter scale, I might say, and with a very limited area space, this large amount of salt and this complicated filter I wondered whether that wasn't too voluminous for the sea emergency kit. That was an objection which I raised first. Schaefer told me that he would improve this process so that the proportion would not be one to five as it was now, but one to ten. That was a considerable change. And he also told me that was only an emergency filter here; that it could be made differently so that it wouldn't take much space. I made a suggestion that the filter could be used in packing or something like that. That was my first acquaintance with a solution of the seawater problem.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.