1947-02-26, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
EXAMINATION BY DR. VORWERK (Counsel for the Defendant DR. ROMBERG):
Q: Your testimony, witness, about concentration camp inmates— deep this refer to any particular concentration camp, or to concentration camp; in general?
A: What I said refers to camps in general.
Q: Before the collapse were you ever a prisoner or in any other capacity in a concentration camp?
A: I was never in a concentration camp, either as prisoner, or in any other capacity.
Q: Your testimony about concentration camp inmates, therefore, is not based on your own observations, is that true?
A: That is true.
Q: Who were the people from whom you learned what conditions were in concentration camps, in particular who the inmates were, on which your testimony has been based so far?
A: Those were my friends from the confessional church.
Q: Didn't they tell you that in concentration camps there were large numbers of criminals, partly persons condemned to death and partly person with long prison sentences, that is, persons condemned by regular German courts?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Then your statements about concentration camp inmates should be completed in this respect?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions of this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
The Prosecution may cross-examine.
MR. McHANEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Pastor, will you tell the Tribunal again —
A: I am sorry, I cannot hear.
Q: Will you again repeat to the Tribunal when it was that you first learned of the existence of concentration camps in Germany?
A: That was when Niemoeller was arrested; as far as I can remember that must have been 1937.
Q: To what extent was the knowledge of the existence of concentration camps —
A: I cannot hear.
Q: To what extent was the knowledge of the existence of concentrate camps, their location, and the various types or classes of prisoners kept there, known generally in Germany during the war, can you say?
A: First of all I heard only of the two big camps, Dachau and Oranienburg. Then I knew of a camp for women at Hohenlychen. That was because on day the bishop of Mechlenburg who had been dismissed by German christians, Dr. Rindhoff, came to me and asked me whether I would not help him to liberate his wife from the concentration camp at Hohenlychen by approaching a high officer of the Luftwaffe. That is how I learned about Hohenlychen. That was for women.
Q: Can you say whether or not your knowledge of the fact of the existence of concentration camps in Germany was generally known by the German population or at least by Germans in official positions within the framework of the government?
A: My connections were strictly secret, not even all the bishops knew about it. I only had the assignment from the confessional church. The better known my position might have been, the less I could have done it only lasted until 1943. Then I lost the opportunity.
Q: I'm not at all sure that you understood the question. The question is this: Are you in a position to say whether or not it was generally known or understood throughout Germany that there were such things in Germany as concentration camps?
A: I must say one thing. The two big camps, Oranienburg and Dachau, were generally known in Germany. But I emphasize expressly that those were to camouflage names — two cover names. As far as I know, at lest, and as far as I knew from confidential reports from my friends in the Confessional Church, they were divided into two parts, into a public part which was shown as a model camp, and an unofficial half which was not shown. My friends knew only the public part. What happened in the unofficial part and probably in the other camps whose names I have learned now, such as Buchenwald or the camps near Vienna, one never learned about that. The propaganda tactics were good. I mean that ironically.
Q: Do you know, of your own knowledge, what official agency in the framework of the German government was in charge of the administration of the part of the camp that was not a model camp — in your expression?
A: That must have been within the Reichsfuehrer SS or the Ministry of the Interior. The man in charge of the camps must have known about it. I am not informed about the details.
Q: You were making some comment about the difficulty of carrying on a religious program in the Wehrmacht. Can you tell us whether or not, or to what extent if any, chaplains were officially assigned to the various regiments or other military or naval units of the German Wehrmacht during the war? In other words, was there, within the framework of the German Wehrmacht, an official chaplain's organization and assignment, such as existed, for example, in America?
A: There was such an organization. It was centrally under an office in the High Command of the Army. It was headed by a Field Bishop for the Evangelical Church and a Field Bishop for the Catholic Church. In the army, and similarly, in the navy, there was, for each army group, a Wehrmacht Deacon; for each army, a Wehrmacht Chief Pastor; and for each division a Divisional Pastor; that is, two in each case, an Evangelical one and a Catholic one.
There wer no other chaplains. Each division — at wartime strength —had only two chaplains. The Luftwaffe did not have chaplains of its own. That was, first of all, because the Luftwaffe had no tradition. It was something quite now. I know from conversation that Goering, at the beginning, tried to set up a chaplain system for the Luftwaffe, but in 1936, he was not able to put his views through against the opposition of Bermann and Hitler. And then, when, in 1940, through General Bodenschatz's Chief Adjutant, I tried to achieve something, he took a negative attitude. He said he could not do anything. Hitler had definitely prohibited a new branch for chaplains within the Wechrmacht. The High Command of the army, as well as the officers of the Luftwaffe who were favorably inclined to religion by private agreement, as it were, took care of the Luftwaffe units which were in the neighborhood through the divisional chaplains. The result was that they got practically no care, because the army chaplain could not even deal with his own army division. There were simply too many people. Those were the difficulties.
JUDGE SEBRING: I have no further questions.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberhauser and Fischer): In view of the last questions of the Tribunal, I ask permission to put a few questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q: Witness, you spoke of the Concentration Camp Hohenlychen?
A: Yes.
Q: You said that it was the only concentration camp for women in Germany?
A: To my knowledge.
Q: It is a fact that there was only one concentration camp for women in Germany; that was the concentration camp Ravensbrueck. It is true, however, that Ravensbrueck is near Hohenlychen — 12 kilometers way.
A: Then that is probably the one.
DR. SEIDL: That is all.
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): May I also, after the questions of the Tribunal, put a question to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: Witness, you were asked about the duty secrecy. Do you know that if someone succeeded in getting out of a concentration camp he had to sign a pledge not to say anything whatever about the concentration camp?
A: I was told that.
Q: Do you know the literature about concentration camps which has appeared in large quantities in Germany and in Austria, or have you read some of it? Have you read some books?
A: I was three months behind barbed wire. I did not read much.
DR. STEINBAUER: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schroeder will resume the witness stand. The witness is reminded that he is still under oath. Counsel for the prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: General, did you know that political prisoners were incarcerated in concentration camps?
A: Yes.
Q: As of what date did you know that?
A: I knew that from peace times. The case of Pastor Niemoeller was an example of that.
Q: You knew that concentration camps were under the jurisdiction of Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer SS, did you not?
A: Yes.
Q: And you don't want the Court to understand that the Ministry of the Interior had jurisdiction over concentration camps, do you?
A: Himmler was Reichsminister of the Interior and Chief of the German police. As such, he was the Chief of Concentration Camps. That was function which he had as Chief of the German police, in the German Ministry of the Interior.
Q: But, General, all of the defendants and their counsel have been very meticulous in drawing the line about the various duties of the man who occupies two positions and, since that's been done to such a large extent, I want to ask you a little bit about this dual position of Himmler as Reich Minister of the Interior and as Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German police. Do you know when Himmler became ReichsMinister of the Interior?
A: I believe that was in 1943.
Q: That's just about right.
A: He replaced Reichsminister Frick.
Q: Well, you don't think Frick had jurisdiction ever concentration camps, do you.
A: No. There was a change, but I experienced that only from the outside. There was a reorganization. If I remember correctly, Himmler -that is probably the case before the war, where first of all, Chief of the German Police — that was his title. The police was an organ of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, then Frick left as Minister of the Interior Himmler took over this position in addition. His title was ReichsMinister of the Interior, and Chief of the German Police, and then a subtitle, Reich fuehrer SS. That is how I remember it.
Q: The SS was a party organization, was it not?
A: I believe only in part, but please ask other experts. I am not an expert on that.
Q: Now, General, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the position of some of your co-defendants, and, in that connection, you signed an affidavit, which is Document NO-449, introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 130. In paragraph 8 of this affidavit, you state the following:
Karl Brandt, Handloser and Rostock were informed of the medical research work conducted by a Luftwaffe. Handloser was chief of the medical service of the armed forces, and my superior in medical matters.
Do you repudiate the statement that Handloser was your superior in medical matters?
A: I must explain this statement, that sums up in a number of statements — a number of discussions, which do not take into consideration the fine points as was the case in the detailed discussion here in the course of the trial. I have seen the difference between superiors in a military sense, and persons about to give instructions, and so I must understand this explanation in the statement.
Q: Did Handloser, or did Handloser not, prior to August 1944, have the right to issue Directives to you concerning medical matters?
A: He could give directives, yes, but they were not in the form of orders. I have already said once that I personally did not make such a great emphasis on these fine points, because I approved the position of superior in the in the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service to the extent by which, for example, the instructions as given before August 1944. I considered orders, and I acted accordingly. For example, if it was a date for general vaccination which was to be set.
Q: Very well, General. Then there is nothing mysterious about the position of Handloser is there. Could your own chief of staff issue orders, or did you simply just issue directives, or instructions, as you put it, or does not any staff officer simply issue such directives and such instructions?
A: That depends on his position. By chief of staff, of course, could issue orders, but at the top of letter it said, the chief of the medical service, and with the signature which showed "I.A — per Kalk"; that was an order issued by the office by someone who had the justification.
Q: An order issued by you through Kalk, was not it?
A: What do you mean by that?
Q: Just exactly what I said. When he signed "By order of Kalk" it means by your order?
A: Of my order, of course. He acted for me.
Q: And if any other staff officer issues directives or instructions, they are very well followed by the people who received them, aren't they, General?
A: Not any one. Only those who have the right, to stick to the example of my office, it was the chief of staff and the section chief who had this right, not other people.
Q: And Handloser had the right to issue instructions of a restrictive nature, too, didn't he?
A: Yes, one might say that.
Q: Let's move on to Rostock. You state in paragraph eight that Rostock was chief of the office for Science and for Research under Karl Brandt, who first was a Commissioner — General of Health Service, and later Reichs Commissioner. It was Rostock's duty to avoid duplication as to distribution of assignments in the sphere of medical research, therefore, all distribution of assignment had to pass through Rostock's office; for instance, If I assigned Kalk or Haagen some research work, a copy would go to Rostock to inform him of the nature of the job; then Rostock can tell whether that particular job had already been worked on by some one else, or, whether it could lead to worthwhile results. Do you repudiate that statement, or is that true?
A: At the time that is how I understood the duties. I may make the following explanation —
A: General, General, just a minute, I am not interested in what impression you gained about Restock's position by the testimony that is here given. I am asking you if the statement in this affidavit which I have read to you is a correct statement in your understanding of Rostock's job in the years of 1944 and 1945. Now is it or isn't it?
A: Yes, that was my understanding of the position.
Q: Well, let's turn to Becker-Freyseng, You described both the position of Becker-Freyseng and that of Rose as being one of very little power and authority, as I get it, and you also described them as men of angelic character. I, therefore, assume that you are ready to take the responsibility for their activities from January 1, 1944 until the end of the war. Do you or do you not take such responsibility?
A: Very well.
Q: Now will you describe quite briefly — strike that out. Was Becker-Freyseng your principal consultant on all scientific questions?
A: No. He was aviation medicine consulting physician, as I said this morning.
Q: That is very peculiar. I have your interrogation here before me dated September 19, 1946, and you read the whole thirty-seven pages of it, and signed it at the end. In it you were asked the question, what was the work of Dr. Becker-Freyseng, and you answered, with me as chief of Sanitary Service, Becker-Freyseng was principally consultant on all scientific questions in my office he was my consultant in scientific questions on aviation medicine. Is that a correct description, or not?
A: He was a consultant in my office, yes, that was his job. He was consultant for aviation medicine, that is right, but in addition I had consultant specialists for the current daily aid, that was, of course, and Becker-Freyseng. If any special questions came up then I had Dr. Strokholt as director of the Institute, or Rahn, or whoever was the suitable man for the special case. But to give a general oversight, there was BeckerFreyseng, he knew best as to what was going on in general in the field of aviation medicine. That does not mean he was a specialist in a specialized field there were individual consultants for that part.
Q: That is quite clear. General, I think it is a different picture you gave from this morning. That certainly does not make Becker-Freyseng to be a great scientific specialists of all possible and conceivable matters, but he was from 1944 the Reichsreferent of aviation medicine, was not he chief of that department?
A: He was Referent for aviation medicine, yes, but that does not make any difference in what you just said, there is no difference. I can see no difference.
Q: All right, and as the chief of the department for aviation medicine, he was generally informed on all research work carried out by the Luftwaffe, was he not?
A: On aviation medicine research — on aviation medicine, yes, that was received by my office and was turned over to him. As I said this morning, and say now, of course, he know what kind of assignments were being carried on, but he was still not a specialist in these individual assignments, that was what the consultant physicians were for.
Q: All right, let's restrict it to aviation medicine for just a moment General. When you got a report back on an aviation medical problem, it went to Anthony, and Becker-Freyseng, didn't it, and they reviewed it, didn't they?
A: Yes.
Q: And he had the position prior to 1 January 1944, except that he was deputy to Anthony, who was the department chief for aviation medicine, that is right, isn't it?
A: Anthony until April or May was a consultant and Becker-Freyseng was the assistant. The work of chief of section, I said this morning, of the Reichsreferent consultant, we mean something else by that.
Q: General, I want to put another question. I'll ask, in this interrogation of 19 September 1946 you were asked the question, could Becker-Freyseng's position in relation to you, or to Hippke's, be compared with Rostock's position on a smaller scale, and, you replied, yes, he was responsible for the collecting and utilization of all results of the research work in aviation medicine, and then he made proposals, which included whether or not we should grant loans for such. He was my scientific adviser. Do you reaffirm that statement?
A: Yes, that was in the sphere of referent consultant. I said at the time that the same as Rostock was adviser to Brandt, and on a small scale Becker-Freyseng for aviation medicine was my consultant.
Q: Now, let us turn to Rose. Rose was your principal advisor on questions of hygiene; was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: And any hygienic medical problems, which were worked on by the Luftwaffe, came to the knowledge of Professor Rose; didn't they, General?
A: That is not necessarily true, let me explain it. Becker-Freyseng was consultant for hygiene, that was Stabsarzt Hartner, whom I have already mentioned today. All of the mail in the field, of hygiene went through this consultant. That does not mean that Rose knew of all this mail as Rose received only the problems which arrived as all of the minor matters were taken care of by the consultant. Rose was the advisor on specialized questions. This particular consultant was a district physician in civilian life and he did not have the bacteriogical scietific experience, he was practising physician. All of the scientific problems went to this department, to my consultant who in this case was Rose. It is possible that Rose did not learn of all the daily work, because the department took care of it if it did not require any scientific knowledge.
Q: I am not interested in the daily operations of this office that Hippke ran. I put it to you that Rose knew anything important that came up in the Hygienic section, didn't he?
A: Yes.
Q: And the same thing was done under Hippke, wasn't it?
A: I assume so, I assume that his duties were the same.
Q: It was Rose's duty to be kept informed of the experiments carried out in his field, was it not General?
A: Rose no doubt took care of the research assignments, according to the instruction and he received them from Hippke or me.
Q: That is not what I asked you; I said it was his duty to keep himself informed about the experiments in his field?
A: No, I cannot express that exactly so. The consulting physician load no authority, no disciplinary authority and no position of a superior.
If there was any authority it was in a round about way, as Hippke or I might say to him, "Mr. Rose, we have given the assignment to Mr. so and so, this has gone on for a long time and we do not see any results. Please see what is the matter." It was always done in that way, that he had the duty on behalf of his chief.
Q: Now, General, I don't understand why you have so much difficulty since you have answered the questions once before. That was on the 2nd of October, 1946 and in another interrogation you were asked:
Was it not Rose's duty to be kept informed on experiments?
They were referring to hygienic matters and you answered:
Of course that a consulting physician such as Rose had to know of them and of course it was his duty to inform me.
You were further asked:
Was it not Rose's duty to know in what manner these experiments were carried out and was it not part of his duty?
You answered:
Yes, he had the supervision of this work.
You were further asked the question:
He not only had to hand out the assignments but he had to supervise the carrying of them into effect?
And you said, "Yes." Do you reaffirm these statements now, General Schroeder?
A: After the questions which took place between that time and today, one must be a little more careful in the formulation. According to the sense, I meant the same thing I said here today. In this formulation, it just sounds a little different.
Q: General, we are interested merely in the sense of it and we are trying all of us to get a clear picture of how things operated in practice. And I want that this affidavit you signed was a pretty nice document from Rose's point of view compared with this interrogation you were referring to, because you were asked another question. "Question: You never heard of Dr. Mrugowsky? Answer: Indeed and he was the hygienist of the SS, Mrugowsky's position with the SS was identical to Rose's position with me."
A: That, is right, but that does not mean that I knew Nrugowsky, I merely knew him and his prominent position.
Q: When did you learn about the research institute in Dachau?
A: That was discussed for the first time in the natter of the seawater experiments when the question was brought up of holding the experiments at Dachau.
Q: While I have this interrogation before me, I want to ask you whether in this conversation you had with Frawitz the latter part of May or first part of June, 1944, concerning the sea-water experiments, you made clear to him you wanted the Luftwaffe to have complete control over these experiments; did you tell him that or not?
A: I told him that, but I believe that in the interrogation I did not bring that out quite so clearly because after two years bad passed I was confronted with the group of questions which I did not remember very well after all the things with which I had been occupied. I have thought about it in the last few months because it was brought up again.
Q: You have overcome your failing memory; is that right?
A: Yes, gradually I have become acquainted with those questions again.
Q: I appreciate that, General; you also have become acquainted with the number of Documents the prosecution has; haven't you? Now, General —
A: I did not understand that.
Q: I say you have also become familiar in the meantime with some of the Prosecution's documents, haven't you?
A: Yes.
Q: Now General, on the 19th of September, 1946, you were interrogated at some length about sea-water experiments. Then, again on the 2nd of October, 1946, we interrogated you again, we gave you a rest of about two and one half weeks and I suppose that you searched your memory pretty carefully in the interum about these sea-water experiments, so I was very surprised to hear you say under direct examination that you had told Grawitz that these experiments were to be controlled by your doctors in the Luftwaffe, because when you were interrogated on October 2nd you did not have such a good memory about what went on in Dachau. You were asked on October 2nd the following:
Tell me something about the practical experiments with regard to making seawater drinkable, which were carried on in the concentration camp Dachau?
You answered in part:
I cannot say anything about it. To me it looks as if the SS at that time, as it also can be seen from here, was in charge of the execution and there by it was completely out of my hands or ay direction. The situation in Dachau was such that there was no possibility for us to have any kind of influence on the work there are to interfere with it or to direct further on.
Do you remember saying that, General?
A: Yes and I know the contacts, I know the story. As I have already said, I had been confronted with these questions after a rather long period of other events and the full sea-water experiment was not a matter which had taken particular great attention at the time. It was only one of many tasks so that especially since I did not work on the question myself, I no longer remembered the details very well. I did remember the beginning of the matter and I remembered that the execution took a long time, longer than we had expected. I had hoped that it would be very quick and I remember that this delay arose from local difficulties with the SS. I also remember that Beiglbeck was an observer for us. That was on the basis of his clinical training and he was the most suitable person, but at the time I had forgotten all the details, because they were not worked out in my office and I did not have any direct contact. However, in the meantime I have had so much time to deal with the material again, so that the picture has been reconstructed as it was at the time.
Q: General, I am shocked to hear you say that the details weren't worked out in your office, because I am rather under the impression that you did everything in these experiments except go to Dachau and perform them yourself.
How many meetings of the consulting physicians did you attend?
A: Only the meeting in 1944.
Q: Are you sure about that? That's the only one we have proved so far you attended. Are you sure now? Is your memory quite clear that is the only one you attended?
A: Yes, that is certain. In 1943 as I told the Tribunal, Africa was being evacuated at the time when this meeting took place in May. And in '42 at the time of the meeting I was in Africa. In '43 I was in Sicily. In '42 I was in Africa.
Q: Now, do I understand you to say tut the first time you learned anything about the high-altitude experiments was after the war ended and you were in captivity?
A: Yes. That was in October or November 1945 when I was a prisoner of war in Latimore near London. We heard it on the radio. That was the first thing I had heard of it.
Q: Rose didn't tell you about those, did he, in London I mean?
A: We were together in the same camp.
Q: Well how much information did he give you about these Dachau experiments? I am inclined to think he talked to you about it. What did he tell you?
A: I can even remember the occasion. We had a news service in the camp. It was posted on a board. There was this radio notice on it and we stood there and read it. That was the first news about it.
Q: Did Rose, on that occasion, talk to you about this meeting he attended in Nurnberg in October 1942 about the freezing experiments? Didn't you Luftwaffe gentlemen have a little discussion then about these experiments?
A: It is possible. At that time we were in this camp a so-called OKL party, the high command of the Luftwaffe, was there. We had to work for an English-American commission and work out our offices, our official duties.
There was the chief of the general staff, and so forth. And this office had quite a number of documents, files, and when this notice was posted on the board I asked the English or American liaison officer whether they did not have anything about this in our files, any evidence of what was asserted in this radio report. And after a few days one of the American gentlemen came and brought me this report, distress at sea, winter distress, which was in the files which had been collected at Latimore. I went through — I read it, and I talked to the English or American liaison officer and I explained to him that to my knowledge, as far as I had known up to that time, this radio report could not be true of the Luftwaffe. I knew nothing about it. That must still be in the files at Latimore.
Q: Well, I guess you conceded it was right after you read the freezing report, didn't you, General?
A: I beg your pardon? Today you mean? Yes, it looks different today than it did at that time, but we were of the opinion that it could not possibly be true in that form at the time.
Q: I assume you never talked to Ruff or Romberg before the war ended about these high-altitude experiments they conducted at Dachau?
A: That is true. I never talked to them.
Q: Becker-Freysing never told you anything about them?
A: No. I imagine he himself was not informed.
Q: And you never made any investigation of the matter, of course, since you knew no nothing about it?
A: No.
Q: And you took no action against anyone with respect to it, of course.
A: I am sorry. That came through in English.
(Interpreter put the question.)
A: No, I had no knowledge of these things.
Q: You were a close friend of Hippke's, weren't you? You went to school with him, didn't you?
A: No. We studied together, and as Medical Chief I saw Hippke only once or twice.
We did not see each other at that time, but that was because of geographical conditions. I was in Saalow with my office, and he was in some other town.
Q: Well, you don't disown your friendship now for Hippke, do you?
A: No.
Q: And they had channels of communications between you and Hippke, didn't they?
A: No. While I was in office you mean?
Q: While you were the physician for air fleet 2, for example, you were stationed in Italy for part of the time. I take it that you might have talked to Hippke over the telephone from time to time. That was a possibility, wasn't it?
A: Yes, but at that time we had no contact because we had certain personal differences.
Q: And you never discussed these experiments with him?
A: No.
Q: You never got the report on the experiments which was written Ruff; Romberg and Rascher?
A: No.
Q: What did they do with these reports on aviation medical matters? Did they hide them somewhere and not use them?
A: I never got them. I already said that.
Q: When did you first learn about the freezing experiments? Did I understand you to say that was in May of 1944?
A: No, in the spring of 1943 I saw this report on distress at sea and winter distress for the first time, as I said yesterday or today; the official report of the meeting. I estimate that it was distributed in February or March, '43, to the subordinate agencies.
Q: And that was the first you heard about it?
A: That was the first time I heard of it, yes.
Q: You didn't receive the medical report written by Holzlochner, Finke and Rascher?
A: No.
Q: They hid that somewhere too, just like the high-altitude report?
A: I don't know. As far as I have heard they were not in our office at all.
Q: When did you first hear about using the warm bath method to revive persons suffering from shock as a result of prolonged exposure to cold?
A: From the report on distress at sea and winter distress in which that was cited as directives for treatment, if I remember rightly, but it is possible that before that there was a circular to the subordinate agencies saying that should be done. I can't say exactly; but it was certainly in the report somewhere.
Q: Well now, General; do I understand that the German military medical system was run so that you received your instruction from these reports about meetings?
Didn't the medical service, as a matter of fact, issue something in the nature of formal instructions, formal directives?
A: As has already been said by Mr. Handloser, directives were issued on the basis of experience or lectures at congresses by us. In the Luftwaffe—what the name of it—there were announcements for troop physicians [illegible]. Those were pamphlets which were — which gave rulings on things which interested the troop physicians generally in a brief form. It might describe some new drug or it might have said that freezing should be treated with hot baths. [illegible] in what one [illegible] Italy we were trying to create a bathing arrangement [illegible] possible station in order to have [illegible] regulation carried out on several such stations. There were two or three of them.
Q: General, I have an interrogation report which was taken in England when you were there with Rose and some of the other doctors in the Luftwaffe, and they asked you what you thought were the greatest advances in German military medicine during the war. And you listed a number of then, but about fourth in the list you put down this warm bath method for treating shock due to prolonged exposure to cold, do you remember that?
A: That probably in June, '45; in the interrogation, it it might be that we talked about that, but several things were mentioned. It was not the only one.
Q: I told you that, but I think since you regard it as such a remarkable discovery you would be able to tell me when you first received instructions about using that method treatment?
A: That would be in the spring of '43 when the effects of this report on distress at sea and winter distress came out and that was actually a considerable change. For centuries all instructions for treating freezing cases have said that they should be rubbed with snow, then with cold water, then with lukewarm water and then with warm water. And that now suddenly there was to be a change from this old procedure; that one was to put the patient immediately into a hot bath. That was actually a considerable change, especially since the results were proved to be better.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1947, at 0930 hours.)