1947-02-27, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
OSKAR SCHROEDER — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. McHANEY:
MR. McHANEY: Now, General, let us try to reach some agreement about this Document No. 127, Prosecution Exhibit 316. Is it not true that the paragraph of this letter from Professor Haagen very clearly proves that Haagen was planning to make artificial infection experiments to test the effectiveness of this dried vaccine for typhus?
THE WITNESS: He had the plan from Rose from typhus vaccine experiments and typhus injections, but he did not intend for them to be fatal and it says nothing about that here; ha says that sickness was to be expected.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Defense counsel for the Defendant Rose): Mr. President, a great deal of time has been spent in this trial concerning the correspondence of Professor Haagen to establish what he was doing at the University of Strassburg or in the concentration camp at Natzweiler. For this purpose these letters have been shown, in part, to prove that these experiments on hepatitis or typhus were made. No doubt, the prosecution, as well as I know that Professor Haagen is in Baden-Baden in French custody and his assistant, Miss Crodel is in Berlin. I do not understand why the prosecution did not call these two persons as witnesses, for in that way these letters could be explained much more easily. I would be glad if the prosecution would explain why they do not call these two people as witnesses
MR. McHANEY: I think the answer to that is perfectly obvious. Both Haagen and Miss Crodel are in custody and in the judgment of the prosecution, at least, are clearly implicated in the experiments on human beings, which resulted in the death of certain of these subjects, which has been testified to during this trial by the Witness Schmidt who worked at Strassburg. We are in a position to know and see reports concerning this matter. Obviously the prosecution is under no obligation to call witnesses who would be hostile. It is not to be expected that Professor Haagen, under the circumstances, would take the stand and admit that he carried out a single infection experiment on human beings without their consent. A reasonable conclusion would be exactly the contrary and the same is true with respect to his assistant, Miss Crodel.
If these witnesses are to be called, it is apparently open to any defense counsel to put in a request. I think some of than have already done so with respect to Miss Crodel. It is perfectly obvious that they are not possible prosecution witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Neither the prosecution or the defense are obligated to call witnesses save those that they desire to put on the stand. The Witness Crodel has been asked for by several defendants. Whether any of the other defense, counsels have requested Dr. Haagen, I do not remember but anyone can do so if they desire his attendance, Whether he can be procured is another matter, but the Tribunal would approve the order.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: General, let us continue and I want to hand you now Document No. 128 which has been introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 307. If you will observe, General, this is a secret memorandum from the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe, dated 7 July, 1944 to Haagen among others and it concerns Haagen experiments with Miss Crodel on this new dried typhus vaccine. It reads in part as follows:
There are no objections against the publication of the memorandum.
It is easy to see it refers to a memorandum by Haagen and Crodel on their experiments. It continues:
However we call attention to the fact that the presentation of the infection-results in diagram 1 and 2 differs from the usual presentation of vaccination-results concerning typhus and makes it more difficult for the reader to evaluate.
Now, General, this memorandum came from an organization subordinate to you, did it not?
A: Yes.
Q: By whom is this memorandum signed?
A: It is signed by the commanding officer of the Science and Research Department, Luxemburger. In the first place this is not a secret letter, it as an open letter. Secondly, it has already been said all work done by a scientist, or work written by a scientist during the war, had to have approval for publication by the competent military agency. That applied to members of the Luftwaffe and in that case the Instruction Group, Science and Research at the Medical Academy had the responsibility of all scientific matters and the writings were examined to see whether they contained any statement which for war purposes should not be published and that is how this work came through.
I do not know for sure as it did not come to me, I was given these things only in special cases by the commanding officer. First we have established contact with Luxenberger and asked whether he remembers having approved the work which mentioned experiments on human beings, he said "no". He said that he had not approved any work, that such experiments had not been conducted and that he had never seen such work. That is all I can say about it, but it was not my duty to read all this work myself as there was an office to do this.
Q: But at least General, Haagen was sending the report to the Luftwaffe concerning his experiments with this dried typhus vaccine; was he not?
A: I cannot say, I do not know the contents of this report and I do not know what it says. He reported on dried vaccine, I can see that from this memorandum which says Experiments with a new dried typhus vaccines that is right at the top, but it does not show what kind of experiments were conducted.
Q: Whether it tells that or not, General, I want to ask you what you interpret this presentation of the infection-results to mean as contrasted to the vaccination results, As a lay-man, I am inclined to interpret that to mean they tested the anti-infection possibilities of this vaccine by injection experiments as in contrast with compatability effects which are referred to in here as vaccination results; is that right?
A: Please ask Professor Rose about that as an expert. Diagram 1 and 2 show he made a customary presentation of vaccine-results concerning typhus and it came from the result of vaccination apparently. Later on the testing of the vaccine was made in the case of animals as well as human beings. The documents refers definitely to vaccines which are being tested, that is my conclusion.
Q: I want to ask you a question with respect to the next sentence, where it says:
In examining spotted fever or typhus vaccines with regard to animals and men the presentation of the vaccination- results is made by average curves from the fever-curves of all experimental subjects on one side and of the control persons on the other side.
Now, this reference to control persons interests me. If these were simply compatability test of the vaccine made for simple tests to discover the reaction of the person following the typhus vaccination, what are these control persons which are mentioned?
A: I cannot say, please ask Mr. Rose about that. He is certainly better acquainted with the form of examination. Such technical reports in Berlin of scientific work were made by specialists, Luxenburger himself was a psychiatrist and he certainly did not write the report himself; it was probably done by Rose or Athmer, but I assume that Rose wrote it. He can certainly give you a good answer to this, which I cannot.
Q: I am sure he probably has a very good answer, General. Now we come to document 131, which Prosecution Exhibit 309. This is a memorandum dated 29 August 1944, from your office, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and it is signed by your Chief of Staff, Kant. It is directed first to Haagen; secondly to the Science and Research Group of Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe. Would that second notation there be referring to Rose? Would he receive this memorandum in the normal course of events?
A: This regulation? You mean, this letter, or what?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, Rose received it. It says at the top, "Training Group, Science and Research." The consulting physicians were gathered there, and since it was a hygiene assignment, it was no doubt given to him for his knowledge. But I may point out number 1. It says:
The research dealing with the dry spotted fever vaccine from vitelling sac cultures are to be continued. Therefore the 4,000 Reichsmarks are being placed at your disposal.
One can clearly see what the contents of the assignment from 1942 given by my predecessor were. This supplements the report which is in the files here, where Haagen speaks of those vitelline sac cultures and the procedure of the Behring Works. I believe that without difficulty one can conclude here that the assignment which we gave Haagen was to the effect that this chicken egg process, which was developed in Frankfurt am Man by Otto, was to be worked out from the point of view of production, that was to start up a large-scale production of vaccine. Number 2 of this letter also shows that —
Q: (Interposing) Wait just a minute, General. Suppose you answer my questions instead of explaining the document; we will come to that in moment.
I want to know to whom number 3 refers here. That is, the memorandum was sent to three places: First, Haagen; second, the Science and Research Group of the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe, and you say Rose would not likely have received that; and number three says, "Chief of the Medical SS of the Luftwaffe", and then follows some sort of code designation, I suppose.
To whom was this sent under the designation three?
A: That went to an administrative official in my office. He was in charge of the budget; he was authorized to assign these 4,000 marks to the University of Strassbourg. This amount of 4,000 marks had to be given to Haagen's agency in some way. The budget experts took this sum from the funds at my disposal and sent it to the University of Strassbourg, to the treasury of the University of Strassbourg. From this sum Haagen was able pay the expenses for getting the chicken eggs, for paying the workers, and so forth. In addition, the treasury of the University of Strassbourg kept books on this.
Q: I think that is sufficient, General.
Now number 1, as you have already pointed out, indicates that you continued to support Haagen's work with this dry typhus vaccine, doesn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: And that is the same dry typhus vaccine which, in June 1944, he stated he was getting ready to test with artificial infection experiments, isn't it?
A: That was not contained in our assignment.
Q: Now then, under 2 it says:
A decision as to the establishment a vaccine manufacturing plant cannot yet be made because the chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, who alone is competent to decide upon procurement of vaccines, has not yet taken a stand in this matter.
Now that indicates two things, doesn't it, General? First, that Handloser had complete control over typhus production; and secondly, that Haagen had not started producing yet? Isn't that right?
A: That is right.
Q: Number 3 in this memorandum roads:
Please advise whether it be assumed that the typhus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present connected with the vaccine research.
Now, General, I suggest to you that that means that your chief of staff, Kant, very well knew that Haagen had been experimenting in Natzweiler with artificial infection experiments, and he was asking him if the experiments hadn't gotten out of hand and led to an epidemic there.
Isn't that what it says, General?
A: One cannot absolutely conclude that.
Q: One has to strain to draw any other conclusion, doesn't one, General?
A: This is based on knowledge which Rose had; I cannot say. Besides, it corresponds to the facts, since witnesses have testified here that in Natzweiler there was a typhus epidemic which had been brought in from outside, and Haagen later reported this tous. But from this I do not see, and I assure that my chief did not know it either — this does not say anything about a concentration camp, it says "Natzweiler". One can assume just as well — which I no doubt read at the time and would still read today— that it was one of the troop camps, many of which existed during the war. That can be concluded, above all, from number 4, that this opinion prevailed, because it is pointed out that information about typhus epidemics is to be kept secret. That corresponds to a military regulation that information about such events, typhus cases in military installations, was to be sent as secret matters. That is what I read from it.
Q: General, your reference to paragraph 4 here, I put to you, is just a little bit childish. Four reads:
The report of 21 June 1944
— which obviously is a report by Haagen sent in to the Luftwaffe —
The report of 21 June 1944 in which the investigation at Natzweiler are mentioned should have been sent as secret. In the future this — procedure is to be followed.
I interpret that to mean, General, that Kant was telling Haagen that with these artificial infection experiments on concentration camp inmates at Natzweiler he should send in only secret reports.
A: I can only repeat what I have already said, before, that I do not know this matter. This correspondence took place at a time when I was on a business trip in Italy, and my chief and my representative at the time took care of it.
The funds were assigned; that was his authority. I received no knowledge of it later, and here, in September or October, it was shown to me. Everything that I say about it I only construct from the words which are before me in the report. The only one who might be able to say anything about these matters would be Rose, who is surely acquainted with the background of this report.
Q: But, General —
A: (Interposing) And Becker-Freyseng cannot be called upon here, in spite of the number at the top, "55" because this is a hygiene report on typhus, which he dealt with only in the course of business but which, from a medical point of view or from a technical point of view, was handled by the Hygiene Section, or with the aid of Rose.
What I say here is merely a construction from these statements given in these reports.
Q: General, was Haagen's research assignment by the Luftwaffe classified as secret?
A: No, it was issued as an open letter in 194l or l942. It was not issued by me; it was before my time. As I said yesterday, in the case of such research assignments which could not be completed in one fiscal year by virtue of their contents, funds were assigned only to the amount that would be needed in the current fiscal year. When they had been used up, then new funds were assigned in the next fiscal year. In the course of assigning these new funds, this assignment was renewed. That is the reason why I had no knowledge of this letter. The assignment of funds as a new assignment, especially if it was on a large scale or very important, I had reserved for myself. The assignment of funds as an extension, or the renewing of existing assignments, I had turned over to my chief of staff. This is only a matter of a business dealing with a current matter which did not required any decision, and I didn't want my absence from the office on official business to delay such assignment.
My chief of staff was the only person in the office, aside from me, who could dispose of money to any large extent. I didn't want my absence —
Q: (Interposing) General, all I asked you was whether his assignment by the Luftwaffe was secret. I don't think we need to get a long speech about that. Your answer is that it was not secret; isn't that correct?
A: No, the documents show that it was open.
Q: And what, conclusion do you draw about that fact that if was not secret; that therefore it couldn't have had anything to do with experiments on human beings?
A: It was production assignment for typhus vaccine. It was an assignment to develop laboratory production to such an extent that it could applied to large scale production.
Q: Well, will you draw the reverse conclusion? Would you draw the reverse conclusion if it were, in fact, secret?
A: I don't know. I can only reconstruct that. My office did not order any human experiments in the sense in which they are mentioned here.
Q: Well, let's have a look at Document NO 934, and I think we will have to conclude that these were really secret assignments, General.
This is Document NO 934. It is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 458 for identification.
Now, General, let's tell the Court what this document is first. This is a list of medical research commissions of the OKL, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Saalew, near Berlin, Post office Zossenland, and so forth.
A: That is a list, as the heading shows, of the medical research commissions which my office and the authorities in charge of research issued in the year 1944—I don't see the date, but that is what I would assume—which were going on at the time. It must be from 1944.
Q: Yes, it is bound to be because, first —
A: Yes, that is shown by the fact that is says "OKL, Chief of the Medical Service." That shows that it was 1944. My title was changed from Inspector to Chief only in 1944.
Q: And it also has a note here, Stabsartz Dr. Becker-Freyseng, doesn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, let's turn to page 6 of the original document. It is page 7 of the English translation. Do you find "Hygiene", Roman Numeral VI, General? It must be on page 6 or 7.
A: On Page 7 of the German.
Q: Do you find that?
A: Yes.
Q: Hygiene. Item 2. "The manufacture of typhus vaccine. Secret. Medicine Institute, Strassbourg, Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Haagen."
A: It, as well as the next case, "I manufacture of Yellow Fever medicine", is a contradiction. In the other list they are given as open.
Q: The only other list is the little letter by Haagen to the Director of the University of Strassbourg, as I recall.
A: Yes. There they are both listed as open, and here they are given as secret. Perhaps Becker-Freyseng, can explain that, whether that was a typing mistake or why there was this discrepancy. In any case, there was no high degree of secrecy. They are "Secret", no "Top Secret". Other things are listed as "Top Secret".
Q: Well, it might, of course, be just a possibility that it was classified "Secret" because late in 1943 after Haagen's letter to the director in which it was not noted as being "Secret", he started his experiments in Natzweiler, which continued through the year 1944, so Becker-Freyseng in 1944 marks them down as "Secret". That is one possibility don't it, General?
A: No, I don't believe so, because the extension in August 1944 which you were just discussing was an open letter. The extension of this typhus vaccine assignment of 29 August 1944 was an open letter. It was not "Secret".
Q: Well, I say again your Chief of Staff Kant in his letter to Haagen admonished him to keep his report secret, didn't he?
A: That was about cases of typhus. That is something else.
Q: "Investigations at Matzweiler" is what it says, General.
A: I don't know the report. I can't say.
Q: Let's move on to sea water.
A: The date is not given on the list either.
Q: Let's move on to sea water, General.
A: Very well.
Q: When did you first became interested in the Schaefer process, as against the Berker process, of making sea water drinkable?
A: As I said yesterday, in the beginning of May 1944, when Professor Struckholdt for the first time told me of this solution of the sea water problem by Schaefer.
Q: What animal experiments had been conducted prior to that time by the Berker method?
A: I don't know the experiments as such.
Q: You testified that you tried to have the experiments on human beings carried out in a hospital at Brunswick, and you remember you contacted the commander of the hospital on 1 June 1944, because you remember quite remarkably that his promotion came through on that date?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you —
A: Otherwise, I would not know the date so well.
Q: You say you also contacted the Luftwaffe Medical Academy about this time to see if cadets could be made available. Now, when did you contact with the Medical Academy take place.
A: I said in connection with the Haagen business that I was on an official trip in France, and in the last days of May I returned to Berlin—about on the 27th or 28th; I don't knew exactly, but it was around that time. In the meantime, all the discussions which are shown here by the documents took place. I was told about it, that those experiments were planned. Then I established contact with the offices, first, the Medical Anatomy. Presumably that was on the 29th, 30th, or 31st of May, at the end of May.
Q: That is sufficient, General. I don't want you to go through what you did again. I am just interested in the dates right now. I therefore conclude that you did not consider going to the SS for experimental subjects until after you had exhausted these other possibilities; is that right
A: Yes.
Q: Now, when Struckholdt brought this problem to your attention early in May before you went on your inspection trip to France, did you then tell Becker-Freyseng to look into this matter, to find out what should be done, and to attend this meeting on 19 May 1944, where this matter was discussed?
A: That is a complete distortion of the facts. That is not how it was. In the first days of May I heard from Struckholdt of the Schaefer process through Struckholdt, and, as I have said several times, I looked at it. In the Institute Schaefer demonstrated it to me. Then I heard of the Berker process, and the next thing, the discussion on the 20th or 21st—whenever it was—that took place when I was not in Berlin, and the things were dealt with and discussed in my absence, but I should like to add the following: This part would have taken place inexactly the same way if I had been in Berlin. It was not customary and certainly not necessary for my experts to inform me about every conference which they were to attend beforehand. That would have been quite impossible. These things were settled in the various sections by the heads of the sections. I had elder, sensible people there. They sent the various experts to the meetings, and then if there were any results about which I had to be informed, then there was still plenty of time to inform me, and that is how it happened here, only that I was not there at the time, but it took place in the same way. When I came back, the section chief and Becker-Freyseng reported to me and told me about this question and what had developed in the meantime.
Q: General, let's look at the minutes on that meeting. This is Document NO 177, Prosecution Exhibit 193. Now, if you say there was no intention of going to the SS until after you had exhausted all possibilities for obtaining experimental subjects elsewhere, perhaps you will be good enough to explain to the Tribunal why a copy of the minutes of this meeting was sent to the Reichsfuechrer SS.
I cannot answer that. That is asking too much. This letter was sent by the technical office, by a person who was not a doctor, it was a technician. It was drawn up without the help of my office. It is a report of the meeting put down from memory and was worked out on the responsibility of the technical office. Why they sent it to the SS I don't know. I think a certain conclusion can be drawn from another document which I have seen here in the interrogations. This shows that the technical office had offered this Berker method, this Berker drug, to the SS. There is a letter in which the SS or some office of the SS is offered a sample. It is said that it is a drug which the technical office had developed in the meantime and they might introduce it, and they are sending sample. That was sent to the SS, and so I can imagine that the person who worked out this report said that such a thing — this is not introduced as quickly as this letter to the SS said, and he simply sent the SS a copy of this report. That is how I reconstruct it. I wasn't there.
Q: And you just knew no place to turn to get volunteers for these sea water experiments except Dachau, is that right?
A: After my own attempts had failed and the suggestion was made, I had no objections in accepting it.
Q: There were about four and a half million people in Berlin in 1944, weren't there?
A: Yes, something like that.
Q: Don't you think possibly you could have found 40 patriots among them and a safe enough place to carry out the experiments and have them down there in Berlin?
A: The men might have been found, but you are again forgetting what I have said several times, that we had air raids, air raid alarms daily, and that there was no calm and no opportunity to work in Berlin. Our own offices had moved out to the suburbs.
It was impossible to carry out any peaceful work in Berlin at that time. I had a hospital, a military hospital, in Berlin. I was able to see it there. No work could be done.
Q: Any law against experimenting on members of the Wehrmacht?
A: No.
Q: Isn't it a fact that you knew that these experiments were apt to kill somebody and you weren't interested in volunteers, so you went to the SS?
A: It is quite impossible. I would not expose the candidates of the academy or hospital patients to experiments if I knew that such things were even possible.
Q: Well, General, I don't mean to be unreasonable with you, but isn't that exactly what this document NO 177, Prosecution Exhibit 133 says, just as clearly as it can be said in any language? This is a report on the meeting of 19 May 1944, and your man Becker-Freyseng was there, together with Schaeffer and it says that at this meeting — I am quoting —
Capt. Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Col. Dr. von Serreni and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final decision.
In other words, Becker-Freyseng was saying that von Serreni's experiments with Becker were not realistic enough. They hadn't been carried out properly. And the report continues:
The chief of the Medical Service
— that is you, General —
is convinced that if Berker method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than six days after taking Berkatite, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health, and, according tp the opinion of Dr. Schaeffer, will finally result in death after not later than twelve days. External symptoms are to be expected, such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and, finally, death.
Now, General, as I say, I don't want to be unreasonable with you, but this report states on its face that, in your judgment, Berker, if used beyond six days, was apt to kill somebody. And I had suggested to you that under these circumstances you never had any intention of going anywhere except to Dachau; isn't that right?
A: No. First of all, this report was not written by a doctor or with the assistance of a doctor. It was written by a technician from memory. When the sea water complex is discussed, I ask you to question Becker-Freyseng about it, who can give more information. Second, this expression "chief of the Medical service is convinced" — that is not synonymous with my person, according to the way we use the language. It means the representative of the agency who was there. Third, it says after six days damage to health is to be expected. Fourth, Schaeffer thought death could occur after twelve days. Against this, the clear and unambiguous instructions which I issued were to carry out the experiments only to the extent that no damage would result to health. That cannot be explained away.
If with the Berker drug any damage had been shown after one or two days, it would have been the duty of the person in charge of the experiments to break off the experiment. That was true of the candidates in the academy, the patients in the hospital, and for the camp Dachau. I was not interested in finding out that people get sick from it. I can do that with the most harmless drug if I give an overdose. What was important was to establish what can be endured, what can be tolerated, to help these people in distress at sea. That was the purpose, not to establish what they could tolerate.
Q: Now, General, it seems to me to be pretty clear from this document that they outlined the experiments right there, because on the next page it says, after talking about experiments to be carried out for six days it says, in addition to these experiments, a further experiment should be conducted as follows:
two persons nourished with sea water and Berkatite and as diet also the emergency sea rations. Duration of experiments, 12 days. Since, in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service, permanent injuries to health as well as the death of the experimental subject has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS.
A: I have already said that this report did not come from my office. I did not work on it. It came from the technical office. Again I ask you to question Becker-Freyseng about it. You can see that I wanted to use the academy or the hospital first, and in any case, if it was to be said that way, I never identified myself with these experiments. I did them in a different way.
Q: You never even saw this report; is that right, General?
A: I saw this report for the first time here in Nuremberg. There was no reason at the time for it to be shown tome. Becker-Freyseng reported his opinion on these experiments. He didn't have to show me this report. He did not identify himself with these any more than I did. I heard later that he informed the technical office that there were serious mistakes and they should issue a correction. But he can speak about that himself. He is better informed than I am.
Q: Well, I was going to suggest to you, General, that you admit — you must admit that on the face of it, this is an outrageous document, and if it had been sent to me concerning anybody subordinated to me, I certainly would have seen to it that it was corrected, and I certainly would have insisted that my subordinate, such as Becker-Freyseng was to you, bring such a document to my attention.
But that didn't happen?
A: I ask you again to question Becker-Freyseng about this. He can tell you more than I can.
Q: Now under Item 2 on Page 3 of the original, General, you can see that the navy wasn't even very much interested in these sea water experiments. It suited them if they had a water that would carry a man for three days. The Luftwaffe was really pressing for these experiments for twelve days. General, do you find that? It says:
In the opinion of the navy, the results obtained at the clinical experiments are sufficient, since they are mainly interested in being able to nourish their men three to five days with the preparation.
They didn't care anything about making any further experiments, did they, General?
A: That is also an inaccuracy. As far as I know from later discussions with Becker-Freyseng, this number, twelve days, comes from the navy, because the navy had a case of distress at sea where a drifting boat with survivors was found after twelve days, and in the Luftwaffe — the case which I mentioned yesterday with the six days and seven days was one of the longest. I think later there was one with eight days, be had, this 3-day limit. This 12-day limit, to my knowledge, comes from the navy. That is another inaccuracy in the document. But I come back to the 3 to 5 days I was talking about yesterday. If the Berker drug had proved usable for a few days, then that would still have been a success. Then we could have used the other drug a little more sparingly. We could have used it a little less. We had raw material difficulties there.
Q: General, let's look at the distribution of this document. First, it was sent to the information of the Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbeg. Holzloehner was attached to that establishment at Jueterbeg, wasn't he?
A: That was — Holzloehner was only— he was at the planning office at Jeuterbeg, yes, but I don't believe he was there immediately at that time. That was in May. He was certainly not there. He was in Kiel, holding lectures.
Q: Look at the Institute for Aviation Medicine, DVL, Berlin, Adlershef, which was troubling Dr. Sauter the other day —
A: I explained that yesterday. That is certainly a mistake. The Ruff Institute had nothing whatever to do with this matter.
Q: General — General, it is immaterial to me whether it was a mistake or wasn't a mistake. The important thing is that he get it, whether by mistake or otherwise. This says that it was distributed to his institute doesn't it?
A: It says so here, yes. I don't know whether he got it.
Q: Now then, after Mr. Ruff got this and Mr. Holzloehner, or his institute, both of them had been quite active at Dachau themselves at an earlier period—did neither of them come to you to say, Watch your step; things are bad down there; men were killed in the earlier experiments? You find that unnatural? You think that would to very strange that if Ruff knew they had killed three men down there, that the SS, as he says, sort of took things out of his hands, you find it amusing that I suggest to you that when he gets a report like this which indicates that the Luftwaffe is carrying out another experiment in Dachau with the SS, you find it amusing that I suggest to you that he should have talked to you about it? Is that right General?
A: Nobody talked to me about it, neither Holzloehner nor Ruff. I said on another occasion that in the late fall I happened to see Holzloehner; and Ruff never talked to me about these matters. These implications I don't agree with.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)