1947-05-21, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the court room.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present with the exception of the Defendant Hoven who was excused from the Tribunal yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Hoven who was excused pursuant to a request by his counsel that Defendant Hoven might be excused today in order to consult with his counsel.

Counsel may proceed.

HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng):

Q: Doctor, Becker, yesterday we closed the charge regarding high-altitude experiments and I come now to the next charge, your responsibility and participation in the freezing experiments. Here also it is not asserted by the prosecution that you are an active participant. The prosecution bases its charges mainly on your position as an assistant referent or referent in the medical inspectorate. The first question regarding this then is, from 1941, 1942 and 1943 did you deal with the problems involved in freezing research in your position as assistant referent in your referent?

A: No.

Q: From a document put in by the Prosecution it can be seen that discussions of sea-distress problems were discussed. This is from Document Book No. 3, English, page 10, Exhibit 42, Document number 343. That is a letter from General Milch of the 20th of May 1942 addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff, and it is headed "Dear Wolffy!" It refers to the high-altitude experiments, saying that they are concluded, and continues,

on the other hand, the carrying out of experiments of another sort, namely, those on sea distress are necessary and preparations have already been made for them by our office.

Now, under this word "office" you can understand only the SS office or, on the other hand, the competent office in the medical inspectorate. Do you know that before the 20th of May 1942 any such discussions were carried out?

A: No. I did not.

Q: Now, witness, you told us that you heard of Rascher's experiments for the first time during the discussion between Professor Hippke and Rascher in June of 1942. A document has been put in by the prosecution regarding this discussion. It is in Document Book 3, page 12, Document number 283, Exhibit 82. This is a letter from Dr. Rascher of 15 June 1942 and headed "Esteemed Reichsfuehrer!" In other words, this letter is addressed to Himmler. You know this document, witness. Is this the discussion to which Hippke ordered you to attend at that time?

A: Since I was ordered to attend only one such discussion between Hippke and the Reichsfuehrer, this must be the one but let me make a small correction. I found out for the first time about this think not on the occasion of this discussion but from my superior, Dr. Martius.

Q: Yes, thank you, you have already said that. Now, you were present at the discussion on this letter, consequently.

I may discuss a few points of this letter with you. The first paragraph concerns itself with the high-altitude experiments. Let me ask you were you present during that part of the discussion?

A: No, I was called into the discussion in the middle of it, consequently, I don't know what was discussed beforehand or how long it had been lasting.

Q: The second paragraph concerns itself with the freezing problem. Let me quote briefly:

At the same time, he asked for permission to carry out the cold and water experiments in Dachau, and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments: Professor Dr. Jarisch, Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Professor Dr. Singer. The Inspector designated the experiments as extraordinarily important, as we must count on another winter in the East.

Witness, were these points taken into consideration during the discussion, and what can you say by way of supplementation of what you said yesterday regarding this matter?

A: These points were touched on yesterday but I remember very definitely that at least when I was present it wasn't as if Hippke requested something, but it was that he was going to carry out freezing experiments and to do so he needed a sea distress specialist from the Luftwaffe. So far as the names quoted here are concerned, I remember Professor Jarisch and Holzloehner. I recall both names in connection with the sea distress discussions planned for the late fall or winter. The whole plan was already under consideration and it also had been put before Hippke as something he should deal with. Professor Singer, the Luftwaffe pathologist in Munich, is completely unknown to me in this connection, neither was he included in the plan conceived of at that time nor did he take part in the conference here in Nurnberg.

I do not know him personally and whether or not I even knew his name at that time I don't know, but it is possible that later Hippke named him to Rascher.

Q: Now, witness, you described what was said in this discussion briefly yesterday but there is one point that should be mentioned again, what problems were these experiments intended to solve?

A: So far as I can still recall today the propositions that Rascher made to Hippke at that time were rather devious and not very precise. Professor Hippke clearly emphasized two specific problems, one was the testing of the foam suit that Holzloehner had developed and the other was the problem of the so-called rapid rewarming.

Q: In that part of the discussion when you were present, was there any discussion of the dangerousness of the experiments?

A: That was mentioned to the extent that Rascher mentioned the paper by Smith and Fay, which had been published shortly theretofore, I think in 1941, and in which it was stated for the first time that it had been found possible to reduce human temperature 24 degrees centigrade, the temperature taken rectally, without killing the subject. I took particular note of this because I found that very surprising; I had never concerned myself before theretofore with freezing experiments, and I had supposed until then that the reduction of temperature of just a few degrees below normal were very dangerous and then in July, 1942, there appeared in the German Clinical Weekly, the paper by a Danish physician named Dr. Eltorm, who had checked on Smith and Fay's article and also reported on numerous reductions of temperature for the purpose of treating cancer.

Q: Then your answer to my question as to whether or not the dangerousness was discussed is that Rascher declared that they were not dangerous and referred to scientific periodicals and papers to prove this?

A: Yes. He did in that connection.

Q: Now witness, when did you again hear of these intended experiments?

A: In Nurnberg, at the freezing conference.

Q: In the meantime did you see any letters of any sort either that came to the referat or that came to it?

A: In the meantime I had nothing to do with this matter.

Q: Now let me put to you another prosecution document, document book 3, page 22, document No. 286, exhibit 88.

This is a letter from the Medical Inspectorate to the Reichsfuehrer SS. Below the heading, there is the file note 55, and for the referat in question there is the indication L I M 14, Arabic 2, Roman 2 B, that is the referat for Aviation Medicine. How does it happen that you didn't see this letter?

A: Let me refer to the signature. It says: "Draft signed by order of Wullen", who was the chief of staff, and certified 2 copies, signature Anthony. On the 28 February 1947; Augustinok, a witness, on page 3730 of the English record, stated that in view of our regular office procedure it was obvious that this letter had been worked on by Anthony.

Q: Now, witness, though you didn't concern yourself personally with this letter, — can you nevertheless, on the basis of your general knowledge of the work in the referat for aviation medicine, give us some information about this. This is a letter regarding freezing and in the first part Anthony writes that Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Professor Dr. Holzloehner on the 24 February 1942, was given a research assignment on the effect of freezing on warm blooded subjects. In connection with this research assignment was there any mention of any further intention of carrying out experiments on human beings? Could you give us some general information on this?

A: I myself know nothing more precisely about this research assignment, but first of all the subject of the research assignment, the effect of freezing on warm blooded subjects, makes use here of a scientifically perfectly usual expression for experiments on animals. In the list of the 97 research assignments the Prosecution put in, Document No. 934, Exhibit 458, we find under IX, two research assignments to other men, using almost identical terminology, to wit, experiments on warm blooded subjects, and also in foreign scientific papers, for instance that by the Americans Dill and Forbes, you find the same expression in English. If experiments on human beings had been intended that would have been expressed in the definition of the research assignment. More over, it says verbatim in this letter and I quote:

On the proposal of Stabsarzt, Dr. Rascher, appropriate examinations were made on human beings,

that meaning that at first at least the assignment was limited entirely to animal experiments.

Q: I want to ask you one more question, namely, about the next to the last paragraph on the first pages:

The research documents and extensive documents will be presented to Reichsfuehrer SS by Dr. Rascher at his request, that the original and copy of the report of the documents be put at the disposal of the inspectorate of the medical service of the Luftwaffe.

According to the Prosecution assertion this is an experiment which was carried out on the initiative of the Luftwaffe. How is it that the Luftwaffe on the 8 October 1942, in other words, after the conclusion of the experiments, has to ask for the first time from the Reichsfuehrer SS?

A: Since I know nothing about this directly or personally I can only draw the deduction regarding a point that was, it seems, quite clear, that the office which ordered these experiments and the office determined when the results were to be made public, was the Reich Fuehrer SS alone. Let me say also that in the experiments which the Luftwaffe really carried out by itself, for instance the sea water experiments, it never occurred to any one to ask the Reichsfuehrer SS or any one else to permit the publication of the findings.

Q: With that, I can leave that document, and I can ask you the following: You said before that until the Nurnberg freezing conference you saw no further reports on this matter. However, the witness Neff, who was Rascher's collaborator in Dachau, said on the 18 December, 1946, on page 681 of the English record, that Rascher dictated interim reports on his freezing experiments in Dachau, which went through as top secret material, and that the reports went to the aviation office 7 in Munich in the Prinzregentenstrasse. Now this was certainly a Luftwaffe office that received these reports, and I want to ask you whether these reports were sent from Munich to the Medical Inspectorate?

A: All I can say is that they never reached me, but I can point out the following: A Luftgau [Air District] Medical Office (Amt) No. 7 did not exist. This can only be a confusion in my opinion with the Luftgau Medical Department No. 7, of which Dr. Daniels was in charge and Exhibit 104, document NO-283, mentions him as his superior as the man who approved Rascher's further experiments in Dachau. Then, witness, Neff said that he remembered very clearly that these reports were top secret, but it was prescribed in the case of top secret matters that they could only be sent to those offices to which they were addressed. That is to say, top secret matters were not sent through the regular channel through all intermediary stages but were sent directly. Concerning the many letters that Rascher sent to his office in the SS, namely, Himmler, it can be seen that he had no scruples about sending such a top secret matter to the Medical Inspectorate. In summing up, I can say I never saw any such top secret report, nor later when I took a referat did I see any such top secret report in the files.

Q: You have stated now that you did not see this report that Rascher sent on the 10 September 1942 to Himmler mentioned in 234, Exhibit 83, page 13 of Document Book III. Now, witness, first of all let me ask you one thing based on your general knowledge of the usual office procedure in Germany. Rascher speaks here of the Nurnberg Freezing Conference and papers to be read there and says therein, last paragraph:

I will take care that the report is submitted in an appropriate manner due to its top secret nature.

Now, duo to your basic knowledge of prescriptions regarding such matters how is a report to be made if it is concerned with something designated with top secret at such a conference?

A: That can only mean that at the Nurnberg Freezing Conference the results are to be reported on only so far as it is absolutely necessary for an understanding of the results. After I had heard Holzloehner's report in Nurnberg, and now again in Nurnberg after seeing a part of the records of the experiments, I can judge the difference between the way the experiments were really carried out and what we who attended the conference heard at that time. In other words, Rascher made known no details at all.

Q: Witness, then interim reports did not reach you. Now, how about the final report which the Prosecution has put in as document NO-428, Exhibit 91, page 27 of Document Book III? I don't want to read anything to you from this report. I simply want to know if you knew of it?

A: I heard about it the first time here in the trial.

Q: Then you didn't see this report in your referat, that's what you mean?

A: Yes, that is so. Let me point out one thing which is perfectly clear to those who know how German correspondence is carried on. In the copy of this report put in by Prosecution it can clearly be seen that this is copy # 2. It was prescribed in the case of top secret matters they state how many copies of top secret matters had been made and on each copy or on each page of each copy; the number of the copy has to be printed.

Since this copy is copy no. 2 there is also the copy that Rascher sent to Himmler. It must be assumed that Rascher kept copy no. 1 in his own private files and sent copy no. 2 to his Chief, who had given the assignment, Heinrich Himmler. It is unlikely that, in addition, he sent off several other copies elsewhere because Rascher wanted to qualify as a lecturer through this work and it is a prerequisite that in order to do so the applicant come through with new results. Consequently, Rascher would have no reason to spread these matters. That would prevent him from receiving the recognition that would qualify him as a lecturer.

Q: The report was not in the files of the Medical Inspectorate. Let me recall to you Professor Weltz's testimony on the stand, page 7146 of the English record. Professor Weltz stated he made inquiries to find this report and was unable to do so. Let me now put in Becker-Freyseng Document 25, Document Book II, page 96. This will be Exhibit 12. This is an affidavit by Professor Knothe of Goslar of 8 March 1947. Let me ask you, first of all what job did Professor Knothe have at this time?

A: He was Commader of the Medical Experimental Department in Jueteborg.

Q: May I quote then this document which is very brief.

At the request of defense counsel, I wish to state the following: I recall that during the summer or fall of 1944. Dr. Becker-Freyseng telephoned me from Saalow, the sanitary experimental and lecture section and inquired whether I know anything about a final report by Holzloehner on his low temperature experiments at Dachau, or whether such a report was to be found in my section. He stated that he himself knew nothing of such a report. I thereupon explained to Dr. Becker-Freyseng on the telephone that I knew nothing about such a report either and that it could therefore not be at my section.

There follows the signature and the usual certification. Now, witness, it isn't entirely clear from this document why it was Professor Knothe that you called up. Were there any closer connections between Rascher, Holzloehner, Hippke or anybody else and Professor Knothe?

A: It was very natural for me to call up Knothe because Holzloehner's Military Planning Agency was this Sanitary Experimental and lecture section in Jueterborg.

Q: Now we come to Document 286, Exhibit C from Document Book III, page 127 of the English Document Book. It has the same code letters as those which the prosecution uses as basis for its charges against you. Now, let me ask you whether or not you know this letter which went to Reichsfuehrer-SS from Hippke on 19 February 1943?

A: I cannot recall this letter and certainly didn't draft it myself at that time because this was Anthony's affair. I did not know it then. But let me point out one thing which can be seen very clearly from this letter, that, also on the 19 February 1943, neither the Medical Inspector himself, namely Hippke, nor Prof. Anthony were in possession of this final report signed by Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke. In this letter the Medical Inspector thanks that the freezing experiments have been carried out and states explicitly and I quote:

The result was reported upon by those who worked on them during a conference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardships on 26 and 27 October 1942 at Nurnberg.

I am convinced that if the written report were also available then the fact that a report was to be made at the conference would not have been mentioned but thanks would have been given for the written report.

Q: Now, we come to the Nurnberg Conference which has been repeatedly mentioned by the Prosecution here. Professor Holzloehner spoke at this conference. Now, first a few preliminary questions. This conference was organized by the Medical Inspectorate. Was this the only conference of this kind or were there several such?

A: There were 12 such conferences throughout the course of the War from 1941 to 1944.

Q: This conference, witness, concerned itself with the freezing problem in contradistinction with the consulting conference of the Wehrmacht which treated numerous subjects at the same conference. Was it customary for such Luftwaffe conferences to discuss only one problem. Otherwise the impression could be that the only reason this conference was called was to hear Holzloehner's report.

A: The conference was called by the Medical Inspectorate for scientific discussion where in contradistinction to the consulting conferences of the Wehrmacht consulted only one theme at a time and this theme was illuminated in all its facets on one or two days of the conference. I might name one or two other themes that occupied the other 12 conferences. The most important was the one a year previous to that in the summer of 1942 in Paris which concerned itself with sea distress problems in which I did not participate because I didn't belong to the Medical Inspectorate at that time. And in the summer of 1942 a second medical conference regarding night sight and space sight, and then in 1943 a conference regarding medical air raid protection measures, and in 1944 a conference on the use of the so-called efficiency increasing drugs such as caffeine, benzedrine, ephedrine, and so on.

Q: That's enough, witness.

Now, Dr. Anthony was the chairman of this conference. Was it usual for the referent to hold the chairmanship of such conferences?

A: That was altogether customary, and, in all conference reports which can readily be found in the library of the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg, can be seen that Anthony always had the chairmanship of these conferences. Two conferences took place after Anthony left and, in that case, since I had his job, I was in charge of them.

Q: Now, witness, from that it can be seen that the preparations for the Nurnberg conference was done by Professor Anthony?

A: Yes, that is so and, of course, the man in charge of a conference has to know what the agenda is going to be.

Q: Now, witness, you were assistant referent at that time under Anthony. What did you have to do with this conference?

A: All the conferences that took place under Anthony's referat I had to organize. That is quite a job because there are discussions by eighty or ninety scientists who are going to read papers in two days.

Q: That is to say you had nothing to do with the scientific preparations of it, but just the organizational and technical side of it.

Now, did you know what Holzloehner was going to report on?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: But did you know Professor Holzloehner before that?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Where did you know him and what did you know about him?

A: I made Anthony's acquaintance in the course of further training for Luftwaffe physicians and fliers that took place in Jueterborg. During this training course Professor Holzloehner delivered a lecture on sea distress problems and presented a movie regarding his foam suit that he had already developed.

Q: Witness, if I understand you correctly, this was a lecture in March, 1942, at which Holzloehner spoke regarding his practical sea distress experiences and about a new foam suit; namely, a theoretical problem which had to be solved practically?

A: Yes.

Q: Dr. Augustinock, on the 28th of February 1947, page 3736 of the English record, said that Holzloehner was, for a long period, the director of a rescue station on the French Coast. How long did Holzloehner's report in Nurnberg take?

A: Not exceptionally long. I should say thirty or forty minutes.

Q: Did he show any pictures or films?

A: No.

Q: So far as he spoke about experiments, did he say anything about the experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: Who did Holzloehner say the experiments were being carried out on?

A: Holzloehner himself spoke only of sea distress cases. That experiments were carried out on condemned criminals could be seen because, after Holzloehner reported, Rascher did.

Q: Now, witness, I come unfortunately to a rather unhappy matter; namely, Document No. 448, Exhibit 81, Document Book 3, page 7. This is your affidavit of 24 October 1946. Witness, are these your own words that are to be found in this affidavit, or just what is it that is written down here?

A: No, this is not my own wording. This was put to me, in English, in the presence of Mr. McHaney and, I believe, one interrogation preceded this affidavit. I was allowed to make some changes in the affidavit, but when I wanted to make more precise statements on certain points and didn't want to sign such generalizations because they were too ambiguous, McHaney told me that I should later certainly have an opportunity to make these further explanations. I presume that he meant the situation in which I find myself at the moment.

Q: Now, witness, please make those explanations but be brief. First of all, witness, there is a sentence in your affidavit on page 2, under point 5, you say here:

It was rather well known that these men were experimenting on concentration camp inmates.

What did you mean to say by that expression "rather well known"? Did that mean it was "rather well known" to you?

A: At the Nurnberg conference I knew what I had heard Rascher say in his discussion with Hippke. Whether I heard, already at that time, or later, that Rascher had a laboratory in Dachau I do not recall today. As experimental subjects only condemned criminals were named.

Q: Now, another question about this affidavit.

As a result of Holzloehner's report and others given at the conference, issued instructions to the flight surgeons that the warm bath method was to be used in reviving aviators who had been severely chilled.

First of all, what do you mean by "we"? You said that you couldn't issue any instructions at all.

A: It is possible that in the interrogation that preceded this affidavit I used the word "we" and said that "we had done so and issued such and such instructions." That, of course, means the office to which I belonged and, in normal conversation, it is a perfectly common way of expressing oneself.

Q: Did you yourself have anything to do with the issuing of this directive to the troop physicians?

A: I had nothing to do with that. This directive was a result of the Nurnberg conference and, from the purely formal point of view, it was not the referat for aviation medicine that had anything to do with this, but the referat 2-I-B with its file number of 49. It was this referat that had all the dealings with the troop physicians. That was the referat for hygiene.

Q: We have attempted, Your Honors, to get our hands on this directive. It was, for technical reasons, impossible unfortunately. This is the directive of the 3rd of August, 1942 — "Directions to Troop Physicians for Preventing Damage to Persons through Cold." I have included this in my document book primarily to show that it bears the file number 49, only to show that it has nothing to do with the referat for aviation medicine. This is on page 97 of Document Book 2. It will be Exhibit 13 and it is Document 26.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel your last exhibit you offered was your Document 25.

DR. TIPP: Your Honor, this is Document 26, Exhibit 13. It is noticed in this document that it bears the number 2-I-B instead of 2-II-B.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: I return now to your affidavit, witness. You say here that it was

fairly well known that these men were experimenting on concentration camp inmates.

Did you have any positive knowledge as to who these subjects were and how they were chosen?

A: No, I had nothing to do with that selection and never had any positive knowledge of it.

Q: Witness, after the Nurnberg conference did you have anything to do with the results of the Holzloehner-Rascher-Finke experiments? Did you see reports on it after Nurnberg?

A: No, nor are any reports known that were to have been sent out after the Nurnberg conference.

Q: I come to the crux of the Nurnberg conference, so far as the prosecution is concerned, at least; namely, Holzloehner's lecture. Document No. 410, Exhibit 93, Document Book 3, page 96, says the following:

Holzloehner gave this report on his experiments which were, of course, experiments carried out in Dachau.

This is on page 319 of the English record of the 12th of December, 1946. This formulation of the matter the prosecution seems to have taken from its own exhibit because, under #5 in your affidavit, you said:

At the Nurnberg conference held in October, 1942, Dr. Holzloehner gave a report on the freezing experiments conducted in Dachau in cooperation with Dr. Rascher.

However, previously, witness, you said that Holzloehner had spoken about his practical experiences in sea distress work. Now, just what did Holzloehner actually report on? These two statements do not correspond to each other.

A: Holzloehner's report was a mixture of practical sea distress experiences, results of animal experiments and results of experiments on human beings.

Q: Then if I understand you correctly, a combination?

A: A combination.

Q: And again I would like to quote to you something that the Prosecution said on the 12th of December 1946, page 310 of the English record. Let me quote. Mr. McHaney said the following:

I should like to make the remark here before I continue although it has not been said so far definitely, that these experiments were not carried out on persons rescued from sea. The Witness Lutz told us, however, that it was made perfectly clear that these were experiments that were carried out on human beings here where humans were in a planned manner submerged in ice water. This is clear from the following part of the report because it would have been impossible for any scientist to make these detailed clinical observations on the case of individuals exposed—

Witness, as you said you are not a specialist in the field of freezing, but you have made general medical knowledge, therefore I can ask you is this decision on the part of the prosecution correct as here stated by Mr. McHaney?

A: No, a great deal can be said in answer to that. First, let me tell you what Lutz actually said. This was in testimony given on the 12th of December 1946, page 242, — page 342, I guess, of the English record. In answer to the Prosecution's question I should like to ask you whether or not if one didn't understand at that conference that the experiments had been carried out on inmates in the concentration camp. Lutz answered "I cannot judge that for sure, but I believe so. I believe that most of them must have seen that clearly." This shows quite clearly that this point was not made clear, but that it was left up to every individual's imagination. Lutz himself had worked in animal experiments on the freezing problem, and worked in the Institute in which the scientific animal experiments on these questions were carried out, and if he sees something more clearly than others that is, of course, quite understandable.

I had not worked personally on freezing problems, nor had I had anything directly to do with Rascher, and in addition let me point out that Holzloehner certainly gave no report on the course of a freezing experiment where, for example, on the same man the various stages of freezing are carried out and observed on the same man. In medicine it is quite customary, it is true of so-called typical case histories, and you think in terms of them. You speak of the normal and usual course that a disease takes from its beginning to its end, and it is perfectly clear that such a case history is combined from observation on very many individual patients, and also contains the result of experimental observation. Let me also point out that between a report which is a top secret report, and a publication made without any secrecy whatsoever, there is a very evident difference to anyone. The report that Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke signed on their work there and which Rascher sent to Himmler was a top secret matter. The report in the conference of sea distress or winter distress in Nurnberg which the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe and Holzloehner's lecture stood under no secrecy. If the competent person then is what actually stood behind Holzloehner report, and that the experiments and the conclusions from them were to be treated as top secret, then it is perfectly clear that this report would not have been made in a perfectly open publication.

Q: Witness, regarding Holzloehner's lecture, the Prosecution asserted in its case that the Holzloehner report contained a number of passages from which it could be clearly and unequivocally seen that there were fatalities in the experiments in Dachau. In other words, this report shows clearly to you at least who knew the facts of the experiments as such, that in the course of the experiments at Dachau crimes were committed. Is this assertion by the Prosecution correct, as far as you know, Witness?

A: From Holzloehner's lecture certainly no one even knew that experiments had been carried out would deduce that there had been fatalities in the course of the experiments. Perhaps what Rascher said in connection with Holzloehner's report later could give someone ideas, but that would not be seen from Holzloehner's lecture.

Seen from the psychological point of view today, as I know all the other matters, it is very easy to see in this Holzloehner report everything I have found out in the meantime, but at that time we didn't know these things.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I should like to discuss a few of these passages which the Prosecutor feels to be particularly incriminating, with the witness. This will take, I believe, roughly half an hour, and I do not know whether the court wishes me to begin on this before the recess, or if it would be better if we waited until after the recess to take up this matter, which must be understood in its entirety.

MR. HARDY: Mr. President, Your Honor, it seems to me the defense counsel has labored under this point a long time. He has been here nearly an hour discussing the Nurnberg conference. It seems to me he has covered it amply. I don't see any reason for going into it very extensively. There are four or five other charges against the defendant. He will be in the witness box four or five more days at this rate.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, is not aware of the questions counsel desires to ask the witness concerning this report, but counsel will be permitted to pursue the matter at least until the Tribunal feels he is pursuing it too far.

In the meanwhile the Tribunal will be in recess.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)