1947-05-27, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY (Continued):
Q: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, how often in the course of professional business in the Office of the medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, did Professor Hippke refer to the referent of Aviation Medicine in regard to matters pertaining to that particular field?
A: I am afraid that is a question I can't answer. I could say how often Hippke called me, for instance.
Q: Well, he called you in; how often?
A: Not very often. I would estimate that it was five to 10 times but I wouldn't want to give any definite figure. It was certainly not oftener than that.
Q: How often did Hippke concern himself with matters in the field of Aviation Medicine without referring to the referent?
A: Very frequently I am sure. I alone of quite a number of matters, where Professor Hippke for example, delivered lectures on aviation medicine.
Q: How do you know about them?
A: Because I heard them later.
Q: He never reported to you about them or told you about them or asked your advice about them?
A: Those are two questions, you ask me first, whether Hippke reported to me, — no. It is not customary for the boss to report to his subordinate, and he very seldom asked me for advice. The referat was Anthony. There is an old German saying that you should get to the Blacksmith and not to his apprentice and during Anthony's time Anthony was the blacksmith. Only when Anthony was not there or when it was something very specific that I had worked with then Professor Hippke called me. For example, at the discussion we have just been talking about.
Q: Then I presume whenever Professor Hippke concerned himself in matters in the field of Aviation Medicine that he would consult with Anthony, that was the reason why he had Anthony there?
A: I can't quite answer this in the affirmative, because I know of cases when Professor Hippke dealt with aviation medicine questions himself without consulting Anthony.
Q: How could your office, that is Anthony have efficiently performed his task in the assignment without have complete knowledge of the activities in his field.
A: In my explanation of the duties of the referent, which is very thorough, I said that the referent worked on the orders of his superiors and of course it happened from time to time that these superiors acted independently on an aviation medicine question without consulting the referat for aviation medicine.
Q: Well, now you tell us that it was your understanding in these experiments that criminals condemned to death were to be used, is that correct?
A: I don't believe I said that. I said that convicted criminals were used. From that discussions between Hippke and Rascher I didn't know of anything about the persons condemned to death, and I never said so.
Q: What is your opinion about the ability of a person incarcerated to volunteer for an experiment?
A: I should like to refer again to my direct examination and repeat briefly that in the first place from many works of German and foreign works, I know that throughout the world the possibility is recognized for prisoners to volunteer.
Q: I am not interested in the possibility throughout the world; I want to know Becker-Freyseng's opinion, what do you think about the possibility of a person incarcerated in prison to volunteer for an experiment?
A: My personal opinion is that under the conditions an incarcerated person volunteers readily for such an experiment when a special mitigation of sentence is promised to him, and even if no such promise is made, because he can assume that by participating in such an experiment he will put himself in a good light in the eyes of the parole board, and most of the prisoners would be interested in that.
Q: Well, now you issued or ordered the sea-water experiments, or initiated them, or whatever nomenclature you wish to adopt; you have told us you have accepted the responsibility for the sea-water experiments, and in the sea-water experiments that used concentration camp inmates; those inmates were criminals, convicted criminals; did you approve of using convicted criminals in those experiments?
A: I want to correct one thing first, I said even today I take responsibility for the sea-water experiments, that is the responsibility which was due to me at the time according to my position as referent, to come back to your question —
Q: Just a moment, Doctor. In connection with that if you assume responsibility for the sea water experiments. Then you did anticipate or would you state that Anthony would or should assume responsibility for all these experiments performed on behalf the Luftwaffe, — that is that happened prior to May, 1944?
A: I cannot say that, because I don't know what part Anthony had in the planning or suggestion of these experiments.
Q: You just stated Doctor, you assume full responsibility for sea water experiments because of your position as referent in the Referat of Aviation Medicine, now by the some taken don't you think it possible that Anthony should accept responsibility of the experiments was brought home to the Referat?
A: Under this last condition I believe Anthony would still take the responsibility today, but I should like to point put that I make a clear distinction between the sea water experiments and other experiments as far as the participation of the Referat for Aviation Medicine is concerned. I get this from the documents submitted by the Prosecution, and I do not believe Anthony would take the responsibility for experiments which he never suggested or in the planning of which he participated, one can stake responsibility only for things which one plans or suggests or carries out ones self.
Q: Would you assume responsibility for the sea water experiments? One must assume that have had jurisdiction in order to assume responsibility
A: I believe in the course of my direction examination I explained my responsibility very carefully. I did not have jurisdiction nor independent supervision, but I had since there was no other possibility for carrying out these sea water experiments, and since my own plan which I mentioned of treating a group of the Luftwaffe at Jueterbog in order to have experimental persons at the disposal at any convenient time. This plan was rejected by my superiors, I pointed out that as a last possibility that these experiments, which I considered completely harmless, and I take the responsibility of that —
Q: We will come to the sea water phase a little later. I want to go back to the subject of volunteers used in your sea water experiments You knew they were going to use convicted criminals, that is what you understood would take place that convicted criminals were to be used in the experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did you understand would be the reward given to the convicted criminal for subjecting himself voluntary to the sea water experiment?
A: In the case of the sea water experiment he never mentioned any special rewards. I said before that I can imagine that a criminal volunteers, not only for a special reward, but also without such a reward. There were several reasons —
Q: And you are not sure whether any rewards were offered?
A: I know that Professor Beigelbock procured special cigarettes rations for these people and give them to them, and that he tried to get other rewards.
Professor Beigelbock will tell you about that himself.
Q: Did you see him give the cigarettes to the prisoners?
A: Since I was never in Dachau I did not see that. I have already stated.
Q: Inasmuch as you were taking full responsibility for the sea water experiments do you think that it would have been much better had you though about the matters more seriously and offered a reward to the political prisoners that volunteered for the experiments or offered a reward to perhaps a Jew incarcerated in a concentration camp for having committed Rassenschande [racial defilement], rather than offering a reward to a criminal who might go out and be a menace to the public again; didn't that occur to you? You are a clear thinking young man, or weren't you interested?
A: I must tell you that my chief, Professor Schroeder, as is true with the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] of the SS Police, told me that he had talked to Grawitz about soldiers unworthy for military service being used for these experiments. As far as I know everything else was eliminated because I had nothing to do with the selection of the subjects nor with the question of reward. Besides I am convinced that if I had suggested that political prisoners be used for these experiments the prosecution would use that as a special charge against me today.
Q: Well, now in the field of high altitude research you have testified here quite extensively concerning the adaptability of experimental subjects to high altitudes, inasmuch as you are an expert in this field, a man who has done considerable work in Heildelberg since the end of the war in explosive decompression, can you tell me how many times an average individual can undergo a high altitude experiment and in what space of time he can undergo said experiments before he becomes adapted to high altitudes?
A: I don't know where you get the idea that I had done a great deal of work in explosive decompression.
I never said so.
Q: You have done it at Heidelburg since the end of the war, haven't you done a considerable amount of work in explosive decompression at Heidelburg? That is what I understood from your direct examination?
A: No, I worked on bends, that is the condition when a altitude of 12,000 meters altitude or some other altitude is reached normally. Explosive decompression is a change in pressure taking place within seconds from normal pressure to the pressure of very high altitude.
Q: Doctor, do you feel that you are in a position to testify before this Tribunal concerning the adaptability of an experimental subject to high altitude as an expert?
A: Yes, I assume so, because I have performed experiments myself on adaptability to high altitude.
Q: Can you answer my question, does a person ever become adapted to high altitude?
A: In this general form the question has to be answered in the affirmative.
Q: And if a person becomes adapted to high altitude, I imagine he would be useless for experimental purposes?
A: That depends on the nature of the experiments one wants to conduct, for certain types of experiments this condition is not the correct basis, that is true.
Q: It follows, however, that you would not get average statistics if you used a person who became adapted to high altitude?
A: Yes, they would be average figures under these special conditions.
Q: Is there any set period wherein a person becomes adapted to high altitude; for instance, would it be four or five times undergoing extreme altitude in a period of a week, which would cause a person to become adapted to it; or would it be within a month or would some people never became adapted or is it possible to strike an average? You may answer that extensively if you care to, doctor.
A: I will be glad to do so because one can explain this matter very simply and I shall try to do so. Genuine adaptation to altitude is only the circumstance or rather the condition arising after a stay at high altitude for some time. For example, in the Alps between 3,000 and 4,000 meters it takes about two weeks to be complete. At even higher altitudes, for example, in the Andes or the Himalayas, it is possible for the mountain climbers to go up to 8,000 meters and adapt themselves to this altitude and this of course takes even longer. Between this true altitude adaptation and what occurs when a person rises rapidly in the low pressure chamber for a limited times there is a definite distinction.
It is not possible to obtain altitude adaptation through repeated stays in a low pressure chamber. In any case not if these low pressure chamber experiments are limited to a period of time to two, three or four months and if for example there is only one ascent per day and then after the second, third or fourth time the person is a little more resistant than the first time.
Q: After the first or second time, did you say?
A: Yes, but that means only very slight increases in the resistance to altitude. It is possible because in the first ascent the subject is unused to this new situation and does not act quite right, perhaps the breathing is not quite right, and these inhibitions will be removed on the second or third time when the subject is used to the situation. Now if we continue these pressure chamber ascents for years, such as the people working in aviation medicine are forced to do, the much later, say after nine months or a year, there is a further improvement in the resistance to altitude, but this does not approach what is caused by a stay in the mountains. I do not believe that the results of experiments would be influenced by it if within three months, twenty or thirty or thirty-five experiments were performed on the same person.
Q: Supposed you used me for instance as an experimental subject. Do you think I could take five of these tests a week and not become adapted for a period of three weeks?
A: According to what I have just said, I do not believe that you would be adapted after three weeks. I assume that you are healthy; you could of course undertake five experiments with the lack of oxygen within a week without suffering any ill effects.
Q: For a period of three weeks and not become adapted?
A: Yes, altitude adaption is not caused by a limited stay daily in a low pressure chamber.
Q: Now, how can you tell when I become adapted? Give me a simple answer.
A: That is very simple to determine. The first time I check either how long you can go on without oxygen at a certain altitude, how long you can stay at a certain altitude or how far you can ascend without oxygen, that is an ascent experiment. If I repeat the same experiment after three, four or six weeks, I can determine whether you can remain in for a longer time at the same altitude or at the same speed or whether you can go to a higher altitude without becoming sick. That test is very simple.
Q: Now in a period of two months, Doctor, might I become adapted if I was used thirty times?
A: I have already said, repeated ascents in the low pressure chamber cause a very slight improvement in the resistance to altitude, but nothing that aviation medicine calls altitude adaptation in the strictest sense.
Q: Now, Doctor, the freezing experiments at Dachau; your first encounter with any activities concerning experimentation in the field of research concerning freezing or shock from exposure to cold was after having sat in at the meeting between Hippke and Rascher; was that the first time?
A: Not after the meeting, but the discussion between Hippke and Rascher was the first time I heard anything about it, because I was called in to participate in this discussion.
Q: On Page 11 of document book 3, this is document 343-PS. Page 12, I am sorry, this is document No. 283, that is the letter from Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer concerning the assignment of Jarisch, Holzloehner and Singer to work on the problem of freezing; do you have that letter, Doctor?
A: I have the photostat of the document, yes.
Q: Was Jarisch in the Luftwaffe?
A: This is Professor Jarisch, he had no office or position in the Luftwaffe.
Q: Was Holzloehner in the Luftwaffe?
A: Holzloehner was a Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] or Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] in the Luftwaffe, yes.
Q: Was Singer in the Luftwaffe?
A: I have learned here that Singer was a Luftwaffe pathologist in Munich. I believe in the research assignment list there was some research assignment given to Singer from which I have seen, he must have been an Oberstabsarzt during the war. I do not know him personally and I had nothing to do with him.
Q: Rascher was in the Luftwaffe?
A: Yes, Rascher was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q: Weltz was in the Luftwaffe?
A: Yes, that has been established here.
Q: Were the freezing experiments at Dachau Luftwaffe experiments or SS experiments?
A: According to what I heard at the time from Rascher, I thought they were definitely Rascher's experiments, based on specific order and approval of Himmler.
Q: Where did Hoelzloehner report on the experiments, or rather Rascher; where did he report about his work, did he report at the October meeting in Nurnberg?
A: The experiments were reported only and exclusively to Himmler. Rascher had obtained permission from Himmler to speak at the lecture. The sea-watcr experiments were a top secret matter and he was to give only as much information as necessary.
Q: That meeting in October in Nurnberg was a Luftwaffe meeting; was it not?
A: Yes, it was a Luftwaffe meeting or a meeting on behalf of the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
Q: Do you know where Jarisch is now?
A: I assume that he is in Innsbruck.
Q: Do you know where Holzloehner is now?
A: No, I do not, I heard he was dead.
Q: Did you know that he committed suicide?
A: I heard that, yes.
Q: Was the cause for his suicide his participation in these experiments?
A: I don't know, I could not say.
Q: This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)