1947-05-28, #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, German, on 28 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are present in the court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: May it please the Tribunal. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, yesterday, during the course of cross examination, I asked you whether or not you had ever performed experiments in high-altitude research above 12,000 meters and I recall that you answered that you had done that type of research yourself up to 15,000 meters.
A: I said that I performed a very few, perhaps one or two experiments on myself. Generally, however, my work was up to 12,000 meters. That was the work in 1945 and 1946.
Q: Now, this work wherein you went to 15,000 meters, was that also in 1945 and '46?
A: No, that was before, that was during the war.
Q: When?
A: There were some orientation experiments which I performed, perhaps '42 of '43 only to learn about these things by myself. There was not any extensive research, just a few experiments for my own orientation.
Q: Had anyone else to your knowledge performed or experimented above 12,000 at that time or prior to 1942?
A: Yes, quite a few people.
Q: Who?
A: Dr. Ulrich Luft and Dr. Hans Georg Klamann, at the Aviation Research Medical Institute, and Dr. Benzinger and his people in Rechlin. The highest altitude reached that I knew of was a little over 19,000 meters. This was reached by Hans Erich Halbach in a self experiment. He is now living in Prien in the Chiemsee. He worked for Dr. Benzinger.
Q: Do you know how many times experiments have been conducted wherein altitudes over 15,000 meters were reached? Approximately, doctor. Just a rough estimate.
A: Certainly 50 to 60 experiments.
Q: Over 15,000?
A: Yes, over 15,000 meters.
Q: Was all that work conducted prior to the experiments in Dachau, in other words, prior to February 1942?
A: Part was before the Dachau experiments and part was after the Dachau experiments.
Q: Would you have any way of telling us just how much was done before the Dachau experiments in this particular field, in altitudes higher than 15,000 meters?
A: Unfortunately, I am in no position to do so, but I can tell you who can give you very exact information. These men are all in the American service — Dr. Hans Goerg Klamann, Dr. Luft and Dr. Benzinger. I myself did not carry out this specific type of work myself, and I did not work on it in the referat.
Unfortunately, I am unable to answer your question. I can only refer you to the correct source.
Q: Well, now, in these experiments that were conducted in the altitudes higher than 15,000 meters, what field of research was that concerned with? Was that with explosive decompression, slow decent, or what phase of high-altitude research, do you know?
A: Yes, part of them explosive decompression expression experiments and part of them experiments such as were described here, experiments on rescue from high altitude.
Q: Now these experiments that we are referring to, those concerned with altitudes above 15,000 meters, were the results of those experiments published so that all students of aviation medicine could study them?
A: Yes, quite a number of results of experiments are available which I myself saw in the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg. Some of them were published in the Journal for Aviation Medicine, and some of them were just official reports
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, will you ascertain from the witness when those reports were published?
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Witness, will you kindly tell the Tribunal when the reports concerning the experiments above 15,000 meters, which took place prior to 1942, February 1942, when and where were they published?
A: I cannot say exactly. They were published in 1941-1942, approximately, but I cannot give an exact date. I had nothing to do with the publication of these reports but the reports are available. They are at the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg. The date can be checked.
Q: Then I presume that the experiments that were conducted after February 1942 in the same field were also published.
A: Yes, I am sure they were published, too.
Q: And was the work conducted by yourself and Ruff and your colleagues at the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg after the cessation of hostilities? Were they published in this work or were they merely put in United States Army publications?
A: A very small portion had a report published. At least, Dr. Gaver informed me to that effect, but the rest of the experiments were interrupted before they were completed so we had not come to any final conclusions that could have been published but one small paper is said to have been published.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, who had access to those early reports that you say were published concerning experiments prior to 1942?
A: Do you mean, Your Honor, now or to whom they were available at that time?
Q: To whom they were available immediately after the date of publication.
A: Primarily, aviation medicine institutes and research workers; also the consequences resulting, for technique, were available to the technical agencies.
Q: Then they would have been available to the defendants Ruff and Romberg?
A: I am sure they read the reports which were published previously. I am not able to say exactly which reports were published before the Dachau experiments and which were published after the Dachau experiments.
Q: But you feel reasonably sure that such reports as were published before the Dachau experiments would have been available to the defendants Ruff and Romberg, and that as experts in that field the assumption is very strong that they would have read them?
A: I assume that it is extremely likely that the reports that were published before the Dachau experiments were sent to Dr. Ruff's institute.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, I wish to now turn to the complex "Typhus" in Document Book No. 12 on page 74 of the English document number NO-306, Prosecution Exhibit No. 206.
A: I have the document.
Q: You recall in this document Professor Rose wrote to Haagen and referred to the production of spotted fever vaccine for all armed forces in the eastern area. He stated he had not heard anything yet from Department No. 1 and that it will take some time for 2F to produce his new research order inasmuch as Anthony is on a duty trip — and do I understand you clearly that you had no knowledge whatsoever of any of these activities concerning typhus research or the production of typhus vaccines?
A: Yes, you understood me correctly.
Q: Now, in this letter we note the code or file numbers 2F. Doctor I want to clarify a point at this time. First of all, in the Referat for aviation medicine you have had the code or file numbers 2IIB. That was the first one. Wasn't that the first one that they had in the Referat for aviation medicine?
A: No, that was the registration abbreviation. The first note was 55 for the research assignments. These are two quite different things.
Q: You know very well what I am referring to. You have tried to quibble me on this several times. Tell me just what the Roman numeral means. What does it mean? Is it the reference number?
A: The registry number for the Referat for aviation medicine.
Q: I won't make the error again. Would you tell me — 2IIB — what that registry number means, when that came into existence in the Referat for aviation medicine?
A: I cannot tell you. In August 1941, when I was transferred to the Referat for aviation medicine, the Referat already had this number. I don't know when it started. I never took any interest in that. I presume in 1940 or 1941. I don't know. Perhaps already before the war. I really don't know.
Q: When did the registry number 2F come into existence?
A: According to the documents which you have submitted here it must have been in June 1943. There are some among the documents dated during this month which still have the old number and some which have the new number. I assume in the course of this month of June 1943 the change took place.
Q: Then the numbers would have overlapped. Is that true — the use of the numbers?
A: Yes, they no doubt overlapped in a few letters.
Q: When did 2IIA come into existence?
A: 2IIA was introduced as of the first of April 1944 as deadline.
Q: And I presume that the registry number 2F and the registry number 2IIA would have overlapped during that period of April and May. You may have well used both numbers.
A: It is quite possible, yes. I have not seen any such document here but it is possible. I don't know.
Q: Will you turn to Document NO-131 which you will find on page 98 of Document Book No. 12.
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: Now, this document — do you have the German copy that has the code designation on the top of the document, Doctor?
A: Yes, 55, 2IIA.
Q: Would you kindly read that slowly so the Tribunal may insert the code designation on the copy of their document inasmuch as the English copy does not have the code numbers set forth. It merely has the parentheses "code designation". When they translated the letter, they did not put down the numbers, so would you kindly read that code designation so the Tribunal may insert them in their document.
A: It reads:
High Command of the Luftwaffe
— next line:
Chief of the Medical Service
— next line:
File note 55/6028/44, Secret, (2IIA).
Q: Now, that code designation with the registry number 2A refers to the Referat for aviation medicine, does it not?
A: Yes.
Q: The date of this letter was 29 August 1944.
A: Yes.
Q: At that time you were Referent for Aviation Medicine.
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Now, as I understand in the course of your direct examination, you admit knowledge of this letter which you state that you can only recollect reading remembering the first paragraph therein. Is that correct?
A: I worked on only the first paragraph of this letter in my Referat and dictated it to my typist.
Q: Does the Secretary General have the original copy of Document NO-131? Would you kindly bring it in please?
Now, this first paragraph that you said that you drew us reads as follows:
The research dealing with the dry spotted fever vaccine from vitelline sac cultures are to be continued. Therefore the 4,000 RM requested for the research fund are being placed at your disposal.
Q: Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal just what you mean by that Paragraph?
Q: This paragraph merely means that the assignment earlier given to Haagen to develop a method for producing typhus vaccine is to receive further approval and it informs Haagen that in 1944 he will again receive the subsidy of 4000 marks which he requested.
Q: Now this is written by you when you were referent?
A: Yes, that is what we worked out as a referent. That is typical of the work which the referat for Aviation Medicine did in non-aviation assignments.
Q: Well, now how did you happen to know about research dealing with dry spotted vaccine?
A: I knew that from the research assignments which had been issued to Haagen. In this case probably Mr. Haagen said the subsidy which he obtained in 1943 was used up. He, therefore, requested that the assignment be extended and that his subsidy also be extended. This letter came to the office. Probably the Department Chief sent the letter to the Hygiene referent. He either made a notation of the letter or wrote a memorandum on it saying that Haagen's work was desired by the Hygiene referat. Then the letter would be sent back to the Department Chief who made a notation "research assignment can be extended" and sent it to my referat.
I went with this letter to the Finance Referat and found out whether there was enough money available, to see whether all conditions could be fulfilled for giving him 4000 marks. And, if the Hygiene referent and the Finance referent had no objection I probably dictated this to my secretary and submitted it to my department Chief.
Q: Well, now here you are authorizing expenditure of 4000 RM.
A: No, I said already yesterday —
Q: You wrote this paragraph?
A: I wrote this, dictated it for my Department Chief but the authority for expending the 4000 marks belonged to the man who signed the letter, and that was the department Chief.
Q: Yes, but no less a man than Professor Schroeder tells me that you had power of attorney to pay out funds for experimental purposes and this seems to be rather consistent with this statement.
A: Yesterday I said that this must be some misunderstanding which can be very easily cleared up. Neither for research assignments or for any other purpose did I pay or approve of 5 pfennigs. Not even my department chief had the power to do that. The authority lay with the Chief of Staff. When it was new cases it was the Chief of the Medical Services himself. That is something clear, it can be proved any time.
Q: Well, doctor, when you issued or when you approved pardon me, that is the wrong word, too. When you suggested that 4000 RM be set aside for Haagen's work what did you do to investigate the necessity of the continuation of this in order to determine the efforts were being used for the benefit of the Luftwaffe?
A: What I did was very simple. I based my work on the judgment of the Hygiene referent who had to pass judgment on it. I already said such an assignment which did not effect aviation medical, accordingly the referent who knew something about the field was competent.
Q: Now, where you use the term "research fund", are you referring to "research fund of the RLM"? What are you referring to by use of the term "research fund" in the first paragraph?
A: No, that refers to the money which the offices of the chief of the Medical Service had available specifically for research purposes. As in every other office there was a budget where the money was listed according to its purpose — for construction, for purpose of equipment, and also for research. Not I, because I had nothing to do with finance but the Budget referent knew about these things. A research fund of the Aviation Ministry did not exist in that general sense.
Q: Well, this coordination of this research fund within the Inspectorate, bearing in mind, of course, that after you took over as referent in the referat for Aviation Medicine all matters for research passed through your office at least for forward to other referents, which was due to Schroeder's procedure. Now who coordinated the expenditure of the research fund? Somebody had to coordinate that so to determine whether it would allow 4000 marks to Haagen, 5000 to Hirt, 6000 to some other research, 10000 to Adlershof, and so on. Now, who coordinated the allocation of research funds?
A: First of all, let me point out that Professor Hirt never received any subsidy at all.
Q: Excuse me. Say John Doe in place of Professor Hirt. Now, answer my question.
A: Very well. This coordination of the money was up to the referat for the budget which was responsible for the money.
Q: Just a minute. The Referat for the Budget didn't know anything about these research problems. Only one man had the over-all picture — that was Becker-Freyseng the referent in the referat for Aviation Medicine. How did the finance man know whether it would be a worthy cause to give $4000 to Haagen.
A: I thought I had already explained that. I didn't want to repeat it. I said when such research assignment and such a research subsidy was issued I got in touch with the Budget referent if it was an aviation medical assignment and I gave him the necessary information. If it was in some other field either the other referent went with me or I got a written note from him so that the Budget referent could be convinced that the use of this money was sensible. Besides any approval of an expenditure had to be submitted finally to the Chief of the Medical Service himself and he signed for this expenditure.
Q: Well who did you consult with before you wrote the first paragraph of this letter?
A: The budget referent — that was Oberfeldintendant [Field Manager] Wenzel.
Q: Did you consult with the referent for Hygiene?
A: In this specific case I cannot say whether I consulted with him orally or whether in documents which were given to me there was a written note from the Hygiene referent. That might have been either way.
Q: In any event you suggested that 4000 RM be placed at the disposal of Haagen and your suggestion was made to Hie Budget referent?
A: On behalf of my department chief I worked on the suggestion which came from Haagen himself and I discussed the problem with the Budget referent.
Q: I will ask you again. Who was the coordinator of research funds? It wasn't Dr. Becker-Freyseng, was it?
A: You really overestimate me. I was referent. Of course, I had part in the coordination of this money, not only I but various other people had part in the coordination of this money, not only I but various other people had something to say about it and the final word was up to Schroder the Chief of the Medical Service or the Chief of Staff.
Q: You said he would take your word for it. He left those matters up to you.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I must object against this type of questioning. For the fourth or fifth time Mr. Hardy is telling Becker-Freyseng that Mr. Schroeder said that Becker-Freyseng was responsible for distributing this money. I think Mr Hardy will grant that I know the documents and that I know very well what Mr. Schroeder has said. Neither in the documents nor in the testimony of Schroeder have I been able to ascertain when Mr. Schroeder said this. I would like Mr. Hardy to tell us when and where and to whom Schroeder made this statement. In the cross examination of Mr. Schroeder, as far as I am informed, this point was not brought up.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination. Objection is overruled.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, let's turn to the third paragraph in this letter, Doctor, wherein it states:
Please advise whether it may be assumed that the spotted fever epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present is connected with the vaccine research.
Do you have any knowledge of that particular instance?
A: Yes, I know now that in 1944 there actually was an epidemic in Natzweiler.
Q: When did you first learn of that?
A: Here, at the beginning of the trial.
Q: You never heard of it before that time?
A: At least I didn't remember it. I never had anything to do with epidemic reports.
Q: Well now, was it customary for a letter to be written, using your registration number or registry number, and prepared for the signature of the Chief of Staff Kant by an office other than your office?
A: In my direct examination I said that this possibility did exist. Normally, if I had been there and had known about this letter, it would have said at the top at the left "2 II A/2 I B". That often happened that a letter came from two different referats and had two numbers, but since I was not there during these days that was unfortunately omitted.
Q: Well, was it customary for the Chief of Staff Kant to decide that he was going to write a letter to Professor Haagen and then ask you to write one paragraph and ask another referent to write another paragraph and then only give you a copy of what you had written and take a pair of scissors and cut off the other paragraphs so that you couldn't read them?
A: It was customary for the department chief or the chief of staff to change letters which he obtained from different referents and sometimes to make one letter out of two that were addressed to the same man. Besides, I did not receive a carbon copy in my referat.
This was sent to the Registry where it was filed and I never saw it again. Even if I had seen the carbon copy later — which might even be possible — then the establishment of a vaccine manufacturing plant and an inquiry about an epidemic would not have interested me, because I never had anything to do with such matters.
Q: Wouldn't the fourth paragraph have interested you, which states:
The report of 21 June 1944, in which the investigations at Natzweiler are mentioned, should have been sent as secret.
Secret?
A: I happened here, during this trial, to learn the explanation for this final paragraph which I would not have understood earlier. Professor Rose told me that all the typhus reports had to be sent as secret in the Wehrmacht and, since this list was apparently some information about the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler, it is clear that this report had to be sent as secret.
Q: Well, this fourth paragraph doesn't refer to an epidemic at Natzweiler. This refers to "investigations at Natzweiler." The third paragraph is referring to an epidemic they've heard about and want to know if these "investigations at Natzweiler" have any connection with the epidemic. Isn't that what that letter conveys? It's perfectly obvious that Kant or Rose or whoever suggested these two paragraphs was wondering whether or not the research work done by Haagen had caused disease or epidemic in the camp. Isn't that the import of this letter?
A: It is what Professor Rose testified here on the witness stand.
Q: It's quite obvious too, is it not, from reading the letter?
A: But let me point out, since I knew that Professor Haagen was a bacteriologist or a hygienist, it would not have called my attention particularly, at the time, that he was carrying out investigations during an epidemic because that is what hygienists are supposed to do.
Q: Well now, you state here that you have become aware of the fact that typhus problems like this are supposed to be classified as secret and in this letter Haagen is being politely reprimanded for not having classified his report of 21 June 1944 as secret.
Yet you spent considerable time in the course of your direct examination to point out in connection with Document No. 934, which is not in a document book but was Prosecution Exhibit #458, which was a list of medical research commissions drawn up at the time when you were referent apparently, and within that list of research commissions you made an attempt to indicate to this Tribunal that the entry concerning the typhus research of Haagen was erroneously classified in that paragraph as secret and that you introduced an affidavit to indicate to this Tribunal that your stenographer may well have made a typographical error, or the stenographer who typed the copy introduced here into evidence made said error. Now, how do you consistently attempt to declare that there is an error in this particular list of commissions when we find this language prevalent in this letter of 29 August 1944?
A: I shall go back to the beginning of your speech when you said that I reproached Haagen and told Haagen that he was to make these reports secret. I must say that the letter is signed by Kant, the Chief of Staff. It was not I but some one else who told Haagen —
Q: (Interrupting) I don't believe I said you. If I did, I stand to be corrected. I refer to the writer of the letter and the writer of the letter is apparently Kant, but you wrote the first paragraph.
A: As to this famous list, No. 934, I have already explained very carefully that I am unfortunately unable to give a definite explanation, because I do not know where the list comes from. I gave a number of possibilities that might explain why the Haagen assignment is suddenly listed as secret, although in all documents, including the ones which you have submitted, it is considered open, and Dr. Tipp was kind enough to explain to the Tribunal that, according to the practice in German Wehrmacht correspondence, it might very well be that in Haagen's files this secret letter which Haagen sent to me, No. 132, was perhaps the top one and that my secretary then assumed that the whole assignment — everything connected with it — was secret.
That was a mistake, however. Not the assignment was secret, but only a report about a typhus epidemic in the camp of Natzweiler, and I think those are two entirely different things. But, since I unfortunately do not know where this list comes from, and since, there are a number of other very obvious mistakes in the list, since, in copying from the original photostat to this typewritten copy a number of further mistakes were made, I must assume that it is possible that this list was copied from our original somewhere else and that mistakes occurred there. I cannot say definitely that it was one or the other. I can only say that I do not know that Haagen's research assignment was ever secret and besides, I am convinced that this notation "secret" does not indicate any illegal experiments on the part of Haagen.
Q: Doctor, let us turn to the next document, NO. 132 on page 99 of Document Book #12.
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: Will you kindly, under the word "reference" in the heading of the letter where it states:
Your communication dated 29 August 1944,
then in parenthesis there is a code designation, will you read the code designation from your document so that the Tribunal may insert it in their document?
A: Yes. The reference in NO. 132 reads:
Your communication dated 29 August 1944 — File note: 55 No. 6028/44 secret (2 II A).
Q: Did you ever receive this letter, Doctor?
A: I did not receive it. It was not addressed to me.
Q: It wasn't forwarded to your office inasmuch as it had your registry designation on it?
A: No, I am sure it was not because I have already explained how correspondence was dealt with in our office. All letters, without exception, were sent first to the department chief. Since my department chief knew very well that I had nothing whatever to do with epidemic reports and typhus epidemics, he certainly would not send this on to my referat but sent it to the referat which was interested in such epidemics.
That was the Hygiene Referat and therefore I never saw this letter before this trial and certainly never had to work on it.
Q: Let us go on to the discussion of the sea-water experiments, Doctor. I notice in the sea-water document book, the affidavit of Schroeder —
A: I do not have this document.
Q: Wherein he states they had two methods of making sea-water drinkable, one was the Schaefer method and the other the Berka method?
A: Yes, I have it now.
Q: He states that certain experiments had been conducted on human beings with sea-water processed according to the Berka method by Dr. von Sirany; will you kindly tell us what you know about the experiments conducted by von Sirany?
A: In the course of my direct examination I said that in the first few weeks of 1944, I did some scientific work at the Aviation Research Institute and was not present at the referat for aviation medicine. When on 16 April 1944 I returned to my office, I learned then that in the meantime the referent, Professor Anthony, had learned that an Engineer Berka in Vienna had allegedly developed a method for making of sea-water drinkable and Dr. von Sirany, who was a Luftwaffe medical officer, or had been a Luftwaffe medical officer, had performed experiments working in military hospitals with soldiers, I believe to test this method. I also learned that Professor Anthony suggested that Dr. Schaefer was in Vienna for a few days and looked at the experiments. My knowledge of Sirany's experiments I obtained from what Schaefer told me about the experiments and also from a report put out by von Sirany at the end of April, which I read.
According to these reports, these were experiments on hospital inmates who were convalescine or had slight wounds or illnesses. Since von Sirany was, I believe, a skin specialist and had only a slight knowledge of psychological experiments, an expert could see at first glance that he had made some fundamental mistakes in setting up his experiments. Nevertheless, the records of the experiments indicated that Sirany's conclusion was wrong.
Sirany had concluded on the basis of his experiments that the Berka method was suitable to be introduced into sea distress practice, although we did not consider the experiments thorough. From a scientific sense, one could still see from the record that Sirany's conclusion was wrong though easily to be explained.
Q: Well then at that time, studying the records, we note that Professor Schroeder states in his affidavit on paragraph 4:
The consulting expert (Referent) on Aviation Medicine, Becker-Freyseng, who had been my subordinate since January 1944 (prior to this time Becker-Freyseng had been assistant to Anthony who was chief under Hippke) took the position that the experiments conducted by Sirany were not conclusive since the conditions were not as difficult as those on the high seas.
Is that the position you took?
A: No, my position was the opposite. Again this is a mistake on the part of Professor Schroeder, who for two years had nothing to do with this problem. In the course of my direct examination, I emphatically explained that I considered Sirany's test conditions even more severe and even more dangerous than the test conditions existing later in the experiments conducted by Dr. Beiglboeck in Dachau. The fact that experimental conditions are never as severe as the conditions existing on the high seas, I think is obvious. No experiment can be made severe enough to correspond 100% to actual conditions at sea, with all the psychological conditions, etc.
Q: Just a moment, Doctor. You say this is a mistake on the part of Professor Schroeder; again tell me is it difficult to become a Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] in the Luftwaffe?
A: It is clear that a chief who has about twenty five referents subordinate to him cannot be informed about all the details of each referent, so well that two years later he will know all the detail or one specific statement made by each of his twenty five referents.
I am convinced that even General Taylor may not be exactly or completely informed about every statement you have made here, that would be humanly impossible.
Q: Tell me weren't you some sort of a super referent, you were the one that handled all the research assignments, they all went through your office; you were in the position to Professor Schroeder similar to the executive officer of General Taylor?
Be that as it may, Doctor, let us go on. In Document 184, which is Prosecution Exhibit 132, found on page 9 of document book 5, we find the first letter concerning the sea water problem. This letter is from the technical office, dated 15 May 1944. Under 1) in the letter, it states:
The I.G. Method using mainly silver nitrate.
The I.G. method is the Schaefer method, is it not?
A: Yes.
Q: There is also another name for that method; isn't there?
A: The factory name was W-o-f-a-t-i-t, that was the factory name, it has no significance.
Q: Well, now, who informed the technical office about the Berka method?
A: The Berka method?
Q: Yes.
A: I explained that in my direct examination too. Professor Anthony first heard of this Berka method and then in the course of March or April, I don't know exactly as I was not there, told the technical office that such a method existed and then the technical office no doubt got in touch with Mr. Berka.
Q: Who informed the technical office about the Schaefer method?
A: Here again I should like to refer to my direct examination. I said that in the first days of December of 1943, Dr. Schaefer himself demonstrated his method and gave the necessary explanation. In the case of this demonstration and this little lecture, the medical inspector Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke was present and so was Oberstingenieur [Chief Engineer] Christensen, who was a deputy chief in the technical officer where this letter comes from.
Q: What relationship did the chief of the medical services have to the technical office?
A: They were both agencies of the Luftwaffe, there were no direct relations. In 1944 in particular, the chief of the medical service of the Luftwaffe was under the High Command of the Luftwaffe directly, while the technical office had other subordination, but I am not exactly informed about that.
Q: Well, now, you have taken exception to the opinion of the writer of this letter wherein he states under paragraph 1 that this would require 2½ to 3 tons of pure silver a month. You said that was a great exaggeration and gave your reasons for it. Now, whether or not that would require 2½ to 3 tons of silver a month; can you tell us whether or not silver would have been readily available in Germany at that time?
A: I know that Dr. Schaefer told me at the time that according to his information from the I.G. and from some agency of the Reichsbank he believed the necessary silver could be obtained even in 1944, but I may refer you to Dr. Schaefer. I did not inquire about that, I relied on what Dr. Schaefer told me.
Q: Well, inasmuch as this Schaefer method would require the use of silver nitrate, would it not have been to the advantage of the Luftwaffe at war to make a serious attempt to develop the Berka method due to the fact that the Berka method was inexpensive as compared to the Schaefer method?
A: I have explained in great detail as I believe that these economic reasons and raw material reasons were what influenced the technical office to advocate Berkatit and what in the final analysis determined Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder to have the question of Berkatit investigated by Eppinger and Heubner.
Of course if Berkatit had been just as good in its final effect, it would have been a great advantage if one could get along without the silver.
Q: You would like to have the experiments to determine whether or not it was good?
A: I didn't want to have the experiments. Rather I had to participate in the preparation for these experiments because it was my duty. First of all I had to prevent the Berka method being introduced without being tested again and we had to determine what advice should be given to the aviators and seaman, if for medical reasons Berkatit could not be introduced, and for economic reasons the Wofatit could not be introduced.
Q: Yet all of the time, that is while laying these plans and instigating these experiments, I understand you know that Berkatit wasn't any good? Isn't that what you said on direct examination?
A: I must tell you that was my personal scientific conviction out since I had scientific opponents of the caliber of Professor Eppinger and Professor Heubner, who are recognized throughout the world and who have patients from everywhere in the world, I had to assume the possibility that even I might be mistaken once in a while.
Q: Then you are not a man of your convictions, doctor?
A: Of course, I upheld my convictions. I said if you think this method is good we can decide only through an experiment.
MR. HARDY: This will be a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I notice that on yesterday's witness sheet Eugen Haagen is listed as a witness to be called by the defendant, Becker-Freyseng. On this morning's witness sheet the name Eugen Haagen does not appear but Rolf Jaeger appears on the witness sheet for the defendant Becker-Freyseng. What witness is it the defendant Becker-Freyseng wishes to call?
MR. HARDY: As I understand it, your Honor, Dr. Haagen is going to appear after the sea water complex, namely after the case of Dr. Beiglboeck. Dr. Jaeger is the witness approved by the Tribunal for Dr. Steinbauer. Dr. Jaeger is the witness called by the defendant Beiglboeck.
At this time, Your Honor, I wish to request Dr. Steinbauer to provide me with a notation with reference to Dr. Jaeger outlining substantially what he will testify to, where he was been and some of the particulars.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Beiglboech will furnish the prosecution with such a statement concerning the witness.
THE TRIBUNAL will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)