1947-05-28, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG (Resumed)
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, first of all I must humbly apologize to the Tribunal for stating this document was filed three months ago. I was informed at noon time the memorandum was dated 15 May. I must admit I am thoroughly embarrassed that I said it was filed three months ago.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring, counsel, to this translation?
MR. HARDY: That is right, Your Honor. I have here a copy of the memorandum written to Mr. James M. McHaney, Chief, SS Division, by Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch, attached thereto a carrier note to the Secretary of Military Tribunals, subject: Translation of Document NO 185, also a copy of the memorandum to The Secretary General, Military Tribunal:
(1) The attached memorandum, subject 'Translation of Document NO 185', presents accurately and without omission the view of the Language Division on the translation of the sentence in question.
/s/ Thomas K. Hodges, Director, Language Division.
In order to clarify this point, Your Honor, I suggest at this time that this memorandum be given to the court interpreter and ask her to read it into the record. It is only one and one half pages. If clarifies the point to agreement, I think, of defense counsel. After it is read in the record, I think defense counsel will make a statement on it and then we can clear up the matter here and now. After having been read by the interpreter, it is suggested that the copy be turned over to the court reporters so that they will place it in the record without errors and omissions and then returned to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Each member of the Tribunal desires a copy of that memorandum.
MR. HARDY: I would like to have it read into the record and turned over to the court reporters and then returned to me and I will have a sufficient number of copies made for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has defense counsel any objection to that proceeding of that being read into the record by the interpreter? That will in no way be binding on defense counsel; they can still make any arguments they desire as to whether this is correct or incorrect.
Very well, that procedure may be followed and the interpreter may read it into the record. I will say for the record that the defense counsel signified no objection to this procedure. I would suggest that the interpreters first read the sentence in German and then read the document which has been given to them.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the memorandum is so written that it has the entire passage in German in the memorandum.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that is all included in the memorandum.
THE INTERPRETER: (reading)
15 May 1947.
TO: Mr. James M. McHaney, Chief, SS Division
FROM: Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch
SUBJECT: Translation of Document No. 185Dr. Hans Marx, counsel for defendants Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, objects to the translation of a sentence in Document NO-185.
The disputed sentence reads in German:
'Ich stehe heute wieder vor einer Entscheidung, die nach zahlreichen Tier- und auch Menschenversuchen an freiwilligen Versuchspersonen eine endgültige lösung verlangt.'
The translation of the document in question was certified by Miss Gertrude Levinger and the sentence reads as follows:
'Today I again stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final resolution.'
Dr. Marx claims that a correct literal translation, according to the sense, would be:
'Today again I am standing before a decision which after numerous experiments on animals and also on human beings demands a final solution on voluntary experimental subjects.'
'Resolution' is, of course, wrong; it should be 'solution'. The German sentence is very awkwardly worded. You do not find a solution for a decision. But I cannot accept Dr. Marx's translation, however awkward the sentence may be put together in German. He asks for a correct literal translation, and the one he gives is supposed to have these qualifications. However, it will be seen that in this translation 'eine endgültige lösung' does not appear in the correct sequence. Dr. Marx makes an arbitrary transportation. A correct literal translation, without commas, just like the German original, is as follows:
'Today again I stand before a decision which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution.'
If the German meant what Dr. Marx claims it to mean, then the same sequence of words used in this English translation would also exist in the German version.
The German sentence unequivocally states that up to now animal and human volunteers have been experimented upon and a final solution is now demanded.
It is correct that part of the last sentence of the first paragraph is missing, namely the words 'nach unseren heutigen Kenntnissen' (according to our present knowledge).
/s/ Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I submit that the new literal translation intended by this memorandum reads as follows:
Today again I stand before a decision, which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution.
I could ask if defense counsel is willing to accept that translation for the passage of the German document, in other words, this is different than the other two that have been offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may ask that question if they desire, but if they desire more time to study the matter they will not be required to answer that question now.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I do speak some English, but on this important point I should not like yet to say that the translation is completely correct. As far as I can tell, the translation last suggested agrees with the German words, but as I said I should like to have an expert in the field examine it.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may consider this matter over the weekend or sooner, if possible, and report to the Court as to the translation which they believe is literally, grammatically correct.
Meanwhile, in cross examining the witness, counsel for the prosecution could either ask the witness, upon the assumption that the translation is correct, or avoid that subject to be cross examined, if desired.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in this document, that is, the letter written to the Reichsfuehrer, signed by Schroder, was it your intention to ask for voluntary experimental subjects?
A: Yes, that was my intention. If you permit, I shall briefly give a few reasons which today too, prove it from this sentence. Perhaps that is a matter for later argumentation. I am not informed on that.
Q: I think we shall wait a bit on that, Doctor. After you had sent this letter, requesting that voluntary human subjects were to be used, did you after that time follow up the sequence of events and determine whether or not the persons used actually were volunteers?
A: In the course of further events I twice concerned myself with the question of whether these persons were volunteers. The first time before the experiments and the second time, after the experiments. Before the experiments, I talked to Professor Beiglboeck this question, as I have already testified on direct examination, not for legal reasons did not interest us at the time, but for medical reasons.
After the experiment, I talked to Professor Beiglboeck about the question of volunteers when I asked him what kind of prisoners he had obtained and how these prisoners were actually put at his disposal at Dachau and were turned over to him for these experiments.
Q: Let us turn now to the next document, Doctor, which is Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit No. 135 found on Page 20 of Document Book No. 5.
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: This is a letter of 28 June 1944 from Grawitz to Himmler including comments by Gebhardt, Gluecks and Nebe on who the experimental subjects should be, and in this I want to call your attention to Paragraph 2 where Grawitz reports the attitude of Gluecks, and therein Gluecks stated:
Referring to the above letter, we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station RASCHER in the concentration camp Dachau. If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used.
Does that sound like a good expression of volunteer subjects to you, that is, "Jews or prisoners held in quarantine"?
A: I may say that I saw this letter here during the trial for the first time, that I am not accustomed to the wording of SS agencies and I don't know what this sentence is intended to imply. At any rate, it does not say that people are to be forced to submit to the experiments. Why prisoners were to be taken from quarantine I have no idea at the moment. I do not know I had nothing to do with the matter.
Q: Well now, if it is fully understood that you did not see this letter— the prosecution does not contend that you received a copy of the letter — but I am now asserting, after all, the evidence is in at length that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that is, the evidence on the part of your defense, and we are now interested in shedding some light on the subject. I am sure that the Tribunal is interested in getting your understanding of the implications of this letter because it deals with those persons who were, in fact, selected to undergo these experiments you sponsored.
So let us forget whether or not you received this letter and just devote your attention to the letter itself and what it points out; and I will ask you if Gluecks' comment doesn't raise a little suspicion in your mind since he suggest the use of Jews or prisoners held in quarantine". Maybe they weren't going to be volunteers and maybe they were.
A: I thank your for admitting the theoretical possibility that it could have been volunteers, but unfortunately I am unable to answer your question because I do not know why SS Gruppenfuehrer [General] Gluecks suggests taking prisoners from quarantine. I had too little contact with conditions in concentration camps to know. Perhaps he meant people who have been through quarantine, so that one could know definitely that they are healthy, but, I don't know that is merely an assumption. I was not consulted and I was given no opportunity to make suggestions.
If Gluecks thought people should be taken who had just been through quarantine, — perhaps — who came from an epidemic district who had been in quarantine, and of whom it was definitely known that they would not become sick in the near future, then this was quite a sensible suggestion from the medical point of view.
It must have been clear to SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks that for this experiment, which was to last four weeks, we needed healthy people.
But I am unable to say what Gluecks had in mind because I never talked to Gluecks in my life.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I am entirely unfamiliar with the German language. Is there any other word in German which might be translated as "quarantine" and also give some other translation?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I know of no such second meaning for the word quarantine.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: In other words, Doctor, if you had received a copy of this letter at the end of June, 1944 — say you had seen a copy of this in June, 1944 — would you have still gone ahead with the experiments?
A: May I ask for a moment to look at the letter first? I have not studied it as carefully as some of the other documents, since it did not refer to me.
Q: Go right ahead.
A: Again at least two of the facts given here I would have objected. The first is in the statement of SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks that the experiments be carried out at the Experimental Station Rascher. There was never any question of that. After the Nurnberg meeting, I never had anything more to do with Mr. Rascher. Neither I nor anyone else thought of bringing the sea water experiments into any connection with Mr. Rascher, not even the slightest connection.
The second would be that I would have suggested that it be written to Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] Dr. Grawitz concerning his view; that gypsies, since they are of a different race, might give unreliable results. This is a very childish statement from the physiological point of view; that would not to be expected at all.
If Prof. Schroeder had seen this letter he would probably have called up the Reichsarzt SS and reminded him that he had promised him to find the experimental subjects under the soldiers unworthy of bearing arms who were sent to concentration camps.
Those are the points which I can pick out immediately glance as things which I would have dealt with if I had got this letter; but, I did not get it. But I can say one thing: For me, in 1944, it would not have been clear, any more than today, that our prerequisites for the experiments, that volunteers be used, was in any way doubtful.
Q: Doesn't the third section of this letter, a comment Nebe, create some sort suspicion also, wherein he states, and I quote:
I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in order to evolve a method for making seawater potable. I propose taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make a special proposal to the Reichsfuehrer, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects.
Should the Reichsfuehrer agree to this, I shall list by name the persons to be used.
Now, in fact gypsies were used in the seawater experiments and Nebe says that he still sit up in Berlin and list by name the persons to be used. Now, wouldn't that indicate that there would not be any volunteering here on the part of the subjects?
A: That is a conclusion on your part with which I cannot agree to. Mr. Nebe merely says that he will name the required experimental subjects to the Reichsfuehrer SS. He does not say how he will do that. At the time I would have assumed, quite naturally, that he would have gone to the Camp Auschwitz, which I actually heard of for the first time in 1945; that he would have had forty gypsies volunteer and would have sent this information on to the Reichsfuehrer. According to what we know today it is very easy to find a different interpretation, but at the time it would certainly not have occurred to me.
Q: Well now when did you learn gypsies were used in the experiments?
A: I learned that when Beiglboeck came back from Dachau after the experiments. In my direct examination, I said that I granted the possibility that I might have learned it during the course of the experiments when I agreed to meet Beiglboeck near Vrutstein. And unfortunately came two days too late because of an air raid on a train on which I was traveling. I found a short note from Professor Beiglboeck when I got there and it is possible it said something about gypsies but in any case I remember only that Professor Beiglboeck said something about gypsies only after the experiments were finished and he came back to Berlin.
Q: Well would you have confirmed the experiments if you had known that before, that gypsies would be used?
A: First of all that is again a hypothetical question so that I can give a hypothetical answer; since I did not know before hand. Why should not gypsies volunteer? I don't know what I would have done at the time. I can't say.
Q: Did you see Beiglboeck before the experiments?
A: Whether I saw Beiglboeck before the experiments — yes, of course.
Q: Well did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?
A: I already said that for purely medical reasons I talked to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects and I told him I expected to get volunteers and would not have any difficulty from the subjects in carrying out the experiments. I should like to emphasize I had no anticipated legal reasons to say anything about these volunteers but a purely medical cause of the experiments for medical reasons.
Q: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that the experimental subjects who were volunteering for the experiments must be of German nationality?
A: I am sure I did not say that because I never doubted that. I never thought of any other possibility for I don't know how any other possibility could have occurred to me.
Q: Do you know whether or not gypsies were recognized as Germans under the racial law of the Reich?
A: I know that the racial laws of the Reich and the so called Nurnberg racial laws specifically left the question of gypsies open because just the racial affiliation gypsies is a question on which scientists are not quite agreed, but I know that certain gypsies were definitely recognized as full German citizens. I don't know how it was in general.
Q: Do you think that the gypsies were recognized as good Germans Nordic citizens?
A: Nordic Germans, I wouldn't want to reject that. The idea is held that the gypsies come from India and since there is a great many inter-Germanic racial families I consider it quite possible that some people hold the point of view that gypsies are Nordics but I don't know. I am no expert on racial problems.
Q: Of course, if they were good Germanic Nordic citizens they wouldn't have been in a concentration camp, would they?
A: I would not know for certain. I was never in a concentration camp but I have heard since and. I have seen the witness Kogon who looks definitely like a Nordic type, and I wouldn't consider it impossible for Nordic gypsies to be in a concentration camp.
Q: Now you have outlined just what you instructed Dr. Beiglboeck to do when he arrived at the concentration camp to commence his experiments?
A: Let me point out I did not say that. I talked to Professor Beiglboeck about it but I didn't give him any orders.
Q: Well you said that Dr. Beiglboeck—I will read it to you here in a minute.
You said on direct examination that you told Beiglboeck that this was a specific military order and that he was to follow the following instructions; when he received them, and one of the instructions was that there would be no serious damage to health and no fatalities, two; to interrupt the experiments if they became dangerous; and, three, that they ranted clear results from the experiments and also the experimental subject's consent. Now I understood you to say those were the instructions you gave Beiglboeck before he proceeded to Dachau.
A: I am convinced that if you will read over the transcript that you will find what I actually said. Beiglboeck received this order in my presence from my department chief and after we had left the department chief'f office and gone back to my office, perhaps it was the next day- I don't know- Professor Beiglboeck asked me whether that order which he had received from the department chief was to be taken as a definite military order and I said "yes", but I didn't give him the order myself. Besides if I had given him the order I would take the responsibility for it today since I consider the order which my department chief gave him quite a permissible matter.
Q: Well now was the judgment about whether or not the experimental subjects could continue to tolerate Berka water left up to the experimental subjects or was that left up to the discretion of Dr. Beiglboeck?
A: We at the time did not think of this question from the legal but from the medical point of view and I assume that I may still leave the legal decision to the Tribunal. From the purely medical point of view it is clear that the decision as to whether an experiment is to be broken off depends on the findings of the doctor, as roll as on the statements of the subjects. If I may clarify that by an example, it might be that one of the experimental subjects in the course of the experiment became unconscious:
If the man in charge of the experiment wanted to wait until the subject woke up, and said, "Let's stop the experiment now", that would have been too late.
Q: Then actually the conduct of the experiments was up to the discretion of the doctor?
A: I would like to put it like this: The responsibility for the health and life of the experimental subjects was, of course, in the hands of the doctor, and it is quite clear that a doctor like Professor Beiglboeck will take into consideration the statements of the subjects, that is, a matter of course to a doctor.
Q: Well then if someone died in these experiments Beiglboeck —
A: — would certainly been held responsible by the Chief of the Medical Service. I am completely convinced of that, because that it would have been a violation of his instructions that no deaths were to be allowed to occur.
Q: Well if a death had occurred would you have felt responsible, in as much as you take full responsibility for the initiation of the experiments?
A: In 1944 I would have had to leave that up to a court martial of the Luftwaffe. I can't judge, perhaps I might have been indicted too. I don't know.
Q: Would you have expected to have been indicted had a death occurred in these experiments at Dachau?
A: That is a double or triple hypothetical question. I would have expected that if I had been indicted I would have been acquitted.
Q: Doctor, after the completion of these experiments a report was given, in October 1944, in a bunker near the Zoological Garden near Berlin by Dr. Beiglboeck. Who was present at that meeting?
A: I assume that the meeting was in October, I don't know. I heard it was in September; September or October, I am not sure. At any rate it was only one meeting.
I can remember definitely that Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Schroeder was present, Professor Beiglboeck, of course, was there, Dr. Schaeffer was present, Mr. Berka was present, and representatives of the Navy were present. There were all together about perhaps twenty people. I can't remember any more individuals than those I have just given.
Q: Who presided over the meeting?
A: Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Schroeder opened the meeting Then I spoke a few words about the purpose of the experiments Then Professor Beiglboeck held his lecture. Then after it I believe, Professor Schroeder left, because in this bunker there was a Luftwaffe Hospital and Professor Schroeder had promised to attend an operation which he wanted to perform himself. In the discussion which followed, I presided because I was the referent in charge. But the discussion lasted only about ten minutes and that was the end of it.
Q: Dr. Beiglboeck gave a complete clinical report of the results of the experiments?
A: He gave a report on the clinical course of the experiments, yes.
Q: Did he state what symptoms were apparent as a result of the application of sea-water to the subjects?
A: Yes, I am sure he reported that because that was one of the purposes of the report.
Q: What symptoms did he find prevalent after a certain number of days?
A: In this trial I have heard so much about the symptoms that I am unable to tell you exactly what Professor Beiglboeck said then and what I have read in the meantime but those things Professor Beiglboeck will be able to give you a more definite answer. But, I shall try to tell you what I remember for certain. Professor Beiglboeck explained that the feeling of thirst was much stronger in the group which had drunk sea-water than in the group which had nothing to drink at all and that in the group which had drunk sea-water the people were more restless while the people who drank nothing were sleepy more than anything else. That is what I can definitely recall today.
Q: Would the report of the meeting in October contained in Schroeder's affidavit, which is paragraph 6, document NO-474 which is on page 6 of the Document Book 5, the passage is found on page 7. This paragraph 6 reads as follows:
The experiments were carried out at the Dachau concentration camp by Dr. Beiglboeck, in summer of 1944. In October 1944, Beiglboeck reported on these experiments at a meeting which took place in a bunker near the Zoological Gardens in Berlin. Schroeder, Becker-Freyseng and I were present. It is possible that Dr. Schuster, an Air Force physician who worked at the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in Prague, was also present. Beiglboeck showed those present at the meeting numerous charts of analyses of the urine and blood of the experimental objects who were given only Berkatit to drink. Photographs and films were also presented and various groups of experiments were discussed. On the basis of this report, I estimate that 20 to 40 persons were used for these experiments, which were carried out during a period of seven to twelve days. Dr. Beiglobeck also reported that the experiments had resulted in the swelling of the liver and vervous symptoms. Delirium and mental disturbances also appeared. As a result of this meeting, it was decided that the Berka process was absolutely of no use to the Luftwaffe.
Now, is that a concise and more or less accurate report of what Beiglboeck had to say?
A: No.
Q: What discrepancies do you wish to point out?
A: First of all Dr. Schaefer is perhaps the only person who saw a film. It must have been such a secret showing that only Dr. Schaefer noticed it. No film was ever taken.
At any rate, I never saw one and there at the bunker meeting no pictures were shown.
Q: He could have meant by that merely photographs and used the expression film.
A: Let me point out first it says — "photographs and films." Photographs were shown and will be submitted in evidence here.
Q: Any other discrepancies you wish to point out?
A: Yes, I want to point out above all the "nervous symptoms, the delirium, and the mental disturbances." First of all, the nervous symptoms, can mean so many things. I don't know what Dr. Schaefer meant by it but he will be able to explain that himself. I know nothing about any nervous symptoms. It could be, I believe Dr. Beiglboeck spoke of a tetanoid picture of symptoms. That is a condition in which the muscles are very easily excited if one taps a muscle, a muscle knot is formed. That is a very harmless thing. If that is called a nervous disorder that is possible, but it is a very harmless thing. "Delirium presupposed fever." The translation is impossible. Possibly it might be fever-delirium. I do not know from Professor Beiglboeck's report that the subjects had any fever. So, I don't know wherefrom they should have gotten "fever-delirium." And "mental disturbances", I know only that Professor Beiglboeck spoke only of so-called "apathy." That is nothing but strong sleepiness and some lack of interest to the outside world. That is known from all hunger and thirst cures that the people prefer to sleep and are not interested in anything, just as if a person is tired. According to what I know of psychiatry, I would not call that a "mental disturbance."
Q: Well, did Dr. Beiglboeck tell you how many people in the experiments?
A: He said definitely that no one died.
Q: Well, did he tell you what Joseph Sultoing says in his affidavit which is found on page 28 of Document Book 5 wherein he states, and I quote:
A: As far as I know this is not an affidavit. It is a Viennese Police record which is not sworn to.
MR. HARDY: This has been admitted provisionally and to be sworn to and Prosecution has had the same affidavit sworn to and when we introduce our documents formally, the one with the jurat on which contains the some information will be then admitted. The Tribunal had admitted this provisionally pending receipt of the jurat. Therefore we can use it here, doctor. Now, in this document—
A: Thank you for the information. Unfortunately I do not have the document.
DR. TIPP: Might I ask Mr. Hardy to give me the exhibit number of this new document. I know only what one is in the document book.
MR. HARDY: The same number, your Honor, since the affidavit was only sent down for the jurat.
DR. TIPP: Has it already been introduced? Has it already been given an exhibit number?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it was last January 15 when I introduced it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it here. It seems to be Exhibit No. 139.
MR. HARDY: It was admitted provisionally pending obtaining of jurates from the affiant in Austria. Now this document, in the English copy on page 28. The interpreters will note in the middle of the page the words page 2 of the original in parenthesis. If you will go up towards the top of the page to "page 2 of the original" in the middle of the page — 6 lines I will start reading where it says "Professor Beiglboeck came" —
Prof. Beiglboeck came with a staff of three Luftwaffe assistants, and the experiments began. As far as I know in various methods; starvation diets to begin with, seawater and salt diets, salt injections, and so on. The tortures led to enfeebling of the body which resulted in loss of consciousness and, as far as I know, in one death.
Now, did Dr. Beiglboeck mention anything of that nature in his report?
A: No.
Q: Now it says further down here — we skip one sentence and go to the statement beginning:
Beiglboeck delivered these so-called troublemakers to the SS, which treated them in the manner customary in the camp.
Did he mention anything about that in his report?
A: No, he said nothing about that and I consider it a perfect lie.
Q: Well, now he says farther in this affidavit that will be down 2 — 3 more sentences beginning with "As in all the experimentation stations", that will be 2 sentences after the last sentence, I read:
As in all the experimentation stations, it was Beiglboeck's practice to send those prisoners undermined by the experiments, to the regular infirmary in order to conceal the number of deaths among the experimental subjects.
Did he call that to your attention?
A: Not only did he not call that to my attention, but at the time I saw the records of these experiments and was able to note that all the subjects with whom he had started were still there at the end of the experiment.
I think that is up to Professor Beiglboeck to present proof of that.
Q: Doctor, did he tell you about the fact that when persons died in the experiments they were put then on stretchers, covered, with a white sheet and delivered to the morgue, as testified here to by the witness Viehweg.
A: I think you mean the criminal Viehweg who is charged again for calling himself a doctor illegally. So much for Viehweg. And as for the dead persons whom Viehweg says he saw for the sake of brevity I may refer you again to the case of Professor Beiglboeck and say in his defense because to my own knowledge I can say nothing about these deaths personally who were resurrected later.
Q: Did Dr. Beiglboeck tell you where the experimental subjects came from?
A: I consider that possible. I don't know today where they came from, but I don't know whether Professor Beiglboeck knows, I can't remember.
Q: Did he tell you that they came from an other concentration camp other than Dachau?
A: I just said that I can't remember that. It's possible that I asked Professor Beiglboeck what kind of subjects he got. It is possible that if Professor Beiglboeck knew that he told me, but in three years since that time I have forgotten again. It may be that he told me
Q: Did he tell you that these volunteers were men who had volunteered for a "special commando"?
A: "Special Commando". No, that was never mentioned.
Q: I see. Doctor, in connection with typhus and virus research, did you know of the Typhus and Virus Research Institute in Lemberg, also known as the Lemberg Fleckfieber Institute, the Lemberg Spotted Fever Institute, or the Behring Institute-Lemberg?
A: No, I heard of all these Institutes for the first time here. I never heard heard of them heretofore.
Q: Do you know whether or not the Lemberg Institute had any connection whatsoever with the Luftwaffe?
A: I can neither affirm or deny that. Never heard about it.
Q: You don't know anything about the administration of the Lemberg Institute? Whether it was administered by the Luftwaffe or by I.G. Farben?
A: I have no idea.
Q: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination by Defense Counsel?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it is my understanding that we are going to call the witness Jaeger at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask Dr. Steinbauer, is it satisfactory to you to, at this time, call your witness Jeager?
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, May I call the witness Jaeger at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Becker-Freyseng is excused from the witness stand temporarily and will resume his place.
The Marshall will summon the witness Rolf Jaeger.
ROLF JAEGER, a witness took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: You will please hold up your right hand and take the oath.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: Witness, what is your exact name, where were you born, what is your nationality and what is your present address?
A: My name is Dr. Rolf Jaeger. I was born on the 1st of November, 1912, in Graudenz on the Vistula in Western Prussia. I am a doctor by profession. I am a German citizen. My present address is Graz-Liebenau, Austria, 721st S.E.P. Hospital.
Q: What is your employment there?
A: I am an Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] and senior medical officer for S.E.P. units under British command. I am personally directly subordinate to the headquarters of the British troops in Austria. I am also a chief physician of the 721st S.E.P. Hospital.
Q: How is it that you know Professor Beiglboeck?
A: I met Professor Beiglboeck under the auspices of the adjutant of the Corps Physician in Berlin-Tempelhof about the end of 1943. He was sent to my hospital in Tarvisio in Northern Italy about Easter, 1944, and he was under me from that time on.
Q: How long was he your subordinate?
A: He was my subordinate, until the end of the war.
Q: What was his position there?
A: He was leading physician of the internal department of my hospital.
Q: Do you know whether Beiglboeck had the title "Consulting Physician of the Luftwaffe?"
A: No, Professor Beiglboeck was not a consulting physician of the Luftwaffe. I remember, however, that he would suggested as such. From a personal remark of the Generalstabsarzt [General Staff Doctor], Dr. Neumueller I learned that he was proposed at the consulting internist of the Army.
Q: Why was he not appointed?
A: He was rejected by Generalstabsarzt Neumueller since he did not think he was a good enough soldier and was "too soft ", as he said to me personally.
Q: Who then took the position that he was intended for?
A: His position was taken by some else who took over the duties of consulting internist. He was not a academic teacher. I cannot remember his name today.
Q: Now, what military rank did Beiglboeck have in June of 1944?
A: Professor Beiglboeck was an Oberarzt [Senior Physician] of the reserve at the time, but he was already classified for Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] at the time when he came to Tarvisio.
Q: Can you tell us something about his previous employment in the Luftwaffe?
A: He came to us from the Luftwaffe Hospital in Brunswick with a good reputation. I know nothing of his previous work.
Q: Your hospital in Tarvisio, was that German territory or was that outside Germany?
A: Tarvisio was on Italian soil. The hospital belonged to the Army operating in Italy. The borders were strictly blocked.
Q: Did Professor Beiglboeck have any personal connections with higher offices, particularly to the Medical Inspectorate?
A: No, he did not. I don't believe he wanted any.
Q: What can you tell us about his medical activities and his attitude as a physician?
A: His medical activities consisted in taking care of the internal department and caring for the patients. May hospital had 1500 beds at that time. 450 approximately belonged to the internal department. To this was attached an infectious ward and a tuberculosis ward, an X-ray department, a clinical laboratory and a department for physical therapy. As a physician Professor Beiglboeck had a very good reputation, not only among his patients but also among the personnel under him and above all among his colleagues. As a man to every one respected him and liked him.
Q: Did you have only members of the German Wehrmacht as patients or did you have also foreign patients?
A: Not only German members of the armed forces, but also Italian soldiers, and also Poles, Russians, Yugoslavs, Americans and Englishmen. The latter were fliers who had been shot down and some of them in our hospital for months. Professor Beiglboeck made no distinction as to nationality when treating his patients.
Q: Did Beiglboeck, during his stay in Italian territory, have touch with the civilian population?
A: Yes, very close touch. He had good reputation as a doctor, not only among us, but his reputation got around in the small town of Tarvisio and, in his free time, he did all to help the poor mountain population. He was often on the road at night which was without danger towards the end of the war because there were partisans in the area.
Q: Now, Dr. Jaeger, let us turn to the experiments. Do you know when Beiglbock was ordered to report to Berlin?
A: I cannot give you the date exactly. It was about the second half of June in 1944.
Q: In what way was this carried out?
A: By a teletype message.
Q: Do you recall whether the teletype message contained a reason for this request?
A: No, it merely said that Professor Beiglboeck was to report immediately to the Medical Inspectorate in Berlin.
Q: Did you ask by phone or by telegram what was afoot here?
A: Yes, I inquired by telephone and I was informed that Professor Beiglboeck was to be assigned to some scientific work; I could learn nothing else.
Q: Now, when Beiglboeck was in Berlin, did he tell you what was going on and ask you to request his return?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: What reason did he give for this request?
A: He explained his wish to be sent back by saying that he did not like to accept the assignment to carry out experiments in a concentration camp and besides, he wanted to come back to the internal Department of the Hospital and asked me to try to arrange it.
Q: Did you make efforts to have him brought back?
A: Yes, I did, I said that I had entrusted him with the building up of the internal department and it was hard for me to get along without him.
Q: Why was this request on your part refused?
A: My request went through official channels to the adjutant of the Army Surgeon and he had to ask for the release from the Medical Inspectorate. It was rejected and said that the assignment he had to carry out was important.
Q: Did Beiglbock then tell you that he had asked that the experiments be carried out in Tarvisie?
A: Yes.
Q: Would that have been technically possible?
A: Technically, yes.
Q: How so?
A: We had quite a good laboratory and the laboratory workers would have been adequate to carry out the normal experiments.
Q: Why was this then not done?
A: The military situation was such that we needed every bed in the hospital. There was also an order that the borders of the Reich were closed for the return of patients and it would have been difficult to solve the bed question. Immediately after the Invasion, we received a Fuehrer order which again strictly prohibited any return of patients and this order was binding on all Wehrmacht offices.
Q: When Beiglboeck went to Dachau, did he write anything to you or did he write to any of the other doctors about what went on there?
A: Yes, I remember that very well, he wrote to several members of the hospital staff, and in all the letters he said how unhappy he was at Dachau and how much he disliked carrying out the experiments there. I remember before the experiments began, he wrote me personally a letter and asked me again to try to arrange for his return. I tried again, but without success, I myself, of course, was particularly interested in getting him back, because I had assigned him to do this new building.
Q: Dr. Jaeger, you were in fact the medical officer; do you believe that Bieglboeck could have refused to obey this military order?
A: No, I do not believe so. After all, it came from the supreme superior and Professor Beiglboeck was a medical officer. Orders for medical officers were the same as for any other officer and soldier.
Q: Now, Beiglboeck carried out his experiments and after the experiments were over, he came back to Tarvisio. What did he report to you about his experiments?
A: About the middle of October, Professor Beiglboeck reported back to me as his disciplinary superior. When I inquired, he told me about his assignment, he told me that he carried out the sea-water experiments as ordered. He also said that before the beginning of the experiment he also performed an experiment on himself. He said that the experimental subjects were gypsies, who had volunteered and that they were granted extra food rations, less work, etc.
Q: Tell me, Dr. Jaeger, did he say anything to you about what his relations were with the experimental subjects, these concentration camp inmates?
A: I had the impression that he had very good relations with his experimental subjects.
Q: Do you think that Dr. Beiglboeck had any reason to conceal the true facts?
A: No, I do not; he under the then existing conditions had no reason to conceal anything from me aside from the fact that I asked him as his superior officer.
Q: Well, Dr. Beiglboeck came back to Tarvisio and he came back from a concentration camp; did you ask him what it looked like in a concentration camp?
A: Yes, of course, I as well as the others who heard it were quite astonished that he could not say much about the conditions, he only said that his movements in the concentration camp were restricted and relations with the SS were rather tense.
Q: Now, I want to ask you something else. Do you think Professor Beiglboeck had any personal, scientific or literary interest in these sea-water experiments?
A: No, I do not believe so. On the contrary, as far as I can remember, he was doing scientific work on hepatitis at the time in the clinic and I think he wanted to publish a book on the subject; thus I believe the contrary would be true.
Q: But maybe you think that he did these experiments, as the chief prosecutor said in his opening statement, from a Nazistic point of view in order to torture the enemies of National Socialism.
A: I do not believe that as that would not fit in with his character. I never knew him as a fanatic, his sympathy and heart always belonged to the weak and oppressed, he never refused them aid. I think he was a party member, yes, but if one heard him, one had to have the opposite impression of his ideals; his criticism of party or political measures of the highest agencies indicated that. I don't believe that I can assume that.
Q: Now, let me ask you a last question. You are a physician, a medical officer, and I know of your career; do you consider the problem of such sea-water experiments sack as these a superfluous one; do you think they were unnecessary or do you think they were serious experiments and a important problem?
A: Yes, I believe it was an important problem. I may say that I was a parachutist on Crete and know the special dangers of the sea. I was shut in for two days near the coast in Crete and suffered greatly from thirst. After these two days we reached the sea; we were sitting practically in the water and were suffering greatly from thirst, but were unable to drink. On the fourth day we received fresh water from a well. Anyone who has thirst practically sitting in the water will realize how important the problem is.
Q: Did you have ship-wrecked people who suffered from thirst at that time?
A: Yes, there were a number of people who flew to Crete who crashed and I saw quite a few people who had managed to reach the land and who had been fished out of the water. I saw the conditions and the greatest problem for all these people was the water and their great thirst.
Q: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to the witness by defense counsel? If not, the Prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: What was the specific date when Dr. Beiglboeck went to Berlin to report to the Medical Inspectorate?
A: I said before that I don't know the exact date; I believe it was the second half of June 1944.
Q: And when did he return?
A: As far as I can remember, that was about October, the middle of October.
Q: When did he tell you that he had an assignment to experiment on concentration camp inmates at Dachau?
A: He told me that in a letter.
Q: What was your interest in this matter?
A: In his carrying out the experiments?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I had no interest in them. I wanted him as an internist for my hospital for medical reasons and because we were building a new building.
Q: Was Dr. Beiglboeck a man of good character and reputation?
A: Oh, yes, I may well say so.
Q: Did you ever hear of the Fuehrer Order of Secrecy?
A: For this experiment?
Q: The Fuehrer Order of Secrecy in Germany, not for this experiment?
A: No, I never heard of it.
Q: Do you know what "Secret" means?
A: Of course.
Q: Do you know what "Top Secret" means?
A: Yes, I know what that is.
Q: If you were given a secret order, would you go and tell your friends about it, or would you consider that a breach of your allegiance to the Fuehrer and to the Nazi Government?
A: That depends. I do not know —
Q: Do you think that Beiglboeck was being very considerate and very loyal when he informed you about matters which were "Top Secret", a man that had nothing to do with the problem?
A: Whether that was loyal of Professor Beiglboeck; was that your question?
Q: Well, wasn't it rather unusual?
A: No, I don't believe so, I don't think there was any reason for secrecy in this matter.
Q: Well, for your information, Doctor, the matter was classified "Top Secret". Don't you feel Dr. Beiglboeck was breaching his allegiance when he informed you, an outsider, about his proposed work at the Dachau concentration camp?
A: I don't believe so, otherwise he would probably have treated it as such.
Q: Now, you say that Dr. Beiglboeck enjoyed a cordial relationship with the experiment subjects; how do you know that?
A: I know that because he told me a great deal about their existence in his series of experiments. He said that they came to him with their personnel troubles, he said that they all spoke German. Since I knew him personally, I believe that he had close contact with his experimental subjects.
Q: You know that only from Beiglboeck himself, a man who had breached an oath in giving you information about a Top Secret project? Is that right?
A: Professor Beiglboeck, yes.
Q: You said that Dr. Beiglboeck didn't want to conduct these experiments at the Dachau concentration camp. Did he tell you why he had misgivings for not wanting to conduct these experiments at the Dachau concentration camp?
A: That was even in a letter which has been mentioned before, that he didn't like to carry out these experiments in the concentration camp; I gathered that from his mentality.
Q: Why didn't he like to do that, do you know? Was it because it was a criminal act or something? What was his objection to it?
A: I can't read his mind as well as that but I don't think that he liked the concentration camps. He didn't like working there.
Q: What was your rank, doctor?
A: Oberstabsarzt.
Q: In the Luftwaffe?
A: Yes, in the Luftwaffe.
Q: When did you join the Party?
A: I was an active officer; I was not in the Party.
Q: You never joined the Nazi Party?
A: No.
Q: Yet you were an officer in the Luftwaffe?
A: I was an officer in the Luftwaffe, yes.
Q: How do you spell your last name, doctor?
A: J-ä-g-e-r.
Q: Did you ever hear of the experiments conducted for the decontamination of water?
A: Yes, I heard about that. Of course, the decontamination.
Q: What did you hear about it?
A: Not the removing of salt, but the decontamination?
Q: That is right.
A: Decontamination?
Q: Yes, what did you hear about that?
A: Nothing especially, only what everybody knew, that is a filter to remove bacteria from water.
Q: Did you ever year of experiments conducted by the "Reichsanstalt"?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: You never heard of that?
A: What "Reichsanstalt"?
Q: "Reichsanstalt" is a German word. I will have to ask the interpreter to read it. It is spelled Wasser and Luftgau [Air District].
A: No, I never heard of that.
Q: If your name appears in a document concerning experiments conducted on 150 human beings to determine the value of certain decontamination agents in the decontamination of water, would you be inclined to think that that was another Dr. Jaeger?
A: Yes, I think that must have been somebody else.
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination by counsel for defendant Beiglboeck. There being no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the witness Jaeger will be excused.
The defendant Becker-Freyseng will resume the witness stand.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Dr. Becker, the direct examination and the cross examination have been so exhaustive that I do not believe I shall have to ask many more questions. However, I want to clarify first of all one question to you that Dr. Hardy broached this morning, the question of the so-called "Super-Referents". Did you actually, among the Referents, of whom there were twenty-five in the Medical Inspectorate, have a position that put you above the other Referents?
A: I took this statement of Mr. Hardy as a captatio benevolentiae [Latin: winning of goodwill], and I don't think he meant anything of that nature by it. At least I was one of twenty-four Referents.
I did not have the highest military rank among them. There were some lieutenant colonels there. There were some older men there. There were experienced university professors. I did not have any particularly high position.
Q: Now, according to the evidence put in during this trial it would seem as if the research work in general occupied a very pre-eminent position within the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. It would seem as if the whole office concerned itself with research. Now just what was the actual situation; what importance did research occupy within the entire work of the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate?
A: I am unfortunately unable to tell you what percentage of the correspondence of the office referred to research, but I can point out one thing. First of all, my Referat was one out of twenty-four, and within my Referat research formed only a part of my work, perhaps twenty percent, fifteen percent, certainly no more. Of course, it was a very important part of my work, but the other parts were just as important.
Q: Then if I understand you correctly, you say that your work with research and research assignments was only a fractional part of all the work involved in the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate?
A: Of the whole office, yes, certainly.
Q: Now, witness, please turn once again to Document NO-306. This is Exhibit No. 296 and is in Prosecution Document Book No. 12, on page 77. Unfortunately I do not have the English page — it is page 74 in the English document book. We have already discussed this document three times. Mr. Hardy brought it up twice and I must unfortunately refer to it again. But I have only one question, witness. Mr. Hardy concluded from this document, which is a letter of 9 June 1943 from Professor Rose to Professor Haagen. The last sentence reads:
It will take some time until '2-F' produces its new research order, as Anthony is on a duty trip for several weeks.
Mr. Hardy interpreted this sentence to mean that this research assignment was put to one side because the man was not present who issued the orders in research assignments.
Now in one sentence, witness, can you tell us why this research assignment was put aside while Professor Anthony was absent on an official trip?
A: That is very simple. Because the Referent was not there who had to do the technical final work on the assignment, and because it was not an urgent matter that had to be settled overnight and it was not given to me, and because even as assistant Referent I had so much to do that I didn't look for any additional work. I don't think anybody does. And so the matter was left until Anthony came back.
Q: Now, regarding the question of research assignments, which we have been kicking around long enough, now one more question, witness. You said in cross examination that the scientist applies to your office and you dictated the research assignment. I believe that is rather a telescoping of what took place, but please tell us just exactly how an application for a research assignment was handled in the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate.
A: I shall try to answer this question very briefly. For the sake of simplicity let us assume that it is an aviation medicine assignment. The application from Professor John Doe, whom Mr. Hardy mentioned this morning, came first of all to the Chief of Staff, who decided whether this letter would be submitted to the Chief of the Medical Service or sent direct to the department chief, and he made some notation in the margin — either "please consult", or "can be granted", or "inquire of such and such a person" — then the letter came to the department chief, who also signed it and put a note in the margin for me, and then I got the letter and saw what my two superiors had already said about it. I either reported to the department chief about it, since it was an aviation medicine assignment. I might have suggested that Professor Strughold or someone else be consulted, and if the department chief approved the application I took the documents over to the budget Referent, who was responsible for finances. I got his approval, and he also signed it, and after I had all of this together I dictated to my stenographer the draft of a research assignment which I submitted to my department chief, and he alone, or together with me, gave it to the Chief of Staff and the Chief of the Medical Service for signature.
Q: In other words, you did not actually dictate something which would be in the nature of an order, but your work was of a purely technical nature, was it not?
A: Yes, I believe I have explained that sufficiently. I was never a research dictator.
Q: Mr. Hardy, who has flattered you in certain ways here, has also charged you with being in charge of the aviation medicine research institutes. Now, after what Dr. Weltz has testified here, I do not believe we have to go into that any further, but like Mr. Hardy I should like to ask a hypothetical question. If the Referent had been in charge of the aviation medicine research (of course they were not), would that have been a military subordination in the sense of subordinate or superior in the military sense?
A: I can answer this question only by leading it ad absurdum. The heads of our aviation medicine institutes were: Professor Strughold with the rank of colonel. The office was that of a brigadier general. Professor Weltz had the rank of lieutenant colonel, and the office had the rank of colonel. Professor Buechner, head of the Institute for Aviation Medical pathology, also held the rank of lieutenant colonel, and the office was also that of a colonel. Professor Knothe, commander of the Training Section at Jueterbog, was first a major and at the end lieutenant colonel. That was also a colonel's position. Only the head of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Hamburg was a Stabsarzt (captain). I don't think it is customary for any army in the world to have all colonels under the command of a captain, and I am convinced that if I had tried to give orders in the military sense to Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Professor Strughold or Oberfeldarzt [Senior Medical Officer] Professor Weltz — all old enough to be my father — they would have been quite astonished.
Q: That then answers my hypothetical, question. Now, I believe that we do not need to enter into any further discussions of the infamous file note # 55, and the Referat numbers. I think they are clear enough. Moreover, an affidavit is going to be put in regarding this matter later. We do not have to discuss your position in the Referat any longer. Now one question regarding the low-pressure chamber. You know, Witness, that the mobile low-pressure chamber used by the DVL at Adlershof and taken to Dachau and used there in the course of the experiments has played a large role here. I don't know whether it was brought out that this low-pressure chamber was made subordinate to the Referat for Aviation Medicine.
A: You again are putting a unit under me which was never under me. I must object to that. I couldn't give any orders to the man in charge of a mobile low-pressure chamber unit.
Q: I wasn't referring to when the unit was made subordinate to you, but when the low-pressure chamber itself was put under the Referat for Aviation Medicine?
A: That was at the end of July or the beginning of August 1942, when this motorized low-pressure chamber unit was taken over by Stabsarzt Kellerman and his crew.
Q: This then was after the conclusion of the Dachau experiments for rescue from high altitude?
A: According to what I have heard here, these experiments were completed at the end of June at the latest.
Q: Something else in this matter, witness. You said in cross-examination that when the mobile low-pressure chamber units were used you said that:
we saw to it that these motorized low-pressure chambers were used.
Now, please explain the use of this word "we", so that we can avoid the impression that you were some sort of a super-Referent?
A: That is an inaccuracy committed by everyone when speaking of his office. The low-pressure chambers were dealt with in my Referat. Orders were issued by my department chief or the Chief of Staff.
Q: Regarding the high-altitude experiments, Witness, I have only one question. Since Mr. Hardy has asked you in cross-examination about Dr. Kottenhoff, tell me, how long was Dr. Kottenhoff in your Referat?
A: I have already said that in the summer of 1944 Dr. Kottenhof was there for a very brief time. He had just given up one position and was waiting to be assigned again, and in the meantime presumably nobody know what to do with him, and for perhaps a week or two or three weeks, perhaps less, he was in Berlin and was in the office of the Chief of the Medical Services, and since he was interested in Aviation Medicine, he was in my Referat as a guest, I might say, for a few days.
Q: Now, Witness, one question regarding the freezing experiments. You said in regard to this as well as altitude, that Professor Hippke carried out a great deal of the work in this field on his own initiative and did so without informing the competent Referent of this. Now, the question arises, could Hippke do this — did he have any knowledge in the field of aviation medicine so that he could reach autonomous decisions?
A: Professor Hippke had not conducted any aviation medical research himself but had taken an intensive interest in aviation medicine, and, no doubt, had knowledge in this field which was far above the normal average of a doctor.
Q: Then, if I understand you correctly, you mean to say that fundamental questions of this sort he could decide without consulting a specialist.
A: Doubtless.
Q: Then, witness, please take up the freezing document book. First of all, Document NO-268, page 140 in the German version of the document book on freezing. It is a letter of 19 February 1943, from the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, signed by Hippke. On this document there is the famous file note 55 and then in parentheses the registry number 211B. You said in cross-examination, Witness, that this document was not worked on by you.
Mr. Hardy asked you a few things about this letter, but regarding the question of the freezing experiments I should like to ask you a few more questions, Witness. How does it happen that despite the fact that you say you are not a specialist in freezing matters, you could make a perfectly clear, understandable statement about these freezing problems? Could you make these statements from specialized experience in the field of cold, or on the basis of experience of a purely general nature that you had as a scientist, research worker, and experimenter.
A: I never performed any cold experiment either on animals or on myself or on another human being. I, of course, read some papers on the subject, but the statement which I have made here refer generally to a careful study of the document and to my general medical training.
Q: Then you made statements on the basis of purely general information which you had as a doctor, supported by a study of the documents and by information on research in general?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: On page 22 of the document book on freezing, document NO 286, Exhibit 88, there is a word which Mr. Hardy put to you — Document NO 286 — a letter to the Reichsfuehrer-SS from the Reich Air Minister, 8 October 1942. Do you have the document?
A: That is the one you were just talking about? Yes, I have it.
Q: In this document please turn to the last paragraph on the first page, where Anthony writes:
The research records and an extensive report will be presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher.
Mr. Hardy contended that the extensive report mentioned here is the report that Professor Holzloehner gave in Nurnberg. May I ask you whether this opinion of Mr. Hardy is correct, or just what is the report here mentioned?
A: As far as I remember, in the answer which I gave Mr. Hardy I said that one of the next documents shows that what Holzloehner said at the Nurnberg meeting was the part of this report which could be made public as top secret. According to what I know today, this extensive report was the one which Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher signed. It was sent by Rascher to Himmler as top secret with a personal letter, and was certainly not what Professor Holzloehner about three weeks later told the people assembled at Nurnberg.
Q: In your direct examination you have already stated that this extensive report, so far as you know, did not go to the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, and that, at any rate, you never saw the report in the office.
A: That's what I said, yes.
Q: Now, the last question regarding the freezing experiments, Witness. Very surprisingly, the Prosecutor stated here for the first time, that the method of rapid rewarming was not introduced into practice in the German Wehrmacht. This statement surprised me greatly, since I found no document to this effect, nor did I hear anything orally to that effect. Now tell us, witness, was this method actually introduced in the German Wehrmacht, and if so, when?
A: My positive knowledge about this introduction is as follows: First of all, I know that in the course of the winter of 1942-1943, instructions for medical officers were issued advocating almost ordering, quick rewarming as the only method for treatment after freezing. Secondly, every German soldier in the East or the North received a memorandum in his pay book about what to do for cold and treatment of frozen persons. Also, I knew that the Medical Sea Distress Stations, in their motor boats, life boats, had arrangements for using the hot water which comes out of the motor after cooling the motor, for the treatment of frozen persons. But I believe that can be proved by an affidavit from a sea distress doctor.
Q: Then the final question on cold, which you can answer with one sentence, Witness. In your direct examination you said that rapid rewarming had been discussed at great length, and then Mr. Hardy brought the discovery of a Russian doctor from the year 1880, I believe, to your attention and asked you why these experiments by Holzloehner at Dachau were necessary in view of that. Can you say something to that?
A: These experiments — specifically Holzloehner's experiments — on quick rewarming, where, in Holzloehner's own words, no experimental subject suffered any hard or was endangered, were necessary because in spite of the experiments of the Russian Doctor, Lepezinsky in 1880, and in spite of numerous animal experiments, and in spite of some isolated observations in practice, no one could decide against slow rewarming, which had been used for thousands of years for freezing, and to change around completely and do exactly the opposite — do exactly what had always been considered the greatest danger — that is, quick rewarming.
Q: Mr. President, I have a few questions regarding the next subject, but I think this would be a good time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours 29 May 1947.)