1947-05-29, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 May 1947, 0930 hours, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of American and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that all the defendants are present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendants are all present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed
REDIRECT EXAMINATION — Continued
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Dr. Becker, yesterday we concluded our discussion of the freezing problem. The next charge of the prosecution against you is the typhus experiments. However, I believe that this problem has been discussed already at such great length, along with its file number, etc., that we need not concern ourselves with it. I believe that we can leave that well to the decision of the Tribunal.
I come now to the next charge against you; namely, that sea water problem, and here I have a question to put to you. In the direct examination you explained what part of the responsibility you are willing to accept for the sea water experiments and explained this again to Mr. Hardy in the cross examination. Nevertheless, Mr. Hardy continued to speak of your complete responsibility for the sea water experiments. Will you please, in order to clarify this point, again state to what extent you feel yourself responsible for these experiments on the basis of your official position?
A: I think my responsibility for these experiments lies in the fact of my giving my department chief the necessary documentation and data in order for him to arrive at decisions regarding the necessity of these experiments and regarding the conditions under which they were to be carried out. Further, regarding the qualifications and personality of the man conducting the experiments Professor Beiglboeck. I believe those are the three points with which I was actively concerned and I was then, and still am, ready to accept the responsibility to that extent.
Q: That then is the responsibility which you, in your position as referent, had to bear and you took this responsibility within the office, vis-a-vis your superior at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: And thus do not take the full responsibility for those experiments — for the carrying out of them?
A: I believe I can refer to what my chief at that time, Professor Schroeder himself, said here in the stand.
Q: Witness, another matter in the sea water problem. In the direct and cross examination you explained that the Berkatit method, if used in practice, you considered to be very dangerous. However, experiments with Berkatit you considered to be absolutely without danger. This might be an important point in the decision regarding this matter and I want to ask you what the difference is between the use of Berkatit, on the one hand, in practice and, on the other, in experiments?
A: Berkatit is a chemical which conceals the salt content of sea water and seems to make at least a potable liquid of sea water. In this way the person suffering from shipwreck is induced to drink a certain amount of this water and thus hopes to allay his thirst. However, since Berkatit does not change or lessen the salt content of sea water the thirst is not allayed, but subsequently becomes all the more severe. Thus, the man will again drink sea water, probably this time will drink more of it, and so gradually this will increase.
He will drink more and more, become more and more thirsty, and in consequence, lose more body water. Above all, because single doses of more than 300 cc bring about diarrhea and, in this way, one can foresee without being a great prophet that a serious condition will develop. That is what happens when Berkatit is actually used in practice. In an experiment, I can determine exactly the total amount of the water treated with Berkatit, that is to be consumed in one day by the experimental subject. I can determine how much he has to drink in any single dose, and the decisive factor is that the experiment can, at any moment, be interrupted for medical reasons.
Q: Then, if I understood you correctly, you see the danger in practice in the fact that a man in a serious case of sea distress — shipwreck — will drink too much sea water mixed with Berkatit? That will be dangerous to him, whereas, in the experiment, the amount that he consumes is determined by the physician and kept within proper limits.
A: It can so be summarized, yes.
Q: Another question in this matter, Mr. Hardy asked you whether you agreed that a person could die from drinking sea water and you then answered briefly and precisely. "You can die of anything". Perhaps, however, the deduction could be drawn from this statement that you counted on the cases of fatality in the sea water experiment? Perhaps you could elucidate your statement, "You can die of anything."
A: At that time I was referring in my thought to a passage in my direct examination when I explained that the toxic effects of any substance depend on the dose in which that substance is consumed. That is a most primitive rule of toxicology and I simply wanted to say in that statement of mine that you can kill a person by feeding him sea water if you want to but, of course, you can also feed him pure oxygen if you want to, or too much sugar or any other substance and you can arrange it that it will be dangerous if you wish to.
Q: Then, you meant, that in general it depends on the amount of the substance consumed and you say that any substance which is consumed in too great doses can be fatal?
A: Yes.
Q: But you didn't want to say that such doses were used in the experiments as could lead to death?
A: That is right. I wanted to say exactly the opposite namely, that in the experiment the doses were such that it was a certainty that deaths would not occur.
Q: Then, in conclusion, witness, a last question? The prosecutor repeatedly asked you about documents regarding which he assumed that they must have reached the Medical Inspectorate and must be in the files there. For example, the concluding reports by Hozloehner, Rascher and Finke re garding the freezing experiments, you denied that you had ever seen this report and a large number of others.
Therefore, I should like to ask you, do you know what happened to the files of the Chief Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe?
A: Our registry office was in Harzburg in the Harz Mountains whence it was transferred in February from Berlin, whereas I stayed in Berlin until the middle of April and then, with the rest of this small staff of mine, went to the Tyrol where at the end of May we were taken prisoners.
Q: Now, what happened to these Harzburg files and the registry office of the Medical Inspector?
A: In the first half of April the office was taken by American troops. In this way the files certainly fell into American hands since later when I was at the Aero-Medical Center in Heidelberg, I received a number of these files to be worked on by me for the Aero-Medical Center.
Q: Witness, among the documents put in evidence in this trial have you seen any documents that originated from the files of the Medical Inspectorate, that is, used for the prosecution.
A: No.
DR. TIPP: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to be propounded to this witness by any defense counsel?
BY DR. SAUTER (Defense counsel for the defendant Ruff and appearing also for defendant Romberg):
Q: Witness, yesterday and the day before you want into the experiments with the low-pressure chamber at great length. However, a few points must yet be clarified in this matter. You said yesterday — or maybe it was the day before yesterday — that when these experiments began with the low pressure chamber in Dachau in 1942 they had been preceded by other experiments which were also to clarify the problem for rescue from great altitudes — experiments by Dr. Lutz, you said, Dr. Clamann and Dr. Benzinger.
These experiments, you said, were carried out above 12,000 meters and there were reports on them but you weren't able to say whether these reports on the preceding experiments were already available at the time of the Dachau experiment or not. I should like to take my point of departure from these statements of yours and ask a few questions. You mentioned the names of Doctors Lutz, Clamann and Benzinger.
A: I believe there was a little linguistic misunderstanding here. I do not remember having mentioned Dr. Lutz in this connection. At any rate, I was thinking of the name Luft, who worked with Clamann on these problems. However, these experiments of Luft were made in 1942 and 1943. Clamann had worked on this subject before alone.
Q: — Then let me ask you something regarding this. In these experiments with Dr. Luft are you thinking of the experiments which are carried out by the experimenter with white mice, instead of people.
A: Those are the experiments that Lutz carried out. Ho carried them out with white mice.
Q: But the experiments you were thinking of were different experiments?
A: The Luft experiments took certainly place after the Dachau experiments.
Q: And what about the Lutz experiments? Were they before the Dachau experiments, and when I say Dachau experiments I am referring to the experiments Dr. Romberg carried out on Dr. Ruff's authority. Now the Lutz experiments were white mice instead of experimental persons.
Were they before or after the Dachau experiments?
A: I can't answer that from my own precise knowledge but only on the basis of the documents and from the documents it can be seen that apparently these two experimental series were carried out more or less simultaneously. I believe that Romberg mentions in his report that the studies of Lutz were concluded only after his work.
Q: This is document 402, I believe, the concluding report by Doctors Ruff and Romberg which came out after the experiments were concluded and in this report there is mentioned, if you remember, the fact that through Lutz's experiment the problem of rescue from great heights had not been solved yet. Do you remember that passage in the concluding report of Ruff and Romberg?
A: That is certainly so. I can remember the Lutz report to some extent.
Q: Dr. Becker, is it still your opinion today that Lutz's experiments with white mice did not solve yet, the problem of rescue from great altitudes? Is that still your personal opinion as an expert and specialist?
A: That is not only my personal opinion but the opinion of scientists in general.
Q: Do you remember that after this report of Dr. Lutz's it was so ascertained through further experiments, particularly through Ruff's and Romberg's experiments, that the conclusions and results to which Lutz had come were actually wrong-namely, in the following respect. In this report which you just mentioned Dr. Lutz — and I am asking you if this is so — comes to the conclusion that rescue from great altitudes is possible only up to the altitude of 15,000 meters to which it is true, Dr. Lutz adds:
So far as that can be ascertained from animal experiments.
Then other experiments went to much greater heights and it was seen that rescue was possible from those heights also. Is that correct?
A: Yes. I can corroborate that because in 1944 I, as a referent, concerned myself with this problem but I must correct you to this extent. Lutz's conclusions reached with his white mice were certainly correct. However, there is a difference between a white mouse and a human being in such small animals are very narrow channels and thus present different conditions for absorbing and taking care of air pressure or pressure in general and are thus different from what results in cases of larger air passages such as are found in human beings.
Q: Then I think you are trying to say, Dr. Becker, that Dr. Lutz's experiments did not solve the problem of rescue from great altitudes — at least did not solve it for human beings. Is that so?
A: Yes. that opinion is correct.
Q: Now, how about the experiments carried on by the other two men I mentioned previously, namely, Drs. Clamann and Benzinger. In your opinion, was the problem of rescue from great altitudes solved completely by the experiments of Drs. Clamann and Benzinger, or was the problem not yet solved by these experiments in the spring of 1942?
A: Let me refer to what Ruff explained from the witness stand regarding this whole problem, and say that within the framework of this problem as a whole there were two main questions. One question was, how does a man stand explosive decompression at all if he is in a pressure cabin in a ballon or in an airplane? There is in this chamber, first of all, a pressure of 3,000 or 8,000 meters, let us say. The airplane, however, is at an altitude of 15,000 or 20,000 meters, and suddenly the cabin is burst. Now, the first question is, what happens to the human being when all of a sudden this explosive decompression takes place? Clamann and Benzinger concerned themselves with this problem of explosive decompression. Today I cannot say without documentation just at what date the various reports that they issued on this problem came out; but even on the assumption that these experiments were concluded before Ruff's and Romberg's experiments began, the second main problem or question would still not have been solved, namely, how a human being, when he has survived explosive decompression, can be brought down from a great altitude to lower altitudes and what happens to him. And this second question was, so far as I know, the problem which formed the basis for Ruffs and Romberg's work.
Q: Then, Dr. Becker, in order to state this perfectly clearly, you say — and if I err, please correct me — there are two problems to be solved. One is the problem of explosive de-compression, namely, the problem resulting when the pressure cabin in an airplane bursts at a great altitude; and this fact is simulated in the experiment. Thus, the experiment is designed to discover how a human being reacts to this sudden reduction in pressure. That is the problem of explosive decompression.
Now, if I understood you correctly, Doctors Clamann and Denzinger concerned themselves primarily with this problem, in their experiments.
Then comes the second problem, the problem of how the person who has been subjected to explosive decompression, and has survived it, can be brought down from this great altitude to the ground without injury? As you have said, Doctors Clamann and Benzinger did not solve this problem, and this problem was the main concern of Drs. Ruff and Romberg, this was the problem they were to solve. Is that correct, so far as I as a layman can understand this matter?
A: Yes, you understood me completely. I could merely add two supplementary details: First, that Doctors Ruff and Romberg also concerned themselves with the problem of explosive decompression in experiments on themselves. I myself saw such experiments performed by Ruff and Romberg and even took part in them to a very small extent.
The second addition I should like to make is that as I have already said. I do not know when Benzinger's concluding reports were published. It might have been before the Dachau experiments. I am included to think it was later, but if this question is very important, you could check up in Heidelberg as to just when these reports did appear. The reports are there.
Q: Benzinger's and Clamann's report did not concern itself with this second problem at all; that was reserved to Doctors Ruff and Romberg.
A: Right.
Q: Witness, so that you do not commit perjury, let me remind you of something. Doctors Benzinger and Clamann did not carry on simply explosive decompression experiments, of which we have just spoken, but also experiments of a different nature, to wit, experiments involving a "rescue dive", another specialized term. This is an experiment in which the flier, staying in his plane, in case of danger, descends at great speed from a great altitude to a lower altitude, whereas in Ruff's and Romberg's experiments it is thought that the flier does not descend in the plane but leaves the plane and descends by parachute.
Did you know that Dr. Benzinger, I believe, also carried out experiments of this sort, and can you state that through this second type of experiment carried out by Benzinger the problem which Ruff and Romberg were trying to solve was still not solved but still had to be solved? Is that so?
A: I must give you three answers to this question. First, only Benzinger and not Clamann carried out these experiments. Secondly, Benzinger's idea was the following: If a man experiences explosive decompression. let us say at 19 kilometers, but the airplane is still maneuverable, the flier can still be expected to go through whatever maneuvers are necessary to bring his plane down to a lower altitude in a power dive, or you have to create a completely automatic mechanism which, independently of this sudden change in pressure, automatically and without the flier's having to do anything to manipulate it, is capable of bringing the plane down to a lower altitude.
The medical question involved was: At the height of 19 kilometers, in this specific case, how long does a flier remain capable of action? That is an entirely different problem from the problem that Doctors Ruff and Romberg clarified.
Now I come to my third answer. Through these special investigations of Benzinger's, the problem that Ruff and Romberg dealt with was not clarified.
Q: And I believe that is because in Benzinger's experiments the airplane, particularly the cabin, is still intact and can still be steered, whereas in Ruff's and Romberg's experiments the flier left the plane and descended outside the plane. Is that so.
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Do. Becker, it has been alleged that parachute descents from airplanes above 15,000 feet — I repeat, "feet" — were not undertaken in practice. Now, in order to clear this matter up, I should like to ask you the following.
Do you know that even several years before the Second World War an Italian, I believe his name was Petsi, ascended with a stratosphere plane without pressure cabin, only with a pressurized suit, and he did this in order to make the plane lighter — to 17,000 or 18,000 meters? This, as I say, was several years before the second World War. Did you know that?
A: Of course I did. That is the recognized altitude record with airplanes to date. This was the Italian Colonel by the name of Petsi, from the Italian Air Force Research Institute near Rome, in Guidonia. I believe this world record was setin 1937.
Q: These were altitudes between 17,000 and 18,000 meters?
A: I believe that the recognized altitude was 17,500, but I am not sure. At least over 17,000.
Q: Dr. Becker, do you know that in other ways much greater heights have been reached, heights of as much as 24,000 meters, at which the human being survived?
A: Yes. The experiments were carried out several times. Once at the beginning or the middle of the thirties, two American Captains, I believe Orville Anderson and Albert Stevens, in the American stratosphere balloon Explorer II, reached a height of 17,200 meters; some time later the Swiss or Belgian Professor Piccard with his assistant, Dr. Kuepfer or Knoepfer, or some such name, went with his stratosphere balloon to a height of some — what more than 24,000 meters without anything happening to them, but, of course, this was in a pressurized cabin.
Q: Do you know, Doctor, that in the period that followed, these altitudes were even exceeded? I seem to remember a case where an altitude of as much as 26,000 meters was attained. I don't want to tell you the name for the moment. Perhaps you can remember the name yourself. I should prefer that.
A: I don't know that 26 kilometers was actually reached, but from my activities as a Referent I know that the German Research Institute for Gliding in Ainring near Salzburg, under the direction of the well known aero-dynamic expert and aviation research man, Professor Georgij, developed an airplane, or rather was in the course of developing it, and this plane was intended to reach an altitude of 26,000 meters. However, I don't know whether the plane actually ever flew. That was at the end of 1944.
Q: Now, Dr. Becker, when you reflect on Ruff's and Romberg's experiments, do you agree with me when I say that on the basis of these examples, an urgent necessity existed in the year 1942 for solving the problem of rescue from great altitudes, at least altitudes as high as 20 or 21 kilometers; do you as a specialist agree with me in that assertion or do you not?
A: I am entirely in accord with you, Dr. Sauter.
Q: Then Dr. Becker, I want to ask you a few questions about this low-pressure chamber. Do you know who delivered these low-pressure chambers?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Who?
A: They were all delivered by the I.O. Zeuzem firm in Frankfurt on the Main.
Q: Do you know whether the chambers were delivered completely ready for use, or were the chambers when they were delivered not yet ready for use, and, if so, what was lacking in them?
A: I don't know what you are driving at.
Q: I said that simply because perhaps since I don't know what you are driving at my answer may be a little aside from the point. Well, for one thing the firm didn't itself manufacture the pumps but bought them from other firms. In addition the oxygen equipment was not manufactured and not entirely installed by this firm, and above all the inter-com system, that is, the telephone system; these pieces of equipment were usually built into the chamber later by Luftwaffe units.
Q: Who built them in? Were they not built in, on the basis of orders from the Medical Inspectorate, by a technical department of the DVL — that is, the German Research Institute for Aviation — because that technical department of the DVL had the necessary technicians available, always on orders from the Medical Inspectorate, that is?
A: Yes, that is right, in the case of the four low-pressure chamber units.
Q: The manufacture of the low-pressure chambers, including these pieces of equipment that were missing, the inter-com system, the oxygen system, and so forth, was not according to you, done by Dr. Ruff's Institute, is that so?
A: Surely not, because Ruff's institute was a medical research institute; the equipping of the chamber was surely done by some workshop of the DVL. I don't know the details.
Q: Now this mobile low-pressure chamber that came to Dachau in January or February, 1942, when it reached the DVL, was this chamber immediately allocated to Ruff's institute, or was it still under the orders of the Medical Inspectorate, that is to say, Prof. Dr. Hippke's orders?
A: Dr. Sauter, I believe that that is an economic or legal problem, just who owns something which has been allotted to someone else but not yet delivered. So long as the chamber was in the DVL, Dr. Ruff could of course not dispose of it with complete freedom, but if he had some special purpose for the chamber, had to get Professor Hippke's permission.
Q: Then the disposal of the low-pressure chamber, even the one at Dachau, was held by Dr. Hippke as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, is that what you are saying, and if I understand you correctly Dr. Ruff could not dispose of it independently but only with Professor Hippke's approval, is that what you are saying?
A: That is what I think is the case. However, I cannot take responsibility for the economic and legal problems involved.
Q: Now, how did this work out in practice? For example, who issued orders for this chamber was to be sent somewhere, there had to be travel orders, a directive with permission for the chamber to be moved. Now who issued these orders, did Dr. Ruff or his institute issue them, or did the Medical Inspectorate, or did some Luftwaffe unit issue them on orders from the Medical Inspectorate?
Are you personally informed regarding this matter?
A: First let me tell you that of my own knowledge I can tell you nothing regarding the conditions at that time, because I had nothing to do with the transportation of these chambers. I can speak only on the basis of my general information. I can say for certain that Dr. Ruff could not sign such travel orders, because that was a purely military matter, and Dr. Ruff, as the head of a purely civilian institute, had no right to issue any such military orders, so these orders must have been signed either by Hippke himself or by someone else with the necessary military powers who was commissioned to do so by him.
Q: Now, regarding the right of disposal of this low-pressure chamber, I should be interested in the following: When the chamber was in Dachau ready to be used for experiments, who, in your opinion — you are a doctor, not a lawyer — who, in your opinion as Referent of the Medical Inspectorate, had the right to dispose of the chamber? Who determined whether it stayed there or was removed, and Dr. Becker, before you answer this question, let me remind you of a letter that has frequently been read here, a letter from Prof. Hippke to Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolff of the SS, I believe of 20 May 1942, in which it is stated that the chamber was to be brought back to Berlin and. was to stay there and was to be used for front-line purposes, but was not to be used by the SS?
MR. HARDY: In view of this last question. Your Honor, I must object on the ground it is a leading question. It seems to me that the Defendant has exhibited that he can well testify for himself, and under the circumstances it is unfortunate that I cannot cross-examine Dr. Sauter. I can only cross-examine the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is certainly a leading one, The objection will be sustained. The question may be propounded to the witness, but let him answer it instead of counsel putting the words in his mouth.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Witness, I shall then ask you the following question: Do you know Hippke's letter to Wolff of 20 May 1942? This is the letter in which Hippke writes that the low-pressure chamber is not to be made available any longer but is needed for front-line purposes; do you know this letter?
A: I know it, but so that I may answer your question, may I ask you to hand me the document? I don't remember it well enough.
Q: Dr. Becker, you are not to answer the question as I asked it first. The Tribunal said it was a leading question, just answer the question I ask you, now, certainly no leading question, whether you know that letter which was frequently read during this trial. This is the letter in which Hippke writes that he cannot make the chamber available any long because it is needed for front line purposes. I believe it is the letter of 20 May 1942. Witness, I have a copy of the letter here. I see it is not a letter —
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just submit the letter to the witness, the messenger will take it to the witness and ask the witness if he is familiar with the letter.
DR. SAUTER: It is not a letter from Hippke, as I see, but a letter from Field Marshal Milch. I must correct myself.
A: Yes, this is the infamous letter headed "Dear Wolfy", and I am of course, familiar with it.
Q: Dr. Becker, when you read this letter when you were a referent, what conclusion do you as an expert draw from this letter regarding who was entitled to dispose of the chamber while it was in Dachau? Was it the SS, or the Camp Commander of Dachau, or who was it?
A: It seems to me to be a rather difficult legal problem. Milch says, on the, one hand, that the chamber cannot remain in Dachau. Thus, Field Marshal Milch is apparently assuming that in this case he, as a representative of the Luftwaffe, was entitled to take the chamber away from Dachau. But who was legally competent to dispose of the chamber in Dachau, I as a person not familiar with legal matters cannot clearly see.
Q: Is there anything in the letter to the effect that Dr. Ruff or his institute had this right of disposition? Is there anything there to indicate that Milch had no rights in this matter and that Wolff or the SS had to go to Ruff? Is that in the letter?
A: That certainly is not in the letter.
Q: Nothing to that effect in the letter?
A: No, sir.
Q: Then who, according t this letter, has this right of disposition, or at least assumes it.
A: At least Field Marshal Milch feels that he has the right to fetch the chamber away from Dachau at this date.
Q: As inspector General of the Luftwaffe.
A: I don't know when he received that commission. At any rate, he was State Secretary in the Reich Aviation Ministry.
Q: Dr. Becker, I have another technical question which you surely can answer. It will be rather important to know what sort of electrocardiograph was used. This is perhaps important in Dr. Romberg's case. Day before yesterday I believe, you expressed the assumption that the low pressure chamber in Dachau was equipped with a Braun's tube, a Cathode-ray oscillograph. Do you know precisely what this apparatus was, the apparatus that was in the low-pressure chamber?
A: Since I was not present during these experiments I do not knew that. From what Dr. Romberg said, I gathered that this was an apparatus which enabled him to observe the course of the electrical graphic representations of the heart boats, and I suppose that this might have been an apparatus such as was manufactured by the Viennese firm Karajan. The Karajan model was a cathode-ray oscillograph with a Braun's tube, but I cannot say for sure which machine Dr. Romberg had. There are certain machines which do not operate with Braun's tube but still work. It is a very likely conjecture, but I don't know for sure.
Q: Is this the so-called Kleine Siemens apparatus? In answering this question, let me remind you of Dr. Romberg's testimony n the stand. At that time he said that it was a moving point of light on a small screen. That is what Romberg said. Now, perhaps you will remember that. Now, is this the sort of machine that you just mentioned?
A: No, I must correct myself. In this case of the small screen there is a screen about 10x3cm, and this is the screen you find in the Kleine Siemens electrocardiograph.
Q: Now, by observing this moving point of light of which Romberg spoke in his testimony, can one come to a recise diagnosis of the condition of the heart or is that simply a vague indication of tho heart activity? What can you, as a doctor, tell us about this?
A: Please do not construct what I am about to say as the testimony of a heart specialist because I am not one. However, I do know a little about electrocardiographs. I would not trust myself to draw an accurate diagnosis on the basis of this moving point of life.
Q: Last question, witness, regarding the barometer. Did this barometer have any technical connection with the pumps? Was it attached to the pumps, or where was it installed f r the purpose of measuring altitude?
A: There was no direct technical or mechanical connection between the barometer and the pumps. That can be seen from the fact that the pumps were in a different truck from the truck in which the chamber was, and, of course, the barometer was on the low pressure chamber itself.
Q: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
DR. FRITZ (for the defendant Rose):
Q: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in your cross examination, witness, you said that the research assignments of the Medical Inspectorate that did not concern aviation medical questions originated from Referat 2IB of the Medical Inspectorate. From the word "originated" one understands that the initiative was taken by that Referat in issuing these research assignments. Prof. Rose considers that statement incorrect and confronts you with the fact that s far as he knows n single hygiene research assignment, particularly none to Prof. Rose, was issued on the initiative of the Medical Inspectorate; rather, those research assignments without exception originated in an application on the part of the research man in question himself. Do you wish to supplement or correct the statement you made in cross-examination on the basis of this information from Prof. Rose?
A: Of course, I unfortunately do not have the verbatim record of what I said in cross examination before me now, but I very much doubt whether I actually said what you just said I said. In so many words let me right away correct a mistake that you made in naming someone. You said assignments to Professor Rose, and you mean Professor Haagen.
Q: Yes, that is right.
A: Then, when I was speaking of the Referat for Hygiene in cross examination, I was speaking only of a very few hygiene research assignments, and not all research assignments that were n t aviation medical assignments; and finally, if I really said that research assignments to Haagen really originated with the Referat for Hygiene, then what I meant to say in this connection was that the actual work the opinion expressed by the Referent, was done by the hygiene Referent. I, however, do not know whether the assignment to Haagen was issued on Haagen's application or because the Referent for Hygiene considered it necessary, but, according to the general custom, it is the most probably thing that Haagen applied to the Medical Inspectorate for the assignment, and I believe this question could be cleared up once and for all if Haagen would testify on it himself.
Q: And one other point, briefly. In the redirect examination you said that you had seen no documents here that originated from the files of the Medical Inspectorate in Harzburg, but the so-called "green folders" containing the reports on the Consulting Conferences, which were submitted by the Prosecution, come from those Harzburg files. That can be ascertained from the names on the covers of these folders, entries by hand in the text, etc. Does that give you any reason to wish to correct the statement you gave your counsel before?
A: I can't correct it, because I have never seen the green folders of which you are speaking in the original, and there is no stamp of the Medical Inspectorate on the copies that the Prosecution put in evidence. Since many thousands of these reports were issued, I supposed that the copy might have come from somewhere else. However, if you tell me that there is a stamp or a name of some member of the staff of the Medical Inspectorate, then I must correct my testimony.
Q: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few moments.
(A recess was taken.)