1947-05-29, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to the witness by any other defense counsel?

DR. GILM (Representing Dr. Wille, defense counsel for Dr. Weltz): Witness, during cross examination, you described how in June of 1942 you were present at a discussion between Drs. Hippke and Rascher; now during that conference and in your presence did the name Weltz come up at all?

THE WITNESS: In my presence, no.

DR. GILM: Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions by any other defense counsel or any questions by the Prosecution concerning the subsequent examination of the witness?

MR. HARDY: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, do you have any knowledge as to whether or not in the year of 1943 Dr. Rascher received another pressure chamber at Dachau for further experimentation as solicited in the Siever's diary for the year 1943?

THE WITNESS: No, I have no knowledge of that, but considering everything that I know I think that it is absolutely out of the question that Rascher received yet another pressure chamber.

MR. HARDY: Did your office or did you have cognizance of any other correspondence which may have originated from Rascher or Sievers regarding the allocation of a pressure chamber to Dachau in 1943?

THE WITNESS: Either during my direct or cross-examination, I said that during the winter of 1942 to 1943 my department chief asked me to define my attitude in writing briefly regarding the question of whether a sub-pressure chamber convoy could be handed over to Rascher. The requisite form I did not see, it may have been done over the telephone or it may have been done in writing, nor can I say that it came from Sievers, Wolff, Rascher or Himmler and whether there was a telephone call or letter I cannot say.

MR. HARDY: Do you have anything further to add to that?

THE WITNESS: Well, with regard to what I have already said upon this point in the direct or cross examination when I described the story in detail, I also said that I, as an assistant referent who had to deal with low pressure chamber questions, had to give an opinion to the effect that no low pressure chambers were available, further I have nothing to add.

MR. HARDY: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in the course of your examination we have heard your position in regard to medical ethics of experimentation on human beings. If I recall correctly, you stated that experiments on human beings should not be conducted until such time as the research on animals had been exploited to the last degree; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: I consider that it is an obvious pre-requisite for experiments on human beings that one would first attempt to solve the problem as far as possible by animal experiments.

MR. HARDY: Do you apply that also to the field of the high altitude research?

THE WITNESS: No doubt, certainly.

MR. HARDY: Dr. Sauter questioned you concerning the animal experiments of Dr. Lutz and Dr. Wendt and referred to the document No. 402, which is in document book 2. I have a point to bring out to you, which is on page 96 of the English document book 2, document No. 402. Does the interpreter have that; page 96?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR. HARDY: It is the paragraph in the middle of the page, beginning with the words.

Before we go into a discussion on the falling experiments, it seems essential for us to cite the work of Lutz and Wendt on 'Animal Experiments on Parachute Jumping from High Pressure Cabins'. Unfortunately, this work was not available to us during the experiments so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and derived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the authors.

From that passage, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, is it not obvious that Drs. Ruff and Romberg conducted their experiments with referring to work on animals or without having previously worked themselves on animals?

THE WITNESS: With reference to that, I would like to say the following. The report to which Drs. Ruff, Romberg and Rascher are referring to in this case is merely the report made by Lutz and Wendt and the Air Department was not concerned with this, at least from the translation I heard from the words Lutz being mentioned. Lutz?

MR. HARDY: Yes, that is correct.

THE WITNESS: — Then I consider from Drs. Ruff and Romberg examinations that they themselves in their institute of Adlershof had carried out experiments on animals with reference to this particular field and that they had also carried out certain initial informative experiments. Finally, I do not believe you can reproach any scientist when another scientist who has had made similar experiments in a similar field, if the other scientists work is unknown to him and if therefore the original scientist conduct his original experiments without being able to utilize the work of the other scientist. I think the medical expert of the prosecution will confirm it that in extraordinary number of medical works you will find statements to the effect that during the time I carried out my work, I gained knowledge of work being carried out in the meantime by someone else. This will always happen and you cannot raise a single finger to prevent it.

MR. HARDY: During your testimony before Dr. Sauter in direct examination here this morning, he took the position and asked your opinion as to whether or not the animal experiments carried out by Lutz had solved the problem; you stated that the experimental conditions, under which Lutz carried out his work on animals, did not solve the problem. Is it not apparent from this report that Ruff and Romberg had no knowledge whatsoever of experimental work on animals and therefore they could not determine whether Lutz and Wendt had solved the problem, inasmuch as they state here?

Unfortunately this work was not available to use during these experiments? so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it?

THE WITNESS: Well, this would show that the authors of this report only learned of Lutz and Wendt's work after they had completed their own experiments.

MR. HARDY: Thank you, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to be propounded to the witness, counsel may proceed.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Mr. President, only two more questions arising from the questions which my colleagues put. First of all, a question, Dr. Becker. You said this morning when Dr. Sauter questioned you that you had learned from Romberg's report how the electro-cardiograph worked during the experiments at Dachau; may I ask you in order to clear up this measure that report you were referring to and when did you gain knowledge of these reports?

A: In that case, I was referring to the report which Dr. Romberg had made from this witness stand here while being interrogated.

Q: Therefore, you were not thinking of the reports from an earlier date as one might conclude you did?

A: No.

Q: In that case, one more question arising from the question which Mr. Hardy just touched upon, namely the transfer of the low pressure chamber to Dachau, which was supposed to have been carried out in 1943. Mr. Hardy was making reference to entries in Sievers' diary. Unfortunately the document is not before me at this moment and I cannot ascertain the document number. The interpreter may be able to help me in that connection.

A: It is document 538, Exhibit 122. Unfortunately I cannot tell you the page. Exhibit 122.

Q: Could you please tell me what document book it is in, I think it is 3.

A: It is an appendix to 3, I am afraid this is all I can say.

Q: But, you have the document before you. Would you be good enough to clarify this and to read just what Sievers said in regard to the high altitude experiments at Dachau. Perhaps in order to maintain continuity you can start with the beginning and then read the subsequent paragraph.

A: I have only a brief extract here, an extract from the scientist's diary of the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] Society for 1943, kept by the Reichs Manager SS Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Sievers, under No. 8.

Q: Excuse me, witness, but would you mind telling me just what the date of this entry was?

A: Unfortunately I cannot tell you the date, my document does not show it, but there are these words, "Continuation of Low Pressure Chambers."

Q: Does the document show just what we were concerned with therein, in other words on what occasions was that reproduced in Sievers' diary?

A: As far as I know the entry was made in connection with the conference between Sievers and Rascher on an inquiry Rascher made to Sievers.

Q: Mr. President, I can clear this up. It is 6 March 1943, the reference is made to a conference between Rascher and Sievers during which a number of points are listed. Under No. 8 of this point of the conference there is mention of the continuation of the low pressure experiments. You cannot draw any other conclusion from this entry except that it was a conversation between Rascher and Sievers.

MR. HARDY: I request the Tribunal to instruct Dr. Tipp that that is an argument and cannot be taken up at this place.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that is merely an explanation of the document and he did not state the contents of the document at all. Counsel may proceed.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness. If I may have the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to continue with the presentation of documents and the witness may be excused.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you understand the ruling of the Tribunal? You can proceed with the questioning of the witness, did you or did you not understand the objection by the prosecution was overruled; did you understand?

DR. TIPP: I understand Mr. President, but through the explanation I have assumed and the added testimony of the witness, the question is cleared up and I don't think there are any further questions necessary, In conclusion I want to ask you, Dr. Becker, you probably remember the contents of the Sievers' diary, do you agree with my interpretation that this is merely an extract of a conference between Sievers and Rascher which does not show anything about the continuation of the experiments?

THE WITNESS: That is my opinion too. At any rate, I am absolutely convinced that in 1943 no low pressure chamber was ever again moved to Dachau.

DR. TIPP: Again, in that case, Mr. President, I have no further questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: There being no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the defendant Becker-Freyseng is excused from the witness stand and may resume his place.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand, counsel, the defendant Becker-Freyseng will not call as a witness Eugen Haagen. His name was listed as a witness for the defendant Becker-Freyseng on the witness sheet of May 27th.

DR. TIPP: That is quite right, Mr. President, and I can clear up this point. I agreed with Mr. Hardy that in order not to interrupt the sea water case the witness Haagen will not be called until the whole sea water case has been completed, after the examination of Dr. Schaefer has been completed, as well as Beiglboeck.

THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to see that nothing was overlooked. Counsel may proceed.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, the next document which is offered on behalf of the defendant Becker-Freyseng has exhibit no. 32. It is contained in Document Book III and is Becker-Freyseng Document 48. May I now continue with submitting the documents from Book III and it is no. 49. I should like to offer it as exhibit 33.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I have three or four document books and Dr. Tipp has several documents to introduce from each book and I don't want to interrupt the continuity of his case or the sequence of his case but it would be much more convenient if he would introduce the affidavits and documents through each book and complete the introduction of Document Book 1, then 2, 3, and 4 in that order if possible and I could follow so much more rapidly and could interpose my objections without too much difficulty.

DR. TIPP: I don't think this difficulty will arise. I am only going to submit the remaining documents from Document Book III. As far as the remaining documents in 1 and 2 which have not been offered in evidence, these are documents concerned with experiments on human beings which are impossible to offer now, in accordance with the ruling of the Tribunal all documents which were meant to be submitted since Prosecution has recognized the importance of the experiments. Therefore, as I said I will turn to document 49 in Document Book III on page 210 and I shall call it Exhibit 33.

It is an affidavit dated 14 February 1947 and it is merely being offered in order to show that a number of thirty high ranking officers of the German Air Forces were having confidence in Becker-Freyseng and Professor Schroeder to the effect that they were carried out on strictly humane principles. I don't propose to read this document.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I have agreed with Dr. Tipp. I will not object to its introduction in evidence even if it does not meet with the previous regulations of the Tribunal. It does not have a jurat, isn't in good form. I do not wish to object and wish to have it admitted but wish to reserve the right to object in the future.

THE PRESIDENT: The record will show counsel's reservation to the right to object in the future.

DR. TIPP: Now I shall, Mr. President, submit the document from the same document book, page 213, Becker-Freyseng Document 50, and I will call it Exhibit 34. It is an affidavit from a clergyman Dr. Oestreicher from Heidelberg dated 23 December 1946. This witness confirms in this document that he knew Dr. Becker-Freyseng intimately since 1928 since he had been a friend of his son and he was a regular visitor in the house of this witness at the time his son was at the university. I should like to quote paragraph d from the first page:

I am able therefore to testify that Dr. Hermann Becker-Freyseng had a true Christian conviction and devoted himself to an irreproachably pure way of life. As a physician he was filled with the highest sense of responsibility, and only tried to help his patients. In my opinion Dr. Hermann Becker-Freyseng had a Christian character and never did anything against his conscience.

Paragraph c deals with the reason for Dr. Becker-Freyseng joining the Party and the witness says that Becker-Freyseng told him he had merely done this because the Party was based on Christian principles and had promised to relieve the great unemployment and need of the masses.

This is paragraph 3.

I should like to turn to page 2 of the document:

Like so many others, he, too, was disappointed in this trust, and abstained therefore from any political activity. He never agreed to what was called later the national socialist outlook on life either in theory or in practice, but as I learned in 1945 after a prolonged conversation with him, he remained unalterably faithful to his Christian conviction.

Then follows the signature and the certification.

The next document I should like to offer is Becker-Freyseng No. 51 from the same Document Book on page 215. I shall call it Exhibit Becker-Freyseng 35. It is an affidavit from Professor Dr. Albert Daur who was a resident of Heidelberg, dated 30 December 1946. Dr. Daur describes therein that he had known Becker-Freyseng as a school boy and that he had continued to meet him during his university time and the beginning of his medical career. I should like to quote from paragraph 2 of this document, the last sentence on the first page:

He wants to create, not to destroy, and his medical efforts can only be directed towards helping, healing and saving.

I should like to continue my quotation under paragraph 3, the second sentence:

I consider it impossible that he could ever have taken part, on his own responsibility, in any wrong doing or any kind of inhumane behavior, and if, as Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] of the reserve, he was entrusted because of his activity with some special tasks, he is sure to have carried them out only as the good man he always was.

The final paragraph of the document assumes that the witness himself has not been a member of the NSDAP and that since December 1945 had been working with the permission of the Military Government. There follows the correct certification.

The next document is on page 217 of the Document Book, Document 52 of Becker-Freyseng and I shall call it Exhibit 36. It is an affidavit of the well known physiologist Professor Dr. H. Rein at Goettingen dated 21 January 1947. After the usual introduction the witness states under paragraph 1 — and I should like to quote:

I never thought Dr. Becker-Freyseng capable of committing a crime against humanity as he never gave me any cause to think so either in his conversation or by his behavior. I was surprised to hear that he was among the Nurnberg defendants and to this day I am entirely in the dark about how he made himself guilty.

The subsequent paragraph under 2 contains the statement to the effect that Dr. Becker-Freyseng had intervened for a scientific book which was to be prohibited in Germany since the introduction had been written by a Jewish author. I don't want to quote from this paragraph. Paragraph 4 on the next page I should like to quote if I may.

Dr. Becker-Freyseng conducted experiments on himself to the very limit of the possible; he experimented, for instance on himself for days with oxygen poisoning to the point of pneumonia; these experiments were exceedingly elucidative and therefore meritorious for the whole medical science.

I should also like to quote the last paragraph in order to throw additional light on the personality of the defendant and the witness says, and I quote:

I myself have been affirmed by Military Government as the Rector of the University of Goettingen, as a member of the scientific advisory committee for the British Zone and as the editor in chief of Flat-Reviews for Physiology.

And the signature is once again followed by the proper certification.

The next document I should like to offer you will find on page 220 of the document book. It is Becker-Freyseng Document No. 53, which I shall give the exhibit number 37. It is an affidavit from Dr. Franz Buechner of Freiburg dated 22 January 1947. I should like to state in supplementation that Dr. Buechner has, of course, been quoted repeatedly during this trial. Under figure one of this document Dr. Buechner describes, to begin with, his personality. He says that he himself has neither been a member of the Party or any of its associated organizations and that during the time of the Third Reich, because of his position towards the national socialistic doctrine, he was subject to persecution. I should like to make a brief quotation from figure 2:

I met Dr. Becker-Freyseng when he was an assistant at the Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Reich Ministry for Aviation in Berlin, if memory serves, in 1938. During the war we were in frequent official contact, when I was in charge of aviation matters and pathology and he repeatedly visited me in Freiburg, partly for the reason that he worked with my assistants Liebegott and later Pichotka on animal experiments regarding oxygen poisoning. Several times he had lunch or dinner in my house. I therefore consider myself qualified to give an opinion as requested on Dr. Becker-Freyseng from the 'general, human and professional point of view'.

The witness then continues to describe how Dr. Becker-Freyseng, because of his personal attitude and his Christian education, remained true to these characteristics and he describes him as "open-minded, reliable and very correct" in official matters and he describes him as a scientist who, during experiments on himself and animal experiments, had achieved great results. The witness states how far he had authority to make decisions of his own and the signature, as usual, is followed by the required certificate by a notary.

The next exhibit I should to offer is the Document Becker-Freyseng No. 54 on page 222 of the document book and I will call it Exhibit No. 38. It is an affidavit from Professor Hermann Hoepke of Heidelberg, dated 27 December 1946.

I should like to quote from this document where Professor Hoepke says, after the usual introduction:

Dr. Becker-Freyseng was a student of medicine in Heidelberg from 1929 to 1932, and as such attended all my lectures and courses. Since I respected him very much as a talented and industrious pupil, I invited him several times to my house. Dr. Becker-Freyseng has stood by me since that time and later always visited with my wife and me whenever he was in Heidelberg. He did that in spite of his knowledge that my wife was halfJewish and that the Nazis had dismissed me from my office as a university professor for this reason.

The witness states, and I continue to quote:

In December 1937 he reviewed, in the magazine 'Gymnastic and Folk Dances', 12th year, 12th issue, my book published in 1936, 'The Muscles of the Human Body and Their Play'. I have the copy at hand. The following sentences are informative: 'Hermann Hoepke dedicated the work...to his pupils. I was fortunate enough to be one of them... As a token of gratitude to my teacher I believe that I should direct the attention of German gymnastic circles to this book.'

I think I might say in connection with this document, Mr. President, that after all it takes quite some courage and faith in an old teacher for a German scientist in the year 1937 to express so openly his faith in a man who is being persecuted on racial grounds.

The next document I wish to offer is Becker-Freyseng No. 55, but the following document I don't want to offer. It doesn't actually offer anything new and would merely mean unnecessary burden both to the Tribunal and to the record. It lists points which other affidavits have already proved more clearly and efficiently. So, therefore, I will not offer Document No. 55, but the next document I would like to offer is Becker-Freyseng No. 56, page 225 of the document book. I shall make it Exhibit 39. It's an affidavit from Professor Karl Matthes of Erlangen, dated the 18th of January, 1947, and I should like to give a brief quotation from it. After the customary introduction the witness says, and I quote:

I certify that Professor Dr. Hermann Becker-Freyseng, in his capacity as scientific consultant for the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, always supported me in my scientific work most appreciatively though he knew that I was affected by the then racial laws because of my wife's ancestry.

Even in 1945, when for racial reasons I was threatened to be called into a work camp, he promised me the support of his office.

That's the same point which was proved through the previous affidavit. The signature is once again followed by a notary's certificate.

The next document I would like to offer is Becker-Freyseng No. 57 which you will find on page 226 of the document book. I should like with your permission to give it Exhibit No. 40. This is an affidavit from Dr. Josef Pichotka, dated the 28th of January, 1947. The witness describes, to begin with, how he got to know Dr. Becker-Freyseng and he says, following the usual introduction:

I have known Dr. Hermann Becker-Freyseng since 1940. We got to know each other because the fields of our scientific activities were the same. In the course of time these relations became consistently closer with the result that we sometimes worked in direct conjunction and were close friends.

As to my political attitude, I want to state that, because of my anti-Nazi attitude, I was exposed to persecutions during the whole of my period of studies — this is officially recorded in a letter of the University of Freiburg. In December, 1944, using a weapon contrary to orders, I rescued a parachuted American airman from a crowd of people which wanted to hang him. The proceedings against me were quashed.

I go on and continue to quote:

Because of my close relations with Dr. Becker-Freyseng we very frequently discussed the burning problems of this time. From these conversations I know his strong antipathy towards the many National Socialist machinations; he always abhorred in particular the inhumanities which resulted from the consistent application of National Socialist ideology.

As I knew his attitude from several conversations, I turned to him in 1944 in connection with the case of a half-Jewish friend of mine.

Then the witness goes on to describe, and I quote:

At that time this friend, Dr. Franz Froehlich, now living in Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim, Kirchgasse 4, was a medical student at the institute where I was an assistant doctor. It is true that, for the most part, nobody troubled him, but he had no income and was always subject to the danger that one day he would be put into a camp or that, at least, he would lost the right to go on working at the institute. I therefore appealed to Dr. Becker-Freyseng to try, with the help of his official influence at the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, to procure for Froehlich a permanent post at the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Freiburg. Dr. Becker-Freyseng promised his support. Shortly afterwards Dr. Franz Froehlich did, in fact, obtain a permanent post at the Institute of Aviation Medicine in Freiburg.

I would like to add myself that that is Professor Buechner's institute.

I should like to quote the final paragraph of this document:

For his fairness in scientific matters, too, Dr. Becker-Freyseng deserves my highest esteem. He never monopolized an idea or a result as so frequently happens. I am in a position to judge this especially well as we worked for years on the same subject.

The next document I should like to offer is Becker-Freyseng 58, which you will find on page 228 of the document book, and I will give it Exhibit No. 41. It is an affidavit from Dr. Linda Wunderlich in Stuttgart, dated the 21st of December, 1946. I should like to briefly state that Mrs. Wunderlich was a colleague and physician together with Dr. Becker-Freyseng at the Robert Koch Hospital in Berlin which was under Professor Dr. Daenich's control, who too has already given an affidavit on Dr. Becker-Freyseng's behalf. I would like to quote from approximately the middle of the document:

It struck me especially that Dr. Becker-Freyseng had much sympathy with the patients and always showed deep understanding, even towards the most difficult ones.

He did not indulge in conversations of a political nature and so I do not know whether he belonged to any organization of the NSDAP. I never say Dr. Becker-Freyseng in uniform either.

In order to elucidate, I should like to state that, of course, the witness is thinking of a Party uniform and not the German armed forces uniform.

I continue my quotation:

From his conversations on matters of medical ethics it was apparent that his ideas were not influenced by the National Socialist conceptions of medicine.

Then follows the customary signature and certificate.

The next document I should like to offer is Becker-Freyseng No. 59 which is on page 230 of the document book and which I will give the Exhibit No. 42. It is an affidavit from Dr. Hans Denzer of Albaum/ Sauerland, dated the 23rd of January, 1947. Dr. Denzer describes first of all, after the customary introduction, what his activities were and he says that since the 4th of January, 1946, he has been the head of the Reich Institute for Fishing, Director of the Teaching and Research Institute for Trout Breeding and of the Institute for Fishing Drainage in Albaum/Sauerland. He states that the British Military Government had confirmed him in this position. Under the following figure 1 the witness states:

Since 1940 the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe continuously sent me research tasks concerned with 'comparative physiological high altitude experiments on animals.' During these investigations I introduced new ways and means of experimenting on animals which had been reported to the public as well, e.g., in the Periodical for Aviation Medicine and the Clinical Weekly, Volume 21, page 126, 1942. These experiments were to serve general physiological knowledge and had therefore no direct military-economic purpose. I sent the mice which I had inbred especially for the purpose to numerous institutes and scientists.

2. Dr. Becker-Freyseng has supported me since 1941 as Assistant Specialist (Hilfsreferent) and from 1944 as a specialist for aviation medicine in numerous cases.

Then I'll just briefly explain the other points. He says that Dr. Becker-Freyseng helped him to get test animals and the witness draws your attention to the fact that rabbits were supplied by Dr. Suchalla to Dr. Becker-Freyseng who is the same man who has already testified regarding the use of rabbits for experimental purposes and has already given that affidavit.

Under paragraph b the witness states that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was always interested in animal experiments and several times made suggestions during conversations.

I should like to quote from paragraph c:

Dr. Becker-Freyseng has carried out numerous experiments on animals. During recent years he frequently complained to me that his duties with the Medical Inspectorate were robbing him more and more of the possibility of pursuing his own experimental research work on animals.

The final paragraph describes merely Dr. Becker-Freyseng's attitude. I should like to give a very brief quotation from figure 4:

I do not know whether Dr. Becker-Freyseng was a member of the NSDAP. He has never shown any attitude which could indicate sympathy with the Party. He also criticized several times the methods of the Party in the presence of many colleagues. I myself have never been a member of the NSDAP and have never belonged to any branch of it.

Then follows the signature and certificate.

The next document of this bock I cannot yet offer, Mr. President. It deals with human experiments and must, therefore, be submitted at a later stage.

Now, Mr. President, we are faced with a difficulty. I had already had the honor to discuss this with you yesterday, and it is that Document Book No. 4 has been handed in for translation by us a long time ago and I had been promised that it would be ready for the second half of this morning's session. I do not know whether the General-Secretary has been able to obtain this book during the recess or whether the Tribunal has it on hand.

I should like, of course, to submit those very few documents from Document Book No. 4. I think there aren't more than two. I should like to submit them now. But due to the orders of this Tribunal I can only do so if the translation is available already.

THE PRESIDENT: At this time the document books have not been furnished to the Tribunal.

MR. HARDY: What document numbers is counsel referring to? I have some from Document Book No. 4.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has some odd documents from Book No. 4.

MR. HARDY: I have No. 62 and a copy of this was given to me by Mr. Travis.

DR. TIPP: I can clear this up, Mr. President. Two documents of our Document Book No. 4 I have given exhibit numbers and they have been introduced. That is Becker-Freyseng No. 64, which is an affidavit from Dr. Hans Schaefer. That is Exhibit No. 7 and the Document Becker-Freyseng 61 which is Exhibit No. 20. It is Dr. Harry Suchalla's affidavit.

The Translating Branch has been kind enough, the other day, to place at my disposal the translation of those two documents and the document which I would like to read now from Document Book 4 is No. 62 — I beg your pardon — I should correct myself — No. 63, the affidavit of Alfred Christensen.

I don't know whether the Tribunal or prosecution have had a translation of that.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has available Becker-Freyseng Documents 62 and 63. 63 seems to be the affidavit of Christensen.

MR. HARDY: I have both of them too, your Honor.

DR. TIPP: In that case, Hr. President, I should like to continue with Becker-Freyseng Document 63. I should like to deal with the affidavit of Hr. Brigitte Crodel dated 17 of April and put a question with reference to that. Some considerable time ago I had sent —

THE PRESIDENT: What number do you offer as Becker-Freyseng Document 63? Is that the document you are offering now?

DR. TIPP: Just one second, please, Mr. President. I am told just now that this is going to be Document No. 43. Now, Document No. 63 I should like to offer as Becker-Freysong Exhibit No. 43 and your question —

THE PRESIDENT: Your document is No. 63.

DR. TIPP: No. 63 and it will get Exhibit No. 43. It is on page 335 of the Document Book. First of all I should like to say that the author of this affidavit is Alfred Christensen.

Well, then, Document 63, Exhibit 43, on Page 335 of the Document book, is an affidavit of Alfred Christensen and I would like to add that this is the Christensen often mentioned during the seawater case who has signed a statement dated the 19th and 20th of May, and I should like to quote from II:

With regard to myself I declare:

1.) Trained and worked as Engineer.

2.) Worked with the Luftwaffe, was a Group Leader during the war and later Section Chief in the Technical Office.

III. To Document No. NO-177, Prosecution Exhibit No. 133, shown to me by Dr. Hanns Marx, Attorney-at-law, containing transcript of 2 meetings held in the Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry, Berlin, on the 19 and 20 May 1944, I state as follows:

1.) In the photostat of this document I acknowledge and recognize the signature as being mine.

2.) The transcribed report on the meeting held on 19 and 20 May 1944 was not made from shorthand notes or any other written remarks on the result of the discussions. Neither was there any resolution accepted by all present at the meeting and passed according to the wording or the sense which could serve as a basis. The report was furthermore not sent to the other departments which had taken part in the meeting for cosignature and consequently for expressing their agreement or disagreement and for stating their objections, before it was sent off.

3.) The report was only made 2 or 3 days after the meetings from memory by my Referent, Staff Engineer Schickler, and I signed it without checking it thoroughly. Mr. Schickler was a Dr. Ing and had no medical knowledge or experience, just as I myself had none. At the utmost the report may therefore only be considered unofficial as a memorandum of the Technical Office for the files or for other offices.

IV. As to the contents of the report and the progress of the discussion on the 19 and 20 May 1944, I declare the following:

1.) By virtue of the tests already carried out in Vienna by Dr. von Syrany with Berkatit, the opinion given by Professor Eppinger of Vienna, as well as by virtue of the favorable raw material and manufacturing situation with regard to Berkatit, the Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry was determined to introduce Berkatit. In this respect my department has already settled this with the German Navy and the SS. My co-workers were of the impression that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was perhaps materially interested in Wofatit and consequently opposed to Berkatit. At the meeting on 19 April

— and I should like to correct this, Mr. President. Of course, it should mean 19 of May, and I should like to add that in the original the date is the 19 of May.

At the meeting on 19 May Major Jeworeck therefore attacked Dr. Becker-Freyseng personally. It was only due to my interference that Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not leave the meeting together with Dr. Schaefer. There were, however, no grounds for suspicion or even proofs regarding Dr. Becker-Freyseng or Dr. Schaefer.

2.) We had informed the Navy and SS that the introduction of Berkatit was practically certain; the letter was composed with a view to covering us against the objections made by the Chief of the Luftwaffe, Medical Service to Berkatit. In my opinion therefore, the medical objections are exaggerated and represent a biassed emphasis of some remarks, while leaving others out.

3.) This refers in particular to the remark made by Dr. Becker-Freyseng about the consequences of thirst. At the time, Dr. Becker-Freyseng mentioned that with one disease, I believe it was cholera, the patient dies from lack of water. His description of the convulsions and hallucinations referred to this. He then also referred to a case from the series of tests by Dr. von Sirany, who had lost a great deal of water; Dr. Becker-Freyseng remarked that if this lack of water continued it could lead to disturbances after a few days and after about 12 days death might occur.

4.) The decision to have a detailed plan for the experiments, as set down in the transcript was deferred on the 19 and 20 May 1944 in the presence of Professor Eppinger.

Might I correct this, Mr. President? Unfortunately we received the document so late that the copy couldn't be checked. There is a copy mistake which disturbs the continuity. I am not sure whether it expresses it in English. In order to clear this up and rectify the record, I should like to read the sentence under 4 from the beginning such as is contained in the original document:

A detailed plan for the experiments such as is set down in the transcript was not made on the 19 and 20 of Hay 1944, but was deliberately deferred to the meeting on the 25 which was to take place in the presence of Professor Eppinger.

I should like to continue quoting from this document:

On the 19 and 20 of Hay 1944 only the necessity of further experiments was discussed and generally referred to. Dr. Becker-Freyseng then immediately had serious doubts as to the possibility of carrying out those tests in a hospital or institute in the required manner, since the summer of 1944 there were neither sufficient persons for experimenting on nor suitable space available.

In answer to a direct question put by one of the other persons present at the meeting, whose name I cannot remember, as to the possibility of experiments on convicts, Dr. Becker-Freyseng replied that he thought it possible that prisoners would come forward voluntarily for this experiment, which was not dangerous, and that he would make the necessary inquiries about this through his office.

But the reason for this was not the likely danger, but the above-mentioned organizational difficulties in the organization.

5.) Definite decisions were not taken at the meetings of 19 & 20 May 1944, but were reserved for the discussion on 23 May 1944. Neither could a resolution be passed about the experimental station at Dachau, as there was no representative of the SS or the police present, the authorities responsible for the concentration camps. Therefore, there must be a misunderstanding on the part of my "Referent", which I unfortunately overlooked before appending my signature. Dachau can only have been mentioned in connection with laboratories, in case prisoners were used as experimental subjects. I also believe that for reasons of air protection the concentration camp Dachau was referred to, since it was generally known that no air attack was ever made on this camp.

6.) But I do know, however, that later on the experiments were actually carried out at Dachau and that staff engineer Borka himself was at Dachau. Having been told by him that the experimental subjects were volunteers who had come forward on the promise of better food before and after the experiment and a special ration of cigarettes and that nothing could happen during the experiments, I regarded these experiments as entirely admissible.

7.) Some time after dispatching this report,

and I should like to say, Mr. President, that the report referred to is the meeting of the 19th and 20th, and I continue my quotation now:

a member of the chief of the medical office rang up my department and pointed out several errors in the report. As, however, in the meantime the meeting of 25 May 1944 had been held at which I was not present, whereby this report was superseded, the matter was considered closed.

8.) The meetings of 19 & 20 May 1944 took place at the instigation of the Technical Office and under my supervision.

9.) The Technical Office alone was responsible for passing preparations for airplane equipment fit for use, to which also the means for making saltwater potable belonged.

The other offices, as for instance the medical chief of the Luftwaffe, merely had the right of veto.

The document is signed on the 16th April, 1947, and it has the certificate, signed by an allied officer from the Administration Office of Civilian Internment Camp No. 6 Neuengamme. In connection with this Document Book No. IV, I should like to ask a question, Mr. President. Some considerable time ago I handed an interrogatory to the Secretary General, addressed to the witness Brigitte Crodel. This witness had been granted for the defendants Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, but she informed me that the Soviet Military Commandant had prohibited her from leaving Berlin. Up to now I haven't had a reply from the Secretary General's office as to whether the interrogatory has been received and returned. Such parts as I introduced in that document book are the same questions which this witness has received through to this Tribunal, and I sent my questionnaire through the ordinary mail in order to achieve that some statement from that witness may be obtained. However, I don't want to introduce this report today. Professor Haagen is now available as a witness and he will be testifying before this high Tribunal. Therefore, I consider it advisable that the questions which are connected with the typhus case, and that includes the affidavit from Crodel, should be offered in this connection in order to preserve continuity. But I do want to say, Mr. President, that as far as I know, it is within the ruling of this Tribunal that if an interrogatory from a witness is handed in, cross questions as desirable for the Prosecution should be made available to the Defense so that redirect questions can be added. So far I haven't seen the cross examining interrogatory, and, therefore, I do not know whether the Prosecution proposes to or has put such cross examination questions, and may be Mr. Hardy will be obliging enough to give us some information on the question.

MR. HARDY: I have not come up here for that purpose, Your Honor, and I don't particularly know what he is referring to as cross interrogatory and re-direct interrogatory; it is completely strange and foreign to me, and I am afraid I will have to be briefed on it further before I comment on it.

However, I would like to ask in connection with Document No. 63, the affidavit of Alfred Christensen, to ascertain from Defense Counsel the address and location of Alfred Christensen.

THE PRESIDENT: Can the Defense Counsel furnish that information to the Prosecution?

DR. TIPP: Yes, I would love to, Mr. President. The affidavit itself shows it, namely, he is at the Civilian Internment Camp No. 6, at Neuengamme.

That is in the British zone, so that in this case the witness is quite easily accessible. And now the second question, Mr. President, regarding the interrogatory of the witness Crodel. I gathered Mr. Hardy is unable to clear up now the question, and I will try to do so during the recess; and I will be able after the recess to submit the remaining documents from Document book, Becker-Freyseng V, and I think that on Monday one hour will suffice to submit the remaining documents, and I would suggest that we recess now because at the moment I just simply haven't got any translated documents I could submit.

THE PRESIDENT: As stated yesterday, when the Tribunal takes its recess this noon, it will recess until Monday morning at 9:30, and at that time we hope the rest of the documents will be in order to be presented. As there is nothing further to present to the Tribunal at this time, the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until June 2, 1947, at 0930 hours.)