1947-06-02, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United. States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 2 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. TIPP (Defense counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, last Thursday I stopped with Becker-Freyseng Document 63, Exhibit 43, an affidavit by Alfred Christensen, dated 16 April 1947. The rest of the documents from Document Book 4 I should like to offer in connection with the examination of the witness Haagen. There is an affidavit by Miss Crodel, Mr. Haagen's associate, and I believe this document would be better submitted at that time than now.

I should like to continue today with Document Book No. 5 which has been distributed to the Tribunal today. The first document which I should like to offer from this document book is Becker-Freyseng Document No. 65, which is on page 344. I give it Exhibit No. 44. It is a supplement to the affidavit of Christensen which I have just mentioned, an affidavit by the same Alfred Christensen, dated 6 May 1947. I shall quote. After the introductory formula the witness states:

I hereby supplement my affidavit of 16 April 1947 and add the following:

To No. IV (a):

The notes in question, by Dr. Schickler of 23 May 1944, merely constitute a memorandum made at least several days after the discussion on 20 May 1944, which was not at all based on the minutes of the session.

It is, however, possible that Dr. Schickler made a few notes. Minutes were considered legally binding for my office only if they were either taken down in writing at once in the presence of those present at the meeting, then read and approved as correctly rendered, whereupon the person calling the meeting signed the document with the consent of those present.

Or, if the minutes were taken down subsequently, they had to be submitted to those who took part in the meeting for acknowledgement and counter-signing.

In the distributor file such notes always carried the marginal note 'counter-signing requested'. This marginal note for counter-signing is, however, missing on the note in question.

It is certainly incorrect, when in the note on the meeting of 20 May 1944 it is said that Dr. Becker-Freyseng proposed Dachau as the place for experimenting because of the possibility of death of persons subjected to experiments; for the result aimed at in these experiments was not to ascertain the exact moment of death but rather to ascertain the exact moment when potential damage would set in, in taking Berkatit. Dachau was mentioned only because of already existing laboratory facilities there and in the event that experiments could not be carried out in hospitals of the Luftwaffe. In no circumstances has Dr. Becker-Freyseng spoken about the possibility of death in such experiments. Under no conditions should I have agreed to experiments which, in the opinion of medical experts present at the meeting, could have led to death and I should have expressed this point of view at once. That the experts' opinion corresponded with my point of view is evinced by the fact that I myself as well as Stabsingenieur [Staff Engineer] Dr. Schickler declared ourselves ready at that meeting to take part in the Berkatit experiments in question as guinea pigs as long as required, provided we were granted the necessary leave from duty.

The fact that Dr. Becker-Freyseng repeatedly stressed the fact that persons would have to submit to tests only voluntarily and that only persons in good physical standing would be considered is another reason why I considered these experiments completely harmless. As far as I remember today, Dr. Becker-Freyseng mentioned that persons subjected to these experiments would be granted special privileges after the conclusion of the experiments.

To No. IV (6) of my affidavit:

It is not know to me how these experiments were finally carried out. It is only known to me that Stabsingenieur Berka, under great difficulties, procured water from the Mediterranean and brought it to Dachau.

Likewise, I did not receive any reports on experiments conducted. In conclusion I wish to say that for at least 14 days I myself drank one glass of sea water with Berkatit regularly every morning. I experienced no trouble and had no diarrhea. I considered this water mixed with Berkatit as a pleasant tasting, refreshing drink and frequently offered it to visitors in my office.

Follows the signature of the witness and the certification by the English officer of the internment camp at Neuengamme.

The next document which I offer is Becker-Freyseng Document No. 66 on page 347. The exhibit number will be 45. This is an affidavit by Dr. Cameron Luft, Berlin-Friedenau, 74, Kaiserallee. He signed this affidavit here in Nuernberg in my presence on the 11th of May, 1947. It was intended to call Mr. Luft as a witness for Becker-Freyseng here but he was called to America as a lecturer on physiology and had to leave earlier than expected. I shall quote some statements from this document. Under I, the witness says that from 1936 until the capitulation he was a scientific worker at the medical Research Institute for Aviation in the National Air Ministry under the direction of Professor Dr. Strughold. I should like to quote II:

I have know Dr. Becker-Freyseng since 1937. In the years 1938 through 1942 he worked together with me at the Medical Research Institute for Aviation in Berlin, mainly in the fields of physiology and aeronautical medicine.

By reason of our joint work extending over many years and my knowledge of his scientific work I am in a position to judge beyond a doubt as to his attitude toward medical experimentation upon human beings. In conducting his scientific work, Dr. Becker-Freyseng has always been guided by the principle that all medical experiments upon human beings involving damage to health should first be made by doctors in self-experiments. That he meant it seriously is proven by the following.

In the following sentences the witness describes the experiments of the defendant Becker-Freyseng, together with Dr. Clamann, which have been discussed here several times. The Tribunal knows that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was seriously ill after these experiments. Therefore, I shall not quote this part of the affidavit. However, I shall quote from page 2 of the document, the first paragraph that begins on the second page:

In the course of the years 1939 to 1942 Dr. Becker-Freyseng underwent, under my direction, over 100 self-experiments in a low pressure chamber for the purpose of clearing up the nature of the high altitude disease. These experiments regularly resulted in complete less of consciousness and constituted, through their frequency, a considerable danger to his own health.

III deals with the conditions of experimentation in the summer of 1944 in Berlin. The witness says; I quote:

Although I pursued my experimental work at the institute in Berlin until the end of 1945, the work was rendered extremely difficult through continued air raid warnings, frequent cuts of electrical current and through the damage to the experimental station by the aerial attacks. A systematic pursuit of scientific work was hardly possible anymore. The problem of getting the necessary number of subjects for experiments presented special difficulties. The cadets of the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe were mostly at the front; the students, as far as they were still at hand there, could not offer themselves for experiments because of their studies, special parallel duties and traffic and food difficulties.

Through the good offices of Dr. Becker-Freyseng I succeeded occasionally in obtaining military male nurses as subjects. They always placed themselves at my disposal of their own accord gladly and in sufficient numbers. But we had to fight for every one of them with their commanding officers. If, for once, we got a few people, it happened again and again that they were reassigned before the experiments were finished. Judging from my own experience, I think it would have been impossible in the summer of 1944 to get 40 to 50 healthy young men in Berlin, even for a harmless experiment extending over 4 to 5 weeks. All the men who might have been eligible as subjects were either in military service or were working so strenuously in their civilian jobs that they could not be taken away from their work. Unemployed, or members of independent professions who could have taken a four weeks' leave, did not exist anymore in Germany in the summer of 1944. Likewise, I think it was not possible, in view of the aerial war, that an experiment with 40 subjects on metabolism extending uninterruptedly over 4 to 5 weeks could practically have been brought to a conclusion in Berlin or in any other big German town. Conditions prevailing then rendered such a thing absolutely impossible.

DR. TIPP: In IV the witness deals with the special rations for aviators. I shall merely call this paragraph to the attention of the Tribunal. V of this affidavit deals with Prosecution Document NO 1419, Exhibit No. 447, a letter from the General Commissioner of the Fuehrer for Hygiene and Medicine dated 25 January 1943 to Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Wolf. Since this document was not held to be of great importance in the case of Becker-Freyseng and it was not mentioned in cross examination, I shall not quote this point. I shall merely refer to the contents of this paragraph. There follows the signature by the witness and the certificate by myself.

The next documents, number 67 to 72, all deal with the research assignments issued by the Aviation Ministry or the Medical Inspectorate to various scientists. All the witnesses who have testified here received such assignments and speak about the conditions in the department, the check made of the assignments and speak about the conditions in the department, the check made of the assignments, etc.

The next document which I offer is Document 67 on page 352, which I give the Exhibit No. 46, page 1 of the English. There is an affidavit by the Professor in the Medical Clinic at Erlangen dated April 24, 1947, Dr. Karl Matthes. The witness says on page 1:

On 14 May 1942 I received an order from the Inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Corps to conduct a scientific investigation of the following problem: 'The action of carbonic acid on the paradoxical of oxygen following acute oxygen deficiency.' See supplement for copy of this order!

I am also enclosing 1 copy of another research order issued by the Medical Inspectorate on 13 August 1942, directed to Prof. Buerger, director of the Leipzig University Medical Clinic. I was head physician at the Leipzig Medical Clinic. I was head physician at the Leipzig Medical Clinic myself at that time and had worked in that Institute since 1930. At present, I am director of the Erlangen University Medical Clinic.

In the next paragraph the witness says:

The cause for my receiving this order can be traced back to a discussion I had in the spring of 1942 with Professor Anthony who was then a specialist for the Medical Inspectorate.

He says then that he had been for some time been dealing with the subject of this assignment and he also says that the Medical Inspectorate supported science in every way.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, attached to this affidavit are two supplements — that is, two original German documents — one dated August 1943 and the other one May 1943, originating from the office of the Referat for Aviation Medicine. I might ask defense counsel whether or not he intends to substantiate these documents — that is, certify the authenticity thereof.

DR. TIPP: Certainly, in his affidavit the witness refers to these two documents and says that they are included in his affidavit. I believe that that constitutes the proof which Mr. Hardy wants.

MR. HARDY: Does he state that these documents are true copies of the original in his affidavit?

DR. TIPP: Yes. Yes, he does.

MR. HARDY: I won't object your Honor, but I think it is rather an unusual procedure and I will not object without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to object to documents of this type that may be entered in the future.

THE PRESIDENT: I will ask defense counsel if the original documents are attached to the original of this witness.

MR. HARDY: The original affidavit is here, your Honor, and he merely has copies of the documents. He does not have the original documents attached thereto.

DR. TIPP: The original documents, Mr. President, are of course not in the possession of the witness. As was customary, the witness made a copy at that time and attached it to his affidavit. He certified the correctness of these copies under oath. If Mr. Hardy has any objections, it is, of course, possible for me to send these documents back to the witness who is living in Erlangen and inform him to certify expressly that these are true copies, but I believe it is sufficient in his affidavit he refers to them and thus certifies that the copies are correct; but if the Tribunal wishes it I will be glad to send these two copies back to Professor Matthes for a certificate.

THE PRESIDENT: The first copy referred to is apparently a letter written by the inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Corps to Dr. Buerger.

DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President, and I should like to point out that I have just said that the witness says on page 1 of his affidavit:

I am also enclosing 1 copy of another research order issued by the Medical Inspectorate on 13 August 1942, directed to Professor Buerger, director of the Leipzig University Medical Clinic. I was head physician at the Leipzig Medical Clinic myself at that time and had worked in that institute since 1930.

The witness very definitely refers to these supplementary documents in his affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness state in his affidavit that he himself made a copy of this letter when it was received? I haven't had time to read the witness's affidavit in full.

DR. TIPP: The witness does not say in his affidavit how he prepared the copy. He merely encloses it and makes it a part of his affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: I think at least there should be some statement from the witness that he made contemporaneous copies from the original document when it was received, that he was not quoting it from memory. There is nothing here that accounts for the absence of the original document. There should be a rather complete statement concerning that before it should be offered.

DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President. Then I shall not submit this document today. I shall wait until the witness Haagen is here.

THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that the document be submitted provisionally and subject to later clarification on this matter.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, may I remark that if I offer it today the original will be in the possession of the General Secretary and I will have to have a ruling from the Tribunal to get it back from him. The simplest thing for me, I think, would be for me to withdraw it today and offer it again in the Haagen case.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Follow that procedure.

DR. TIPP: Then I shall go on to the next document, Mr. President. This is an affidavit by Freiherr [Barron] von Romberg. This is Becker-Freyseng's Document No. 68 on page 360 of the document book. I shall give it Exhibit number 46. It is an affidavit by Freiherr von Romberg 25 April 1947. From this document I should like to quote only a few excerpts and explain the contents briefly. The witness on page 1 describes his activity in the field of bio-physics and he says that toward the end of the war there were difficulties in carrying out this work to such an extent that the was obliged to get aid from the authorities, which aid was given him through the good offices of Professor Strughold, Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe in the form of a research assignment.

This witness says:

I enclose a copy of the research assignment giving all the details

and he continues:

Through this research assignment I was in no way subordinated to the Medical Inspectorate in a military sense. However, I have never assumed that from a scientific view-point this carried with it the duty or the right to control and supervise my activities. Moreover, this is not at all the practice either, because the object of giving a research assignment has always been to entrust the assignment to a research worker whose name guarantees that the work will be done in a strictly scientific manner and any specialist would most emphatically reject intervention from non-professional quarters, be they ever so highly place. Consequently, the Medical Inspectorate has never exerted any influence in this respect.

In this respect I shall skip the next sentence and shall quote from the next paragraph:

In view of the fact that a research assignment also carries financial support, it was only natural that this authority requested to he kept informed on the progress of the work as well to he given an account of the money used. These reports, however, were rendered only at rather long intervals and only as a summary.

The witness says he had the impression that the research assignment was generously given from a purely scientific interest and with full confidence in the research workers. The rest of the document I shall not quote.

The enclosure, Mr. President, is a typical research assignment. The witness in his affidavit has certified that it is a true copy and I, therefore, believe there can be no objection to the submission of this document.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this attachment of the original German document brings up the same situation as in the last document that was offered. It is merely a typewritten copy and isn't substantiated to the degree I think it necessary to be substantiated for this Tribunal. I might suggest the same course be taken with this document, that the defense obtain proper certification in introducing the original German documents. It seems to me the Tribunal should be a little bit more stringent about having them duly authenticated — that is, as opposed to having affidavits notarized. This document purports to be an original German document but, like the others is merely a typewritten copy with no certificate thereon. I might ask the Secretary to pass up the copy so the Tribunal may peruse it.

THE PRESIDENT: I will ask defense counsel, this document, if I am looking at the correct document, was a letter written to the affiant Romberg, is that correct?

DR. TIPP: Yes, The witness in his affidavit in the last sentence says and I quote:

I state again that the enclosed research order corresponds to the research order actually given to me and that it is therefore part of the affidavit.

I believe that would be sufficient authentication in this case.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the original letter was sent to the witness he should have the original letter, if it came to him. Under the circumstances the original letter was written is neither proved and he may or may not have it but if the letter was written to him he should have it—this original letter should be in his file and he could submit the original letter with his affidavit.

DR. TIPP: Yes, your Honor, but it is an experience which we have had repeatedly that old gentlemen — Professor von Romberg is an old scientist — are very reluctant to give up their original documents. If the Tribunal believes that original research assignment should be admitted I will try to get it from Romberg and to submit it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if he has the original document he could have a certified copy made and the original document be returned to him.

MR. HARDY: This is a matter the Prosecution deems most important.

DR. TIPP: Very well. I shall try to get the original from Mr. von Rombert and present it as the Tribunal has just suggested.

THE PRESIDENT: You can tell Dr. Romberg that his document will not be taken from him but if he would loan this so a certified copy could be made and certified by the Secretary General, to be a true copy, that would be sufficient — that copy would be received and he original returned to him.

DR. TIPP: Yes, your Honor.

As the document I should like to offer is document 69, page 24, the exhibit no. is 47. It is an affidavit of Professor Hans Netter.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you marked the last exhibit by Romberg as Exhibit 46?

DR. TIPP: Yes, 46, that was document 68. Now the next document is Document 69.

THE PRESIDENT: But the document of Dr. Romberg will be admitted provisionally in so far as it refers to this letter which he received.

DR TIPP: As I said the next document is an affidavit of Prof. Hans Netter, dated 25 April 1947. This witness again described his career and says that he received a research assignment from the Luftwaffe 19 November 1942. He goes on to say that the distribution of research assignments was very generous, that his assignment constituted primarily a scientific work. I do not intend to quote any further from this document.

The next document is an affidavit of Dr. Eichholtz in Heidelberg dated 28 April 1947. This document no. 70 which I should like to offer as exhibit No. 48. On page one of the document under #2 the witness says and I quote:

About 1942 I received an order, dated 3 December 1941., File No 1 L in 14,55 Nr. 46 007/41 (2 II B), "Influence on Altitude Tolerance by Chemical Means". The research order was later handled by the Aviation Research, Heidelberg, and was not concluded.

3.) The order was not given by the Medical Inspectorate, it originated on the contrary, from ourselves; a third party was not involved.

I go on to No. 4, on the next page. I quote:

4.) I asked for this assignment for different reasons to receive this order. My main motive was that I wanted to project the employees of the Institute as long as possible from being called up. It concerned experts who could not have been replaced. Therefore, the placement of the order, its acceptance and performance was in the interest of thee Institute, and only in the second instance in the interests of the Medical Inspector ate, which gave the order.

It was expressly stated that this research order concerned a so-called fundamental research.

I shall skip no. 6 or at least no. 6. On page 3 of the document at the top I quote:

I never noticed that there was any thorough control, examination of the protocols, or, even interference in respect of the setting up of the experiments. I always gave Dr. Becker-Freyseng the opportunity to get in touch with the experts, but here also I never noticed that more than general scientific interest was shown.

7.) The reports were submitted in the form of short, scientific reports. The reports never contained any details about the experiments.

The rest of No. 7 and No. 8 I recommend to the attention of the Tribunal and I shall quote No. 9:

I cannot imagine at all that a representative of the Medical Inspectorate could have given me any instructions in such a special technical question concerning the carrying out of the order for research.

Then the witness describes what support he got from the Medical Inspectorate and I should like to quote one sentence from this paragraph at the bottom of the page:

There were never negotiations about the control or supervision of the research order; this would also have been quite unusual.

I do not want to quote any more from this document. I merely refer to the fact in No. 10 — the witness says control could have been exercised by a specialist, that is a pharmacologist — no ordinary medical officer. It bears the signature of the witness and was notarized by a Notary Public in Heidelberg on 2 May 1947.

Then there is attached to this document a copy of an accounting If Mr. Hardy has an objection to my submitting this copy I shall withdraw this part of the document. I do not attach any great value to it. I attached it merely because the witness refers to this attachment in his document.

MR. HARDY: I have no objection, your honors, to the admission of the attachment but unfortunately I do not have a copy of the attachment.

THE PRESIDENT: There is no copy of the accounting in the Document Book before me.

DR. TIPPS: Then I shall withdraw it, Mr. President.

DR. TIPPS: The next document is No. 71, on page 32, the exhibit will be 49. This is an affidavit by University Professor Dr. Hubert Meessen, of the 29 April 1947. This affidavit describes how he got a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate. He says in paragraph one, 2 sentences after the beginning:

This research order consisted of a purely financial support of the further work on a subject which I had already begun in 1936.

Then the witness describes how this assignment was issued. I can skip this part. The witness continues:

I never received any instructions as to the manner in which my order should be carried out. The research subsidy corresponded entirely with the assistance given by scientific organizations or pharmaceutical industries.

The rest I recommend to the attention of the Tribunal.

The next document is No. 72 on page 375. I assign to it Exhibit No. 50. It is an affidavit from Physiological Chemical Institute Freiburg dated 2 May 1947 by Professor Joseph Kapfhammer. He also had an assignment from the Medical Inspectorate. He says that unfortunately he cannot give any exact dates because all his records were destroyed during the War. I shall quote from it, the last paragraph on the first page:

I obtained the research assignment through the kind mediation of my colleague Prof. Buechner, who, at that time was in charge of the Medical Research Institute for Aviation in Freiburg. The theme originated solely from my own suggestion, as I had worked in this very field of metabolism of the liver for years.

Then the witness says that he had worked on this field years before that and that he was not merely working for the Medical Inspectorate but was working in the interest of science in general. In the 2nd paragraph on the second page of the document I should like to quote:

I was in no way subordinated to the Medical Inspectorate by receiving this assignment. On the contrary, I had complete freedom of action; I was never given orders with regard to the progress of my work. No one ever checked the work I had done. I was restricted in one point only; I was to submit intermediate reports every three months but I treated this point so liberally that I delivered a short report concerning the state of my research work only 10 — 12 months at the most.

I can skip the next few sentences and I quote:

Thus, the Medical Inspectorate did not exert any pressure whatsoever with regard to the research assignment so that I was able to work completely unrestrained and without being checked in any ways.

The document is signed 3 May 1947 by a notary in Freiburg im Breisgan.

DR. TIPP: The next two documents, Mr. President, No. 73 and No. 74, deal with a different subject. They deal with Professor Haagen. I do not believe I should offer these documents at this point because Professor Haagen is going to appear as a witness, and will be able to testify as to how long he was on leave from the Luftwaffe. If it should prove necessary in the course of the case I may offer these documents later.

Mr. President, I have now completed the presentation of evidence for the defendant Becker-Freyseng. All that remains is the examination of Professor Haagen, for which the Tribunal has already given its consent after the conclusion of the sea-water case, and in this connection I should like to offer a few more documents which I have received in the meantime, and which generally refer to Professor Haagen's work.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents referred to by counsel for defendant Becker-Freyseng may be offered later.

Has the Prosecution any rebuttal evidence to offer?

MR. HARDY: Not at this time, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

DR. PELCKMANN: Dr. Pelckmann for defendant Dr. Schaeffer.

With the permission of the Tribunal I should like to call defendant Dr. Schaefer to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Conrad Schaefer will take the witness stand.

KONRAD SCHAEFER — DIRECT EXAMINATION

DR. PELCKMANN: Before the witness takes the oath I should like to submit a few documents which deal with the personality of Dr. Schaefer. These are documents about the political attitude of the defendant and his scientific qualifications. It is necessary to offer these documents, because the prosecution has made the assertion, for all the defendants, in considerable detail to explain the charge of conspiracy, that they were obsessed by Nazi ideology; that this ideology affected the medical men, especially the younger ones; that during their studies they were trained in Nazi Ideology; that they belonged or had to belong to various Nazi organizations, and similar things.

Without going into the question of whether this argument is necessary for the charge of conspiracy I shall prove for the defendant Schaefer, at least, that these assertions are not true of him. I shall deal in these affidavits with another charge, that is that this Nazi ideology reduced the scientific work of the defendants to a low and that on the basis of this Nazi ideology the defendants, including the defendant Schaefer, were unable to perform experiments such as form the subject of the indictment here. I shall disprove these assertions too through these affidavits.

First, I should like to offer Document Schaefer No. 1. It is the German No. 20, the English Document No. 1. I was forced to introduce two different series of numbers, because by accident the numbering was not carried out in the same way in the German and English documents in the translation, and I shall always have to give different page numbers of German documents and English documents —

English Document I, German Document 20, is to have Exhibit No. 1. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Hubertus Strughold. I shall read all of it.

Dr. Konrad Schaefer was assigned as a junior grade or assistant physician to the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine, Berlin. Up to the end of 1943 — at which time I went to Silesia to stay — I frequently had opportunities to talk to him and therefore I am in a position to give information on his scientific capability and his personality.

Scientific capability: Dr. Schaefer is a serious scientist who applied his thorough knowledge of the most modern methods of biological science to all problems with which he was confronted. In this manner he also carried out the scientific research assignments which he received from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate. He also handled his investigations on the physiology of thirst in this way, and it was due to this that his experiments on the development of Zeoloth for making sea water potable were crowned with success.

He was not afraid of performing experiments on himself, and in 1942 he and two of his female assistants conducted a three-day thirst experiment. This experiment belongs in the category of heroic medical self-experiments and the three participants may be justly proud of it.

Personality and political views: Dr. Schaefer is a very humane and socially minded man, a good friend and comrade and a modest character. He is very intelligent. In the Third Reich he was unlucky in his university career, as he was a pronounced antagonist of National Socialism. I had repeated examples of his views when I discussed politics with him. It was also due to his anti-Nazi views that he had to go into industry, where he worked successfully as a scientific department chief.

As to his views on experiments on humans, I know from a conversation which I had with him in 1942 that he was decidedly against experiments the voluntary nature of which could be doubted for any reason at all. I therefore feel that, as far as I can judge from here, Dr. Konrad Schaefer cannot be involved in the matters now being pleaded in Nurnberg by anything but an unfortunate constellation.

Document No. 2 on page 3 will be Exhibit 2. It is an affidavit by Dr. Helmut Wuest, dated 23 January 1947. It reads:

I have known Dr. Med. Konrad Schaefer, born 7 January 1911, for many years. We both studied at the same high school (Humanistisches Gymnasium) in Landau/Pfalz, where we graduated in 1930. We were together for nearly all the semesters of our medical studies at Heidelberg, Innsbruck and Berlin universities. We were not merely chance school fellows and study companions, but were also close friends. I therefore have exact knowledge of Dr. Schaefer's work outlook and conception of life. Until 1940 when our paths were divided by professional duties, his political attitude was clear and distinct. It was in opposition to National Socialism. I know that up to this time Dr. Schaefer did not belong to the Party or to any of its organizations.

In all our political discussions he never failed to express his stark opposition to National Socialism. Shortly before taking our State Medical Examination in Heidelberg in 1935, considerable difficulties were created for us both by the National Socialist Students' Council which questioned our admissibility to the State Examination. The official charge against us was based on the fact that we did not belong to the Party or to any of its organizations or to the National Socialist Students' League.

As Exhibit No. 3 I offer English Document 3, German Document 25, English page 45, German page 52 and 53. It is an affidavit by Dr. Helmut Reichel from Bad Pyrmont:

I met Dr. Schaefer through Prof. Juergens when I worked with them both before the war in the Nature Health Clinic in Berlin. I had no official connection with Dr. Schaefer. Through my friendship with Prof. Juergens, based on many years of joint work, I was well informed about the internal affairs. Prof. Juergens, as a world-famous hematologist, had principally scientific interests. He regarded the political point of view forced upon his subordinate colleagues in the clinic as false and irksome. In this connection Dr. Schaefer was mentioned to me as an exception and as a man who, although possessed of scientific abilities, did not approve of the political tendency at that time. Prof. Juergens was therefore always afraid of losing him.

When Dr. Schaefer had to leave the Clinic, his departure was described to me as a confirmation of our fears.

After all these years I cannot remember details about discussions which took place then. But I remember Dr. Schaefer as a man who dedicated himself to serious and conscious responsible research, and who went into private industry because his path to the State Clinics was barred for political reasons.

I should like to stop there.

As Exhibit No. 4, I shall offer English Document No. 4, German No. 25, pages 6 to 8. This is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Bruns:

I make the following affidavit:

I made the acquaintance of Dr. Konrad Schaeffer in 1935 at the Hydrotherapeutic University Clinic, Berlin, Marwikstr. 2. be were both working there as medical internees and later as voluntary physicians under Professor Rudolf Juergens. Since Professor Rudolf Juergens an internationally renowned hematologist — a disease of the blood investigated by him on the Aland Islands was named after him "Thrombasthenia Juergens-Willebrandt" — mostly dealt with problems of hematology, we worked at first on such problems.

While working together and also through our friendly relations, which lasted for several years until 1941 — when I was drafted for military service — I learned to esteem Dr. Schaeffer as an excellent, judicious, diligent and honest scientist with a knowledge of chemistry and physiology far exceeding the usual medical level. In all his scientific research work his self criticism and honesty stood out prominently so that all the works published by him are products of the most serious scientific research.

My reason for fostering my friendly relations with Dr. Schaefer, which by far exceeded the usual contact between two colleagues, was due in no small measure to. his high conception of scientific honesty and fairness and to his high esteem of the medical profession which I share also, a conception which surely prevented him, from a scientific as well as from a human point of view, from carrying out experiments on human beings which could have dangerous or even fatal results.

My friendly relations toward Br. Schaefer were, moreover, influenced by a far reaching agreement in our political views.

My own anti-nazi attitude is to be seen from the attached affidavit made by Mrs. Berti Schneider, at present in Zuerich, Switzerland, at the welfare center for the victims of Facism, Hildesheim.

I need not read all this statement, it will be Exhibit No. 5, it is Document No. 4-A, English pages 9 to 11. German 29. I shall read it.

I shall continue to read Exhibit 4:

In his frequent long conversations Dr. Schaefer often used drastic expressions against the prevailing system of that time and its leaders. I also confided to Dr. Schaefer that I was engaged to a half Jewess, the then Mrs Burgschat, now Mrs. Schneider. One may judge from this the extent of confidence I placed in Dr. Schaefer an d how convinced. I must have been of his political reliability when I told him a fact which would have cost me more than my position at that time.

What infuriated me most was that Dr. Schaefer, who had proved himself so outstanding a young physician interested in science, could not continue his career at the university, because he did. not belong to the NSDAP or to any of its organizations. However, Dr. Schaefer preferred to renounce a certain career at the university rather than bow to a system which he rejected as contrary to his political convictions.

Even after remonstrations by our mutual chief, Professor Jurgens, who greatly esteemed Dr. Schaefer and was unwilling to lose his service as a collaborator and who told him that he could not keep him if he did not join some organization, Dr. Schaefer remained true to his political convictions.

Dr. Schaefer was removed from the university as voluntary assistant because he did not belong to any of the party organizations. When the removal took place I do not exactly know. I know only that I was most indignant at the time about this incident as it showed that when appointments were made to scientific posts at the university political views and not scientific qualifications were decisive.

I may therefore maintain with a clear conscience that Dr. Schaefer was not a physician or man possessed of any Nazi ideology.

Then, I should like to offer Document No. 5, pages 12 to 15. This will be Exhibit 6. It is by Mrs. Emilia Rahenbrock, MarburgLahn. I shall not read the entire affidavit, it begins:

I, Emilia Rahenbrock, Marburg-Lahn have known Dr. Konrad Schaefer since 1939. My husband introduced him to me. My husband knew him already in 1936 and his anti national socialist political attitude which he had held. Dr. Schaefer worked as an assistant in the Charite, Berlin. He had been compelled, so he told me, to give up his position because of his political attitude, particularly as he refused to join the Party. He described what happened in the following words: "I was called to the Professor of my Institute and was asked why I had not yet joined the Party. To my answer that this would not agree with my political point of view, he told me to fact the consequences as I could not longer stay in the Institute."

When I met Dr. Schaefer at t hat time, he had a job as scientific collaborator with the Schering AG, Berlin. On the occasion of our frequent conversations Dr. Schaefer openly and without any restraint spoke against National Socialism and the government. We often listened to foreign broadcasts with him and Dr. Schaefer was always very interested in them. I gathered from his remarks that Dr. Schaefer was an outspoken anti-facist.

On 20 July 1944, Dr. Schaefer was with me in my Landsberg Warthe apartment. We had switched on the radio, and suddenly we heard the news about the attempt on Adolf Hitler. Assuming that the attempt had succeeded he was so overwhelmed with joy that he entirely forgot how dangerous the situation was. I remember that he said the following words "at last the bastard is dead". Unfortunately we were informed soon afterwards that Adolf Hitler was still alive.

Dr. Schaefer was bitterly disappointed by this news and he openly expressed his opinion about this. The chances of success of this attempt were discussed again.

I continue after two paragraphs:

Dr. Schaefer was completely against all militarism in the medical field. While he was called up he hardly ever were uniform, at least I hardly ever saw him in it. He was strongly against the use of specialist physicians as troop physicians and the use of practical physicians as specialist physicians, respectively, as because of t heir lack of experience they did not meet the requirements of their duties. According to all my observations and experiences, I must say that Dr. Schaefer had an ethical conception of the medical profession, i.e., to be a helper of his fellow men.

Dr. Schaefer remarked that Germany would never win the war.

On occasional visits Dr. Schaefer imitated Adolf Hitler perfectly for general amusement. He pulled part of his hair over his face and imitated his method of speech, his voice and gestures and made Hitler incredibly ridiculous.

The document continues under the same Exhibit No. 6, it reads as follows:

17 February, 1947.

I, Emilia Rahenbrock, I would like to add the following to my statement of 30 January 1947:

On the occasion of a conversation referring to an announcement circulated by the then chief physician, Dr. Conti, I asked Dr. Schaefer whether he and his wife would not have to visit this organization too, as the requested stated. Dr. Schafer replied that this 'association of idiots' would not be visited by any decent physician and certainly not by him and his wife.

The next document No. 6, will be Exhibit 7, oh page 16, by Johannes Nowak, Hamburg:

I have known Dr. Konrad Schaefer for many years. I met him one day in Berlin at the bookshop of Ernst Doenig through a mutual friend, Mrs. Erika Koenig. Dr. Schaefer at that time was junior physician in the Luftwaffe; in the ensuing conversation he expressed his hatred and antipathy for the Nazi regime. After that I frequently met Dr. Schaefer at the bookshop and at other meetings he expressed his great disgust about the regime, especially a bout the treatment of Russian prisoners of war and Jews and the drafting of juveniles and women into the armed services, so that I had to warn him, since he was wearing uniform, not to be so careless as to endanger both of us.

I must emphasize that neither Dr. Schaefer nor Mrs. Koenig knew that I was not of aryan descent so that he could not have talked against the Nazis so adversely just to please me. Our common hatred for the dictatorship led to a genuine friendship and after I had to flee from Berlin I met Dr. Schaefer here in Hamburg where he expressed his happiness about the end and told me that now at last he could work as a free man and live for his research work. Dr. Schaefer is a great idealist who respects human like above everything and whose views are known to me as definitely anti-nazi.

English Document No. 7 German #27 will be Exhibit No. 8, pages 17 and 18, page 65-66 of the German, Erwin Schulz, Berlin-Gatow.

I have known Dr. Schaefer since 1941 and frequently met him as I was in charge of and looked after his sailing boat. Since I frequently spoke with Dr. Schaefer about the Hitler regime and the National Socialist ideology, I can but say Dr. Schaefer could not possibly have thought and acted along Nazi lines. He also knew that I listened together with foreign civil workers to English news broadcasts; he warned me to be careful as it might cost me my head. During his leave we listened together to foreign broadcasts. I was never able to detect Nazi tendencies during the ensuing discussions. I looked up Dr. Schaefer when I was drafted into the Navy at the end of 1944 to ask for his advice. He gave me the following instructions as to how to conduct myself. I should wait until the day of my drafting, then call a doctor and pretend that I was suffering from ischias. Dr. Schaefer explained to me exactly how I should act. With his help I was able to succeed in this deception so that I was released from military duty. If necessary, I can produce witnesses in this matter, Mrs. Dr. Glatzel, Spandau, Jaczowweg, Amtsarzt, Dr. Franzmeier, Spandau, as well as Mr. Franz Pycha, Spandau, Weinmeisterhorn, The latter can also testify to our listening to news broadcasts.

My political feelings are well known and established facts in the district in which I live, that I thought and acted as a Socialist before and during the Nazi period. Proof: my absolute opposition to military duty, my refusal of war work and my membership in the Legion for Human Rights.

Document 8, page 19, will be Exhibit No. 9. It comes from Erich Lehmann, chemist, Hannover-Herrenhausen. I shall read many excerpts.

have known Dr. med. Konrad Schaefer for about 10 years. He had been recommended to me in professional circles as being well acquainted with pharmacology and as being an important scientific chemist.

At that time I was working on the Enzyme preparations which had just been introduced, and I was in need of an absolutely reliable medical man with the above-mentioned reputation to assist me with control experiments.

In the many years during which I was permitted to work together with Dr. Schaefer, the specialized knowledge mentioned above was proved to the full. Our scientific work led to a very close friendship, so that I was able to gain a deep insight into his human and political views.

I personally have been a Socialist for many years. I subscribed to this conviction even before the first World War, and I am a member of the German Social-Democratic Party. Owing to my political views I was violently opposed to the Nazis from the very beginning. During the World War of 1914/18 I served on the Western Front from the start until I was seriously wounded in the fall of 1917, and I was a confirmed pacifist when returning to my civilian occupation. I therefore was delighted to find in Dr. Schaefer a man who shared my views and who, in full agreement with me, disapproved of National Socialism and all it stood for. We agreed just as much on the subject of war and its consequences. Schaefer was a dyed-in-the wool pacifist. I do not think that until then Schaefer had ever known hatred; but he hated National Socialism with an unbelievably strong hatred and used to damn the system to hell.

We often used to discuss those outrageous terrorist and dictatorial measures. At such times Schaefer used to express himself in the most violent terms against the despots. How often did we air the question, whether it would not be possible somehow to eliminate these bandits, in spite of every things.

Dr. Schaefer consistently rejected the Nazi racial theory. When Schaefer was called into the army at some later date we were separated for a short time; however, Schaefer often wrote and told me about his life with the "Prussians". I could tell from the thing she wrote how difficult it was for him to adjust himself to the blind Prussian discipline.

When Schaefer then was ordered back to Berlin, it always pleased me to see that he never wore uniform when in my company. He hated the army and the uniform as much as he hated National Socialism.

I skip the next two paragraphs.

Publications by Jewish authors, even works which contained only brief references to such, were banned by the NSDAP starting from 1939. I had, at that time, to run through our whole archive in Berlin in order to sort out and dispose of all Jewish works on the subjects of medicine, chemistry and pharmacology. There was not a journal or review which would accept such articles, even excerpts of them for publication.

In order to explain this testimony, I offer Document Schaefer 38 as exhibit 10.

THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding with this, the Court will be in recess for a few minutes.

(A recess was taken.)