1947-06-02, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
KONRAD SCHAEFER — Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. PELCKMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Schaefer):
Q: Dr. Schaefer, first of all, I have to ask you to come back to something you said before. You spoke about the position of the German Unterarzt [Sergeant]. It was perhaps a clumsy formulation, which could make a wrong impression. When I asked you how you felt at that meeting, among the higher ranking doctors, you said something about how an Unterarzt must feel among such higher officers. Will you please explain again why you did not feel quite at ease?
A: I meant by so saying that a person of academic training, that is, a physician, who has the rank of a sergeant is in a rather unfortunate position and is dissatisfied a prior. This applied in particular to my own case, since I basically disliked military subordination.
Q: I only wanted to correct the generalization which you drew. You followed up that problem after that meeting. What did you do?
A: In the subsequent time I carried on a large number of animal experiments, which were to show the influence of seawater and different forms of nourishment upon the animal organism. In this case the animals used were rabbits. I was able to save some of the records of my experiments and I should like to ask you to submit them in evidence here.
Q: What period of time do those experiments cover, roughly?
A: The experiments cover the period from the end of 1942 until the end of 1943.
DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to submit English Document 16 as Exhibit 18. The pages in the English Document Book are 54-62. That is still Document Book No. I.
MR. HARDY: In my copy of Document Book No. I, Your Honor, Document No. 16 is not here. It goes as far as Document No. 15. I don't know whether your document book contains the same documents or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Our document book contains No. 16, notes on animal experiments by Schaefer, pages 34-62.
MR. HARDY: It has that listed in the index, your Honor, but it doesn't have the document itself in the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents in my book are simply charts. I assume these were No. 16, I don't know.
DR. PELCKMANN: They are merely charts, your Honor, that is correct.
MR. HARDY: Might I ask Defense Counsel what he is attempting to prove by use of these charts? These charts don't elicit any data on experiments that were conducted at Dachau or any experiments that are at issue in this trial. It seems to me that they are animal experiments. I can't see the materiality of them in this connection.
DR. PELCKMANN: The Prosecution is charging all the defendants, including the Defendant Schaefer, with having used non-scientific methods. The Prosecution spent a considerable amount of time trying to prove this one charge, and I want, to prove that in occupying himself with the thirst problem and with the task of finding a method of taking the salt out of sea water, the Defendant Schaefer proceeded in a strictly scientific manner, so that this particular charge does not apply to him and that for that reason he, of course, also rejected the Berka method, and his rejection of the Berka method was for scientific reasons. I shall therefore have to show generally how scientifically Schaefer worked and, particularly, how scientifically he worked on the problem for the solution of which he is prosecuted here.
MR. HARDY: After hearing the remarks of Counsel, Your Honor, I object to the continuation of the examination using this material. I don't see the materiality of whether or not Schaefer conducted himself in an ethical manner in other experiments. The point at issue here is whether or not he is implicated, whether or not he took pert in the plans and enterprises involving the seawater experiments at Dachau.
The Prosecution charges that he was implicated therein — the two methods were to be used at Dachau and he was a party to the crime. I can't see that whether or not he acted ethically from the time he graduated from medical school until the time he became involved in this criminal plot has no bearing here.
DR. PELCKMANN: If the Prosecution would be so kind as to tell me in somewhat more detail, at least once, why the Defendant Schaefer is responsible for the application of the Berka method in the experiments, then I could limit my defense much more intelligently. But as the Prosecution only lets me infer what it considers to be incriminating, I must make my defense as sure as possible and, therefore, must bring evidence for, first, the personality of Schaefer, second, his scientific achievements generally, third, his scientific achievements in the question of the solution of the thirst problem, and fourth, in connection with the invention of the Wofatit method, and fifth in the rejection of the Berkatit method.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection of the Prosecution to the admission of these charts comprising Schaefer Document 16 and the documents will be received in evidence. What number do you assign to this exhibit?
DR. PELCKMANN: No. 18, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: I trust, your Honor, that I will be supplied with a copy of Document No. 16 in due course.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. Counsel for the Defendant Schaefer will see that the Prosecution has a copy of this document, or furnish one to the Secretary General, who will furnish it to the Prosecution.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, if the General Secretary will do this — I was not informed that the Prosecution had no copy.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference only to these photostatic notes — those notes comprise the documents.
DR. PELCKMANN: They are merely charts supported by two affidavits, which I shall read immediately.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, I understand from what you say that these photostatic papers comprise Exhibit No. 18. Is that correct?
DR. PELCKMANN: It is pages 54 to 62 of the English copy, Your Honor — that is Exhibit No. 18. Then I should like to return to Exhibit No. 12, page 36 of the English document book. I should like to read the following from Miss von Boetticher's affidavit, the first paragraph:
I, Ina von Boetticher, 10 January 1939; joined the scientific department of the firm Schering A.G., Berlin-Charlottenburg, as a technical-medical assistant. At that time Dr. Feldt was chief of the department; Dr. Schaefer, his assistant, whose laboratory assistant was Mr. Kaulisch. My main task was to make animal experiments, and, as this work for Dr. Feldt did not take up all my time, I frequently also worked for Dr. Schaefer, who could explain everything particularly well and whose work was always interesting. I constantly carried out hunger and thirst experiments on rabbits and mice for him, after Dr. Schaefer had again taken up his work with Schering in the spring of 1942, following upon a few months of training after being drafted to the Luftwaffe (autumn 1941).
Then I should like to add to the charts Document No. 39 which will be Exhibit No. 19, and may I be permitted to read a few pages only out of this affidavit.
INTERPRETER WARTENBERG: I ask you to excuse me for a moment.
I shall find it in a minute.
DR. PELCKMANN: It begins:
Dr. Konrad Schaefer, M.D., during a very heavy air raid on Berlin during the night of 22-23 November 1943, which destroyed almost the whole Hansa-quarter, lost his apartment and all his property.
Excuse me. I believe the Court and the Prosecution have the supplementary volume.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has this supplementary volume.
DR. PELCKMANN: It has been translated. It must be just an oversight that the interpreters did not receive it. I have just given them a copy of the translation.
My husband and I received the Schaefer family into our house, and I thus became very well acquainted with Dr. Schaefer and his wife. From that period until the end of the war I assisted Dr. Schaefer in sorting out the literature and undertook his written work, which consisted chiefly of copying notes on the experiments of Mr. Kaulisch and of dictation into the typewriter. The copies of the notes on Schaefer's Animal Experiments' (hunger and thirst experiments with rabbits), Document No. 16, and the two last tables of Document No. 18 regarding the compilation of the results of thirst experiments on voluntary subjects, the originals of which were shown to me by Counsel, Attorney-at-Law Pelckmann, were drawn up by me.
Dr. Schaefer dictated to me in May 1944 his views on the records of the experiments of Oberarzt [Senior Physician] von Sirany, on making sea water potable by Berka (Documents No. 26 and 27), the originals of which I was also shown by Attorney-at-Law Pelckmann. Through this collaboration I received the impression that Dr. Schaefer was a very conscientious and serious research worker. His zeal often made him work untiringly throughout the night.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q: This for the identification of the tables on the animal experiments, Exhibit No. 18. Dr. Schaefer, did you not also study the thirst problem by means of experiments on human beings?
A: Yes, during the course of 1943 I carried out some hunger and thirst experiments on voluntary human subjects who were free. They were technical assistants who in part were working for me. The experiments showed that while continuing one's full work one can very well hunger and suffer thirst as long as four days without suffering from it mentally or in the ability to concentrate.
Q: In order to prove this, I submit the affidavit of Dr. Kuntze, which I have already introduced as Exhibit No. 9. I ask to be allowed to read now only the last sentence from this affidavit. It is pages 23 to 35 in the English Document Book. The last sentence reads as follows:
In 1943 I carried out for my doctor's thesis simultaneous hunger and thirst experiments, lasting three to four days, on myself and other persons. I enclose the results of these experiments and concentration tests.
These are the following pages attached to this affidavit.
DR. PELCKMANN: I ask further to be permitted to introduce into evidence Document No. 17, page 63, English document book, as Exhibit 20. These are records of the experiments — the hunger and thirst experiments — carried out on a Miss Gerda Maria Schmidt. Likewise, Document No. 18 as Exhibit 21, pages 70-80. These are records concerning experiments on Miss Irmgard von Boetticher. And, finally, I ask permission to refer again to Document No. 10, exhibit 12, the affidavit of Miss Ina von Boetticher, from whom I just introduced the record of the experiment as Exhibit 21.
From this document, that is Exhibit 12, I should like to read the following, on page 36 beginning with the third paragraph of the affidavit:
After the animal experiments, thirst experiments on humans were also carried out. I myself volunteered three or four times, just as some of my acquaintances end once my sister did. We found the experiments most interesting and suffered no harm as a result. During the first two days one had really only a sensation of hunger, which then changed to thirst. Once I fasted and thirsted for four days, usually for three days. I went about my work at the laboratory as usual, staying home only on the fourth day, because I was very weak and depressed, which however passed immediately after drinking. Naturally I observed the regulations strictly and really took neither food nor drink during the experimental period, because I knew that the experiment would otherwise have been absolutely senseless. I believe it possible to go without food or drink for one or two days longer if one can remain in bed.
All these hunger and thirst experiments were carried out by Dr. Schaeffer for the Luftwaffe; otherwise he continued working for the firm Schering.
Q: Only one thing for clarification, Dr. Schaefer. With these experimental subjects you experimented neither with Wofatit nor with Berkatit, because you hadn't proceeded that far yet?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: How did it occur to you to occupy yourself with removing the salt from sea water?
A: All theoretical considerations and all practical experiments showed that sea water is not usable. Therefore, it was of course natural to consider a method to remove the salt from sea water, since in many cases one is not able to take along sufficient fresh water.
Q: And if one has no fresh water one must remove the salt from sea water?
A: Yes.
Q: About this development of the research of Dr. Schaefer I submit the followings documents: Document No. 19, on pages 81-83 of the English Document Book. It is to be Exhibit No. 22. This is an affidavit of Dr. Griessbach, Dr. Lauth, and Pahl. It reads:
For many years the treatment of water, in particular by absorption preparations, was a scientific field of work in the inorganic branch of the Wolfen dye works, in which we are employed.
The Wolfen dye works belonged to the I.G. Konzern, I may add.
In the summer of 1943 we were assigned the task of making salt water potable for use in the rescue at sea of airmen, submarine crews, etc. A research assignment for this was issued by the Luftwaffe. Unterarzt Dr. Konrad Schaefer was commissioned as an expert for this work by the Research for Aviation Medicine.
At the same time the Navy was also interested in this problem, and a similar development order was issued by the OKM.
The I.G. itself undertook to pay the cost of the research work, including the expenses for those men detached from the Wehrmacht for work in Wolfen. No other kind of financial agreement, was made, either with official agencies or with any of the participants.
The process developed involved the removal of the salt from the water by using the special preparations for this purpose to absorb the calcium, magnesium, and alkali content and to precipitate the chloride and sulfate content in the form of insoluble salts.
The desalting was so effective that a compound was achieved with a salt content below that of a physiological sodium chloride solution. The water was not exactly tasty, but was de-salted enough for really successful use.
Certain doubts, expressed in particular by Dr. Schaeffer, led to experiments concerning eventual silver and barium ions in purified water. The tests, however, disproved the existence of medical scruples in this direction, otherwise the problem was dealt with on a strictly scientific basis, and two applications for patents were filed.
By late fall 1943 the process was developed to such an extent, that at a lecture given by Dr. Schaefer no criticisms were raised by the Medical Inspectorate. Thereupon, at the beginning of 1944, Wolfen filed an application for the establishment of a manufacturing plant.
At first, however, no order for this was given. Later on we learned from Dr. Schaefer that another method had recently been recommended which had first to be tested. He hinted that according to observations made with tomatoes it had something to do with mixtures of fruit juices, etc. Dr. Schaeffer said that he had objected to this method, as it was useless from a medical point of view. But his objections were not sustained. In view of the scientific facts we had to agree with him.
Later — at the beginning of 1945 — Dr. Schaefer's (and also our own) views on the suitability and incontestability of our process were confirmed, when news reached us from England andAmerica, that the same method was being used there. The periodical "The Illustrated London News" published research, reports of the Royal Air Force Physiological Laboratory, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and the English Permutit Company. At the same time publications appeared in Sweden to the effect that in America also the Permutit Company, New York, had de-salted seawater in a similar way.
The effect achieved with the Anglo-American method was not so far reaching as that achieved with ours. Apart from the fact that our remaining sodium chloride content was only half that of the Permutit Company, we also achieved an almost complete elimination of the sulfate content, while with the Permutit process the sulfate Content remained in the water. We had occasionally voiced our intention of not removing the sulfate from the water. Dr. Schaefer, however, raised objections, pointing out the disadvantage of a laxative effect of the sulfate content.
On the whole we can state that in the discussions with Dr. K. Schaifer we always had the impression that he was a serious scientist and a conscientious medical man.
Dr. Griessback, Dr. Lauth, Dr. Pahl
This already states in detail that the Wolfatit method, which Schaefer recommended was unobjectionable and was the best method that existed.
Now, turning to Document 20, page 81 of the English Document Book, excuse me, page 84 of the English Document Book. This document confirms that at the request of Schaefer the experiments regarding the possible damage of the potable water produced with Wofatit were carried out. Dr. Schaefer, have you turned to that page in the document, yourself?
A: No, I haven't.
Q: I should like to quote from the end of Document 20 — Exhibit 23, it says:
Summary: When preparing potable water from sea water by means of Wofatit SW, no silver or barium ions appear in the drinking water either if the given proportion of Wofatit to seawater, i.e. 1:3, is increased or reduced, nor if diluted seawater is used, nor if sea water of a higher temperature is used. Only after the water has been filtered may any sort of additions be made or may the drinking water be used for cooking purposes.
THE PRESIDENT: What number document is that?
DR. PELKMANN: That is Document No. 20, Mr. President, on pages 84 to 88, Exhibit 23.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't find in my document book, the portion you read.
INTERPRETER: Your Honor, at the end of page 88, the last paragraph on page 88 — summary.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it now.
DR. PELKMANN: I read only the summary at the end of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, Counsel.
DR. PELKMANN: Thus, Dr. Schaefer also considered the possibility that seawater with a low salt content is found, for instance in the Baltic, and if one also considers the temperature; then the chemical process is also so that the water which one obtains is potable and is not dangerous.
Now we turn to Document 21. This is to be Exhibit No. 24. It is on pages 89 to 90 of the English Document Book. This is a document from Dr. Schuster.
MR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, might I ask Defense Counsel if this purports to be an original copy of a letter? There is some difficulty in the presentation of documents here. In each instance in the past two days, these original German documents that are being submitted are not authenticated in the manner as set forth by the Tribunal. This one here has no authentication on it whatsoever. Due to that fact, it gives cause to doubt the authenticity, and I would like to submit it to the Tribunal for their perusal. It may be that Dr. Pelckmann can in due course receive a certificate of authenticity and offer it at this time provisionally.
DR. PELCKMANN: May I make the following explanation? As is apparent from the date on the document, it is of 10 February 1944, and the signature here on the original is by Dr. Schuster; it is a document in the same way as a document that the Prosecution submits from the year 1944 from, let us say, Himmler or any other person who is not here as a defendant or as a witness.
It is an original document, and, of course, I am not in a position to certify the signature, because this Dr. Schuster is not available.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document is addressed to the Defendant Schaefer, and it could be duly authenticated by putting it to the Defendant and having the Defendant identify same, but I am merely pointing out that for the sake of this trial and other trials in the future, we have prescribed regulations, and if possible we should like to insist upon the Defense counsel adhere to the regulations of the Tribunal in that all German documents be duly authenticated as set forth in the regulations of this Tribunal. It creates quite a problem, and it is one that is more important, I think, than even the certificates on affidavits.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Witness, are you familiar with the document which your counsel now asks the Tribunal to receive as Schaefer Exhibit No. 24?
A: Yes, Your Honor, I received it at that time.
Q: You can identify this original exhibit as being a letter received by you in due course of correspondence?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary may return this document. This document is admitted in evidence.
DR. PELCKMANN: It is to receive the exhibit number 24, Your Honor.
Dr. Schaefer's critical examination of his preparations continued; this is proved in particular by Exhibit 24. Dr. Schaefer wanted to assure himself that even if it was applied unscientifically, the person who used Wofatit would not suffer any harm. The writer of this letter asked Dr. Schaefer to conduct experiments regarding the effect of hydrochloric acid in the stomach on Wofatit.
Number 2 in the document shows that Wofatit which has previously been treated with sea water does not give off any barium.
THE PRESIDENT: The document reads:
sea water that had been previously treated with Wofatit.
DR. PELCKMANN: I am only referring to paragraph numbered 2. The paragraph numbered 1 in the document concerns the poison effect of pure Wofatit which has not been brought together with sea water. Dr. Schaefer, for instance, counted on the possibility that a soldier, a pilot, did not have a vessel and therefore could get the idea of swallowing a handful of Wofatit and then afterwards drinking the sea water. In regard to this, the paragraph numbered 1 of this report of Dr. Schuster says that this too is entirely harmless.
These complicated chemical explanations, however, are made quite clear by Document No. 22, which I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 25. It is Document No. 22, pages 91 and 92 of the document book. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Fritz Eichholtz, professor of the University of Heidelberg, and it reads as follows:
You want an expert opinion about the experiments carried out by Unterarzt Dr. Schuster. In these experiments the effect of hydrochloric acid on Wofatit is investigated according to the question of whether free barium can appear in the gastric juice when Wofatit has accidentally been taken. Dr. Schuster finds with one gram of Wofatit a maximum value of approximately 2 milligrams of barium. One would have to take about 100 grams of Wofatit before the very lowest toxic dose of a soluble barium of 0.2 grams would be free in the gastric juice, and one would have to take Wofatit by the kilogram in order to reach the lethal dose of two to four grams, supposing that the solubility of the barium Wofatit in the gastric juice is not higher than appears from Schuster's experiments. We have therefore chosen a direct course and have fed Wofatit to rats. The animals received, per 100 grams, 0.4 grams of barium zeolith and silver zeolith. The animals did not show any striking injuries. In a second series of experiments the same doses of Wofatit were given, together with 1 cc, 1/10 hydrochloric acid. In this case, too, nothing of importance was observed. Converted for the case of a man weighing 50 kilograms, this shows that doses of approximately 200 grams of Wofatit with or without hydrochloric acid are harmless. We therefore conclude that the chemical properties of Wofatit have never resulted in any considerable toxic effect being observed.
I therefore confirm that even if the filter does not function sufficiently the inorganic elements in the water could be introduced into the digestive system without any danger.
Documents 23 and 24 show further very careful experiments which Schaefer carried out regarding all possibilities of a harmful effect of his preparation.
I ask you to receive Document 23 as Exhibit 26, and Document 24 as Exhibit 27. The documents, Exhibits 26 and 27, show the experiments which the laboratory assistant Kaulisch carried out in accordance with Schaefer's instructions. Kaulisch reared bacteria strains from the North Sea and observed the effect of Wofatit upon them.
His research demonstrated that Wofatit kills bacteria very effectively.
After the conclusion of all these experiments — about which it can be said that they were carried out with unusual scientific exactness it was no longer necessary for Schaefer to test his method any further.
In conclusion, however, I would like to introduce Document 25 as Exhibit 28, which is on page 101 in the English document book. This is a questionnaire, with the answers. It originated from Professor Ivy, the vice president of the University of Chicago, and it is dated 15 April. Of course, I received it in the English language. I had hoped that it would be translated into German for the German document book but unfortunately this was not done. For the information of the judges and the prosecution it is in the English original in the English document book; however, in the German document book it is also in English, but nevertheless I would like to read the letter.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, I might state that Dr. Ivy will be here in a matter of a week or two. At that time the prosecution will present Dr. Ivy here as an expert witness and Dr. Pelckmann may well conduct his examination; I know well that he will examine Dr. Ivy if Dr. Ivy is here as a witness. In order to avoid the confusion of having to consider this document in both languages, he could merely offer it as it is now and avoid having it translated, because the witness will be here and testify and it will be in the record at that time.
DR. PELCKMANN: I thank Mr. Hardy for the suggestion which he has made. However, I believe that I can waive the examination of Professor Ivy if I may read the questions which were put and his very precise answers. I believe that it would expedite the trial. If clarifying Questions on the part of the prosecution or on the part of the defense should still be necessary afterwards, they may be put, perhaps, when Professor Ivy appears here.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed in the manner indicated. Does counsel himself read English?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. PELCKMANN: Thank you.
I herewith submit my answers to the questions submitted by Horst Peleckmann, Defense Counsel for the Defendant, Dr. Konrad Schaefer, whom I interrogated on 22 January 1947.
1. Question. Do you know the method for removing the salt from sea water recommended by Dr. Schaefer during the War?
Answer. I am familiar with the theoretical method which Dr. Schaefer said that he recommended for use in removing the salt from sea water and developed with the I.G. Farben Industry during the bar. I did not see and examine chemically the actual product.
2. Question. Is it the same in principle as the method you invented, which is now being used by the U. S. Army?
Answer. The theoretical method described by Dr. Schaefer is essentially the same as that being used in practice by the U. S. Army and Navy.
3. Question. Do the methods recommended by Schaefer correspond to the latest developments of Inorganic Chemistry?
Answer. The method described to me by Dr. Schaefer represents in principle one of the best methods for removing the salts from sea water and utilizes one of the latest developments in inorganic chemistry which apply to the means for removing salts from sea water.
4. Question. Before Schaefer recommended the method, was a chemical analysis made to shows (1) that neither free barium nor silver are present in the drinking water, and (2) that the salt content of the sea water was completely eliminated by the method? Are these results sufficient guarantee that the water is completely harmless and fully suitable for use as drinking water?
Answer. I was informed by Dr. Schaefer that he had made chemical analysis of the water which resulted after the sea water was treated by his method and found to be free of the salts in sea water as well as barium and silver. It is strongly presumptive that this is true because that is what any chemist or scientist would do to ascertain if the method for desalinating the sea water was effective. It is the sole reliable means for developing any method for desalinating sea water.
Such results would be entirely adequate for determining whether sea water desalinated by Dr. Schaefer's method was harmless and suitable for use as drinking water.
5. Question. In that case, is it still necessary to carry out experiments on human beings?
Answer. It would be unnecessary to conduct experiments on human beings if the water resulting from the application of Dr. Schaefer's method was found to be chemically free of the salts in sea water and barium and silver.
6. Question. After Schaefer had completed this analysis and had discovered that the agent had a strong bactericide effect, had he fulfilled his duty sufficiently to be able to suggest that the agent should be used on a large scale?
Answer. If the chemical analysis showed that the water had been freed of salts, barium and silver and that the chemical agent had a bactericidal effect entirely adequate, sufficient evidence would be available to suggest and recommend that the agent and procedure should be used on a large scale for rendering sea. water potable and harmless. And, it is entirely rational, as in the case of our own experiments at the Naval Medical Research Institute, that his agent and method would accomplish those things claimed for it, namely would render sea water potable and harmless.
That was Exhibit 28.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, we see from this that the method that you and the I.G. developed was ready for use?
A: Yes, this was November 1943, and at that time I could tell the Medical Inspectorate that a method had been developed which was ready to be introduced. In December of the same year I demonstrated the procedure in Professor Hippke's presence and in the presence of a few other officers. All of these men drank water prepared with Wofatit, and large-scale manufacture and introduction of this preparation was recommended.
Q: What did you have to do with the so-called Berka method?
A: Dr. Becker-Freyseng went into that point at great length. I received from the Medical Inspectorate in the first months or 1944 the order to check on experiments that an Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] von Sirany had carried out in Vienna on soldiers, and to report on what I found. It was perfectly patent to me that Mr. Berka was a charlatan and Mr. von Sirany was another.
DR. PELCKMANN: In this connection I offer Documents 26 and 27 and give them exhibit numbers 29 and 30, pages 103 and 106.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire, Your Honor, whether or not Exhibit No. 29 purports to be an original file note of Dr. Konrad Schaefer?
DR. PELCKMANN: Let me draw your attention to Exhibit 19, the affidavit of Mrs. Koenig. I have already read Exhibit 19, her statement that Mrs. Koenig identified these documents as the original documents. Perhaps Mr. Hardy can re-read this identification.
MR. HARDY: I have no objection, Your Honor. I might suggest that those be put to the defendant for authenticating.
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
Q: Will the defendant please identify these documents, so that this matter will be perfectly clear? Dr. Schaefer, what can you say about these documents?
A: Yes, these are the original documents as I drew them up; then there is a copy of them which I sent to the Medical Inspectorate at Saalow.
Q: And is it true that Mrs. Koenig wrote these documents, as she says in her affidavit?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, from these documents that you have before you in the original, will you kindly ready yourself from Document 26, Roman Numeral IV?
A: I quote:
About the Berka procedure:
a.) Berka sea-water differs from natural water only by its taste.
b) Like the latter, it causes a salt diuresis, which according to the amount drunk, can quickly lead to a dangerous exsiccosis. It produces an objective thirst.
c) In many cases it increases the subjective thirst, causes dryness of the mouth and throat mucous membrane and diarrhea. The same applies also in the case of small doses.
d) Berka sea-water, like natural water, is quite unsuitable for quenching thirst at sea, either in large or small doses, and is even dangerous. In any case, it is better to go thirsty than to drink it.
Q: Now, from Exhibit 40, Document 27 —
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, Paragraph D, under Roman IV, this Document Book says:
Berka sea-water, like natural water, is quite unsuitable for quenching thirst at sea.
Is not natural water suitable for quenching thirst at sea; does that mean natural sea-water?
DR. PELCKMANN: That means natural sea-water naturally, Your Honor, yes.
In the German original it says just "natural."
Q: Now, from Exhibit 40, Document 27, will you please quote, or will you please explain the significance of this document regarding anamneses?
A: When I came to Vienna, Mr. von Sirany went with me in his uniform as Oberstarzt into the room in which the patients, that is, the experimental subjects were.
Q: They were soldiers, were they not?
A: Yes, they were. Mr. von Sirany stated summarily that "Berka water was a fine thing, wasn't it," and "you weren't thirsty, were you," and "everything was fine, wasn't it?" The soldiers said, "Yes, Colonel, everything went very well with us." However, I was in civilian clothing, and asked. Mr. von Sirany to permit me to question the men individually. I told the soldiers to explain to me how it was possible. I told them I was a scientist and had nothing to do with the military, and then I found out about these anamneses.
Most of them said the more they drank the thirstier they got. For instance, Hlava said that, and Winter said it. The thirst was quenched only temporarily. Many said that they had diarrhea. In other words, what we find here is what one would expect to find with the Berka method.
Q: Dr. Shaefer, I shall put Document No. 28 to you, this will be Exhibit No. 31.
A: These are directions for using Berkatit, signed personally by Mr. Berka. These are the instructions that he gave me at that time. From these instructions for use one can see one or two very important points. It says here under the heading "Clinical experiments", I quote:
Clinical experiments have shown that in case of distress at sea it will be advisable to start at once with the drinking; thus the palate becomes gradually accustomed to the potion, and the strain on the kidneys does not occur in one shock but increases gradually.
The main emphasis lies here on the phrase "the strain on the kidneys" this proves with the Berka method the salt still has to be eliminated by the kidneys. At the conclusion of the instructions for use, it says:
Berkatit has, at the same time, a high food value and can be taken as a food instead of hard candy. Berkatit contains vitamins.
I, myself, have eaten Berkatit, and it was in effect nothing but hard candy.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, in the discussion on 19 and 20 May, 1944, what opinion did you express about Berkatit?
A: Mr. Berka and I had a rather vehement argument. I put his own instructions for use to him and also confronted him with Oberstarzt von Sirany's experiments. I told him that his preparation was simply something that covered up the natural taste of sea water and consequently was much more dangerous than sea water itself, because the soldiers would have the illusion that they could drink unlimited quantities of it. However, Mr. Berka was not to be persuaded and come forward with medical explanations which he did not even understand himself.
Q: I should now like to put in Documents Nos. 29, 30, and 31. Document No. 29 will become Exhibit No. 32, Document No. 30 will be come Exhibit No. 33, and Document 31 will become Exhibit No. 34.
These are affidavits from persons who took part in the conferences. These are representatives of the Navy who know a little bit about the way in which these discussions were carried on. From what they say it can be seen that the struggle between the doctors of the Luftwaffe and the technical office was very violent at this meeting and that Schaefer took part in it.
From Exhibit No. 32, I should like to read a part of the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Liesche. This is the 12th or 13th line:
I remember that the May session 1944 consisted mainly of a lively discussion between technical and medical representatives of the Luftwaffe. The physicians of the Luftwaffe and also the physicians of the Navy-as far as they made themselves heard raised serious objections against the Berkatit process. In this connection physiological questions entered the discussion, on which, owing to my training, I could not give an expert opinion.
The technical representatives of the Luftwaffe had made Berkatit experiments on living humans in a hospital of the Luftwaffe already before the May session. No one suffered health damages at this occasion. The physicians of the Luftwaffe had considerable objections against the procedure of the experiments and discussed those in a specialized manner which I could not follow. I had the impression that all the other participants of the meeting were merely listeners and that some of them did not approve of the sharp controversy between the physicians and the technicians. The physiologists of the Luftwaffe attacked the technical experts in a very pointed manner and forbade any non-professional interference with their specialized sphere of work. I cannot recall the literal statements of any of the physicians.
Then from Exhibit No. 33, the affidavit by Richard Handstein I should like to read only a part. I quote: from the fourth line of the second paragraph:
The debate was conducted among members of the Luftwaffe. I can still remember Stabsingenieur [staff engineer] Berka, who defended his own procedure. In opposition to him, a young physician of the Luftwaffe upheld a different opinion. This may have been Schaefer. This young physician argued with physiological reasons, which, however, I do not remember in detail. I know nothing regarding the details of possibly planned series of experiments.
JUDGE SEBRING: Just a moment, counsel. I notice that several of the affiants who have submitted affidavits here that their names appear in Prosecution Document No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit No. 133, Document Book No. 5, as being recorded "Present" at the May meeting. I do not notice the name of this affiant, Richard Handstein; can you explain that, please?
DR. PELCKMANN: I myself failed to notice that, Your Honor. It is possible that this record is faulty and that Handstein was present and was not listed. He, himself, speaks in his affidavit of a meeting in the spring of 1944 in the Air Ministry. I personally assume that that is the same meeting, and it is possible that his name is not mentioned.
JUDGE SEBRING: Could it be that the affiant Richard Handstein is one and the same as Haunstein, who appears as the ninth name in Prosecution Exhibit No. 133?
DR PELCKMANN: Yes, it is perfectly possible that this name Haunstein is really Handstein. If this copy of Document No. 177 is correct, then the mistake was made in the original minutes of this mooting. I thank Your Honor for calling this to my attention. I shall look again at the original in order to ascertain whether the name is set down falsely in my document.
According to his own signature, the man's name is Handstein that is in the affidavit, which I am putting in and in the original of Document 177 of the Prosecution the name is Haunstein.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q: Dr. Schaefer, were you able to express your point of view regarding the Berka method, although Becker-Freyseng had already expressed his?
A: Yes.
Q: How can you substantiate in any other way your statement here that you opposed the Berkatit method.
A: I was so convinced of the nonsensicalness of the Berka method that I said that it was entirely ineffective and that this was so obvious that there was no point in experimenting with it.
Q: Then, you expressed the opinion that such experiments would be completely unnecessary.
A: Yes, I did and for that reason I was not among the members of the committee which was to prepare for these experiments, as can be seen from this record of the meeting of the 19th and 20th.
Q: You mean to say that you did not become a member of that committee?
A: Yes, that is right. This was a group of people who were ready for some sort of compromise.
Q: Did you not have some difficulties on the 20th of expressing your opposition again?
A: Yes, of course I did, because the Technical Office, which had come to recognize me as the most radical opponent of the Berka method, was in charge of the meeting. Well, that is to say Christensen was presiding and he simply would not give me the floor, and since I was an Unterarzt, a non-commissioned officer, I could not take it on my own initiative.
Q: And you were even threatened once; were you not?
A: Yes, at the conclusion of the discussion, after the Technical Office saw that I was trying to portray the experiments as senseless, Schickler told me that if I went on in this same direction I would have to explain my actions to Milch and to answer the charge of sabotage.
DR. PELCKMANN: Becker-Freyseng has already stated on the stand that Schaefer told him this later.
Q: Was there a discussion at this meeting of the 20th of the fact that human experiments were to be carried out with the Wofatit method?
A: No. Even Herr Berka himself saw that the Wofatit method was a good one.
DR. PELCKMANN: I can again, Your Honors, draw your attention to Document 177, Exhibit 133, and I draw your attention to the fact that there is no mention there of any experiments with Wofatit.
Q: Did you have any interest in seeing to it that experiments should be carried out with Wofatit?
A: No, none whatsoever, because I had nothing to do with Wofatit.
Q: Perhaps this would have been out of some personal interest to you simply to prove how good Wofatit was and how poor Berkatit was?
A: Well, that would have been simply a ridiculous ambition on my part.
Q: At any rate, although the chairman, Christensen, limited you more and more, nevertheless, on the 20th you did state your opinion that the experiments with Berkatit were completely unnecessary and useless?
A: Yes, that is so, and the suggestion was then made that Dr. Eppinger should then be put in as director of future experiments, and I then said to myself that, if Eppinger came to Berlin, he would kick up quite a rumpus because he had been given any trouble or been bothered at all in such a useless affair.
Q: Now after the 20 May meeting did you still do everything you could to prevent experiments being carried out, particularly experiments with prisoners, whatever sort they might be?
A: Yes. In a telephone conversation with Becker-Freyseng I expressed my misgivings.
DR. PELCKMANN: In this connection I should like to return to Exhibit 19, Document 39, an affidavit of Mrs. Koenig in the supplementary document book. Since I have already read the first part of this affidavit, I shall read the rest.
I remember well how Dr. Schaefer at the beginning of 1944 returned in an enraged state from Vienna where he had informed himself on the development of the experiments with the Berka preparation. He was furious at the stupidity of some men who had even proposed such a thing and he told me that this preparation merely altered the taste and that he would have nothing to do with this charlatanry.
Based on the notes of the experiment by Dr. von Sirany Dr. Schaefer dictated to me his views on it which he consequently took to the medical inspectorate at Salow to report on it to his superiors. Some time later Dr. Schaefer returned home in an excited state and said something like this: 'Today there was a violent quarrel. Those idiots cannot be convinced by anything, and the naval people too have no idea of physiology. For some unknown reason new experiments are to be made. I hope I shall have nothing to do with these. It has even been proposed to make the experiments on prisoners.'
Dr. Schaefer then immediately called up Dr. Becker-Freyseng. I was in the same room and I remember this conversation very well because I repeatedly had to ask Dr. Schaefer to keep his temper and not to shout so much. Among other things he said that he simply could not understand why new experiments should be made, and if they have to be made, they should at least not be performed on prisoners.
After ending this conversation Dr. Schaefer told me that some other experts were to be called in and that he hoped that they would decide to quash the whole matter. As a minor official in the Luftwaffe he was sorry he could do no more than he had already done to prevent this nonsense. Dr. Schaefer stated in various conversations that he was opposed to any experiments on prisoners on principle as in such cases one could never be sure whether the experiments were really made on volunteers and not by exercising pressure in view of the more or less disagreeable condition under which they were living. Besides, his political principles made him averse to everything in any way connected with concentration camps.
Upon my Question whether these experiments with the Berka preparation caused severe pains, Dr. Schaefer told me that they were not agreeable but in no way dangerous and would not cause any lasting damages, provided they were made under sensible medical supervision. He added, however, that in spite of everything he was opposed to such experiments because he rejected everything connected with the concentration camps.
I should like to read the following lines at a later time. As can be seen from this affidavit, another effort was made to examine the necessity of these experiments, namely, by receiving testimony from medical specialists.
Now I put in Documents 32 and 33 in order to show what the medical specialists did in this matter. First I should like to read Document No. 33 which will become Exhibit 35; it is on page 116. Document No. 32 will become Exhibit 36; it is on page 113. Professor Dr. Hans Netter from Kiel says the following:
Towards the end of May 1944, at the request of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and without having been informed of the details of the questions which would be dealt with, I was asked to take part in a conference concerned with making sea water potable.
As far as I can remember, the following persons were present, apart from myself: Professor Heubner, Professor Eppinger, Professor Schwiegk, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, Dr. Schaefer, another representative of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, the engineer Berka and one or two other representatives of the technical office.
At the beginning of the conference the possibility was discussed of supplying with water persons in distress at sea, and the discussion turned only gradually to the two methods which obviously had already been considered before by the Luftwaffe. We, the as yet insufficiently orientated participants, learned about them by the slogans Berkatit and Wofatit.
At first the Berkatit method invented by the engineer Berka was generally declined by the Luftwaffe physicians including Dr. Becker-Freyseng and Dr. Schaefer. I was under the impression that only Professor Eppinger's great authority made it a topic of discussion. Without being able to give factual proof of this, there seemed to be a mutual understanding between Berka and Eppinger. Obviously Eppinger had full confidence in the experiments already carried out by Berka and seemed to be convinced of the value of his method. With regard to this situation, Dr. Becker-Freyseng remarked that the Luftwaffe could have the methods for the rescue of airmen in distress at sea evaluated by preliminary tests on human beings. Nothing was said about the fact that these experiments were to be carried out on prisoners. I thought of volunteers, a very obvious idea, as during the period of my work at an examination point for airmen, which lasted for some years, we dealt nearly exclusively with members of the Luftwaffe who had volunteered.
In a frequently contradictory and long lasting discussion the participants agreed on a program of experiments, the details of which I can no longer recall. It is out of the question that this conference was based on any previously fixed program. I can no longer recall whether a series of experiments for the evaluation of Wofatit was really agreed on at that time.
And Document 32, Exhibit 36, page 113, reads as follows: —
Q: This, Dr. Schaefer, is the conference of the 25th of May?
A: Yes.
DR. PELCKMANN: (reading)
At a conference in the spring of 1944, which was held at the Military Medical Academy, the following took place, as far as I can recall:
Among the participants were the following men known to me, as far as I remember: Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Dr. Becker-Freyseng Stabsarzt Dr. Schwiegk Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer Engineer Berka Prof.
Dr. Eppinger, Vienna Prof.
Dr. Netter, Kiel and myself; also two or three officers whose names I cannot recall.
Marineoberstabsarzt [Marine Surgeon] Professor Dr. Orzechowski from Kiel was invited but did not attend.
A discussion took place on the use of a preparation for producing potable water from salt water, proposed by engineer Berka. Few details were given about the nature of this process. It was obvious to me, however, that some very high authorities of the military administration very seriously considered the introduction of this preparation while the medical experts who were acquainted with this preparation, particularly Messrs. Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Schwiegk, had serious doubts about its efficacy for it was claimed that this preparation would make salt water potable without eliminating its salt contents. I myself had the same doubts as to the efficacy of this process and Prof. Dr. Netter, who sat next to me, was of the same opinion. The meeting was interrupted by an air raid alarm and was continued standing in a dark basement, while the bombs could be heard exploding and it was impossible to take notes.
As far as I remember, the outcome of the discussion was that despite all doubts the process as suggested by Mr. Berka was not to be rejected without an investigation for even the slightest success would seem sufficiently important from a military point of view and any such slight benefit should not be rejected. The eminent clinical physician Eppinger in particular upheld the view that the matter was at least worth investigating.
In the ensuing discussion the general application of the tests was discussed and three groups of experimental persons were suggested; one, those suffering from ordinary thirst; two, those who were given ordinary salt water, and three, those who were to drink salt water which had been treated according to Berka's formula. The discussion then turned to the precautions to be taken to prevent water being obtained during the experiments. Earlier clinical experiments in connection with the water and salt content of the body had shown how necessary those precautions are. There was, of course, complete agreement on the necessity that the experimental persons should be under constant medical supervision to avoid any possible risk to the health and Herr Eppinger therefore suggested that his assistant, Dr. Beiglboeck, who had much experience in the field of metabolism, should be placed in charge of these experiments.
Some months after this first conference there was a meeting of numerous physicians of the Wehrmacht, presided over by Generalstabsarzt [General Staff Doctor] Dr. Schroeder, to which I also was invited. There Dr. Beiglboeck, among others, reported on the outcome of the experiments. This report did not show that the experimental persons had been treated any differently from previous scientific experiments in the same field. It was understood, of course, that in order to carefully supervise the supply of water close supervision had been maintained. The tests showed that the process suggested by Mr. Berka in no way improved the drinking qualities of sea water by people suffering from thirst. The discussion revealed that war experiences had shown that humans can suffer thirst much longer than the earlier doctrine of physiology had taught.
That is Professor Wolfgang Heubner's affidavit, who is at present teaching at the University of Berlin.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q: Dr. Schaefer, were you present throughout the entire course of the conference on the 25th of May?
A: No. Some time after the discussion began there was an air raid. Everyone ran into the cellar including those participating in this discussion. The cellar was divided into several smaller rooms and the participants in the discussion broke up into little groups and mixed with the other persons in the house. There were a great many people there, people from everywhere in the Medical Academy.
Q: On the 25th of May at this discussion was there discussion of human experiments with Wofatit?
A: No.
Q: Let me say that Professor Netter's affidavit states the same, that is, Exhibit 35, and Becker-Freyseng corroborated that as a witness on the stand Dr. Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng and various affidavits have shown us that you were against the Berka method and that you were against experiments on prisoners. You also stated that during this discussion. Now, you stated that on the occasion of the previous conference. Now, why didn't you do so again on the 25th concerning experiments on Luftwaffe personnel or concentration camp inmates?
A: On the 25th of May I again said that the Berka method was not useable after several university professors, including persons with a European reputation, such as Professor Eppinger and Huebner, had stated that the Berka method could not be rejected without a further experiment. I, of course, could not present any medical counter-arguments or refutations since I had no military rank nor did I enjoy reputation in science. I was, after all, then simply an employee in private industry.
Q: However, you had other reasons which you explained to Mrs. Koenig and which are corroborated in her affidavit, misgivings concerning prisoners?
A: There was no mention of prisoners in this discussion and I could not return to something that had been said in a previous discussion and take that occasion to express my private opinions of that experiment on prisoners.
Moreover, such a thing would have been a political attack on National Socialism and its system of concentration camps, which would not be exactly the thing to do in a meeting attended by officers. I don't believe even the most courageous resistance man would have done such a thing.
Q: Perhaps you would like to describe to the Tribunal how you had previously been threatened.
A: In a discussion that took place with Dr. Christensen before the 19th I had serious differences of opinion and he forbade my interfering in his business and he told me that Oberstarzt von Sirany certainly knew a lot more about these things than some Unterarzt. The man who had a colonel's insignia on his shoulder certainly was scientifically in the right also, and the higher his rank the more right he was.
Then there was my clash with Major Jeworek; not only my clash with him, but also Becker-Freyseng's; and then in addition there was the threat that Schickler made to me at or after the meeting of the 20th. All that would have been necessary then would have been a little note of some sort in the minutes of that meeting and Berka or Christensen would have been able to get their opponent, namely me, out of the way.
Q: Then, in other words, you considered it impossible, on the 25th of May, to express you ideological objections to the Berka method?
A: Yes, that was quite out of the question.
DR. PELCKMANN: I shall read now the rest of Frau Koenig's affidavit. This is again Exhibit 19 in the supplementary volume in which she discusses Schaefer's disappointment in the failure of the last possibility of preventing these experiments.
In the third paragraph from the end it reads — this is on page 12*, the first paragraph:
A short while later Dr. Schaefer returned home soon after a severe air-raid, with the following words which I clearly remember; 'These asses have also failed. I cannot understand what qualifications secured such persons their professorships. I am tired of it and I won't do anymore. The experiments will now probably be made at Brunswick.'
I also very well remember that Dr. Schaefer returned from a discussion in an engaged state saying that he had just come from a meeting with officers of the Luftwaffe. He and Dr. Becker-Freyseng had been called saboteurs when declaring the Berka preparation as completely useless. They also had to submit to other strong attacks and the meeting had nearly been broken up.
The threats against Schaefer charging him with sabotage can also be seen from this document and also from Herr Pahl's affidavit, which is Document No. 40 to which I have given Exhibit No. 37. This again is in a supplementary volume and, as I said, this again mentions threats against Schaefer on the charge of sabotage. In the middle of this document — or, rather, I shall read the third paragraph:
The so-called transcript of 23 May 1944 (Document No. 177 Exhibit 133) incorrectly reports the discussion on 19 May. One of the most obvious mistakes in this transcript is the mention of a series of experiments which were supposedly to have been agreed upon at that time. Actually, no series of experiments were settled on this day, therefore, also not those listed under Figure 1A—d (6 day period) and as experimental series (12 day period). Not one word was mentioned to the effect that the experimental subjects would be supplied by the Reichsfuehrer-SS or that the experiments were to take place at concentration camps. As the Wofatit method was considered acceptable by all present at the conference, the question of experiments on humans did not arise and was not mentioned. The experimental series with Wofatit was later neither suggested nor ordered by Schaefer.
During the meeting either Major Jeworek or the Chief of the testing station Travenuende accused Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer of being financially interested in the Wofatit method.
Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer and I protested against this accusation and got up to leave the meeting. Christensen interceded and thereupon we remained.
I now put in Document 34. This will be Exhibit 38, page 118. This is an affidavit by Professor Hubertus Strughold. This proves that the RSHA, in other words, the Gestapo, took measures against scientists saying that they were saboteurs if they embraced medical opinions that differed from the officially accepted opinion. The affidavit reads:
In fall 1944, my two collaborators Dr. Heinrich Rose, Luftwaffe Stabsarzt, and Dr. Ingeborg Schmidt investigated the effects of vitamin A, on night vision. They found out that when combined with a sufficient supply of fat vitamin A — when given in normal doses — it improves night vision. From another source, it was discovered that very big doses of vitamin A — when given in certain solution agents — improve the night vision in a way never previously experienced. My collaborators did not confirm this. Thereupon, some time later, the Research Management of the Luftwaffe or the Medical Inspection received a letter from — I believe the SS Sicherungshauptamt [main security office] or whatever its name was, and in this letter, my collaborators and my Institute were reproached of sabotage. As far as I recall, a correspondence took place between the two agencies named, the subject of which I do not remember in detail. Later I heard no more about it. Anyway, the fact remains that both my scientific collaborators were attacked by the above mentioned organization merely because they could not confirm the results of another research worker. This is a matter unheard of in the field of science.
DR. PELCKMANN: Perhaps at this time, Your Honor, we could break off.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have only three more you may proceed and we will conclude this evening.
DR. PELCKMANN: I have only three more that is correct, your Honor. However, I see that the connecting test in what I intend to present here is so long, it would be better if I present it tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.