1947-06-04, #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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 4 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and. this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained, if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will show for the record that the defendants are all present in court.
The record will also show that the witness, Franz Vollhardt, was excused from further attendance before the Tribunal last evening, his testimony having been closed. With the defendant, Conrad Schaefer, on the stand counsel may proceed. The witness is reminded he is still under oath.
DR. KONRAD SCHAEFER — Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q: Dr. Schaefer, the day before yesterday we were discussing whether it could be attributed to you that in the last conference on 25th May 1944 you actually could have done more than you did. Let me ask you now, what else could you have done to prevent the experiments from being carried out, whether they were to be carried out on concentration inmates or inmates of the Luftwaffe Hospital in Brunswick.
A: I could have done nothing else because the chain of command would have been the same; namely, through Dr. Becker-Freyseng, Dr. Mertz, department chief, and then Dr. Kahnt, chief of staff, and, finally, Professor Schroeder himself.
Dr. Becker-Freyseng and Dr. Mertz were themselves present at this conference and took part in it all together. I could not have made recommendations to Dr. Schroeder directly because I should have had to have the permission of the department chief to do so. Moreover, Dr. Schroeder testified here that he would not allow himself to be influenced in any way in his decisions.
Q: It is you opinion then, Dr. Schaefer, that if you had expressed your misgivings to Dr. Mertz, Dr. Mertz would have said to you: "This is completely unnecessary. I know all about this. I myself was at the conference and you know that I approved all these matters."
A: Quite so.
Q: And for this reason Dr. Mertz would continue, "I cannot have a report on this matter submitted to my superior, Dr. Schroeder."
A: Quite so.
Q: I should like to turn now to Document 35. This is to receive Exhibit #39. It's on page 119 of the second document book. I should like to have it put to you. Kindly read it aloud, Doctor Schaefer.
A: I quote:
The substance sent in —
Q: (Interrupting) Dr. Schaefer, please reading the heading also.
A: This is a letter from Dr. Schuster whom I had asked to test Berkatit in its capacity to retain sodium chloride.
Q: It was said that the salt in the body was assisted in its passage through the body by the ingestion of Berkatit. In chemical terms this is to say that Berkatit formed a compound with the salt and thus salt in sea water was carried through the body in this compound without doing any injury to the body. Was that so?
A: Yes, that was Berka's theory?
Q: And you opposed this theory?
A: Yes.
Q: You, in other words, wanted to prove that this salt from sea water formed no compound with Berkatit?
A: That is so.
Q: And you commissioned Dr. Schuster to investigate this matter and what was he to investigate?
A: He was to prove that the salt entered into no compound with Berkatit and that no compound was formed.
Q: And when did you give this assignment to Dr. Schuster?
A: Roughly, the 20th of May. And this is the answer to it, of 1 June 1944. I believe it is necessary for me only to read the last sentence:
The slight alteration of the specific resistance is due presumably to the increase in the number of molecules in the solution. No complex fixation therefore took place.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, I am having this read aloud only in order to ask you whether, after the 25th of May, when you saw all you hope of preventing these experiments coming to naught, you still did something further in this matter?
A: I forwarded this letter to the Medical Inspectorate. That was all.
Q: This letter does prove that your opinions were correct in this matter?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: After the conference of the 25th of May did you speak to Dr. Becker-Freyseng again?
A: Yes, a few weeks thereafter.
Q: What was said?
A: I asked him what had come of this natter. He told me he didn't know either. Apparently the whole matter was simply being dropped.
Q: At that stage that seems to have been a correct opinion because, as we know from the document books of the prosecution, no decision was reached in the matter at this time. I have already proved that Dr. Schaefer had nothing to do with ordering experiments either with Berkatit or Wofatit. I should now like to put in Document 36. This will be Exhibit 40. Page 120. This is an affidavit by Karl Theodor Lesse. He says the following. I shall read the first paragraph.
When, in the summer of 1941, I reported to Dr. Beiglboeck, I was informed that two methods for making salt-water potable were to be tested, and that I was to carry out pant of the chemical research work in the laboratory. I was informed about the effects of the effects of the Schaefer method. The Berka method was a secret process and was not revealed even later.
I shall now read the third paragraph from the end:
The course of the experiments showed no symptoms of illness due to salt water made potable according to Schaefer's method.
And the last sentence:
Dr. Schaefer was not present at these tests. I am unaware of any suggestions made by him.
This document further corroborates that Schaefer himself did not take parting the experiments and that the experiments with Wofatit produced no pathological symptoms.
Now, I must discuss a document put in by the prosecution. This is the affidavit of Dr. Schaefer himself, NO. 474, Exhibit 131, Document Book 5, page 6. I must go into this document because the prosecution asserted in the session of the 16th of December that this affidavit shows perfectly clearly Schaefer's full knowledge of these matters and shows what part he took in every conference that took place.
Dr. Schaefer, because the prosecution has put this document in as one that incriminates you, I must ask you, first of all, in general do you construe this document as an incrimination of yourself and as indication that you bear responsibility for the experiments that then took place in Dachau? And would you like to assert the same now regarding the other co-defendants?
A: No, not at all.
Q: Is it not so that, on the contrary, when you interrogated you described how it was that precisely you were not responsible for the experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, if you say that, however, I must look into why that opinion of yours is not set forth in this affidavit of yours. We must go through this affidavit point by point. You have the document before you?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Let us first take #3. It says here:
In May, 1944, I was ordered by the office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to attend a meeting called for the purpose of consisting further research on making sea water potable.
Is this statement correct?
A: I should say that it is badly formulated. No new research was to be considered. It was simply to be decided whether Berkatit or Wofatit was to be the preparation introduced.
Q: If I understand correctly, the idea of carrying on further experiments was discussed by other participants in the conference, not by you, during the course of the conference. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Then it states further. I skip one sentence, or rather I don't skip a sentence:
Present were Becker-Freyseng, Research Advisor to Schroeder —
Now, is that designation correct?
A: In view of what I have heard here, it does not appear to be correct. At any rate, it can lead to confusion with the so-called "consultants."
Q: Now, I'll take the next sentence:
It was decided at this meeting to conduct experiments on concentration camp inmates with the Berka process although it was generally admitted that the Berka sea water process seriously impairs the health after six days and causes death after twelve days at the latest.
Dr. Schaefer, what do you understand, first of all, under the phrase "it was decided"? Was a decision reached on this matter? Was there a vote on it?
A: No, there was no vote on it.
Q: Then, how should it he phrased here in this affidavit?
A: It should say that one of the participants in the conference made the proposal.
Q: Well, but that doesn't decide anything.
A: No, and that's what I said during my interrogation. That one of the persons attending made the proposal, and then I was told: "Very well. We'll write the proposal was made and adopted without a vote."
But that seems to me to be even less correct and, moreover, the word "decided" did not incriminate me in any way because it all depends upon who was in a position to make decisions.
Q: In other words the word "decided" does not incriminate you because it depends on who had a right to vote?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Did you have the right to vote, and did you tell the interrogator?
A: Yes, and the interrogator told me that would be decided by an expert of the Luftwaffe organization.
Q: Now it says further:
Although it was generally admitted that the Berkatit seawater process, although it was generally admitted that the Berkatit seawater process seriously impairs the health?
Did you state it so during your interrogation?
A: Yes, but that does not refer to an experiment but to practical cases of sea distress.
Q: Yes, and it is for that reason I ask you if you chose this form during your interrogation yourself?
A: No, that formulation was presented to me in its final form.
Q: In that case you must explain some greater length how it happened, that this formulation was chosen; it couldn't have been chosen unless there had been some discussion with you before hand?
A: I was shown Document NO 177 and since I had only the vaguest sort of recollection of the whole matter I based what I said on what was in this document NO 177.
Q: How often were you interrogated, Dr. Schaefer, in how many sessions was this affidavit drawn up; please describe that in greater length?
A: I was interrogated two or three times and on the basis of these interrogations this affidavit was drawn up.
Q: Was it drawn up in your presence?
A: No, it was submitted to me in its final form.
Q: What do you have to say about this formulation?
A: There is an obvious confusion here between conditions that are to be expected in an actual case of shipwreck or sea distress, and any experiments that might be carried out.
Q: You say then that in the formulation in the affidavit there is a confusion about what you said about the proposed experiments and what you said about the dangerousness of the Berka drug as such, if it is used in an actual case of sea distress without being tested?
A: Yes.
Q: And you see that particularly clearly in this sentence which reads:
It was decided—
such and such, although it was generally admitted that the Berkatit seawater process seriously impairs health, etc.; now what is the incorrectness you see here?
A: The incorrectness lies in the fact that in practical cases of sea distress the shipwrecked person drinks seawater in unlimited quantities water the taste of which has been improved by Berkatit, and does not have the will-power to drink only small quantities of the seawater. The quantities that he consumes become larger and larger until they give grounds for the apprehensions regarding death expressed in this sentence.
Q: And for this reason you opposed Berkatit as such?
A: Yes.
Q: The experiments that in your opinion would not lead to these injuries, why did you oppose them?
A: Because in my opinion they were completely unnecessary.
Q: And in your previous interrogation you had clearly delineated this distinction, had you not?
A: Yes, I had.
Q: And you admit and want to say today that that distinction of yours is not to be seen in this formulation of the matter in this affidavit here?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: But your opposition to Berkatit as such and your opposition to the experiments, did you make these two oppositions clear to the interrogator in your interrogations also?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And it is true in this affidavit there is nevertheless nothing to that effect?
A: That is so.
Q: You said something about notes you had set down?
A: At the end of the interrogation I was —
Q: No, no, let me interrupt. You said you had drawn up a summary of the various points that had occurred to you, well what happened to that?
A: I was asked to turn in this scrap of paper to make the record complete.
Q: And in this list were the points you considered important?
A: Yes.
Q: And this piece of paper must still be among your papers?
A: Yes, it must.
Q: Did you know anything about the various series of experiments at the time you were Interrogated? The series of experiments that are described in Document — that is Exhibit 133 whether or not they are set down there correctly?
A: I had only a vague notion about them and about what was experimented on.
However, in this affidavit it says:
It was further decided that the human experimental subjects were to be fed. only seawater, processed by the Berka method, for a period of 12 days.
How is it that it is so formulated here?
A: At that time I said that this did not mean that the persons were to be obliged to drink seawater for 12 days.
Q: However, at this time you were shown the Exhibit 133 and told that the experiments had been so carried out?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: You were told it had been ascertained that the experiments were so carried out?
A: Yes.
Q: And this exhibit NO 133 of 23 May regarding the conference of 19 and 20 May, you had never previously seen?
A: No.
Q: You saw it for the first time during your interrogation?
A: Yes.
Q: Then to sum up, this formulation was not made in your presence but was a compilation and summary from previous interrogations and was put to you as such?
A: Yes.
Q: Now to return to the conditions of this affidavit; now to return to the facts themselves, it is not true you were not a member of the commission that was to arrange for these experiments.
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Could you have known anything precise about the experimental series as a consequence?
A: The experimental series were discussed only on the 25 of May.
Q: And we have already said that you look part in this only in part; now, let's take a look at No. 4, in your affidavit, the second sentence.
On orders of the office of the Chief of the Medical Services I looked over Sirany's experiments personally.
No, no, —
I personally gave Becker-Freyseng a copy of my report which was meant for Schroeder, and therefore Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder must have known that the Berka method was very dangerous. Becker-Freyseng and I were of the opinion that Sirany's experiments were not complete since they did not simulate actual conditions of a sea emergency.
It is true that you told Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder about the uselessness and dangerousness of the Berka method?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: Does this question have anything to do with the question of the dangerousness of the experiment?
A: Nothing at all.
Q: But Dr. Schaefer you will admit that the way this No. 4 is formulated gives the impression that the experiments are being called dangerous?
A: Yes, you could get that impression from this formulation.
Q: Did you overlook that fact when you accepted and signed this affidavit?
A: It is quite clear that as a former laboratory research man one does not weight every single word and think ones way through the possible consequences of every word.
Q: Let me read to you the last sentence from number four:
Becker-Freyseng and I were of the opinion that Sirany's experiments were not consummated since they did not simulate actual conditions of a sea emergency.
Does that mean all the Sirany experiments were incomplete and therefore the necessity existed and you collaborated to carry on further experiments?
A: No. In my opinion Sirany's experiments were not sufficient to arrive at a judgment regarding the Berka method.
Q: But, Dr. Schaefer, here again you will admit that the formulation here gives the impression that you and Becker-Freyseng, because the Sirany experiments were incomplete, mediated for new experiments; was that the impression you wish to give in this formulation?
A: No, not at all. I believe that can be seen from my final summary, in which I stated my opinion of Sirany's experiments.
Q: Let us take a look at number six. There is discussion here of Beiglboeck's experiments in the summer of 1944 and it says here:
Photographs and films were also presented and various groups of experiments were discussed.
Now, what do you have to say about these photographs and films, which by the way were already discussed in the interrogation or hearing of Becker-Freyseng; what did you understand by this word "films"; does that word "films" in the affidavit originate with you?
A: Yes, it did.
Q: And what did you understand under the term?
A: I was not thinking of moving pictures, but I did recall that some photographs had been projected on a screen and thought that these were films of the same sort as x-ray files, dispositive films through which light passes.
Q: Further it reeds here:
Dr. Beigleboeck also reported that the experiments had resulted in swelling of the liver and nervous symptoms.
A: That means the muscles were more sensitive, that expression "nervous symptoms."
Q: Did you use that phrase, "nervous symptoms" in your previous other interrogations?
A: Yes, it is quite possible that I did.
Q: What did you understand that to mean?
A: I understood that to mean a general increase in reflexes and increased sensitiveness of the musculatory system.
Q: Well, it says here:
Delirium and mental disturbances also appeared.
A: The word "delirium" is an error on my part, arising from confusion as to thirst that is attendant to cholera.
Q: How did it happened that you made this confusion; how did you concern yourself previously with the thirst symptoms of cholera?
A: Thirst in Cholera, this thirst was the only thirst previously known resulting from a severe loss of water in the intestines. In my Nurnberg paper I made use of this analogy; that is where the confusion arose.
Q: Now, how about mental disturbances?
A: With this I meant an apathy and somnolence.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, do you have enough clinical experience, as you have not actually seen these symptoms yourself, to describe them yourself?
A: No, I did not have that degree of clinical experience. My clinical experience was not large. I was primarily a laboratory researcher.
Q: It says here further:
As a result of this meeting, it was decided that the Berka process was absolutely no use to the Luftwaffe.
Had that always been your opinion?
A: Yes.
Q: But I want to ask you what the word means "decided?"
A: Well, that is an ill chosen expression, I should have said it was ascertained or reported and that was the result of the experiments.
Q: Was anything decided at all, did you have the right to make any decision; does the military make decisions?
A: Those are the military orders.
Q: Now, I come to number seven.
It was an open secret in the highest medical circles that the Berka method was used on inmates of concentration camps.
What do you want to say about the meaning of this phrase: "An open secret in the highest medical circles?"
A: The expression "open secret" did not originate with me.
Q: What had you then said in the preceding interrogations so that the interrogator chose this formulation; what did you actually say in detail?
A: I don't believe I said anything in this connection.
Q: But it was discovered in your interrogations first of all that Professor Schroeder knew of these things, secondly that Becker-Freyseng knew of them and who else?
A: Professor Anthony and Christensen.
Q: Now here by the phrase "in the highest medical circles" did you speak with the highest medical circles, or did you just happen to hear the names you just mentioned?
A: Yes, that is the phrase "in the highest medical circles" is not just the one that should have been used. I was told if a man like Professor Schroeder was present it would be perfectly justifiable to use the phrase, "in the highest medical circles."
Q: And that satisfied you?
A: Yes.
Q: In the same way you were satisfied to use the word "decided" entirely aside from the question whether you had the right to vote?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Dr. Schaefer, I shall sum up. You have just stated that this affidavit contains correct information and also incorrect information and the incorrect information results from the fact that correct statements are brought into association with one another, which lead to a construction which you did not intend; is that so?
A: Yes, that is so, but I must say also that at that time I did not see the full consequences of this erroneous construction.
Q: And your own attitude about the experiments is not expressed in this affidavit; is it?
A: No.
Q: In this affidavit only your attitude on the Berkatit method is expressed as such?
A: Correct.
Q: However, during the interrogation you did express your opposition to all experiments and consequently deny responsibility for all of them?
A: Yes, but apparently I did not do that clearly enough, besides I saw no reason for carrying out the experiments since there was nothing to investigate on Wofatit and the experiments on Berkatit were useless.
Q: Nevertheless you signed this affidavit, although it contained partly with your knowledge and partly without your knowledge many errors. It says here:
No duress or threat of any kind.
Would you please make a statement about this statement, "I was subjected to no duress or threat of any kind?"
A: It is quite true I was subject to no duress or threat but if one is suddenly put in prison there is a certain shock and one reacts to things that really don't exist.
Q: Until your arrest you were working in the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg; is that so?
A: Yes.
Q: You were arrested on 17 September?
A: Yes.
Q: And you were first interrogated here on the 27th of September?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you told with what you were charged?
A: No.
Q: How did the interrogation begin?
A: It began by my being asked if I would recognize Professor Beiglboeck.
Q: Didn't you ask why you were in custody?
A: Yes, I was told that I first of all should give information as an expert.
Q: Were you told you had the right to refuse to make statements?
A: No.
Q: Or were you told that you could refuse to answer such questions as might tend to incriminate you?
A: No.
Q: Well, were you never told that?
A: Only after the indictment.
Q: In other words you were not told that before this affidavit?
A: No.
Q: Were you told that you had the right to have counsel?
A: Only after the indictment was the right of counsel granted.
Q: I gather now from your testimony regarding this affidavit and all of your previous testimony that you asserted you were not responsible for the planning or carrying out of the experiments for the following reasons:
First, you considered them completely superfluous and then there was the further reason that during the conferences you could not say any more than you did, that you had spiritual misgivings about experiments in concentration camps, that we know particularly from Mrs. Koenig's affidavit, Exhibit No. 19. Now I should like to ask you the following: What should you have done had you received the order to carry out the experiments yourself?
A: After the conference if that had come up I should have asked that I neither be put in the commission or receive any order which had anything to do with that.
Q: That is all very well, Dr. Schaefer, but I am asking you what you should have done if you had received that order to carry out the experiments.
A: That is a hypothetical question which is very difficult to answer. Of course, it is very easy for me to say today that I should not have carried out the order.
Q: Not have carried it out?
A: No, but what I really should have done in that case I don't know. I should have made efforts to extract myself from that situation. However, that would have been very difficult.
Q: How could you have extracted yourself? What risks would you have run?
A: I could have reported as sick.
Q: And if you were not actually sick?
A: I could have given myself an injection in the laboratory or something of the sort but that was just as dangerous itself, because after I was admitted to a Luftwaffe hospital it would have been easy to see what I had done and there would have been very serious disciplinary consequences.
Q: Did you have any chance to turn to the public, let us say, through the press, if you really did not feel that you could not have anything to do with these matters?
A: That was quite out of the question. There was no public, not even in peacetime. There was no one to turn to if you objected to obeying a state order.
Q: And through the regular channels, through official channels?
A: There was even less possibility there.
Q: Now a final question. Are you still opposed to those experiments today, after you know the defense put up by Becker-Freyseng and in part by Beiglboeck? Now you know that from the medical point of view these experiments were not dangerous or inhumane perhaps?
A: My reasons now are the same as they were, namely, I object to them on the grounds that the experiments were superfluous; secondly, because I myself would not have carried out any experiments on concentration camp inmates?
Q: Why not?
A: Because the voluntary consent of a concentration camp inmate is a very relative thing.
Q: And for you this reason was sufficient to determine your unwillingness to participate?
A: That is so.
DR. PELCKMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
DR. KRAUSS: Counsel for Rostock.
BY DR. KRAUSS:
Q: Dr. Schaefer, I revert to the affidavit you signed, NO-474, Exhibit 131, in which under No. 7 you remark that it was an open secret in the highest medical circles that the Berka method was used on inmates of concentration camps. In the explanations you made during your interrogation by your counsel just now a number of further questions have become superfluous. Let me ask you the following questions. Was the Berka method as such a matter that concerned the Germans and that was familiar in general to the German physiological chemists?
A: No, by no means.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, is it your opinion that for example a well-known German surgeon was informed about what the Berka process was?
A: A surgeon — certainly not.
Q: Dr. Schaefer, do you have any concrete reasons for believing that the defendant Dr. Rostock knew of this process and of the experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A: No, I didn't know Professor Rostock at all. I simply knew he had a surgical clinic.
Q: Is it true, Dr. Schaefer, that the quoted statements under No. 7 in your affidavit could not and was not intended to include Professor Rostock?
A: Yes, that is so.
DR. KRAUSS: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Counsel for Beiglboeck.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: Witness, I have only three short questions to put to you. First, when did you make the acquaintance of Professor Beiglboeck?
A: In October 1944.
Q: In other words, after the experiments?
A: Yes, after the experiments.
Q: The second question: Did Dr. Beiglboeck participate in the planning of the experiments in any way, in particular, did he take part in the conference mentioned in Document Book 5?
A: No, Dr. Beiglboeck took part in no conferences.
Q: And until he was given the order he could not have known anything about the matter?
A: Yes, that is so.
Q: And now a little final question. Did he tell you anything about his experiments on himself?
A: Yes, he did.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions by defense counsel, the prosecution may cross-examine the witness.
Prior to the beginning of the cross-examination the Tribunal will be in recess a few minutes.
(A short recess was taken.)