1947-06-04, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal I is again in session.
DR. KONRAD SCHAEFER — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Schroeder, you were in attendance at the freezing conference in Nurnberg in October 1942?
A: Yes. On the second day of this meeting I held a lecture.
Q: Who ordered you to that conference?
A: Generalarzt [General Physician] Martius.
Q: Who approached you and requested that you give a report at that conference?
A: I received this assignment from Professor Anthony.
Q: How did Dr. Anthony happen to approach you?
A: He knew that I was working in that field.
Q: Were you considered an expert in that field — thirst?
A: At that time?
Q: Yes.
A: I really don't believe so.
Q: Did you have any discussions with Professor Anthony prior to the deliverance of your lecture or report at the October meeting?
A: Yes, I talked to him.
Q: Did you have any dealings with Becker-Freyseng concerning this matter?
A: Yes, I talked to Becker-Freyseng too.
Q: What did you talk to him about?
A: The thirst problem in cases of distress at sea. More or less what I knew up to that time, and that I had performed an orientation experiment.
Q: What did you think Becker-Freyseng's position was at that time in reference to the October meeting?
A: I had the impression that he had to take care of the business to supply billets, etc., but that is just a vague impression, I don't know exactly.
Q: Well, why did you talk to him about your report?
A: Because he happened to be present when I was talking to professor Anthony.
Q: Well, then when you met with Professor Anthony to determine whether or not you would give a report at the October meeting Dr. Becker-Freyseng was present also?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you hear any of the other lectures while you were at the conference?
A: Yes, on the second day I heard the others.
Q: Did you hear Holzloehner's lecture?
A: I cannot remember Holzloehner's lecture. I assume that it was on a different day.
Q: Did you hear Rascher's lecture?
A: No.
Q: Did you see Becker-Freyseng at the meeting?
A: Yes, I saw him.
Q: You stated on direct examination that Becker-Freyseng was so busy that you didn't have the opportunity to talk to him at the meeting; can you tell us what he was busying himself with?
A: I saw him in conversation with other people.
Q: Were you able to ascertain from hearing the lectures, the various lectures at this meeting in October 1942 that concentration camp inmates had been used for experimental purposes?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear any talk about it after the meeting?
A: No.
Q: Did you read the reports that were published?
A: When I saw the record of the meeting at the Institute for Aviation Medicine. I read my lecture to see whether it had been reproduced correctly and I was not interested in the rest.
Q: Then the first time you heard about the experimental program with human beings was here in this courtroom?
A: No, the meeting on the 19th and 20th concerning the sea water experiments.
Q: And after having been to the Nurnberg conference in October 1942 and at a later date having read this portion of the report of the October meeting you were unable to ascertain that human beings were used in experiments by those various officers?
A: That is correct.
Q: And the first time that knowledge was brought home to you that concentration camp inmates were used as experimental subjects was that conference of 19 May 1944, is that correct?
A: Not that they had been used, but that the idea of using them was being entertained. Before that time, it was through an officer of the Wehrmacht who had pointed out to me that he knew of difficulties of getting experimental subjects for my thirst experiments and suggested that I use prisoners.
Q: Was the freezing problem of interest to you?
A: No, not at all, not before or afterwards did I ever have anything to do with the subject.
Q: Yet you listened to Holzloehner's lecture?
A: I cannot say. I think I did not hear Holzloehner's lecture.
Q: How surely, Doctor, you must recall whether or not you heard Holzloehner's lecture?
A: I would certainly have remembered Rascher's remark, consequently I assume that Holzloehner's and Rascher's reports were on the first day.
Q: In November 1943 you reported to the Medical Inspectorate that you had developed a method to make sea water potable, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Was that the first time you had reported to the Medical Inspectorate?
A: Before that I had made a report that work was being carried on and I reported how far the work had gone.
Q: Did you conduct experimentation on animals while you were developing Wofatit?
A: Yes. I carried out animal experiments, but they were in general completed.
Q: Did you carry out experiments on human beings?
A: Yes, I carried out experiments on volunteers, persons who were at liberty.
Q: Where did you carry out these experiments?
A: In Berlin.
Q: Did you experiment on yourself likewise?
A: Yes.
Q: How long did your experiments take?
A: Which? The ones on my human subjects?
Q: Yes.
A: Three or four days.
Q: How many human subjects did you use?
A: There were about four or five, some of them were used several times.
Q: Did you also use a control group; did you set your experiments up into a series wherein you subjected some to ordinary seawater, others to normal water and the others to sea-water treated by your method?
A: No, no control group was necessary in my experiments. I merely carried out tests on hunger and thirst. It never occurred to me to perform human experiments with sea-water from which the salt had been removed, according to the Berka method. I frequently drank this water myself and the chemical analysis was absolutely sufficient for such water.
Q: Doctor, would it be possible then to ascertain the potability of sea-water without having human experiments?
A: You mean natural sea-water?
Q: No, Doctor, if you treat sea-water with your Schaefer method; was it possible to determine the potability of that sea-water treated by your method without having resorted to human experimentation?
A: Yes, that is 100 possible.
Q: Would that be possible in the case of sea-water treated by ether methods?
A: That depends on the method; in the Berka water is was possible.
Q: It was possible to determine chemically whether or not Berka water would be effective, that is water treated by the Berka process would be effective to render the sea-water potable?
A: That is true and I have proved that.
Q: Now Doctor, when you carried out your experiments then you merely gave these experimental subjects, which you used in 1943, so many cubic centimeters of sea-water treated by your method; is that correct?
A: Are you speaking about the experiments, which I submitted as documents to my technical assistants on the experiments where I drank the sea-water treated with Wofatit myself?
Q: Maybe I misunderstood you, Doctor, I understood you to say this morning, in answer to my questions, that in the process of developing your Schaefer method, you had experiments on animals and experiments on human beings. Now maybe I misunderstood, did you merely state that you had only tried the water on yourself and did not subject experimental subjects to sea-water treated by the Schaefer method?
A: That is true. That is true, my animal experiments and the experiments on human subjects were not connected with Wofatit because it was not necessary.
Q: In the experiments, the animal experiments and the human experiments, did you subject the experimental subjects to sea-water?
A: Only in the animal experiments and in some cases in the human experiments at the end of the experiment.
Q: Well, what was the purpose of your human experiments that you conducted in 1943; to lay the ground work of developing the Schaefer method? What did you do in those experiments, did you give the human subjects water to drink; just what did you do with them?
A: These subjects were to demonstrate how long one could go without water and food without damaging the ability to concentrate and ability to work.
Q: Then I presume after they had gone for a few days without water or food, you would have them drink a certain amount of sea-water to see what the effects would be; can you explain to us in detail, Doctor, just what you were trying to accomplish by your experiments?
A: I held the point of view that it was better to go without food and water than to drink sea-water. Consequently, I wanted to test with my experimental subjects how long one can go without food and water without losing in efficiency and whether at the end if one drank salt water thirst was lessened or increased.
Q: Well, at the same time did you also have another group drinking sea-water, so that you could compare the two?
A: No, I did not have any group that drank sea-water all the time.
Q: Well how did you make a comparison, Doctor?
A: I questioned the same person before and after they had drank salt water, I asked them how they felt and whether that was a good thing.
Q: Well, now, when you are subjecting persons to salt water, is it necessary to confine them or can they conduct their usual business and tend to their work like the experimental subjects Professor Vollhardt used in his experiments?
A: That depends on how reliable the subjects are. If I have someone in whom I have complete confidence that he will keep the conditions of the experiments, than of course he can continue to perform his work.
Q: Certainly if a man volunteers for your experiments you would have confidence in him, wouldn't you?
A: Not if he was promised a reward, therefore my experimental subjects did not get any reward.
Q: Well if you were conducting experiments on volunteers and a man had drank sea-water for two days and then decided he could not stand it any longer and then decided he did not want to go through with the rest of the experiments and asked you for food and water, of course you would have given it to him, wouldn't you Doctor?
A: No, of course not.
Q: Then, he ceases to be a voluntary subject, doesn't he?
A: That is true unless he had obligated himself in the beginning for a certain reward to hold out for a certain period. If he withdraws from his contract, he would not get his pay and the experiments would be discontinued.
Q: Is it injurious, Doctor, to drink sea-water as your only source of water supply?
A: That depends on the amount of water and the period of time during which the water is to be drunk.
Q: What quantities of sea-water can a normal person tolerate without injury and for how long?
A: I would say 400 to 500 cc per day in individual doses during five to six days.
Q: Well now, after how many days under these conditions does the impairment of health take place?
A: In the dose of 400 to 500 cc?
Q: Yes, Doctor.
A: I would think from the sixth day on perhaps.
Q: Well would that occur if they continued to drink the seawater; normally when would death occur; after how many days?
A: That is extremely difficult to say.
Q: Can you tell us the reason why sea-water is injurious to health and can cause death?
A: Yes, the organism has to eliminate the salt which has been taken with the sea-water, but since the kidneys are unable to raise such a high concentration in the urine as sea-water, in the long run the body must use up its own supply of sea-water in order to eliminate this salt and consequently dehydration occurs. This loss of water of course influences unfavorably the biological process in the tissues.
Q: Then can it be said that the only reason why sea-water is injurious is the fact it is a hypertonic salt solution?
A: Yes, one can say that.
Q: Well, was this fact well recognized by medical scientists before 1944?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, doctor, you say that if a person was to drink four to five hundred CC of sea water that an impairment of health may normally occur after five or six days, can you tell us when an impairment of health would occur to a person drinking one thousand cubic centimeters of sea water daily?
A: I would say that disturbances might occur in such cases as early as the third or fourth day.
Q: Well under those circumstances could you determine or is it possible to state when death would occur?
A: That is extremely difficult to say. I would not venture to say it. The capacity of the kidney varies greatly from one individual to another.
Q: Doctor, what symptoms develop while a person is being subjected to sea water exclusively, say after the first or second day, what symptoms develop that are unusual?
A: You mean in the case of distress at sea when one can drink unlimited quantities of sea water or definite doses?
Q: Well, are you familiar with practical cases at sea?
A: I know them only from literature. I have never experienced any such case myself.
Q: Well now what symptoms would develop in a practical case of a human being at sea where he has access to unlimited quantities of sea water?
A: If he has unlimited quantities available there would be severe diarrhea.
Q: When would that take place? Would it depend upon the amount of sea water he had drunk or is it ordinarily a second or third day occurrence?
A: That would depend on the size of the individual dose, from 300 cubic centimeters on.
Q: What other symptoms would appear?
A: Great thirst, then the symptoms of dehydration, dryness in the mouth and mucous membranes, dryness of the skin, reflex increases, the muscles become harder.
Q: May a person develop hallucinations as a result of drinking sea water?
A: Yes, I should think so, because of the need for water there would be hallucinations.
Q: Well now would an experiment conducted by a scientist in his laboratory on human beings wherein he applied four or five hundred cubic centimeters of sea water to the subject daily, would those same symptoms appear that would be found in practical sea water cases at sea?
A: No.
DR. MARX (Defense Counsel for Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, I should like to take the liberty of inquiring whether the Prosecutor is cross examining the defendant Schaefer or whether he is consulting him as an expert.
If the latter is the case I should have to object. I cannot assume that Dr. Schaefer is in any position to give an opinion here as to the harm which can be caused by sea water in this case or that, because from the point of view of the defense I cannot ascribe to Dr. Schaefer the medical experience necessary in order to give an opinion here. Moreover, it is not compatible with the role of the defendant in the witness box to appear at the same time as an expert. Moreover, the defense could argue that he lacks not only the qualifications but the justification for doing so. I should, therefore, like to suggest that the Prosecution limit itself to cross examination and not ask questions of this defendant which should be put to an expert.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross examination by the Prosecution may proceed to the extent of determining the reasons of the defendant Schaefer for establishing his opinion as to berkatit on the one hand and wofatit on the other. The cross examination should not proceed to the extent of examining the witness as an expert upon more general matters. The cross examination may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Well now, doctor, what symptoms would develop in an experiment after a person had drank 500 CC of sea water per day?
A: If it was given in individual doses of less than 300 cubic centimeters in the course of time the same symptoms develop as in ordinary thirst.
Q: Well would the same symptoms be apparent, that is diarrhea, hallucinations and those symptoms that you outlined that would be apparent in the case of a person actually at sea?
A: No, diarrhea would certainly not occur, but on the contrary constipation.
Q: Well if you used 1000 CC would diarrhea appear?
A: No, as long as the individual doses were under 300 CC.
Q: I see, doctor, was there ever a method invented or developed in the history of Germany to render sea water potable prior to the time you developed wofatit?
A: At least I knew of no method.
Q: Then you were the first one in Germany to develop a method which rendered sea water potable, an effective method?
A: Yes, one could say so.
Q: Then you are perhaps the only expert in Germany on the potability of sea water, doctor, you and Dr. Ivy held that distinction in common?
A: As far as removing salt from sea water is concerned that seems to be so.
Q: Well now in November 1943 when you reported to the medical inspectorate that you had a method to render sea water potable, I understood you to say that you actually had an experiment at the medical inspectorate and at such time Professor Hippke and others present drank the sea water rendered potable by the Schaefer method, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Can you tell us or can you recall who else drank your sea water?
A: I assume Professor Anthony, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, I can't give the names of the other men, I didn't know them at the time.
Q: Now, when you conducted this so-called experiment at the medical inspectorate did you have raw sea water and then apply the wofatit to it in their presence so that they could determine you were actually using sea water?
A: Yes.
Q: And after applying your method the water was drinkable, is that correct?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: The gentlemen at the meeting were fully aware of the fact that water treated by your method was no different than natural water, natural drinking water?
A: That is right.
Q: Then actually that was not an experiment, it was merely a demonstration on your part?
A: Yes, it was a demonstration.
Q: When did Professor Schroeder first hear of your sea water, pardon me, of your method to render sea water potable, that is wofatit?
A: I cannot say when he first heard of it. I can only say that I demonstrated it to him in 1944, perhaps in April.
Q: And Professor Schroeder was also aware of the fact that you had developed this method, and he in fact had drank some of this water?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: When did you first hear that Berka had developed a method?
A: That was in January or February 1944.
Q: And then you received an order to check and review the work by Dr. von Sirany, is that right?
A: Yes, that's right. I went to Vienna and looked at the experiments myself.
Q: Who ordered you to Vienna?
A: Professor Anthony.
Q: Was he the only one you dealt with in that matter?
A: Yes, at that time, yes.
Q: And you came to the conclusion after examining Dr. von Sirany's work with the Berka method, that this method was not of any value and would not in fact render sea water potable?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: Well, were you of the opinion that Dr. von Sirany's experiments had not gone far enough?
A: No, that was not my opinion. I was of the opinion that conditions are different in the case of distress at sea but that the experiments were completely adequate to determine whether Berkatit was of any value or not.
Q: When did you decide, doctor, that that was your opinion?
A: That was always my opinion. In my report to the Medical Inspectorate at the time it says that there are the following decisive facts to aid in forming an opinion on the Berka method.
Q: Were you of the opinion that persons subjected to sea water treated with the Berka method would develop the same symptoms as people subjected to common ordinary sea water after a period of a few days?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: Well did the Berkatit help at all? That is, you stated that Berkatit was nothing but hard candy as a fact. Would the application of Berkatit to sea water have aided a person distressed at sea to any extent? Or, to the contrary, would it have worked an additional hardship?
A: Berkatit would not change the sea water in any way but it improved the taste and this brought about a psychological danger for the persons in distress at sea.
Q: Well, would the food value in Berkatit have aided the distressed person?
A: The food content of Berkatit is very great but the amount of Berkatit which was to be put into the sea water was so small that in practice one can really not speak of any food value.
Q: Then when you reported to Professor Schroeder you completely outlined all these disadvantages of the Berka method?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it obvious from your report that a person subjected to sea water treated by the Berka method would develop the same symptoms after a period of a few days that a person would develop had they drank common ordinary sea water?
A: I expressed that clearly.
Q: What did Professor Schroeder say? Did you talk to him about it?
A: I had the impression that he realized that.
Q: When you stepped over von Sirany's work were you able to test a sample of the Berkatit?
A: I obtained the Berkatit only later.
Q: Did you ever test it chemically yourself?
A: I did not analyze Berkatit itself. That would have been extremely difficult. That would have kept a whole institute busy. There were various compounds in there, sugar and fruit acids, etc., but the effect of Berkatit on salt contained in sea water I tested.
Q: Well, how long would it have taken to prove that Berka water was chemically nothing but sea water? Would it take ten years, two days?
A: Half an hour.
Q: Half an hour? Then the point could have been proven chemically within half an hour that Berka water was nothing more than sea water camouflaged as to taste?
A: It could only be proved that the Berkatit did not form any chemical compound with the salt.
Q: Well, did you suggest such a simple chemical test or a chemical test as a substitute for the experiments on the prisoners?
A: I said that the chemical analysis proves that Berkatit does not form a chemical compound with the salt.
Q: Well, now would such a test not have had the advantage of saving time and also could you not have made such a suggestion tactfully without running the risks which you have said acted as deterrents against open criticism on your part?
A: I even said that that happened but that proved nothing. There were biological objections that said that Berkatit would increase the activity of the kidney and that was the point that also brought into the foreground this advocation of Berkatit, and that could not be proved.
Q: What was that again, doctor. I missed that last answer. Would you repeat that again?
A: The advocates of Berkatit, especially Professor Eppinger, said that Berkatit improved the capacity of the kidneys. That was something that could not be proved chemically.
Q: Well, how could you prove Dr. Eppinger's point? Merely by experimenting on human beings?
A: In my opinion that was a hypothesis which was not justified. The success could be only so slight that in practice it would be without significance.
Q: Well, after he had performed experiments on human beings how could he determine whether or not the Berka water would improve the kidney condition or would aid the kidney condition?
A: By the concentration of the urine.
Q: Well, would you have to make tests for a rather extensive and long period of time to determine that? Could that be done in 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 days or would that have to extend over a period of 12 days if the object of the experiment was to determine whether or not Berka water would act as an aid to the kidney condition?
A: One could determine that within six days.
Q: Actually, however in the Berka water the salt was never removed, was it?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Well how did you find out that the Berka method wasn't effective?
A: Took the tests which Mr. Von Sirany had already carried out.
Q: Well, did you make any tests yourself?
A: No, but the records of Mr. von Sirany's experiments were turned over to me.
Q: Well, could the point have been proven chemically by a simple device of psychological chemistry or physiological chemistry such as, for instance, that Berka water would still extract water from a cell like any other hypertonic salt solution?
A: Yes, that could have been determined.
Q: How long would that have taken?
A: Perhaps half day.
Q: Did you suggest such a simple chemical test as that?
A: That would not show the capacity of the kidneys. That would have nothing to do with that. Through a physiological chemistry test one cannot demonstrate the work of the kidneys. The way the kidneys work has not been clarified even today.
Q: Well, as a result of the Berka method coming into the picture it became necessary to hold a meeting to determine which method would be adopted. Is that correct?
A: I didn't understand your question.
Q: Well, the purpose of this meeting on the 19th of May and the other meeting on the 20th of May was to have a discussion to determine which method was to be used? That is, the Berka method or the Schaefer method? Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: From that point on, it was a contest between Berka and Schaefer? Is that correct?
A: No, that's not right. I expressed my opinion and the other people had to decide.
Q: Well, your method had proven itself to be effective, had it not?
A: Yes.
Q: Berka's method was still to be proven?
A: It had been proven by experiments by Mr. von Sirany.
Q: In your opinion?
A: Yes.
Q: Not in the opinion of the other members of this conference?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: Well, what was the cause for the refusal of these men in the Luftwaffe — men like Schroeder, Christensen and these various men at this meeting — to refuse to adopt your method that had already been proven which did not necessitate further experimentation or further argument?
A: I cannot give you any answer. I don't know.
Q: Was it because they deemed the production of your method to be too expensive?
A: The Technical Office — Christensen — said there was no silver available.
Q: Of course, if the Berka method had been effective — that is, Berkatit had been effective — it would have been far more reasonable to produce than Wofatit, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: At this meeting on the 19th of May, just what did you say concerning the Berka method?
A: I said that the Berka method merely improved the taste; that it did not change the sea water, in any way; that Sirany's experiments had showed that, in spite of Berka, the salt is absorbed and has to be eliminated through the kidneys; that Sirany's experiments had shown that the patients lose water. I also said that one can still find salt — that is, sodium chloride — in the sea water, and I said that even if there were a compound formed between Berkatit and the salt in the sea water, this compound would probably not be absorbed and if it were absorbed the organic part would be turned and the salt would remain in the kidneys. Sirany's experiments proved this.
Q: Well, now, you have described to us your objection at that meeting. Did that objection bring home to these laymen that the Berka method was nothing more than sea water with a camouflaged taste, and that a person subjected to sea water treated by the Berka method would suffer injuries to health and, after a sufficient length of time, die?
Did you bring that homo to the members of that meeting?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Well then, the note by Christensen on page 12 of Document Book #5, Document NO. 177, Prosecution Exhibit 133, wherein he states on page 12, the second sentence after the list of names of those present at the 19 May meeting:
Thu Chief of the medical Service (Chef des Sanitaetwesens) is convinced that if the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health and, according to the opinion of Unterarzt [Sergeant] Dr. Schaefer, will finally result in death after not later than twelve days.
Then, it is apparent, that Dr. Christensen was fully aware of the dangers of Berkatit as described by you. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you emphatically state, that damage would result in permanent injuries to health and finally result in death after not later than twelve days?
A: Permanent injury to health — I did not say that. There was no proof of that. I only said that after twelve days one would have to expect death.
Q: Well, as a result of this expression of your opinion, do I understand that you were threatened?
A: On the 20th — at the end of the 20th of May, Schickler took me to one side and said "If you go on like this, you will have to answer to Milch for sabotage." And I assume, and it is probably true, that he made this statement because I said that the experiments which were to be performed were unnecessary.
Q: Did you immediately tell Schroeder about that?
A: I told Dr. Becker-Freyseng about this threat on sabotage.
Q: When?
A: Immediately after the meeting.
Q: Did Becker-Freyseng go to Schroeder about it?
A: I don't know. But, according to what I know now, it was impossible because Dr. Schroeder was not in Berlin at the time.
Q: Did you consider it your duty to attempt to stop the experiments at Dachau? You were an expert on sea water. That is, the potability thereof.
A: I considered it my duty to express my opinion that the experiments were unnecessary and I did so.
Q: Did you ask Schroeder for his support?
A: Professor Schroeder was not in Berlin at the time.
Q: Well, is it possible, Doctor, that you were anxious to have the experiments conducted with the Berkatit so that a comparison could be drawn and, as a result of the experiments, your method would be the outstanding one and it would be necessary to produce your Wofatit in preference to the ineffective Berkatit? Is that the reason why you took this passive resistance to the experiments?
A: I didn't show passive resistance to the experiments. I had no interest in bringing this about. I didn't want Wofatit to be introduced because of ambition. I had a method which was bettor. If Wofatit were introduced it would benefit only I.G.
Q: This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 4 June 1947.)