1947-06-04, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 4 June 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: As Counsel for Dr. Hoven, Mr. President, I ask that Dr. Hoven be excused from attending tomorrow's session for the purpose of preparing his case.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of counsel for Defendant Hoven, Defendant Hoven may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow morning in order to consult with his counsel for the preparation of his case which will be heard very soon.
DR. GAWLIK: I have one further request, Mr. President. For several days I am having a witness here by the name of Dr. Horn who must leave by the end of this week. Perhaps it might be possible for me to put the witness Horn on the stand Friday morning. I already talked it over with the counsel for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes — how long?
MR. HARDY: Dr. Steinbauer anticipates his direct examination of the Defendant Beiglboeck. It might be feasible to call the witness Horn after the case of Beiglboeck who will not take more than a day. If not, I am agreeable to having Horn called upon the completion of the Schaefer case if the Tribunal feels it will not interrupt the sequence of the sea water evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will probably be better to call the witness after the conclusion of the Schaefer case.
MR. HARDY: It is agreeable with me, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask counsel for defendant Beiglboeck how long he anticipates.
DR. STEINBAUER: I agree that this witness is heard after the completion of the Schaefer case.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask counsel for Defendant Beiglboeck that.
MR. HARDY: Counsel for Dr. Hoven is Dr. Gawlik. Now counsel for Dr. Beiglboeck is Dr. Steinbauer. I request that Dr. Steinbauer should call this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: It is desired to ask Dr. Steinbauer a question. How long do you anticipate it will take to present the evidence for Defendant Beiglboeck?
DR. STEINBAUER: I believe a day and a half or two days.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear the witness Horn at the close of the Schaefer case.
DR. GAWLIK: Correction, Mr. President. The witness's name is Dorn, nor Horn. However, I should like to know when the Schaefer case will be concluded. I cannot contact the witness today. It will have to be tomorrow morning at the hearing.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Tomorrow morning will be satisfactory.
MR. HARDY: We have a request of Defense Counsel for the file in my office with notice of the background of the witness Dorn — that is, his nationality, date of birth and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Hoven will find the usual statements concerning the witness as soon as possible.
DR. KONRAD SCHAEFER — RESUMED
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: The conference 19 May 1944 — did the members thereof discuss at that time what plan would outline the actual experiments which would be later performed at Dachau?
A: One suggestion or another was made but plans in detail were not drawn up.
Q: Was it obvious from that meeting on the 19th May that experiments were inevitable?
A: I don't know how you intend that question.
Q: What I am driving at, Doctor, is simply this. On the 19th of May, Christensen, Schickler, Berka, Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng, Mr. Pahl and Major Jeworek met together to discuss further research as to the potability of sea water. Can you kindly tell me whether or not on the 19th of May — not the 20th or the 25th, but the 19th — a discussion took place concerning experiments to be conducted; or was that a meeting limited merely to the discussion concerning the attributes and qualifications of the Berka method as opposed to the Schaefer method?
A: The conference on the 19th was limited to comparing these two methods to one another. However, the proposal was also made that this difficulty be attacked experimentally.
Q: Did you raise any objections to a proposed experimental plan on the 19th of May?
A: Yes. I said that I— I said I couldn't see why experiments should be carried out about that.
Q: Why did you object, more specifically?
A: Because I didn't see the reason for that.
Q: You thought that they were absolutely unnecessary?
A: That is right.
Q: Did you consider that these experiments would have been criminal?
A: No, one could not have been of that opinion.
Q: Then the entire basis for your objection was merely because the experiments were scientifically unnecessary?
A: The reason for my objection on the 19th was that the experiments were scientifically unnecessary, because the further details about how long and on whom and where the experiments were to be performed, and so forth, were not mentioned.
Q: Then you after the strenuous objections attended the meeting on 20 May?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was ordered to, and because the representatives of the Navy were to appear on the 20th and because it could be assumed that the discussion would be carried on. For this reason I was ordered to attend as an expert.
Q: Did you have any misgivings about attending the second meeting on 20 May inasmuch as you had strenuously objected to the developments of the 19th meeting?
A: Why should I have had misgivings in attending the conference.
I couldn't argue about it. I was simply ordered to attend. I wasn't a private citizen who could do or refrain from doing what he wanted to do. If I had been a private citizen, I would have said, "I have enough of this matter."
Q: If you had been a private citizen, you would have said you had enough of this matter and would not have attended, is that right?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: Did you tell that to Schroeder on the evening of the 19th?
A: On the evening of the 19th I didn't see Schroeder at all.
Q: Did you see Becker-Freyseng and ask that you be relieved from further attendance at these conferences?
A: There was no reason to do so. You simply can't refuse to obey a military order. That is a perfectly absurd idea. That isn't done in the army.
Q: If you thought a military order criminal in nature, would you carry it out or would you refuse to carry it out, hypothetically?
A: I should have tried to find some way of avoiding carrying out the order.
Q: And just what did you do on the evening of the 19th of May? Did you make any further attempt to further explain to Becker-Freyseng or Schroeder or any other member of the office or Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe that these experiments were absolutely unnecessary and that if the subjects used were to subjected to sea water rendered potable or allegedly rendered potable by use of the Berkatit method a danger would exist?
A: On the 19th of May there was no talk at all of any criminal experiments. And an unnecessary experiment is not a criminal one.
Q: Well, now, on the 20th of May, Doctor, we hear for the first time that an actual experimental plan was discussed. On page 15, Document No. 177, which is Prosecution Exhibit 133, Document Book 5, we note at the top of the page that a commission was to be set up for the arrangement of these series of experiments and then it states:
The series of experiments shall include the following:
1) a. Persons to be given sea water processed with the Berka method;
b. persons to be given ordinary drinking water;
c. persons without any drinking water at all;
d. persons given to drink according to the present method.
When did it arise or when was it decided that a further group would be given the Schaefer sea water?
A: Neither on the 19th nor the 20th. When that was decided I cannot tell you at all because as far as I know it wasn't decided on the 25th either. I assume that this additional group was included at the very end.
Q: Who included it?
A: That I can't tell you.
Q: Did they ask your permission?
A: No.
Q: What would be the purpose in experimenting with the Schaefer drug or Schaefer method as opposed to the Berka method if these experiments as you state were merely to determine what effect the Berka method would have on the kidneys?
A: I can't tell you that either. That would have been a perfectly senseless order. At least, I do not know I am responsible for that.
Q: And you feel that the commission that made the arrangements for these series of experiments were not properly informed or were they so blind that they would not see?
A: The commission, no, the commission probably had some ideas about this, but I don't know whether the commission was the agency that ordered it. Possibly it was thought that instead of using the normal control group, and I think Becker-Freyseng stated that here. In other words, instead of having a group drinking fresh water a group would drink water treated with Wofatit.
Q: Well, now, in an experimental series, Dr. Schaefer, is it necessary to employ a control group to discover whether or not Berkatit would have effect on the kidneys? Could not you do that simply by having five experimental subjects and subject them to sea water made potable or sea water treated with the Berka method without having 44 subjects employing control groups giving some of them 500 cc, others a thousand cc, or having a starvation group, etc?
A: Well, food plays a role, too. You had to have a comparative group, a group which for the sake of comparison received normal water and food like people in sea distress. Moreover, Becker-Freyseng has started here in detail that when drawing up the plan for these experiments they considered what procedure should be introduced and they had to find out whether people should be left thirsty or whether they should be given large or small quantities of sea water.
Q: Then the express purposes of the experiments were not as Professor Eppinger had intended; Becker-Freyseng had some ideas about the matter, is that it?
A: Yes, and they were extended by Professor Eppinger.
Q: With your knowledge as to the efficiency of the Berka method, having reviewed Sirany's work and later having heard Beiglboeck's report concerning the experiments at Dachau, do you think that you could have possibly conducted experiments to determine the effectiveness of the Berka method on the kidney without using such a substantial number of experimental subjects as used at Dachau; for example, could it have been done with five or six experimental subjects as the purpose of the experiment was outlined by Professor Eppinger?
A: Well, that's very hard to answer, hard for me as a laboratory researcher. The characteristics of individuals are so different in all biological experiments that it would probably be well to use such a large group.
Q: However, you could have determined the effect of Berkatit on the kidney and have answered Professor Eppinger's question without such an exhaustive experimental plan and program, could you not?
A: The simple question whether Berkatit increased the concentration capacity of the kidneys or not would of course have been answered with only a part of the total experiment.
Q: Well, what do you propose to tell us what the reason for the extensive program was? Did Becker-Freyseng have another idea? What was his purpose?
DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to object. Mr. Hardy is asking questions regarding thoughts which Becker-Freyseng perhaps entertained or could have entertained regarding the reasons for the experiments that were undertaken. I believe that this is a hypothetical question because the defendant Dr. Schaefer cannot state what thoughts Becker-Freyseng has. He has repeatedly said that he repudiated the experiments and that he had to do only with Wofatit. I do not believe that the witness can answer any other hypothetical questions but those relating to that.
MR. HARDY: I am unaware that I asked him for his opinion, I asked the witness just what thoughts Becker-Freyseng expressed when they planned these experiments.
DR. PELCKMANN: Then in that case I did not understand the translation, it is perfectly alright for Mr. Hardy to ask the witness what thoughts were expressed.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel on cross-examination may ask the witness what was said at these meetings by the different members and present if he remembers what was said and if he has the information, but he should not be asked for their thoughts, ideas or purposes insofar as they were not expressed in words.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: These experiments, Dr. Schaefer, as I understand them — and I might admit that at this point I am slightly confused — were conducted for two purposes, one was to satisfy the curiosity of Professor Eppinger; what was the other purpose for?
A: To satisfy Professor Eppinger's curiosity; I don't believe that was the purpose of the experiments.
Q: Well, one was to test the efficacy of Berkatit on the kidney and that was Professor Eppinger's question; was there another purpose?
A: I assume that. As Becker-Freyseng stated it here.
There was also the purpose of deciding whether it is better to thirst altogether or to consume small quantities of sea water, but who first had this idea or drew up that plan I cannot recall that. His opinion was that also small quantities of that sea-water should to drunk.
Q: Well, in view of your constant protests to Becker-Freyseng, didn't he also strenuously object to any experiments?
A: No, he did not.
Q: Was he also a doubting Thomas, so to speak?
A: He was convinced that Wofatit was good, but Christensen said there is no silver and everybody including me thought that Wofatit is out of the question because there was no available silver. Now, I assume that then the question was, should the Berka method be used or not, should a little bit of sea-water be drunk or should the person thirst — by the way in quite a different position than I was in. I do not know it, I do not know his motives.
Q: Thank you, Doctor. Was it discussed at this meeting on the 13th or at the meeting on the 20th of May as to the duration of the experiments?
A: Regarding the duration of the experiments only this was said, a drug or preparation is needed which will permit people to survive for twelve days at sea and the experiments are to be continued until some physical disturbances occur in the experimental subjects and if no disturbances occur, then the experiments are to be discontinued after the twelfth day. That was roughly the general impression one gathered from that discussion.
Q: Did it annoy you that the meeting went this far after your objections had been raised?
A: Yes, that did annoy me.
Q: Well, when they discussed the duration of the experiments did they at that time discuss the subjects to be used?
A: The discussion of the experimental subjects was taken up later. It was generally ascertained that there were no experimental subjects available and so far as I can recall, Dr. Schickler spoke to Becker-Freyseng, and they were speaking at this time of another possibility, and then the proposal was made to use prisoners.
Q: Was the proposal not to use prisoners brought up because of the fact that you emphasized that any experiments lasting twelve days wherein Berkatit was used that death may finally result?
A: No, I consider that quite out of the question. It was not said that the experiments had to last twelve days, but that they should last that long if there were no disturbances that occurred.
Q: This passage on page 13 of document book No. 5, the same document, No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit No. 133, under 2 states ;
Duration of experiments: 12 days.
Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service (Chef des Sanitaetswesens) permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experimental subjects had to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as well be put at the disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.
Doesn't that passage, written by Christensen, convey the thought that the necessity of resorting to the Reichsfuehrer SS to obtain subjects was simply because the death of the experimental subjects had to be expected?
A: No, no one ever said anything like this nor do I recall anything of that sort.
Q: Does that passage convey that thought even of itself?
A: Yes, if you would read this passage you could get that thought. That is however simply a compilation on the part of the person who wrote this statement.
Q: Was this the first time that you have heard that experimental subjects were available in concentration camps, inasmuch as you were unable to ascertain from Helzloehner's report of the Nurnberg conference in October of 1942 that concentration camp inmates were used; was this the first time that information was brought home to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did this horrify you, Doctor?
A: I must say that I found that a very unpleasant thought, because I dislike experiments on prisoners.
Q: Had you ever been horrified at any other methods used in certain research circles?
A: Are you thinking of other literature?
Q: No, I am thinking of a passage in your document book No. 1, in Schaefer document book No. 1, Document No. 3, which is Schaefer Exhibit No. 3, on page 5, which is the last page of an affidavit by Dr. Helmuth Reichel, and he states therein in the last paragraph as follows:
I was separated from Dr. Schaefer by the war. Not until the war was over did I meet him again in Bad Pyrmont, where, as he had done before the war, he expressed to me his horror at the methods of certain research officials.
Now, Dr. Schaefer, what methods do you have in mind and what were the horrors which were so repulsive to you, that are outlined here?
A: I was thinking of the Berka method.
Q: Then you considered it rather horrifying, horrifying to use the Berka method on human beings in concentration camps, is that right?
A: I meant to say it was horrifying that such dilettantism reached such proportions as to set three governmental offices in motion and to experiment in this direction beyond the limits of all reason.
Q: Well, now when the subject of volunteers was brought up at this meeting, did you take a mental note of that?
A: From the words that were used, one could see that the subjects were only to be volunteers, and I think Becker-Freyseng said enough persons would volunteer in view of the increased rations they would get.
Q: You actually heard Becker-Freyseng say that they would only use concentration camp inmates if certain inmates would volunteer or did he merely state — pardon me doctor, go ahead.
A: I was about to answer your question.
Q: Answer it please.
A: You asked whether he said that only subjects were to be used if they were volunteers. Now perhaps you couldn't assume that from what he said but you could assume he was thinking exclusively of volunteers. I can only repeat the words as I now remember them.
Q: Well now these experiments with Berkatit were to be performed on volunteers at your disposal or at this committee's disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS, the experiments were to be supervised by Professor Beiglboeck in a manner prescribed by this committee so that no conditions would exist which might impair the health of any of the experimental subjects, yet you were horrified, — why?
A: There are so many thoughts embodied in that question of yours that I am not sure I can remember them all. In my answer I will have to take them up one by one.
Q: Kindly do that.
Q: You said first that they "were to be made available either to you or to the committee". None were made available to me, I needed none and wanted none, nor did I want to carry out any experiments for I did not see any necessity for them and I had my own field of work. In addition I wouldn't do anything after others drew up the plans for the experiments. Moreover, I have already made clear that the repugnance that is expressed in this affidavit which you just quoted refers to the quackery on the part of Berka and Sirany, who, not only in this field, but also in other fields, were sold on throwing their weight around. To me personally experiments on prisoners did not appeal.
Q: Do you feel in your opinion that a person incarcerated in a concentration camp or a prison is not in a position to volunteer for medical experiments?
A: It looks as if he could but his motive for so doing cannot be checked on and psychologically easily influenced persons might under certain circumstances apply to be subjected to such experiments when under other circumstances they would not. This is in a certain sense an exploitation of the situation in which these people find themselves, and the matter is still being debated.
Q: Now at these various conferences where it was decided to experiment at Dachau were you offered the opportunity to supervise the experiments?
A: This was not offered to me. Moreover, my attitude before then had been much too clearly expressed for any one to think of offering me that opportunity. Mr. Berka was a member of the committee and he was also in Dachau and watched the experiments.
Q: Was Mr. Berka offered the opportunity to conduct the experiments?
A: Whether he was offered that opportunity or whether he made active efforts to do this I don't know, but in my opinion he went there more or less on his own initiative.
Q: Then I submit to you, doctor, the reason for offering the opportunity to conduct the experiments to the defendant Beiglboeck was simply to avoid having a prejudiced report made out by the two men who had produced or developed the Schaefer and the Berka methods, is that a correct assumption on my part?
A: No, I do not believe that is a correct assumption because the director of the experiments was Professor Eppinger and he was a man whom Berka had proposed and an informed person. Berka, moreover, was in the commission; he was also at Dachau, so I cannot see where any sort of neutrality would still have been preserved here.
Q: After these meetings in May of 1944, did you hear any more about the experiments, that is, did you hear any more prior to the September meetings?
A: No, I heard nothing before the meeting.
Q: Well now in this meeting which you have outlined which was in this affidavit which took place in October, 1944.
A: Yes.
Q: Wherein Beiglboeck reported on the experiments, was that the first time that you heard anything about the manner in which the experiments were conducted?
A: I have seen a report but I cannot say today for sure whether this report reached me before or after.
Q: You mean before or after the actual meeting in the zoological gardens?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: Did Beiglboeck report at that meeting about the experiments he performed on himself?
A: Do you mean whether he reported on it officially? I don't know, but later he told about them.
Q: Did he tell you about them?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he tell you?
A: He said that by and large he had tremendous thirst but that he continued his regular work and I can't remember anything particularly remarkable in what he told me otherwise about this experiment on himself.
Q: Well did he go through the regular routine in his own experiments, in his self experiment of relying on sea water only throughout the entire experimental period or did he merely fool the experimental subjects by drinking sea water in front of them?
A: I didn't understand the question.
Q: Well as I understand it, the purpose of his experiment was to convince himself and to convince the experimental subjects that the experiments would not be dangerous, is that right?
A: That I cannot tell you. I can only state the fact that he told us that he had carried out an experiment on himself. Perhaps he wanted to reassure them and as I say, I don't know.
Q: How long did he carry out this self experiment, how many days?
A: That I can't tell you. I don't know.
Q: Well now in his report at the October meeting, didn't he outlines the experiments that he conducted on himself?
A: I don't know. I can't tell you.
Q: He didn't tell you how long he had experimented on the experimental subjects?
A: Yes, he gave us the times for the individual group.
Q: Well, did he say that in his experiments with the concentration camp inmates he went as high as 12 days and that some of the experimental subjects were experimented on twice with only a few days of rest in between the experiments?
A: He did not say that he went as far as 12 days. That can only have been true of those treated with Wofatit and I believe that was only 10 days.
Q: Did he tell you what symptoms developed during the course of the experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the symptoms develop as outlined in your affidavit on page 7 of Document Book 5 wherein you state:
Dr. Beiglboeck also reported that the experiments had resulted in swelling of the liver and nervous symptoms. Delirium and mental disturbances also appeared.
Did he outline that or do you wish to correct that?
A: I don't want to correct it, I want to elucidate it. Swelling of the liver —
Q: You want to add to it?
A: I would have to delete delirium. That was my mistake. When I said that I heard the nervous symptoms were increased — reflexes and sensitiveness of the muscles. And the mental disturbances were apathy and somnolence.
Q: Well, do you report that some of these subjects developed hallucinations?
A: That I do not know. I don't remember.
Q: Didn't you emphatically tell Mr. McHaney in the course of one of your interrogations that Beiglboeck outlined the symptoms prevalent in these experiments?
A: I never spoke to Mr. McHaney.
Q: Didn't Mr. McHaney sit in on an interrogation wherein you were interrogated last fall.
A: Can't remember that he did.
Q: I will have to produce the interrogation, doctor. When you were interrogated last fall didn't you explain rather emphatically that the symptoms outlined by Beiglboeck indicated that these experimental subjects endured considerable suffering during the course of the experiments?
A: The thirst experiments certainly weren't pleasant.
Q: That is all you have to say about it?
A: Yes.
Q: Come now, doctor, you have been answering my questions quite well to this point. Now, you attended this meeting. Beiglboeck gave a report. He must have said more than that. Didn't he give you an outline of all the observations he made, didn't he tell you what symptoms appeared, didn't he tell you whether or not some of the experimental subjects attempted to drink water off the floor? Wasn't he more elaborate than I have gathered from your testimony?
A: He didn't say that anybody drank water off the floor, no. Above that I couldn't make out a question from your last summary.
Q: Now I want to know, wasn't he more elaborate than you have testified to thus far? Can't you tell us?
A: Yes, yes, of course. That was a long time ago. It is extremely difficult to remember all these things and the consequences of one little word that might be wrong I have seen here.
Q: Well, did he tell you, for instance, that it was necessary in the course of the experiments to tie one of the experimental subjects in bed because the experimental subject had succeeded in getting some water to drink? Didn't he tell you that?
A: He didn't say that anybody was tied to bed, no.
Q: Well, you recall in Document Book 5, the affidavit of Bauer which is on page 25. I anticipate an objection, Your Honor. This document was admitted provisionally.
DR. STEINBAUER (for Beiglboeck): I object to this question because this document was admitted only under the condition that a sworn certificate be submitted later. The Prosecution can, therefore, not use this document and I object to this question.
MR. HARDY: The document has been submitted provisionally, your Honor. The Prosecution was to obtain a jurat to the document. That has been obtained. The document is in due form and will be offered formally when the Tribunal sets aside a date for Prosecution to do so. I have the jurat, it states:
Before me, Lionel Shaffrown, special agent, CIC, appeared Ignaz Bauer, to me known and in my presence signed the foregoing statement written in the German language.
Signed by Lionel Shaffrown, CIC. So that hurdle has been overcome and I should like to continue my cross examination.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you for the explanation.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now in this Document on page 26 of the Document Book, 4th paragraph, this witness states:
The thirst was so terrible that some patients did not hesitate to drink dirty water used for washing the floor. I saw one of these poor devils—
Do you have the page, page 26 of Document Book 5, Document NO-910, Prosecution Exhibit 140, the second page of the affidavit, the paragraph in the middle of the page commencing with the words:
The thirst was so terrible that some patients did not hesitate—
It may well be —
— you have it?
The thirst was so terrible that some patients did not hesitate to drink dirty water used for washing the floor. I saw one of these poor devils falling on his knees, begging in vain for water. Doctor Beigelboeck was pitiless. One youth, who succeeded in getting some water to drink, was bound to his bed for punishment.
Now, did Beiglboeck report about any of those conditions that he encountered during the course of his experiments?
A: No.
Q: Well, didn't you ask the all important question of the experimenter Beiglboeck — how well the experimental subjects cooperated and whether or not using concentration camp inmates would be advisable in the future? Weren't these questions important to a scientist and a man who was horrified at using concentration camp inmates?
A: I don't understand the last part of your sentence.
Q: I say, weren't you interested in knowing how well these experimental subjects cooperated?
A: Yes, the Beiglboeck said that many of them drank water.
Q: Did he tell you whether or not deaths occurred?
A: He said that there was no death and that all patients recovered extraordinarily.
Q: Did he tell you what he did with the subjects after he had completed the experiments?
A: He said that he gave them a follow-up examination and at the end the patients got very good food, and that they were given specially good care for a certain time afterwards.
Q: Well, do you recall in the affidavit by Pillwein where Pillwein stated that the patients were put back into the regular infirmary in a very weakened and damaged condition where they died after a short time?
DR. PELCKMANN: May I make an objection, Mr. President. Mr. Hardy is here asking the witness whether he remembers the affidavit of Mr. Pillwein. I believe this question is irrelevant. The issue is not to test the memory of the witness — whether he is able to remember an affidavit which was submitted four weeks ago or eight weeks ago. Only that can be shown by these questions. The witness can say he can remember it or cannot remember it but that is completely irrelevant in the cross examination of this witness. I see therein only a means of bringing up for discussion prosecution documents which have already been submitted and I think that should be avoided.
MR. HARDY: I think the objection is very well taken, your Honor.
I will rephrase my question.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Did Beiglboeck report at the meeting in October that patients were put back in the regular infirmary in a very weakened and damaged condition where they died after a short time as set forth in Pillwein's affidavit?
A: No, Professor Beiglboeck did not report that, and I do not believe that that is in the affidavit of Mr. Pillwein.
Q: You will find it in the affidavit of Mr. Pillwein, which is Prosecution Exhibit — 139, Document No. 912, in Document Book #5, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel should exhibit these affidavits to the witness if he desires to question him.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions on the affidavit.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Did Dr. Beiglboeck tell you what nationality the subjects were that he used?
A: No.
Q: Did he tell you whether or not they were volunteers?
A: I remember that he said that they were volunteers in the experiment.
Q: Did he tell you that Gypsies had been set aside by the Reichsfuehrer SS for use in the experiments?
A: I heard that Gypsies were used, but I do not remember from whom I heard that.
Q: Do you have Document Book #5, Doctor?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Will you turn to Document No. 179, which is Prosecution Exhibit 135? It is on page 20 of the English. The letter from Grawitz, Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS, to Heinrich Himmler, concerning the experimental subjects to be set aside for these sea water experiments at Dachau. Would you kindly turn to the paragraph numbered with 2 stating the opinion of SS Gruppenfuehrer [General] Gluecks from which I quote:
Referring to the above letter, we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station Rascher in the concentration camp Dachau.
If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used.
Now, Doctor, I am fully aware of the fact that you did not receive this letter and that here in this court room is the first time that you have seen it? However, does it appear, to you that the language
If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used
conveys the thought that these subjects were volunteers?
A: I don't know how many prisoners there were in quarantine. I could imagine that if there were several hundred prisoners there, one could go and ask for volunteers. That conclusion is not compelling.
Q: Well, does the next paragraph, written by SS Gruppenfuerhrer Nebe convey to you that the subjects used were volunteers? The paragraph reads as follows:
I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in order to evolve a method for making sea water potable. I propose taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half breeds.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I should like to object to the continuation of this line of questioning. Mr. Hardy has already confirmed that Dr. Schaefer saw this document here in the court room for the first time. Therefore, questions as to his interpretation of the contents of this document cannot be the subject of an examination of a witness. Just as well as this witness, or even better, the Tribunal can interpret what the letter means.
MR. HARDY: May I call to the attention of the Tribunal that this same objection was raised when I put — or maybe Mr. McHaney put the same questions to the defendant Schroeder and I put the same questions to Becker-Freyseng, and, at that time, the Tribunal overruled the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no recollection of the ruling of the Tribunal on any similar question, but it seems that the answer would be merely a supposition on the part of the witness.
MR. HARDY: The question I am driving at, Your Honor, is to ask the witness whether or not, if he had knowledge of the facts elicited in this letter, would he more strenuously objected to the experiments on the inmates at Dachau.
JUDGE SEBRING: Why don't you ask him that, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: I'm building up to the question, Your Honor.
Witness, will you kindly answer that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Propound the question again to the witness.
MR. HARDY: If you had received this letter, would you have more strenuously objected to the experiments at Dachau?
DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to object again. The prosecutor himself has said that he knows that the witness did not get the letter. Therefore, it is unnecessary to ask whether he did get the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Schaefer, when you executed your affidavit, which is Document NO-474, Prosecution Exhibit 131, was that submitted to you in the German language for signature?
A: Yes.
Q: That was on the 23rd of October, 1946, was it not?
A: Yes, that's what it says. It's probably right.
A: Did anyone compel you to sign this affidavit?
A: No.
Q: Did you have the opportunity to make corrections therein?
A: Yes. May I finish answering your question?
Q: Certainly.
A: On the unimportant points it was very easy, but on the more important things it was more difficult and, to wholly oppose the arguments of the interrogator was difficult. I, at the moment, thought it was true.
Q: You, in fact, did make a considerable number of corrections in the original, did you not?
A: Yes, in the original, Yes, I did make a number of corrections.
Q: You were under oath when you executed this affidavit?
A: Yes.
Q: Doctor, now in summation, you were in attendance at the conference on the 19th of May, were you not?
A: Yes.
Q: At that conference you submitted objections to the testing and use of the Berka method?
A: Yes.
Q: You attended the conference on the 20th of May?
A: Yes.
Q: And you attended a conference in October, 1944, when Dr. Beiglboeck reported the results of his experiments?
A: Yes, but I was ordered to attend all three. I was ordered to attend all three meetings.
Q: I understand that.
I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to be propounded to this witness in connection with the cross examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q:Dr. Schaefer, the prosecutor asked you whether you demonstrated your method among others also to Professor Schroeder, in the presence of Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
Then, on the basis of this demonstration, was everything done — all steps taken for the introduction of Wofatit in the Luftwaffe?
A: You mean my demonstration in December, 1943, to Professor Hippke?
Q: Yes.
A: Not Professor Schroeder. Yes, of course.
Q: Orders were given to do everything to introduce this method?
A: Yes.
Q: The prosecutor spoke of your opposition to the experiments and said that there was only a passive resistance because you saw an opportunity in these experiments to make it quite clear, by way of experiment, how good your method was and how poor the Berka method was. He said that, didn't he?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: First, I should like to ask you, was your resistance passive?
A: No, it was not passive. There were violent altercations.
Q: But you didn't have any success with your resistance.
Therefore it must have been weak.
A: One couldn't say that. After all, I was only an Unterarzt [Sergeant]. I could not do much against a group of university professors, world famous men. I couldn't do much against my superiors with the highest military ranks.
Q: And the possibility that you wanted to bring out through these experiments that Wofatit was good and that Berkatit was bad, that would probably have existed only if experiments had also been conducted with Wofatit?
A: Yes, that idea is divergent —
Q: (Interrupting) Just a minute, just a minute. Answer my questions concretely.
The possibility of contrasting these two methods in an experiment and proving how good your method was could have existed only if your method had been included in the experiment?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you do anything to have your method included in the Dachau experiment?
A: No, nothing at all.
Q: On the 19th or the 20th, at these meetings, was anything said about introducing a series of experiments with Wofatit?
A: No, nothing.
Q: At the meeting of the 25th of May, while you were present, was anything said about introducing a series of experiments with Wofatit?
A: No.
Q: Do you consider it possible that the introduction of a Wofatit series of experiments was ordered after the 25th of May on the basis of deliberations of the so called commission?
A: That is possible.
Q: And is it possible — the defendant Becker-Freyseng testified this — is it possible that a series of experiments with Wofatit is exactly the same things as a series of experiments with fresh water?
A: That is not only possible, but that is a certain fact.
Q: Then summing up all these considerations which we have just elicited in individual questions, what do you have to say to the assumption of the Prosecutor that you had a personal interest in the execution of the Dachau experiments, would you reject that assumption?
A: Yes, completely. In this connection I should like to remind the Tribunal of Exhibit 37, the testimony of the Witness Pohl where Pohl says that no mention was ever made of the introduction of a Wofatit series of experiments. I should like to say that if I had had the slightest interest in this I would have taken an active interest in the experiments, and how they were arranged. Professor Eppinger had been involved by Berkatit. He was in charge of experiments for Sirany. The experiments showed what the method of the execution of the experiments, what significance it has and the objectivity of results can improve on the method of experimentation.
Q: On the 19th of May you opposed Berkatit, you also objected to undertaking experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: But experiments on prisoners had not been mentioned yet?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: For what reasons did you object to experiments on the 19th of May?
A: Because I considered them superfluous.
Q: Did you have any reason to refuse to obey the order to attend on the 20th of May?
A: No, there was no reason to do so.
Q: Was there any reason you had to know that experiments would be performed or would at least be discussed, experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A: No, I did not know that.
Q: If you did not particularly want to go to this meeting on 20 May why was that?
A: I was annoyed because the other people refused to understand.
Q: You thought the whole thing was superfluous, the discussions of experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: Then on the 20 of May as Becker-Freyseng and yourself have testified, the idea of experiments on prisoners was brought up for the first time?
A: Yes.
Q: What feeling did you have then aside from your consciousness that the experiments were superfluous?
A: I felt that it was unpleasant to carry out experiments on prisoners.
Q: Did your antipathy extend only to performing experiments on concentration camp inmates or were you then are you now convinced that experiments on prisoners should not be performed at all, either on concentration camp prisoners, or prison inmates, prison inmates in Germany or America or any place else in the World?
A: Yes, that was my conviction then and it is my conviction now.
Q: Now, after the 20th of May did you do anything toward expressing once more your deviating opinion?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do?
A: I talked to Becker-Freyseng about it.
Q: You telephoned to him?
A: Yes.
Q: And was your telephone conversation included in the affidavit Exhibit 19 of Mrs. Koenig of which I have submitted, and is it described correctly?
A: Yes, it is described correctly?
Q: What caused you to attend the conference of May 25th, first externally there was a military order, second what considerations what inner attitude did you have at that time?
A: The experts were to consult with each other. Professor Eppinger, Professor Huebner and Professor Netter were to decide whether experiments were necessary at all.
Q: Your medical opinion was settled?
A: Yes, and I assumed for sure that these three gentlemen would realize that Berkatit was completely useless.
Q: And then in the meeting at least so far as you were present, until you were separated from the others because of the air raid, you were seriously disappointed in this opinion?
A: Yes, I was quite bitter and I lost my faith in — I will have to speak generally, — my faith in scientific judgment.
Q: Do you think that these gentlemen gave their opinion against their better knowledge?
A: No, no, why should they do that.
Q: The reason I ask is that the Prosecutor has stated that Professor Eppinger committed suicide, and as the Prosecution said apparently because he was aware of his guilt; therefore, I ask you, do you know whether all the other gentlemen are still alive?
A: Yes, the others are still alive, and are still working as professors in their fields.
Q: They have not committed suicide?
A: No, they have not committed suicide.
Q: So apparently they are not suffering from a guilty conscience?
A: No, apparently not.
Q: If experiments were performed with Wofatit was your permission required to perform experiments with Wofatit?
A: No, one could get the Wofatit from the I.G.
Q: Can you imagine that the permission of a Unterarzt would have to be obtained?
A: No, that is quite fantastic.
Q: Can you imagine that the experiments with Wofatit were performed to see what effect Wofatit or rather the sea water treated with Wofatit had?
A: No, there was nothing to be seen.
Q: Mr. Hardy asked you about what Professor Biegelboeck reported concerning the experiments in Dachau; I assume it escaped your attention that Mr. Hardy always asked did Professor Biegelboeck ask you and you answered repeating a great deal of what Professor Biegelboeck reported about the experiments; did you mean to say that Professor Berkatit told you all that personally or that he told that in his lecture?
A: No, I meant to say that he said that in his lecture, at least most of it.
Q: Professor Biegelbock spoke to you only briefly?
A: Yes, only briefly.
DR. PELCKMANN: I have no further questions.
BY DR. MARX (Defense counsel for Professors Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng):
Q: Dr. Schaefer, you said in your cross examination that Professor Anthony had given you orders to go to Vienna and look at Sirany's experiments; do you know exactly whether Professor Anthony gave you this order on his own authority or whether he passed this order to you an behalf of the department chief?
A: I assume that he gave it to me on behalf of the department chief.
Q: Can you remember who signed the travel order and the military ticket for this trip?
A: No, I cannot recall that.
Q: You said that you warned Prof. Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng that Berkatit was dangerous; now did you warn them about the danger of Berkatit in practice of sea distress or the danger in experiments?
A: This warning referred of course to cases of distress at sea.
Q: Then I should like to ask you something else, the Prosecutor asked you whether in the meeting when it was decided to perform the experiments in concentration camps, these are the words of the Prosecutor:
whether you were offered to supervise these experiments or to carry them out yourself—
In the three meetings on the 19th, 20th and 25th of May was it decided to carry out experiments in concentration camps — the emphasis on the word "decided"?
A: No, that was not decided.
Q: On 19 May 1944 was it mentioned at all that experiments were to be performed on prisoners?
A: No.
Q: On 20 May 1944 at the meeting, what was said; was a decision reached at this meeting?
A: No, the suggestion was made, i.e. the possibility was brought up.
Q: On the 25th of May, 1944, were prisoners mentioned at all or was not everything else to be tried first to carry out the experiments; for example in the Luftwaffe agencies, in the Military Medical Academy, etc.; were not all other possibilities to be exhausted first?
A: I was present at only a part of this meeting on the 25th, as long as I was there nothing was said about prisoners, that is shown by a few affidavits, too. The possibility of carrying out the experiments in Brunswick seemed to be the predominant idea.
Q: You can remember that Brunswick was discussed, the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick?
A: Yes, that is right.
Q: Do you remember any other agency; perhaps the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe?
A: Yes, I remember the Military Medical Academy.
Q: You remember that too?
A: Yes.
Q: It was not then said that the carrying out of experiments in camps was the primary idea?
A: No, no.
Q: No further questions.
BY DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the Defendant Beiglboeck):
Q: Witness, the Prosecutor examined you as an expert, I ask you, have you worked on the effect of sea-water on human beings or have you only concerned yourself with the question of removing the salt?
A: I worked primarily on the removal of salt.
Q: Then you have no practical experience?
A: No.
Q: Your statements about the loss of water with 500 cbcm and 1000 cbcm with various kidney concentrations are then purely an assumption from your part?
A: That is my personal opinion gained from literature, reports and theoretical opinions of my own.
Q: Then you cannot say that this opinion of yours is absolutely scientific and accurate?
A: No, of course I cannot ascertain that 100%.
Q: No further questions.
MR. HARDY: I have two further questions, Your Honor, if there are no further questions by defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Does defense counsel desire to propound any further questions to the witness?
DR. PELCKMANN: At the end, I have a remark to make. I have no further questions to the witness.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: When did you learn for the first time, Dr. Schaefer, that sea water treated by your method was to be employed in Dr. Beiglboeck's experiments?
A: As far as I know now that was in October.
Q: In other words, you did not know about it until after the experiments had been completed?
Q: No one told me anything about it.
A: They employed your method and never informed you?
A: It was not necessary. I did not have the material and it was not generally known that I was connected with this method. The I.G. Farben industry was in contact with the technical office and with the Navy; whether the gentlemen knew, I don't believe they did.
Q: Did you develop this Schaefer method of rendering sea water potable in your capacity as an Unterarzt in the Luftwaffe or in your capacity as an employee of the I. G. Farben?
A: In my capacity as Unterarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q: Have you ever had any clinical training, Doctor?
A: Yes, after I took my state examination, I was for about one year an intern and then I was an assistant for one year and in 1938 I had to leave the clinic.
Q: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. PELCKMANN: At the end of my opening statement many weeks ago I made application that the defendant Schaefer be released from custody and not subjected to the trial. I am of the opinion that this is a case where according to the practice of American and English Courts, the Court is able now to accede to such a request, and I make the same application once more.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the motion by counsel for defendant Schaefer for a discharge at this time. The Court will take the motion under advisement and announce its ruling on it in due time.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock in the morning.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, the Tribunal had ordered that tomorrow the defendant Hoven may remain away. I made this application on the assumption that the witness Dorn would be examined only Friday, but since the witness Dorn is being examined tomorrow, I would like to cancel application and have the defendant Hoven present tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine thirty in the morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9:30 5 June 1947.)