1947-06-10, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WILHELM BEIGLBOECK — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Professor Beiglboeck, regarding the subject, volunteers to be used in medical experiments, what is your opinion about the ability of a layman to volunteer for medical experiments?
A: A layman who is informed what will take place during the experiments is, of course, in my opinion, perfectly capable of voluntarily deciding whether he wants to participate in that experiment or not.
Q: Then do you feel that first of all the field of research must be exhaustively studied, experimentation on animals must he exploited to the fullest extent prior to resorting to experimentation on human beings?
A: I am of the opinion that when animal experimentation is useful every human being experiment must be preceded by experiments on animals.
Q: And the experimental subjects must be warned of the hazards of the experiments, if any?
A: Yes.
Q: What is your opinion regarding the ability of a person incarcerated in a concentration camp to volunteer for a medical experiment?
A: As I have already indicated in my direct examination, it is my opinion that every prisoner is, to a certain extent, limited in his freedom; but, within the framework of this limitation of his freedom, he can, of course, answer the question yes or may whether or not he wants to participate in that experiment, presupposing, of course, that an answer in the negative would not lay open to any sort of reprisals.
Q: What type prisoner in a concentration camp do you deem fit to volunteer for medical experiments, meaning by that using the word "Volunteer" in the true sense of the word.
A: With the limitation that I have just stated for the prisoner, I consider that any type of prisoner can decided "yes" or no in such a question.
Q: These prisoners or gypsies used in the sea water experiment, can you tell us in what manner they were selected for the sea water experiments?
A: So far as I heard regarding this from them, they were asked whether they wished to apply for experiments in Dachau and then from the top or some large group of them there the number in question did apply.
Q: Did you participate in the actual selection of the gypsies used?
A: No. Regarding this I can only give you details about the gypsies who volunteered from the concentration camp at Dachau.
Q: Did you consider the selection of the gypsies to be used a matter for the SS?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had received a direct order not to mingle in SS matters?
A: I received the order or the instructions not to interfere in matters that concerned the concentration camp. I was assured that it had been agreed with the SS that only volunteers were to be used for the experiments and the SS had to carry out the selection of them within the framework of its duties because, of course, the Luftwaffe, as far as I myself personally had any influence or power to issue complaints to the concentration camp, I think that has to be emphasized again and again — namely, that the situation were not the same as they are in any free community. On the one hand there was the Wehrmacht, on the other hand the SS; and the affairs of the concentration camp concerned the SS solely and I could exercise no influence on them. I simply had to rely on what my superior officer told me or what I was told by the officers who were in charge of the affairs of the concentration camp.
Q: Now, you say that you checked with Dr. Ploedner, the camp adjutant, and the Sturmbannfuehrer [Major] in charge of the transport as to the status of the gypsies. Is that right?
Q: Why did you make such an exhausted check?
A: Because I wished to be absolutely certain that they really were volunteers.
Q: Did you have some misgivings as to whether or not they were volunteers, and that was the reason why you questioned three persons in that regard?
A: I had no misgivings. I was told that volunteers were to be used for these experiments but, of course, I was interested in being absolutely certain on this subject.
Q: Well, now, were these Gypsies in these experiments full blooded or half-breeds?
A: So far as I know, they were in the most part half-breeds, but in this matter also, I have no specific or precise data, And, in conversations I did not concern myself too much with this matter because at that time it did not seen to me to be very important. I was simply told that these Gypsies; that was the assurance I received when I inquired into the matter of the insignia they were wearing.
Q: Were they rendered or judged social simply because they were Gypsies?
A: That, I cannot tell you in detail; I only can tell you what the SS officers told me about this: They told me explicitly they were not in custody because they were Gypsies but because they were asocial; most of those had already been previously sentenced. And, I asked them what their punishment had been, and the Gypsies said nothing really serious. So, I asked them what they had done and they said, well, nothing of importance. I had the impression that they did not like to be questioned about that.
Q: What tape of criminal offense must they have committed to be rendered asocial?
A: That, I do not know; but, I believe that for the most part, if I can judge what I read in the medical periodicals, they were called asocial for family reasons.
Such asocial families were being checked in Germany at that time. Now, whether this was the reason for taking them into custody, or whether that gave them a right to take them into custody, that I cannot tell you, I did not put them there. I saw no papers on them, and I know nothing about the previous convictions they had received. I simply was informed that they were held as asocial persons, and it was not important for me to carry out the sea water experiments on asocial persons. I did not have the impression that asocial persons were being specifically turned over for the experiments. I took them for the experiments simply because they were given to me by the SS, and I assured myself whether they were volunteers or not. If volunteers with another triangle on their arm had been turned over to me, I should have used them just as well. And, as I said, I did not concern myself at all with the question whether they were asocial.
Q: Now, Doctor, would a child be adjudged asocial if his father was classified as asocial?
A: It is not easy to answer that question. There are some families who have been investigated very carefully, and a large number of the members of such families belong in the category of asocial. The family Jucke, if I am pronouncing it correctly, is such a family; they received much attention as asocial family, when having been investigated by use of psychiatric and hereditary problems. Members of that family have distinguished themselves by being guilty of crimes and other asocial actions. This does not exclude the possibility that, in this family, there can be a large number of persons who did not commit any crimes. Nevertheless, the family is declared asocial. Now, if there are children from a family in which, let us say among 100 members an estimate of 70 are characterized by a criminal life, then that whole family will be scientifically classified as asocial family. I do not know what the basis for giving the insignia was, namely, the insignia that classified people as asocial; that is, as I say, I do not know.
Q: Well, now, what did you actually say to each subject when there reported people to you for the experiments, did you talk to each one of them individually?
A: I called the experimental subjects together and told them what the experiment was about. I did not repeat this information to each one individually, because that would have taken a whole day; and, then I told them that they could think about whether or not they wanted to participate. I had been informed that some of the prisoners in Dachau wanted very much to participate, and if necessary, I should have made substitutions.
Q: Did you, in the course of your lecture to these 44 subjects, tell them what your experimental problem was to be, and what might be expected?
A: I could not tell them what was to be expected because I could not prophecy what the results would be; that was the whole purpose of the experiments.
Q: You mean it would be scientifically ethical to conduct an experiment on a human being without having any conclusive knowledge as to what the results may be?
A: What the possible results might be, that was more or less known, but if the precise results were known, that would make any experimentation superfluous. Before you enter upon an experiment, of course, you have a plan. You know what you are looking for, but you do not know what you are going to find when you are looking for it. I could tell my experimental subjects that I could guarantee to them that nothing would happen to them; that was the most important thing to the experimental subjects. Whether the concentration in the kidneys was going to be 2 or 3 percent, that was unimportant to the experimental subjects. And, that as I say, I am sure they did not want to know that.
Q: Did you warn them of any possible danger or hazard during the the course of the experiments?
A: I told them that they would feel severe thirst, and they would probably become nervous because every one who is thirsty becomes nervous. I told them moreover, that I would also be near them and protect them from any danger.
Q: Did you tell them that they could quit whenever they wished?
A: I told them you must put up with that thirst for a few days, I cannot tell you for how long exactly, and I told them that they would not have to thirst any longer than I could take the responsibility for. And, I told them if they simply could not stand it, they should tell me and I would take that into consideration. But, I did not tell them and I could not tell them that as soon as they felt thirsty they should just come and tell me and then we would give them water, because after all, this was a thirst experiment. And, I had to require of the experimental subjects that they should thirst for a certain period of time, that was the very nature of these experiments. I know that you are trying to make a charge out of this against me, and are trying to appraise the feeling of thirst in this way; thirst being one of the most uncomfortable feelings of all feelings, but that was the agreement I made with them—I told them that such and such and such and such for four or five days, I do not know how long that is going to be—you are to have to stand this thirst you feel.
Q: The discussion as to whether or not they would be relieved from the experiments or whether or not they could be relieved lied solely with you; is that right?
A: That decision lay with me, yes.
Q: What reward did you offer these experimental subjects?
A: I told them that afterwards they would be spared what they had previously been subjected to, and that they should come to me with their wishes, and I would do what I could. Moreover before and after the experiments, they would receive the extra rations; before they could rest for three weeks, and after the experiments for three weeks, and also I communicated any special wished of theirs to the camp commandant, and received his approval for many of these wishes.
Q: Well, did you offer them cigarettes in addition to that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did they get them?
A: Certainly.
Q: Did you have a vast quantity of cigarettes on hand?
A: I got the cigarettes from the same place I got the food, the air field. And, I cannot tell you how many there were in toto, but it was several thousand cigarettes.
Q: Were you in a position to get all the cigarettes you needed within reason?
A: To the extent that the Mess Sergeant gave me the cigarettes; to that extent I could provide them.
Q: Well, then, why was it necessary for your mother-in-law and father-in-law to send you cigarettes?
A: Because I received the cigarettes from the Mess Sergeant not for myself, but for my experimental subjects; and my parents did not have to send me these cigarettes. They sent them to me; that sort of thing happens in the best of families.
Q: Did you check and absolutely make certain that each one of these subjects received, as his due reward, after having been subjected to the sea water experiments?
A: I distributed the cigarettes according to a certain arrangement: Those who had kept on with the experiment received the most cigarettes, and those who from the second day on kept on drinking fresh water did not get any cigarettes.
Q: Well, what other reward did they get beside the cigarettes?
A: I can only repeat that they applied on the condition that previous and thereafter they should receive better rations. After the experiments they were to be treated as convalescents and were not to work. They were promise mitigation of their detention. And, what I did on my own initiative was to supply the cigarettes and, also, I went personally to the camp commandant and told him that these persons had carried out the experiments in a good way and that they should be rewarded.
Q: Wouldn't it have been dangerous to have pardoned or to have commuted the sentence of a person adjudged asocial in Nazi thinking?
A: Only very few of the asocial persons are dangerous, namely those professional criminals who are guilty of violent crime. The others are not dangerous. I am thinking of asocial persons as I understand them in medical terms. Such people are those who are malingerers — who won't work. Such people are not dangerous, just useless. Pickpockets are asocial persons. They are somewhat dangerous, particularly for people whose pockets they pick. But they are not dangerous criminals in a criminal sense of the word.
Q: Then would, you say that each and every one of the forty-four experimental subjects used in your sea water experiments at Dachau were criminals and were a menace to society and hence deserved nothing but incarceration in a concentration camp, or do you feel that some of the inmates you used were falsely imprisoned?
A: I am convinced that a great majority, and perhaps all of them, were not dangerous. I am fully persuaded of that but I do not know why they were included in the category of asocials nor do I know why these asocials were in a concentration camp. I was not a friend of Himmler’s nor did I belong in his office, nor did I have any power to interfere in the plans of Reich Minister Himmler. I was just a Luftwaffe officer who had received an order to carry out experiments and if I had gone to Himmler and told him, "Reich Minister, you are keeping these gypsies here unjustly, I consider that a crime". I would have been shot, killed, or at best locked up in an insane asylum.
Q: When did you arrive at Dachau, at the concentration cargo, the date? You must remember that in as much as in letters to your mother-in-law and father-in-law you explained this as the most unfortunate incident in your career. Now, surely you can remember the date you arrived at Dachau.
A: I estimate on the 18th. I can't tell you for sure but I think the 18th of July because very shortly thereafter, the next day or the day after, the conference took place with Sievers which I attended. Then I went to Vienna to get my laboratory equipment.
Q: When did you leave Dachau?
A: After the experiments you mean?
Q: Yes, when did you leave for good, and go back to Vienna?
A: 15 or 16, I believe the latter, of September.
Q: 15th or 16th of September?
A: Yes.
Q: What did your working day at the concentration camp consist of? What time did you arrive there in the morning?
A: 7 a.m.
Q: What time did you leave in the evening?
A: Usually at 8 I went to dinner. Then I returned and finished up my report. It was frequently 10 or 11 before I was done with them.
Q: Do you recall the nationality of each one of these subjects used, whether any of these gypsies were Czechoslovakians, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, or Poles?
A: I have already told you this morning what I know about that.
Q: Do you know whether or not any of them were other than of German nationality?
A: Regarding their citizenship I have no precise knowledge. I saw the papers of none of them.
Q: Well then you are not in a position to tell us whether or not they were Czechoslovakian citizens, Austrian citizens, Hungarians or Poles or whatever they may have been? You actually do not know, do you?
A: I know that some of them came from there. I saw no papers on them but I know that they were arrested in Germany.
Q: Well, now didn't any of these gypsies come from another concentration camp by transport to Dachau to be used in your experiments?
A: Almost all of them came from Buchenwald.
Q: Buchenwald? Not Auschwitz?
A: I have heard from Pillwein that some of them were alleged to have been in Auschwitz. But that transport which arrived for me came from Buchenwald.
Q: They actually volunteered for this experiment while at another concentration camp, is that right?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: Were you informed as to what they actually volunteered for when they were in the other concentration camps?
A: I was told that they were asked whether they wished to participate in experiments involving sea water and that on being so asked that gypsies applied. I then told them, when they came to me what would go on in the experiments and asked them whether they wanted to participate or not. In other words, if they had been told in Buchenwald something that was not true I did learn of it then and they were given a chance to correct the false impression they had. I told them perfectly clearly what would go on and asked them again if they wished to take part.
Q: Did you ever tell the subjects that it would be to their best interests if they underwent the experiments?
A: In what respect? It would have been to their interest to the extent that this would result in advantages to them but I never told them they had any personal interest in the experiments. I told them the experiments were being carried on in order to help people distressed at sea. I told them explicitly.
Q: And you told them there would be an advantage to them if they underwent the experiments?
A: I told them that before and after the experiments they would receive these extra rations, I told them the SS had told me they would receive mitigation of their sentence after the experiments.
I told them that after the experiments I would see to it that they would not have to work immediately and would receive additional food. If you are of the opinion that was an advantage for them then I told them it would be an advantage to them.
Q: Was the alternative obvious?
A: They could have said no.
Q: What would have happened to them?
A: What I would have done would have been that I should have returned them to the camp management and asked the camp management who was going to take their place. It was entirely indifferent to me who was the experimental subject in these experiments. I had no special group in mind.
Q: Were the experimental subjects certain of the consequences that would develop had they refused to undergo the experiments?
A: I was never asked about that. I was not an experimental subject. I can say that if any experimental subject had said no to me I should not have done anything to him. What opinions the experimental subjects had themselves I do not know. At any rate I did not threaten them or put up any duress.
Q: Kindly tell the Tribunal the names of the three Frenchmen who worked with you in this experimental plan?
A: One was named Christian.
Q: Yes.
A: One was named Senes.
Q: Spell that please.
A: S-e-n-e-s. And one was named. Reinhardt.
Q: Tell us the names of the three Luftwaffe officers?
A: One was named Dr. Lesse, one Dr. Schuster, and one Dr. Foersterling.
Q: Tell us the names of the three male prisoner nurses.
A: From the Luftwaffe or from among the prisoners?
Q: From among the prisoners.
A: Pillwein.
Q: Yes.
A: Worlicek.
Q: Yes.
A: And that was all I had.
Q: Did you have any other employees so to speak at this experimental station or is that the entire complement?
A: There was a Spanish chemist whose name I have forgotten and then on occasions a man who worked in Ploedner's laboratory worked for me although he was nit one of my assistants. A young Slav, professor of Chemistry from Laibach I believe, occasionally did chores for me. I can't recall his name either.
Q: How many of these people you have mentioned were also medical doctors?
A: The three men from the Luftwaffe were MDs.
Q: Did they work as long hours as you did. That is, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. or 11 p.m.?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, did you have all your men working the same number of hours, that is from 7 to 10 or 11?
A: We doctors did work those hours. The nurses and the medical students spelled each other off.
Q: I see. Then the medical students more or less had watches, so to speak. One would be on watch at night and the other in the day time. Is that correct?
A: The students helped me in analyzing the blood samples. They took measurements of blood pressure, They analyzed the urine — measured the specific gravity of the urine, etc., whereas, for the night duty, the members of the Luftwaffe were used.
Q: Well, who served after the members of the Luftwaffe left at 10:00 or 11:00 PM? Who was on duty between that hour and 7:00 AM in the morning when you came?
A: The Luftwaffe assistants did only night duty.
Q: In other words, the Luftwaffe doctors stayed on duty all night long?
A: The Luftwaffe medics were the one who stayed all night.
Q: Now, isn't it true medically, doctor, that delirium in organic or toxic conditions usually comes out at night? Comes on at night?
A: Delirium occurs when the cause of the delirium comes about whether that be day or night, presupposing that delirium occurs at all.
Q: Isn't it more apt to be more severe in the evening hours then in the daylight hours? That's a matter of common knowledge, isn't it, even for the laymen?
A: That is true. However, delierlia are unpleasant whenever they occur, but let me reassure you by saying that the medics who had the night duty had been carrying out that night duty for years and years with our soldiers in our hospitals. Moreover, I told you that the medical students, one of whom had been in school for nine semesters, were used to this work and I told them that they were to call me as soon as there was any need for me, particularly in case there was any delirium.
However, no cases of delirium occurred.
Q: Well, at any event, you were not in a position to know the worst mental symptoms among your subjects, except by hearsay, inasmuch as you were not on duty during the late evening hours? Is that right?
A: If a serious symptom had occurred during the night I should have been on hand in five minutes.
Q: Where did you live?
A: I lived in a barracks adjacent to the concentration camp in the 88 camp.
Q: You didn't live in the center of the village of Dachau?
A: No.
Q: Do you know Josef Vorlicek?
A: Vorlicek?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, I told you he was a nurse at my station.
Q: He worked in your laboratory?
A: Vorlicek was a nurse at the experimental station. He worked in the sick ward.
Q: Did he see the subjects used?
A: Why, of course.
Q: Was he in a position to talk to them?
A: He had to talk to them. He was a nurse at this station. This Vorlicek fellow was also from Vienna and was brought to the station by Pillwein.
Q: Was he a reputable sort of fellow?
A: I never heard anything to his detriment.
Q: Did you ever have to chastise him for some of his actions in the line of duty?
A: Not that I can recall. If he had done something he shouldn't I certainly should have chastised him.
Q: Do you recall the rag incident?
A: I don't know what you are talking about, at the moment.
Q: Didn't Vorlicek, at one time, spill some water on the floor and then wipe it up with a rag and, rather negligently, forget to remove the rag from the experimental station and the inmates were allowed to such the water from the rag?
A: It happened several time, of course, because of some one's thoughtlessness that water was left lying around or a damp cloth, and I always told them that that was forbidden. I forbade that strictly because I didn't want water to appear in the experimental room and, if Vorlicek left water standing around or a damp cloth, I certainly reprimanded him, I can assure you, because he, like every other nurse or any one else who had something to do there, was under orders not to leave water standing around in the experimental room.
Q: What did you say to Vorlicek?
A: I probably told him that that was forbidden and I might have said "I'd like to know what you would do if you were very thirsty and saw water sitting around all the time." I presume that I told him something to that effect, but I don't recall any specific episode. It happened, on occasions, that such thoughtlessness took place and that water was left in the experimental room.
Q: Did you ever threaten to use Vorlick in an experiment.
A: I believe that I certainly did not. I was more than satisfied with the number of experimental subjects that I had and wished to have no more. The work that I had with those 44 was quite enough.
Q: Let us look at Document No. 3283, Your Honor, which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit #508. This is an affidavit of the Nurse Vorlicek. This is an affidavit that is dated Vienna, 9 May 1947.
Before me appears Herr Josef Vorlicek, residing in Vienna XVIII, 24 Geymuellergasse, 35 years old, married, a driver, and makes the sworn statement as follows:
I will skip the oath and proceed with the third paragraph.
After having been arrested by the Gestapo in the year 1939, and after having been sentenced to and having served your years of penal servitude, I was sent to Dachau. I became assistant-nurse in Professor Beiglboeck's experimental block in March, 1944. After the incident with the soaked securing-cloth, when the human experimental subjects had confessed how they got the water, Professor Beiglboeck threatened to use me as well as a guinea pig if it would happen again. I took this threat for granted, and the incident did not happen again. In the course of the experiments, a very sick man was transferred to the typhoid block. After the experiments, the human experimental subjects were transferred portly to the overcrowded labor blocks, partly to the outdoor 1 bar squads. The outdoor labor squads were very bad because the work there was harder and there was less food than in the camp.
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Counsel, I am unable to find in this document handed up to me, Document #3282, the portion which you are reading.
MR. HARDY: Just a moment, Your Honor, it may be that I have handed you the wrong document.
I'm sorry. Just a moment.
Yes, I have handed you the wrong document. I have two documents from Josef Vorlicek. One's 3283, the other is 3282.
THE PRESIDENT: We have Document #3232.
MR. HARDY: Document #3282 will be offered as 508 and 3283 will be offered as 509, Your Honor. Both these affidavits are from the same affiant. One takes in a little more information than the other. I am referring now to Document #3283.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the one we have not received.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I object to the submission of both of these documents, for it cannot be seen from the document who took the affidavits from the affiant. It started out in the first sentence:
Before me appears Herr Joseph Vorlicek.
I certainly want to know who that "me" is. The date is 9 May 1947. I ask that I be told who took this affidavit and I wish also to be sure the signature is certified, that is correct but it says "before me" and doesn't say who "me" is. Now, consequently I want an opportunity to cross-examine Vorlicek. This man was known in January to the Prosecution from the police record but he was not brought as a witness. I must protest against that. The police records are available to the Tribunal and to the prosecution, and he could have been brought at that time. He all know what he was charged with, and I want to apply for Vorlicek being brought to Nurnberg as a witness.
MR. HARDY: Vorlicek is on his way. He will he here next week. Those documents are in due order, before a Notary and the signatures are sworn to, and are in the hands of the defendant and have the signature of the Notary thereon.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution stated the witness Vorlicek will be in Nurnberg next week and a appear before the Tribunal. The documents have obviously been sworn to before the Notary, Bolzani. His name appears as having administered the oath to the document. The documents are in order.
Q: Now, in Document 3283, which is called for identification Prosecution Exhibit 509, I will now refer to the next to the the last sentence from the bottom on the first page, and I quote:
Among those experimental subjects were citizens of all nations; Czechs, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, Poles, but no Jews. I remember the Poles and Czechs very well because I talked in the Czech language with the latter. These experimental subjects told me that they had been requested in Auschwitz to volunteer for a 'soft job,' but they were not told what it was. They were surprised and frightened when they learned on arrival at Block 1 at Dachau that medical experiments were concerned. They stated to have nevertheless been forced to undergo those experiments, and they were menaced when a sign of a revolt appeared among them.
Professor Beiglboeck himself told then: 'It is in your interest to undergo those experiments because if everything turns out alright, you will get a good detail.' The alternative was obvious. I know from my own experience that Professor Beiglboeck meant such threats in earnest, since I also took such menaces against myself seriously.
Do you remember those instances, Doctor?
A: I have already said that it is possible that Vorlicek left water lying around and perhaps I put it in the way he says, — but if he construed that as a threat on my part to take him into the experiment. — He says the alternative was obvious.
I know from my own experiences that Professor Beiglboeck meant such threats in earnest, since I also took such menaces against myself seriously.
In other words, he took my threats against him seriously. These grounds of his don't seem very serious to me. I never told the experimental subjects it was to their interest to submit to the experiments, nor did I say "if everything turns out alright you will get a good detail." Vorlicek was not present when the experiments started consequently he cannot know what I die with the experimental subjects a few weeks earlier. I told the experimental subjects if they did the experiment well; if everything comes out alright, then I would try to get easier work for them. That is what I told them. I never forced anyone to submit to these experiments and there were signs of a revolt not for the reasons he gave but this revolt which was the only revolt that took place when Max refused to give them their extra rations. The gipsies revolted against not getting the food they were promised. That was that hunger revolt. I don't know what will become of this further; it might be a revolt which spread through out the camp with 100 casualties. I can only tell you what took place. I didn't tell the experimental subjects it is to your interest to undergo the experiments. What I did tell them was if they did undergo an experiment they would receive the rations promised. That I never threatened to use Vorlicek as an experimental subject was certainly not correct.
I took Vorlicek down to the station only because Pillwein asked me to and because he was a Viennese, and in this way he got out of his work, I think, and into the hospital which was something he wanted very much.
Q: What is your thought, Doctor?
A: For doing him this favor, although I don't really need him he has put this understanding of his down on paper.
Q: Is it necessary to keep the subjects confined when you are using them for sea water experiments, must the doors be locked and the guards be posted?
Q: The experimental subjects were locked in when the experiment began. That was necessary. They should have been locked in a lot better than they were because then they would have had no opportunity at all to get fresh water on the side.
Q: That adds to the voluntary nature of the experiments, doesn't it?
A: If you read medical literature you will see that thirst experiments are always carried on behind locked doors. That is not a special characteristic of the thirst experiments in Dachau.
Q: Professor Vollhardt didn't carry it on behind locked doors?
A: Professor Vollhardt had doctors as subjects.
Q: He didn't carry it on behind locked doors, did he?
A: No, Vollhardt didn't, but there are numerous cases of thirst experiments in literature which are carried on behind locked doors. If you really want to carry out a thirst experiment accurately you have to see to it that experimental subjects do not have access to water.
Q: Then these experimental subjects actually were locked into the experimental station, the doors were locked and guards —
A: There were no guards. The door to the experimental room was locked.
Q: Was there any watchman?
A: On the experimental station there were always nurses, day and night.
Q: I note in Document NO 910 which has been introduced by the Prosecution, page 140, the affiant Bauer states in his affidavit that several series of experiments were carried out forcibly. Is he incorrect in that assumption too?
A: He is certainly wrong in that assumption.
Q: Can you tell me how you could ascertain whether or not these subjects were getting water was that because their urinary output would be less then. It should have been had they been drinking seawater?
A: You can deduce that water has been drunk in several ways, you can judge from the samples of Urine and the samples of blood, and you can deduce it from the weight of the experimental subject.
Q: Is it customary for the person who has volunteered for an experiment to throw some of his urine away to deceive you. You stated on direct examination that some of these subjects threw their urine away. If that be so it would be next to impossible to determine the excretion of each one, wouldn't it?
A: Yes, it is impossible under those conditions. I have already said that those people were interested in receiving the cigarettes I mentioned. That was a mistake on my part. I readily admit that I promised them in advance. For that reason they drank fresh water thinking they would be able to stand the experiment longer and this would give than more cigarettes. That was their motive.
Q: That is a true act of a volunteer to throw away his urine, is it?
A: In this case where the man wanted cigarettes it is perhaps not quite customary, but it is understandable.
Q: Now, you promised all these people better food; didn't you as a reward for the experiment?
A: Yes.
Q: Why didn't you give it to them?
A: As long as they were with me they did got it and after they were released from my station and the station was closed, I demanded that they should receive the food in the future and I was told that they were.
Q: Vorlicek says on Page 2 of his affidavit, NO-3282 that good food after the experiments was also promised to them, but these premises were not kept; do you know whether or not the promises were kept?
A: I only know that on my reiterated request this promise was made to me. I then left Dachau and assumed the promise would be kept. If I had known that such a thing was possible, namely that the promise would not be kept, I should probably have attempted to find even more assurances that the promise would be kept, but there was nothing else I could do. The Chief Physician promised me that this was ordered and if he says the camp commander will be told they should receive extra calories and extra food and if in the office of the camp, I say this is the list of people who should receive extra rations, I of course had to rely on that statement as I could not stay in Dachau.
Q: Yes, but the volunteers relied on your statement, didn't they? When you left you did not care whether or not they received their food; isn't that right?
A: I did care, I made efforts to see to it that this request of mine reached the competent offices and I was told that these promises would be kept by the office.
Q: Well now, why did you not bring the food with you and reward them yourself after the experiments? I notice rather interestingly in the document you introduced on page 103 of your Document book 2 those documents concerning the food allocated to you by the Luftwaffe, that you only got enough feed for seven days for 32 men and you used 44 men in these experiments and the experiments lasted from 18 July to 16 September; You did not seem to make much of an effort to feed these poor follows then, you left them and didn't care if they got their promised food or did you got other shipments of food?
A: If you look at this document you will see that those 32 persons are called the first experimental groups that was the first shipment of food I received from the air field. I did not save the other receipts because in July of 1944 I did not think that in June of 1947 I would have to produce them in front of the trial. I saved them because I needed them as a basis for the calculation of the percentage of salt contained in the food. I can assure you that this amount of food, so long as I was there, was delivered by the Luftwaffe, with the exception of these one or two days of irregularities which I have already spoken of. Then I did not give the subjects Luftwaffe food, but asked that they receive extra rations from the concentration camp, and this was promised to me. If I had known that they would not receive these extra rations from the concentration camp after I left, I would have applied to the air field and seen that the Luftwaffe rations were delivered.
Q: Why did you not call Becker-Freyseng and say, "They are not fulfilling their obligations here; I have been promised these individuals good food; they have not been getting it;" could you not contact Becker-Freyseng or Schroeder, the people who assigned you and ordered you down to Dachau?
A: Apparently you misunderstood me. For two days the delivery was delayed because the air field was bombed. Becker-Freyseng and Prof. Schroeder could not have prevented this, but two days later this food was delivered, and as long as I was there the food deliveries were in order.
Q: Now, Pillwein says in his affidavit, which is NO-912, found in Document Book No. 5 on page 30; this will be on page 31, the second paragraph:
When the people were chosen for these experiments, they were also promised better care for some time. In reality, this care was only accorded patients in the first group; all the others received water and skimmed milk for two days after the end of the experiment and about the third day were placed on the normal camp diet. The first group received some sausage, bread, butter, cheese, marmalade, and 2 cigarettes for 4 to 5 days. I remember that disagreements arose between the camp administration and the competent authorities of the Luftwaffe, since the Luftwaffe did not make sufficient provisions available for the diet. The ones we bore the brunt of this were naturally the participants.
Now, isn't it evident from Pillwein, from Vorlicek and these others, Tschofenig, that you did not fulfill your promise even daring the course of the experiments?
A: During the experiment, when the second group had finished the experiment, I did not receive the food from the air field for the reasons I have already given you. Rather, I did not got it immediately. If they had been fed by the camp I should not have had any difficulties with the 88, as that was under the direction of the SS. I did have difficulties with the 88, because I asked them to give me food of this caloric content, and this caused difficulties since they said they could not do that on credit and would have to have authorization from the Luftwaffe.
After two or three days I received this food delivery, and from then on the experimental subjects did receive this diet.
Q: That is your explanation of the accusation made by Pillwein?
A: Yes.
Q: I assume, of course, that you flatly deny any deaths in the course of these experiments?
A: I have nothing to deny; there were no deaths in these experiments, nor can any deaths have taken place later as a result of those experiments; that is impossible.
Q: Did you know Tschofenig?
A: I did not know him; I know his name and where he came from; and I learned later that he was Capo of the X-ray station, and therefore I must have spoken to him once or twice.
Q: Do you know what his duties were at the X-ray station?
A: Presumably he took care of the machinery there. I don't know.
Q: Was he over in a position to have X-rayed any of the subjects you used in the course of your sea-water experiments?
A: Probably Tschofenig was present when the subjects were X-rayed on arrival and then later I sent over a couple of people for an X-ray check-up, and he was probably present then, too.
Q: Then he was in a position to have X-rayed or have seen subjects X-rayed?
A: I assume so.
Q: However, you exclude the possibility that one of the subjects used in your experiments died three days after leaving your experimental block?
A: At the beginning I received X-rays of the subjects when the subjects themselves came to me, two of these subjects had affections of the lungs. I did not keep these two people in my experimental station, but sent them directly to the lung department of the hospital. Those were not experimental subjects of mine, they were people who came along on the transport, in whom the X-rays found a tuberculosis of the lungs and whom I turned over to the hospital for treatment. I saw these experimental subjects for perhaps half an hour and then had them transferred, as I said in my direct examination. Now, you cannot hold me responsible for people with lung diseases being on the transport. I eliminated them immediately. If I had not had them X-rayed immediately, this tuberculosis of the lungs would probably not have been discovered at all.
Q: Can a person become too weak to walk as a result of being submitted or subjected to sea water experiments?
A: Thirst brings about a certain weakness in the muscles.
Q: Now, you say that these persons that were suffering from a lung disease you never used in your experiments?
A: No.
Q: How many X-rays does it take to determine whether or not you can use a person in your experiments; one?
A: One X-ray is enough for the preliminary examination yes.
A: Well, let us turn to Document NO-3342, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 510. Would you kindly return those other two to me, Doctor? Do the interpreters have copies of this affidavit?
This is another affidavit from the affiant Josef Tschofenig, dated Klagenfurt, 14 May 1947. He states in the third paragraph of this affidavit as follows:
In the experiments of Dr. Beiglboeck, which took place in the summer of 1944 in Dachau, only healthy gypsies were used at first. I know that because I received the whole transport, which came from Sachsenhausen, in the X-ray ward for lung examination. Altogether about 60 gypsies were used, chosen from a group of 80 or 90. They were certainly not volunteers, because they all wished to evade it. I noticed that from their conduct during the assignation. As regards their nationality, I only know that they were gypsies; they were described by race and not by nationality. The 20 or 30 who were not used were sent back for health reasons and were excluded from the experiments; they remained in the sick quarter. During the experiments, which lasted about 6 weeks, the state of health of the originally healthy participants deteriorated rapidly. One went mad and was taken in a strait jacket to the mental ward in the middle of the period of the experiments. I do not know what happened there. From my general experience of camps, I know that if he fell into good hands he might have got over it, if he did not get into a sick transport.
During the experiments I again made X-ray photographs in a few cases, about the middle le of the experiments, and in a few cases they were made by Dr. Beiglboeck himself, because he did not trust my findings; for I, as I am glad to admit, had in a few cases given him findings which had the purpose of saving the people from the continuation of the experiments.
At the end of the experiments the experimental subjects were divided into two groups, namely those who were fit to work and these who were sick, by the responsible physician Dr. Beiglboeck himself.
Those who were fit to work were directly released for 1 day immediately after the termination of the experiments and were employed in various labor sounds. Those who were not fit to work, about 20 people, those were the obvious invalids, who were manifestly incapable of working and sick, were transferred from the experimental station into different sections of the General Prisoner Hospital. Amongst them were a number who were very weakened and apparently dangerously ill, and whose survival seemed unlikely.
I know that because I had to radiograph all the people coming into the prisoner hospital and knew that these purple came from the experimental station. I had radiographed all of them once and some of them twice already, and therefore I knew them. Moreover it could be seen from the patients' charts where they came from.
Amongst these various people who remained in the prisoner hospital three went into the 'internal' section; I can no longer remember their names. I know from my own experience of one death case amongst the three who went to the 'internal' section. This was a man about 1.68 meters in height. I still remember him in particular because he was brought into my x-ray ward on a stretcher, since he was too weak to walk anymore. I am certain that on the day the experiments were completed he was transferred from the Beiglboeck ward to the 'internal' ward and next day came to be x-rayed as a normal prisoner hospital patient. I recognized him immediately as I had already x-rayed him twice before when he was still with Beiglboeck.
I know that this man died three days later. Our x-ray ward received the news of his death from the office. I had to send the findings according to whether the patient was dead or still lived, either to the depot (in case death occurred) or to the ward (if the patient still lived).
I remember exactly that I reported this finding to the depot as I had been informed of his death. I remember this one case so particularly well because the lung finding was in order, that is, normal and also that he did not suffer from other pathological symptoms. Therefore, I knew that this man died as a direct result of the experiments three days after they ended.
The others who were unfit to work, about seventeen, were divided between various other prisoner hospitals; a few were handed over to the invalids' block and I do not know that became of them.
From my general experience of camps I assume that about 30% did not survive the invalids' block and other fatigues due to their weakened condition as a result of the experiments. Without the experiments their chances of surviving the camp would certainly have been much better since they were originally healthy prisoners who formed Dr. Beiglboeck's experimental group.
Whether experimental, subjects already died during the experiments in Beiglboeck's station itself I do not know for I was now allowed in the experimental station itself and the covering up of such cases of death in experimental stations was always very clever.
/s/ Josef Tschefenig
Now, Dr. Beiglboeck, do you recall the case of that individual?
DR STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I wish to have this witness for cross examination.
MR. HARDY: I will be glad to, your Honor. He will be here next week also.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution states that the witness will be here next week.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, do you still maintain that none of these experimental subjects died after they left your experimental station or do you know whether or not they did?
A: Yes, I do. No one certainly died of the experiments or of consequences of them. There were not sick persons in my experimental group. I had given them a very careful examination before the experiments and afterwards. What Tschofenig is talking about here is completely incomprehensible to me. I can't imagine that, only in my fantasy. To imagine what he is talking about is just too much to ask of me. Tschofenig didn't know anything about my experimental station at all.
Q: Dr. Beiglboeck, as I understand it, you considered these experiments to be purely a Luftwaffe matter. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: No association whatsoever with the SS?
A: They had to do with the SS to the extent that the SS made the rooms available and I was there more or less as a guest. The SS had no influence on the course of the experiments.
Q: The SS merely provided the subjects and the space in the concentration camp?
A: That is right.
Q: Himmler had no part in the initiation of the experiments or the conduct of the experiments?
A: What I know about Himmler's part in it is that he approved the experiments.
Q: Now, do I understand you correctly, that your testimony is to the effect that there is no danger in the drinking of sea water?
A: I said that if you drink sea water and these experiments are under observation then one is perfectly capable of interrupting the experiment when the danger zone is reached. I didn't say that it was not dangerous to drink sea water. That depends, of course. Under certain conditions drinking sea water is dangerous and ran be fatal.
Q: And among sea farers the dangerousness of consumption of sea water is a well known and accepted fact. Is that right?
A: Of course, it is clear and well known that shipwrecked persons have had very unpleasant experiences from drinking sea water because they did so in uncontrolled quantities and because the important point is the quantity consumed.
Q: Now, in your self-experiment that you conducted prior to the experiment on the inmates, how long did you drink sea water?
A: Four and a half days.
Q: How many cc's per day?
A: Half a liter.
Q: Five hundred cc's?
A: Five hundred cc's. That is right.
Q: Did you eat any food?
A: I ate sea emergency rations.
Q: And you drank exclusively sea water—no other water?
A: Of course.
Q: How long did you have the experimental subjects remain on exclusive sea water?
A: That depended and it depended on how the experiment was carried out. Some of the experiments which were carried out properly, were interrupted on the fourth or fifth day. Those who did drink fresh water in the meantime kept the experiment up longer. In this experiment it depends on how much water is lost. If a subject compensates for his loss of water by drinking fresh water then, of course he comes out in a very good condition.
Q: What was the longest stretch wherein a person or innate drank sea water exclusively in the experiment? Eight days? Nine?
A: I believe for or five days. I can't give you any exact answer to that just at the moment because I have to look that up in my notes.
Q: We will get into that later, doctor. Did they also get emergency sea rations?
A: Yes.
Q: The same as you had?
A: Yes.
Q: How many calories in an emergency ration kit?
A: In the emergency ration for four days there are twenty—four hundred calories. They got a little bit more than that because I had a little more than I needed. They received roughly eight hundred calories a day.
Q: How long can a person drink five hundred cc's of sea water-how many days?
A: You mean before reaching the danger zone?
Q: Yes.
A: You could calculate that at seven days.
Q: How long did the subjects drink it?
A: Those who drank no fresh water did not drink it under any circumstances longer than six days and I believe there were none who carried it on further than five days without drinking fresh water.
Q: How long can a person drink a thousand cc's of sea water?
A: Four and a half days.
Q: That long?
A: Until you reach the danger zone.
Q: That long, four and a half to five days?
A: Yes, four and a half days.
Q: Well, that is a considerable length of time, if you can drink 1000 cc's of sea water in four and a half days, and you can only drink 500 cc's in six days?
A: That depends upon the fact that the elimination of water through the skin and the lungs is the same in both cases, and the additional sea water only leads to an additional elimination of urine. This additional quantity of urine that is eliminated — whether a person drinks 1000 cc's is not so really very large over the amount when drinking 500' cc's; it amounts to roughly 250 cc's a day.
Q: Wouldn't there be twice the drain on the bodies water and dehydrate the person faster if he was drinking 1000 cc's per day as opposed to 500 cc's?
A: I just told you what happened. A greater quantity of urine is lost, and the difference between the quantities when drinking 1000 and 500 cc's is not so very important because the ways in which water is otherwise eliminated throughout the body, namely, through the skin and lungs remain the same. It can even be assumed that with 1000 cc's the amount is less. The dryer the skin is, the less water it excretes —
Q: How long did the subjects drink 1000 cc's of sea water?
A: I just told you, according to theoretical calculations, if experimental subjects could live four and a half to five days, drinking sea water and nothing else until he reached the danger zone of a 10 percent loss of body water — danger to life comes with the loss of 20 percent, and that is roughly after 12 days.
Q: How many days did your subjects drink 1000 cc's of sea water?
A: The experimental subjects, well, in the group that drank 1000 cc's, I had none who went four days without drinking fresh water.
However, none of the experiments made with this group was useful. On the second or third day, these people began to drink fresh water by the liter. So, the duration of the experiment is unimportant in this case. The importance is not how long the experiments lasted but how long it lasted only with sea water. And, if he drank only sea water, then the experiment had to be interrupted after four days, but if he drank a lot of fresh water, then under some circumstances these experiments may last as long as a month.
Q: What was the highest temperature you reached in these experiments?
A: During the experiments, as far as I remember — you probably know this better than I do because you have my notes at the moment.
Q: 37.8 Centigrade; that is not very high is it? Is that a dangerous temperature?
A: Certainly not.
Q: Is that above normal?
A: Somewhat more than normal, yes.
Q: Well, now, when you stated on direct examination, something that interested me, that when you gave this water to the inmates, that you had to drink it in front of the subjects yourself; now, why was that?
A: That was not necessary, I considered it expedient.
Q: What was the reason for you drinking it first in front of the subjects? I do not get the significance of that statement, Doctor? Was it because they thought you were fooling them and insisted you try it first?
A: We doctors, we are used to the fact that medicines given to patients which are somewhat foreign to him, and in order to awaken his confidence in this medicine, we take some of it ourselves; that is the customary procedure in clinics and particularly in treating children: that was the reason I did that. There are lots of people when they hear the word sea water, they imagine Lord knows how dangerous a substance it is, and in order to convince them that sea water is really something that is potable, I drank it in their presence.
Q: Now, you spoke of murder rumors in the camp in connection with the sea water experiments: what was that about?
A: I never said anything about murder rumors, as far as I know. I said there were rumors afoot, and since I have had considerable experience in such camps, I can assure you that all sorts of rumors arise in such camps or prisons, and arising from the most innocent of circumstances; that it is on the basis of such rumors that such "memories" as this last affidavit you put in is based.
Q: What was the murder rumor in camp? Was it a prevalent rumor that people were being murdered in your station, is that what you mean?
A: I know nothing of a murder rumor. I am hearing now for the first time there was any such rumor in the camp. I said that Tschofenig could have based his statement that somebody went mad only on rumors but not on knowledge; that is all I said; that does not mean that there were murder rumors current in the camp.
Q: How long did you observe each experimental subject after they had completed their experiment? Three or four weeks?
A: The first group as far as I recall now, was 16 days, was under my observation for 16 days after the experiment was concluded, and the other group 12 to 14 days.
Q: You observed each one of them for that length of time?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you keep them right in your experimental station all that time?
A: Of course.
Q: When were they turned back to the hospital or the labor groups?
A: I released the experimental subjects on the 15th of September when the experimental station was broken up.
Q: Did you ever return to Dachau thereafter to see how they were getting along; to see whether or not they had received their pardons and and were getting their fulfillment of promises that you made?
A: I assumed as a matter of course that those promises would be kept, at that time, and I asked that these subjects should be given a physical examination subsequently; this was also promised me. It was very improbably that any symptoms should be developed but should any develop I wished to be informed of them.
Q: Now, this chart you have submitted to the Tribunal, drawn by Fritz Pillwein, giving the location of the various blocks in the camp. Do you have that before you there?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, we will note the Tribunal has it before them. I have a few questions to ask.
I may be of interest to the Tribunal in connection with this map or chart, you will note the Malaria Station of Schilling's and the name Vieweg in parenthesis.
Directly to the left of that is a block containing your experimental station, right?
A: Yes.
Q: What was between the two blocks, a street?
A: A court; that was the court yard in which my experimental subjects walked around, and that is where I spoke with the subjects, and this is the court yard in which Vieweg was not in a position to acquire enough information about what went on in my experimental station.
Q: Vieweg could see in that court yard could he not?
A: Of course, he could; his windows give onto this court yard.
Q: Well, now look up to the front of the block containing your experimental station.
If your Honors will refer to the photostatic copies of the German it gives a much more accurate view of the situation in as much as that is the affiant's draft, and that is a translation which is out of proportion to the original.
Now, in your block there seems to be a doorway between the toilet and washroom; is that correct? That is in the right hand corner of the block, is that a doorway going out into the street?
A: The exits, there were two exits from my experimental station; one through the room where the name "Mediziner" is written, that went down to the court yard; and, the other exit went past the washroom.
Q: The other exit went past the washroom; that is right here (indicating)?
A: Yes.
Q: What was right here (indicating)? In between the Malaria Station and your Hock, we have a court yard, and we have a line drawn here between the court yard and the block street. Now, what was here, a wire fencing? (indicating)—
JUDGE SEBRING: (Interposing) Mr. Hardy, I would suggest that perhaps when you say what was here or what was there, or what was over there, that when you begin to read the written record it does not convey very much information unless, when you are directing those question, you at the same time, perhaps will say: What is here, the point I now mark "A"; what is here, the point I now mark "B". That is just a suggestion.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, your Honor.
You will note from the chart, Dr. Beiglboeck, the malaria station — the block that has Vieweg's name in it. Now we go to the left hand corner. We mark that point A. We follow that over to your experimental station. We mark that point B. Now between A and B that is the point between, or the line drawn between the yard and the block street, what is this supposed, to represent, this line? Does that represent a wire fence or does that represent a brick wall or does that represent some sort of obstruction?
A: A wooden wall.
Q: Wooden wall?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you see over the wall?
A: No.
Q: You are certain it was wooden and not wire? You are certain of that?
A: I am suite certain it was wooden.
Q: You are certain it was not wire?
A: Yes.
Q: Would it have been possible to stand in the malaria station and have seen over that wall, be able to view people passing up the block street?
A: If you stood on the roof of the malaria station you right.
Q: Didn't Vieweg tell us that he could from his position in the malaria station see the morgue?
A: If he was in his malaria station he could see anything. That was impossible.
Q: You don't think he could see the morgue from the malaria station?
A: No, but he could see it if he were somewhere else in the camp. He wasn't locked up in the malaria station. But from this malaria laboratory in which he apparently was, and I assume that is where Vieweg stayed in his laboratory, when he was in there he could not see into that part of the hospital.
Q: Assume that it became necessary for you to carry one of your experimental subjects to the morgue. I am not suggesting that your experimental subject was dead but assume hypothetically that you had to carry an experimental subject to the morgue, would you carry him through the passageway or exit facing the main corridor of the hospital block on would you take him out through the exit facing the malaria station?
A: I would never carry a living person to the morgue. And, for that reason I never had any reason to bother myself about this little problem. Consequently I don't know what I should have done.
Q: Well, how did you take your subjects to the x-ray station, through the door facing the main corridor or through the door facing the malaria station?
A: Where it says "wash room". They were taken there along the course of the arrow, then to the right where it says "Labor". They were taken there. They were taken in between where it says "Revierstation" and "Labor". And then they were taken to the barracks where the x-ray station was.
Q: How many floors did each barracks have, was it a one story, to story, or three story building?
A: Only one.
Q: Only one. Would it be possible to stand at a point in front of the Eye, Ear, Nose & Throat station on the block street and view persons coming to your experimental station or coming out of your experimental station?
A: If you were in the Eye station, the ambulant patients of the hospital were in there waiting for medical examination. Now in there where it says "Gang" that means corridor, you would have to stand there to see what was being carried anywhere.
Q: But in no event was the view obstructed on the Block Strasse. That wasn't covered with a roof, was it?
A: That I can't tell you for sure on this Block Street, I think it was open to the sky.
MR. HARDY: This is a good breaking point, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.