a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving sea-water experiments (par. 6 (G) of the indictment). In the course of the trial the prosecution withdrew the charge in the case of Mrugowsky. On this charge the defendants Schroeder, Gebhardt, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Beiglboeck were convicted and the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, and Schaefer were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sea-water experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Schroeder. Extracts from that brief are set forth below on pages 419 to 443. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Schroeder and from the closing brief for the defendant Beiglboeck. It appears below on pages 434 to 446. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 447 to 494.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHROEDER
Sea-Water Experiments
On 19 May 1944 a conference was held at the German Air Ministry which was attended by Christensen, Schickler, Becker-Freyseng, and Schaefer, among others. This conference was concerned with the problem of the potability of sea-water. Two methods of making sea-water drinkable were then available to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently produced potable sea-water. It had the disadvantage, however, of requiring substantial amounts of silver which was available only in limited quantities. The second method, so-called Berkatit, was a substance which changed the taste of sea-water but did not remove the salt. It had the advantage of simplicity of manufacture and use.
At the conference on 19 May the defendant Becker-Freyseng reported on certain clinical experiments which had been conducted by von Sirany to test Berkatit. He came to the conclusion that the experiments had not been conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress. He reported that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was—
“* * * convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to health had to be expected not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health and—according to the opinion of Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than 12 days. External symptoms are to be expected such as dehydration, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death.” (NO-117, Pros. Ex. 133.)
As a result of this conference it was agreed to conduct new experiments. They were to include a series of experiments for a maximum of 6 days during which one group was to be given sea-water processed with Berkatit, another group ordinary drinking water, another group no drinking water at all, and the final group such water as was available in the emergency sea distress kits then used. A second series of experiments was decided upon and the report stated:
“Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also the emergency sea rations.
“Duration of experiments: 12 days.
“Since in the opinion of the chief of the medical service permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.” (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133.)
Thus, with full knowledge that the use of Berkatit for periods of 6 days would result in permanent injuries to the experimental subjects and that death would result no later than the 12th day, plans were made to conduct experiments of 6 and 12 days’ duration. It should be noted that the conference report does not state that the duration was a maximum of 12 days as in the case of the first series of experiment. The duration was to be 12 days in any event. Since it was known that volunteers could not be expected under such conditions, the conference determined to use inmates of concentration camps which would be put at their disposal by the SS. At a second meeting on 20 May 1944, the report states that “it was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments were (to be) conducted.” (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133.) Copies of the report on the conferences were sent, among others, to the Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbog, to which the defendants, Schaefer and Holzloehner, who conducted the freezing experiments with Rascher, were attached; to the German Aviation Research Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, to which the defendants Ruff and Romberg were attached; to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe (L. In. 14); and to the Reich Leader SS. The report was signed by Christensen of the Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry.
On 7 June 1944 the defendant Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz asking for concentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in the sea-water experiments. This letter reads in part as follows:
“Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today again I stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning.
“As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments are necessary.
“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be very suitable.” [Emphasis supplied.] (NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134.)
Schroeder concluded his letter by stating that the experiments would be directed by the defendant Beiglboeck.
That these experiments were carried out on nonvoluntary subjects is also proved by Grawitz’ letter to Himmler on 28 June 1944. (NO-179, Pros. Ex. 135.) In this letter Grawitz reports the opinions of Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Nebe, as well as his own, on the proposed experiments. Gluecks stated that he had no “objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the Rascher experimental station in the Dachau concentration camp. If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used.” It is impossible to imagine a Jew being asked to volunteer for anything in the Third Reich when they were being slaughtered by the millions in the concentration camps. Nebe stated: “I proposed taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make a special proposal to the Reich Leader, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should the Reich Leader agree to this, I shall list by name the persons to be used.” It is a little difficult to imagine how Nebe, chief of the Reich Criminal Police, could “list by name” gypsy volunteers for these experiments. Grawitz raised the objection to the use of gypsies on the ground that they were “of somewhat different racial composition” and he therefore wanted experimental subjects racially comparable to European peoples. Himmler decided that gypsies plus three others for control should be used. (NO-183, Pros. Ex. 136.)
Schroeder testified that he tried to arrange for carrying out the sea-water experiments at the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick. He remembered very specifically, according to his testimony, that he had contacted the commander of that hospital on 1 June 1944. He stated that he also attempted to obtain students as experimental subjects from the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in the latter part of May 1944. Both of these attempts to obtain volunteers allegedly failed because of the lack of clinical facilities and the calling up of students to active service. Schroeder testified that he went to the SS only after he had exhausted all other possibilities. He would have the Tribunal believe that there was no place to find 40 volunteers and the necessary clinical facilities, although von Sirany had conducted such experiments in Vienna on Wehrmacht soldiers, but of course for only 4 days. (Tr. pp. 3657-9.)
In connection with this testimony of Schroeder’s, it should be noted that the records of the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944 were immediately sent to the SS. The decision to use concentration camp inmates did not await any efforts to find volunteers but was made at the conference of 19 May. It was known that because of the very nature of the experiments which were planned volunteers could not be obtained. Contrariwise, it is impossible to believe that the commanding officer of the whole of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was unable to obtain 40 volunteers for the experiments which he claims were so innocuous. There were no regulations which forbade experiments on members of the Wehrmacht. (Tr. p. 3660.) The defense witness Haagen, in connection with his proposed epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings, as set forth in his letter of 27 June 1944 to Kalk, who was attached to the staff of Schroeder, insisted at great length that he planned to use volunteers from the student companies of the Wehrmacht at Strasbourg, Freiburg, or Heidelberg. (Tr. p. 9578.) He was positive that student volunteers would have been made available. He stated that he could have used them during their vacations. (Tr. p. 9579.) Kalk was also sure that this could have been done. Haagen emphasized repeatedly that volunteers were available. (Tr. p. 9580.) Clinical facilities would have been easily obtained in reserve hospitals. (Tr. p. 9581.)
Schroeder testified that he did not know that Berkatit would cause death in not more than 12 days. (Tr. p. 3666.) He could not remember whether Schaefer had told him that taking Berkatit for 12 days would cause death. In a pretrial interrogation, he specifically denied that. (Tr. p. 3668.) He testified that while both Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer were at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942 at which the report on the freezing experiments at Dachau was given, neither of them reported to him about it when he proposed going to Dachau to conduct the sea-water experiments. (Tr. p. 3669.) Schroeder denied that he had ever seen the report on the meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944 (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133) on the sea-water experiments. (Tr. p. 3662.) Although a copy of this report was sent to Himmler, he would have the Tribunal believe that it was a sheer coincidence that he turned to Himmler for experimental subjects without having seen the report. (Tr. p. 3669.) He testified that he told Grawitz in a meeting with him that he wanted the experiments carried out on dishonorably discharged soldiers. (Tr. p. 3670.) Grawitz allegedly said that he would respect this wish. Schroeder stated that he made it clear to Grawitz that the subjects had to be volunteers, with a little food as a reward. (Tr. p. 3672.) He further testified that he told Grawitz that the experiments had to be controlled by the Luftwaffe. During a pre-trial interrogation, he swore that he knew nothing about the sea-water experiments, that the SS took it out of his hands and he had no influence. (Tr. pp. 3610-1.) Schroeder had no idea, according to his testimony, that foreigners were incarcerated in concentration camps. He said that he knew that gypsies were used as experimental subjects only after the report by Beiglboeck in Berlin in October 1944. (Tr. p. 3676.) He testified that he instructed Beiglboeck that Berkatit was to be used only until the subjects said they could not tolerate any more. (Tr. p. 3677.) He admitted having heard the report by Beiglboeck on the experiments, together with Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer, among others, but that he did not hear the complete report as he had to leave the meeting early. (Tr. pp. 3679-80.)
The charts kept by the defendant Beiglboeck on each of the experimental subjects—which the defense was finally forced into submitting in evidence, after attempting to use them through the defense “expert” Vollhardt without offering the documents themselves—give some of the details as to the experiments, although under the circumstances their reliability is doubtful. (Tr. p. 9381.) Certain alterations in these records which will be discussed at a later point, indicate that they are not entitled to great weight. The experiments began in August 1944 and continued until the middle of September. Forty-four experimental subjects were used. Subjects one to six were deprived of all food and water for periods from 5½ to 7½ days. The duration of the experiments given herein is based upon the starting date of the morning of 22 August, as contended by the defense, although there is some evidence indicating that the starting date was 21 August. If the experiment was interrupted in the forenoon, no additional day or part thereof is counted. If it was interrupted between noon and 1700 hours, one-half day is added, while if it was interrupted after 1700 hours, a full day is added. Subjects 7 through 10 were given 1,000 cc. of Schaefer water for 12, 13, and 12 days, respectively, and hungered for 7, 8, and 9 days, respectively. Subject No. 9 was not used for reasons of health. This was the defense witness Mettbach. Subjects 11 through 18 were given 500 cc. of sea-water plus the emergency sea ration which contained approximately a total of 2,400 calories. These experiments lasted from 5 to 10 days. They hungered up to 6½ days. Several of these subjects, for example, 11, 13, 17, and 18 were subjected to two separate experiments of 8 and 6 days, 6 and 5 days, 7½ and 5 days, and 10 and 4 days, respectively. Subjects 19 through 25 were given 500 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. The duration of the experiments lasted from 5 to 9½ days with periods of hunger up to 6½ days. Subjects 19 and 20 underwent two separate experiments of 7 and 5 days each. Subjects 26 through 30 were given 1,000 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. Duration of the experiments was from 5 to 9½ days with periods of hunger up to 6½ days. Subject 29 underwent two experiments of 8 and 5 days. Subjects 31 and 32 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 8 and 6 days, respectively. Subject 31 was subjected to an additional experiment of 5 days. Subject 33 was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for 6 days; subject 34, 1,000 cc. of Schaefer for 12 days, subjects 35 through 37, 39, 41, and 42 were given 500 cc. of sea-water for periods ranging from 4 to 6 days; subjects 38, 40, and 43 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 6, 5, and 6 days; and subject 44 was given Schaefer water for 12 days.
The clinical charts on the experiments also supply us with the ages of the experimental subjects. Subjects 17, 19, 20, 35, 37, 40, and 43 were all under the age of 21. Subject 40 was 16 years old; subjects 17, 19, and 37 were 17 years old; subject 35 was 18 years old; subject 43 was 19 years old; and subject 20 was 20 years old. Needless to say, no effort was made to obtain the consent of the parents or guardians of these minors.
The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end of June 1944 where he was told by Becker-Freyseng that he was to carry out the sea-water experiments in Dachau. He also saw Schroeder previously in connection with the experiments. He said he attempted to withdraw because he had a horror of working in a concentration camp. He did not refuse to perform the experiments because he was afraid of being called to account for failure to obey orders. (Tr. pp. 8828-9.) Becker-Freyseng told him that the purpose of the experiments was, first, to find out if Berkatit was useful; second, to test the Schaefer method; and third, to see whether it would be better to go completely without sea-water or to drink small quantities of it. (Tr. p. 8832.) He said he was told by the officials in Dachau that the gypsies who were to be used in the experiments were held as “asocial” persons. Beiglboeck apparently considers himself an expert on asocials. He testified that it was his understanding that a whole family could be classified asocial, although this “does not exclude the possibility that, in this family, there may be a large number of persons who did not commit any crime.” (Tr. p. 8848.)
He testified that he called the experimental subjects together and told them what the experiment was about and asked them if they wanted to participate. (Tr. p. 8849.) He did not tell them how long the experiment would last. He did not tell them that they could withdraw at any time. He testified that he had to require that they thirst for a certain period. The decision as to their being relieved from the experiment lay with him. (Tr. p. 8850.) During the course of the experiments he testified that the subjects revolted on one occasion because they did not get the food they had been promised. (Tr. p. 8863.) They did not get food for several days because of a delay in delivery. (Tr. p. 8868.) The subjects were locked in a room during the experiments. Beiglboeck testified that:
“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.” (Tr. p. 8864.)
He stated that the danger point would be reached in about seven days drinking 500 cc. of sea-water, while in cases of 1,000 cc. of sea-water, it would be 4½ days. (Tr. pp. 8876-7.) Compare the much longer duration of the experiments as set out above.
It was readily apparent to the prosecution after an inspection of the clinical charts kept during the course of the experiments that a number of alterations had been made in them. These records were in the exclusive possession of defense counsel prior to the testimony of Vollhardt, whose expert opinion was based in part upon such records. In a large number of instances the names of the experimental subjects have been erased from the charts, obviously in an effort to make it impossible to locate such persons for the purpose of giving testimony. An examination of the charts further reveals that the final weights of the experimental subjects were written on the charts in a different shade of ink from the remainder of the records. In some cases these weights were written over the original pencil notations; for example, on chart C-2 the final weight of 62 kilograms in pencil was written over in ink to read 64½ kilograms. Beiglboeck admitted that the red arrows purporting to indicate the start of the experiments, usually appearing under the date August 22, were made by him in 1945, long after the experiment had been completed. (Tr. p. 8909.) In charts 1 to 32 a red mark under the date August 21 appears, which would indicate that the experiments very probably began on that date. Certain notes in German shorthand appear on the back of chart C-23. Beiglboeck admitted that he wrote these notes himself. (Tr. p. 8970.) Beiglboeck testified that:
“We [Beiglboeck and his defense counsel] were in agreement at all times that the charts and curves should be submitted in the same way as we received them here.” (Tr. p. 8921.)
He repeatedly stated that he did not make any erasures on the charts in Nuernberg. (Tr. pp. 8922, 8973, 8975-6.) When the proof left him no alternative, Beiglboeck finally admitted having made changes and erasures in the notes on the back of chart C-23 in Nuernberg. (Tr. p. 8978.) These notes give a clinical report on one of the experimental subjects who was critically ill. The following is a restoration of the original stenographic notes insofar as they could be translated:
“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. He takes no notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from his semiconscious condition (half a line erased).
“The appearance is very bad—looks doomed. The general condition gives cause for alarm.
“Respiration more shallow, labored, moderately frequent.
“Respirations 25 per minute.
“The eyes are deeply hollowed, the turgor of the skin greatly reduced.
“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly loose.
“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis lower border VI-XII, sharpened vesicular respiration.
“Heartbeats very low hardly audible. Filling of the pulse weaker. Increased thickness of walls of blood vessels. Frequency 72, liver, 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure; spleen on percussion slightly enlarged.
“Musculature hypotonic. Joints over-extendable. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indications of transverse welt formation, marked longitudinal welt formation. Romberg plus plus. Reflexes plus plus. Abdominal reflexes plus plus. Babinski negative. Eife phenomenon. Oppenheim negative. Rossolimo negative. Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad. Bulbus reflex positive. (Interruption.)”
Beiglboeck had substituted the word “somnolent” for the word “semiconscious” in the last line of the first paragraph. In this same paragraph half a line was completely erased and could not be translated. Beiglboeck purported not to remember what it said, an obvious falsehood since it was erased out of fear of the truth. In the last sentence of the second paragraph, Beiglboeck altered the notes to read “The general condition gives no cause for alarm.” In the first line of the eighth paragraph, Beiglboeck substituted the word “poorly” for “hardly.” The notation “Romberg plus plus” means that the subject has an “uncertain” ability to stand. (Tr. p. 8982.) He said that these notes refer to subject number 30 rather than subject 23. (Tr. p. 8984.)
Beiglboeck testified that he made no further changes, erasures, or alterations in Nuernberg. (Tr. p. 8992.) That Beiglboeck’s testimony as a whole is completely unreliable is evidenced by the fact that he also made erasures in the notes on the back of chart A-29. These notes, insofar as they can be translated, read as follows:
“The thirst again becomes very severe. Patient lies down on his back and rolls about. Also gets * * * a typical stereotyped organic rigid seizure with severe tetanic symptoms such as from his * * *, symptoms * * *. In view of the fact that in the last two days he has been drinking a great deal of water * * * quarter plus half liter, he is being taken out of the experiment.
“3/9 Again taken into the experiment.
“5/9 Again complains about very severe thirst.
“6/9 Feeling of thirst very severe, tongue dry and coated. Fetid smell from the mouth. Skin dry and hot, liver significantly enlarged, reflexes very lively, blood vessels show thickening of walls, musculature over-excitable.
“7/9 Psychic state has changed. Somnolence. Tongue dry, musculature feels stiffened. Considerable weakness of musculature with atoxic manifestation. Romberg positive. Blood vessels still * * *, pulse poorly filled, marked bradycardia, respiration accelerated. General condition [the next word erased and not legible], liver greatly enlarged.”
In the case of subject 25, Beiglboeck testified that this man was X-rayed several times and apparently had acute bronchitis. His fever went up to 39.8 Centigrade. (Tr. p. 8998.) He complained of a stomach ailment before the experiment began. (Tr. p. 9000.) He was still sick when Beiglboeck left Dachau on 15 September. (Tr. p. 9002.) Subject 39 was a man 49 years old; He was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for a period of four days, namely, from 1 September to 4 September, when the experiment was interrupted at 1930 hours. Beiglboeck used the truth with characteristic economy when he testified that the man was undergoing the experiment only three days. (Tr. p. 9010.) He admitted having performed numerous lumbar and liver punctures on the subjects. (Tr. p. 8933.)
A number of experimental subjects were able to gain access to fresh water in spite of the efforts of Beiglboeck to prevent them. Beiglboeck and his defense counsel assumed the anomalous position that this somehow mitigates his guilt. It is difficult to understand how this self-help on the part of the subjects, which undoubtedly saved the lives of the majority of them, could be raised as a mitigating factor when Beiglboeck did everything in his power to prevent that. As a matter of fact he did not even know that the experimental subjects in the first group, that is to say from 1 to 32, had been able to get at fresh water. He testified that:
“I should like to say that in the second group, when I knew their devices from my experience with the first group, I knew what to do and broke off the experiments. If I had wanted to continue the experiments, I would have done it in the second group too. This I did in the first group only became at first I did not realize the significance of their failure to lose weight.” [Emphasis supplied.] (Tr. p. 9022.)
Thus Beiglboeck says, in effect, that although he did not know that the experimental subjects gained access to fresh water, and although he continued the experiments far beyond what he himself knew to be the danger point, nonetheless he is to be excused because some of the experimental subjects drank fresh water secretly in spite of his efforts to prevent it.
The expert witness, Dr. Ivy, testified for the prosecution concerning sea-water experiments. He, himself, participated in an experiment of three days during which he consumed 2,400 cc. of sea-water with a caloric intake of 108 per day in the form of candy. He suffered marked dehydration and was at the point of developing hallucinations. A second volunteer in these experiments took 2,000 cc. in a little over one day and developed vomiting and diarrhea to such an extent that the experiment had to be stopped. (Tr. p. 9038-9.) Compare the amounts of sea-water taken by Beiglboeck’s subjects. For scientific data concerning the effect of sea-water on the human body, see Transcript pages 9039-41. Dr. Ivy pointed out certain basic inconsistencies in the testimony of the defense expert witness, Vollhardt. (Tr. pp. 9041-43.) Dr. Ivy testified that it was entirely unnecessary to perform these experiments for the purpose of establishing the potability of sea-water processed by the Berka method. This could have been determined chemically in a matter of one-half hour. (Tr. pp. 9043-4.) He stated that if 1,000 cc. of sea-water or Berkatit were taken per day, it would cause death in less than 12 days. Death would occur between the 8th and the 14th day if 500 cc. were consumed per day under ideal conditions. (Tr. p. 9045.) The statement in the report of the conferences on 19 and 20 May 1944 that if Berka water was used, damage to health was to be expected not later than six days and would lead to death not later than 12 days is essentially correct. (Tr. p. 9044.) This document shows that the planned duration of the experiments was 12 days. Dr. Ivy testified that it would be unnecessary to conduct experiments for more than three or four days to show that Berkatit was just as dehydrating as sea-water. (Tr. p. 9046.) He stated that these experiments make sense only if they were trying to determine the survival time of human beings on 500 cc. and 1,000 cc. of sea-water per day. It is clear that the experimental plan anticipated deaths. (Tr. pp. 9046-7.)
Dr. Ivy testified that, on the basis of his studies of the charts kept during the course of the experiments, there was an insufficient observation period after the experiments to determine whether there were any delayed damaging effects to the experimental subjects. (Tr. p. 9049.) The results of the experiments are not scientifically reliable. (Tr. p. 9051.)
Dr. Ivy pointed out that the chart of subject 3 proved that he was too weak to stand and have his blood pressure taken on several occasions. (Tr. p. 9052.) This was one of the subjects in the fasting and thirsting group. He was given an injection of coronine on 29 August and strychnine on 30 and 31 August. Both of these drugs are heart stimulants and the clinical picture indicates that this subject was ill or markedly disabled by the experiments. (Tr. p. 9053.) Eight to fourteen days is the range of survival time of strong men under ideal conditions for thirsting and fasting. (Tr. p. 9053.)
As a result of his study of the clinical records, Dr. Ivy testified that subjects 3, 14, 36, 37, 39, 31, 23 (or 30), 25, 28, and 29 were ill during the experiments. Subjects 3, 23, (or 30), and 25 were especially ill and there is a possibility that they were permanently injured or died as a result of the experiments. (Tr. pp. 9058-9.)
The subject to whom the notes on the back of chart C-23 applied was very sick and in a coma. (Tr. p. 9061.) The changes made in the stenographic notes by the defendant Beiglboeck make the subject appear to be in a better condition than he actually was. (Tr. pp. 9062-3.) The bulbous reflex referred to in these notes means the pressing of the eyeball to determine the degree of coma. “Tonus of ball of eyes is bad” indicates the blood pressure was low and the circulation was quite poor. This is a bad prognostic sign and might indicate impending death. (Tr. p. 9064.) These notes indicate that the subject was in a dangerous condition and required immediate remedial therapy. The follow-up observation for subject 23 was four days, while for subject 30 it was five days. This was entirely insufficient. This subject could have died if not properly cared for. (Tr. pp. 9065-6.)
Dr. Ivy testified that of the 44 subjects, 13 were too weak to stand on one or more occasions, had fever, required cardiac stimulants, or were unconscious—namely, subjects, 3, 4, 14, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39 and 40. (Tr. pp. 9067-8.) The statement of the affiant Bauer to the effect that he observed symptoms of heart weakness in the experimental subjects as a result of certain electrocardiograms he took was corroborated by Ivy. (Tr. p. 9069.)
In Dr. Ivy’s opinion, an experimental subject who agrees to undergo an experiment is no longer a volunteer if, during the course of the experiment, he is forced to continue after having expressed a desire to be relieved. (Tr. pp. 9076-7.)
The testimony of the defense expert Vollhardt is entirely unreliable. Although Vollhardt had nothing whatever to do with these experiments in Dachau, he repeatedly testified in a highly partial manner concerning matters about which he could not possibly have had any knowledge. For example, he insisted that the subjects in Dachau were volunteers. He testified that Beiglboeck eliminated three subjects before the experiments began because of their physical condition, and that three other persons immediately volunteered. (Tr. pp. 8457-8.) Even Beiglboeck made no such contention. He said that he considered it “quite out of the question that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to drink water out of mops, because there were air raid buckets and if they felt they needed a drink, they could have drunk out of them.” (Tr. p. 8467.) It is passing strange that Vollhardt could have such information when he was never in Dachau. He believed it quite impossible that any of the experimental subjects had cramps, although subject 29 is proved to have had cramps and organic seizures by the notes quoted above. Although Vollhardt admitted that the clinical data showed that a number of the experimental subjects had secretly obtained fresh water, and although Beiglboeck admitted that some of the subjects threw their urine away (Tr. p. 8865), Vollhardt was quite sure that the experimental subjects were all volunteers.
Vollhardt made no study of the clinical notes himself but turned them over to a 25-year-old assistant to digest for him. (Tr. p. 8432.) He admitted that he relied on descriptions of the experiments made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck since the trial began. (Tr. p. 8438.) Vollhardt had had no previous experience with sea-water problems, nor had his assistant. (Tr. p. 8451.) Vollhardt testified that he conducted a volunteer experiment on five of his doctor assistants after he had been approached by defense counsel. His subjects drank 500 cc. of simulated sea-water per day and received 1,600 calories per day. (Tr. pp. 8440-2.) Four of the subjects continued the experiment for five days and one for six days. The latter subject drank an extra 500 cc. on the last day. The purpose of these experiments was to ascertain how much a person suffers when undergoing a sea-water experiment. (Tr. p. 8443.) Vollhardt’s subjects continued their work about the clinic, although they ate and slept in the same room. He does not know whether they went to the local cinema or left the clinic for other purposes during the course of the experiments. (Tr. p. 8445.) Four of the subjects quit on the fifth day because of an engagement with a young lady. (Tr. p. 8450.) He testified that his subjects had no severe thirst on the first two days, it became unpleasant on the third, reduced thirst on the fourth, and very strong thirst on the fifth day; the subject who went six days reported that it made very little difference. All continued their work during the experiment. (Tr. p. 8453.) It is obvious that this experiment in no way compared to those conducted in Dachau. While some of the experimental subjects in Dachau were too weak on many occasions to have their blood pressure taken, Vollhardt’s subjects were able to continue their work.
While Vollhardt’s subjects were trained doctors who participated in the experiment because of interest, who were permitted to withdraw from the experiment at any time, who were permitted to control their own activities during the experiment, none of these important factors were present in the Dachau experiments. (Tr. p. 8479.) The wretched gypsies were not permitted to withdraw when they felt like it. They did not know how long the experiments were to last, they had no freedom of activity, they had no interest in the experiment. Vollhardt’s regard for these gypsies is apparent from his statement that “* * * people like that will of course find a way” to cheat. (Tr. p. 8468.) That Vollhardt knew nothing of the experiments he purported to testify about is apparent from his testimony regarding their duration. For example, he stated that in the Berkatit group of 500 cc., the experiments were discontinued after six days. (Tr. p. 8462.) The clinical charts which Vollhardt had in his possession, and upon which his testimony purported to be based, show that the duration of the experiments in this group ran as high as 9½ days, and in all but two cases exceeded six days. He testified that the group on sea-water was also discontinued after six days while the clinical charts show some of them to have run as long as ten days. In the fasting and thirsting group he testified that they were discontinued after four to five days, while the chart shows that they lasted from 5½ to 7½ days. (Tr. pp. 8462-3.) No, Vollhardt’s testimony would indeed have been an unreliable substitute for the charts.
The testimony of the prosecution witnesses proves that the sea-water experiments resulted in murder and tortures. The Austrian witness Vorlicek, who was tried for “preparation of high treason” in 1939 and sentenced to four years in a penitentiary, was transferred to Dachau in March 1944 and acted as an assistant nurse in the experimental station during the course of the sea-water experiments. (Tr. pp. 9383-5.) One of the inmate guards who fell asleep was transferred to a penal company. (Tr. p. 9386.) At least one of the subjects suffered a violent attack of cramps. (Tr. p. 9386.) On one occasion Vorlicek spilled some fresh water on the floor and forgot the rag which he used to mop it up. The experimental subjects seized the dirty rag and sucked the water out of it. Beiglboeck threatened to put him in the experiments if it ever happened again. (Tr. p. 9387.) The experimental subjects were not volunteers. Vorlicek talked to some of the Czech subjects who told him they had been asked in another camp to volunteer for a good outside assignment and only when they got to Dachau did they find out that they were to undergo the experiments. (Tr. pp. 9388, 9392.) He testified that the subjects were of Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian, and German nationalities. (Tr. p. 9388.) Some of the subjects were quite ill and he was under the impression that they would not live much longer. About three months after the experiments he met Franz, one of the subjects, and he told him that one of the victims of the experiments had already died. (Tr. p. 9390.)
The witness Laubinger, who was subject number 7, testified that he was arrested by the Gestapo in March 1943 because he was a gypsy. He was sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943 without having been tried for any crime. (Tr. p. 10199.) He was later transferred to Buchenwald for a few weeks and while there, together with other inmates, was asked to volunteer for a cleaning-up work detail in Dachau. The inmates were under the impression that conditions were better in Dachau, so they agreed to go. Upon their arrival at Dachau they were given a physical examination and X-rayed and then taken to the experimental station. (Tr. p. 10200.) Beiglboeck told them that they were to participate in the sea-water experiment and that was the first they knew of it. (Tr. p. 10201.) Laubinger identified Beiglboeck in the dock. (Tr. p. 10202.) He told Beiglboeck that he had had two stomach operations, but Beiglboeck did not permit him to withdraw. Beiglboeck did not ask whether the subjects wished to volunteer, and they did not volunteer. (Tr. p. 10203.) Laubinger, who was in the Schaefer group, was given Schaefer water for 12 days and fasted for at least nine days. He got so weak he could hardly stand up. The experimental subjects received special food for only one day after the experiment. Beiglboeck had promised them extra rations and an easy work detail but these promises were not kept. (Tr. p. 10205.) One of the subjects tried to persuade the others to refuse to drink the sea-water. Beiglboeck threatened to have him hanged for sabotage. The subject later vomited after drinking sea-water whereupon Beiglboeck had the water administered through a stomach tube. (Tr. p. 10207.) Another subject was tied to his bed and adhesive tape was plastered over his mouth, because he had obtained some fresh water and bread. Most of the subjects were Czech, Polish, and Russian nationalities, with approximately eight Germans. (Tr. p. 10208.). A number of subjects suffered attacks of delirium and two were transferred to the hospital. Laubinger did not see them again. (Tr. p. 10209.)
The witness Hoellenrainer corroborated the testimony of Laubinger on all important points. He testified that the experimental subjects did not volunteer (Tr. p. 10509) and that the majority of them were non-German nationals. (Tr. p. 10513.) Hoellenrainer testified further that Beiglboeck showed no concern for the experimental subjects, but, on the contrary, threatened to shoot them when they became excited. (It hardly seems appropriate to wear a gun when experimenting on volunteers.) He had no pity for them when they became delirious from thirst and hunger. (Tr. p. 10510.) The witness Hoellenrainer unfortunately assaulted Beiglboeck in open Court. This impulsive act of the witness, however, speaks more forcibly than volumes of testimony as to the inhuman treatment of the experimental subjects and the suffering which was inflicted on them as a result of these experiments. We may rest assured that Hoellenrainer was no volunteer. When explaining his behavior to the Tribunal, Hoellenrainer characterized Beiglboeck a “murderer”. (Tr. pp. 10233-4.)
The witness Tschofenig was committed to Dachau in November 1940 where he remained until April 1945. He was a political prisoner. (Tr. p. 9331.). He is at present a member of the Carinthian Land Diet in Austria. (Tr. p. 9332.) From the summer of 1942 until the end, he was in charge of the X-ray station in Dachau. (Tr. p. 9334.) He examined the transport of gypsies in the summer of 1944 before the experiments began and excluded a number of them as being unfit. (Tr. pp. 9334-5.) He saw Beiglboeck several times in the camp and in the X-ray station. (Tr. p. 9335.) During the experiments a number of those who got sick were brought to the X-ray station for examination. Their physical condition had deteriorated considerably as a result of the experiments. He heard that one of the subjects had a maniac attack. (Tr. p. 9336.) At the conclusion of the experiments, three of the subjects were brought to the station for internal diseases. One was on a stretcher and unable to walk. All of them were X-rayed by Tschofenig. (Tr. p. 9338.) It was customary to send the results of the X-ray examinations to the hospital ward where the inmates were kept. Tschofenig received an official order from the station for internal diseases that it was not necessary to report on the stretcher case as he had died two days after his transfer. The station physician reported that the death resulted from the sea-water experiments. Tschofenig examined the death records himself. (Tr. p. 9339.)
Even Dr. Steinbauer, defense counsel for Beiglboeck, has apparently convinced himself that these experiments involved torture. He said, in explaining his conduct in withholding part of a document the Tribunal had ordered to be produced, that: “I do not want to say anything about the experimental subjects, who suffered terribly.” (Tr. p. 9378.)
c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense
EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT SCHROEDER[[47]]
I now come to the count of the indictment “Participation of the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea-water experiments which were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.”
In the case of these experiments, Professor Schroeder’s participation has been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as the preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned. Professor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the prosecution of having permitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp. The prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated that these experiments were not necessary at all, and it drew the conclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to torture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it also stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental subjects been volunteers.
Therefore it is the task of the defense to show in the following paragraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder, as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, these experiments had to be considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his approval for the carrying out of the experiments in a concentration camp.
The first question therefore is—why and from what considerations were there experiments ordered at all? It must be stated in advance here, that as far as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was concerned, he did not have to examine the question whether one or the other method for making sea-water drinkable was more suitable; the problem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It was to rescue shipwrecked persons from death from lack of water and find the best method of protection against this danger. This problem had already been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time, and various individual questions for the solution of this problem had arisen. No method for making sea-water drinkable had been found and it was not clear what procedure should be advocated.
In the course of the year 1943 two methods for making sea-water drinkable were offered almost simultaneously. One of them, the so-called Wofatit method, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with I. G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of Stabsingenieur Berka.
It was quite clearly recognized that Schaefer’s Wofatit represented the ideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the sea-water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let the salt remain in the sea-water and only improved the taste of the sea-water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We agree with the prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they state that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided by means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkatit was better. The participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, realized that quite clearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have been solved in a simple manner.
The difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this problem, however, lay in another field; this was the shortage of raw materials prevailing at the time, which had arisen in Germany because of the war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider the Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method could be procured without any difficulty and production could be started right away, since production facilities for the appropriate amounts were already in existence. It was different in the case of Wofatit. Considerable amounts of silver were required for its production, which could not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging other production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical Office of the Luftwaffe, therefore, had already decided in favor of the introduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have assumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to his professional medical care equipped with the Berka method, because the danger existed that shipwrecked aviators, deceived by the improvement in the taste of sea-water, would drink it in larger amounts and thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also had to be clarified whether the shipwrecked crew of an airplane completely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever or whether they should consume a certain amount of sea-water rather than no water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying out an experiment on human beings. An experiment on animals would not suffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body of animals differs from that in a human being. By proving its medical objections, the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make its point of view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert, Professor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best known specialists for internal diseases not only in Germany, but in Europe, had not sided with the Technical Office. Professor Eppinger, in the conference at the Technical Office on 25 May 1944, expressly voiced the opinion that the Berka method was suitable, because for a certain time the human kidney could concentrate salt up to 3 percent, and because the vitamins which had been added to the Berka method would be suitable for speeding up the excretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also shared at the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner, who is still one of the leading specialists in the field today.
Professor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods. He would then have been reproached with the fact that he had not done everything within his power in order to make the position of shipwrecked German soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying of lack of water. It, therefore, becomes evident that these considerations on the part of Schroeder give us proof of his great feeling of responsibility; it was not easy for him to give his approval for the carrying out of such experiments.
Further developments also show clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the fact that he was extremely busy with official matters, devoted the greatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just decide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be carried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he intended to have the experiments carried out as a troop experiment in institutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily considering the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1 July 1944 he turned to the chief medical officer of this hospital, who was competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it. This becomes evident from the certificate of Dr. Harriehausen, who was a Generalarzt at the time. Now Professor Schroeder began to consider the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended to use the young cadets in this academy as experimental subjects. An inquiry which he made there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his requests were turned down in each case was that just at this particular time the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect that all convalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to their units, and that the cadets of the academy were to be given a combat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor Beiglboeck to carry out the experiments at the Tarvis Field Hospital also remained unsuccessful.
The further possibility of perhaps using German civilians for the experiments was completely out of question because at this time it was not possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case among the German civilian population, because all of them had either been conscripted for military service or for labor service. Professor Schroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion of considering Dachau concentration camp for his experimental station.
Professor Schroeder was not informed at all about conditions in a concentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no different from those prevailing in a military camp, and only the names Dachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the concentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. Schroeder never listened to foreign radio stations. In the circles of his medical officers such events were never discussed. I may point out here that an express opponent of National Socialism, no less than the former Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a witness in the IMT trial that he had had no knowledge of the events in the concentration camps, and he had different sources of information at his disposal from Professor Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had had any idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from Germany, then in view of his ideology as a faithful Christian, he would have refused such contact with concentration camps arising out of ordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder’s favor is that the experiments were not to be carried out under the supervision and command of the SS camp leadership but completely separate, under the special leadership of a Luftwaffe medical officer and recognized specialist. As a further consideration, Professor Schroeder had to take into account that a useful result could be achieved in these experiments only if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance. Because of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the whole of Germany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these experiments could be given in any spot in Germany. However, it was known that air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the charge cannot be brought against Professor Schroeder that he chose a concentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who perforce had to subject themselves to the experiments. The very opposite is true. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that if he wanted to be successful he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary experimental subjects, for the director of the experiments was dependent on the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, since in no other way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary experimental subject would have had the power to drop out of the experiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this way, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it prematurely.
For the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder’s conduct, his conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered especially. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he could only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons, whose age corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made the further condition that the experimental persons should have the same physiological and racial requisites as the members of the German Wehrmacht in question. On direct examination, Professor Schroeder testified under oath that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about dishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he knew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the seriousness of their offenses.
Professor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of Grawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not accept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German Wehrmacht, gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes. Professor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to make arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to expect that the SS would decide upon experimental subjects, against his well-founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the prerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder.
Because of the extremely heavy official duties caused for Professor Schroeder in his capacity as chief medical officer by the imminent collapse of German military resistance, this affair was only a small segment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not concern himself further with this affair.
A further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to bear in mind was whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the health of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly studied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the problem. Professor Schroeder also knew that sea-water is used by doctors for drinking cures and that the criterion of harmfulness depends on the doses. If there was medical supervision then there would be no danger to health. Therefore, the prosecution’s charge that he failed to take the possible hazards sufficiently into account is not justified.
Nothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized Professor Schroeder more than the instructions which the medical inspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments.
Professor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to the experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reich Physician SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when the quantity of sea-water to be taken was regulated in accordance with the best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that the experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore, if the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on the basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments would be carried out in a humane manner, taking into account all medical and clinical considerations.
Therefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he, from his position as a physician and a leading medical officer, considered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible sources of danger as far as humanly possible. His direction to the man in charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental subject refused to take in further water, and if dangerous injury to the body were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder’s favor. The person carrying out the experiments was furnished with all necessary assistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as well as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion.
The contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments by Schroeder can stand any examination, that that planning was with full moral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was reaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Vollhardt, as well as by the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable that instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct from a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked out.
By this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder in the sea-water complex are refuted.
EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK
The Persons Subjected to the Experiments
As regards this subject [sea-water experiments] I want to put the defendant’s statements first (Tr. pp. 8703-4):
“Dr. Steinbauer: Did you have influence on the selection of the experimental subjects?
“Defendant Beiglboeck: No. I was told at the Medical Inspectorate that arrangements had been made with the SS, and the SS in accordance with these arrangements would supply the experimental subjects. I did not have to worry about that.
“Q. Did you have orders to find out where the experimental subjects came from and what the specified circumstances and conditions were?
“A. No. That too was not a decision that I could have made, nor could the Luftwaffe.
“Q. Did you know before that gypsies had been used?
“A. I only found out that gypsies were coming into Dachau from the camp commandant. * * * I, therefore, do not feel that I am responsible either for the selection of the place where the experiments were carried out nor for the selection of those persons who were used.”
Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder states regarding this (Tr. pp. 3676-7): [Transcriber Note: The text ends here. No further statement printed in the original text.]
CROSS-EXAMINATION
“Mr. McHaney: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?
“Defendant Schroeder: No. We only spoke about the matter as such. I am not quite sure whether the question ‘concentration camp’ was already established at that time. Please, why don’t you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don’t know if it was before or after 1 June.
“Q. You didn’t say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that only German volunteers were used in the experiments?
“A. That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about it. It was no subject of discussion. There wasn’t anything to be discussed.
“Q. Well, you didn’t tell him that then?
“A. I don’t know. I can’t tell you that under oath. I know that there were volunteers; and I certainly did not say that they had to be German because I didn’t take any other possibility into consideration at all and couldn’t have said it. These are all reconstructions which came up later, but at that time weren’t subjects of discussion at all.”
These were gypsies wearing the black badge of the asocials. The defendant states that the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the shipment told him that these persons were all asocials, who were interned on account of punishable offenses and not for social reasons. As we read in Kogon’s book “The SS State”[[48]] the black badge was in fact the designation of the asocials. We see from Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit 135, that SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe suggested as persons to be used for the experiments asocial persons of mixed gypsy blood in Auschwitz concentration camp, who were in good health but at the same time unsuitable for labor. In the book on gypsies of the Royal Police Directorate Munich 1905, (Beiglboeck 28, Beiglboeck Ex. 11), we read:
“The greatest difficulty arises in securing a census of gypsies. The majority of them make every effort to obscure their identity through false statements or through a pretense of ignorance * * *.”
Their asocial character led to a series of police regulations, of which the most important are the following, as far as Germany is concerned:
Decree of 16 May 1938, RMB1.i.V. (Bulletin of the Reich Ministry of the Interior) pages 883-4, concerning measures against the gypsy nuisance.
Decree of 8 December 1938, RMB1.i.V., page 2105, concerning measures against the gypsy nuisance.
Decree of 10 November 1939, RMB1.i.V., page 2339, concerning employment records for gypsies.
Decree of 2 September 1939, Reich Law Gazette, I, page 1578. Prohibition of wandering of gypsies in the frontier zone[[49]] (Sec. 4 of the ordinance concerning frontier protection).
The witness Dorn states (Tr. p. 8618):
“As far as I know, the brown sign was done away with in Buchenwald in 1940 and all gypsies arrested for racial reasons were asocial. In other words, from 1940 on, there were no gypsies in the camp who were not designated in the filing system as asocial, as unwilling to work.”
The same witness states (Tr. pp. 8661-2):
“I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the gypsies who were not declared asocial elements were removed from Dachau to the Labor House in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.”[[50]]
The famous Swiss Psychiatrist E. Bleuler, Zuerich, writes in his Textbook on Psychiatry, Berlin, Springer, 1937 on pages 397-400 about:
Constitutional ethnical deviations
“* * * A large number of asocials show what type of character they are while still young. Most of them are backward at school, even if their intelligence is good, because they adjust themselves too little and show too little industry and attention. Extraordinary achievements in any single direction are rare. Many of them are lazy, thieving, lying, cruel to animals and people, exacting, often deliberately and negligently damaging their own and others property, vain, unreliable, and egotistical. They cannot submit to authority, run away if they do not like anything; punishments are not respected, altogether neither sugar plums nor the whip have any visible effects. When carrying out mean tricks they develop cunning and energy, soon learn from others what is bad, with difficulty or not at all what is good, have an instinctive inclination for bad company.”
I have not made any special reference to asocial character to point out that we must be particularly careful when estimating their trustworthiness, on account of their tendency to mendacity and because of a certain psychotic cupidity concerning claims for compensation. This is not necessary where the judges are so experienced; I am referring to this fact for legal reasons. It is well known that there is no legal definition of crimes against humanity. According to legal authors, such crimes can only be committed against persons who are persecuted for political, religious, and racial reasons.
To complete this chapter in its legal aspects, I would also like to mention the racial regulation of the gypsy question as far as it can be seen from German legislation. According to the 12th decree implementing the Reich Citizenship Law, dated 25 April 1943 (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 268), gypsies who are not yet German citizens cannot acquire citizenship. Section 4 of this decree reads:
“Jews and gypsies cannot become citizens. They cannot become citizens either subject to revocation, or protected persons * * *.”
According to the first decree implementing the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 14 November 1935 (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 1334), marriage between gypsies and Germans is prohibited. Section 6 of this decree reads:
“A marriage shall furthermore not be contracted if the progeny to be expected from it would endanger the purity of German blood.”
In all fairness, however, one must admit in this connection that in the practice of the Third Reich no strict distinction seems to have been made when gypsies were put in a concentration camp, so that we should need the criminal record and family history of each person subjected to the experiments to be able to ascertain accurately the asocial character of each individual. It is a fact that in the gypsy book mentioned by me, 11 names of persons subjected to experiments are to be found, who must no doubt be characterized as asocial.
Origin of the gypsies as to nationality
As I have already mentioned, the gypsies themselves like to leave this point vague. Therefore no point of the evidence contains so many conflicting statements as this particular one. Beiglboeck himself cannot make any definite statements as to this matter, but as he used to speak to all of them, they must all have understood German. Among the names we also find plenty of Slav names, having a Polish, Ukrainian, or Southern Slav sound. In the old Austrian Monarchy, these people were jumbled together a good deal and in their wanderings they also entered German Reich territory. After the break-up of the Monarchy, some of the so-called Carpatho-Russians became citizens of Hungary or Slovakia. In the eastern provinces of the German Reich, there were many Poles or Germanized persons with Polish names. The mere name, therefore, admits of no conclusion as to nationality. The fact, however, that most of them could make themselves understood in the German language allows the conclusion that none of the persons subjected to experiments were imported from the Allied countries.
The witness Fritz Pillwein states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 32, Beiglboeck Ex. 21):
“The experimental subjects in most cases spoke their gypsy dialect. Many of them were obviously of Slav origin. I did not see identification papers, however, as this was quite impossible in a concentration camp and as I did not ask them anything of the kind, I cannot make any exact statement regarding the nationality of the individual gypsies. I did not ask them because the gypsies were very primitive people, and some of them did not even know their own birthdays.”
The witness Mettbach stated when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (Tr. p. 9729):
“Dr. Steinbauer: What language did you speak among yourselves?
“Witness Mettbach: Mostly gypsy language.
“Q. What was the citizenship of the individual experimental subjects?
“A. Mostly they were Germans. There were a lot of Austrians and a lot of them came from East Prussia and Upper Silesia and the Burgenland [Province bordering Austria-Hungary].”
When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Mettbach stated (Tr. pp. 9737-8):
“Mr. Hardy: Were there any foreign nationals—that is, men other than Germans—used in these experiments?
“Witness Mettbach: Austrians and Burgenlaender and some from Upper Silesia and East Prussia.
“Q. No Czechs?
“A. No.
“Q. No Russians?
“A. No.
“Q. No Poles?
“A. A couple of them talked Polish but I think they came from Upper Silesia or East Prussia. That very often happens. Lots of Upper Silesians can talk Polish.”
When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Joseph Vorlicek stated (Tr. p. 9388):
“Mr. Hardy: Do you know the nationality of the various subjects?
“Witness Vorlicek: For the most part I do.
“Q. Can you tell the Tribunal the nationality of the various subjects, as near as you can recollect?
“A. There were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and Germans.”
During direct examination the witness Vorlicek stated (Tr. p. 9388):
“Mr. Hardy: Well, did they ever volunteer for any special detachment or some such thing?
“Witness Vorlicek: Well, this is how it happened. Since I know the Slavonic language, and there were some Czechs among them, I spoke to them.”
Therefore, the defendant’s statement, that the persons concerned were Slovaks from the Bratislava area (Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia) is not without foundation.
The Rations of the Gypsies
The defendant states that the persons subjected to the experiments got the Luftwaffe flight rations before the experiments, and the same rations after the experiments, and that there was a hitch only once due to the bombing of the provisions warehouse. During the experiments, the persons got shipwreck rations. The Englishman, Ladell also says that he gave his soldiers shipwreck rations during the experiments. On this point, see extract from Beiglboeck 20, Beiglboeck Exhibit 8:
“* * * In all the experiments the food given was the ‘shipwreck diet’; this comprises 1 ounce each per day of biscuits; sweetened condensed milk; butter, fat, or margarine; and chocolate.”
That food was provided is evident from two documents. (Beiglboeck 26, Beiglboeck Ex. 13; Beiglboeck 27, Beiglboeck Ex. 14.)
The witness Massion states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12):
“Before beginning the experiment, the experimental subjects were given the same food as that supplied to the flying personnel of the Luftwaffe, that is to say, a very nutritious diet of sardines, butter, cheese, milk, meat, etc. During the experiment, 4 persons assigned to the thirst group received no food whatsoever, the others received sea-emergency rations, with chocolate, etc. I know that on one occasion difficulties arose in the food supply which possibly were connected with an air raid. I was sent to Frankfurt with the urgent order to obtain sea-emergency rations there.”
The Treatment of Gypsies
Beiglboeck treated the experimental subjects in a humane manner. It is natural that he insisted the strict observance of the whole experiment was not to be a farce. The whole experiment was a constant struggle against the understandable attitude of the experimental subjects who wanted to save themselves by cheating the director of the experiment (by secretly drinking water and pouring away the urine), and by obtaining special favors, in particular cigarettes, which in 1944 were hard to get—and that not only in the concentration camps.
In regard to this point I refer to a document in which Professor Dr. Dennig writes (Beiglboeck 29, Beiglboeck Ex. 15):
“While the people are able for the first few days successfully to fight their thirst with good grace, their strength of will is insufficient during the later stage; they devise extremely subtle means of obtaining water, e. g., the case of Juergensen.”
Witness Ernst Mettbach states in regard to this point when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (Tr. p 9722):
“Dr. Steinbauer: The professor forbade your bringing them water. Did you nevertheless bring them water? Now, be honest.
“Witness Mettbach: Several times I brought my relative, Mettbach, water to drink.
“Q. Where did you give it to him?
“A. Sometimes I smuggled it in to the experimental station myself. Sometimes I stuck it through the fly screen on the window which was a little bit loose.”
Later we shall speak in detail about the secret drinking of water. At this point I just want to say in general that every drop of water which was consumed in secret not only diminished the scientific value of the experiments, but is also of greatest significance from the point of view of criminal law, because it decreased the feeling of thirst. As I said before, the treatment of the experimental subjects was a humane one. In regard to this point compare the statement of Dr. Lesse (Bieglboeck 14, Bieglboeck Ex. 20):
“Q. What was his attitude to the prisoners in general?
“A. Very humane and benevolent.”
Witness Massion states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12):
“Dr. Beiglboeck treated the prisoners as humanly as ordinary patients. He was rough to them only when they obtained drinking water contrary to orders. I know definitely that none of the experimental subjects were turned over to the SS for punishment because of any offenses.”
Witness Pillwein states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 32, Beiglboeck Ex. 21):
“Q. How did Beiglboeck treat the inmates?
“A. Beiglboeck treated the patients well, which was a striking contrast to the treatment which we inmates received from the SS. Beiglboeck only became very angry when the gypsies lied to him regarding the drinking of water, and when he found out about it from the blood test.”
d. Evidence
| Prosecution Documents | |||
| Pros. | |||
| Doc. No. | Ex. No. | Description of Document | Page |
| NO-184 | 132 | Letter from the Technical Office of the Reich Minister of Aviation (Goering) to Himmler’s office, 15 May 1944, concerning methods to render sea-water potable. | [447] |
| NO-177 | 133 | Minutes of conference at the Reich Ministry of Aviation, 20 May 1944, concerning methods for making sea-water potable. | [448] |
| NO-185 | 134 | Letter from Schroeder to Himmler and Grawitz, 7 June 1944, requesting subjects for sea-water experiments. | [452] |
| NO-183 | 136 | Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, undated, concerning experimental subjects. | [453] |
| NO-182 | 137 | Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 24 July 1944, concerning experiments on the potability of sea-water. | [454] |
| Defense Documents | |||
| Doc. No. | Def. Ex. No. | Description of Document | |
| Becker-Freyseng 42 | Becker-Freyseng Ex. 29 | Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig Harriehausen, 9 January 1947, regarding use of patients in sea-water experiments. | [455] |
| Testimony | |||
| Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Karl Hoellenrainer | [456] | ||
| Extracts from the testimony of defendant Beiglboeck | [468] | ||
| Extracts from the testimony of defense expert witness Dr. Franz Vollhardt | [474] | ||
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-184
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 132
LETTER FROM THE TECHNICAL OFFICE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF AVIATION (GOERING) TO HIMMLER’S OFFICE, 15 MAY 1944, CONCERNING METHODS TO RENDER SEA WATER POTABLE
[Stamped] Secret
[Letterhead]
Reich Minister of Aviation
and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe
Technical Office
Ref. Nrs. 91a, 0016 GL/C-E (51V)
No: 26 773 secret
(In your answer to the above
reference, please give date and
short summary.)
Berlin W 8, 15 May 1944
Leipziger Strasse 7
Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin
Phones: Local: 520024
218241
120047
Long distance: 218011
Extension: 4335
| Re: Rendering sea-water potable. | |
| Reference: | Letter of the Reich Leader SS |
| No. 39/4/44 secret of 17 January 1944. | |
| To: Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police, | |
| Personal Staff. | |
| Berlin | |
With reference to the interoffice conference between Oberstingenieur Christensen and Haupsturmfuehrer Engineer Dohle regarding the above-mentioned matter, it is announced that two processes have been worked out by the office to render sea-water potable:
1. The I. G. method, using mainly silver nitrate. For this process quite a large plant needs to be set up, which would require about 200 tons of iron and cost about 250,000 RM. The amount of the product needed by the Luftwaffe and Navy requires 2.5 to 3 tons of pure silver a month. Besides, the water which is rendered potable by this preparation has to be sucked through a filter in order to avoid absorption of precipitated chemicals. These facts make the application of this process practically impossible.
2. The second process which was worked out is the so-called Berka method. According to this method, the salts present in the sea-water are not precipitated, but are so treated that they are not disagreeable to the taste. They pass through the body without oversaturating it with salts and without causing an undue thirst. No special plants are necessary for producing preparations needed for this process; nor do the preparations themselves consist of scarce materials.
It can be presumed that this method will be introduced in the Luftwaffe and the navy in a short time. Now that German technical science has actually succeeded in rendering sea-water potable for people in distress at sea, in accordance with the above, the knowledge as to how foreign countries intend to solve this problem is no longer of prime importance. Naturally the office is very much interested in ascertaining how, above all, the United States has solved this problem, and it is requested that this information be sought, without, however, compromising any person or any office too much.
Should the office there be interested in the Berka method, let us know. Samples can then be delivered.
The cube dispensed is not a preparation to render sea-water potable, but a milk cube such as is already familiar to the offices.
[Signature illegible]
Enclosure: [Notation: both crossed out]
1 Milk cube
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-177
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 133
MINUTES OF CONFERENCE AT THE REICH MINISTRY OF AVIATION, 20 MAY 1944, CONCERNING METHODS FOR MAKING SEA WATER POTABLE
Personal Staff RF-SS.
Filing Department, File No./220/5
Technical Office
GL/C-E 5 IV No. 26860/44 secret
Berlin, 23 May 1944
[Handwritten] W 29.6
[Handwritten]:
Just received
for reading given
to RF [Himmler]
[Signature] R. Br. [Rudolf Brandt]
| Reichsarzt SS | 4/July |
Minutes of the conference on 20 May 1944 re methods for making sea-water drinkable
Present:
| 10. | Oberstingenieur | Christensen | German Air Ministry— | |
| GL/C-E 5 IV | 120047/28 | |||
| 11. | Stabsingenieur | Dr. Schickler | dto. | 120047/4335 |
| 12. | Stabsingenieur | Berka | E-Tra | Vienna |
| B 23566 | ||||
| 13. | Stabsarzt | Dr. Becker-Freyseng | Chief Medical Service | 278313 |
| 14. | Unterarzt | Dr. Schaefer | Luftwaffe Medical | |
| Research Institute | 27 83 13 | |||
I. On 19 May 1944 a preliminary discussion was held at the Reich Air Ministry—GL/C-E 5 IV. Present were the following persons:
| GL/C-E 5 IV | Obersting. Christensen |
| dto. | Stabsing. Dr. Schickler |
| E-Tra. | Stabsing. Berka |
| L. In. 14 | Major Jeworrek |
| Chief of the Medical Service [Office] | Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng |
| dto. | Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer |
| Herr Pahl. |
At this meeting Captain (med.) Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Colonel (med.) Dr. von Sirany and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final decision. The Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health and—according to the opinion of N. C. O. (med.) Dr. Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than 12 days.
External symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death. As a result of the preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange a new series of experiments of short duration. A commission was to be set up for the arrangement of these series of experiments. This commission should be set up together with the High Command of the Navy at the conference on 20 May 1944.
The series of experiments should include the following:
| 1. | a. | Persons to be given sea-water processed with Berka method. | |
| b. | Persons to be given ordinary drinking water. | [Shorthand notation]: | |
| One copy to be submitted | |||
| to the ministry. | |||
| c. | Persons without any drinking water at all. | ||
| d. | Persons given water treated according to the present method. (0.7 liters of drinking water for 4 persons and 4 days.) | ||
For the duration of the experiments all persons will receive only an emergency sea diet such as is provided for persons in distress at sea.
Duration of experiments: Maximum 6 days
In addition to these experiments a further experiment should be conducted as follows:
2. Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also the emergency sea rations.
Duration of experiments: 12 days
Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service permanent injuries to health—that is, the death of the experimental subjects—have to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Herr Pahl reports that due to the latest improvements in the I. G. Farben method, smaller quantities of iron are needed for the construction of the manufacturing equipment than were originally provided for and estimated by I. G. Herr Pahl reports further that if the Wofatit equipment which has to be constructed could not be used later for the manufacturing of the sea-water preparation another use would be quite possible. As to the silver problem GL/C-E 5 IV will check whether the necessary quantities of silver are available.
With GL/C-B 5 it is to be determined whether the same quantities of the preparations will be required as heretofore.
II. At the main conference on 20 May 1944, Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler will report on work done since the last conference, especially re the results of the preliminary discussion described in part I.
The navy emphasizes that it is considered to be of great importance to obtain a method which under the given conditions could be introduced at once without undue delay. In the opinion of the navy the results obtained at the clinical experiments are sufficient, since they are mainly interested in being able to nourish their men 3 to 5 days with the preparation. A longer nourishing period up to 12 days would probably only be necessary in very few cases. But in spite of this the High Command of the Navy agrees that the series of experiments, as proposed by the Chief of the Medical Service in paragraph 1, should still be carried out.
These series of experiments should be finished and reported on not later than the end of June. During this period all preparations are to be made for the commencement of production according to the Berka method at a date not later than July 1st 1944, and also, if the I. G. method should be introduced, for the start of the construction of the necessary manufacturing equipment by the I. G.
The commission which has to determine the conditions for the series of experiments still to be conducted is composed as follows:
Professor Eppinger, Vienna, Representative of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Air Force
Representative of the German Air Ministry GL/C
Representative of the High Command of the Navy
Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng is being contemplated as representative of the Chief of the Medical Service. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler and Stabsingenieur Berka as representatives of GL; and Professor Orzichowski as representative of the High Command of the Navy.
It was decided that Berlin, Reich Air Ministry GL/C-E 5 IV should be the meeting place of the commission. (The originally proposed meeting place was changed from Munich to Berlin after a telephone call from Dr. Becker-Freyseng); and that the meeting should be on 25 May 1944 at 10:00 a. m.
It was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments should be conducted.
Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng would invite Professor Eppinger and would get in touch with the Reich Leader SS. The High Command of the Navy would invite Professor Orzichowski.
Distribution:
High Command of the Navy—Medical Department
High Command of the Navy, Department for Research, Inventions and Patents
Research Operation of the Reich Ministry for Aviation and High Command of the Luftwaffe
For information of:
Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force Jueterbog
E-Office Rechlin (E med)
Institute for Aviation Medicine,
D. V. L., Berlin-Adlershof
L. In. 14. 1. Abt. 2 Abt., Gruppe 3, KTB
Reich Leader SS
Technical Academy, Vienna
[Signature] C. Christensen
[Handwritten]
A—
RSHA. Through asocial gypsies
Gerhabdt.
[Stamp]
Personal Staff RFSS—enclosures received on: 12 June 1944
Journal No. 39/4/44g.
to:
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-185
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 134
LETTER FROM SCHROEDER TO HIMMLER AND GRAWITZ, 7 JUNE 1944, REQUESTING SUBJECTS FOR SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS
[handwritten] Top Secret
Chief Medical Service of the Luftwaffe
File: 55 Nr. 510/44 top secret (2F).
Saalow, 7 June 1944
ueber Zossen/Land
2 Copies—1st copy
To the Reich Minister of the Interior and Reich Leader SS through Reich Physician SS and Police
Berlin W, Knesebeckstr. 51
Highly respected Reich Minister!
Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today again I stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning.
As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments are necessary.
Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be very suitable.
Direction of the experiments is to be taken over by Stabsarzt Dr. Beiglboeck, civilian; Chief Physician of the Medical University Clinic in Vienna, Professor Dr. Eppinger. After receipt of your basic approval, I shall list by name the other physicians who are to participate, in the experiments.
Due to the enormous importance which a solution of this problem has for shipwrecked men of the Luftwaffe and navy, I would be greatly obliged to you, my dear Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my request.
Heil Hitler!
[Signature] Schroeder
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-183
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 136
TELETYPE FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO GRAWITZ, UNDATED, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS
[stamp] Top Secret
Teletype:
To the Reich Physician SS and Police SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Berlin
Subject: Experiments by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.
Reference: Your letter of 28 June 1944—Journal Number 13/44 secret
Obergruppenfuehrer!
The Reich Leader SS has decided that in accordance with the suggestion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, gypsies should be used for the experiments. In addition, three other prisoners will be made available.
Heil Hitler!
[Signed] Brandt
SS Standartenfuehrer
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-182
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 137
LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO GRAWITZ, 24 JULY 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON THE POTABILITY OF SEA WATER
Reich Leader SS
Personal Staff “Office-A”
(13a) Waischenfeld/Ofr.
No. 135, Tel. No. 2
24 July 1944
Secret
SS Standardtenfuehrer Ministerialrat Dr. Brandt, for Information.
To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. Grawitz
Berlin W 15, Knesbeckstr. 51
[Handwritten remark]
Gbl 29.7
Subject: Experiments on the potability of sea-water.
Refer: Your letter of 11 July 1944, Journal No. 13/SS top secret
Dear Obergruppenfuehrer!
I want to inform you about my talks with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner and Chief Physician Beiglboeck in Dachau on 20 July. There will be employed: 1 person in charge, 3 medical chemists, 1 female assistant, 3 ranks for supervision. Prospective time: 3 weeks. In our research station only the 40 experimental persons can be accommodated, otherwise there is absolutely insufficient room since the Ploetner section is fully occupied and work cannot be interrupted. Our laboratory is insufficiently equipped, since some essential equipment is wanting. In spite of serious difficulties, the following agreement was arrived at: 1. In the Ploetner section a desk will be reserved (in the laboratory). 2. The remaining rooms will be placed at our disposal in our Entomological Institute for a period of 3 weeks. Equipment needed must be provided by the Luftwaffe. Thus it will be assured that the female assistants can work in Dachau too, because the Entomological Institute is located outside the concentration camp. 3. Billet must be arranged between Chief Physician Dr. Beiglboeck and the commandant’s office, since we have no billets at our disposal. 4. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner will give his assistance, help, and advice. He was, however, not selected for internal guidance, because this is being done by the Luftwaffe physicians themselves.
The experiments are to begin on July 23 if experimental persons are available by then and the camp commandant is in possession of the required order of the Reich Leader SS. Dr. Beiglboeck himself wanted to get in touch with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Frowein, Adjutant of the Reich Physician SS, on this subject.
I hope that this arrangement may permit a successful conduct of the experiments. When the results are reported at the proper time, please arrange to point out the participation and assistance of the Reich Leader SS.
With best regards and
Heil Hitler!
[Signature] Sievers
SS Standartenfuehrer
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF BECKER-FREYSENG DOCUMENT 42 BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 29
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LUDWIG HARRIEHAUSEN, 9 JANUARY 1947, REGARDING USE OF PATIENTS IN SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS
Dr. Schroeder, as my superior, often visited the hospitals in my charge, especially the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick of which I had been medical superintendent since 1942.
I recall very well that I was once asked whether it would be possible to carry out control experiments with sea-water, made drinkable by various methods, on patients suffering from minor complaints and the slightly wounded in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my supervision. Whether Professor Dr. Schroeder or one of his representatives put this question to me, and at what exact time, I cannot recall exactly. It could have been in June 1944. I had to refuse the undertaking of such experiments, as I had strict orders to send all patients and wounded who could be released back to the troops; thus I did not have at my disposal hospital inmates suitable for these experiments. Furthermore, the hospital was overcrowded at this time and was, therefore, not suitable for scientific experiments. I can also recall clearly that, at a later time, I again spoke to Professor Dr. Schroeder about this matter, and that he expressed his regret on this occasion that these experiments could not be carried out in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my direction.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS KARL HOELLENRAINER[[51]]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Now, Witness, for what reasons were you arrested by the Gestapo on 29 May 1944?
Witness Hoellenrainer: Because I am a gypsy of mixed blood.
Q. And after your arrest you were sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you remain in Auschwitz?
A. About 4 weeks.
Q. And then where were you placed?
A. I was sent to Buchenwald.
Q. How long did you stay in Buchenwald?
A. I only stayed there for a few days.
Q. And then what happened to you?
A. I was in Buchenwald, and suddenly our numbers were called. Forty men were called out, including me, and we were told that we were going to Dachau to work. As soon as we arrived at Dachau we were put in a quarantine block. One day an SS man came and wrote down our numbers, and then we were X-rayed. Afterwards they sent us to the surgical department of a certain Luftwaffe doctor. I am afraid I can’t remember the physician’s name. I know that he was in the Luftwaffe and that he was an Austrian. He examined all of us, and then we were divided into groups for a sea-water experiment.
Q. Just a moment, Witness. I now want to ask you some brief questions concerning what you have just told us. You state that you went to Dachau to work. Did you consider going to Dachau to be good fortune?
A. Yes; a friend of mine, a gypsy, had already been to Dachau, and he told me that the situation was much better and that we would get better food. But that was not the case.
Q. Well, did you understand what you were to do when you went to Dachau, what type of work was it, bomb disposal or removal?
A. Yes. We went there to work.
Q. Did you understand that you were going to Dachau to volunteer for sea-water experiments?
A. No, never.
Q. Now, upon arrival in Dachau you then went to the quarantine block, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You stayed there for a day or two and were given a physical examination?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also get an X-ray examination?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you were transferred to the experimental block?
A. Yes.
Q. And there you met a professor or a doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think you would be able to recognize that doctor if you saw him today?
A. Yes, immediately. I would recognize him at once.
Q. Would you kindly stand up from your witness chair, take your earphones off, and proceed over to the defendants’ dock, and see if you can recognize the professor that you met at Dachau?
(Witness leaves the stand.)
Q. Walk right over, please.
(Witness attempts assault on the defendant Beiglboeck.)
Mr. Hardy: The prosecution apologizes for the conduct of the witness, your Honors. Due to the manner of this examination, the prosecution will have no further questions, your Honors.
Presiding Judge Beals: The marshal will keep the witness guarded before the Tribunal.
Dr. Steinbauer (counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I have no questions to put to the witness.
Presiding Judge Beals: Will the marshal bring the witness before the bar of this Court? Will an interpreter come up here who can translate to the witness?
Witness, you were summoned before this Tribunal as a witness to give evidence.
Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.
Q. This is a court of justice.
A. Yes.
Q. And by your conduct in attempting to assault the defendant Beiglboeck in the dock, you have committed a contempt of this Court.
A. Your Honors, please excuse my conduct. I am very excited.
Q. Ask the witness if he has anything else to say in extenuation of his conduct.
A. Your Honors, please excuse me. I am so worked up. That man is a murderer. He has ruined my whole life.
Q. Your statements afford no extenuation of your conduct. You have committed a contempt in the presence of the Court, and it is the judgment of this Tribunal that you be confined in the Nuernberg prison for the period of 90 days as punishment for the contempt which you have exhibited before this Tribunal.
A. Would the Tribunal please forgive me. I am married and I have a small son. This man is a murderer. He gave me salt water and he performed a liver puncture on me. I am still under medical treatment. Please do not send me to prison.
Q. That is no extenuation. The contempt before this Court must be punished. People must understand that a court is not to be treated in that manner. Will the marshal call a guard and remove the prisoner to serve the sentence which this Court has inflicted for contempt? It is understood that the defendant is not to be confined at labor. He is simply to be confined in the prison, having committed a contempt in open court by attempting to assault one of the defendants in the dock.
Mr. Hardy: At this time, your Honor, the prosecution will request a brief recess, if your Honors please.
Presiding Judge Beals: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for a moment.
(A recess was taken.)
The Marshal: The Tribunal is again in session. [1 July 1947.]
Mr. Hardy: The prosecution wishes to recall the witness Karl Hoellenrainer to the witness stand, your Honors.
Presiding Judge Beals: The marshal will summon the witness Hoellenrainer.
(The witness Karl Hoellenrainer took the stand.)
Judge Sebring: You will raise your right hand and be sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated the oath.)
Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Witness, your name again is Karl Hoellenrainer?
Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.
Q. Witness, at the close of your testimony the other day, you were proceeding to tell the Tribunal about your activities after your arrival at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when did you arrive for the first time at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. That was about the middle of July.
Q. And then you stayed at the camp hospital for a period of 1 or 2 days?
A. In Auschwitz?
Q. No, in Dachau, after your arrival?
A. Yes, yes, in Dachau.
Q. And then you were examined physically and also X-rayed?
A. Yes.
Q. After you had been physically examined and X-rayed, what happened to you?
A. Then, we came into the so-called surgical department. We were 40 men. Then a Luftwaffe doctor came and examined us. We had to take our clothes off and stand in line. Then he said, “Well, you will be given good food, such as you have never had, and then you won’t get anything to eat at all, and you will have to drink sea-water.” One of the prisoners whose name was Rudi Taubmann jumped up and refused. He was in an experiment, a cold-water experiment, and he didn’t want to be in any more experiments. The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you are not quiet, and want to rebel, I will shoot you on the spot.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe always had a pistol, and then we were all quiet. For about one week we got cookies, rusks, and brown sugar. There were about 21 little cookies, and three or four little pieces of dextrose. Otherwise, we got nothing. The 8 days—
Q. Just a moment. Did you at any time volunteer for these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Were you asked whether or not you wished to volunteer for the experiments?
A. No.
Q. Were any of the other inmates asked if they would like to volunteer?
A. No.
Q. Was the young Mettbach a volunteer, the youngest Mettbach?
A. I know only one Ernst Mettbach from Fuerth, but I don’t know whether he volunteered.
Q. Was Ernst Mettbach in the experiments throughout; that is, did he complete the experiments?
A. No, he was only there a short time, 2 or 3 days maybe. Then, the doctor from the Luftwaffe put him out, and where he went I don’t know.
Q. Now, did the professor ask anyone for his approval before he was subjected to the sea-water experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did the professor or any of the other Luftwaffe physicians talk to the inmates and advise them as to the hazards of the experiment prior to the commencement of the actual experiments?
A. No.
Q. Now, will you, in detail, tell the Tribunal just what food the experimental subjects received prior to the experiments, during the course of the experiments, and after the experiments, and in doing so, Witness, kindly talk very slowly and distinctly so that the interpreters will be able to translate you more efficiently.
A. Yes. At first we got potatoes, milk, and then we got these cookies and dextrose and rusks. That lasted about 1 week. Then we got nothing at all. Then the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now, you have to drink sea-water on an empty stomach.” That lasted about 1 or 2 weeks. This Rudi Taubmann, as I already said, got excited and didn’t want to participate; and the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you get excited and mutiny, I will shoot you,” and then we were all quiet. Then we began to drink sea-water. I drank the worst kind, that was yellowish. We drank two or three times a day, and then in the evening we drank the yellow kind. There were three kinds of water, white water, and yellow water [two kinds]; and I drank the yellow kind. After a few days the people became raving mad; they foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came with a cynical laugh and said, “Now it is time to make the liver punctures.” I remember one very well.
Q. Talk more slowly, Witness. Thank you.
A. Yes. The first row on the left when you came in, the second bed, that was the first one. He went crazy and barked like a dog. He foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe took him down on a stretcher with a white sheet over him, and then he stuck a needle about this long (indicating) into his right side, and there was a hypodermic needle on it, and it bled, and it was very painful. We were all quiet and excited. When that was over, the other inmates took their turn. The people were crazy from thirst and hunger, we were so hungry—but the doctor had no pity on us. He was as cold as ice. He didn’t take any interest in us. Then, one gypsy—I don’t know his name any more—ate a little piece of bread once, or drank some water; I don’t remember just what he did. The doctor from the Luftwaffe got very angry and mad. He took the gypsy and tied him to a bed post and sealed his mouth.
Q. Witness, do you mean that he put adhesive tape over this gypsy’s mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead, continue.
A. Then a gypsy, he was lying on the right, a big strong, husky fellow, he refused to drink the water. He asked the doctor from the Luftwaffe to let him go. He said he couldn’t stand the water. He was sick. The doctor from the Luftwaffe had no pity, and he said, “No, you have to drink it.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe told one of his assistants to go and get a sun. Naturally, we didn’t know what a sun was. Then one of his assistants came with a red tube about this long (indicating) and thrust this tube first into the gypsy’s mouth and then into his stomach.
Q. Just a moment. That tube was how long? How long would that be, a half a meter long?
A. About this long (indicating).
Q. That will be about a half a meter?
A. Yes, about a half a meter. And then the doctor from the Luftwaffe took this red tube and put it in the gypsy’s mouth and into his stomach. And then he pumped water down the tube. The gypsy kneeled in front of him and beseeched him for mercy but that doctor had none.
Q. Witness, during the experiments was your temperature taken?
A. Yes.
Q. Who took your temperatures?
A. There were two Frenchmen, one tall thin and one short blond one; and they took the temperatures and the doctor from the Luftwaffe took the temperatures, too.
Q. When you say “the doctor from the Luftwaffe” you mean the man you referred to as the “professor.” The professor and the doctor from the Luftwaffe are the same or are they two different people?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Thank you. Now, who performed the liver punctures?
A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe carried out the liver punctures himself. Some people were given liver punctures and at the same time a puncture in the spinal cord. The doctor from the Luftwaffe did that himself. It was very painful. Something ran out at the same time at the back. It was water or something—I don’t know what it was.
Q. Well, did you receive a liver puncture?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the professor tell you for what reason he gave you that liver puncture?
A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came to me and said, “Now, Hoellenrainer, it’s your turn.” I was lying on the bed. I was very weak from this water and from not having anything to eat. He said, “Now, lie on your left side and take the clothes off your right side.” I held on to the bedstead on top of me and the doctor from the Luftwaffe sat down next to me and pushed a long needle into me. It was very painful. I said, “Doctor, what are you doing?” The doctor said, “I have to make a liver puncture so that the salt comes out of your liver.”
Q. Now, Witness, can you tell us whether or not the subjects used in the experiments were gypsies of purely German nationality or were there some Polish gypsies, some Russian gypsies, Czechoslovak gypsies, and so forth?
A. Yes, there were about seven or eight Germans and the rest of them were all Poles and Czechs, Czech gypsies and Polish gypsies.
Q. Were any of the experimental subjects ever taken out of the station room to the yard outside the experimental barracks?
A. Yes, at the end when the experiments were all finished; and three people were carried out with white sheets over them on a stretcher. They were covered with sheets but I don’t know whether they were dead or not. But we, my colleagues and I, talked about it. We never saw these three again, neither at work nor anywhere in the camp. We often talked about it and wondered where they were. We never saw them again. We thought that they were dead.
Q. Do you know where they were taken?
A. No, I don’t know.
Q. Well, during the course of the experiments were you weighed every day?
A. Yes. We were weighed, too.
Q. Was that every day or every other day?
A. I don’t remember exactly.
Q. Well, now, after the completion of the experiments in early September what happened to you?
A. When we had finished the experiments?
Q. Yes.
A. I told you that already. We were sent to the hospital and the doctor from the Luftwaffe came and said we were to take our clothes off and we lined up and were divided into three groups. The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now you will be given good food. You have never had such good food.” We were given potatoes, dextrose, cookies, milk—
Q. Just a minute, Witness. I am referring to the end of the experiments, after the experiments were all completed. Could you tell us what date your experiments were completed and you were transferred from the experimental station?
A. The experiment lasted, maybe, 4 or 5 weeks altogether. I don’t know the date.
Q. Well, then, they were completed in early September. Is that correct? You arrived—
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after the experiments were completed did you then return to the camp proper or to the camp hospital?
A. No, to the camp, into Block 22. We couldn’t walk. We all had to support each other. We were exhausted. I forgot to tell you one thing. Before we began the experiments and we had this good food for about one week, the doctor took us out into the courtyard near the hospital. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came. He had a little bottle in his hand and we all had to line up. There was some liquid in the bottle and he put a number on our chest. I had number “23.” It burned a lot. Then we went back into the block. On every bed there was a number, the same number we had on our chests. One man—but I don’t remember who it was—one of the inmates, said: “That is what they call the death number.” I was pretty scared and the inmates said, “Yes, that is the death number so that the doctor of the Luftwaffe will know right away who is dead.”
We didn’t want to go on with the experiments but what choice did we have? We were just poor prisoners. Nobody bothered about us. We had to let them do with us what they wanted. We couldn’t resist. I haven’t got the power to relate everything as it—
Q. All right. Just a moment. Was your bed number “23”?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you were considered to be experimental subject number 23?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you sick during the course of the experiments, Witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Witness, after the completion of the experiments in early September were you then called in and weighed to determine your weight about 2 weeks later?
A. No, not after 2 weeks.
Q. Were you called in and weighed 1 week after you had completed the experiments? Do you remember?
A. I don’t remember. But we were weighed.
Q. You were weighed every day during the experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. What I want to know is, were you weighed after the completion of the experiments? For instance, you were weighed every day during the experiments; then the experiments were completed; then you were not weighed again for a period of 1 or 2 weeks. Did you get weighed 1 or 2 weeks after the completion of the experiments?
A. When the experiment was all finished? No.
Q. Well, now after you left the experimental block and went to the camp how long was it before you were able to resume work?
A. A few days. Then we were sent in a detachment to a farm in Feldmochingen. We had to work hard and the food was better than in the camp but, you know, if you are a prisoner, what did the farmers give you? A little bread, some soup—but, in any case it was better than in the camp; and then every evening we came back to our block and then we got the regular camp food.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Dr. Steinbauer: When you were examined the first time you said that you had no previous convictions. Do you maintain this assertion?
Witness Hoellenrainer: No, I have been convicted.
Q. Then why did you lie?
A. I did not lie. I meant from the experiments.
Q. The question was whether before you came to the Gestapo you had ever been convicted and punished by the police. Nothing was mentioned about experiments at that time. That’s an excuse. Do you admit that you lied? It’s much better for you.
A. No. I did not lie.
Q. Well, you have been convicted?
A. Yes.
Q. For theft?
A. Yes.
Q. For fraud?
A. Yes.
Q. For assault?
A. Yes.
Q. For blackmail?
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. Well, coercion.
A. No.
Q. For using a false name?
A. No. I never used a false name.
Q. You have to speak more slowly. We will come back to that. You were arrested then for desertion?
A. Yes.
Q. You were prosecuted for desertion?
A. Yes.
Q. You refused to obey your draft order?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t that why you were sent to the concentration camp?
A. No, I was sent to the concentration camp merely because I am a gypsy. My brothers were in the war and they came back from Russia and were sent to Sachsenhausen and were murdered there, because there weren’t supposed to be any more gypsies in the German Army.
Q. What kind of a badge did you wear in the camp?
A. A black one.
Q. You and your wife, too, have stated that you participated in malaria, phlegmon, typhoid, and sea-water experiments?
A. No, only this one experiment, no malaria.
Q. Do you admit that you lied to the young doctor who talked to you?
A. No, I didn’t lie to the doctor. I just told him the exact truth. My wife and I weren’t allowed to marry. My wife had a child from me and it was cremated in Birkenau. My sister was cremated and both her children.
Q. Don’t get excited. I asked you whether you told the young doctor that you were in four different experiments. All you have to say is yes or no.
A. I told the doctor I drank salt water.
Q. Listen, Herr Hoellenrainer, don’t be evasive as gypsies usually are. Give me a clear answer as a witness under oath. Did you tell the doctor that you participated in other experiments, yes or no?
A. No. I just drank salt water.
Mr. Hardy: Your Honor, the testimony of this doctor is not in evidence before this Tribunal. I don’t understand what Dr. Steinbauer is referring to.
Dr. Steinbauer: You said you were in Auschwitz?
Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.
Q. Were you in the Birkenau extermination camp?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the gypsies in a big camp there?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there women and children there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a wife there?
A. Yes, my fiancee, Ida Schmidt. She was gassed. She was burned to death. I never saw her again.
Q. Didn’t you once beat your wife until the blood spurted out on to the wall?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever beat her?
A. No.
Q. I asked you whether what I have just read to you is true, that you were divided up and your numbers were called out, etc.?
A. We weren’t asked at all. Forty of us were collected together and we were sent to Dachau.
Q. Now, I have to tell you that your countryman—he is from Fuerth too, called Mettbach—said that he talked to you and particularly said that he wanted to go to Dachau because it was nearer Fuerth than Buchenwald; is that true?
A. That might be. I didn’t mind going to Dachau either because my brother lived in Munich.
Q. Then you did go voluntarily?
A. No, I did not.
Q. How does it happen that Laubinger said something else? Laubinger said you were deceived, that is why you volunteered?
A. No, I never volunteered. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer for these death experiments.
Q. Well, you went to Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the old Herzberg?
A. No.
Q. You don’t remember the gypsy from Bratislava?
A. No.
Q. Who was the oldest gypsy?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You were with your comrades for weeks and don’t know their names?
A. No.
Q. It is possible that Mettbach did not know all the names then, isn’t it?
A. How should I know? I did not have time to ask everybody what his name was.
Q. When the experiments were to begin, did the professor explain the purpose? That it was for rescuing people from shipwrecks, and that it was a sea-water experiment?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did he explain that you would be very thirsty?
A. Yes, he did first.
Q. And that thirst was very unpleasant?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, the thirst dried out the mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. How can you explain that these people foamed at the mouth?
A. They had fits and foamed at the mouth, they had fits of raving madness.
Q. I am just asking you how there can be foam on a mouth which is completely dried out?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know. Then some became mad?
A. Yes.
Q. You gypsies stick together, don’t you?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then you must be able to tell me who became mad?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You must know. If a friend of mine—I was a soldier twice—and if a friend of mine had gone mad then I would have noticed it.
A. It was a tall man who was in the first row. He was the first one to start. He became raving mad and had fits and thrashed around with his hands and feet. He was a tall slim gypsy.
Q. You said that you were weighed?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it possible that after the experiment, when you received good food again and plenty of water, you were re-weighed?
A. No.
Q. But then they had a chart showing where you were weighed every day?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Were you weighed standing up or lying down?
A. Standing up.
Q. Were some of the people weighed lying down?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Were the scales ones on which people could be weighed lying down?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What did these scales look like?
A. Well, they were big scales. You had to stand on it. There was an indicator which showed the weight.
Q. The man who had his mouth sealed, did he have a tube in his stomach too?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Your liver was punctured?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a scar?
A. A scar? I don’t know.
Q. Don’t you ever look at your body?
A. Yes. You want to see it?
Q. No. I am just asking you if you have a scar?
A. You mean a little mark?
Q. Have you a little round scar there?
A. I did not look as carefully as that.
Q. Well, do you think you have one or not?
A. I don’t know. I didn’t bother with these camp matters any more, otherwise I would go crazy. I don’t want to hear anything more about the camp. We suffered long enough.
Q. Witness, do you think you are mad or mentally retarded?
A. No. I don’t think I am mad. I said, I’d very soon go mad if I thought about these things at the camp.
Q. Do you think there is something wrong with you mentally?
A. No.
Q. You say you are going crazy?
A. Well, if I keep thinking of that camp.
Mr. Hardy: I object to this line of questioning, your Honor.
Dr. Steinbauer: Well, your liver was punctured?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether you have a scar, yes or no?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What was the nationality of the people in the camp who were experimental subjects?
A. Poles and Czechs.
Q. How many Germans were there?
A. Seven or eight, who spoke German.
Q. Were there some Hungarians and Burgenlaender?
A. No. I don’t know.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK[[52]]
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Do you have any ability to write shorthand, Doctor?
Defendant Beiglboeck: Yes, I know shorthand.
Q. Are these your stenographic notes on the back of Document C-23?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you kindly read those to the Tribunal—transcribe them? Would that be too difficult, or would you like to have me give you my transcription of them to aid you?
A. It says: “The thirst acquires forms which are difficult to bear. The patient is apathetic.”
Q. Pardon me, Doctor. It might be helpful if you used this transcription. I have had experts transcribe the notes; and then the interpreters can follow us more readily. I have the English copies also for the Tribunal to follow you, and if you have any discrepancy to point out with transcription as set out in the English—
Judge Sebring: Are you offering this, Mr. Hardy?
Mr. Hardy: That is a problem, your Honor. I want to have him transcribe the notes, and when the Tribunal settles who will offer this document into evidence, either the defense or prosecution, at that time, if necessary, I will give this a document number. I think we will have to wait to clarify that point later.
Q. Would you check that transcription, Professor?
A. That is correct, except in the first line it says—
Presiding Judge Beals: You have read your own stenographic notes, have you not?
Defendant Beiglboeck: Yes, and I have compared them with this transcription.
Q. What you should now read is your own version of these shorthand notes as you say they are correctly read. You understand that? You can read them from that, as you corrected it. You can read them from shorthand direct or from the typewritten transcription, as you please. Read slowly, too, please.
Mr. Hardy: While he is reading that, your Honor, I suggest that he stop at the correction he wishes to make and we can correct our English copy and the interpreters can correct the German copy.
Presiding Judge Beals: He will call attention to the corrections which you make.
Defendant Beiglboeck: “The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure.” The second version reads: “already unendurable”. My notes do not read like that.
“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. The patient lies apathetically. He takes little notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition.
“The appearance is very bad and shows signs of a decline. The general condition gives no cause for alarm.
“Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent.
“Respirations 25 per minute.
“The eyes are deeply hollowed”, it should read “deeply”. Here it says “often”.
“The turgor of the skin greatly reduced.
“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly free.
“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis, lower border VI-XI.” It is supposed to read “XI”. Originally it said “XII” and apparently I corrected it to read “XI.”
“Sharpened vesicular”, the word “breathing” is omitted here, of course.
“Sharpened vesicular breathing”—that is a medical expression.
“Heart beats very low, barely audible. Pulse weak. Filled. Palpability of the pulse worse.” Here it says that the pulse is “felt” and it should be “filled”. The pulse is less full.
Then this which is described here as undecipherable reads: “The cell walls are somewhat thickened.” Here I probably said “more strongly thickened”.
“Liver 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure.”
“Spleen soft” is wrong. It says: “Spleen reutoric, enlarged in a ring form, slightly enlarged.”
“Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure.” Then what is described here as illegible reads: “Indication of horizontal welt formation strong welt vertical formation.” That refers to the reaction of the muscle upon knocking, the so-called ideo-muscular welt.
Q. Would you kindly start that paragraph again and read it as it is written?
A. It reads here: “Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indication of horizontal welt formations. Strong vertical welt formations.” Up to this point, that is how it reads in the text; then in order to explain it, I added that we were concerned with the so-called ideo-muscular welt.
Further the text continues: “Reflexes” with two little crosses, that is, they react strongly. “Abdominal reflexes”, also two little crosses. “Romberg” as it says here. “Babinski negative”.
“Left”—here it says “Leif” “phenomenon”. Here on the left, “phenomenon of Becher”. “Oppenheim negative”. “Rosselimo negative”. “Bulbous reflex bad”. “Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad”. “Bulbous reflex” with a little cross—that is positive.
[Interruption.]
Q. Now, Professor Beiglboeck, looking over these stenographic notes in the sentence in the first paragraph, which will be the third sentence, which states: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, has an erasure been made in the stenographic notes in that sentence?
A. No. I can’t see any.
Q. In place of the word “little” which appears in the present text on the back of C-23, was there originally a symbol, stenographic symbol for the word “no” and then the word “no” was erased and replaced by the word “little”?
A. I see here that actually something else had been written there; probably at the time I wrote over it. I don’t see anything erased.
Q. Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the fourth sentence where it states: “He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition”, did another word appear in the same place as the character for “somnolent condition”? Did another word appear in the same place as the character for “somnolent” now appears, and can you make out whether or not that other character that has been erased was the word “semiconscious” and has now been replaced by “somnolent”? I think the original character can be well recognized to read “semiconscious”.
A. What is legible under here says: “Numb”.
Q. After the sentence that I have just read: “He asks for water—”
Presiding Judge Beals: I did not understand the witness’ explanation of that last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation, Witness?
Defendant Beiglboeck: The German word “benommen”, numb.
Q. Numb? Not unconscious?
A. Numb.
Mr. Hardy: In the first instance, in the sentence: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, is an erasure noticeable there, in that the word “no” has been replaced by the word “little”?
Defendant Beiglboeck: Something has been written over.
Q. Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has been written over? Would you point that out to them, Doctor? Point out the character in that sentence: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, and point that out, this character here (indicating) on the second line of characters.
Mr. Hardy: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page.
Q. Now, would you show the Tribunal also where the word “semiconscious” or “numb” appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last character on the third line.
A. Yes, here (indicating).
Q. Now, after the sentence: “He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition,” which is the fourth stenographic line on the back of chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been erased. This half line had previously contained stenographic symbols but they are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct?
A. Yes. Something has been erased here.
Mr. Hardy: Your Honors can see the red erasure that has been used to erase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is still obvious there.
Q. Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic notes, the second sentence reads: “The general condition gives no cause for alarm.” Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, throughout your writing of these characters, between each word you usually leave a space to indicate another word, do you not? That is very clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between each character signifying words. Is that correct?
A. No. It varies. Sometimes the words are written closer together, quite closely, for example here (indicating).
Q. Well now, here in this sentence where it says, “The general condition gives no cause for alarm”, the word “no”—that is, this character here—does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters on the sheet have, does it? In fact, the symbol for “no” touches the previous symbol for “general condition”, leaving no spacing. Did you add the word “no” at a later date in a different pencil?
A. No. I do that quite frequently. When something is written above the line in shorthand I raise the adjoining sign as well.
Q. Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which reads: “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent”. The word “is” appeared instead of “somewhat” originally, did it not, before an erasure was made? Didn’t it read originally “Respiration is flatter, moderately frequent”?
A. It still says so: “somewhat frequent; moderately frequent.” I wrote that twice.
Q. Well, now, how does that sentence read?
A. “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25 per minute.”
Q. Did the word “is”, the character for the word “is”, appear in that sentence before a change was made?
A. Which word?
Q. “Is”—“i-s”.
A. No.
Q. Can’t you clearly see in that sentence that the word “is” has been erased and in its place the word “somewhat” has been written, the character “somewhat”?
A. No.
Q. You can’t see that. Did you look at it through the glass, Doctor?
A. In shorthand I write the word “is”—
Q. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word “flatter”, didn’t the word “hardly” appear originally in place of the word “moderately”? The word “hardly” was erased and replaced by “moderately” and then crossed out twice.
A. Here it said “troublesome”.
Q. It says, “respiration flatter”. It could say “hardly frequent” before the changes, couldn’t it?
A. “Hardly moderately” it says here. That means: “Hardly moderately frequent”.
Q. Has the character been changed at all?
A. I said already originally it read “troublesome”.
Q. Have any erasures been made in that sentence?
A. It was written over.
Q. And then crossed out?
A. Yes.
Q. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over, that is now legible, the word “moderately” or is that the word “hardly”?
A. It didn’t read “hardly”. It read: “troublesome”.
Q. Well, which character said “troublesome”, the one that is legible now or the one that has been written over?
A. It is legible; it was “troublesome”.
Q. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eighth paragraph with the words: “Heartbeats very low, poorly audible,” in that sentence has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the character “scarcely” been erased and replaced by “poorly”? I believe the marks of the original symbol for “scarcely” can still be clearly distinguished, can they not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Who made these changes, Doctor? Did you make them yourself?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you make them?
A. I am no longer able to tell you exactly when I made them.
Q. Did you make them at Dachau?
A. No.
Q. Did you make them in Nuernberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you erase these shorthand characters that appear on the fourth line here in Nuernberg?
A. Yes, I did that too.
Q. Now, Doctor, you have had the opportunity to think over during the course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself here in Nuernberg; are you prepared to tell this Tribunal now just why it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?
A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I changed these notes before these sheets were handed in, that is, after they had been returned from Professor Vollhardt. I only made some changes in these stenographic notes, and then I told my defense counsel, whom I had not informed about this—this I want to emphasize—I said to him we should withdraw the weight chart, because I was immediately sorry that I had changed something. I originally intended to submit the weight charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then, when I had committed this thoughtless action, my conscience immediately bothered me, and I told my defense counsel that I should not submit it. But I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as well as in the temperatures, and especially in the case of the weights, they are definitely the original values, as also in the case of the blood pressure. So in what you see here, on the front pages of the chart, nothing has been changed since these charts arrived here.
Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the stenographic notes?
A. Because a person who does not know the condition of thirst would receive a stronger impression of the condition from the description as it was here than the actual condition really was.
Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor? You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection with those alterations if you wish.
A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. As I said, I only intended to submit the charts to show the weights, and not because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am of the opinion that from the weight charts one can definitely recognize, first, how much weight the experimental subject lost; secondly, they reveal unequivocally on which days water was drunk; thirdly, they reveal clearly that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment there was a gain in weight in the case of all the experimental subjects; and, fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases they had again reached their original weight.
Judge Sebring: Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have been erased from many of these charts?
Defendant Beiglboeck: This erasing of names must have been done before. I did not do that here. I did not change anything on the front pages of these charts. It is possible that this already happened in Dachau. I can’t tell you that. It is possible that I erased them later on in Tarvis. I did not erase them here.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS DR. FRANZ VOLLHARDT[[53]]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Marx: Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your scientific activities have been and in what special field you have taken a particularly great interest, and since when?
Witness Vollhardt: I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfurt and predominantly I have dealt with the questions of circulation, metabolism, blood pressure, and kidney diseases.
Q. Which are the German universities where you have been a lecturer?
A. Halle and Frankfurt.
Q. Are you an author of scientific works regarding this special field of activity?
A. Yes.
Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in foreign languages?
A. Yes, they have been translated into Russian, behind my back.
Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, it would be right to say that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad; so would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have received abroad?
A. I really have to?
Q. Which foreign academies and foreign societies have you been a member of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because my questions pursue certain purposes.
A. I am Honorary Doctor of the Sorbonne, Paris, of Goettingen and Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of them, Medical Society at Edinburgh, at Geneva, at Luxembourg. I am an Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.
Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections they were and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps you might answer the last question first.
A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America, and when I was giving a lecture in Cordoba, Argentina, before a medical congress, I received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my office and the reason given was lack of anti-Semitic attitude.
Q. When was that?
A. 1938.
Q. And since when have you been reinstated and active again?
A. Since 1945.
Q. As a full professor?
A. Yes, as full professor for internal medicine at the University of Frankfurt.
Q. Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of kidney diseases. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst treatment?
A. Yes.
Dr. Marx: Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this expert witness, I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion. There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility, the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that would distort the context and would not give as clear a picture of the situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr. President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an opinion in the form of a lecture first.
Presiding Judge Beals: If counsel would propound to the witness a hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue, and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows, we might proceed as suggested by counsel. The hypothetical question should cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a group of people, a control group, a noncontrol group, and others, then the witness may answer that question without further interruption by counsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on generalities.
Dr. Marx: Very well, Mr. President.
Q. Now, Professor, have you sufficient insight into the planning and carrying out of the so-called sea-water experiments to give an expert opinion on that subject?
Witness Vollhardt: Yes.
Q. What documentary evidence did you have?
A. I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck.
Q. I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the experiments. Are there differences between the character of these sea-water experiments and experiments with artificial infection with malaria and cholera and if there are differences, what are they?
A. You can’t compare the two at all, because in the case of the sea-water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can interrupt so instantaneously, and because the experiments take such a short time that the danger of injury could be excluded with absolute certainty. In the case of artificial infection you cannot do that.
Q. You are saying that in the case of sea-water experiments, providing they are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided with certainty or bordering on certainty.
A. Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty.
Q. I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. I suppose you know of the meeting of 25 May 1944, which was decisive for the planning of the experiments. Did the presence of Professors Eppinger and Heubner guarantee the purely scientific and medically proper treatment of the problem?
A. Undoubtedly it did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an extremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading clinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both of these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be carried out, presumably in order to strengthen the medical men, vis-a-vis, the technicians. Secondly, Eppinger’s idea apparently was that under such stringent experimental conditions, the kidney would suffer to an unusual degree and that Berkatit, which contains vitamins, might assist the work of the kidney.
Q. Professor, what is your opinion about the individual experimental groups?
A. I think that scientifically speaking the planning was excellent and I have no objection to the entire plan. It was good to add a hunger-and-thirst group because we know by experience that thirst can be borne less well than hunger, and if people are suffering from hunger and thirst too, they do not suffer from hunger, but do suffer from thirst; and that resembles what shipwrecked persons would be subjected to because they only suffer from thirst. It was excellent that Wofatit was to be introduced into the experiments too, although it was expected from the beginning that this wonderful discovery would show its value. It turned out that groups given sea-water treated according to the Schaefer method reacted similarly to a group that was subjected to a reasonable hunger treatment and did not suffer any great discomfort. In the hunger treatment of 12, or, we should say 8 days, because the people still ate during the first 4 days, that is a minor affair, and we carry that out innumerable times for medical reasons. There exists a sanitarium where people are made to go without food for 4 weeks, and as long as they get water in the shape of fruit juice, they still carry on well and often with enthusiasm. Group 2 was Schaefer’s group, groups 3 and 4 were the groups that received 500 cc. of sea-water, once without and once with Wofatit. Group 3 was the one which drank 1,000 cc. of sea-water. That one could only use volunteers for this group is an obvious fact, since the cooperation of the experimental subject is indispensable; without his good will such an experimental arrangement is impossible. That sufficient volunteers could be found for a case was a matter of course, since a period of 10 days of excellent food before and after the experiment was before them, and since one could assure them with the best of confidence that there would not and could not be any danger.
Q. We will come to that, Professor. You have just started to speak about food, nourishment. What is your opinion about the food before, during, and after the actual experiments?
A. Well, before the experiments it was splendid. During the experiments it was meager, corresponding to that of shipwrecked persons and afterwards quite excellent. In my opinion during such brief experiments nourishment doesn’t play any part.
Mr. Hardy: May it please the Tribunal, might I inquire whether the witness is now testifying to facts as he has ascertained them from studying graphs and charts made by Professor Beiglboeck or is he testifying from hearsay that food was given to these inmates, or what is the basis of his knowledge that he is eliciting here?
A. I was giving my testimony based on the records which I have studied.
Mr. Hardy: Thank you.
A. But I don’t attach any importance to the meager food served during the experiments because that is an insignificant point which as I have said we have allotted to others many times.
Presiding Judge Beals: Witness, when you referred to this examination of the records, state briefly just what records you examined.
A. The original records.
Dr. Marx: Professor, how do you judge the individual examinations carried out by Professor Beiglboeck? Were they adequate for the solution of the practical question whether Berkatit was sufficiently useful and preferable to thirst treatment, and was it sufficient to judge the daily condition of the experimental subjects so that the right time to interrupt the experiments could be ascertained?
Did you get my question?
A. Yes. I got it. I thought that the arrangement of these experiments was splendid from the scientific point of view, and Beiglboeck apparently devoted himself with tremendous industry and great responsibility to carrying out of these experiments which he had been ordered to do.
Q. Would it be right to say that a personality such as Beiglboeck, as a professor of internal medicine and chief medical officer at a clinic for many years on the basis of daily examinations and through his personal consideration and examination of the experimental subject, would be in a position to recognize any threat to the health of the person before such a threat could actually become serious?
A. That was a matter of course. Beiglboeck is an excellent internal medical man and the great care with which he carried out these experiments shows that he was fully conscious of his responsibility. Only, it’s hard to imagine that, during such brief experiments, serious damage could have occurred at all.
Q. Professor, a little earlier you briefly dealt with the question of starving, of hunger or of thirst for the purpose of treatment, and I now want to ask you whether the administration of hunger and thirst cures of several days is a medically recognized fact, and also how long would you consider that hunger and thirst with complete refusal of food and liquid could take place without putting someone’s health in jeopardy?
A. It depends who it is. Initially, I recommended hunger and thirst treatment in the case of acute inflammation of the kidneys, but there people have a great deal of water in their system and the water is absorbed during such a cure. Astonishing as it may seem, a cure is effected very rapidly. In such cases, three, five, seven, and even more days of hunger are employed. In other cases, where no water surplus is in existence, we would only apply 6 days of hunger treatment. During the time when I had to be interested in these particular experiments, there were four women in my clinic, all of whom were there because of high blood pressure. They were aged 50, 51, 53, and 63 years. One had a blood pressure of 210/100, and 6 days later it had been reduced to 170/100. The third had a blood pressure of 280/160 and 6 days later it dropped to 180/100. The loss of weight amounted to 3 or 4 kilograms and the patients naturally, during those days, suffered from thirst and felt weak at the end of the sixth day, but they were so happy about the improved condition that they considered the unpleasantness of the recent days as being worth forgetting.
Q. Is it correct that when water is withdrawn, nourishment should also be withdrawn?
A. It’s easier to suffer thirst when you are also hungry because the supply of nourishment makes claims upon the kidneys and, if you exclude salt in the nourishment, the water loses further humidity. Thus, appetite disappears when you are thirsty. Therefore, it is definitely better to be hungry and thirsty simultaneously.
Q. Professor, is it right to observe the individual doses in order to prevent diarrhea, and, if individual quantities of less than 300 cc. are admitted, can you prevent diarrhea?
A. In the case of sea and bitter water you only suffer from diarrhea if you drink a large quantity at once. If you distribute it over a day you suffer from constipation.
Q. Yes, but you didn’t quite answer my question. I inquired about the individual doses.
A. Yes, well, I’m trying to say that if you spread it out over a day, giving smaller individual doses instead of giving it all at once, then there isn’t any danger of diarrhea.
Q. Can you describe sea-water as poisonous at all?
A. Absolutely not. There is a trend towards treatment with sea-water which is increasing, and people drink half a liter of sea-water every day for weeks. There can’t be any question of any poisonous quality. In fact, people say they feel splendid. The only difference is that in the case of such cures fresh water is administered, too, in the manner of tea, coffee, and soup, so that the dehydrating effect of the sea-water is counteracted.
Q. Professor, I wonder if you would speak a little more slowly and make a pause after individual answers in order to enable the interpreters to follow.
Has there been an experiment during which a dose of 500 to 1,000 cc. of sea-water daily was taken and is it to be described as dangerous, providing the experiment is discontinued as soon as there is a threat of danger to health?
A. There can’t be any question of there being any danger to health during the first few days. The only question is, how long can the body stand up to this continued deprivation of humidity? Sea-water has a three-percent salt water content. Generally speaking, at least so far, we have assumed that the kidneys cannot deal with such a salt concentration. This means that salt will remain in the system, collecting water from the tissues. In the beginning, this is of no importance, but after 6 or 7 or 8 days, this becomes unpleasant and it is to be expected that after the twelfth day there is some danger. There have been cases of sea rescue when even 17 or more days afterwards recovery was achieved, but I would say that I would never dare to continue such an experiment beyond the twelfth day, and in this case with which we are concerned, all experiments were discontinued after the sixth day, so that danger to health during that period was out of the question.
Q. Could the aim of these experiments have been achieved with a semipermeable membrane?
A. I don’t understand how one can imagine this. What we are concerned with is the question of how long the human body can survive without water and under the excess quantity of salt. Now, that is subject to the water content of the body and it depends first of all, upon whether water is only used by the intermediary tissues or whether the cell liquid too is being used up. In the latter case, there is a danger which becomes apparent through excess potassium quantities, and this was also continuously observed and checked during such experiments, and there were no excess potassium quantities such as can be expected after 6 days.
Q. Nor would it be right to say that these experiments were not planned scientifically and medically, is that correct?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Could they have been planned differently?
A. I couldn’t imagine how.
Q. Were these experiments in the interests of active warfare, or in the interests of the care of shipwrecked sailors or soldiers?
A. The latter.
Q. In other words, for aviators and sailors who were shipwrecked or might be shipwrecked?
A. Towards the end of the war there was an increase in the number of pilots shot down as well as of shipwrecked personnel, and it was, therefore, the duty of the hygiene department concerned to consider the question of how one could best deal with such cases of shipwrecked personnel; that was the reason for this conference. Previously Schaefer, as we heard yesterday, had recommended that no liquid should be taken. When, together with I. G. Farben, he succeeded in eliminating salt and bitter salt from sea-water through Wofatit, the problem was really solved scientifically. There were, however, considerable technical difficulties, and it isn’t exactly simple to equip each flier with so much Wofatit in addition to everything else he has to carry in order to protect him against the danger of shipwreck. That is no doubt why Eppinger and Heubner were in favor of the experiment, and it was unfortunate that Mr. Berka appeared with Berkatit at the same time, and impressed the technicians because his method was more simple and cheaper.
Q. Professor, was there any reason to expect symptoms of injury which might appear later than 10 days after the end of the experiment?
A. It was entirely out of the question, even after the seventh day. Later injury is out of the question, because the duration of the experiments is too short.
Q. To what do you attribute the loss of weight during such experiments?
A. That is almost entirely the loss of water. As I have already told you, the excess salt supply in the body deprived the body of water. The body must have a supply of water if it is to supply salt. In other words, if the body is not receiving any other water than sea-water, an attack on the water held by the body must take place, and therefore loss of weight is bound to occur which, however, can be made up very quickly.
Q. What would you say was to be expected in the way of the loss of substance of the body and how much loss of water?
A. I would say the bulk is the loss of water, but to split this up is something I consider impossible to do with certainty. You might possibly compare just how much was lost during the time applied by Schaefer when there was considerable hunger and how much was lost in the case of Berka.
Q. Does the speed with which the loss of water takes place play an important part?
A. Yes, of course, a tremendous part. The colored nostras is a well-known example, during which disease the most tremendous loss of water and salt takes place during 24 hours. I knew a case where 10 liters of water and 150 grams of salt had to be added intravenously through the veins, the skin, and through the stomach in order to save the life of a person suffering from such an acute loss of water. If, on the other hand, this is spread out over a period of days and if you do not have to expect such a dangerous loss of salt, then the body can stand up to it for a much longer period. I might perhaps add that the loss of salt is just as dangerous as excess quantities of salt, and also in the event of the loss of salt which is always connected with loss of water, considerable losses of weight are suffered. It is well known that an expedition on the mountain Monte Rose lost 5 kilograms of salt and water in weight, and that the weight could not be replaced in spite of the addition of water when salt was also added.
Q. Professor, according to the documents at your disposal were these experiments sufficiently well prepared?
A. It was my impression that they were extremely well prepared, and I was particularly impressed by the fact that Beiglboeck had sufficiently examined the participants carefully and had considered the use of three of them to be unsuitable since he found a defect of the lungs.
Q. I also want to deal with such preparations—
Mr. McHaney: I do not think by any stretch of the imagination this witness can testify from the records that Beiglboeck conducted an examination or rejected three experimental subjects. In my opinion it does not appear from the records, and he can only testify what Beiglboeck told him. Unless he can say it does appear in the records, I think it should be stricken.
Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel has an opportunity of cross-examining the witness at the close of his testimony.
Dr. Marx: Professor, would you not say that regulations for these experiments also mean that certain experiments, such as experiments on one’s self and animal experiments, printed regulations, if you like, must have been in existence or was that true of this case?
A. Yes, a report from Beiglboeck about an experiment carried out upon himself is in existence which describes most efficiently the condition in which he found himself during a sea-water experiment, and this description tallies to the highest possible degree with what my volunteers who submitted themselves to these experiments described. I might deal with that later.
Q. What opinion do you have regarding the experiments which were carried out by Sirany in Vienna?
A. There appeared to me to be a lack of critical attitude. I think Schaefer had the same impression yesterday.
Q. Are symptoms recognizable regarding the planning of these experiments which would go beyond the absolutely essential practical purposes and which would lead to considerable pains or painful feelings or might have led to that?
A. Of course it isn’t fun to be thirsty, and that is the major complaint in these cases. These people are increasingly thirsty, and they are disappointed to find that drinking sea-water doesn’t decrease but increases their thirst, and towards the end of the experiments there are disturbances of the muscles, and the temper doesn’t exactly improve. It is the same in the salt water experiments where there are cramps of the calf because of the lack of water, but the characteristics of that are that these symptoms disappear instantaneously at the very moment when the first glass of water is drunk.
Q. Would you consider it possible that disturbances of the nerve end might appear? Temperature?
A. Temperature doesn’t happen at all, and I can’t imagine there being disturbances of the nervous system at all.
Q. How about fits?
A. In the case of insane people there may appear insane fits, maybe, but not in the case of normal human beings.
Q. If you yourself had been placed in this position, and considering your attitude toward medical ethics, would you have objected to carrying out the same type of experiment as was carried out here, if healthy, strong, young men had been at your disposal?
A. I actually did it. Since I was interested in connection with sea-water experiments, I called for volunteers among my young doctors, and five of them volunteered, among them my youngest son, and they drank synthetic sea-water, having the exact salt content of real sea-water, drinking up to 500 cc.; they got a little food, because they were to continue on duty during the experiment. The loss of weight varied and was around one kilogram a day. At the end of the experiment, my son was pretty thin, but after having a cup of tea was fine. Two days later he had regained his lost weight fully. All five participants described the experiment in the same way as Beiglboeck described the experiment carried out on himself. Four of these subjects interrupted the experiment after 5 days. One carried it out for 6 days, and apart from continuous thirst, he had no complaints. Any serious disturbance or damage is out of the question, and the extraordinary fact was the speed with which all symptoms of thirst disappeared after water had been taken.
Q. Now, Professor, the experiments we were talking about; did they have a practical valuable aim and did they show a corresponding result?
A. Yes, that is correct. For instance an important observation was made which Eppinger had expected; he wanted to see if the kidneys did concentrate salt under such extreme conditions to an even higher extent than one expected previously. One thought that it would be something like 2.0 percent but 2.6 or 2.7 percent and record figures of 3.0, 3.5, 3.6, and 4 percent are shown, so that the fortunate man who is in a position to concentrate 3.6 percent or 4 percent of salt would be able to live on sea-water for quite a long period.
Presiding Judge Beals: Witness, after a question is propounded to you by your counsel, would you pause a moment before giving your answer so that the question may be translated and conveyed and when you begin to make your answer, would you speak a little more slowly?
A. Finally, one unsuspected fact was shown which may be connected with this, and that is that the drinking of small quantities of sea-water up to 500 cc. given over a lengthy period turned out to be better than unalleviated thirst.
Dr. Marx: What do you think of Wofatit generally?
A. It is a wonderful thing.
Q. Is it correct to say that sea-water really assumes the character of drinking water through it?
A. Yes, the only difficulty would appear to be to obtain the drug in sufficiently large quantities for a man who is shipwrecked and did not have his luggage; but it is a wonderful discovery.
Q. So, you think that the result of these experiments is not only of importance in wartime, but is also of importance for the problems of seafaring nations?
A. Quite right, it is a wonderful thing for all sea-faring nations.
Q. So that both the experiments with Wofatit, as well as the experiments made regarding the symptoms when such a drink was not available, were important to show, for instance, the result of the consumption of sea-water in certain given doses.
A. That is quite correct.
Q. That was only discovered by these experiments?
A. Quite correct.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: On what precisely is your testimony with respect to the experiments by Beiglboeck based?
Witness Vollhardt: On the records and the descriptions that Beiglboeck gave of the experiments.
Q. Precisely what records have you seen of these experiments?
A. The records that the defense counsel had in his hand yesterday or today.
Q. Doctor, I will have passed up to you a set of records which are numbered from 1 to 44 in red pencil, and I ask you, did you have those records before you and did you make a study of them?
A. Yes, I had these records, and I asked one of my collaborators who took part in these experiments to read through these records and to make excerpts from them. He happens to be here also.
Q. Who was this collaborator?
A. One of my assistants by the name of Werner. He is in the audience at the moment.
Q. You said something about his having participated in experiments; you don’t mean the Dachau experiments, do you?
A. No. In experiments that I carried out with my students.
Q. Did you personally examine these records at all?
A. I saw them, but I didn’t study every one of them. I left that up to the young man.
Q. And what did the young man do?
A. He gave me a very exhaustive report on them.
Q. Your testimony, then, is based upon a summary made by your assistant, is that correct?
A. Yes. That is so.
Q. Now what other records were made available to you upon which your testimony is based here?
A. The charts that were filled out in pencil with figures.
Q. Now, were there any other records that you got which we have not heard about, on which your testimony here is based?
A. I cannot say at the moment. I would have to confer with—
Q. I believe that the defense had reports by Becker-Freyseng and by Beiglboeck?
A. These were reports on the whole development of the question.
Q. Well, Professor, what sort of reports were they? We have not seen them, you know, and we would like to know on what you are basing your opinion before this Tribunal.
A. Descriptions of the whole course that the matter took regarding the conference, how the decision was reached, how the experiments were planned, and then Beiglboeck’s report on his own experiments on himself, which is a very careful description and corresponds exactly to what my subjects experienced when they carried out experiments on themselves.
Q. Did you read and study these experiments carried out by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck?
A. Of course.
Q. And they influenced your testimony before this Tribunal; you relied on them in making your testimony here?
A. From these I had an idea of the situation as a whole; in order to form my own opinion I performed experiments myself.
Q. And your testimony here is based in part upon the reports made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck; that is true, isn’t it, Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. And these records made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck were not contemporaneous records of these experiments, were they, Professor?
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. They were, rather, essays or reports which they have written up since their arrest and incarceration; isn’t that true, Professor?
A. That is very possible.
Q. How old a man is this assistant of yours, Professor?
A. Twenty-six.
Q. Twenty-six years old?
A. Twenty-seven.
Q. Twenty-seven years old; has he studied medicine?
A. Of course.
Q. Where did he study?
A. Heidelberg.
Q. Herr Professor, I will ask you to testify from your own memory, and if the defense counsel wishes to put your assistant on the stand, they are privileged to do so; but I am interested primarily in knowing what you know about your assistant. Now, you did not know he studied at Heidelberg until he told you just now?
A. I have 40 to 50 young men at the clinic, and it is impossible for me to know of each one where he studied, but I made his acquaintance at the clinic. He is a very industrious and intelligent person and for that reason I asked him to do this work and take some work off my shoulders.
Q. How long has he been working with you?
A. More than a year.
Q. Working with you about a year, and since that time you have conducted these sea-water experiments yourself?
A. We carried them out shortly before Shrove Tuesday.
Q. Of 1947?
A. Yes, this year.
Q. How did you happen to carry out these experiments; were you requested to do so by defense counsel?
A. No. I had been asked very often to interest myself in this matter, and I was interested to see for myself the effect of sea-water on the experimental subjects. This was interesting to me because I already had considerable experience in the field of hunger and thirst.
Q. Were you approached at all with respect to this case before the time you started these sea-water experiments?
A. Yes, that is why I started to interest myself in the matter, because I was asked to appear here as a witness, but I carried out these experiments entirely spontaneously, without outside interference and for my own interest.
Q. But the fact that you were approached to come here and testify influenced your decision to carry out these experiments, is that right?
A. Of course, of course.
Q. And did you make any effort to have these experiments coincide with the conditions which you were told existed in the Dachau experiments?
A. Yes, we made only one distinction in this, namely, that the experimental subjects received roughly 1,600 calories a day, because they were not to interrupt their work. To be sure, as the experiment went on they ate less and less of the 1,600 calories, because thirst made them lose their appetite.
Q. Now how many experimental subjects did you use in your experiments?
A. Five of them.
Q. And you say that they were volunteers, your assistants, is that right?
A. Yes, they were all doctors, volunteers, and, as I said, also included my youngest son who also happens to be here.
Q. And precisely what happened during these experiments?
A. These persons were assembled in one room, received the same amount of salt each and more or less continued their work. They drank 500 cc. of sea-water, and one of them drank 1,000, and they stuck pretty closely to the provisions set down for the experiment.
Q. You say four of them drank 500 cc. of sea-water per day and the fifth one drank 1,000 cubic centimeters of sea-water?
A. The fifth drank on one day, on the last day I think, an additional 500 cc. because he was very thirsty.
Q. When did you start the experiments?
A. On the Monday before the beginning of Lent.
Q. And how long did they run?
A. As I said, four broke off the experiment after four days because of the carnival season and one of them stuck it out for six.
Q. Well, you spoke of four days, do you know how many hours they were under the experiments?
A. Five times twenty-four in general and the other one six times twenty-four.
Q. Well, I misunderstood you, or else your testimony has changed; you said four of the students stayed on the experiments for four days and one went on for six days. Is that right?
A. No, four did it for five days, four broke off at the end of the fifth day, and one stayed until the end of the sixth day.
Q. And you are prepared to testify it was five times twenty-four, is that right, 60 hours [sic]?
A. I would have to check on that for sure in the record, whether it was five times twenty-four or four times twenty-four, or sixteen or eighteen. Those things didn’t seem very important to me. I was interested primarily in seeing how greatly the persons suffered under the experiments, but the man who did it for six days did do it for six times twenty-four hours. However, I don’t want to make a statement for certain under oath regarding the number of hours.
Q. Well this little experiment conducted by you, as I take it, had as its purpose to find out how much a man suffers, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t know that before you conducted this experiment, is that right?
A. I assumed that they would be very thirsty, but I wanted to see what the subjective sensations or feelings of the experimental subjects were. What was most important to me was to know whether these experiments could be characterized as cruel or inhumane or brutal, and if they were experiments which led to a pretty strong sense of discomfort, namely, thirst, but did not do any damage to health, that is what I wanted to know.
Q. And your testimony before this Tribunal is based upon those experiments; is that right?
A. No, on both, of course, both on those carried out by Beiglboeck and on my own.
Q. Well, your judgment was also influenced by what Beiglboeck told you about how much the experimental subjects suffered, is that right?
A. Beiglboeck drew up his own report on his own experiment on himself and a general report on whatever complaints the subjects uttered.
Q. What is the experiment that Beiglboeck conducted by himself? You mean he has been undergoing an experiment back in the prison?
A. No, before the experiments began, he carried out a sea-water experiment on himself.
Q. Where did these experimental subjects of yours stay during this experiment? I seem to recall you said they continued their work or something of that sort.
A. They all stayed in one room where they ate and slept, and this was done to make the conduct of the experiment easier, as they were to receive special rations.
Q. Well, now all five experimental subjects were in one room during the whole course of the experiment, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did they do?
A. They went from this room to wherever they had to work, but they returned to the room for sleeping and eating.
Q. Well, Doctor, we are having great difficulty in really getting a clear picture about how this experiment went on. Now you mean to say they carried on their work about the clinic? They didn’t stay in this room the whole time, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. They actually only ate in the room and slept in the room; is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did they leave the clinic at all?
A. I believe that they did not during those days.
Q. But you don’t know?
A. I can’t swear to it.
Q. You can’t swear that they didn’t go to a local cinema during the course of the experiments for example?
A. No, I can’t swear to that. I just don’t know.
Q. In other words, they had their normal daily life available to them during these experiments?
A. They carried on their daily work and in this case it is perfectly certain that they did not drink any fresh water. They knew perfectly well what the point of the experiment was.
Q. How much food did they get, again?
A. 1,600 calories.
Q. And do you know what the food was?
A. Yes, that is also in the record. It was meat, fat, and what not, but I can’t tell you that from memory. However, I could give you the record in writing.
Q. In what record? Have we any record on these experiments?
A. Yes. There was a record.
Q. Now, they got absolutely no fresh water during the course of the experiments, is that right?
A. No.
Q. Did they get any other water or fluid other than salt water?
A. No, that was the whole purpose, that they should receive no other fluid and that is why they lost their appetite later.
Q. They got no milk and no fruit juices?
A. No, no, that would have violated the whole experiment, and then they would not have lost so much weight.
Q. I can appreciate that, Professor. Where did you get the sea-water that these experimental subjects drank?
A. We manufactured it carefully in the chemical laboratory according to a chemical analysis of sea-water that can be found in many text books. I have a chemist who was in charge of the laboratory and he made this sea-water according to the formula. We couldn’t get any natural sea-water for this experiment.
Q. Now, you didn’t keep any of your experimental subjects without any water whatever, did you?
A. Five hundred cc. of sea-water was the liquid they received.
Q. Well, were there not some experimental subjects at Dachau who did not get any water at all, sea-water or otherwise?
A. Yes, the first group fasted and thirsted. I have already spoken about that and said that thirst can more easily be tolerated if one is fasting at the same time, so that the kidney has as little as possible to do; thus the body is able to retain more water.
Q. But you can’t testify to the Tribunal about what pain and suffering those experimental subjects were subjected to, can you? You didn’t run any similar experiments yourself?
A. I do not understand you. I carried out these experiments to know what sort of suffering the experimental subjects went through.
Q. But you didn’t carry out one where a man fasted for 5 or 6 days without either food or water. They did carry out such an experiment in Dachau. So you have no basis to testify about pain and suffering to which that group of experimental subjects were subjected, do you?
A. I mentioned that at the same time I was having four women fast and thirst who had come to the clinic with very high blood pressure and for six whole days these women fasted and thirsted. This so improved their condition that they consequently forgot the unpleasantness involved in the fasting and thirsting. I also mentioned among them one woman who weighed only 51.7 kilo, and who lost 3. However, her blood pressure went down from 245/125 to 185/100. I carried out such experiments almost daily in the clinic. That is done by the hundred. And, in the case of persons with kidney disease, that is the accepted method so that during the war people from the fronts went through thousands of such hunger and thirst cures. I didn’t have to have any control experiment in this; that was furnished daily by the clinic.
Q. And these women went without food and water for 4 days?
A. Six days without food and water.
Q. And what was the result on them aside from their blood pressure? Did they suffer much pain?
A. There is no question of pain in such cases. They simply felt thirst. Strangely enough they do not complain of being hungry. The body water that still remains is enough to keep the body metabolism supplied with the necessary chemicals. However, there is a lack of sodium nitrate in the body which, however, can be overcome by giving sodium nitrate. They never complain about hunger, only thirst. Sometimes they complain of a feeling of weakness but fasting for 6 days is nothing very special. As I said, some people carry out hunger cures for 4 weeks. To be sure, they drink fruit juice during such a long cure. We also make use of it for therapeutic purposes. They will receive fruit juice but that is by no means so unpleasant as an 8-day long hunger and thirst cure.
Q. And you gave them no compensation for going without food and water whatever? You gave them no injections of any sort?
A. No, no. My whole purpose is to eliminate from the body all the unnecessary fluids in the blood so that the blood pressure will drop. I gradually bring these people over to a form of nourishment without any salt.
Q. Now you say that four out of five of your experimental subjects broke off on the fifth day?
A. Yes. For external reasons only, not because they could no longer tolerate it. It just happened that four of the men had dates on the 5th day, but the 5th one stayed on until the sixth day and I asked him specifically whether he felt particularly tortured or in pain and he said no. He said that with the first drink of water he took all unpleasantness and discomfort vanished. I observed my son myself. As soon as he drank a cup of tea, he was perfectly all right and 2 days after the experiment he had recovered all the weight he had lost. He had lost roughly one kilo a day.
Q. You say these four men had a date on the 5th. You mean they had an engagement with a young lady?
A. I do not know what details were planned for the carnival celebration. I could simply draw the regrettable conclusion that their interest in the carnival was a little greater than their interest in the experiment. But this does indicate that the experiments did not have a very deleterious effect on them, otherwise they could not have gone to the carnival and enjoyed it.
Q. Well, it might also indicate that they didn’t regard the experiments as being very serious and that, even though several men in this dock are quite interested in the results of this particular experiment, your four young assistants didn’t regard it as serious enough to refrain from going out on a date. Isn’t that about the size of it?
A. I can’t deny that. I wasn’t too pleased by their behavior.
Q. Were these men informed of the seriousness of this undertaking?
A. No.
Q. And what reason did you advance to them for undergoing the experiments?
A. Of course, I told them, and they knew, that such sea-water experiments were an issue, but I was perfectly convinced that these experiments could by no means be called inhumane or brutal and consequently we didn’t approach the experiments in too tragic a manner. All we wanted to know was how unpleasant such an experiment was.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL
Presiding Judge Beals: Professor, these subjects upon whom you conducted an experiment in your institute were very excellent subjects for such an experiment, were they not?
Witness Vollhardt: They were characterized by the fact that they were medical men who understood the meaning of the experiment and that I could rely on them. Physically, they certainly were no better-conditioned, according to the photographs at least, than those rather well nourished experimental subjects.
Q. I was not thinking so much of their physical condition, but they were men who were interested in this work, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. The results of the experiment—each upon himself and upon each of his associates—would be interesting to each one, would it not? Is that not true?
A. I would assume so, yes.
Q. Each one was entirely controlling his own participation in the experiment, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. If, at any time, any one of the subjects felt that the conditions which he was undergoing in the experiment were becoming too heavy for him, he would have been released from further participation upon his request, would he not?
A. No doubt he would have reported and he would have said, “I want to step out. This is too much for me.”
Q. That’s what I meant. He would have asked to be released and he would have been immediately released? Well, is it or is it not a fact that a human being will voluntarily undergo hunger, thirst, pain, discomfort, and stand it better when he knows that he is doing it under his own volition with a scientific objective, than a person of equal physical condition will stand such an experiment when, insofar as he is concerned, he has no personal interest whatsoever?
A. No doubt that is correct, and I am perfectly convinced that Professor Eppinger tried everything he could in order to obtain such volunteers. He was most uncomfortable about the fact that these experiments were carried out in Dachau. He would much rather have seen them carried out in Vienna on his own students but, at that time, there weren’t any students any more. They had all been called up, and medical officers were very scarce so that there was no question of obtaining volunteers. Hence, in this very tense and difficult time, no subjects could be found, to carry out such a series of experiments as was planned here, in a hospital or clinic of any kind. It would have been better, more practical and more sensible, by all means, if the experiments had been carried out at that time upon medical students, but, unfortunately, that was impossible.
Q. You prefaced your statement, Doctor, by saying that Dr. Eppinger had this sentiment. How do you know that?
A. Because, during the conference, it was mostly Professor Eppinger who was in favor of these experiments being made and, since Professor Eppinger had earmarked his favorite pupil, Beiglboeck, for the carrying out of these experiments, it is a matter of course that Eppinger would have liked nothing better than that these experiments should be carried out under his own control in Vienna.
Q. You are assuming that Eppinger would have felt as you would have felt under similar circumstances, is that correct?
A. I know that all those who were interested in these experiments were making efforts to find places where these experiments could be carried out in a military hospital on soldiers or convalescent patients or other persons, but, unfortunately, everything turned out to be impossible. You can only imagine the situation if you know how every hospital bed and every doctor was being utilized in this time. That was the final period of the war.
Q. You prefaced this last statement by saying, “I know.” Now, how do you know? By any other method than assuming that these gentlemen would have felt as you felt?
A. No. I recollect that I read that in one of the reports, that an attempt had been made to carry out the experiments elsewhere and that one had come across locked doors everywhere. For instance, one had Brunswick in mind, I know that by chance, the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick, and that was impossible. Thus, all inquiries had negative answers.
Q. I gathered from your answer to one of my questions a short time ago—I would like to return to that subject—that a person of intelligence will endure more discomfort, pain, and suffering, pursuing a voluntary experiment which he knows he can terminate at any moment than a person, probably of less intelligence, would display upon undergoing an experiment which he could not stop at his own volition. Is that correct?
A. Well, there is no question but that, for those persons in Dachau, the only bait was the good food before and afterwards and the cigarettes that they had been promised. That was not possible in the case of my doctors. They did it because they were interested and, of course, that would have been by far the best solution if it had been possible.
Q. And, insofar as the subjects at Dachau, if any of them, at any time during the course of the experiments, believed that the pain or discomfort or whatever it might be called, which they were suffering would not be compensated by cigarettes, or other promises which had been made to them, they would be very anxious then to be released from prosecution of that experiment. Is that true?
A. Certainly. That’s why quite a number of experimental subjects secretly drank water, because the strict course didn’t please them too much.
Q. Well, unlike the experimental subjects in your institute, those subjects would not be particularly interested in the result, would they? They had no scientific interest in the result, did they?
A. No, no. None at all. None whatever.
[47] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947, pp. 10942-10971.
[48] Eugen Kogon: Der SS Staat; published 1946, Verlag der Frankfurter Hefte, Frankfurt-Main.
[49] Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck quoted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Stoehr, Pillwein, and Tschofenig and the testimony of the defense witness Mettbach who stated that approximately 40 to 50 gypsies were used for the sea-water experiments and that they wore either black or green triangles. Black triangles had to be worn by those concentration camp inmates who were considered asocial and green triangles by those who were considered criminal.
[50] Same as Footnote 49 above.
[51] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27 June, 1 July 1947, pp. 10229-10235, 10508-10545.
[52] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 June 1947, pp. 8666-9028, 9326-9329.
[53] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3 June 1947, pp. 8400-8493.