But that didn't happen?
A I ask you again to question Becker-Freysing about this. He can tell you more than I can.
Q Now under Item 2 on Page 3 of the original, General, you can see that the navy wasn't even very much interested in these sea water experiments. It suited than if they had a water that would carry a man for three days. The Luftwaffe was really pressing for these experiments for twelve days. General, do you find that? It says, "In the opinion of the navy, the results obtained at the clinical experiments are sufficient, since they arc mainly interested in being able to nourish their men three to five days with the preparation." They didn't care anything about making any further experiments, did they, General?
A That is also an inaccuracy. As far as I know from later discussions with Becker-Freysing, this number, twelve days, comes from the navy, because the navy had a case of distress at sea where a drifting boat with survivors was found after twelve days, he in the Luftwaffe-the case which I mentioned yesterday with the six days and seven days was one of the longest. I think later there was one with eight days, be had, this 3-day limit. This 12-day limit, to my knowledge, comes from the navy. That is another inaccuracy in the document. But I come back to the 3 to 5. days I was talking about yesterday. If the Berker drug had proved usable for a few days, than that would still have been a success. Then we could have used the other drug a little more sparingly. We could have used it a little less. We had raw material difficulties there.
Q General, let's look at the distribution of this document. First, it was sent to the information of the Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Airforce, Jueterbeg. Holzloehner was attached to that establishment at Jueterbeg, wasn't he?
A That was --- Holzloehner was only-- he was at the planning office at Jeuterbeg, yes, but I don't believe he was there immediately at that time. That was in May. He was certainly not there. He was in Kiel, holding lectures.
Q Look at the Institute for Aviation Medicine, DVL, Berlin, Adlershef, which was troubling Dr. Sauter the other day-
A I explained that yesterday. That is certainly a mistake. The Ruff Institute had nothing whatever to do with this matter.
Q General -- General, it is immaterial to me whether it was a mistake or wasn't a mistake. The important thing is that he get it, whether by mistake or otherwise. This says that it was distributed to his institute doesn't it?
A It says so here, yes. I don't know whether he got it.
Q Now then, after Mr. Ruff got this and Mr. Holzloehner, or his institute, both of them had been quite active at Dachau themselves at an earlier period--did neither of them come to you to say, Watch your step; things are bad down there; men were killed in the earlier experiments? You find that unnatural? You think that would to very strange that if Ruff knew they had killed three men down there, that the SS, as he says, sort of took things out of his hands, you find it amusing that I suggest to you that when he gets a report like this which indicates that the Luftwaffe is carrying out another experiment in Dachau with the SS, you find it amusing that I suggest to you that he should have talked to you about it? Is that right General?
A Nobody talked to me about it, neither Holzloehner nor Ruff. I said on another occasion that in the late fall I happened to see Holzloehner; and Ruff never talked to me about these matters. These implications I don't agree with.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 27 February 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats Tribunal is again in session.
OSKAR SCHROEDER Resumed CR0SS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. MC HANEY:
Q Herr Schroeder, I want to ask you one additional question about the distribution of these minutes, that is Document NO 177, Prosecution Exihibit 133, the minutes of the meeting held on the 19th and 20th of May 1944 on the sea water experiments. I notice that in the distribution list a copy was sent to Luftwaffe Inspectorate 14, 1st Abteilung, 2nd Abteilung, Gruppe 3, and than the initials KGB. Can you tell tho Tribunal what persons received copies of those minutes?
A Roman numeral I was the first, was it not?
Q. 1st Abteilung.
A Yes. That was the departmental chief at the time Oberstarzt Range.
Q How do you spell that?
A R-A -N-G-E.
A Yes, that is Oberstarzt Mertz.
Q Gruppe 3?
A Gruppe 3 and KGB belong together. That was the ran who worked on The War Diary -- I think it was Oberstarzt Zerkehlen.
A But you yourself never saw a copy of this document?
A No.
Q Did you talk this meeting over with Becker-Freyseng?
A He reported to me about this meeting when I returned from my trip. He mostly mentioned the points which were important for me, that is to say, that the experiment was planned.
Q Did he tell you that he and Schaefer had reported on behalf of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe?
A He represented my agency and, therefore, they interfered in the discussion--this was part of their order.
Q Well, but you say Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer reported to this during that in their opinion Berker would cause permanent injury after six days and death between six and 12 days. Did Becker-Freyseng tell you that?
A That was not correct. They did not report that was my opinion at that was the opinion of the man who worked on that record, it is the repe* an engineer who from his memory wrote these things down. Afterwards this is not my personal opinion. My personal opinion. My personal opinion was at the subject of discussion at all.
A Well, now, Christensen and the other gentlemen from the Technisches were not representing your office, they were representing the RIM. Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer were who only persons present at this meeting representing out office and these minutes clearly state that it is the ******** of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe that Berker will cause permanent injury after six days. And it expressly states that Shaefer said it will finally result in death after not later than 12 days. Now I am asking you if Berker-Freyseng told that that had been reported to this meeting.
A I cannot say that now. Why don't you ask Becker-Freyseng himself, probably will be able to tell you were about. It was not my opinion on the basis of my experiences.
A It is rather important to know, General, whether this was reported to you and what you reactions was with respect to that report, because those inmates outline an experimental program to give experimental subjects Dachau, Berker for 12 days. You don't remember that he told you that?
A No. In addition the planning of the experiment was merely initiated there, it wasn't established in every way. I personally didn't accept it in that form. I at first endeavored to perform these experiments on my own and with regard to that record which I didn't know myself I didn't c*o*t it at all.
Q Well, did you think in May and June 1944 that if Berker water was used for six days that it would cause permanent injury to the experimental subject?
A No, I didn't believe that because Berker water was identical, as far as I thought, with sea water. The adding of that Berker drug did not change the character of the sea water at all. The fact that was water with five or six days undergoes, or, rather, has as a result permanent physical damage. I could not confirm on the basis of my own experiences, which I at that time made in my capacity as Fleet Physician about this very point.
Q In other words, it is your considered judgment, as an expert, that even if a man drank sea water for six days that it wouldn't cause and permanent injury; is that right?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Did you talk this meeting over with Schaefer?
A No, according to my knowledge, no.
Q Did Schaefer tell you that in his judgment it would kill a ma* to take Berker water for as much as twelve days?
A It is possible he said that; I don't know, it wasn't the subject of discussion at all. Moreover, the directives to interrupt these experiments as soon as there was suspicion of any harm or personal injury to ar* person that was one of the basic conditions of the experiment.
Q We will come to that in a minute; right now I am interested in whether Schaefer told you that in his judgment it would kill a man to fe* him Berker water for twelve days. I want to remind you of something you in your interrogation of the 2nd of October. You were asked the following question: "Now, a question; I ask you to consider it carefully. Can you tell me here if Dr. Schaefer did not attempt, that in fact he omitted to call your attention, as head of the inspectorate of aviation, to the dan of the Berker method and to his report, but that he further attempted to convince you as his chief, and as a physician, that such experiments show not be undertaken in the concentration camp of Dachau." You answered: of course, he did not do. It was, to begin with, not his business." Can you tell the Court whether Schaefer came to you after this meeting and sa "Now look, there is some mention of carrying out experiments for twelve days on concentration camp inmates at Dachau; as an expert in this matter I am telling you that that is going to kill them if you do it." Now, you ought to remember if he told you something like that; did he, or didn't he?
A Under oath I cannot say whether that was the case. Please ask if himself or let him report about it. For me it was quite certain that the experiment should only be carried out to such an extent as was possible is out doing any damage to health.
Q I have long since asked him that question, and he insisted at great length that he told you; that he warned you; that he wanted no part of the Dachau experiments. Of course, you didn't know that when you were interrogated on the 2nd of October; and there you denied that he told you and that he warned you. Now, which position is correct?
A If Schaefer had testified to that here during an interrogation, namely, that he said something to me about it, I would believe him and wouldn't deny it at all; but I really don't know it any more; I have so much to think about that I can hardly remember every detail; that applies to me as it applies to every one else, but I am not going to deny that he made those statements. It doesn't make any difference to me because my v** about the entire affair was very firm, namely, that the experiments only be carried out in the frame that didn't harm any persons and didn't cause any bodily injury.
Q Now General, you will recall that both Schaefer and BeckerFreyseng were asked about this at the conference in Nurnberg in October, 1942. Didn't they give you any of the details about what was reported or those Dachau experiments so you could, go into these sea water experiment with your eyes open?
A No, neither one or the other told me oven a word about it.
Q Now, between this meeting of 19 and 20 May, 1944, and the first of June, you scurried around and tried to arrange for these experiments at the Luftwaffe Medical Academy and at the hospital at Brunswick; that right, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q And then, after exhausting all other possibilities, you finally went to the SS, as it was said in the minutes of the meeting in May; that is right, isn't it?
A I am saying that I didn't know the record of that meeting; therefore, my decisions cannot have referred to any statements contained in record. My decision was based on my own views in that matter.
Q It is just a horrible coincidence, is that right,-- General -
A That is what you constructed of it.
Q When did you see Grawitz?
A I can only reconstruct that from the letters, since the last conference took place on the first of June, and the later information from me to Himmler was written I think on the seventh. I must have seen Grawitz, before that; this could only have taken place between the first and the seventh.
Q Where did you see him; did you go to his office?
A Yes, the office of which he was a representative, the German Red Cross in Babelsberg. This was closer to where I lived and I had somebody to speak to at that time and that was the reason I went there.
Q How long did you talk to him?
A I don't know that any longer; perhaps a quarter of an hour, or twenty minutes. I had no other subject to discuss with him than this after I dealt with it shortly, as I said, he and I, and I think it took about twenty minutes.
Q And you told him you wanted these sea water experiments carried out on dishonorably discharged Wehrmacht soldiers; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did you tell him that you were limiting the experiments to those type of experimental subjects?
A No. I merely told him that as a suggestion since the selection experimental subjects was a matter of the police; that wasn't my concern. Therefore, I couldn't really exercise any influence. That was the only thing in the entire experimental affair which was outside my influence. Therefore I made this suggestion in order to get a number of people for the experience who could be put on the same level as soldiers.
Q But you were willing to take anything that the SS handed you; the SS handed over to you; is that right?
A That wasn't discussed. Grawitz told me that he would represent wish.
Q But you were prepared to rely upon the SS in producing these experimental subjects?
A I had no reason to have any objection or any doubt regarding to.
Q Well, General, if any of your associates who knew all about the experiments in Dachau during the high altitude and freezing experiments whispered a word about it, there might have beer, very good reasons for you not to rely on the SS in this rather important matter isn't that right?
A Well, how much longer shall I repeat here in order to establish that I hadn't known these things. Why should I have known them? Every opportunity I have emphasized thaw.
Q You say you thought that they only had these dishonorably discharged Wehrmacht soldiers and a social elements in concentration camps. What do you mean by a social elements?
A This word "a social" I only heard hero in Nurnberg for the find time. No word as "asocial" was mentioned to Grawitz.
Q Well, who do you think they had in concentration camps other the dishonorably discharged soldiers?
AAlready yesterday I emphasized that I, just like many other millions of Germans, didn't know anything about it. Here apparently I have to repeat that every few minutes. I only knew that Germans were kept in concentration camps; dishonorably discharged soldiers from the Wehrmacht or other criminals who did not deserve their sentence in the prisons, but in the concentration camp in order to be committed for the war effort, and furthermore, that politically unreliable people and many other Germans with any way were not politically reliable were kept there too. This is what I knew about it; I already stated it here a few times. I can only say the am here under oath and I have to say that -- either you believe me or you don't.
Q Now, General, how did you get Grawitz to understand that the experiments had to be carried out on volunteers or not at all. Did you give Grawitz this understanding?
A I told him that there would be volunteers for that purpose if they would, be given an improvement in their nourishment as a reward. I still know that every soldier is ready to put himself at the disposal for any special task if he would get any increase in his nourishment; that is in accord with the mentality of every soldier.
Q I think perhaps it is not necessary to go over your letter to Himmler of June 7th, that is document NO 185, Prosecution's Exhibit 134, but I would like to ask you one question. You stated "that direction of experiments shall be taken over by Stabsarzt Beiglboeck,civilian Professor Eppinghaus, Chief Physician of the Medical Clinic in Vienna. After receive of the basic approval, I shall list by name the other officials who are the participate in the experiment." Who were these other officials who participated in the experiments, General?
A They were no physicians who were concerned with the question of clinical assistance; they were assistants; I don't know their names. The were considered in order to perform those scientific observations of the work which was performed. Perhaps Becker Freyseng will be able to tell you more about that than I. These were merely technical assistants in order perform exact observations.
Q I want to put another little coincidence to you, General, which appears in this letter as compared to the minutes of the meeting on 19 and 20 May, and that concerns this twelve-day experiment provision. You remember you said, "As the experiments on human beings could thus far on be carried out for a period of four days and as practical demands required a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to twelve days, appropriate experiments are necessary." Now do I understand you to interpret that to mean that twelve days or less, whenever the experimental subject say they can't go on?
A Yes. It was intended to establish what would enable us to go to that limit, and the experiment showed clearly that with the Schaefer means, an unlimited continuation of that matter was possible. Whether, on the other hand, the drug did not have that result and the experiment could not be continued beyond three or four days, that exactly was the question which had to be decided by that experiment. It was not intended that by forcible means the Berka drug should be established.
Q But, General, I dare say that if you were to rewriting this letter today, you would probably phrase that paragraph just a bit differently, wouldn't you, to make you statements now appear a bit more clearly.
A I would have to see it in front of me in order to say something about it. I couldn't possibly state anything from my memory.
Q We will pass that, General. Do you still contend that the experimental subjects were volunteers?
A Yes.
Q Let's look at Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit 135. This is the letter of 28 June 1944 from Grawitz to Himmler including commanding by Gebhardt, Blucks and Nobe on who the experimental subjects should be and I want to call your attention to paragraph two where Grawitz represent the attitude of Glucks, and Glucks said: "Referring to the above letter we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments reports by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station Rascher in the concentration camp Dachau. If possible, Jews or prisoner sheld in quarantine are to be used."
Does that sound like a very good expression of volunteer subjects to you -- "Jews and prisoners held, in quarantine"?
A This is an inter-office correspondence of the SS which is not known to me and which I never received. As it can be seen from the list button list, there are two copies, one which is available here and then there is another draft which probably remained with the office.
Q Now, General, let's understand the point. I am not contending the prosecution isn't contending you received a copy of this letter, b* are now asserting after all the evidence is in at qreat length that the experimental subjects were volunteers, and we are now interested in thr** ing some light on that question, and I am sure the Tribunal is interest in your understanding of the implications of this letter because it deal with those persons who were, in fact, selected to undergo these experiment you sponsored; so let's forgot whether or not you received it and just devote our attention to the letter itself and what it points out, and I will ask you if Glucks' comment doesn't raise a little suspicion in your mind since he suggests the use of Jews or prisoners held in quarantined maybe they weren't going to be volunteers, and maybe they weren't, in for volunteers?
A It doesn't say here that they weren't volunteers. This point being mentioned here at all. Even if I was to real it today, I would ask myself why couldn't there by any volunteers among these people if any improvement of nourishment is offered, and if the men in charge of the experiment would tell them that this experiment will have no harmful effects regarding their life and health -- as it was expressed in my directive -- so I really couldn't draw the same conclusion that you drew in any way.
Q In other words, you want to testify that if you had seen a ** of this letter at the end of June, 1944, you would leave still gone ahead with the experiments, is that right?
A These are only conclusions which are constructed hypothetically and I can make no comment on them. Probably I wouldn't have one that. I would have approached Grawitz and asked him what the matter was.
Q Let's look at comment three by Nebe. He said, "I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in or to evolve the method, for making sea water potable, I propose taking for purpose the asocial Gypsy halfbreeds. 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 Reichsfuehrer, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should the Reichsfuehrer agree to thi*** I shall list by name the persons to be used."
Now, General, do you think that Mr. Nebe was gifted with such power that he could sit in Berlin and list forty Gypsies whom he knew were going to volunteer by name?
A I have no idea who Mr. Nebe is, what functions he held. I said before that this was an inter-office letter of the SS, and I can make no comment on it whatsoever.
Q Doesn't that observation by Nobe indicate to you that maybe in Gypsies weren't volunteers?
A I really cannot conclude it. That is merely an assumption. Not is said about it.
Q And as I understood your testimony, you paid credit for this comment by Grawitz in this letter where he says to the proposal of the SS-Gruppenfuehrer Nebe to use Gypsies for the experiments: "I beg to raise an objection to wit: that the Gypsies being of somewhat different racial composition might possibly provide experimental results which might not apply entirely to our men. It would, therefore, be desirable if such prisoners could be used for these experiments as are racially comparable European peoples."
You take credit for that racial objection of Grawitz, do you, General?
A Well, this is merely my assumption from which I can conclude to he recalled that I spoke about soldiers. This letter was sent off about fourweeks later, 28th June; that is probably four weeks after I had visit him. Perhaps he didn't remember the events exactly at that time. But that is an inter-office letter in the SS about which I really cannot comment. This is really outside my authority completely.
Q When did you learn that Gypsies were used in the experiments?
A I learned that when Beiglboeck sent the final report about the experiments to Berlin.
Q Would you have confirmed the experiments if you had known that before?
AAfter what I heard, these were people who spoke German who were included within the framework of the German population, and really no objection could be made. I can only repeat that the thought that foreigner were in the camps didn't come up at all. I only started to take these considarations into account here after knowing about the situation in concentration camps, but at that time I couldn't possibly have taken things into consideration of which I hadn't known anything.
Q Did you see Beiglboeck before the experiments?
A Before? Do you mean before the experiments? I spoke to him very shortly before the experiments, and I gave him my directives within few words. Details were then settled between him and Becker-Freyseng.
Q Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?
A No. We only spoke about the matter as such. I am not quite sure whether the question "concentration camp" at that time was already established. Please, why don't you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don't know. If he was before or after the 1 of June.
Q You didn't say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that German volunteers were used in the experiments?
A That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about it. was no subject of discussion. There wasn't anything to be discussed at
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 I ** that there were volunteer people, and I certainly did not say that they ** to be Germans because I didn't take any other possibility into consideration at all and couldn't have said it. These are all reconstructions which c*** up later, but at that time weren't subjects of discussion at all.
Q Do you know whether Gypsies were recognized as Germans under the racial laws of the Reich?
AAs far as they lived in Germany, I thought that that was the case. I never had any thoughts about it.
Q General, do you think that Gypsies were recognized as good German Nordic citizens? Is that right?
AAt any rate, we in the Wehrmacht had people who were Gypsies, read a decree about it. I still remember that. There was something about Gypsies in one of the regulations that were issued that I remember that name, in one of the regulations that were issued during the War.
Q Then you are quite sure that Beiglboeck's instructions were the these subjects were to be given Berka water only until such time as they themselves said they couldn't take anymore?
A Yes.
Q The judgment about whether or not they could continue to tolerate Berka water was left up to the experimental subjects, is that right?
A The judgment in the first line lay with the Doctor. He was the one who had to determine whether there were any injuries. That was his responsibility.
Q Well, doesn't that change the thing just a little bit, if Beiglboeck concluded that the experimental subject could continue for six to seven days, after he had said I can't stand it anymore, why Beiglboeck could go ahead under your instructions. Isn't that right?
A Will you repeat please? I didn't quite get it.
Q I recently understood you to say that the judgment about how far the experiments should be continued was up to the doctor, that is, Boeglboeck; you had previously stated chat your instructions were that the experiments were to go on only long as the men themselves agreed to take the water. I am trying to get it straight. If in Beiglboeck's judgment the men could continue to take water for another two days, did your instructions permit Beiglboeck to go on?
A The thing was intended in the following way: Beiglboeck was to speak to the people and ask then whether they could continue for another day and if after a personal conversation with them the people were interested in keeping up for a little longer then they could. That's how you understood it. But the responsibility whether any harm came about always rested with the physician. Any harm or injury had to be avoided under all circumstances. That was a directive.
Q As I understand it you can't supply us with any of the details of how these experiments were carried out, that is, how long they continued, now how much they gave them, how much Berka Water, how much Schaeffer water, how much sea-water, etc.?
A No. After this basic outline for the experiments had been given by me I had to leave the execution of the experiments to those who were responsible for it. For that reason Beiglboeck had been selected by suggestion of Eppinger in order to have a reliable experienced physician to carry out that work and a man who would assume the responsibility. That is, as I said yesterday, a superior has the duty to select a man for any work, whatever it may be, even in experiments, a man, who in accordance with his pre-education and other qualities can really assume responsibilities for any such work. I couldn't possibly do that from Berlin.
I couldn't possibly assume responsibility for that work.
Q Now, you got a report on these experiments, a verbal report, in a bunker in Berlin in the Fall of 1944, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Who gave that verbal report?
A It was a report about the experiments but the entire experiment of Beiglboeck, that was after he concluded his series of experiments -after he concluded all of the laboratory work which was then carried out. As the end of the conference Beiglbeock made a summary report and gave is report in the shelter -- in the bunker near the zoo and I have now -I think it was somewhere about October. Previously I thought it was earlier. I have a vague picture when this discussion took place but I couldn't define the date.
Q I said "verbal report," general, not Berka.
A Verbal report, yes. A verbal report about the entire experiment Schaeffer, Berka and all of the others.
Q And did Beiglboeck also make a written report?
A Yes, I heard that but I don't know about it. It was probably quite the same as the verbal report.
Q Now, who heard this report in the bunker in October 1944 besides yourself and, of course, Beiglboeck?
A Huebner was there, Becker-Freyseng, Schaeffer, I think was there and then there were these gentlemen the are recorded on the record and who belonged to the technical department. I don't know their names and I don't know the gentlemen personally but same of them were present. Altogether, I think 15 persons were there.
Q Didn't this report by Beiglboeck tell about the experimental objects suffering drainage, diarrhea, convulsions and hallucinations?
A I really cannot tell you that. I don't know it. I didn't read or hear the report in its entirety. I merely took note of the conclusion in which I was particularly interested, namely, that the Berka procedure was not in compliance with what we had expected and that, on the other hand, the Schaeffer procedure had to be successful.
That is all I really heard--that very short statement. I think that I asked him who these experimental subjects were and then for the very first time I learned that they were Gypsies. That is how it came about and my participation was really very superficial.
Q I understood your testimony that you were only at this report meeting for a very short time. Is that right?
A Yes, only for a very short time. This meeting took place at the Bunker Hospital near the zoo and I was supposed to attend an operation which was to take place at the same time. Therefore, I was very busy and went over to the operational theater in order to inform myself about something. I don't recall what it was.
Q You weim just there long enough to ascertain that the subjects were volunteers and that nobody had been injured. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q General, did you regard as criminal and inadmissible a medical experiment carried out upon a non-voluntary subject?
A This point has repeatedly been discussed. I don't think it is correct to use non-voluntary subjects with reference to sea-water experiments. I only explained yesterday or the day before that I stressed the necessity of the voluntary nature in that case, since the experimental subjects had to co-operate in the completion of the experiment, as I explained.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. MARX:
Q Professor, following the cross examination of the prosecutor I should like to put a few questions to you. When you were first questioned. that is, the end of September 1946, did you know already that you were and indictment?
A You mean the 19th of September?
Q Yes. I mean the interrogation conducted by the prosecution.
A No, at that time I had been here for three days. I was a prisoner of war in the Camp at Dachau. From there I was sent to the Heidelberg Medical Center in order to do some work there. From there I was taken away and the reason was given that I was to be taken to another place for 8 or 10 days in order to testify about something on aviation medical research. That was the only think I know before I came here.
Q When, for the first time, did you learn that you were actually under indictment?
A I think that was the middle of November when the indictment was served. I think it was either on the 9th or 10th of November.
Q How were your interrogations conducted? Were the statements that you made put down on record or was the record only made up later?
A Both of these procedures were taken. At first shorthand notes were taken, the record was later given to me for my signature and then on the basis of these records affidavits originated.
Q How did these affidavits originated?
A They were drafted by the prosecution and formulated as excerpts the various interrogations. They really didn't constitute our own words, and therefore were not always in accordance with our usage of the language. As can be seen here now the usage of the language is not used as we used it in dealing with authorities, whenever we objected to that procedure we were told that later we would have sufficient opportunity to state our opinion about it verbally, so under these conditions we always signed our name. Now, of course, the situation is somewhat different.
Q Were you interrogated in the German language?
A Yes.
Q Or did you think that you knew English so well that you didn't have to speak German?
A No, I know very little English at all.
Q When asked, and I think you will remember that you were asked whether you didn't state that the Rascher rewarming system was a scientific result, and I am asking you now, was that the only scientific result scientific achievement which you stated, or did you state any more than that?
A Yes, but now you are not talking about the interrogation here. That was in England. That was an interrogation --I must say that I was a prisoner of war in England twice,once in June 1945 and then again in the fall. I remember that in June 1945, and I referred to that yesterday I was questioned by a commission of higher medical American officers, and among a number of detailed questions there was this question too; namely, what medical scientific results did I think were the most important, that is, scientific results as gained by the war.
I think that was the formulation, and I then listed a number of details from surgery, internal medicine, et cetera -- I think there were about five, six or eight results. I remember exactly that I listed the DDT preparations on top which were of great importance, then a number of others, and among other things was the Rascher rewarming process. I think this was among a number of points.