There was the chief of the general staff, and so forth. And this office had quite a number of documents, files, and when this notice was posted on the board I asked the English or American liaison officer whether they did not have anything about this in our files, any evidence of what was asserted in this radio report. And after a few days one of the American gentlemen came and brought me this report, distress at sea, winter distress, which was in the files which had been collected at Latimore. I went through -- I read it, and I talked to the English or American liaison officer and I explained to him that to my knowledge, as far as I had known up to that time, this radio report could not be true of the Luftwaffe. I knew nothing about it. That must still be in the files at Latimore.
Q Well, I guess you conceded it was right after you read the freezing report, didn't you, General?
A I beg your pardon? Today you mean? Yes, it looks different today than it did at that time, but we were of the opinion that it could not possibly be true in th,.t form at the time.
Q I assume you never talked to Ruff or Romberg before the war ended about these high-altitude experiments they conducted at Dachau?
A That is true. I never talked to them.
Q Becker-Freysing never told you anything about them?
A No. I imagine he himself was not informed.
Q And you never made any investigation of the matter, of course, since you knew no nothing about it?
A No.
Q And you took no action against anyone with respect to it, of course.
A I am sorry. That came through in English.
(Interpreter put the question).
A No, I had no knowledge of these things.
Q You were a close friend of Hippke's, weren't you? You went to school with him, didn't you?
A No. We studied together, and as Medical Chief I saw Hippke only once or twice.
We did not see each other at that time, but that was because of geographical conditions. I was in Saalow with my office, and he was in some other town.
Q Well, you don't disown your friendship now for Hippke, do you?
A No.
Q And they had channels of communications between you and Hippke, didn't they?
A No. While I was in office you mean?
Q While you were the physician for air fleet 2, for example, you were stationed in Italy for part of the time. I take it that you might have talked to Hippke over the telephone from time to time. That was a possiility, wasn't it?
A Yes, but at that time we had no contact because we had certain personal differences.
Q And you never discussed these experiments with him?
A No.
Q You never got the report on the experiments which was written Ruff; Romberg and Rascher?
A No.
Q What did they do with these reports on aviation medical matters? Did they hide them somewhere and not use them?
A I never got them. I already said that.
Q When did you first learn about the freezing experiments? Did I understand you to say that was in May of 1944?
A No, in the spring of 1943 I saw this report on distress at sea and winter distress for the first time, as I said yesterday or today; the official report of the meeting. I estimate that it was distributed in February or March, '43, to the subordinate agencies.
Q And that was the first you heard about it?
A That was the first time I heard of it, yes.
Q You didn't receive the medical report written by Holzlochner, Finke and Rascher?
A No.
Q They hid that somewhere too, just like the high-altitude report?
A I don't know. As far as I have heard they were not in our office at all.
Q When did you first hear about using the warm bath method to revive persons suffering from shock as a result of prolonged exposure to cold?
A From the report on distress at sea and winter distress in which that was cited as directives for treatment, if I remember rightly, but it is possible that before that there was a circular to the subordinate agencies saying that should be done. I can't say exactly; but it was certainly in the report somewhere.
Q Well now, General; do I understand that the German military medical system was run so that you received your instruction from these reports about meetings?
Didn't the medical service, as a matter of fact, issue something in the nature of formal instructions, formal directives?
AAs has already been said by Mr. Handloser, directives were issued on the basis of experience or lectures at congresses buy us. In the Luftwaffe--what the name of it--there were announcements for troop physicians ********** *****************". Those were pamphlets which were ???? ?????? which gave rulings on things which interested the troop physicians generally in a brief form. It might describe some new drug or it might gave said that freezing should be c****** with hot baths. ******* in what one *** ** Italy we were trying to create a bathing arrangement ** * *** possible station in order to have ** regulation carried out on several such stations. There were two or three of them.
Q General, I have an interrogation report which was taken in England when you were there with Rose and some of the other doctors in the Luftwaffe, and they asked you what you thought were the greatest advances in German military medicine during the war. And you listed a number of then, but about fourth in the list you put down this warm bath method for treating shock due to prolonged exposure to cold, do you remember that?
A That probably in June, '45; in the interrogation, it it might be that we talked about that, but several things were mentioned. It was not the only one.
Q I told you that, but I think since you regard it as such a remarkable discovery you would be able to tell me when you first received instructions about using that method treatment?
A That would be in the spring of '43 when the effects of this report on distress at sea and winter distress came out and that was actually a considerable change. For centuries all instructions for treating freezing cases have said that they should be rubbed with snow, then with cold water, then with 1 lukewarm water and then with warm water.
and that now suddenly there was to be a change from this old procedure; that one was to put the patient immediately into a hot bath. That was actually a considerable change, especially since the results were proved to be better.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 February 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 27 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendants are all present with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who is absent due to a continuation of her illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the absence of the defendant Oberheuser on account of illness and I will file the doctor's certificate with the Secretary General. Counsel may proceed.
OSKAR SCHROEDER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. General, I want you to make clear two other points to the Tribunal with respect to Becker-Freyseng. It is true, is it not, that all research assignments made by the Luftwaffe came-through the office of Becker-Freyseng, irrespective of whether or not they dealt with aviation medicine?
A. Yes, I explained that yesterday. I explained that because of office technical reasons all research assignments were dealt with in the department of Becker-Freyseng, but it should not be understood that those assignments which, had nothing to do with aviation medicine, for instance, in the field of hygiene, or dental care, or other things, were also worked on in that department, but they were only worked on down there in an office technical manner. As I explained yesterday, in order to deal with such assignments certain formalities had to be abided by. These things were well known in the department of Becker-Freyseng and since the mass of these assignments came from the sphere of aviation medicine this department already before the time I came there received the office work with reference to all of these assignments.
With reference to the contemplated assignments which remained in the department we could see at all times what agency of my department was actually working on the scientific questions.
Q. The technical reasons you mentioned, it was also true, was it not, that all reports made by scientists working on research problems for the Luftwaffe flowed back through the office of Becker-Freyseng, irrespective of whether they dealt with problems of aviation medicine?
A. I cannot say that with certainty but I would imagine and in order to choose an example, a report about paradentosis research did not go to Becker-Freyseng at all but was dealt with immediately after it was receive by the mail and was assigned to the man working on it. I cannot say that exactly. That is a matter of mail distribution which was not supervised by me in any way.
Q. Well, General, don't you know as a matter of fact that with respect to the work of Haagen on typhus, and assuming he sent a report in to the Luftwaffe, didn't that report as a matter of fact pass through the office of Becker-Freyseng? Of course, I admit it was undoubtedly sent along to Rose, but didn't it go through the office of Becker-Freyseng?
A. I would doubt that very much. Any work of Haagen was clearly recognizable in the registration office as a field which belonged to the framework of hygiene, so it would not be handed to Becker-Freyseng because that would have been a wastage of time which was completely unnecessary to give the work to Becker-Freyseng and then have it sent on to Rose. I would imagine that this was sent immediately to the expert working on it, either Rose or Atmer.
Q. The office of Becker-Freyseng was one central place where you could tell the status of all research assignments by the Luftwaffe. He wasn't advised as to these reports, then how did you tell anything by looking at the files except that in the year 1942, for example, the re search assignment had been made by Haagen?
Don't you know as a matter of fact that these reports came back through his office so he could keep track of what was being done on these research assignments?
A. The list of research assignments, as I said before, were kept in the department of Becker-Freyseng, but all the field which did not belong in the sphere, such as hygiene and other fields, on the basis of the assignment were supervised by those experts who were competent to do so. That is to say, that it was completely sufficient if the respective experts received such a work, that he merely had to inform Becker-Freyseng or telephone him, "Mr. Becker-Freyseng, the work is being done," and we received the final report and the report as such did not have to be submitted to Becker-Freyseng at all.
Q. When were you promoted to the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt?
A. On the 1st of January, 1944.
Q. When were you promoted to the rank of general?
A. On the 1st of June, 1940.
Q. Do you remember when you were promoted to the rank of Oberstarzt?
A. Yes, on the 1st of August, 1938.
Q. Holzloehner served with you during the campaign in the West, didn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. I don't believe you told the Tribunal yet about the conversation you had with Holzloehner on his freezing experiments,have you?
A. What experiments do you mean? What discussions do you mean? Do you mean in the year 1940?
Q. General, you know as a matter of fact there apparently is some dispute between the prosecution and yourself about the precise date, but you knew during the course of the war that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau?
A. Yes, I learned that in my office in 1944, as I said here before.
Q. And, I am suggesting to you after you learned that Holzloehnor had been implicated in those experiments you called him in and talked to him?
A. Yes, oh yes. I know when you mean now, yes. There are two things which play a part here. I said yesterday already that Holzloehnor in the year of 1940 had furnished the Aid Station at Witze, the Rescue Station at Witze, where he first gained experience, people who were rescued from the sea then I lost sight of Holzloehnor, since I left the west in the year 1941, and I saw him again for the first time in the year of fall of 1944, which for some reason that I do not know, visited a gentleman of my office. At that time I spoke to him shortly and since I had learned in the meantime that he was conducting experiments in Dachau, I asked him briefly whether that was correct or how he was doing it, and I remember at that time he told me that he was conducting experiments which were based on his old experiences which he gained at the coast and he was supplanting these experiments by conducting experiments on human beings in Dachau. At that time, he was speaking about 6 or 7 criminals who had been condemned to death and who were put at his disposal for that purpose; he, at that time, said nothing about any fatality. At that time, I gained the impression that the entire manner of the experiment and impressed him mentally. I had the feeling that he did not like to speak about it; his suicide later confirmed that.
Q. Well, General, I think this is all rather significant. I think you should have probably made some mention of it before this date. When was this meeting with Holzloehnor?
A. I said that during my interrogation; I think that was in the fall of 1944. I cannot remember the exact date any longer. It could have been November 1944. I am not quite sure.
Q. Well, this was after you had initiated the sea-water experiments, then; is that right?
A. Considerably later, yes.
Q. And, as I recall, you also said in this interrogation that you had seen this report by Holzloehner, which I understand, you to have denied heretofore; now, had you seen Holzloehner's report, or not?
A. No, nor did I ever say that I had. He reported to me on this, but he not show me a report.
Q. Now, General, I am reading from a summary from an interrogation of you made on 21 October 1946, and one paragraph reads as follows: "Schroeder also knows about the Sea-not and Winter-not reports from which he could conclude that human beings were used for experiments. This could also be concluded from Holzloehner's report on the Freezing Experiments, and at could furthermore be seen from the comments which Dr. Rascher wrote on the above matter. Schroeder learned about these matters in 1944." Now, is this summary inaccurate?
A. Very inaccurate.
Q. All right, let us get it straight. In the first part of 1943; you received a report on the Nurnberg meeting, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. In May 1944, Becker-Freyseng told you that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau, did he not?
A. That is not the way to put it. He said that Holzloehner had made the experiments; nothing was said to me about Rascher and Finke. I did not know them up to that time.
I heard their names only since I was imprisoned.
Q. You mean you had not heard up to then that Rascher had worked with Holzlochner on these experiments; is that right?
A. No, I did not say that. I heard Rascher's name for the first time in ths report of 1945 whom I was imprisoned.
Q. Well I do not know, General, but I am going to look in just a minute; I think Rascher's and Finke's names are mentioned in this report which you get in the first part of 1943 on the Nurnberg meeting. You do not recall that?
A. No.
Q. And, I very well remember, that Rascher had made a comment on ths rather long lecture by Holzlochner, from which it could clearly be seen that Rascher, himself, was experimenting with Holzlochner; do you not remember that?
A. I can say that now, because in the meantime I have seen those reports, Sea-not and Winter-not, and have road them through carefully and acquainted myself with the various names, and I know that in this report there is an extensive report by Holzlochner and after that a short discussion remark by Rascher. I did not pay any attention to it at that time because I had no connections with Rascker, nor did I saw any reason why I should; but, I did interest myself in Holzloehner's report because I knew him from my working with him on the French coast.
W. Well, we will come back to the report in just a moment, but right now I want to go on with your discussion with Holzlochner. Can you tell us, more or less, exactly what he told you?
A. That is a little too much to ask, a short remark that I made in 1944 on the occasion of a fast visit, that I should recall it now, I do recall the Holzlochner was not by me in ?y barracks, and I asked him to step in a moment and then asked him regarding the experiments.
He answered me briefly and then our talk was at an end. The only thing that struck me was that Holzlochner, who previously had been a very lively and fresh person seemed now very depressed and worn out. I attributed that to the five years of war that had take place by that time. That there were other reasons, perhaps, for this, I could only adduce later from the tragic demise. It could be that I made remarks to my adjutant on this subject. I am not sure at the moment, but I think it is quite possible because Augustinick know Holzlochner very well, and liked him. Perhaps Augustinick can be asked about that later.
Q. You said a moment ago you got the impression that Holzlochner did not want to talk about those experiments, and you also had beem dabbling in Dachau experiments, yourself. I think under those circumstances, it might be expected that you would have questioned Holzlochner rather closely with what went on in his experiments. You did not do that?
A. He told me briefly that his observations from the English channel coast could be checked an experiments being carried out on criminals condemned to death in Dachau, and that these experiments had been described in the report which he had submitted. That made no perfectly clear with what was going on and why should I ask anything further. I was not particularly interested in going into that specific result.
Q. Well, were the sea-water experiments over at that time?
A. Yes, a long time ago, and for that reason, it must have been that Holzlochner came to me because those experiments had been concluded long previously.
Q. You did not have any one in the nature of representative at the Nurnberg meeting in October 1942?
A. No.
Q. Now, you mentioned this report which you recieved on that meeting; that is Document NO-401, Prosecution's Exhibit 23. You stated that you did not know that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzlochner. I found a statement on page 11 of this report which reads as follows: "The relevant statement, with the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke, they refer to a stay in water of 2 to 12 degrees." That statement indicates very clearly that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloechner, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I think you stated to your own Defense Counsel that it was impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had been carried out, but rather, you thought they were clinical observations made on people fished out of the North Sea; is that right?
A. Yes, I based my statement, my testimony, solely on Holzloechner report which was the only thing that interested me. There were reports by Rose and others but I did not read them. I glanced over them briefly but gave me further attention to them because I did not know the people who had drawn them up. I could go over all the verifications later.
Q Let's just look briefly at one or two points here and see if they right not indicate to you, if you thought about it a little bit, that these were really experiments and not clinical observations on people who accidentally fell into the sea. For instance, on page 11 of the translation it states as fellows:
"The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was determined that already five to ten minutes after falling in an advancing rige* of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders the movement of the arms especially, increasingly difficult. This affects respiration also. Inspiration is deepened, and expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucous secretions occur."
Now, when you read that little paragraph about a man who had been in the water five to ten minutes where it said that he had rigor of the skeletal muscles, where his inspiration is deepened and his expiration is delayed and where there is a heavy mucuous secretion, did you imagine that they had Dr. Holzloehner in a lifeboat in the North Sea making those observations on some aviator who had fallen in accidentally? Did you think that, General?
A Yes, that's what I thought. You don't know the local situation at Visson. There was a beach and dunes; and on the dunes always stood a guard of the aid rescue station, who kept an eye on the water and that part of the country, particularly when flights to England were taking place so that it actually did happen that fliers bailed out and fell into the water just in front of the shoreline. Rescue boats were ready at that time and went out immediately into the ocean, so that it was altogether possible that fliers who fell into the water close to the coast could very shortly be observed and rescued. Those are the facts of what took place at that rescue station at that time.
Q On the same, page they have this remark: "With the drop of the rectal temperature to 31 degrees, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to a deep, cold-induced anesthesia if the decline reaches below 30 degrees."
Now, do you suppose that they pulled this aviator in and inserted a rectal thermometer and found his temperature at 31 degrees and then tossed him back in and let it drop another degree, all the time watching closely a clouding of consciousness, and then hauled him back in when it was 30 degrees and noted a deep, cold-induced anesthesia?
A No, nor is that the correct way to put it. This is one of the observations that was new to us and to which we paid a great deal of attention as an explanation of those incomprehensible fatalities, namely, the fact that when the people were removed from the water their temperature still dropped and exactly at the time when their temperature dropped there took place the fatal collapse of the heart. This was one of the fundamental and new observations on our part; and I must repeat again and again that this rescue house was a small place, but it did have the apparatus for observing these people very exactly. That was the sense of the whole thing.
Q General, you've already covered yourself a little bit by saying you didn't read these discussions after Holzloehner's lecture very carefully; but I want to read you the one by Rascher in any event and see if you won't admit that if you had read this little comment by Rascher that there could have been nodoubt whatsoever in your mind that experiments were carried out and not observations on aviators in the North Sea. This is on Page 15 of the translation; and Rascher has said:
"Supplementing the statements of Holzloehner, there is a report on observations according to which cooling in the region cf the neck only, even if it lasts for several hours, causes merely a slow low sinking up to one degree centigrade of the body temperature without changing the blood sugar level or the heart function. Checking of the rectal temperature was carried out by taking the temperature in the stomach, and showed complete agreement. After taking alcohol body temperature decreases at a quicker pace. After taking dextropur, the decrease is slower than with the experiments in both sober and alcoholic condition. Hot infusions (10% dextro-solution, physiology. Table salt-solution, tutofusin, physiolog.
Table salt-solution with pencortex) were successful only for a time."
Now, General, if you had read that, wouldn't it have been perfectly clear that these were experiments?
A Today, of course, after this whole question had been exposed to light, I should; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that report that these were a special group of human being experiments. I can say that here under oath; and I should like to reiterate it. That was my attitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been change by what I have discovered here.
Q. I might also point out to you that Bensinger's comment expressly speaks of Holsloehner's experiments repeatedly; but I assume that also made no impression on you?
A. I can say one thing to that. My comrade, also the medical inspectors in my office at that time in Italy, did not have any notion either that human experiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word said about such thing on the occasions of my inspecting visits. Of course, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought up; but I never heard any indication that those reports were the result of a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others, too, did not see so clearly as it is being pointed out here that these were human being experiments
Q. And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about those experiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nurnberg in October, with considerable comment there about these experiments? Holzloehner had later made a lecture before all the consulting physicians, at least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he spoke. He gave another report there on those experiments. You never heard any rumors in the air force about those things; is that right?
A. No.
Q. You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you?
A. I have often said I don't even know Finke.
Q. And I think you have already commented on your statement that Weltz only experimented on animals. That statement of yours is just based on what Weltz himself told you; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Since you don't knew anything really about Holzloehner's Rasher's, and Finke' experiments, you can't swear to this Tribunal that Wetlz wasn't in Dachau working with them, can you?
A. These things happened long before my time. I can only state here what I heard because I had nothing to do with it officially.
Q. Well, I repeat then, you can't state that Weltz didn't in fact cooperate with Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke, can you?
A. Only from the reports of the individuals which the gentlemen gave me. I had nothing to go with it officially. I can only base my testimony on reports that those gentlemen in question, Becker-Freyseng, or Weltz or someone else gave me.
Q. Well, you never talked to Weltz about Holzloehner's experiments, did you?
A. No. During our imprisonment, yes, but not at this time.
Q. On the sulfanilimide experiments you state that you know nothing about these?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read the report on the meeting of the consulting physicians in May, 1943?
A. I don't remember. I don't know anymore. I do not recall the report as such, though I may have had it in my hands.
Q. Who were the consulting surgeons of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Did you know any of them?
A. Yes. The doctor was chief of the medical inspection, Prof. German in Berlin. Then Buerkel, my adviser at my flee Then there was Prof. Zuckschwerdt, in another fleet, Prof. Haebler, Prof. Reich, and a few others. Prof. Buerkel De La Camp was nearer to me in the fleet at that time, etc air fleet, that is.
Q. I assume some of these gentlemen attended this meeting of physician in May, 1943, don't you?
A. Well, they must certainly have been there, yes.
Q. But none of them ever reported anything about this meeting to you?
A. Professor Buerkel De La Camp probably came as an adviser because he was my adviser at the fleet and I must assume that he was there by he never told me anything of these sulfonalimide experiments. They could not have made any impression on him. Otherwise, he would have reported on there.
Q. You mean that your consulting surgeon with air fleet No. 2 went to this meeting, is that right?
A. I believe that must be true, because I took every occasion possible to send him to such meetings or conferences.
Q. He was your representative there?
A. Not my representative, but as consulting surgeon he was present at consulting conferences when various air or army physicians got together in conferences in the interest of science and for their own specific work they received indications of what to do at these conferences.
Q. Well when he came back to air fleet No. 2 of which you were flight physician, it was his duty to report to you about what went on at these meetings, wasn't it?
A. Of course, he told me regarding the conference what seemed important to him personally.
Q. Now, let's move on to jaundice, General, do you remember Document No. 125, which is Prosecution Exhibit 194, that is a letter from Haagen to Gutzeit. Here he says:
"My dear Colleague Gutzeit:
Many thanks for your letter of June 24, 1944. I am glad that Herr Domen wild come hero on 15 July. We shall then review all common hepatitis questions and perhaps also set up the experiments together.
"I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human experiments. As you know, I am working with Herr Kalk, Horr Butchner and Herr Zuckschwert. Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalk that we shall undertake that type of experiment with our material.
I must therefore first determine the point of view of the others concerned.
"I shall be very glad to begin work on the nephritis material from your Oberstarzt K." Signed Haagen.
Tell the Tribunal who Koch was again, will you?
A. Kalk you mean, not Koch. Kalk was consultant with me and a particular expert on the hepatitis question.
Q. He was a Luftwaffe doctor, wasn't he?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And Buchner?
A. Buchner was consulting pathologist of the Luftwaffe.
Q. And Zuchswerdt?
A. Zuchswerdt was consulting surgeon for air fleet No. 3 in the West
Q. And, of course, Haagen himself, was a Luftwaffe man, wasn't he?
A. Yes.
Q. So we had all four men of the Luftwaffe, doctors, and as he said here in the letter they were arranging to undertake oxperiments on human beings, doesn't he?
A. No.
Q. Well, what is your explanation of the letter then, General?
A. First, as I said yesterday, it is not a question of who belonged to the Luftwaffe, rather Haagen had for his hepatitis job collected men around him who could advise him in this field. There was Gutzeit from the army, and another man, Domen, from the army, and then from our sphere those who were experienced in the hepatitis question; in pathology Professor Buchner, and also as it happened from our sphere a man who knew a great deal about hepatitis, namely, Kalt. These gentlemen who were not chosen according to their membership in a branch of the army, but according to the knowledge and experience in the field of hepatitis research, they had form a working community for this work, professor Gutzeit has already told the Court about this and this had nothing to do with different individual branches of the Wehrmacht, but with the research of the hepatitis question.