This agreement was made with Grawitz and I requested him that if he did not want me to route the request over him to the Chief Minister of the Interior and to the Chief of the police; that we should explain the situation to Himmler, in case he desired that, because I did not know him personally, and because I did not have any contacts with him and we remained with this state of affairs at that time, and later on and only after the experiments had been concluded I found out that gypsies had been used for them. I have seen here from the correspondence that Grawitz raised an objection on one spot. I assume that these objections were based on discussions where I spoke of former soldiers unfit to serve in the military forces and I hoped they would be furnished to me for the experiments.
Q Professor, did you express it clearly to Professor Grawitz that volunteers, that is people who were voluntarily participating, were necessary in order to guarantee success of the experiments?
A Yes. I emphasized this particularly and I would like to say, no only with regard to what has developed here now but for a different reason it was a soberly medical point of view because in particular in the case of such experiments it well depended on the person and I made a difference already in the discussion with regard to experiments with virus infected or some other bacteria or diseases, or experiments where the surroundings were changed - and our experiments belonged to the last category. If in the case the experimental subject does not himself actively participate, but already on the very first day when he does not feel so well he "No" then I will never be able to reach any success whatsoever on a human being that I would have to force every day to drink something. With that person I would be unable to achieve any results. But he must have a certain amount of interest for the experiment. I must explain the subject to him previous - that he will take an active part in the experiment - and I ask him "Are you interested now to go through with the experiment?" For that reason hi volunteering is the most important part on this subject. I cannot do that with persons when forced to take part in the experiment.
Q Witness, on the 7th of June 1944 you addressed a letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior and Reich Fuehrer-SS. This letter is contain in Document Book V of the Prosecution, on page 16 - Prosecution Document 185, Exhibit 134.
Before I continue, Mr. President, I would like to point out a note which has been sent to me, that previously the period of time of the telephone conversation with Harringhausen is alleged to have been placed by mistake on the 1st of July, should be the first of June, and not the first of July, which is also confirmed by letter to the Reich Minister of Interior and Reich Fuehrer SS.
Professor, do you have this letter before you?
A Yes.
Q It contains the following: "It already gave the Air Force the possibility to clarify the matter under question of experiments on human beings." How did you make this introductory remark and how did you know anything about experiments which had already been carried out there long before your appointment in the office of the Medical Chief?
A I was told in the course of discussion. The question whether he?? the experiments should be carried out and I have already stated that two possibilities existed for me, to carry out the experiments in the Academy and in the hospital -- and that I failed in these attempts and had to choose another way. On that occasion I was told that something regarding this had been done and that experiments had been carried out in concentration camps. In those camps at the time I wrote the letter - I did not know any thing the composition or organization of these camps. It may sound strange for me to say that today but that is exactly the way it was. At the time wrote the letter - at the time I signed it - I did not know that any foreigners were confined to these camps. I was only informed about that after the capitulation and I only thought of dishonorable discharged member of the German Air Force.
Q And then you write further. I quote: "I am again confronted by the decision which after numerous experiments on animals must have a final solution by means of experiments on volunteer human beings." From this is could be concluded that now the experiments were not to have been carried out any more on volunteers and that possibly they should be carried out on persons who were forced to take part in them. What is your opinion on that project?
A I believe this conclusion cannot be drawn from it if you consider what I have stated with regard to that subject earlier, because neither I the academy nor in the Luftwaffe hospitals, would I have been able to have experiments carried out on involuntary subjects because the natural requisite would have been the voluntary character of the experimental subject.
And I can't understand why it should be different here when it appears natural in the two different places, and aside from the fact of what I have just stated. The active participation of the experimental subject with regard to an experiment designed in changing the surroundings - this also applied to the high altitude experiments in the same way.
Q Therefore, by adding the word "involuntary" you wanted to express the fact that in this expression volunteers were again involved?
A This was a statement which I included as natural.
Q Professor, when you approved these experiments did you have any idea that these experiments were dangerous to the health and life of the experimental subjects?
A No. I did not burden candidates at our school with experiments which would be dangerous to health or life. And, in the second place I have practical experience from the time when I was Fleet Medical Officer and I described here a young aviator who for six days and seven nights had res** in the Mediterranean. Now, this was certainly an extreme case. However, I have seen many other cases of persons who had drifted for several days 2 or 3 days. And, at that time in the Mediterranean area we had pointed out to the internists, and the consulting internists also made close observation about it, whether these people through drinking sea water had resulted in damage to the kidneys, etc, and we have found nothing at all. But, in every case we were confronted by tho same picture when the person concerned had been rescued, when given fresh water, milk, or any other liquid - coffee, tea, or any other liquid connected with fresh water - the greatest amount of illness was already removed. I really had experience on account of my previous activity.
Q So, the manner of the planning you have, in your opinion, taken precaution to avoid all dangers?
A Yes. That was clearly understood - that physical damage had to be avoided and also the experiment had to be interrupted if this water was refused. That is to say, if the man says, "No, I cannot go on any more" then they were to be discontinued.
Q What do you knew generally about the use of sea water in medicine and what do you know about the potential damage which sea water can inflict?
A I also had some experience in that regard. In the years 1937 and 1938 when I established the Aviation Hospital Westerland on the Island of Sylt then I also had, for certain reasons, included certain facilities in this hospital and also the equipment necessary for sea baths and also drinking cures because, especially in the Thirties, in the literature with regard to urinology there was a lot said about drinking cures and sea water and also that certain successes could be achieved with it in an extremely simple manner, just by merely drinking sea water. Amounts of five hundred grams or more were prescribed or suggested as daily doses and I wanted to have this problem worked on scientifically mere in detail and I had also used specialists for that purpose. I had already had a certain insight into the compatability of sea water. I believe I can state in connection with this that all persons who have ever bathed in the sea certainly have always swallowed some sea water and if they jumped into the sea they probally have not had the impression of jumping in a solution of poison, in order to use the words of the prosecution which spoke of the poison contained in sea water. I do not believe that this corresponds to the scientific and medical facts.
Q Professor, you have already previously mentioned the fact that this was a very old problem. It was a question of solving the condition of thirst of people who were drifting on the sea?
A Yes.
Q Do you know how other nations attempted to solve this problem during the war?
A. Yes. They had exactly the same problems as we had and nobody was further ahead in solving the problem. I know about all the things achieved by the American Air Force and their conditions were not better than ours, There were two things: One was a fishing equipment. The idea was that the person adrift at sea in his rubber raft should catch fish and that these raw fish could be eaten and that the juices contained in them would already protect the person adrift at sea from suffering thirst.
Well, this is not strictly orthodox, but this method could be used. Then, the other method was also brought up by the American Air Force. It was an evaporating plate -- it was a cellophane plate in which a felt plate had been inserted. It was inserted in the water and then this plate caught the water and then the plate with the cellophane side was held against the sum. Then the sea water evaporated and then it came down in small drops from the plate. Then below this water was accumulated. Some water could also be gained in this way, but in order to do this the sun had to shine. Otherwise it was impossible to do it. This equipment was used in the Mediterranean but for the English Channel and the North Sea it was not effective. We had these experiments repeated there and they did not show a sufficient amount of success. This problem was acute for all persons who were flying over the seas. It had to be solved but everybody was confronted by the same difficulties. The scientists here and over there were confronted by the same problems and afterwards the process which was developed by Schaefer was tried or experiments were made with it later on by the American Air Force. I cannot give you the chronological order of these things, but that is the way things are done in science. Various things are solved in the same manner at various places.
Q Professor, what can you tell us about the results of the experiment at Dachau? When did you receive a report about it?
AAfter the conclusion of the experiments. From the evidence which has been offered here I believe that was towards the end of October. I cannot remember the exact date, I can only remember the fact that one day at the hospital at the Flakturn this discussion took place and that I only heard part of it because I had to go elsewhere. The result was what we had already expected from the medical point of view. That for the time being only the Schaefer Method could be used and that the Berka Process could also be used for several days but that we still had to decide on a real aid and that the Schaefer Process was to be improved and adopted and that for aircraft such packages were to be issued.
Q Did you receive any report that physical damage had been done in the course of the experiments or even that fatalities occurred in connection with the experiments?
A I was expressly informed of the fact that no physical damage, no fatalities had occurred in compliance with my instructions. I assumed that to be natural because that was the basis on which the whole experiment had been ordered. But I asked that question specifically. I made that inquiry and the fact was confirmed to me.
Q Therefore, if I have understood you correctly, then the core of your instructions was the limit of compatibility and that this limit was not to be exceeded? That is to say, that these people were not to have their health impaired?
A No, that would have been contrary to my intentions. I wanted to ascertain what the aviator can do when he is adrift at sea and not what he cannot take.
By giving an overdose I can inflict damage with every drug. I only wanted to see how much they could take.
Q May it please the Tribunal, this concludes my examination of the defendant Professor Doctor Schroeder, except for listening to experts and by calling witnesses and I am not as yet ready for that at this time for the following reasons. The sea water complex will be dealt with once more in the course of this trial with regard to the defendants BeckerFrayseng, Beiglboeck and Schaefer. It therefore would be a superfluous imposition on the Tribunal if at this time and in connection with the examination of the defendant Schroeder evidence should be offered by experts on the subject. I therefore request that I be reserved the right to also deal with this complex when the evidence is offered for BeckerFreyseng, Schaeier and Beiglboeck at a later period of time and then to be permitted te re-examine Professor Schroeder again.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may have the right to cross examine the witness and re-examine the defendant Schroeder at that time if he desires. That right may be reserved to counsel far defense until the matter is brought up in the case against the defendants mentioned.
As for the name of the witness whose presence he desires here, I didn't get it.
DR. MARX: In the complex of sea water, Professor Vollhardt will appear here. Or this may be the female witness Grodel.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall, request information concerning the progress being made in finding this witness.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution, of course, has no objection and, as a matter of fact, is highly gratified that the defense counsel for Schroeder does not plan to burden the court with duplication of expert testimony. However, unless compelling reason is shown for again calling Schroeder to the stand after that testimony, I think I must interpose an objection to that procedure for the reason that if a precedent is set in this case of permitting a defendant to appear on the stand again I'm afraid it will prolong the trial intolerably.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Counsel for the prosecution has the right to object. It will be understood that there will be some good and sufficient reasons for recalling the defendant Schroeder to the stand. Counsel nay be heard from at the time the effort is made.
MR. McHANEY: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Court will be inrecess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (A recess was taken at 1430 hours until 0930 hours 26 February 1947.)
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 26 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 court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal., you will ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: A certificate having been filed by Captain C.K. Roscoe, U.S. Army Medical Corps, to the effect that defendant Oberheuser is unable to be in court due to illness, the defendant will be excused from attendance today, it appearing to the Tribunal that her absence from court will not prejudice her interests and her counsel being present. The Secretary General will file the doctor's certificate. Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness OSKAR SCHROEDER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
THE PRESIDENT: I was informed by the Marshal that counsel for the defendant Schroeder desired to place a witness on the stand, one witness Jentsch. If the witness is in a hurry to leave, the testimony of defendant Schroeder could be temporarily suspended.
DR. MARX (Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): May it please the Tribunal, the matter pertaining to the witness Jentsch has bean clarified. The witness Jentsch can be heard this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. SERVATIUS: I am representing Dr. Nelte, counsel for the defendant Handloser. Dr. Nelte is unable to attend today.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, you yourself were Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe for a period of more than a year?
A. Yes.
Q. When you asked for a furlough, did you need the permission of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service?
A. No.
Q. If you had violated any regulations, were you subject to the disciplinary authority of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service?
A. No. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service did not have any disciplinary authority over me.
Q. When you wanted to have some people promoted, did you need the approval of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service in order to do that?
A. No.
Q. The things we have just discussed, are they not important indications of relationship with regard to the fact that he was your superior?
A. Yes. In military life these are the characteristics of a military superior relationship.
Q. I can deduct from this that Handloser was not a professional superior to you?
A. No, he was not my superior with regard to our professions.
Q. At the time the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was apppointed, was this action welcome by the branches of the Wehrmacht?
A. When this agency was established in 1942, I did not see it in the Ministry because at the time I was the Fleet Medical Officer of Sicily. But from some discussions at the time and later on I know that opinions on the subject were divided. At the time in 1942 when I saw for the first ** this regulation in the regulation sheet, later on when I as Medical Chief had this position myself, and when I had to work with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, I had always emphasized that I welcomed the establishment of this agency. However, I know that other people had a different point of view with us.
Q. Was there a clear settlement of the medical leadership wanted?
A. No, I do not think so. That situation arose from the conflicting opinions. I believe the idea of the superior relationships which were organized in a military manner was that this establishment of an agency the middle of a war was not to cause any disturbance and unrest in the subordinate agencies and, secondly, was intended to give us directives so that this agency could develop.-- this is the way I understood it; and not from the requirements of our work, the basis was to be established in order to -- after the necessary experiences had been collected -- organize the position of the Wehrmacht Chief of the Medical Service as was necessary for a military agency.
Q. Witness, then several months of difficulties were first of all to be left to those persons participating in it?
A. Yes. You also have to bring into account that the Wehrmacht Medical Chief, as well as the Medical Chiefs of the Wehrmacht branches, experienced in their duties, and that they had been active in the military medical field for decades -- in other words were qualified to work out t** problem together.
Q. Well, did the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service have an equal authority towards the other chiefs of the Wehrmacht branches?
A. Well, a difference has to be made in this respect. The Wehrmacht Medical Chief of 1942, in order to use a common title, was primus inter p** (first among equals), while the same position in 1944 had already been r*** somewhat because at that time he had the right to issue instructions -that time he already had a certain amount of authority.
Q. If I understand you correctly, he was not yet superior but he want to develop into a superior?
A. He was not yet a superior in the sense in which we understand military superiors.
Q. Witness, you speak of a military superior relationship. Does ** also refer to the specialist superior relationship?
A. Yes, that is what I have meant. That is what in the military we understand, by the superior relationship.
Q. Witness, what was your predecessor Hippke's attitude towards this question. Did he recognize the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service as his superior?
A. I have never discussed this subject with him because we only saw each other very rarely. However, I do not believe that he recognized him his superior, that is, when I consider this from the military aspect.
Q. And what was your attitude at the time you took over the position?
A. As I have already stated earlier, expressly positive. I morally considered him as my superior, even if he was not in fact, and I did everything in order to form a basis for the future position, that is, in the fo* in which I informed him about things which seemed to be important to me and which I considered important enough to come to his knowledge; I also requested him to inspect hospitals of the Luftwaffe.
Q. Witness, Professor Handloser has been heard here and he has stated that no superior relationship existed; Hippke has stated something differe* In your opinion, which one of the two is correct in his statement?
A. Handloser, that is quite clear, it is an indisputable fact. If I state that I considered him my superior, then I am only speaking of my personal attitude towards his position as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services and my attitude did not give any new rights on the part of Handloser towards me, but that is only the way in which this thing developed.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have any further questions to this witness. BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng):
Q. Witness, where and for how long have you known Dr. Becker-Freyseng?
A. In 1938 I made his acquaintance when Becker-Freyseng entered the institute of Professor Stuckholt as collaborator.
Q. Did you see him frequently during the war and did you have discuss with him?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Did you see him frequently during the war and did you have any dis cussions with him?
A. Yes, when I became Chief of the Medical Service, but not before.
Q. Now what position did Becker-Freyseng occupy in January 1944?
A. Then I became Chief of the Medical Service he was assistant expert in the Medical Department of the Air Ministry and the regular specialist w** professor Anthony.
Q. When did this change occur?
A. Approximately May 1944. At that time there was a limitation in personnel; Anthony was an internist and was transferred by me to an air fleet as a consulting physician.
Q. And what did Becker-Freyseng become from that time?
A. He became the successor of Anthony, in the agency of that department.
Q. And you have heard, professor, that from the position of specialist ***t from that position, Becker-Freyseng is charged with a great responsibility. He is charged with that responsibility by the Prosecution. Now will you please describe to us the position of a referent, a departmental expert in your opinion?
A. Yesterday I have already briefly described the inner organization of my agency and if I should say it differently now..... From the Chief of the Medical Service it went down to the Chief of Staff, from there to the section heads and from the section heads to the group leaders and the referents. Towards the middle of 1944 I had 20 or 25 referents (departmental experts.) They were medical officers who, according to specialist training in their capacity, specialized in individual fields. There were several administrative officers; then there were also some troop officers. The referent (the departmental specialist) was the lowest agent in the official organization, with regard to the tasks which were entrusted to him.
Q. Now what tasks did the individual referent have?
A. As I have already stated, the referent is the person who works or special field, operation personnel, aviation medicine, or something similar.
Q. And now what did this work include?
A This work included, first of all, the preparation of the reports and the correspondence with regard to these special fields and the further handling of all these matters.
Q. This was a preparatory activity?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when mail arrived, was this mail immediately handed to the referent?
A. No. As I have already stated yesterday, a part of the open mail was handled by the registration official and it was passed on directly to the section heads and the more important open letters and the entire mail which was classified as Secret, went to the Chief of Staff, who marked the either for the individual section heads or, if it was an especially important matter, he would pass it on to me. The major part of the mail, however, ** went directly or through the Chief of staff to the section heads and they passed them on to their referents and the group leaders.
Q. You previously stated that the referents had to make the necessary preparations?
A Yes.
Q. Well, were the referents at least independent in their preparatory work?
A. No, that cannot be said at all. The referent worked on the letter which he received, using files and other documents in order to perform his work; he then prepared all these things in such a way that he could report his section head about these matters -- so that he could hand him a complete report. The report was then reviewed by the section head, together with a referent. The section head was able to decide independently in things of minor importance. In general, however, the section heads did not use this method very much but they on their part passed on these things to the Chief of staff, who then signed these things; for the most part these things were handled by the Chief of Staff. Only when fundamental matters, or question by older medical officers were concerned, were these things then submitted for my signature.
Q. Therefore, I understand you correctly when I say that the referent did not have the authority to make any independent decisions?
A. No, he did not have the authority to sign any documents.
Q. Now if a decision had been made which had been worked out by the referent - if this decision had been made by the Chief of Staff or the Section Head -- how was the responsibility for that divided?
A. I would like to say that the referent had the responsibility just pertaining to the work itself. The referent was responsible towards the section head for the correctness of the papers which he has used in working out the matter or the correctness of the information which he has obtained in order to perform his work. This section head had to be able to depend on the fact that what the referent passed on to him was based on the facts. That was the responsibility of the referent. Therefore, the decisive superior was solely and alone responsible for the decisions regarding the outside.
A. The responsibility for the outside was born by the person who signed this letter. I can say this responsibility with regard to the work was fixed in such a way that in the draft of the letters the number of the referent could be seen who had dealt wiht the work, so that by later reference afterwards the person could be determined, and the referent who had worked out the communication.
Q. That now was the responsibility of the referent. Now, you said that Becker-Freyseng. was an assistant referent; now what actually is the position of the assistant referent with regard to his work and his responsibility?
A. The assistant referent was an emergency measure caused by the war, I would like to say. Normally, you would not have any assistant referent. However, during the War for a more extensive period of time, or for a shortperiod of time, work had accumulated which even with the greatest effort could not be handled by the referent. In these cases assistant was used for a longer period of time and maybe temporarily. This assistant was attached to the department in order to assist the referent with certain tasks. Such assistant referent frequently did not have any planning position in this agency, but they were listed on the budget of some other agency and they were detached by orders from another agency to some other office. This explains the fact that such assistant referents frequently were very little acquainted with the procedures in that particular agency. They were only temporarily used and detached into that particular agency to perform a certain special task, and therefore they were not carried on the table of organization of that agency.
That is for the most part the position of the assistant referent.
Q. Now, Becker-Freyseng was for four or five months assistant referent when you were Chief of the Medical Service, and Professor Anthony was at that time the official referent?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell us concretely what Becker-Freyseng did during that time as assistant referent, was he the permanent deputy of Anthony?
A. No, if I remember correctly was for the most part of the time when I was Medical Chief, and he was assistant referent he was not in our agency at all, but I had assigned him to work at some scientific task. I reassign him to the Aviation Medical Institute, where he was originally stationed.
Q. May I interrupt, because I did not want you to go so far into detail but only wanted you to clarify the one question. Was Becker-Freyseng also acquainted with all the work which was carried out in the department or did he have to work on certain special fields as assistant?
A. It is impossible that he was acquainted with all the work.
Q. Now, one question with regard to Becker-Freyseng's position referent; one of the co-defendants, Dr. Schaeffer has stated in an affidavit that Dr. Becker-Freyseng had been your only research consultant; can you please tell us something on that subject?
A. That is probably not very **** way of expressing it. It actually was not the case. After the departure of Anthony, Becker-Freyseng was referent for aviation medicine. That means to say that he was working on the special field in my agency, and of course since we were together every**** ** frequently discussed current matters, and of course we had to do that as a result of our inner contact, but my consultant in the sense of the consultant medical officer, this was the Director of the Aviation Institute, Professor Struckholdt, who personally was also in Berlin and visited me for longer discussions every week or two weeks, and whom I was visiting in his Institute, then it was Professor Rain form Goettingen, I was unable to see very frequently, because he was located to far away, and then there were several internal physicians like Rauch, Bruehl, --- but I cannot recall his first name.
They were the actual consulting medical officers.
Q. Well, Becker-Freyseng was not your consultant but the other medical officers?
A. In such cases when critical decisions were concerned Dr. BeckerFreyseng always pointed out to the consulting medical officers that I would have to be informed.
Q. When Professor Anthony left the department and Becker-Freyseng became referent who became his successor as assistant referent?
A. I did not have any collaborator or successor as assistant referent, At the time on my own initiative I have tried to relieve my agency from all work which did not have to be achieved by all means in the ministry, and I transferred this work to other branch offices, and so in the field of aviation medicine everything was taken out of the central agency which could not be decided on solely by us, and I turned all that over to the group for science and research which was available to me, so that there was no need of an assistant referent in that office.
Q. And now what field was taken out of the department?
A. I cannot tell you that anymore; at that time it cannot be put in such a way that a certain field was withdrawn, but everything that does not mean a fundamental decision was transferred.
Q. Now, a specific question, Professor; what contact did Becker-Freyseng have with the virus research and research assignments of Professor Haagen at Strassbourg?
A. None whatsoever, and especially in the field of Haagen this work was in the field of virus research and hygiene, and this work was handled by these special subject departments, but they were not handled by BeckerFreyseng.
Q. The competent department for the work of Haagen was what department?
A. That was the department for hygiene, which was also located in the medical department. That is the department to which Becker-Freyseng belonged, and at that time Stabsarzt Atmer was in charge of it.
Q. The Stabsarzt was the specialist for that field?
A. Yes.
Q. And the scientific questions in the fields of which ascertained the daily work, how is it Professor that in hygiene some letters to and from Haagen to mark "To the Department of Hygiene" years. You know that the Prosecution has drawn the conclusion from that that Haagen received his orders from Becker-Freyseng. Will you please give a short statement on that subject?
A. You mean File Mark 55, and also 21B? In the Wehrmacht we had a socalled uniform file plan. This file plan went through all branches and parts of the Wehrmacht, no matter if it was infantry, artillery or medical service, and each special file had a certain number and this number was generally applied everywhere, for example File Mark 59.