"Rigor becomes noticeable on fingers, hands, and thighs and under circumstances on the entire body." Another statement of the rigor of the fingers", after entering the water withing ten to 30 minutes there is a general rigor apparent to such an extent which means that the victim experiences difficulties in swimming and entire loss of control over its limbs. Numbness appears within five minutes." Major Kelsay says in a different passage, and I quote: "Redness of the skin was noticed in the case of one patient who only remained in the in the water for five minutes." I may assume that this proves that under the experiences of the practical sea rescue service one can also gain experience after five or ten minutes.
Q. The next page in that document, on page 43 of the German original, page 89 of the English Document Book, we again find a quotation referring to the rigor which says here after a scientific discussion of that rigor, which is of no interest; "The rigor ceases spontaneously at death. From this it follows that persons seemingly dead who still evidence a definite rigor offer hope of revival." At first I couldn't explain to myself why this point of rigor was put to Dr. Schroeder but I think this is the explanation. Now, can you tell me, witness, whether this determination in this last quotation can only be experienced as a result of an experiment?
A. No, I don't but you can assume that. From all sea rescue reports one can see that such experiences are gained after the rescue was carried out and after one sees that any rescue measures were successful or not successful. This seems to be a very clear experience.
Q. Now, another two passages which deal with death cases. These can be found on the same page, skipping one paragraph it says there and I quote:
"If the rectal temperature has dropped below 28 degrees a sudden death of heart failure can develop from the arrhytmia. Breathing can continue after the cessation of the heart activity, as slow gasping breathing for up to half an hours."
In the same connection there is another paragraph and I quote; "It is of particular importance that the drop of temperature can continue for 20 to 40 minutes after removal from water if the rescued person, rubbed dry and wrapped in warn blankets, is left alone. Subsequent decline of rectal temperature of more than 4 degrees may occur. If this subsequent drop in temperature passes below a rectal temperature of 28 degrees sudden death by heart failure can occur." I am only discussing this passage with you because it was put to Professor Schroeder during the examination that these rectal temperature measurements could not possibly be carried out within the practical sea rescue service. This prosecution claimed no doubt an examination which could only be carried out in case of an experiment. Mention was made here about death cases after the temperature dropped to a certain degree and this shows clearly that crimes must have occurred. Can you define your attitude towards this, witness?
A. I know that the sea rescue boats and airplanes of the sea rescue service carried thermometers. On the basis of a document which you will submit later it can be seen that great value was attached to see that in the rescue boats as well as in the rescue planes physicians accompanied the crew or, at least, medical NCOs in order to help persons concerned. All that has to be done in that case for a measurement of rectal temperature. Referring to this subsequent drop in temperature that also can be carried out in the practical sea rescue service. Of course, there may have been a supplementation by way of an experiment.
I may refer you to a different work by Captain Milton Mazer which is entitled "Medical Problems in Air Sea Rescue", same periodical, Air Surgeon's Bulletin of October 1945. The passage to which I want to refer you reads, and I quote: "As soon as the experimental subjects emerged from the water and dry their bodies in the wind temperature continued to fall." In this paper too we find the well known combination at which the medical man arrives, namely, a result of an experiment as well as a practical experience. Finally, I may point out to you, with reference to the danger of death at temperature below 28 seems to mo after what I know now to be merely one possibility, for now I know of a number of papers where patients who for therapeutical reasons are treated with very low temperatures measurements up to 24 rectal temperature without any proof that any of these patients had died as a result.
Q. How, let us turn to the next passage, witness. This is on page 433 of the German original and can be found on page 90 of the English copy. This is the first paragraph on that page and I quote;
"In the blood of severely frozen persons the number of red blood corpuscles is increased up to 20%. The increase in leukocytes is even greater; 25,000 to 27,000 are to be found per mm3. The multiplication of the erythrocytes corresponds to an increase in hemoglobin of from 10 to 20%. Noticeable and important is a great increase in viscosity of up to 7.8."
I am not a physician, as Mr. hardy says, and I am just an ordinary simple man and I can imagine nothing by reading this formulation. I want to ask you, are these determinations which - can only be made in the course of an experiment? are these determinations which arc made in the case of a living person or in the case of a dead person?
A. These, naturally, are examinations which only have any sense if applied to living human beings and can only be carried out in that way.
Q. Witness, perhaps you will first tell us what these examination concern?
A. We are merely concerned with the counting of the red and white blood corpuscles. This is an examination which really docs not require a physician but can be carried out by ever technical assistant or medical nco. In that connection, I may again refer you to the work by Captain baser where he says:
"The usage of serum differs in every individual case according to the circumstances. The consideration of the blood concentration may give you a picture to that effect, but a determination of the blood concentration can also be ascertained by the copper sulphate method."
I want to point out that this remark by Captain baser refers clearly to practical sea rescue experience and I would assume that if, in the American sea rescue service, these methods are applied it appears quite credible that the even simpler method of the counting of blood corpuscles is used in the German sea rescue service in the Channel.
Such a method can even be applied in a rescue boat because all the boats are covered.
Q. Now, the next passage, witness, which can be found on page 91 of the English Document Book. This is the last paragraph on that page:
"The conditions of the heart allow an opinion to be formed on the problem of collapse after rescue."
Collapse after rescue means the death after rescue, isn't that right? Can this determination be made only in the case of an experiment, witness?
A. Do, This collapse after rescue was the very thing which all physicians who dealt with that problem found to be a puzzle and this was two problem which worried every physician. It always puzzled him that after these patients were already rescued they would suddenly die a few hours afterwards, after they were already safely in a boat or in the hospital. I may point out that Professor Holzloehner initially in has report is speaking about mass catastrophes occurring in the Navy where such late or rescue collapses with a fatal end occur again and again. This unfortunately was the general experience everywhere, not only in Germany. Referring to the special questions of the condition of the heart and the medical interest in the condition of the heart, I may again refer to the work by Captain Maser who else is writing about the same findings of the heart and says, and I quote:
"The observation in these two cases is particularly interesting because it is proven that the death in the water is brought about by circulatory disturbances. It frequently occurs during the process of rescue."
Here again we have the collapse after rescue.
Q. Dow, witness, another quotation in that connection which is to be found on page 92 of the English Document Book and on page 44-A of the German original.
Holzloehner is speaking, and I shall not quote kin verbatim, about the good experiences made in the case of animal experiments with quick re-warming and he is saying that water temperature of 40 degrees not only accelerate the return to normal temperature and absorbed the sudden dangerous falls of temperature after rescue, out may also be of life-saving effect should the heartbeats begin to stop.
That very clearly was an experimental experience by Dr. Holzloehner. Wouldn't you have to conclude that some crimes were committed in that connection?
a. That is, in fact the only passage which clearly points to an experiment, at least, to a therapeutical experiment. But not only I, but certainly all the others who knew considerably more about the freezing problem than, I, found this to be extremely calming and satisfactory that Holzloehner states expressly that he never saw any such danger for those who underwent that treatment. From that it became clearly apparent to all listeners that no incidents and no death cases occurred during this experiment and this, for all of us, meant the solution of the Holzloehner lecture. At any rate, this, in my opinion, was the only question of any practical importance.
Q. Mr. President, in this connection I may offer two BeckerFreyseng documents. The Document #27, which I shall give Exhibit #14, and the Document #28 which will receive exhibit #15. I may say, Mr. President, that in the case of that work we are not concerned with experiments conducted on human beings abroad about which according to the decision will only be made later, but experiences of the American at the Tribunal, Sea Rescue Service. These documents are in BeckerFreyseng Document Book #2, Page 98 and page 103.
I shall note quote from these documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Page 89 or Page 98?
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. 98 and 103.
This brings to an end the lecture by Holzloehner, witness. One more question. As we know, the first speaker after Holzloehner was Dr. Rascher. These Rascher remarks were repeatedly the subject of discussions in this court room. Do tell me, witness, what w,.s the very sensational thing which Dr. Rascher mentioned during that meeting?
A. Rascher said that in that connection experiments were carried out by order and responsibility of the Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler on sentenced criminals who had volunteered for that purpose after having been promised that there would be a mitigation of their sentence or some other deviation of their fate. This is all he said.
Q Witness, did it become evident from these remarks made by Rascher that primarily death cases had occurred during these experiences, speaking specifically of quite generally that in the execution of these experiments any crimes were committed?
A No, neither one or the other became apparent. I may point out again that Rascher himself had obtained the approval by Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to treat this matter as top secret.
Q Recently, in a different case you said once, when speaking about a low pressure chamber, that you didn't consider these remarks by Rascher as very nice or pleasant; tell us again witness, what was the reason for your rejecting these remarks made by Rascher?
A Subsequent to these statements of Rascher I mentioned a few words about experiments with a local cooling of the neck area; these in themselves were absolutely harmless experiments because he had stated before that any local cooling of the neck and the area behind the head would not lead to any dropping of temperature or at least not any essential dropping of temperature. I think that what we learned from this report it only concerns dropping of one to two degrees, which are not very dangerous. Therefore, it was not really what Rascher had said that I didn't like, but the general manner in which he was saying it. Of course, today after almost five years have elapsed, I cannot repeat his words verbatim, and it is very difficult to describe such an indefinite impression. I can only say that the manner in which he was speaking, perhaps the manner in which he was speaking about his experimental subjects made a very unpleasant impression on us both. Nobody thought and nobody could have thought that anything criminal had been committed.
Q You were saying before, witness, that the basic result from all this Holzloehner was that quick rewarming was to be encouraged and that quick rewarming had had the very best results. Wasn't your solution something so basically new and so revolutionary that one could only really believe that statement until details were also given?
A Holzloehner's result was, of course, extraordinarily important. No doubt can exist about that; but it was neither completely new nor was it sensational First, during the very same meeting Professor Weltz already had reported the very same result on the basis of his animal experiments. Furthermore, the problem of quick rewarming had been mentioned and dealt with ever since the first sea rescue conference in Paris in the year 1941. Secondly, in the periodical, the German Military Physician, already in the summer of 1942 there appeared a study by a certain Hr. Bienhold, who was also recommending the subject, the quick rewarming procedure. This work was quoted by Professor Jarisch during the Nurnberg Cold Meeting, and it was discussed by him in detail. Already before the lecture by Holzloehner, the quick rewarming procedure had been three times the express subject of lectures, and after Holzloehner four more lecturers were also reporting on that very problem. I should like to point out specifically that during the Nurnberg meeting a few experiences had been gained during actual sea rescues where results were obtained through quick rewarming.
Q Witness, for purposes of clarification, one more question; you were saying that the result was neither sensational nor basically new; on the other hand you were saying that these experiments were important. The impression may arise as if the importance of the experiments would have been decreased since these things had merely been the subject of discussion. Why were human experiments at all necessary?
A I see the significance of these experiments in the following: I think that in the course of practice one would have anyway have arrived at the similar results, but in the practice of sea rescue it will always be the case that the ship wrecked, -- and we are here concerned with ship wrecked during the War, -- will also have injuries, damages to their health, so that a result will never be as clear as in the experiment. This experiment, or the experiments by Holzloehner have clearly given us this result quickly and thus obviously contrary to experience gained during practical experiences.
DR. TIPP: In connection with that question I may offer BeckerFreyseng Document 29. This can be found in document book No. 2, on page 107. This document was already submitted by the Prosecution. It is the report of the sea and winter rescue matter. However, the full document was not submitted by the Prosecution.
I am just being told that this document can be found on page 108. I have submitted this document in order to confirm what the witness had mentioned about that meeting. I shall not quote anything from this document, but I shall only give you for the purpose of simplicity a few page numbers. The lecture by Jarisch can be found on page 108A; the lecture by Professor Weltz where he reported on his animal experiments can be found on page 113. On page 118 you see reports about experiments in practice by Zschukke and Doerfler; on page 121 also it speaks about experiments in practice. I shall shortly like to touch on this passage. Doerfler says here, Base 3:
"On 25 April 1942 two Englishmen were rescue who had allegedly been drifting for 6 hours.
a) Symons: "(which is obviously the name of the person rescued) "severe exhaustion; slightly benumbed. Abdomen hard as a board; sensitive to pressure (bladder filled). Temperature: armpit 35 degrees; rectal 34.5."
b) Dixon: The same as a); but the temperature was 37.3. Quick recovery.
Case 4: A German technical sergeant who came down and landed on the sea on 17 May. Temperature: rectal 34 degrees; armpit 33.5."
Q Witness; now one concluding question: As you were saying; there was a scientific meeting concerning sea and winter emergencies. As you said; you were not an expert in this field; you were making experiments in the field of practical sea rescue; and we shall assume you had worked in this field experimentally; I may, assume; however; that the leading experts of the Luftwaffe and leading experts of other branches of the Wehrmacht were present during that meeting; what these people concluded from the meeting and from the lectures you cannot tell us, witness, but I would like to know one thing from you:
did any one of the participants in this meeting protest publically against Holzloehner's lecture either before, during or after the lecture?
A No, I nay say in that connection at that time I would not at all have understood any such protest had it been made. According to the document, which is available here, 55 members of the Luftwaffe were present during that meeting, 12 representatives of the Army, 4 representatives of the Navy, 4 of the Waffen SS and Police, and 19 civilians, i.o. university professors and other gentlemen.
Q If I may summarize briefly, witness, you are saying that you would have considered any protest as beinq senseless because you made no observations whatsoever that even could have hinted at crimes. None of the leading experts of Germany, who no doubt were present, made any such observations because no one in effect protested, is that true?
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q I will leave that meeting and I will go to another document, which was submitted by the prosecution. One preliminary question: would you please tell the Tribunal who Professor Buechner was as he was mentioned as a lecturer during the Nurnberq meeting?
A Professor Buechner was and still is today the ordinariat for pathology and the director of the Pathological Institute of the University at Freiburg. During the war he was consulting pathologist with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and head of tho Institute for aviation Pathology at Freiburg. He is now tho Pro-Rector of the University of Freiburg.
Q Would you please tell us, witness, what Professor Buechner had discussed in Nurnberg?
A Professor Buechner reported about the pathology in reference to cooling on the basis of the literature and on the basis of autopsy findings.
Q On what corpses did Professor Buechner pain his experience of which you were speaking?
A These experiences were pained by autopsies of corpses of soldiers of the Luftwaffe and the Navy, who had died as a result of sea distress.
Q In what way did Professor Buechner obtain that material?
A I already said that Buechner was a consulting pathologist and all the autopsy certificates of the Luftwaffe were sent to him.
Q In that case, if I understand you correctly, Professor Buechner was the member of the Luftwaffe who had pained the most experience about death cases in connection with sea distress. At any rate as far as it concerned his special field of pathology?
A Yes you arc right, with that modification.
Q Now, the Prosecution in its submission of evidence has presented a document, which I should like to discuss with you in that connection: Document No. 922. This was submitted as Exhibit No. 435, it is an excerpt from a report of the meeting of the consulting physicians in the year of 1912. Toll mo, witness, were you present during that meeting?
A No.
Q Did you hear about the lectures given during that meeting before this Trial?
A Well, I know that there was to be a meeting, but I heard nothing more about it.
Q According to the documents submitted by the Prosecution, Professor Holzloehner on that day also held a lecture. This is obviously a summary of his lecture which he held at Nurnberg. As it can be seen from the document, Mr. Buechner also spoke during that meeting and the prosecution quoted that discussion and lecture as follows:
"Buechner: We have studied the morphology of the adjustment to cold and the pathology of general severe chilling in 20 eases of death c used solely by severe chilling and in numerous experiments carried out on animals, and have determined the following:" It was not explained just what was deduced from the document. At any rate, we arc here concerned with the autopsies in cases of death, cases which were concerned with the Holzloehner lecture. For the purpose of clarification, witness, can you once more tell us on what the examinations by Buechner were based?
A In my opinion this statement is clearly based upon the knowledge which ho gained after working on these autopsies and records; at any rate, I know of nothing else.
Q If it pleases tho Tribunal in this connection, I now offer tho Becker-Freyseng document No. 30-A and later the Becker-Freseng document 30-B. This will be Exhibit 17-A and 17-B. Both of these documents can be found in Document Book 2. The first on page 124 and the second on page 127. I may confirm the testimony by the witness by quoting from Document 30-A on Page 124 of the Document Book. From 30-A page 124, Dr. Buechner at first describes his position as professor of pathology and director of tho Pathological Institute of the University and his political attitude; I quote:
"l) An institute for aviation medical pathology under my direction was attached to my university institute in Freiburg during the war. This institute received, among other things, all autopsy reports of tho Luftwaffe pathologists working in the various home districts and occupied territories."
I shall skip the next few sentences and I shall continue to quote from the same page, second paragraph:
"3) The increasing losses of the Luftwaffe from fatal undercooling of aviators after being shot down into the Channel or the Atlantic make it necessary to work systematic ally on cases of death, due to undercooling. At my instigation and by order of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, autopsies on aviators and marines who had died through undercooling while in distress at sea, were systematically performed by some Luftwaffe pathologists..."
The next sentence deals with the treating physicians. Then later:
"The evaluation of the records and particularly the microscopic examination of the organs of these bodies were carried out at my Freiburg institute...." and a few names are again mentioned, namely the physicians who were conducting these examinations. There is also mention made of the work which was attached to these examinations. It is Exhibit 30-B.
Mr. Buechner continues:
"3) For each of the 28 cases investigated in my opening report at the Luftwaffe meeting, I spoke in detail about these twenty cases and the thorough experimental tests on animals. The report 'The Pathology of Undercooling' was published in the Clinical Weekly. This I also enclose." That is also Exhibit 30-B.
Buechner continues:
"4) With reference to this report, I made the following short remark at the Consultants' Conference: 'We have examined the morphology of the adaptability to cold and the pathology of general undercooling, with 20 straightforward cases of death due to undercooling and numerous animal experiments....
"5) I did not carry out or cause to be carried out any autopsies or microscopical tests in any case of death from an experiment on a human being, particularly not in the undercooling experiments on humans which were carried out by Professor Holzloehner and Dr. Rascher."
There follows the signature and the certificate of a Notary. I shall not quote the enclosures, but I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of them.
Now, the last question on cold. Witness, you know that the Prosecution asserts that these experiments were entirely senseless, were unskillful, and did not produce anything now for medical science; could you please define your attitude toward that with a few words?
A. Upon the basis of my knowledge of Holzloehner's personality may I first say that it is my firm conviction that the experiments which were carried out by Holzloehner were absolutely necessary, had sense, and were admissible experiments. I was confirmed in this conviction of mine by what the prosecution witness Neff said here in this courtroom, making a very clear distinction between the cold experiments in the period of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, and the period when Rascher was working alone. That such experiments, such as quick rewarming, for example, cannot be performed on animals is quite clear, and also becomes evident from a number of foreign papers on that subject. In order to recognize the significance of the results, one need not be an expert on cold. I think that a winter during which, according to official reports in the English House of Commons, 534 persons died from cold in the British occupational zone of Germany alone, and 175 people died in Berlin, when 778 persons had been admitted to hospitals in the British zone as a result of freezing, and during which in Berlin 15,615 people were in "very urgent danger of freezing to death", one would at least have to recognize the significance of the problem as it existed for us after the first winter in Russia. After all, thousands of frozen persons were treated wrongly, and finally the right solution is found and is immediately confirmed.
The decisive answer to your question I should like to give you on the basis of a work which I read recently where quick re-warming is called a, revolutionary thing in medical science. The author, who is an American, writes: "Before our war against Japan ended, this method of quick re-warming had been accepted a,s the recognized treatment by all American sea rescue services, and is today generally accepted by medical circles." This statement originates from Major Alexander.
DR. TIPP: I may say that the document shows that this is the Professor Alexander who is the medical expert of the prosecution in this trial. In this connection, Mr. President, may I offer Becker Freyseng Document No. 31, which is to be found in Document Volume II, page 140.
This will receive the exhibit number 18. It is an excerpt from a publication "Harpers Magazine" entitled "Secrets by the Thousands", by Lester Walker. I should like to quote only a few passages which seem to me to be particularly important on that point. I quote from the first page, page 140 of Becker-Freyseng Document Book II. These are the last few lines of the first page of the document:
"With reference to the medical secrets in this collection, one army surgeon has remarked, 'Some of them will save American medicine years of research. Many of these secrets are revolutionary, as, for instance, the German technique of treatment after prolonged and usually fatal exposure to cold.'
"This discovery, which was revealed to us by the aforementioned report of Major Alexander, revolutionizes all medical knowledge on that subject."
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. This, witness, concludes the Holzloehner, Rascher, Finke complex and there are only two more questions of a very general nature. We know, witness, that Dr. Rascher carried out other cold work long after the Luftwaffe experiments had been concluded. May I ask you, did you at any time hear of this further work by Rascher?
A. I have to answer that question in the affirmative, but not during the war.
Q. When did you first hear about these experiments?
A. I heard that for the first time during my activity in the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg, but I heard nothing very specific then. Only here was I thoroughly informed.
Q. This testimony, witness, seems to be contradicted by Prosecution Document NO-238, which is in Document Book III, on page 130 of the German and 118 of the English version. This is a file note signed by Mr. Sievers, dated 4 February 1943, and it concerns itself with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. Mention is made in this docu ment that Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke allegedly said on the telephone that one could no longer tolerate Dr. Rascher's experiments, and a suggestion was made to transfer him very quickly to the East.
The conclusion could be drawn, witness, that you, as a member of the Referat for Aviation Medicine, did know these experiments. At any rate, perhaps the prosecution could arrive at such a conclusion. Please comment briefly on this document.
A. First, if Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke actually did know anything, this in no way means that I knew about it. Professor Hippke, after all, was my supreme superior and I was an assistant Referent. But it does became clearly apparent from this letter that not even Professor Hippke knew anything because had he known anything he wouldn't have had to instruct Oberfeldarzt Daniels to report to him or to instruct Rascher through Daniels to report to him what he was doing. Then, it can also be clearly seen from this letter that this work of Rascher's was assigned to him by the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Daniels, as the local Luftwaffe superior officer, merely gave Rascher the opportunity to carry out this order by Himmler.
Q. In conclusion, witness, I may state with reference to the complex of cold questions that you heard about the plans for the experiments during the Professor Hippke-Rascher conversation in June, 1942, and that on this occasion you heard about experiments which were to be carried out on voluntary subjects with the approval of the head of the state, Hitler, and the Reich Ministry of the Interior, without learning any details about the matter, and furthermore that you heard about the result of these experiments on the occasion of the Nuernberg cold meeting without it becoming apparent to you that any crimes were committed during the execution of such experiments, and finally that you knew nothing of Rascher's further work in that connection besides what he was doing with Finke and Holzloehner, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, this brings me to the conclusion of the cold complex and I think it would be advisable to adjourn at this time.
