AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, during the noon recess it was called to my attention by Mr. McHaney that the objection to Document NO 185 -- that is Prosecution Exhibit No. 134 -- had been raised prior to today and at that time the prosecution had submitted to the Tribunal, and to defense counsel, a memorandum to which I referred to this morning. However, if further work is being prepared which the prosecution may intend to do in addition to that memorandum, if the interpretation department has anything to add thereto, we will submit that at a later date. But at this time the prosecution wishes to state that they stand firmly upon the translation as it appears in the prosecution document book, No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand you to say that a written memorandum on the translation has already been filed?
MR. HARDY: It already has been filed with the Tribunal and defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: When this supplementary translation is prepared, a memorandum by the interpreters, see that it is attached to that and made one file, if you please.
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Has any defense counsel any questions to propound to this witness?
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (By Defense) BY DR. FLEMING (For Dr. Sauter, counsel for the Defendant Ruff):
Q. Witness, in your direct examination you said that the mobile low pressure chambers had to be transported by rail in the second half of 1942 at the latest because there was no longer any diesel oil available for long trips. Did I understand you correctly?
A. If I said that, you understood me correctly. I can't remember my words at the moment.
Q. How can you still remember that was the case from the second half of 1942 on?
A. I happened to remember a definite event, the transport of a low pressure chamber from Berlin to the area of the Gross-Glockner. A low pressure chamber was needed there for high-altitude research and a low pressure chamber was sent there. That was the same low pressure chamber which at the end of July or the beginning of August 1944 -- excuse me, 1942, was taken over by a Luftwaffe crew at the German Research Institute for Aviation, and this must have been the same chamber which according to Dr. Ruff had earlier been in Dachau. Since at that time I was in the Referat for Aviation Medicine and was responsible for these chambers, I, myself, was concerned with this transport and I know that we were unable to get any diesel oil for this long trip, and that we had to move the chamber by rail.
Q In some documents which have been submitted, that is in various letters from SS agencies and in a letter from Mrs. Nini Rascher, it is suggested that Rascher be assigned to the DVL branch office Dachau. Although no such office existed and no letter from any Luftwaffe agency took up this suggestion I should like you to tell me whether it was at all possible to assign soldiers and medical officers to the DVL? Did you yourself not arrange for medical officers working for a shorter or longer time at the Aviation Medicine Institute to work there as guests?
A I am at least well informed about the steps connected with this and I can first of all confirm that the German Research Institute for Aviation was not a military agency, that it certainly had no branch office in Dachau; and if medical officers or soldiers were to work at the Institute of Dr. Ruff, were to learn something there, it was handled as follows: These soldiers or officers were assigned to the nearest Luftwaffe unit by the personnel office and the DVL was asked to take these soldiers in as guests and let them work in the institute.
Q Do you know that the officers and soldiers who worked as guests in the DVL had for their identification a guest pass of the German Research Institute for Aviation and not the same pass that the members of the institute had?
A Yes, that is true. I can confirm that from my own knowledge because at the beginning of 1943 I myself set up a machine in Dr. Ruff's institute which I could not set up elsewhere because of difficulties with the current. And, because I was at the Institute frequently during that time, I had such a guest pass myself and I know that other members of the Luftwaffe had the same kind of guest pass.
Q In the examination of Professor Weltz the question of adaptation to altitude played a certain role. I, therefore, have a few brief questions to you on this subject which you can answer as an expert on the basis of your experimental work or from your knowledge of literature. Does the effect of adaptation to altitude play an important role in experiments such as we heard of in Dachau for rescue from high altitude?
A First of all I should like to answer a preliminary question. I do actually consider myself some sort of an expert on these questions. I worked for some time on adaptation to altitude and I may refer to numbers 24 and 25 of the list of my scientific publications offered as Becker-Freyseng Exhibit 1. Those are papers on altitude adaptation which I wrote during the years 1939 to 1942, I believe. I do not believe that the question of altitude adaptation was important in Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg's experiments.
Q Can one compare altitude adaptation gained through cumulative and long stays in a low pressure chamber with the altitude adaptation acquired for example by mountain climbers. It is well known that climbers in the Himalayas have reached 8,000 meters by means of the most difficult physical exertion without artificial sources of oxygen.
A I have had no experience in the Himalayas. I performed my own experiments in Switzerland at the high Alpine Research Station on the Jungfraujoch at altitudes between 3,500 and 4,000 meters. Moreover, later, as a referent under the Chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe I had to consider the possibility of altitude adaptation by repeated stays in a low pressure chamber. As proof of this I may refer to Document NO-934, Prosecution Exhibit 458. That is the list of the 97 research assignments. On page 3 of the copy, I have at my disposal on page 4, I beg your pardon, under III 5 three research assignments on this subject are listed. And since I know the results of this research well, I can answer this question. By repeated ascents in the low pressure chamber no actual altitude adaptation can be achieved. A slight increase in resistance to altitude is observed to be sure in the second, third, or fourth ascent with the low pressure chamber. The extent of this effect is so slight, however, that in effect it is of no importance, especially in the experiments which Drs. Ruff and Romberg carried out at altitudes above 12,000 meters.
Q Then I can assume that the slight degree of adaptation which occurred in the course of a series of experiments such as was performed at Dachau does not influence the results of the experiments to any important extent.
A Yes, this assumption is correct.
Q Is it true that as far as possible after a long series of experiments with the low pressure chamber the experimental subjects are left out for a short time to do away with even the slightest adaptation which may exist?
A Yes, that is true, but I must point out the following: with the aviation medicine experts who constantly performed experiments on themselves in their institute, we are concerned with repeated ascents over a period of many years. That is of course, something quite different than in series of experiments limited to 2, 3 or 4 months. And, an attempt will of course be made after conclusion of a series of experiments lasting several months to insert a certain pause.
Q In Dachau about 20 experiments were carried out in the course of approximately three months. Is it your opinion as well as that of the medical expert of the Prosecution who has repeatedly told the defendant Dr. Ruff and Dr. Sauter that in the scientific execution of the experiments for rescue from high altitudes there was nothing objectionable?
AAfter carefully reading the detailed report made available by the Prosecution I, too, consider it an unobjectionable scientific report aside from the fact that through years of acquaintanceship I observed nothing but perfectly legitimate scientific work done by Drs. Romberg and Ruff.
Q If there was nothing to be objected to in the scientific execution of this work, then there could not have been any over-burdening of the experimental subjects either, since otherwise this would have influenced the results. Is that also your opinion?
A Yes, that is my opinion and I should like to add -- you said that there were about 20 experiments carried out in three months. That could not be an overburdening under any circumstances, I myself had those when I subjected myself to more than 20 similar experiments in the course of 3 months period and I know that Dr. Ruff had periods when he performed considerably more experiments on himself in a similar period.
Mr. President, I now have some questions for Nelte on behalf of the defendant Handloser.
While you were working in the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, did you ever see an order or instructions from the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service referring to research of the Luftwaffe?
A No, I never saw such an order from Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser.
Q While you were working there did you ever see a report to the Chief of the Medical Service about the execution of any research carried out or ordered by the Luftwaffe Medical Service, or did you ever draw up such a report?
A I cannot remember any such report.
Q What was the effect of the establishment of the Office for Science and Research, from the end of 1943 on, on your reports in research questions?
A I can answer this question only from 15 May 1944, on, when I myself became Referent for Aviation Medicine. The effect was that we made one more carbon copy of our research assignments, and this copy was sent to the office of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
Q Did these letters about research assignments indicate how the research was to be carried out?
A No, that could hardly be seen from them. I may refer to what I have stated in considerable detail here about research assignments.
Q Do you know of a case when Professor Handloser visited or inspected the Research Institute of the Luftwaffe?
A No, I do not know of any such case.
Q Do you believe, on the basis of your knowledge of the organization of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, that Professor Handloser could have prohibited any research which the Luftwaffe considered necessary?
A First of all, I don't know of any case when he did so or attempted to do so. I can't imagine his doing it or being able to do it.
Q Was the medical research system of the Luftwaffe under the command of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service?
A I am not aware of anything that might indicate such a subordination.
Q Do you have your affidavit, NO-448, before you?
A Yes, I have it.
Q How do you explain your statement in this affidavit which led to wrong conclusions?
A I presume you mean this sentence:
"Handloser, as Inspector of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, must have been acquainted with the research assignments carried out by the Army, Navy and Luftwaffe."
Q Yes, that's the sentence I mean.
A This refers only to what I said before, that the office of Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser received a carbon copy of our research assignments.
Q Did the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service have official knowledge of the sea-water experiments?
A No.
Q Do you know the Military Medical Academy?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that there were institutes which carried out research; for example, Lost research under Wirth and blood serum research under Lang?
A I must tell you how I knew of the Medical Academy of the Army. The Aviation Medicine Research Institute was in a building which was part of the Military Medical Academy, and I, of course, knew Professor Wirth and Professor Lang. I know that Professor Lang produced blood serum, and I know that Professor Wirth was working on questions of chemical warfare. I am not informed of any details of the work of either of these men.
Q Do you know that experiments were performed there on human beings?
A Yes, because I often met the cadets of the Academy who partici pated in all kinds of experiments.
Q The experiments were performed on cadets?
A Yes, I know of one big experiment on Pervitin, for example, when the cadets could not sleep for several days, and then I know of chemical warfare agent experiments because, in the institute, I saw many cadets who had bandages on their forearms, and I was told that these were chemical warfare agent tests.
Q Do you know the Mountain Medical School of the OKH in St. Johann?
A Yes, I know that institute. The Army Mountain Medical School in St. Johann in the Tyrol.
Q Do you know that experiments were performed there on volunteer soldiers?
A Yes, I know that very well. This knowledge was the reason for the suggestion which I mentioned yesterday, that a similar training company such as the army had in St. Johann should be set up for the Luftwaffe in the Training Section in Jueterbog.
Q What you said yesterday might have been interpreted to mean that the Army did not perform any experiments at all on members of the Army. That is not right?
A What I said on the subject referred only to what I heard here in this court room; I believed that either Professor Handloser or someone else had spoken of a basic order from Keitel that no experiments could be performed on soldiers of the Army but, of course, I know that in both the medical offices in St. Johann in the Tyrol and in the Medical Academy such experiments were performed on volunteers.
Q In the list of participants of the Nurnberg meeting - NO-401 -under # 41, there is Oberarzt Dr. Koenig of the laboratory train of the OKH. Is it true that Dr. Koenig was not present?
A Yes, that is true. That is obvious in the original document. Where the lecture of Dr. Koenig is printed, there is a footnote at the bottom of the page indicating that Dr. Koenig was unable to attend the meeting personally for reasons connected with the war, and that Koenig's lecture was read by Dr. Benzinger, at whose institute Koenig had worked.
The name of Koenig is listed among the participants only because his lecture is included.
Q Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. PRIBILLA (Defense Counsel for the defendant Rostock and also representing Dr. Servatius, Defense Counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt):
Q Dr. Becker-Freyseng, did you, from your former work, know the duties of the Office for Science and Research well?
A I believe I have already made a statement to the effect that I did not have any knowledge of my own about the specific duties and position of the office for Science and Research.
Q Then I may sum up your statements to the effect that when you said that Karl Brandt was perhaps the highest medical authority in science and research you did not say this from your own knowledge, but that it was a conclusion which was suggested to you?
A The word "perhaps" expresses that I admit only the possibility.
Q Then the emphasis is on the "perhaps"?
A Yes.
Q During your work, at that time, did you ever receive any instructions from Professor Rostock or any suggestions to carry out any experiments?
A No.
Q Then, Rostock did not suggest the sea-water experiments and had no connection with them?
A No.
Q Then, in the field of these experiments, there is no connection which you remember today with the Office for Science and Research?
A I have said that the sea-water experiments were not worked out on the basis of a research assignment given to a civilian research worker, but were carried out by ourselves on a purely military basis.
We did not have to give any report to the Office for Science and Research, and we did not do so.
Q Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. PELCKMANN (Defense Counsel for the defendant Schaefer):
Q Dr. Becker-Freyseng, you have made detailed statements about Holzloehner's lecture at the Nurnberg meeting and about Rascher's comments. Did you talk to the defendant Schaefer about Holzloehner's experiments?
A I do not recall any such conversation.
Q You have discussed the debate between you and the men of the Technical Office about the usefulness of Berkatit. What did Schaefer emphasize during this debate to show how dangerous Berkatit was?
A First of all, I agreed in principle with Mr. Schaefer that the main danger of Berkatit was that it conceals the unpleasant salty bitter taste of sea-water and leads the persons in distress at sea to drink it, but by the failure to change the salt content, the affects are the same as that of untreated water, and that was what Schaefer emphasized.
Q And if we go into the physiological considerations, he probably added that would increase the thirst and the desire to drink, and more and more harmful sea-water would be drunk?
A Yes, I believe I said the same thing yesterday afternoon.
Q. In your examination so far you have said that Christensen in the first discussions prohibited interference in his job; you also said something about a quarrel with a Luftwaffe Officer named Jeworck at the meeting of 19 May. Now, I ask you whether you remember another quarrel which Schaefer told you about?
A. I believe it was between the two meetings of the 20th and the 25th that Schaefer told me that Mr. Schickler, the Referent of Oberstingenieur Christensen, said that he could expect to be prosecuted for sabotage if he continued to oppose Berkatit.
Q. Is it true that on 19 May at this meeting Christensen gave orders about what the Luftwaffe men were to do and say at the meeting on the 20th?
A. I know what you mean. Christensen said, asked, or demanded that the differences within the Luftwaffe should be put in the background on the next day and these differences should not be expressed before the Navy men.
Q. And did you or Schaefer at the meeting on the 20th act on this request of Chrisensen, or were there quarrels in spite of it?
A. I expressed my point of view on the 20th, just as I had on the 19th. There were, of course, debates. The consequence was that Berkatit was not introduced as the Technical Office had ordered, but that the decision was made to depend on new experiments.
Q. Can one say that these quarrels were violent?
A. At least the ones on the 19th were very violent, yes.
Q. But I am asking about the ones on the 20th?
A. They were perfectly clear, anyhow.
Q. Now, the discussion on 25th May you said was carried out during an air raid?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that it was continued in the air-raid shelter?
A. Yes, an air-raid shelter of the Medical Academy to which the research institute belonged and in one room of which the discussion was taking place.
Q. You also said that part of the participants were separated because of circumstance?
A. Yes, I remember that very clearly.
Q. Is it possible, or do you know, whether the Defendant Schaefer remained with the group which primarily continued the discussion or whether he was with one of the groups which was separated from the main participants in the discussion?
A. He was certainly not in the same group as I was, which included my department chief and Professor Eppinger and Professor Heubner.
Q. You said that in the discussions on 19th 20th May no condition for the experiments were settled?
A. Yes, I said that.
Q. Then it is no doubt correct that no experiment or series of experiments to test Wofatit was decided upon here?
A. Yes, that is correct, and I may add that was unnecessary, because no one ever doubted the effectiveness of Wofatit, not even the representatives of the Technical Office.
Q. If later a series of experiments with Wofatit was introduced without Schaefer's knowledge, what was the purpose of this series of experiments?
A. I explained that this morning. For reasons of experimenting a so-called control group had to be conducted which was given normal drinking water. This could have been obtained from any water tap, but since this experiment was being carried out Wofatit was included and the normal water was produced by removing the salt from sea water with Wofatit.
Q. Can you recall whether the inclusion of this Wofatit series was decided upon or at least discussed on 25 May?
A. There was no great amount of discussion about it, certainly, because it was not a question of testing Wofatit.
Q. On 25 May you were with Schaefer at least part of the time?
A. On 25 May, yes.
Q. How long was it until you saw him again after that?
A. A few weeks later, perhaps five weeks.
Q. At least you didn't see him daily or at brief intervals?
A. No, I was normally 50 kilometers south of Berlin; Schaefer had his laboratory in Teltow, I believe, in a different direction from Berlin, and anyone who knows conditions in Berlin in the summer of 1944 knows how difficult it was to get around.
Q. If you say you didn't see him, do you mean you didn't talk to him either by telephone, for instance?
A. I don't recall any conversation after the 25th.
Q. When you saw him again after about a month, can you remember that he asked you what had been done in this matter?
A. I saw Schaefer for the first time after the 25th when Himmler's decision had not yet been received. I remember that.
Q. And what did you tell him in answer to his question?
A. I told him nothing had been decided yet.
Q. Did you say you had heard nothing more about the matter, it seems to be dwindling away to nothing?
A. If Schaefer remembers those words it is possible. I don't remember that at the moment.
Q. Then when did you see or talk to Schaefer again after this conversation?
A. As far as I can recall, it was in the flak tower at the zoo, which I mentioned this morning.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was the middle or end of September 1944, after the experiments were completed.
Q. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, you know the documents which the Prosecution has submitted in Document Book 5 against you and Schaefer; can you tell me which documents Schaefer would have obtained knowledge of through official channels or whether he would have seen any of these documents normally, for instance the minutes signed by Christensen and the letter which Schroeder or you sent to Himmler; you know how business was conducted, and you know Schaefer's position.
A. I cannot imagine Schaefer having known of any of these documents.
DR. PELCKMANN: Thank you.
DR. FRITZ: Fritz, for Rose.
BY DR. FRITZ: In Document Book 3, Witness, of the Prosecution, there is an affidavit of yours, NO 448. In paragraph 5, which is on page 7 of the Document Book, you say among other things: "Professor Rose was perhaps the most significant factor in the hygienic service of the Luftwaffe," are those your own words, or was that formulation put into your mouth by the interrogator?
A. In my direct examination I have already said that the affidavit was put to me in the English language for signature; so far as I can remember today I think that the only word in that sentence that originated from me is the word "perhaps".
Q. However, Witness, you signed this version; would you please express this more precisely to the Tribunal; did you wish that to mean that Professor Rose had the most to say in this field, in other words, that he had the greatest power to issue orders, or just what did you mean to say?
A. No, I did not intend it to be so interpreted, because there is nothing in this sentence that indicates anything of this sort. I thought I could have signed this sentence having introduced the word "perhaps" into it, because, purely scientifically speaking, I consider him a highly qualified bacteriologist and hygienist.
Q. Then at least you did not want to say in this sentence that he had executive powers, or that proposals if he made them were binding for the persons without executive power?
A. First of all there is nothing to that effect in this sentence, and actually as a member of the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate I knew very well that the suggestions made by the consultant were in no way binding on our departmental chief, or on us.
Q. Now, another matter; you testified that the research assignments from the autumn of 1944 on were not worked on in your Referat, but in the Department of Science and Research and the Military Medical Academy?
A. Perhaps I may correct you right away. They were taken care of by the training or lecture group of that same academy.
Q. Well, after this organization changed, who worked on these assignments? This is of particular interest in Professor Rose's case, because he was one of the consulting specialists; do you know whether he concerned himself with these research assignments.
A. Let me point out to you Dr. Hans Erich Halbach's affidavit, which was put in yesterday as a Becker-Freyseng exhibit, the number of which I do not remember, in which he says that he took over the future work of these assignments in the lecture group at the aforementioned academy.
Q. No further questions.
BY DR. STEINBAUER: (Counsel for Dr. Beiglboeck)
Q. My dear Dr. Becker-Freyseng, from your testimony I have observed that you have studied the Prosecution documents very carefully; does anything occur to you when you consider Dr. Beiglboeck's professional title?
A. His professional title?
Q. Yes, that is what I mean. He is not called a University Professor or an Oberarzt, but what was he called?
A. You mean his title "consulting physician"?
Q. Yes, that is what I mean; was he one?
A. No, he was not.
Q. Did you ever see him at a conference or meeting of consulting physicians?
A. I only attended one such conference, the one in May of 1944 at Hohenlychen.
Q. Do you know whether Dr. Beiglboeck ever attended such a conference?
A. I never heard anything to that effect, at any rate I did not see him in 1944.
Q. What was Dr. Beiglboeck's rank?
A. Rank?
Q. Rank!
A. At the beginning of June, when we first saw him, he was an Oberarzt and I believe later he became a Stabsarzt.
Q. Now, let us turn to the experiments; did Dr. Beiglboeck attend any of the conferences that are mentioned in document book 5?
A. No.
Q. Did he participate in the meeting of the 25th of May in particular?
A. No.
Q. Now, another question; you said that the experiments were to be supervised by a specialist, namely Dr. Eppinger; do you know whether Dr. Eppinger really carried out this supervision, whether he was in Dachau or not?
A. I believe I can remember for certain that Dr. Beiglboeck, after he returned from the experiments when they were over at Travisio, said that Dr. Eppinger had been in Dachau.
Q. Now we come to the experiments themselves; you received the assignment to have these experiments carried out?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Beiglboeck was at that time in Italy; what did you do to get the experiments started; did you telephone to Italy to get him; did you write to him or telegraph to him; what did you do?
A. If I am to explain that to you in detail, I must say the following: I dictated a short memorandum through our Personnel Officer in the office --
Q. No, I don't want to slow up the proceedings; how was Beiglboeck informed?
A. He received a written communication from the Office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, stating that he should report to the Office as soon as possible.
Q. The purpose for which he had to report was not told to him; is that right?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Now he reported to you. You said this morning that neither officially nor unofficially had you previously known Dr. Beiglboeck; thus Beiglboeck did not know what your political opinions were; you could have been an informer, he had to he careful; is that not so?
A. Of course.
Q. Nevertheless, when you explained these experiments to him, he said, "I don't want to go to Dachau to carry out experiments there?"
A. Yes, I said that this morning in my direct examination.
Q. Then you said this morning that he proposed that the experiments should not be carried out in Dachau hut elsewhere?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you refused that?
A. You are exaggerating my authority, Dr. Steinbauer.
Q. No, I am not doing that. I just wanted to ascertain that for another reason.
A. For personal reasons he wanted the location to be changed. I told Beiglboeck that I would gladly agree, but I was sure he would not he successful, and I mentioned such and such a reason.
Q. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to incriminate you in any way, but want to bring out the truth here. I simply say that for one reason or another you refused the proposal that Beiglboeck made that the experiments be transferred elsewhere?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Now let me ask you a supplemental question to this; did he not make another proposal to you?
A. Yes, he made another proposal, which unfortunately came to nothing. He told me that before he had become the director of the Internal Department of the Luftwaffe hospital at Travisio had been the same in Brunswick, and since the hospital in Brunswick had very good laboratories, it should be possible to carry out the experiments there.
Q. Very good. Now, let me remind you of something else; did not Dr. Beiglboeck make even another proposal; did he not say, "Referent, I have still another suggestion to make?"
Now you just reflect on this---maybe I can help you a little. Did he not say to you, "I am expanding the hospital at Travisio and I have an assistant there who could very well carry out the sea water experiments there?" Wasn't that so?
A. Yes, he suggested that his representative in Travisio should carry out the experiments there also.
Q. And did you not say, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, "Unfortunately, Dr. Beiglboeck, that won't work because Himmler is in the way?"
A. I told him that the proposal did not originate with us; it had already been decided that Beiglboeck should be used and this had already been reported to Himmler.
Q. Now, in naming Himmler you meant to say that the proposal was impossible.
A. I wanted to say that from a military point of view the whole situation was settled and there was no purpose in trying to make a lot of changes because it was too late.
Q. Now, we won't talk about the experiments themselves as we have already gone into them at great length. Now, Beiglboeck and Becker-Freyseng meet; did he tell you anything about what things were like in the concentration camp; what contacts he had there; what the SS was like, etc.?
A. He told me two things that rather surprised me. First, I had told Beiglboeck that he would probably find a very well equipped laboratory there. I did not know much about it in detail, but it was the general belief that the SS equipment was good. When Beiglboeck returned, he told me that all he had had was an empty room there and all the equipment, retorts, and what not that he needed for the experiment, he had to provide for himself.
The second thing that surprised me concerned his relationship to his colleagues who were present and who were SS officers. This relationship was so poor that Beiglboeck was obliged to eat not in the SS officer's mess hall, but outside the camp somewhere in the town of Dachau.