A Holzloehner was a Stabsarzt or Oberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe, yes.
Q Was Singer in the Luftwaffe?
A I have learned here that Singer was a Luftwaffe pathologist in Munich. I believe in the research assignment list there was some research assignment given to Singer from which I have seen, he must have been an Oberstabsarzt during the war. I do not know him personally and I had nothing to do with him.
Q Rascher was in the Luftwaffe?
A Yes, Rascher was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q Weltz was in the Luftwaffe?
A Yes, that has been established here.
Q Were the freezing experiments at Dachau Luftwaffe experiments or SS experiments?
AAccording to what I heard at the time from Rascher, I thought they were definitely Rascher's experiments, based on specific order and approval of Himmler.
Q Where did Hoelzloehner report on the experiments, or rather Rascher; where did he report about his work, did he report at the October meeting in Nurnberg?
A The experiments were reported only and exclusively to Himmler. Rascher had obtained permission from Himmler to speak at the lecture. The sea-watcr experiments were a top secret matter and he was to give only as much information as necessary.
Q That meeting in October in Nurnberg was a Luftwaffe meeting; was it not?
A Yes, it was a Luftwaffe meeting or a meeting on behalf of the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
Q Do you know where Jarisch is now?
A I assume that he is in Innsbruck.
Q Do you know where Holzloehner is now?
A No, I do not, I heard he was dead.
Q Did you know that he committed suicide?
A I heard that, yes.
Q Was the cause for his suicide his participation in these experiments?
A I don't know, I could not say.
Q This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours 27 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BECKER FREYSENG - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Becker Freyseng, in June 1942, during the course of the conference between Professor Hippke and Dr. Rascher did the names Dr. Jarisch, Dr. Holzloehner and Dr. Singer ever appear or ever come into the conversation?
A I do not remember the name of Singer because he never played any part in air force research. However, the names Jarisch and Holzloehner were mentioned at least in my presence because both these names could be found on a list of those who had to lecture during the planned meeting about emergency sea matters. I never heard at a later date that Professor Singer in any way worked on the scientific cold questions.
Q Now let us refer again, doctor, to document No. 283, that is a letter from Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer. It is on page 12 of English document bock No. 3. This letter, as you know is dated 15 June 1942 and reads as follows:
A I may correct you, it is really June.
Q I said June, I am sorry:
"A few days ago I was ordered to a conference with the Inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, General Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke. When I told him you had not yet received the report concerning the experiments as a whole and you still had to give permission for the reporting of the results, he did not ask for any report. The Inspector was extraordinarily kind and asked me as liaison mam with the SS to express to you, esteemed Reichsfuehrer, his private thanks for the experiments."
Now is it your contention Dr. Becker Freyseng that this meeting here referred to by Rascher was the meeting between Rascher and Hippke at which you were present?
A. I would assume so, yes.
Q. Now the letter goes on to say, doctor:
"At the same time he (which refers to General Oberstabsarzt Professor Hippke) asked for permission to carry out the cold and water experiments in Dachau and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments," and therein we note three names, Jarisch, Holzloehner and Singer.
Now during the course of the conference did you hear or did the matter come up that it would be necessary to engage a pathologist to assist and collaborate with Rascher and Holzloehner or whomever was picked or chosen to work with Rascher?
A. No, a pathologist was not discussed in my presence.
Q. Well, now, as a medical man what would be the purpose for assigning a pathologist to this research detail?
A. The purpose for that may vary, because for experimental pathology a number of papers were written by me in collaboration with pathologists and I am therefore somewhat informed about this special form of pathology. I never heard that Professor Singer at any time concerned himself with cold questions. When I saw that document here for the first time I was very surprised. It says the name of Singer. At no time before had I seen that name in connection with cold or any other air force research work.
Q. What are the duties of a pathologist in German medicine?
A. The duties of the pathologist are extensive and varied. The main task of a pathologist is to search for the cause and the effect of the illness on the living organism. For instance, if a part of a bad tissue is being cut out during an operation and if the practicing physician wants to know whether there is cancer, this part is always sent to the pathologist. On the other hand, whenever any patient dies, an autopsy is very often being carried out in order to clearly find out the cause for the illness and the death.
I have already told you that modern pathology in particular performs a great number of experiments. For instance, animal experiments, and even after this letter it does not become apparent to me at all that Dr. Hippke at that time counted on death cases during these experiments just because he asked a pathologist to participate. It is quite possible that he mentioned this name of Singer to Rascher in order to get them into contact with one another since he knew perhaps, that Singer had particular information in that field but I know nothing about that personally.
Q. Then you exclude the possibility that Professor Hippke was fully aware of the fact that death did result from these experiments at Dachau and that it was necessary or would be necessary to have a pathologist on it so that he can perform an autopsy in order to determine the cause of death.
A. I cannot exclude that possibility because as a result of the files which I read and which were submitted during the trial of Milch regarding Professor Hippke, I can see Professor Hippke admitted that possibility which you just mentioned. However, I know that now. I did not know that at the time.
Q. Doctor, let us turn to document No. 286, which is Prosecution Exhibit 88, to be found on page 22 of the English. This is a research order on freezing to Holzloehner:
A. Yes, I have the document.
Q. Now we see your file notation, that is the number 55, and then arabic 2, Roman numeral II B, those are the file numbers of your office, is that right?
A. Since we are concerned with the year of 1942, this is the referat Anthony where I was working, that is correct.
Q. And at that time Anthony was referent and you were assistant referent?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Then is it true that this letter originated from Anthony's office?
A. Yes, it come from the referat.
Q. I see. Well now I note in the first paragraph after the salutation there is the following language:
"The Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe has given order for research to the Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner, reference above, dated 24 February 1942, for work on the following problem:
"'The effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects.'" Now did this order for research to Professor Holzloehner initiate from your office?
A. I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge.
Dr. TIPPS: Mr. President, in order to avoid any misunderstanding I may comment on that document as follows:
It was quoted here: "The effect of freezing on warm blooded subjects." Subject, however, must be understood as meaning the human being in the common usage of the English language. Perhaps the Interpreter would be kind enough to confirm that warm blooded beings as it is stated in the German document book, in other words "Warmblueter" does not limit itself to the human beings but also extends to the animal. In other words, it means every being which has warm blood flowing in it's veins. I am making this remark now because the very same misunderstanding arose recently during direct examination and on that occasion the interpreter was kind enough to confirm that this translation was not correct. It should read, and I quote: "On warm blooded beings". Perhaps I may ask the interpreter whether he thinks this interpretation is more suitable.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Interpreters give their opinion on the matter?
INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor, the other day defense counsel asked for my opinion when I suggested that interpretation to him, it should be warm blooded beings, instead of warm blooded subjects.
Q I now continue, doctor. It is immaterial to Prosecution whether that is subject or whether it is being, I might add. But did this research order to Professor Dr. Holzloehner initiate from Anthony's office?
A This research assignment was handled by the referat Anthony because certainly becomes apparent from the number of that research assignment above there. In addition I already mentioned repeatedly that aviation medical assignments were necessarily handled in the referat for aviation medicine. Here we were clearly with such a problem.
Q Now, we will note the next paragraph, doctor, which reads as follows: "At the proposal of Stabarzt Dr. Rascher appropriate examinations were made of human beings, and in agreement with the Reichsfuehrer SS suitable facilities were used for the examinations."
It continues on: "In order to carry out these examinations a research group "Hardships at Sea" was set up, consisting of Profess Dr. Holzloehner as leader and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke."
Now, might I gather from reading this document that the referat for aviation medicine was fully aware of the activities in which Rascher, Finke, and Holzloehner were engaged in at Dachau or might I assume that their work was merely working on actual cases of persons rescued from the sea?
A I didn't quite understand your question. Are you asking me now about the meaning of the research group "Distress at Sea"?
Q Yes.
A I cannot clearly answer your question from my own knowledge because I don't know whether at this time, in the summer of 1942, Professors Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke were at the channel coast and were working on "distress at sea" questions. I know that a number of other researchers were sent to the channel by Anthony and Hippke in order to gain experience. I do not know whether Holzloehner, Finke and Rascher were among them.
Q Well, then I submit to you, doctor, this possibility. Assume for the moment this research group of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, as outlined in this document, were working as a research group on the sea shore, on the coast, with actual cases of persons rescued from sea. In as much as the document is signed by Anthony would you assume that Anthony was aware of the work being performed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher?
A Let me say at first that this letter was not signed by Anthony. Anthony only certified the true copy.
Q I realize that, doctor. He signed the true copy. He must have read it to sign it. Do you think that he had knowledge of those activities?
A I would assume so because I have made a little file notice about the conversation between Hippke and Rascher which I handed to Anthony when he came back from his vacation. He then continued to deal with this matter.
Q Then on the face of this document it indicates to us that it originated from Anthony's office and this further that out - we see Anthony's signature appearing on the document. Now, isn't it true that Anthony's office ordered Professor Holzloehner to work on this particular subject and, in fact, set up this research group of Holzloehner, Rascher, and Finke?
A I am sure that the referat was not in a position to do that. Only Hippke was in a position to issue such an order.
Q But, doctor, it has the initials and the code, file numbers, of Anthony's office on the order. What are they doing there? Hippke doesn't write out an order and put down the file numbers of BeckerFreyseng's office. He puts down his own file numbers. It states here in the first paragraph that "The Inspectorate gave an order for research to Professor Holzloehner, reference above", and the reference that appears above is reference No. 1 and it has #55 there as the file numbers of Anthony's section, isn't that true?
A No, that is not true.
Q I suppose that you are going to tell me now reference No. 2 is the reference referred to in that paragraph. That is the only way that you can slip out, doctor.
A No, no, no. I think in my direct examination and also yesterday I discussed the file notices in great detail. I may repeat once more. The reference No. 55 and IIb show that this assignment was worked upon in the referat for Aviation Medicine and I repeatedly stated that all the original research assignments as far as they were not mere continuations had to be signed by the Medical Inspectorate or the Chief of the Medical Services.
Q Well now this report that is mentioned here in this document is undoubtedly the report which Holzloehner was to deliver at the October meeting. Is that a correct assumption on my part, doctor?
A What passage of the document are you referring to?
Q I am referring to the sixth paragraph which reads as follows:
"The research documents and an extensive report will be presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. It is requested that the originals or copies of the report and of the documents be put at the disposal of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.
"It is intended to make the results, in the form of an extract, accessible to experts at a conference which will take place in Nurnberg on 26 and 27 October 1942. The daily schedule of the conference is enclosed."
Now, then, as a result of this order from Hippke Holzloehner, Rascher, and Finke are to give a report that is a concise report at the Nurnberg Freezing Conference in October, isn't that the gist of this document?
A Were you talking about an oral report? Or a brief report? Yes, in this letter by the Reichsfuehrer-SS's permission is asked that the results of the experiments be published at Nurnberg.
Q I see. Well, now we will proceed to the report which was published at Nurnberg. This is Document NO-401, I believe.
A Yes, I have it.
Q It is to be found on page 79, of your Honor's Document Book, Document Book III, Prosecution Exhibit #93. If you will turn to the second page of this report, doctor, the section referred to as the "Contents". We go down to IV, headed "Treatment of Frozen Persons" and we see there the names of Jarisch, Weltz, and Holzloehner. Are those the same gentlemen we have been discussing here this morning?
A I only know one Professor Jarisch and this is the one. Then we have Professor Weltz here who is sitting in the dock and then there is Professor Holzloehner whom we have discussed here.
Q Now we go down to VI which is entitled "Measures to combat Thirst". We see there the name Schaefer. Is that the same as the defendant Schaefer?
A Yes, it is the same.
Q Schaefer was at this meeting, was he?
A Yes, he was present during that meeting and he held a lecture about combat of thirst.
Q Did he participate in any other phase of this meeting?
A Well I am sure he didn't participate in any of the discussions. I cannot say whether he was present during the lectures. At any rate I don't remember it. He had never had anything to do with the questions of freezing and cold.
Q Now we go down to VII and under there we see 5, the name of Huebner. Is that one and the same Huebner as the Huebner implicated with Eppinger in the sea water experiments?
A No, not only is it a different man but his name is different. This man here is H-u-e-b-n-e-r and the Professor whom my department chief asked for advice about the sea water experiments is not Huebner, it is Neubner. They are two entirely different persons.
Q. Now, the name just above that, #4. Doerfler. Who is that? Do you know that gentleman.
A. I think I have seen him once. That was on the occasion of that Nuernberg meeting. He was a captain in the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe and had been committed as a physician near the channel coast in sea distress service. That is all I can tell you about him.
Q. We note on the next page, doctor, the first name is Anthony.
A. Yes.
Q. And thereunder, we go down to #7. That is your name.
A. Yes.
Q. We go down to #11 and we find the name Buechner.
A. Buechner, yes.
Q. Do you know that gentleman?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he the gentleman that worked with Professor Weltz?
A. I know of no such collaboration.
Q. Was he one of the lecturers at the Luftgau School?
A. At first, I never in my life heard about a Luftgau school. Secondly, I never heard that Buechner was ever a lecturer in any institute of the Luftgau. There must be some misunderstanding.
Q. Do you recall, in Rascher's document to the Reichsfuehrer, which was Document 1602 PS in Document Book No. 2, where Rascher stated, "For the time being I have been assigned to Luftgau Commando No. 7, Munich, for a medical selection course"? Maybe I erroneously called that a school. I'm sorry. I ask you now, was Buechner one of the lecturers at this Luftgau Commando No. 7 Medical Selection Course?
A. I never heard anything about that. I really don't know.
Q. And then we go down to #22 and see the name Finke. Is that one and the same Finke as mentioned in the other documents here?
A. Yes, that probably is the case because, up to now, I have only heard of one Finke.
Q. Now, Doctor, when you heard these lectures, particularly the lecture given by Holzloehner, I understand that it wasn't possible to ascertain that the work upon which his report was based was work on experimental subjects.
Is that your position here?
A. I have stated in great detail that one had to deduce from this Holzloehner lecture that in his results we were concerned with conclusions derived from a combination of practical experiences with sea distress, experiments on human beings, and experiments on animals.
Q. I see. Well now, I want to recall the testimony of Professor Schroeder wherein he said, on page 3625 of the official transcript, that he based his statement solely on Holzloehner's report which was the only thing that interested him. In answer to a question by Mr. McHaney wherein Mr. McHaney asked, "I think you stated to your defense counsel that it was impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had been carried out, but rather you thought they were clinical observations made on people fished out of the North Sea. Is that right?" And I repeat Schroeder's answer: "Yes, I based my testimony solely on Holzloehner's report which was the only thing that interested me." Now, do you concur with Professor Schroeder that, after seeing the Holzloehner report, that you could only ascertain that the results thereof were obtained from practical experiences and not from experimentation?
A. Yes, I may remind you that the situation under which Professor Schroeder read the report and under which I just heard of it orally were entirely different. I knew beforehand, by virtue of my participation in Hippke's and Rascher's conference, that these experiments were planned. Professor Schroeder, on the other hand, did not know that. He merely knew the fact that Holzloehner had gained experiences in practical sea distress service. In other words, our points of departure are entirely different.
Q. Well now, you testified here that you felt the reason why the witness Lutz was in a position to ascertain the method used by Holzloehner was because of his extensive knowledge of freezing problems and that other people, such as Schroeder and yourself, and, I suppose, any other medical man not specializing in this field, would be unable to ascertain the same things that Lutz ascertained.
Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. I may point out to you once more that Professor Schroeder wasn't even present during that meeting, but only read the printed report about half a year later.
Q. Well, reading the printed report would be to his advantage in being able to ascertain the methods used in the experiments, wouldn't it? I would think that you could gather more from reading the report than from sitting down listening to an oral report, or would it be vice versa, Doctor?
A. I may draw your attention to the fact that on the 26th and 27th of October there was no written report available, but that there was only the oral report by Holzloehner.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because I heard the report. I listened to it. I have already said so.
Q. How do you know he didn't have the written one available?
A. At any rate, I didn't have a written report available. I never saw one except the one that was later printed.
Q. Let's go on, Doctor.
Now, as I understand it, you have stated here that the method of rapid re-warming was not new. Was nothing new. That, in fact, it was a very old method. Is that right?
A. No, you misunderstood me.
Q. Well, do you know, as a matter of fact, that the method of rapid re-warming is a very old method and that it was first worked out in 1880 by a Russian doctor named Lepczinsky?
A. Yes, that is true and it is included in this report. This method, as it frequently occurs not only in medicine, was entirely forgotten so that decades later nobody else thought about this quick rewarming method. We are here concerned with a re-discovery which so often occurs in human history.
Q. That's true. It may well have been a re-discovery, but it had been discovered in 1880 by Lepczinsky, had it not?
A. Yes, it says so somewhere here.
Q. Well now, Doctor Weltz here had admitted repeatedly that, in his own experimental work on animals, that, in addition to Lepczinksy's earlier experiences, the problem was fully settled and was ready to be applied to human beings, hasn't he, without further experimentation on human beings under artificial conditions?
A. I believe Professor Weltz said so here. What question do you wish me to answer now?
Q. Well, in view of Professor Weltz's testimony and in view of the fact that Lepczinsky had founded this method of re-warming - rapid rewarming - in 1880, wasn't it ready to be applied now for purposes of therapeutic trial on people actually exposed to shock from exposure to cold without any further experimentation on human beings?
A. I don't believe that any medical authority anywhere in the world would have been prepared to introduce Rascher's method of re-warming officially without first experimenting upon human beings. During the slow re-warming--
Q. (Interrupting) Just a moment, Doctor, you're trying to get away from me. Rascher's method? That was Holzloehner's, Finke's, and Rascher's method, wasn't it? It wasn't Rascher's alone. Rascher had an order to experiment with Holzloehner and Finke.
A. I don't know exactly what assignment Holzloehner had received from Hippke. I assumed that this was the main assignment.
Q. Well now, you have mentioned, in the course of your examination, that these experiments - these freezing experiments - were decidedly useful and you quoted Harper's Magazine wherein it said that Dr. Alexander had found the method of re-warming a useful one and reported it as such. However, Harper's didn't quote that passage correctly. But, nevertheless, it was Lepczinsky's method of rapid and intensive re-warming that was found in the Rascher experiments, wasn't it? It wasn't Weltz's and Holzloehner's and Rascher's finding or discovery.
It was nothing but a reassurance of Lepczinsky's method, was it not?
A. I cannot reply to that question because I neither concerned myself with freezing research generally, nor did I read the paper by Professor Lepczinski, and I don't know exactly what he suggested.
Q. You concerned yourself with it here for nearly a day on direct; since you exhibited such an exhaustive knowledge in the matter I think it necessary for you to take a stand here?
A. Only on the basis of the documents.
Q. Is it necessary to perform experiments on human beings to reassure the Lepczinsky method?
A. As I imagine the situation once more I could affirm the situation clearly.
Q. Well, now after hearing this report and the reassurance that the Luftwaffe do to apply that method? To be sure some 100 gentlemen, as set forth in this document listened to this report by Holzloehner, what did they do about it, did they use it?
A. Well, let me point out to you that during this meeting a number of researchers held lectures on the basis of a number of experiments and all arrived at the same result, which was finally confirmed by Professor Holzloehner. Professor Holzloehner's lecture was only the final confirmation, and I know that the Medical Inspectorate afterwards introduced quick rewarming as the only decisive method of treatment.
Q. Well, now, Doctor, what is bothering me bothering me terribly is the fact that extensive research was conducted at the Dachau Concentration Camp on rapid rewarming, -- testimony here in this trial shows that many deaths occurred. There isn't one shred of evidence available in this Tribunal produced by the defendants that indicates to any degree that these methods as discovered by Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke were ever applied by the Luftwaffe or by the Army or by the Navy, yet you have taken the stand here and attempted to introduce Harper's Magazine to show that these experiments were justified and that we, as a matter of fact used them in the United States Navy; why didn't you use them in the German Army and Navy?
A. The method was used from 1942 on.
Q. Well, all that Schroeder could tell us about it was that someone in an air sea station in Greece requested a bathtub which as a matter of fact was never delivered, because of subsequent retreat from Greece, but he didn't tell us anything about the actual use of the method; there is no evidence here that you ever used the method; what was the reason for this exhaustive research if you never intended to use the method, and in fact never used the method, apparently?
A. We never tried to prove that. This is the first time that the Prosecution has raised the charge that this method was never applied.
Q. I haven't raised the charge, Doctor, I am merely seeking information from you, inasmuch as you have definitely taken up the time of this Tribunal to explain greatly the value of these experiments; now what was the value to the German Luftwaffe, to the German Army and the German Navy; you haven't been able to show us that?
A. I never tried to show that. I don't consider that relevant, I and my defense counsel. If I were to go into everything connected with the trial from a scientific point of view then the time I have used so far would be completely inadequate, but I am quite willing to bring a number of witnesses to prove that quick rewarming was applied.
I believe that will be quite easy to prove. As to the Professor Lepczinsky --
Q. Now you are getting at it; you are coming along with me. Then the method was actually applied, the method of Lepczinsky was actually applied in the German Wehrmacht?
A. I said before I didn't know the Lepczinsky method. I never read his paper on the subject.
Q. Then the method rediscovered by Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke was actually used, and adopted by the German Wehrmacht, is that correct?
A. I am quite certain of it. I was never present myself, because I wasn't working specifically on these questions, but I believe I can find people who will be able to confirm that the method was actually used.
Q. Well, now, Doctor, in regard to the position that Schroeder was unable to ascertain from Holzloehner's report, that the results were secured from experimentation, I have a few questions to put to you; now, on the second page of Holzloehner's report, that is page 10 of the document itself, page 42 of the original, that is document No. 401, that will be found on page 88 of the English Document book III, in the second paragraph on that page, Holzloehner speaks of human curves, "human curves." It is possible, Doctor, to obtain curves which require special measurements from people floating in the sea; don't you think it would be a lot to actually obtain one good measurement under such circumstances?
A. Let me point out that these cooling curves very obviously refer to the animals.
Professor Holzloehner writes: "In the case of water temperature under 15 degrees of interest to the Sea Distries Service, all reflect regulation appears only slightly in the usual test animals. The freezing curves to a great extent resemble the physical model which can only be compared with many reservations to human curves because of their different measurements and differing constant temperature."
This shows quite clearly that these curves were obtained from animals. Those are the experiments that Professor Holzloehner mentioned on the previous page, and now some other results and constant figures of normal body temperature, and freezing point of fat, and so forth, that for these reasons the experiments on animals and the physical context cannot be applied to human beings.
Q. Now, this report of Dr. Holzloehner refers to statistics found on rescued persons from the sea, refers to statistics found from experimentation on animals and the report is more or less a comparison, is it not, and that is I assume what Professor Schroeder thought when he read this report, that the mention regarding human beings referred to those rescued at sea, and not to actual experimental subjects, and herein he refers to human curves, and data concerning human curves, unless it was on a human being. I would think that would be elementary, wouldn't it, Doctor?
A. That is not elementary, and it is not true, because such cooling curves can, of course, be obtained from blood, it can be determined how long a ship wrecked person has been in the water, and then I can enter this time on a curve and the temperature which I have obtained from the boat.