Q That's enough, witness.
Now, Dr. Anthony was the chairman of this conference. Was it usual for the referent to hold the chairmanship of such conferences?
A That was altogether customary, and, in all conference reports which can readily be found in the library of the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg, can be seen that Anthony always had the chairmanship of these conferences. Two conferences took place after Anthony left and, in that case, since I had his job, I was in charge of them.
Q Now, witness, from that it can be seen that the preparations for the Nurnberg conference was done by Professor Anthony?
A Yes, that is so and, of course, the man in charge of a conference has to know what the agenda is going to be.
Q Now, witness, you were assistant referent at that time under Anthony. What did you have to do with this conference?
AAll the conferences that took place under Anthony's referat I had to organize. That is quite a job because there are discussions by eighty or ninety scientists who are going to read papers in two days.
Q That is to say you had nothing to do with the scientific preparations of it, but just the organizational and technical side of it.
Now, did you know what Holzloehner was going to report on?
A No, I didn't.
Q But did you know Professor Holzloehner before that?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where did you know him and what did you know about him?
A I made Anthony's acquaintance in the course of further training for Luftwaffe physicians and fliers that took place in Jueterborg. During this training course Professor Holzloehner delivered a lecture on sea distress problems and presented a movie regarding his foam suit that he had already developed.
Q Witness, if I understand you correctly, this was a lecture in March, 1942, at which Holzloehner spoke regarding his practical sea distress experiences and about a new foam suit; namely, a theoretical problem which had to be solved practically?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Augustinock, on the 28th of February 1947, page 3736 of the English record, said that Holzloehner was, for a long period, the director of a rescue station on the French Coast. How long did Holzloehner's report in Nurnberg take?
A Not exceptionally long. I should say thirty or forty minutes.
Q Did he show any pictures or films?
A No.
Q So far as he spoke about experiments, did he say anything about the experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A No, he didn't.
Q Who did Holzloehner say the experiments were being carried out on?
A Holzloehner himself spoke only of sea distress cases. That experiments were carried out on condemned criminals could be seen because, after Holzloehner reported, Rascher did.
Q Now, witness, I come unfortunately to a rather unhappy matter; namely, Document No. 448, Exhibit 81, Document Book 3, page 7. This is your affidavit of 24 October 1946. Witness, are these your own words that are to be found in this affidavit, or just what is it that is written down here?
A No, this is not my own wording. This was put to me, in English, in the presence of Mr. McHaney and, I believe, one interrogation preceded this affidavit. I was allowed to make some changes in the affidavit, but when I wanted to make more precise statements on certain points and didn't want to sign such generalizations because they were too ambiguous, McHaney told me that I should later certainly have an opportunity to make these further explanations. I presume that he meant the situation in which I find myself at the moment.
Q Now, witness, please make those explanations but be brief. First of all, witness, there is a sentence in your affidavit on page 2, under point 5, you say here:
"It was rather well known that these men were experimenting on concentration camp inmates."
What did you mean to say by that expression "rather well known"? Did that mean it was "rather well known" to you?
AAt the Nurnberg conference I knew what I had heard Rascher say in his discussion with Hippke. Whether I heard, already at that time, or later, that Rascher had a laboratory in Dachau I do not recall today. As experimental subjects only condemned criminals were named.
Q Now, another question about this affidavit.
"As a result of Holzloehner's report and others given at the conference, issued instructions to the flight surgeons that the warm bath method was to be used in reviving aviators who had been severely chilled."
First of all, what do you mean by "we"? You said that you couldn't issue any instructions at all.
A It is possible that in the interrogation that preceded this affidavit I used the word "we" and said that "we had done so and issued such and such instructions." That, of course, means the office to which I belonged and, in mormal conversation, it is a perfectly common way of expressing oneself.
Q Did you yourself have anything to do with the issuing of this directive to the troop physicians?
A I had nothing to do with that. This directive was a result of the Nurnberg conference and, from the purely formal point of view, it was not the referat for aviation medicine that had anything to do with this, but the referat 2-I-B with its file number of 49. It was this referat that had all the dealings with the troop physicians. That was the referat for hygiene.
Q We have attempted, Your Honors, to get our hands on this directive. It was, for technical reasons, impossible unfortunately. This is the directive of the 3rd of August, 1942 - "Directions to Troop Physicians for Preventing Damage to Persons through Cold." I have included this in my document book primarily to show that it bears the file number 49, only to show that it has nothing to do with the referat for aviation medicine. This is on page 97 of Document Book 2. It will be Exhibit 13 and it is Document 26.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel your last exhibit you offered was your Document 25.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, this is Document 26, Exhibit 13. It is noticed in this document that it bears the number 2-I-B instead of 2-II-B.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q I return now to your affidavit, witness. You say here that it was "fairly well known that these men were experimenting on concentration camp inmates." Did you have any positive knowledge as to who these subjects were and how they were chosen?
A No, I had nothing to do with that selection and never had any positive knowledge of it.
Q Witness, after the Nurnberg conference did you have anything to do with the results of the Holzloehner-RascherFinke experiments? Did you see reports on it after Nurnberg?
A No, nor are any reports known that were to have been sent out after the Nurnberg conference.
Q I come to the crux of the Nurnberg conference, so far as the prosecution is concerned, at least; namely, Holzloehner's lecture. Document No. 410, Exhibit 93, Document Book 3, page 96, says the following:
"Holzloehner gave this report on his experiments which were, of course, experiments carried out in Dachau."
This is on page 319 of the English record of the 12th of December, 1946. This formulation of the matter the prosecution seems to have taken from its own exhibit because, under #5 in your affidavit, you said:
"At the Nurnberg conference held in October, 1942, Dr. Holzloehner gave a report on the freezing experiments conducted in Dachau in cooperation with Dr. Rascher." However, previously, witness, you said that Holzloehner had spoken about his practical experiences in sea distress work. Now, just what did Holzloehner actually report on? These two statements do not correspond to each other.
A Holzloehner's report was a mixture of practical sea distress experiences, results of animal experiments and results of experiments on human beings.
Q Then if I understand you correctly, a combination?
AA combination.
Q And again I would like to quote to you something that the Prosecution said on the 12th of December 1946, page 310 of the English record. Let me quote. Mr. McHaney said the following -- I should like to make the remark here before I continue although it has not been said so far definitely, that these experiments were not carried out on persons rescued from sea. The Witness Lutz told us, however, that it was made perfectly clear that these were experiments that were carried out on human beings here where humans were in a planned manner submerged in ice water. This is clear from the following part of the report because it would have been impossible for any scientist to make these detailed clinical observations on the case of individuals exposed"---.
Witness, as you said you are not a specialist in the field of freezing, but you have made general medical knowledge, therefore I can ask you is this decision on the part of the prosecution correct as here stated by Mr. McHaney?
A No, a great deal can be said in answer to that. First, let me tell you what Lutz actually said. This was in testimony given on the 12th of December 1946, page 242, -- page 342, I guess, of the English record. In answer to the Prosecution's question I should like to ask you whether or not if one didn't understand at that conference that the experiments had been carried out on inmates in the concentration camp. Lutz answered "I cannot judge that for sure, but I believe so. I believe that most of them must have seen that clearly." This shows quite clearly that this point was not made clear, but that it was left up to every individual's imagination. Lutz himself had worked in animal experiments on the freezing problem, and worked in the Institute in which the scientific animal experiments on these questions were carried out, and if he sees something more clearly than others that is, of course, quite understandable.
I had not worked personally on freezing problems, nor had I had anything directly to do with Rascher, and in addition let me point out that Holzloehner certainly gave no report on the course of a freezing experiment where, for example, on the same man the various stages of freezing are carried out and observed on the same man. In medicine it is quite customary, it is true of so-called typical case histories, and you think in terms of them. You speak of the normal and usual course that a disease takes from its beginning to its end, and it is perfectly clear that such a case history is combined from observation on very many individual patients, and also contains the result of experimental observation. Let me also point out that between a report which is a top secret report, and a publication made without any secrecy whatsoever, there is a very evident difference to anyone. The report that Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke signed on their work there and which Rascher sent to Himmler was a top secret matter. The report in the conference of sea distress or winter distress in Nurnberg which the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe and Holzloehner's lecture stood under no secrecy. If the competent person then is what actually stood behind Holzloehner report, and that the experiments and the conclusions from them were to be treated as top secret, then it is perfectly clear that this report would not have been made in a perfectly open publication.
Q Witness, regarding Holzloehner's lecture, the Prosecution asserted in its case that the Holzloehner report contained a number of passages from which it could be clearly and unequivocally seen that there were fatalities in the experiments in Dachau. In other words, this report shows clearly to you at least who knew the facts of the experiments as such, that in the course of the experiments at Dachau crimes were committed. Is this assertion by the Prosecution correct, as far as you know, Witness?
A From Holzloehner's lecture certainly no one even knew that experiments had been carried out would deduce that there had been fatalities in the course of the experiments. Perhaps what Rascher said in connection with Holzloehner's report later could give someone ideas, but that would not be seen from Holzloehner's lecture.
Seen from the psychological point of view today, as I know all the other matters, it is very easy to see in this Holzloehner report everything I have found out in the meantime, but at that time we didn't know these things.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I should like to discuss a few of these passages which the Prosecutor feels to be particularly incriminating, with the witness. This will take, I believe, roughly half an hour, and I do not know whether the court wishes me to begin on this before the recess, or if it would be better if we waited until after the recess to take up this matter, which must be understood in its entirety.
MR. HARDY: Mr. President, Your Honor, it seems to me the defense counsel has labored under this point a long time. He has been here nearly an hour discussing the Nurnberg conference. It seems to me he has covered it amply. I don't see any reason for going into it very extensively. There are four or five other charges against the defendant. He will be in the witness box four or five more days at this rate.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, is not aware of the questions counsel desires to ask the witness concerning this report, but counsel will be permitted to pursue the matter at least until the Tribunal feels he is pursuing it too far.
In the meanwhile the Tribunal will be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Dr. Becker, I was just told by the interpreter that the word "Krankenheitsbild" which you used was not clearly translated. It was translated as "case history". Case history, on the other hand as I heard is the history of one individual case from the beginning of the disease until its end, whereas "Krankenheitsbild" meant something else. Would you please clarify for the benefit of the interpreter what "Krankenheitsbild" is intended to moan?
A. I agree with you that in the German usage of language one understands case history very specifically to bo the course of the illness in the in the case of one indivvidual patient. Under "Krankenheitsbild" on the other hand one understands the typical course of any one illness. For instance, if an university lecturer is discussing an illness, and in particular is referring to influenza, he gains his pictures by his experience on hundreds and hundreds of patients and on the basis of all this experience he then arrives at the typical picture of that disease, which of course deviates in the case of one or the other patient but on the other hand there is a typical picture of that illness. This for the medical man is quite a matter of course and it is very clear to him that any typical observation cannot hold true of any one individual patient but represents a combination of all the cases he has experienced.
Q. I think that can clarify that point, witness. You were last saying that according to your knowledge at that time from Holzloehner's lecture nothing could be learned about any crimes having been committed. You didn't hear anything about fatal cases either, did you?
A. No, Holzloehner mad no mention of any fatal cases.
Q. Now, witness, lot us refer to some of the passages in Holzloehner's lecture which arc possibly held to be incriminating by the Prosecution. Lot me quote from prosecution Document 401, Exhibit 93, on page 86 of the German, page 79 of the English record. This is the report about sea rescue. In that connection I would like to discuss the report of Dr. Holzloehner with you. At first, witness, lot us turn to one particular passage. You will find this passage on page 43 of the original report which is on page 89 in the English Document Book. I quote: "The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sots in, which renders the movements of the arms especially increasingly difficult." When examining Professor Schroeder the prosecution pointed out that this determination of rigor after five to 10 minutes could not have been made in practical cases of sea rescue but that leads one to believe that experiments were carried out. What can you say about that, witness?
A. This conclusion is in no way correct. I am not an expert on the freezing matter and I never served in the Sea Rescue Service of the German Luftwaffe where I gained personal experiences but I am in a position to give you a reply to this question on the basis of a report made by the American Sea Rescue Service. This report expressly refers to practical experiences as they were gained in that service. It can bo found in a work by Major P. Kelsay and it is entitled "Acute Exposure of Flyers in Artie Waters" which appeared in the Air Surgeon Bulletin, Volume I, part 2, dated February 1944. It says there almost verbatim and I may quote:
"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: