A. No, I knew none of these Navy men and I did not know, as the document indicates, that the technical office of the Luftwaffe had previously discussed the same subject with the Navy because it is shown here that Schickler reported about the work done since the last discussion. Since we had no discussion previously with the technical office it could only be discussions with the Navy which were carried on behind our back.
Q. Witness I shall now quote the first paragraph: "At the main conference on 20 May 1944, Captain Eng. (Stabsingenieur) Dr. Schickler reports on work done since the last conference especially regarding the results of the preliminary discussion described in part No. I." You have just said that Mr. Schickler spoke at the second meeting. Now I would like to ask you - it says here that he reported on work done since the last conference especially regarding the results of the preliminary discussion. Did you know of any conference before the one of 20 May 1944?
A. No, I just said that I had known of no discussion between the technical office and the Navy.
Q. No the next paragraph contains the Navy's point of view. It said that the Navy considered it important to introduce the method immediately, and wants to find something good for three to five days. What do you have to say about that?
A. I must go back to page one of the document briefly. Under number 4 there is a Marine Stabsarzt Dr. Laurens who came from the office of the Commander Admiral of Submarines in Kiel. The Navy had planned if possible to get all the drinking water supplies for the submarines by one of the new methods developed by the Luftwaffe. Since a submarine is at sea for longer than three to five days it is obvious that this statement were proof that the writer failed to understand the problem. Not only every Navy expert but everyone else who thinks this matter through carefully will agree with me no doubt if I say that precisely in the Navy there is great interest in finding such a process.
While the Luftwaffe had only very small life boats in its planes, rubber life rafts, the Navy and the Submarines have life boats which are much larger, where 50, 60 or even 100 people can use them. One need merely open any book reporting a ship wreck, one will see that such life boats of the Navy are often 30 or 40 days at sea before they reach land. The English who have been seafaring people for centuries have many very clear reports on that subject. If the Luftwaffe wishes ship wrecks of course within a certain limitation from the land base and have been satisfied with three to five days this limitation of three to five days would have no sense for the Navy at all. I don't know what the writer was thinking, at least he didn't write down what was actually said.
Q. Now, did the Navy consider Sirany's experiments sufficient?
A. That is given here in this document and in the second place, at least, the representatives of the Navy who were present said they would consider Sirany's experiments sufficient. In addition to this Stabsarzt Laurens. None of them were doctors. I shall explain later that certain people in the Navy did not think these experiments adequate but during this discussion representatives of the Navy said Sirany's experiments were adequate.
Q. Now, I come to the next problem, and I quote:
"These series of experiments should be finished and reported on not later than the end of June. During this period all preparations are to be made for the commencement of production according to the Berka method at a date not later than July 1st 1944, and also, if the I.G. method should be introduced, for the start of the construction of the necessary manufacturing equipment by the I.G."
Can you comment on this. Were these points discussed in this form during this conference?
A. No, and if they had been discussed I would have objected so violently that they would probably not be given in here, but maybe they would be.
On the first of July the Berka method is to be in production. At the same time the beginning of the construction of the manufacturing equipment is to be begun for the other method. This indicates to me the whole prejudice and unpractical spirit of the person who wrote this.
Q. The next paragraph deals with the people on this commission you have just mentioned who were to meet later and determine the series of experiments. Is this list of the member of the commission here, correct?
A. Yes, no names are now except Professor Eppinger. It is hardly possible to make any mistakes, therefore. I may point out the following: "As representative of the Medical Service Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng is provided." That was the opinion or perhaps the wish of this office. In reality my departmental chief was present on the 25th. I was with him, that is true. Besides after I had reported to my departmental chief when I returned to the office he said that we would ask two other scientists to participate at this meeting. First, the Professor for Pharmacology at the University of Berlin - Professor Heubner, and the Professor for Physiological Chemistry at the University at Kiel-Professor Nette. Then it gives here as representative of the Navy Professor Orzichowski. Unfortunately the Navy informed Professor Orzichowski so late that he did not attend the meeting himself. I may also point out that this second discussion on the 25th was on the order of my departmental chief in Berlin. While it was originally to take place in Munich because of Professor Eppinger who had to come all the way from Vienna since my departmental chief wanted to be present at this meeting himself, since Professor Heuber from Berlin who was to be present and Professor Nette from Kiel, it was more sensible to have the discussion at Berlin - which happened.
Q. Now, witness, what about the sentence in parentheses which mentions a telephone conversation which you are supposed to have had on the basis of which the place of the meeting was changed from Munich to Berlin, do you recall anything about this telephone conversation?
A. Yes, I remember this telephone call but it could have been at the earliest one day after the meeting, that is on the 21st. And I don't know how it could be put in an alleged record of what happened on the 20th.
Q. Then, again in your opinion this is again proof how lightheartedly this record was drawn up and that it does not give the real course of the thing.
A. Normally that would have had to be a supplement to this record.
Q. Witness, the report goes on to say. I quote: "Dachau was determined as the place of the experiments". Who determined that and what do you have to say about it?
A. Nobody determined it and nobody could determine it. There was not a single representative of any officer there who had anything to do with concentration camps. That would have had to be a representative of a high Police Agency of the Reichsfuehrer-SS or the Reich Ministry of Interior. It is quite possible that that is based on the following mistakes or the following facts: Everyone present realized that experiments with prisoners could not be performed in any prison or penitentiary and probably one of the people present wondered how this would be done technically. Then I no doubt told him what I knew - that I knew there were laboratories in Dachau and that I could imagine that if one could obtain prisoners the experiments could be performed in the laboratory rooms of the camp at Dachau. I knew of them because of the Nurnberg Sea Distress and Cold meeting.
Q. Had you ever been in Dachau yourself?
A. No, I have never been in Dachau.
Q. Now, witness, the next sentence in the document says that you did get in tough with Professor Eppinger and the Reichsfuehrer SS, is that correct?
A. It is a fact anyhow that Professor Eppinger was informed by our office probably by telegram or telephone to the Vienna Medical office, and I assume that the writer of this report did not mean that I did get in touch with the Reichsfuehrer-SS personally because I did not know Mr. Himmler.
He probably means that if any contact was necessary it would be established through the office of the Chief of the Medical Service to which I belonged.
Q. Did you not say that the responsibility for the planning and execution of the experiments would have to be with the Chief of the Medical Service?
A. In view of the experiments which Mr. von Sirany had carried out on his own initiative, and because of the various other experiences with the Technical Office which are testified to by the affidavit of Dr. Heinrich Rose which has been offered in evidence, I said that these experiments were a purely medical matter and therefore would, of course, fall under the responsibility of a medical office.
Q. Witness, it is now necessary to discuss the distribution list of this document. Please look at it and tell me whether the offices listed there were actually concerned with the questions discussed at these meetings, or interested in them, at least?
A. First, there are three Navy offices about which I know nothing, but since the Navy was represented I assume that these offices were interested. The Research Institute of the RDL and OBDL was the Luftwaffe agency concerned with technical research. Since I was not referent for research at the time I don't know whether the referent Dr. Bensinger was interested or not. Later, from the files which I took over, I saw that this office had nothing to do with the problem. Then it lists L. In. 16. That was the Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, No. 16. It was the inspectorate for distress at sea which was, of course, interested.
Q. Now come the offices which were to get this document for their information: How about them?
A. First, it lists three offices about which I know for certain that they had nothing to do with the problem. That is, the Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force at Jueterbog; the Testing Institute of the Luftwaffe at Rechlin; and the Institute for Aviation Medicine of the D.V.L., Berlin-Adlershef. I need not go into that in detail now, but I can say for certain that these three offices never dealt with problems of sea distress, and I don't know why they are listed. I should like to point out briefly the next office is L. In. 14. That means the office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. The change of name had occurred at least six months before. The text speaks of the Chief of the Medical Service, but here it gives the old name, and then, under L. In. 14, a number of subsections are listed.
Part of them had nothing to do with the subject at all, and it was not customary to prescribe to another agency which departments, referats, etc., were to be given a certain assignment. Then comes the Reichsfuehrer SS with whom the Technical Office, as Document No. 184, Exhibit 132, has shown had been in contact behind our back, behind the back of the Chief of the Medical Service, and finally, the Technical Academy in Vienna which was not, as Mr. McHaney assumed, Professor Eppinger's office, but the office where Berka had carried but his experiments.
Q. Then, what conclusions can you draw about this person who drew up the distribution list?
A. I can only say, because a number of agencies are listed which had nothing whatever to do with the problem, but that the agency to which Dr. Schaefer belonged, the Aviation Research Institute, is not listed; that old names were included shows, at least that this distribution list was not drawn up with the necessary thoroughness.
Q. And I may add, knowledge of the subject?
A. Yes.
Q. Then witness, I can say that the document which we have just discussed contains numerous incorrect statements, distortions, and considerable nonsense. When did you for the first time observe all these incorrect things? Here in Nurnberg or earlier?
A. That was earlier. The letter was signed on the 23rd of May, 1944. Since our office was about 50 kilometers south of Berlin and we received everything through the mail or by courier, I assume that we got the letter on the 25th of 26th or 27th. In any case, I know that I did not get the letter, because it had to go through official channels in our office too, until after the discussion of the 25th of May. After the conditions for the experiment had been settled in the presence of Professor Eppinger and Professor Heubner and other people. Then I suggested to my department chief that a written answer should be sent to the office which had sent out this report, pointing out the many mistakes.
Unfortunately, my suggestion was not accepted. It was said that the discussion on the 25th had shown how the experiments were actually to be carried out; I thought that the contents of this document were obsolete; and, in the summer of 1944, there were more important things to do than to waste paper. On the next occasion, however, I told either Christensen, personally, or his representative, Schickler, either by telephone or personally, that I had found a number of mistakes in this document, and I asked them if they issued another such document to have it signed before hand by some office which knew something about the subject.
Q. Mr. President, in this connection I wanted to offer an affidavit of the person in charge of these conferences and the signer of this document, Ober-Engineer Christensen, which Mr. Christensen gave me personally in the English camp of Neuengamme. Unfortunately, this important document has not been translated yet and, therefore, I am unable to offer it in evidence. But, in view of the fact that this is perhaps the most important document in my entire case, I ask for permission to submit this Christensen affidavit later in a supplementary document book as soon as the English translation is available. I should like to take the liberty of pointing out that Christensen fully confirms everything that the witness has just testified, especially the fact that this document was written down by memory by Mr. Schickler at least three days after the meeting of the 20th of May for the purposes of the Technical Office, and that there was no shorthand record during the meeting. I do not want to say anything else, but I should like to have permission to submit the document later.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, I request that the comment of counsel concerning the Christensen affidavit be stricken from the record until such time as the affidavit is presented in court.
THE PRESIDENT: The comment of counsel is immaterial. The document may be offered as soon as the translation is ready. If the document be not offered, the comment of counsel will be stricken.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon. I should like to remark one thing. It is three weeks since we sent the document in for translation. I assume that the Language Division is over-worked. That is the only explanation I can think of. I am very sorry, but in this matter I certainly don't bear the blame.
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting): Nothing I said was meant as any reflection upon counsel. Simply the fact that a comment on a document to be offered in the future is entirely immaterial. I am entirely aware that the Translation Division is behind in its work and it is no fault of counsel at all.
DR. MARX: May it please the Tribunal, I shall continue with my interrogation of the witness.
Q. Witness, what did you do after these two meetings of the 19 and 20 of May 1944?
A. These two meetings took place in Berlin. After the meeting on the 20th I went back to my office, which as I have said was about 50 kilometers south of Berlin in Saalow. I immediately reported to my top chief, Oberstarzt Dr. Maerz, about which meetings he decided that Professor Eppinger should be informed immediately. He also decided that Professor Heuoner and Professor Nette should be asked to attend the conference as experts for the Chief of the Medical Service. He also decided that he himself would attend the meeting on the 25th, and I believe it was on the evening of the 21st of May, possibly as late as the 22nd. That I called up Dr. Schäfer in Berlin and asked him to inform Professor Heubner and asked him to attend the meeting on the 25th. That was because I knew that Dr. Schäfer knew Heubner personally, and of course I did not want to call up Professor Heubner by telephone and thought it better if Schäfer would go and ask him personally.
DR. MARX: Your Honor, this Professor Heubner who has just been mentioned is a scientist who still enjoys international renown. In order to show that we offer BeckerFreyseng Document No. 140, on page 4 of Becker Freyseng Document Book 3. This will be Becker Freyseng Exhibit 27. It is an excerpt from the German Medical Weekly of 17 January 1947. I quote:
"The Constituent Assembly of the Scientific Senate of the German Central Administration for Public Health in the Russian Zone took place in Berlin. The Senate, consisting of leading German scientists and medical practitioners, is an autonomous corporation independent of the central ad ministration, with a self elected Board, and has advisory tasks.
Professor Heubner was elected chairman and Professor Brugsch vice-chairman."
I offer this excerpt as proof of how thoroughly the question of whether these experiments were necessary was examined.
Q. Witness, what was the essential content of the discussion of the 25th of May?
A. My department chief an I hoped that it would result from this conference that no further experiments would be necessary. Consequently, the first question put before the professors, that is Professor Eppinger, Professor Heubner and Professor Nette, was whether they would regard new experiments necessary before Berkatit should be introduced.
Q. Witness, did you yourself consider further experiments necessary? You remember that the Prosecution at one time said that this question could have been solved by a chemist in one afternoon?
A. I don't consider the problem so simple that a chemist could have solved it in one afternoon, but perhaps I may come back to that later. I myself did not consider further experiments necessary. That can be seen from everything that I have already said on the subject. Moreover I should like to point out that the representative of the office of the Chief of the Medical Service at the meeting of the 25th was not myself, but my Department Chief, who was an Oberstarzt.
Q. Was that Dr. Maerz?
A. Yes, Dr. Maerz.
Q. For what reasons did you later participate in the planning and preparation for the experiments, if you yourself did not consider them necessary?
A. That I did not consider these experiments necessary was my own private scientific opinion.
On the basis of my position I thought it was my duty, however, to participate in the planning and preparation of these experiments.
Q. Witness, can you explain these official reasons or considerations which you just mentioned?
A. I shall try to do so briefly. One must make a distinction between medical reasons, economic or technical reasons, and military reasons.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, this explanation will take some time. I should like to take the liberty of suggesting that we adjourn now, because I personally am still suffering a little from pains in my foot and would be very grateful if I could sit down.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 9:30 o'clock May 23, 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 May 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed. Dr. Marx, if because of your injury you find it inconvenient to stand you may conduct your examination seated. Arrangements can be made for a microphone for you. There will be no objection to your examining the witness from a chair instead of standing.
DR. MARX (Counsel for Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, I thank you but it will be possible for me to stand. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall continue with the direct examination of the witness, Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
DR. HERMAN BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. MARX (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng):
Q. Witness, we stopped yesterday with the question that you from your personal point of view, from your personal scientific point of view, were of the opinion that these experiments were not necessary but that on the basis of your office you had to participate in the preparations and plans for these experiments.
Please comment briefly and tell us what motives you followed here.
A. The last thing I said yesterday was that there were, first, medical considerations, second, economic and technical considerations, finally, military considerations. The medical considerations affecting me personally, I have already described. I need not go into them further. In contrast to my opinion, Professor Eppinger considered further experiments necessary in order to determine whether berkatit should be introduced or rejected. I need not go into all the scientific reasons which Professor Eppinger gave at the time. I can only say briefly that Professor Eppinger had seen Dr. Von Sirany's experiments in Vienna, and in the meeting on the 25th of May in Berlin he pointed out that in Sirany's experiments he had observed that one or several of the experimental subjects Sirany had shown a salt concentration in the urine which was far above what science had normally assumed up to that time. Therefore, a number of reasons of scientific theory he considered it possible that with the aid of berkatit the body was enabled to tolerate large quantities of salt such as are contained in sea water, without damage. Eppinger insisted on his point of view and he persuaded Professor Heubner, the second important scientist present, to join him in his opinion.
Q. Witness, you have explained the medical point of view. What about the technical one?
A. I touched upon that briefly yesterday. I should like to sum it up as follows: If it had been possible to introduce a drug just as good as wofatit, that would have been a great advantage. For this reason, of course, it would have to be tested again.
Q. Now, please go into the military point of view briefly.
A. The military point of view in the summer of 1944 was characterized by the fact that the Luftwaffe as well as the Navy were in an unfavorable position, in such a position remedies at sea are more important for an air force than when it is victorious.
On the other hand, I have the point of view that if the wrong decision is reached the consequences of this wrong decision will be carried not by Mr. Christensen or the technical office or myself but the flyers in distress at sea. For this reason I considered it my absolute duty to do everything to convince the technical office and Professor Eppinger that berkatit could not be introduced.
Q. Witness, you have just said that, on the basis of Professor Eppinger's opinion, it was decided that further experiments were necessary. Did that solve the duties of this conference of the 25th of May?
A. That solved one point - the question of whether further experiments were necessary. The second question was how these experiments were actually to be carried out.
Q. The final conditions for the experiments then did not agree with those in the letter written by the Technical Office. Please describe briefly the conditions set down on the 25th of May, 1944, but please be as brief as possible so that we can get on.
A. First of all, the conditions given in this report of the Technical Office could never have been seriously discussed by doctors. The conditions decided upon on the 25th of May were as follows: The whole experiment was to be carried out in various series of experiments. Every experimental group was to contain seven or eight people. All the subjects were to be given a careful physical examination before the experiment. Before the experiment proper, there was to be a preliminary period of eight to ten days. In this preliminary period the subjects were to be kept under careful observation and also they were to be fed with the fliers' ration of the Luftwaffe which contained 3500 calories per day per man with about a hundred grams of fat and eight grams of protein. Also the necessary urine and blood tests were to be taken in this preliminary period. For all who were to drink sea water the total amount of sea water was determined and the amount of the individual doses; that is, the amount of sea water taken at one time. The first group was to drink 500 cc of sea water per day with Berkatit. The second group was to drink 1,000 cc of sea water per day, also with Berkatit, and there was to be a control group which was to get normal drinking water, 1,000 cc per day. This normal drinking water was later produced during the experiment by treating sea water with Wofatit, Schaefer's drug. But I want to point out that this was not a test for Wofatit because no one, not even any representatives of the Technical Office, had any doubt of the effectiveness of this drug.
It was not necessary to include Wofatit in the experiment. A fourth group was to drink sea water without any addition, and a fifth group was to get nothing at all to eat or drink. I must explain something about the last two groups. The group which was to drink only sea water was chosen in order to determine what was to be done if, for technical reasons or reasons of raw material, the Wofatit could not be introduced and, for medical reasons, Berkatit was not taken. The opinions of practicing physicians, as well as the scientists, as to whether it was better to go without water entirely or to drink small quantities of sea water, were divergent. Some thought it better to go without water entirely. Others thought there would be certain advantage in drinking small quantities of sea water. In order to get a decision, these two groups were included in the experiment.
Q. Now, how about food?
A. The four first groups had the full fliers' ration with 3,500 calories a day for ten days before the experiment. During the experiment they were given the emergency rations. These emergency rations contained 2,474 calories and consisted of chocolate, zwieback and dextrose. I happened to be in a position to give the number of calories of the English sea emergency rations of 1943 per man per day. This was 448 calories per day.
Q. How many?
A. 448 calories a day. Considering this figure, the German emergency ration, which included 2,274 calories altogether, would be equivalent to the English ration for five and one-half days. In an affidavit submitted by the prosecution, it was said that during the experiments the people got only a little chocolate and some zwieback, but chocolate and zwieback are very concentrated forms of food. That is best shown by the composition of the English emergency rations. The 448 calories of the English emergency rations are composed of one ounce of biscuit, one ounce of pemmican, one ounce of milk tablets, and one ounce of chocolate. This is not very much in quantity, but it is very concentrated food.
Q. In this connection, I offer the affidavit of Dr. Hanson in Document Book 3, #41, on pages 165 to 167, which will be BeckerFreyseng Exhibit # 28. I should like to read excerpts. Dr. Hanson is a renowned physiologist who, since the 1st of July, 1945, has been working at the Physiological-chemical Institute of the University of Halle. I read # 2:
"For cases of distress at sea, the German Luftwaffe had the following facilities at their disposal:
a. The emergency ration containers in rubber lifeboats.
b. The sea emergency ration buoys dropped by plane. One emergency ration container in a rubber lifeboat contained the following items: mineral water, windproof matches, cigarettes and Pervitin Army biscuits, chocolate and Dextro-energizers. Total calorie content of the food: 2,474 calories."
Then I continue with #3:
"The food supplied to the flying personnel of the Luftwaffe in action at the front consisted of the general basic ration and the airmen's special ration. The first consisted, in 1943, of 3,700 calories per day per man, in 1944 of 3,500 calories with 97 grams of protein, 81 grams of fat, and 569 grams of carbohydrates."
A. Perhaps I may explain briefly the fact that the fifth group, which was to get no water, got nothing to eat either. To a laymen that may sound rather cruel. In reality, it's the other way around. Yesterday I explained briefly that with out food we take in a number of substances, or rather that a number of metabolic final products are created in the body, from the food, which must be eliminated through the urine. If I do not give the body any liquid, but do give food, the need for water will be increased and that will subjectively increase the thirst. It is therefore quite general medical experience, from thirst cures, that they are much more easily tolerated if no food is taken during them. The same experience is reported in all cases of shipwreck and, as an example, I should like to quote only one source.
That is the paper by a German Navy Stabsarzt Dr. Baer in the magazine "The German Military Doctor" from July, 1944. It is a report on three shipwrecked persons who were rescued after thirty-seven days: I quote:
"Because of the extremely small quantity of water, after four to five days the majority of the shipwrecked persons could no longer eat the biscuits since they remained in the mouth as a dry powder and it was not possible to swallow this powder without any liquid."
I believe this brief quotation shows why we decided that this group would not be given any solid food.
Q. Witness, we now come to the duration of the experiment. Were definite times set, which had to he kept? Please be brief since you have already spoken about the length of the experiments. I mainly want to know what was decided on the 25th of May in this respect.
A. No, the duration of the experiments was not determined before hand, because that was the purpose of the test; that was what was to be determined.
Q. Witness, you know that the Prosecution finds the main charge against you and your co-defendants in the fact that, according to the so-called minutes which we have quoted before, an experiment was to be carried out with a definite duration of twelve days.
A. I went into that in considerable length yesterday, I need not repeat. I can only say briefly that these twelve days figured in the deliberations because it was said that the drug, which was to be taken, had to be tolerable for at least twelve days. That is, of course, something quite different than saying that the experiment had to be continued for twelve days even if the drug cannot be tolerated.
Q. What was to happen to the subject after the experiment?
A. The experiment proper was to be followed by a period of ten days, during which the subjects were to be kept under careful observation again so that any damage could be recognized. Secondly, during these ten days, they were again to get the fliers ration of food with three and one half thousand calories a day. Third, the final consulting tests were to be taken.
Perhaps one word on the possible harmful effects. According to everything that medical science knew then and knows today, no such after effects are to be expected. This as only a precautionary measure in order to overlook nothing.
Q. Witness, in the conference of the 25th of May was it said that the experiments would be carried out on prisoners?
A. No, that was not mentioned for the following reasons. First of all, both my department chief, Oberstarzt Dr. Merz, as well as I, expected that Professor Eppinger and Professor Heubner would not consider further experiments necessary.