THE PRESIDENT: What number document is that?
DR. PELKMANN: That is Document No. 20, Mr. President, on pages 84 to 88, Exhibit 23.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't find in my document book, the portion you read.
INTERPRETER: Your Honor, at the end of page 88, the last paragraph on page 88 - summary.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it now.
DR. PELKMANN: I read only the summary at the end of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, Counsel.
DR. PELKMANN: Thus, Dr. Schaefer also considered the possibility that seawater with a low salt content is found, for instance in the Baltic, and if one also considers the temperature; then the chemical process is also so that the water which one obtains is potable and is not dangerous.
Now we turn to Document 21. This is to be Exhibit No. 24. It is on pages 89 to 90 of the English Document Book. This is a document from Dr. Schuster.
MR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, might I ask Defense Counsel if this purports to be an original copy of a letter? There is some difficulty in the presentation of documents here. In each instance in the past two days, these original German documents that are being submitted are not authenticated in the manner as set forth by the Tribunal. This one here has no authentification on it whatsoever. Due to that fact, it gives cause to doubt the authenticity, and I would like to submit it to the Tribunal for their perusal. It may be that Dr. Pelckmann can in due course receive a certificate of authenticity and offer it at this time provisionally.
DR. PELCKMANN: May I make the following explanation? As is apparent from the date on the document, it is of 10 February 1944, and the signature here on the original is by Dr. Schuster; it is a document in the same way as a document that the Prosecution submits from the year 1944 from, let us say, Himmler or any other person who is not here as a defendant or as a witness.
It is an original document, and, of course, I am not in a position to certify the signature, because this Dr. Schuster is not available.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document is addressed to the Defendant Schaefer, and it could be duly authenticated by putting it to the Defendant and having the Defendant identify same, but I am merely pointing out that for the sake of this trial end other trials in the future, we have prescribed regulations, and if possible we should like to insist upon the Defense counsel adher to the regulations of the Tribunal in that all German documents be duly authenticated as set forth in the regulations of this Tribunal. It creates quite a problem, and it is one that is more important, I think, than even the certificates on affidavits.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Witness, are you familiar with the document which your counsel now asks the Tribunal to receive as Schaefer Exhibit No. 24?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I received it at that time.
Q. You can identify this original exhibit as being a letter received by you in due course of correspondence?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary may return this document. This document is admitted in evidence.
DR. PELCKMANN: It is to receive the exhibit number 24, Your Honor.
Dr. Schaefer's critical examination of his preparations continued; this is proved in particular by Exhibit 24. Dr. Schaefer wanted to assure himself that even if it was applied unscientifically, the person who used Wofatit would not suffer any harm. The writer of this letter asked Dr. Schaefer to conduct experiments regarding the effect of hydrochloric acid in the stomach on Wofatit.
Number 2 in the document shows that Wofatit which has previously been treated with sea water does not give off any barium.
THE PRESIDENT: The document reads, "sea water that had been previously treated with Wofatit."
DR. PELCKMANN: I am only referring to paragraph numbered 2. The paragraph numbered 1 in the document concerns the poison effect of pure Wofatit which has not been brought together with sea water. Dr. Schaefer, for instance, counted on the possibility that a soldier, a pilot, did not have a vessel and therefore could get the idea of swallowing a handful of Wofatit and then afterwards drinking the sea water. In regard to this, the paragraph numbered 1 of this report of Dr. Schuster says that this too is entirely harmless.
These complicated chemical explanations, however, are made quite clear by Document No. 22, which I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 25. It is Document No. 22, pages 91 and 92 of the document book. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Fritz Eichholtz, professor of the University of Heidelberg, and it reads as follows:
"You want an expert opinion about the experiments carried out by Unterarzt Dr. Schuster. In these experiments the effect of hydrochloric acid on Wofatit is investigated according to the question of whether free barium can appear in the gastric juice when Wofatit has accidentally been taken. Dr. Schuster finds with one gram of Wofatit a maximum value of approximately 2 milligrams of barium. One would have to take about 100 grams of Wofatit before the very lowest toxic dose of a soluble barium of 0.2 grams would be free in the gastric juice, and one would have to take Wofatit by the kilogram in order to reach the lethal dose of two to four grams, supposing that the solubility of the barium Wofatit in the gastric juice is not higher than appears from Schuster's experiments. We have therefore chosen a direct course and have fed Wofatit to rats. The animals received, per 100 grams, 0.4 grams of barium zeolith and silver zeolith. The animals did not show any striking injuries. In a second series of experiments the same doses of Wofatit were given, together with 1 cc, 1/10 hydrochloric acid. In this case, too, nothing of importance was observed. Converted for the case of a man weighing 50 kilograms, this shows that doses of approximately 200 grams of Wofatit with or without hydrochloric acid are harmless. We therefore conclude that the chemical properties of Wofatit have never resulted in any considerable toxic effect being observed.
"I therefore confirm that even if the filter does not function sufficiently the inorganic elements in the water could be introduced into the digestive system without any danger."
Documents 23 and 24 show further very careful experiments which Schaefer carried out regarding all possibilities of a harmful effect of his preparation.
I ask you to receive Document 23 as Exhibit 26, and Document 24 as Exhibit 27. The documents, Exhibits 26 and 27, show the experiments which the laboratory assistant Kaulisch carried out in accordance with Schaefer's instructions. Kaulisch reared bacteria strains from the North Sea and observed the effect of Wofatit upon them.
His research demonstrated that Wofatit kills bacteria very effectively.
After the conclusion of all these experiments - about which it can be said that they were carried out with unusual scientific exactness it was no longer necessary for Schaefer to test his method any further.
In conclusion, however, I would like to introduce Document 25 as Exhibit 28, which is on page 101 in the English document book. This is a questionnaire, with the answers. It originated from Professor Ivy, the vice president of the University of Chicago, and it is dated 15 April. Of course, I received it in the English language. I had hoped that it would be translated into German for the German document book but unfortunately this was not done. For the information of the judges and the prosecution it is in the English original in the English document book; however, in the German document book it is also in English, but nevertheless I would like to read the letter.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, I might state that Dr. Ivy will be here in a matter of a week or two. At that time the prosecution will present Dr. Ivy here as an expert witness and Dr, Pelckmann may well conduct his examination; I know well that he will examine Dr. Ivy if Dr. Ivy is here as a witness. In order to avoid the confusion of having to consider this document in both languages, he could merely offer it as it is now and avoid having it translated, because the witness will be here and testify and it will be in the record at that time.
DR. PELCKMANN: I thank Mr. Hardy for the suggestion which he has made. However, I believe that I can waive the examination of Professor Ivy if I may read the questions which were put and his very precise answers. I believe that it would expedite the trial. If clarifying Questions on the part of the prosecution or on the part of the defense should still be necessary afterwards, they may be put, perhaps, when Professor Ivy appears here.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed in the manner indicated. Does counsel himself read English?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. PELCKMANN: Thank you.
"I herewith submit my answers to the questions submitted by Horst Peleckmann, Defense Counsel for the Defendant, Dr. Konrad Schaefer, whom I interrogated on 22 January 1947.
"1. Question. Do you know the method for removing the salt from sea water recommended by Dr. Schaefer during the War?
Answer. I am familiar with the theoretical method which Dr. Schaefer said that he recommended for use in removing the salt from sea water and developed with the I.G. Farben Industry during the bar. I did not see and examine chemically the actual product.
"2. Question. Is it the same in principle as the method you invented, which is now being used by the U. S. Army?
Answer. The theoretical method described by Dr. Schaefer is essentially the same as that being used in practice by the U. S. Army and Navy.
"3. Question. Do the methods recommended by Schaefer correspond to the latest developments of Inorganic Chemistry?
Answer. The method described to me by Dr. Schaefer represents in principle one of the best methods for removing the salts from sea water and utilizes one of the latest developments in inorganic chemistry which apply to the means for removing salts from sea water.
"4. Question. Before Schaefer recommended the method, was a chemical analysis made to shows (1) that neither free barium nor silver are present in the drinking water, and (2) that the salt content of the sea water was completely eliminated by the method? Are these results sufficient guarantee that the water is completely harmless and fully suitable for use as drinking water?
Answer. I was informed by Dr. Schaefer that he had made chemical analysis of the water which resulted after the sea water was treated by his method and found to be free of the salts in sea water as well as barium and silver. It is strongly presumptive that this is true because that is what any chemist or scientist would do to ascertain if the method for desalinating the sea water was effective. It is the sole reliable means for developing any method for desalinating sea water.
Such results would be entirely adequate for determining whether sea water desalinated by Dr. Schaefer's method was harmless and suitable for use as drinking water.
"5. Question. In that case, is it still necessary to carry out experiments on human beings?
Answer. It would be unnecessary to conduct experiments on human beings if the water resulting from the application of Dr. Schaefer's method was found to be chemically free of the salts in sea water and barium and silver.
"6. Question. After Schaefer had completed this analysis and had discovered that the agent had a strong bactericide effect, had he fulfilled his duty sufficiently to be able to suggest that the agent should be used on a large scale?
Answer. If the chemical analysis showed that the water had been freed of salts, barium and silver and that the chemical agent had a bacteriocidal effect entirely adequate, sufficient evidence would be available to suggest and recommend that the agent and procedure should be used on a large scale for rendering sea. water potable and harmless. And, it is entirely rational, as in the case of cur own experiments at the Naval Medical Research Institute, that his agent and method would accomplish those things claimed for it, namely would render sea water potable and harmless."
That was Exhibit 28.
Q Dr. Schaefer, we see from this that the method that you and the I.G. developed was ready for use?
A Yes, this was November 1943, and at that time I could tell the Medical Inspectorate that a method had been developed which was ready to be introduced. In December of the same year I demonstrated the procedure in Professor Hippke's presence and in the presence of a few other officers. All of these men drank water prepared with Wofatit, and large-scale manufacture and introduction of this preparation was recommended.
Q What did you have to do with the so-called Berka method?
A Dr. Becker-Freyseng went into that point at great length. I received from the Medical Inspectorate in the first months or 1944 the order to check on experiments that an Oberstarzt von Sirany had carried out in Vienna on soldiers, and to report on what I found. It was perfectly patent to me that Mr. Berka was a charlatan and Mr. von Sirany was another.
DR. PELCKMANN: In this connection I offer Documents 26 and 27 and give them exhibit numbers 29 and 30, pages 103 and 106.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire, Your Honor, whether or not Exhibit No. 29 purports to be an original file note of Dr. Konrad Schaefer?
DR. PELCKMANN: Let me draw your attention to Exhibit 19, the affidavit of Mrs. Koenig. I have already read Exhibit 19, her statement that Mrs. Koenig identified these documents as the original documents. Perhaps Mr. Hardy can re-read this identification.
MR. HARDY: I have no objection, Your Honor. I might suggest that those be put to the defendant for authenticating.
DR. PELCHMANN: Yes.
Q Will the defendant please identify these documents, so that this matter will be perfectly clear? Dr. Schaefer, what can you say about these documents?
A Yes, these arc the original documents as I drew them up; then there is a copy of them which I sent to the Medical Inspectorate at Saalow.
Q And is it true that Mrs. Koenig wrote these documents, as she says in her affidavit?
A Yes.
Q Now, from these documents that you have before you in the original, will you kindly ready yourself from Document 26, Roman Numeral IV?
A I quote: "About the Berka procedure:
"a.) Berka sea-water differs from natural water only by its taste.
"b) Like the latter, it causes a salt diuresis, which according to the amount drunk, can quickly lead to a dangerous exsiccosis. It produces an objective thirst.
"c) In many cases it increases the subjective thirst, causes dryness of the mouth and throat mucous membrane and diarrhea. The same applies also in the case of small doses.
"d) Berka sea-water, like natural water, is quite unsuitable for quenching thirst at sea, either in large or small doses, and is even dangerous. In any case, it is better to go thirsty than to drink it."
Q Now, from Exhibit 40, Document 27 -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, Paragraph D, under Roman IV, this Document Book says: "Berka sea-water, like natural water, is quite unsuitable for quenching thirst at sea." Is not natural water suitable for quenching thirst at sea; does that mean natural sea-water?
DR. PELCKMANN: That means natural sea-water naturally, Your Honor, yes.
In the German original it says just "natural."
Q Now, from Exhibit 40, Document 27, will you please quote, or will you please explain the significance cf this document regarding anamneses?
A When I came to Vienna, Mr. von Sirany went with me in his uniform as Oberstarzt into the room in which the patients, that is, the experimental subjects were.
Q They were soldiers, were they not?
A Yes, they were. Mr. von Sirany stated summarily that "Berka water was a fine thing, wasn't it," and "you weren't thirsty, were you," and "everything was fine, wasn't it?" The soldiers said, "Yes, Colonel, everything went very well with us." However, I was in civilian clothing, and asked. Mr. von Sirany to permit me to question the men individually. I told the soldiers to explain to me how it was possible. I told them I was a scientist and had nothing to do with the military, and then I found out about these anamneses.
Most of them said the more they drank the thirstier they got. For instance, Hlava said that, and Winter said it. The thirst was quenched only temporarily. Many said that they had diarrhea. In other words, what we find here is what one would expect to find with the Berka method.
Q. Dr. Shaefer, I shall put Document No.28 to you, this will be Exhibit No. 31.
A. These are directions for using Berkatit, signed personally by Mr. Berka. These are the instructions that he gave me at that time. From these instructions for use one can see one or two very important points. It says here under the heading "Clinical experiments", I quote:
"Clinical experiments have shown that in case of distress at sea it will be advisable to start at once with the drinking; thus the palate becomes gradually accustomed to the potion, and tho strain on the kidneys does not occur in one shock but increases gradually."
The main emphasis lies here on the phrase "the strain on the kidneys" this proves With the Berka method the salt still has to be eliminated by the kidneys. At the conclusion of the instructions for use, it says:
"Berkatit has, at the same time, a high food value and can be taken as a food instead of hard candy. Berkatit contains vitamins."
I, myself, have eaten Berkatit, and it was in effect nothing but hard candy.
Q. Dr. Schaefer, in the discussion on 19 and 20 May, 1944, what opinion did you express about Berkatit?
A. Mr. Berka and I had a rather vehement argument. I put his own instructions for use to him and also confronted him with Oberstarzt von Sirany's experiments. I told him that his preparation was simply something that covered up the natural taste of sea water and consequently was much more dangerous than sea water itself, because the soldiers would have the illusion that they could drink unlimited quantities of it. However, Mr. Berka was not to be persuaded and come forward with medical explanations which he did not even understand himself.
Q. I should now like to put in Documents Nos. 29,30, and 31. Document No. 29 will become Exhibit No. 32, Document No. 30 will be come Exhibit No. 33, and Document 31 will become Exhibit No. 34.
These are affidavits from persons who took part in the conferences. These are representatives of the Navy who know a little bit about the way in which these discussions wore carried on. From what they say it can be seen that the struggle between the doctors of the Luftwaffe and the technical office was very violent at this meeting and that Schaefer took part in it.
From Exhibit No. 32, I should like to road a part of the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Liesche. This is the 12th or 13th line:
"I remember that the May session 1944 consisted mainly of a lively discussion between technical and medical representatives of the Luftwaffe. The physicians of the Luftwaffe and also the physicians of the Navy-as far as they made themselves hoard raised serious objections against the Berkatit process. In this connection physiological questions entered the discussion, on which, owing to my training, I could not give an expert opinion.
"The technical representatives of the Luftwaffe had made Berkatit experiments on living humans in a hospital of the Luftwaffe already before the May session. No one suffered health damages at this occasion. The physicians of the Luftwaffe had considerable objections against the procedure of the experiments and discussed those in a specialized manner which I could not follow. I had the impression that all the other participants of the meeting were merely listeners and that some of them did not approve of the sharp controversy between the physicians and the technicians. The physiologists of the Luftwaffe attacked the technical experts in a very pointed manner and forbade any non-professional interference with their specialized sphere of work. I cannot recall the literal statements of any of the physicians."
Then from Exhibit No. 33, the affidavit by Richard Handstein I should like to read only a part. I quote: from the fourth line of the second paragraph:
"The debate was conducted among members of the Luftwaffe. I can still remember Stabsingenieur Berka, who defended his own procedure.
In opposition to him, a young physician of the Luftwaffe upheld a different opinion. This may have been Schaefer. This young physician argued with physiological reasons, which, however, I do not remember in detail. I know nothing regarding the details of possibly planned series of experiments."
JUDGE SEBRING: Just a moment, counsel. I notice that several of the affiants who have submitted affidavits here that their names appear in Prosecution Document No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit No.133, Document Book No. 5, as being recorded "Present" at the May meeting. I do not notice the name of this affiant, Richard Handstein; can you explain that, please?
DR. PELCKMANN: I myself failed to notice that, Your Honor. It is possible that this record is faulty and that Handstein was present and was not listed. He, himself, speaks in his affidavit of a meeting in the spring of 1944 in the Air Ministry. I personally assume that that is the same meeting, and it is possible that his name is not mentioned.
JUDGE SEBRING: Could it be that tho affiant Richard Handstein is one and the same as Haunstein, who appears as the ninth name in Prosecution Exhibit No. 133?
DR PELCKMANN: Yes, it is perfectly possible that this name Haunstein is really Handstein. If this copy of Document No. 177 is correct, then the mistake was made in the original minutes of this mooting. I thank Your Honor for calling this to my attention. I shall look again at the original in order to ascertain whether the. name is set down falsely in my document.
According to his own signature, the man's name is Handstein that is in the affidavit, which I am putting in and in the original of Document 177 of the Prosecution the name is Haunstein.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q. Dr. Schaefer, were you able to express your point of view regarding the Berka method, although Becker-Freyseng had already expressed his? 8387
A. Yes.
Q. How can you substantiate in any other way your statement here that you opposed tho Berkatit method.
A. I was so convinced of the nonsensicalness of the Berka method that I said that it was entirely ineffective and that this was so obvious that there was no point in experimenting with it.
Q. Then, you expressed the opinion that such experiments would be completely unnecessary.
A. Yes, I did and for that reason I was not among the members of the committee which was to prepare for these experiments, es can be seen from this record of the meeting of the 19th and 20th.
Q. You mean to say that you did not become a member of that committee?
A. Yes, that is right. This was a group of people who were ready for some sort of compromise.
Q. Did you not have some difficulties on tho 20th of expressing your opposition again?
A. Yes, of course I did, because tho Technical Office, which had come to recognize me as tho most radical opponent of tho Borka method, was in charge of the meeting. Well, that is to say Christensen was presiding and he simply would not give me the floor, and since I was an Unterarzt, a non-commissioned officer, I could not take it on my own initiative.
Q. And you were even threatened once; were you not?
A. Yes, at the conclusion of the discussion, after the Technical Office saw that I was trying to portray the experiments as senseless, Schickler told me that if I went on in this same direction I would have to explain my actions to Milch and to answer tho charge of sabotage.
DR. PELCKMANN: Becker-Freyseng has already stated on the stand that Schaefer told him this later.
Q. Was there a discussion at this meeting of the 20th of the fact that human experiments were to be carried out with the Wofatit method?
A. No. Even Herr Berka himself saw that the Wofatit method was a good one.
DR. PELCKMANN: I can again, Your Honors, draw your attention to Document 177, Exhibit 133, and I draw your attention to the fact that there is no mention there of any experiments with Wofatit.
Q. Did you have any interest in seeing to it that experiments should be carried out with Wofatit?
A. No, none whatsoever, because I had nothing to do with Wofatit.
Q. Perhaps this would have been out of some personal interest to you simply to prove how good Wofatit was and how poor Berkatit was?
A. Well, that would have been simply a ridiculous ambition on my part.
Q. At any rate, although the chairman, Christensen, limited you more and more, nevertheless, on the 20th you did state your opinion that the experiments with Berkatit were completely unnecessary and useless?
A. Yes, that is so, and the suggestion was then made that Dr. Eppinger should then be put in as director of future experiments, and I then said to myself that, if Eppinger came to Berlin, he would kick up quite a rumpus because he had been given any trouble or been bothered at all in such a useless affair.
Q. Now after the 20 May meeting did you still do everything you could to prevent experiments being carried out, particularly experiments with prisoners, whatever sort they might be?
A. Yes. In a telephone conversation with Becker-Freyseng I expressed my misgivings.
DR. PELCKMANN: In this connection I should like to return to Exhibit 19, Document 39, an affidavit of Mrs. Koenig in the supplementary document book. Since I have already read the first part of this affi davit, I shall read the rest.
Page 125a:
"I remember well how Dr. Schaefer at the beginning of 1944 returned in an enraged state from Vienna where he had informed himself on the development of the experiments with the Berka preparation. He was furious at the stupidity of some men who had even proposed such a thing and he told me that this preparation merely altered the taste and that he would have nothing to do with this charlatanry.
"Based on the notes of the experiment by Dr. von Sirany Dr. Schaefer dictated to me his views on it which he consequently took to the medical inspectorate at Salow to report on it to his superiors. Some time later Dr. Schaefer returned home in an excited state and said something like this: 'Today there was a violent quarrel. Those idiots cannot be convinced by anything, and the naval people too have no idea of physiology. For some unknown reason new experiments are to be made. I hope I shall have nothing to do with these. It has even been proposed to make the experiments on prisoners.'
"Dr. Schaefer then immediately called up Dr. Becker-Freyseng. I was in the same room and I remember this conversation very well because I repeatedly had to ask Dr. Schaefer to keep his temper and not to shout so much. Among other things he said that he simply could not understand why new experiments should be made, and if they have to be made, they should at least not be performed on prisoners.
"After ending this conversation Dr. Schaefer told me that some other experts were to be called in and that he hoped that they would decide to quash the whole matter. As a minor official in the Luftwaffe he was sorry he could do no more than he had already done to prevent this nonsense. Dr. Schaefer stated in various conversations that he was opposed to any experiments on prisoners on principle as in such cases one could never be sure whether the experiments were really made on volunteers and not by exercising pressure in view of the more or less disagreeable condition under which they were living. Besides, his political principles made him averse to everything in any way connected with concentration camps.
"Upon my Question whether these experiments with the Berka preparation caused severe pains, Dr. Schaefer told me that they were not agreeable but in no way dangerous and would not cause any lasting damages, provided they were made under sensible medical supervision. He added, however, that in spite of everything he was opposed to such experiments because he rejected everything connected with the concentration camps."
I should like to read the following lines at a later time. As can be seen from this affidavit, another effort was made to examine the necessity of these experiments, namely, by receiving testimony from medical specialists.
Now I put in Documents 32 and 33 in order to show what the medical specialists did in this matter. First I should like to read Document No. 33 which will become Exhibit 35; it is on page 116. Document No. 32 will become Exhibit 36; it is on page 113. Professor Dr. Hans Netter from Kiel says the following:
"Towards the end of May 1944, at the request of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and without having been informed of the details of the questions which would be dealt with, I was asked to take part in a conference concerned with making sea water potable.
"As far as I can remember, the following persons were present, apart from myself: Professor Heubner, Professor Eppinger, Professor Schwiegk, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, Dr. Schaefer, another representative of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, the engineer Berka and one or two other representatives of the technical office.
"At the beginning of the conference the possibility was discussed of supplying with water persons in distress at sea, and the discussion turned only gradually to the two methods which obviously had already been considered before by the Luftwaffe. We, the as yet insufficiently orientated participants, learned about them by the slogans Berkatit and Wofatit.
"At first the Berkatit method invented by the engineer Berka was generally declined by the Luftwaffe physicians including Dr. BeckerFreyseng and Dr. Schaefer.
I was under the impression that only Professor Eppinger's great authority made it a topic of discussion. Without being able to give factual proof of this, there seemed to be a mutual understanding between Berka and Eppinger. Obviously Eppinger had full confidence in the experiments already carried out by Berka and seemed to be convinced of the value of his method. With regard to this situation, Dr. Becker-Freyseng remarked that the Luftwaffe could have the methods for the rescue of airmen in distress at sea evaluated by preliminary tests on human beings. Nothing was said about the fact that these experiments were to be carried out on prisoners. I thought of volunteers, a very obvious idea, as during the period of my work at an examination point for airmen, which lasted for some years, we dealt nearly exclusively with members of the Luftwaffe who had volunteered.
"In a frequently contradictory and long lasting discussion the participants agreed on a program of experiments, the details of which I can no longer recall. It is out of the question that this conference was based on any previously fixed program. I can no longer recall whether a series of experiments for the evaluation of Wofatit was really agreed on at that time."
And Document 32, Exhibit 36, page 113, reads as follows: --
Q. This, Dr. Schaefer, is the conference of the 25th of May?
A. Yes.
DR. PELCKMANN: "At a conference in the spring of 1944, which was held at the Military Medical Academy, the following took place, as far as I can recall:
"Among the participants were the following men known to me, as far as I remember:
Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng Stabsarzt Dr. Schwiegk Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer Engineer Berka Prof.
Dr. Eppinger, Vienna Prof.
Dr. Netter, Kiel and myself; also two or three officers whose names I cannot recall.
Marineoberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Orzechowski from Kiel was invited but did not attend.
"A discussion took place on the use of a preparation for producing potable water from salt water, proposed by engineer Berka. Few details were given about the nature of this process. It was obvious to me, however, that some very high authorities of the military administration very seriously considered the introduction of this preparation while the medical experts who were acquainted with this preparation, particularly Messrs. Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Schwiegk, had serious doubts about its efficacy for it was claimed that this preparation would make salt water potable without eliminating its salt contents. I myself had the same doubts as to the efficacy of this process and Prof. Dr. Netter, who sat next to me, was of the same opinion. The meeting was interrupted by an air raid alarm and was continued standing in a dark basement, while the bombs could be heard exploding and it was impossible to take notes.
"As far as I remember, the outcome of the discussion was that despite all doubts the process as suggested by Mr. Berka was not to be rejected without an investigation for even the slightest success would seem sufficiently important from a military point of view and any such slight benefit should not be rejected. The eminent clinical physician Eppinger in particular upheld the view that the matter was at least worth investigating.
"In the ensuing discussion the general application of the tests was discussed and three groups of experimental persons were suggested; one, those suffering from ordinary thirst; two, those who were given ordinary salt water, and three, those who were to drink salt water which had been treated according to Berka's formula. The discussion then turned to the precautions to be taken to prevent water being obtained during the experiments. Earlier clinical experiments in connection with the water and salt content of the body had shown how necessary those precautions are. There was, of course, complete agreement on the necessity that the experimental persons should be under constant medical supervision to avoid any possible risk to the health and Herr Eppinger therefore suggested that his assistant, Dr. Beiglboeck, who had much experience in the field of metabolism, should be placed in charge of these experiments.