THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please, The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished with the cross examination of the witness BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Sebring):
Q Dr. Lutz, the Tribunal-understood you to say on direct examination, in substance, that you attended a conference in Nurnberg on October 26 and 27, 1942, at which the general subject, "the effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects", was discussed, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How long were you in attendance at that conference?
A. As far as I remember, from the beginning until the end.
Q. Do you recollect at this time the names of any members of the medical profession who attended that conference?
A. No. There is a list in existence, I think.
Q. Do you intend to say that you attended that conference for two days and do not recollect any of the members of the medical profession who were there?
A. Certainly I should be able to remember, but apart from those that actually spoke, it is very hard for me to name anyone.
Q. Can you say whether or not any persons who are now seated in the defen ants' dock were present at that conference?
A. Yes, Weltz was there; otherwise, I cannot see anyone else.
Q. Do you know all of the names of the defendants who now sit in the defe ants' dock?
A. No.
Q. Let me read them to you. Karl Brandt, did he attend that conference?
A. No, I don't know him. .
Q. Siegfried Handloser?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Paul Rostack?
A. I don't know.
Q. Oskar Schoeder.
A. I only know him by his name.
Q. And can you recollect whether or not he attended that meeting?
A. No, I don't think he did. It is not known to me.
Q. Well, Karl Genzken?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Karl Gebhard?
A. I don't know him either.
Q. Kurt Glome?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Rudolf Brandt?
A. He is unknown to me.
Q. Joachim Mrugowski?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Helmut Poppendick?
A. I don't know him either.
Q. Wolfram Sievers?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Welfram Sievers?
A. No.
Q. Rose?
A. I know him by his name.
Q. Do you recollect whether or not he attended that meeting?
A. No.
Q. Siegfried Ruff, did he attend?
A. I know him, but I cannot say whether he attended that conference.
Q. Did Romberg attend?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. Brack?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Hermann Becker-Freyseng?
A. I know him, but I don't know whether he was present or not.
Q. You say Dr. Weltz did attend?
A. Yes, certainly, he was there with me.
Q. Konrad Schaefer?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Waldemar Hoven?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Wilhelm Beiglbock?
A. I know Beiglbock, but I don't think he was there.
Q. Adolf Pokorny?
A. I don't know him.
Q.Herta Oberhauser?
A. She is unknown to me.
Q. Fritz Fischer?
A. I don't know him.
Q. Then most of the defendants who now sit in the dock were unknown to you at that time, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal, please -- pardon me.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I would ask the witness, he referred to the thought that any of these experiments were to be performed upon men classed as criminals. I would ask what he meant by "criminals".
A. Under the word "criminal", I understood that a man who was condemned by an ordinary court in the Third Reich, that is, a criminal who was condemned by a court before the Third Reich. What I mean is, it isn't absolutely necessary for a court to have set before the Third Reich came into power, but it is a man who was condemned to death by an ordinary court; a man who actually committed something which, according to general opinion, can be considered a crime.
Q Do you mean another military court, or a German civil court ?
A I was speaking of a civil court.
DY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Would you include within the term "court" the People's Court ?
A I know very little about the People's Court.
Q What was that ?
A I know very little about the People's Court.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I have a number of questions I would like to put to this witness. However, before I do so, I would like the record to show that the witness properly identified the defendant Romberg when he was called upon to point out his position in the defendant's dock,
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat that statement, please ?
MR. McHAHEY: The counsel for the defendant Romberg asked this witness to identify him in the defendant's deck. I want the record to show that he did properly identify Romberg, Of course, that does not now appear in the record. He just said "He is the fourth man from the left", and that doesn't show any proper identification. He is, in fact, the fourth man from the left, and I would like the record to so show.
JUDGE SEBRING; Mr. Secretary-General, let the record show that the defendant Romberg is sitting in the prisoner's dock at the place designated by the witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Witness, the Tribunal has asked you what you meant by using the word "criminal". Do I understand your answer to mean that you do not include as criminals those inmates in a concentration camp who were put there purely for political reasons ?
A Yes, you understood me correctly.
Q Now, witness, you were asked a number of questions by counsel for the defendants about the political beliefs of various of the defendants such as Ruff, Romberg, and Becker-Preyseng. Do you remember that ?
A Yes.
Q As I recall, they asked you whether they were anti-Nazis; is that correct ?
A Yes
Q Your answer was that they were not ardent Nazis.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You would not go so gar as to say that they were conspirators in the 20th of July plot against Hitler, would you ?
A Not in that sense, but it would be possible that these very same people could have taken part in the plot on the 20th of July.
Q You consider that a possibility. Now, the name of Kottenhof was mentioned in connection with the attaching of Dr. Rascher to Weltz's Institute in Munich. Do you remember Dr. Kottenhof ?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember when Dr. Kottenhof left Munich ?
A I cannot say that exactly, but it was approximately at the time with which we are concerned.
Q Dr. Kottenhof went to Roumania, did ho not, before these experiments were carried out--the high altitude experiments ?
A Yes; yes, he was transferred.
Q And the defendant Weltz was then the commanding officer over Rascher in his Institute, was he not ?
A That I don't know; I don't know anything about the relations between Weltz and Rascher.
Q Well, at least Kottenhof was no longer in the picture, was he ?
A No, Kottenhof was not there at all.
Q And if Rascher was a subordinate of Weltz's, Weltz could have had him transferred out of his Institute, could he not ?
A I am not quite clear about your question.
Q You have stated that you do not know the relationship between Rascher and Weltz.
A Yes.
Q I ask you to assume that Rascher was attached to Weltz's Institute. If Rascher was attached to Weltz's Institute, then Holtz could have had him transferred to some other place, could he not ?
A If Rascher was subordinate to Weltz then of course, certainly, Weltz had the possibility of having Rascher transferred if the superior office -which was superior to Weltz--was in agreement with him.
Q Now, do you remember when the low-pressure chamber was brought from Berlin to Weltz's Institute in Munich in the early part of 1942?
A No, I don't remember about any such pressure chamber being brought there.
Q All right, then isn't it also true that you cannot tell this Tribunal that Weltz did not himself make trips to Dachau while these experiments were in progress?
A I said that I could not recollect whether Weltz was in Dachau personally or not. However, if he was active extensively there, I must have gained knowledge about it.
Q I didn't put the question to you whether or not he had been there extensively. Rascher was not regarded as on expert in high altitude research, was he?
A No.
Q Therefore, if these high altitude experiments were to be carried out in Dachau, it was necessary that some experts work with Rascher, was it not?
A Yes; it was desirable, at least.
Q And that was the reason that Weltz asked you and Wendt to collaborate with Rascher, was it not?
A Certainly, I would have taken over the part of the experts.
Q Now you stated, as I recall, on cross-examination, that it seemed to you perhaps that Weltz expected you to turn this job down. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And isn't the reason you say that because you knew that Weltz considered you to be too soft for this job?
A No; that would morn that Weltz desired a specially brutal procedure to be adopted there, and I don't think that was the case.
Q I am sorry, will you repeat that? I didn't get the answer.
A I did not quite get your question in translation. Would you repeat your question?
Q I was dealing with the incident when you were asked by Weltz to collaborate with Rascher in Dachau, He did ask you and Wendt to collaborate with Rascher in Dachau, did he not?
A Yes
Q And you refused, did you not?
A Yes.
Q And Wendt refused, didn't he?
A Wendt? Yes.
Q And haven't you already told this Tribunal that the reason you refused was because you were not ruthless enough?
A Yes, because I believed that was not robust enough to carry out experiments on human beings.
Q I would like the interpreter to translate the word "robust". I would like to ask the witness: What do you mean by the word "robust"?
A What I mean is this. It is even difficult to experiment upon a dog which looks at you and which seems to have some kind of a soul: it is even difficult to do that with a dog.
Q That is what I understood you to mean. And Weltz know that was your attitude, didn't he?
A He knew that Wendt and I rejected this procedure.
Q And after you rejected it he went to Ruff and Romberg, didn't he?
A I must assure that, I don't know it.
Q And, as I recall, you told one of the counsel for defense that you, as a member of Weltz's Institute were told about all of the experiments that were carried out under the auspices of Weltz's Institute.
A Yes.
Q And you did not participate in the conference between Weltz and Ruff and Romberg in the latter part of 1941, did you?
A No, I did not take part in it.
Q Now, several of the defense counsel have asked you questions about pilot examinations carried out in low-pressure experiments. Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you in any sense of the word compare a pilot's examination and a low-pressure experiment in a low-pressure chamber with the experiments carried out in Dachau?
A. Human experiments, as I have to assume were carried out in Dachau, were also carried out by scientists on their own persons.
Q. I am not suggesting to you that certain scientists in Germany, including Ruff and Romberg themselves, did not from time to time get into a low-pressure chamber themselves. I am asking you whether a pilot's examination as carried out in the German Air Force in a low-pressure chamber could in any sense of the word be compared with the altitude experiments carried out at Dachau.
A. No doubt there were certain differences.
Q. And those differences wore that they took the men in Dachau to a much higher altitude, isn't it?
A. About the results of the experiments in Dachau I know nothing.
Q. I will ask you if a pilot's examination in a lowpressure chamber is over carried as high as twenty-one thousand meters.
A. No, not a pilot's examination. I don't think so.
Q. Now, witness, let's go back a minute to the conference held in Nurnberg in October, 1942. I ask you again was it not clear after tho statements, after the paper had boon read by Holzloehner, that deaths had occurred during the course of his experiments.
A. Excuse me. Do yon mean whether it became clear at the conference that during the course of these experiments the death of the experimental subject had occurred?
Q. Yes.
A. In the report of Holzloehner it stated thay heart failure, that is, death, was observed in many cases, but before Rascher spoke, it could be assumed that it was in tho subsequent death of persons which were rescued from tho sea.
Q. But after Rascher spoke, it was clear to you and to the rest cf tho persons at the meeging that the experiments had not, in fact, been conducted on people rescued from the sea but upon persons furnished by tho Reichsfuehrer SS, isn't that true, witness?
A. Yes, it clear to me.
Q. And wasn't there some consternation at this meeting on tho part of some of tho scientists present after Holzloehner and Rascher had spoken?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Holzloehner at any time after the occasion of this mooting in Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. What impression did you go t cf Holzloehner on tho occasion of that meeting, that is to say, the meeting after the one in Nurnberg?
A That was not a conference. I met Holzloehner in Munich. He approached mo and said, '' I can well imagine what you think of no now, but I can assure you I was ordered to carry out this order for the only reason in order to avoid unnecessary victims.
Q. He was ordered by the Luftwaffe to carry out those experiments, was he not?
A. Yes, it must be so. I am not sure about that.
Q. Didn't you got the very distinct impression that Holzloehner was very much disturbed about what ho had done in Dachau?
A. No. I had the impression that he believed to have acted correctly but that he feared to be misunderstood.
Q. You mean to say that he feared that his reputation was damaged because he had help to carry out tho experiments in Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that Holzloehner subsequently committed suicide?
A. I heard it here.
Q. Now you have told this Tribunal that you thought it was generally understood by tho scientists who know about the low-pressure experiments that they wore going to be conducted on criminals, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not the experiments were, in fact, performed upon criminals, as you define the word "criminals"?
A. The way it was obviously done I only found cut after the end of the war.
Q. Then you cannot say that, in fact, the experiments were carried out on criminals, is that right?
A. No. I, naturally, cannot confirm that because I had no possibility to check it.
Q. And you also cannot say that tho experiments were carried cut on volunteers, can you?
A. I cannot say that.
Q. Now, witness, is it or is it not the duty of a true and moral scientist to determine for himself what tho conditions of tho experiments are which ho carries out and whether or not the persons upon whom he is experimenting are volunteers?
A. Under normal circumstances it had to be expected, certainly, but I, naturally, an not acquainted with the milieu which was in tho concentration camp of Dachau at tho time.
However, I know from my own experience that a camp has a system of its own, and it can affect you, and the barbed wire with which you are surrounded has a tendency to change human beings and has a tendency to change your character, and I think when entering a camp, you are captivated by certain conditions and a certain number of your principles are changed that way.
DR. MARX: I ask the Tribunal not to admit the testimony because, first of all, tho witness is still too young, and ho himself is not enough of a scientist in order to be able to answer this question. In the second place, this question may be a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal permitted the Defendant's counsel a very liberal cross-examination. The Prosecution will be allowed some liberality in its redirect-examination. The Prosecution will be allowed some liberality in its redirectexamination. The objection is overruled.
MR. McHANEY: I think that's all I wish to ask tho witness, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination by defense counsel?
DR. HANS MARK (counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng): May it please the Tribunal, there is one more question which I would like to address to the witness.
BY DR. HAND MARK:
Q Witness, it is q question of your knowledge of the political attitude of Dr. Becker. At one time you were together in Hamburg with Dr. Decker, and that was a short time before your promotion to Stabsarzt (Captain) in the medical service. At that time, had you gained the impression of a political attitude of Dr. Becker?
A Can you give me any more details? I cannot remember at the moment.
Q. Well, Dr. Becker claims that on the evening in question, you had stayed overnight in one hotel room.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And on that occasion, you had told him that your wife was half jewish, is that correct?
Q Can it not be concluded from this that Becker had your full confidence?
A Certainly. I had no reason to distrust him.
Q Well, something of this kind can only be entrusted to a man who is politically discreet, and you must have been sure of his political discretion.
A Yes.
Q What was your opinion about the philosophical attitude of Dr. Becker?
A We had no ardent National-Socialists in our circle, and Becker in no way emphasized this way of thinking.
Q Yes. Under this circle, do you understand the Luftwaffe as so whole, or only the medical offices?
A Especially the medical offices.
Q Yes.
DR. HANS MARK: Thank you very much. I have no further question.
DR. BERNARD VORWERK:
Q During the experiments at Dachau, did you talk with Dr. Romberg?
A Yes, we talked occasionally.
Q Did Romberg tell you anything about the experimental subjects?
A Romberg did not like to discuss that subject, and the same applied to me. I remember, or I had the impression that Romberg, even after the experiments had already been carried through, was of the opinion that the experimental subjects were according to the prerequisites which had been discussed in our circle.
Q You said that you had the impression. Don't you know if that was actually so?
A Yes, certainly, that was the case. I know that Romberg was convinced of it.
Q What I wanted to know is: if Romberg stated to you that these experimental subjects were in accordance with the prerequisites which we have just discussed or if they wore not in accordance with the prerequisites?
A Could you please repeat your question?
Q I want to know if Romberg stated to you that these experimental subjects which were used for these experiments were in accordance with the prerequisites which you have just discussed or if they were not in accordance with the prerequisites which you have just discussed?
AAt that time, as far as I remember, we did not discuss this matter in such detail; but I did have the impression, the very certain impression that Romberg was of the opinion that some of his experimental subjects at least were actually pardoned.
Q You had this impression. Are you convinced of that? Are you convinced also that Romberg--I mean now during the experiments-- also shared this impression?
A Yes?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of the witness? If not, the witness will be excused.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal, please, we had concluded yesterday's session with the introduction of Document 1609-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 92, which is on Page 77 of the English Document Book; and the court will recall that was a letter dated 24 October 1942 from Heinrich Himmler to Rascher, acknowledging receipt of several letters and stating that he had read his report regarding cooling experiments on humans and that Sievers should arrange for the evalutati of the results of these experiments at institutes which arc connected with the SS; and he had further stated that he had regarded those people as traitors who still today reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy German soldiers die as a result of these cooling methods.
We now go on to Document 401 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 93; and this, if the Tribunal, please, is tho report on the meeting in Nurnberg on the 26 and 27 of October 1942, on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardship. This is the report on the meeting which your honors have heard discussed at some length this morning. On the bottom of the first page you will see that tho meeting was sponsored by the Inspector of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, and that the chairman of the conference was Stabsarzt Professor Dr. A.J. Anthony; and the Tribunal will recall that Dr. Anthony was chief of the department for Aviation Medicine in the medical service of the Luftwaffe, and that the defendant Becker-Freyseng was his assistant in that department from the latter part of 1942 until early in 1944, when the defendant BeckerFreyseng became chief of the department for Aviation Medicine. On the next page, that is to say, page 80 of the English Document Book, you will see an index of the contents of the report, and it gives tho names of the doctors who lectured at this conference together with the subject which they discussed. You will see that Dr. Anthony gave the opening speech end the chart shows that he was chairman of this meeting. It was a report meeting on Aviation Medical problems. I call the Tribunals attention to the name of Jarisch under item IV in the Table of Contents; and the Tribunal will recall that he along with Weltz and Rascher, as mentioned in the memorandum written by Nini Rascher-that is a mistake, your honor,-- the name Jarisch was mentioned in a letter which, as I recall, is gone in already, in which Hippke had recommended to Rascher the names of Jarisch and Singer and one other gentleman whose name I forget at this moment, who wore to collaborate with him in the freezing experiments. That is Document number NO-283 that went in as Prosecution Exhibit 82. This was a letter from Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer in which he reported a talk he had had with Hippke and Hippke had asked that the following be engaged in these experiment. Professor Dr. Jarisch was one of them, along with Holzloehner and Singer. Immediately under the name of Jarisch in these Table of Contents is that of the name of the defendant Weltz, who read a paper on rewarming after life endangering frozen. Holzloehner gave his talk on the prevention and treatment of freezing in water, which, of course, was a report on the experiments carried out freezing in Dachau.
We come down to Item 6 and we see the name Schaeffer mentioned as reporting on thirst and the results to combat in case of sea distress.
I cannot find the man Schaeffer identified more particularly in this report, but I suggest to the Tribunal that the Schaeffer now sitting in the Box was certainly concerned with thirst problems and problems of sea distress. The Tribunal will hear proof at a later stage in this trial that it was the defendant Schaeffer who participated in a conference in 1944, where it was agreed that experiments to test the photobility of sea water by this method and by a method of ether means would be carried out on living human beings in Dachau; and here two years earlier we find a man with the same name reporting on the same subject in another conference which presented a report on experiments carried out on living human beings.
As the Witness Lutz testified there was no question among the participating members as to where the experiments had been carried out and as to what had happened to some of the unfortunate victims.
I want to also call the Court's attention to Item 7, to the name of Hildemann, who gave a talk on practice cold problems in the Army. I should think that the defendant Handloser might have been interested in the same subject, since at this time he was the army medical inspectorate, as well as Chief cf the Medical Service of the armed forces.
I also point cut to the Tribunal the name Brauch, No. 6, under Item VII, who gave a talk on Winter experiences of the air fleet. He was attached to the air force as Professor and Oberstabsarzt of Luftflettenarzt 1. It was true he was one of the subordinates of the defendant Schaeffer, who at that time was connected with Air Fleet No. 2, tut we shall sec that we had a very very broad representation of Luftwaffe doctors at this meeting, and it would be strange indeed that none of the happenings and the reports made at this meeting did not reach the second highest ranking medical officer in the Luftwaffe.
I now ask the Tribunal to turn to the list of participants in the conference. This gives us a list of 95 doctors who attended this meeting. The Tribunal evidenced some interest in whether or not any of the defendants in this dock were there besides Weltz, and you can see from this list that a small group of them were present, namely the defendant Becker-Freyseng, being listed as No. 7. The witness who has just testified, Lutz, is shown as the No. 50. The defendant Rose, the great expert on tropical medicine dropped into this freezing conference, being No. 67 on this list. The defendant Ruff, No. 69. The defendant Sievers, No. 71, and the defendant Weltz No. 88.
Now, this list is very interesting for other reasons. The Tribunal will recall that the chart docs not have the defendant Handloser listed as one of the defendants subordinated to him as the Army Medical Inspectorate of the Mountain Medical School of the Army at St. Joachim, and I call the Tribunal's attention to the name Balke, Item No. 3 on this list, who was representative from this mountain Medical School under the jurisdiction of the defendant Handloser.
I also call the Tribunal's attention to the name Cremer, Item No. 16, being attached to the same institution under the defendant Handloser, and the Tribunal will hear later on the name of Cremer mentioned in a letter from Rascher to Himmler, as wishing to collaborate with him on freezing problems.
Item No. 33, a man by the name of Hildemann, also out at the Mountain Medical School of the Army at St. Joachim. As to Schroeder we see Huebner's name mentioned, Item No, 38, and the Tribunal will hear the name of Huebner mentioned in connection with sea water experiments in 1944, a consulting physician to the defendant Schroeder.
Item No. 41, Oberarzt Koenig, Laboratory Platoon of O.K.W. with Handloser, the Chief of the Medical Services of the and again very interesting with respect to Handloser the name Linck, No. 45, L-i-n-c.-k, who was attached to the Academy of Military Medicine under the defendant Handloser.
We find the name of Meister, No. 52, another air fleet physician, Air Fleet No. 4. So that these matters were not kept from the air fleet physicians.
The Waffen-SS is represented, Item No. 55, We find the name Murthum, Obersturmbannfuehrer, of the Hygiene Institute of the Wanffen-SS, under the defendant Mrugowsky and Genzken.
No. 59, Petersen, Hauptsturmfuehrer, of the SS Medical Office, Berlin.
Another representative on the Academy of Military Medicine for Handloser was Ranke, Oberfeldarzt, Professor and Doctor, No. 63. Rascher, No.64, and No. 66, Romberg. I am not sure I mentioned Romberg earlier. The defendant Romberg was there.
And of great interest is No. 76, Schreiber, Oberstarzt, Lecturer and doctor of medical habilitation, Physiological Institute Goettingen. Dr. Schreiber is prominently shown on the chart drawn for us by Handloser, as the commanding officer of the Military Academy in Berlin, and his name appears here on the chart.
We find another air fleet physician, Air Fleet No.3, Dr. Stelle, Stabsarzt, Luftflottenarzt.
I think the Tribunal will find a direct study of the participant at this conference most interesting.
I come now to the next page, which gives us the extract from this report, which is a summary of the talk given by Handloser, and before coming to that I would like to read the introduction which says, "The report of the meeting of 7/43," which is not a reference to a date. This meeting was 26-27, October, 1942. It says" the report of the meeting represents the summary of the results of the scientific investigations of medical measures in the case of distress at sea, and the winter hardships. The material in question is not a service regulation. The resulting practical deductions will be worked over and ordered by the competent offices Now, I think that is of some interest to Your Honor, because it gives us some indication of how these aviation medical matters were handled in the German air forces.
These problems are of tremendous importance. The medical Service of the German air force from time to time issued service regulations which governed the manner in which aviators wore to be treated under certain circumstances, and it covers the whole field of medical treatment. Here they were concerned about the problem of freezing. What is an air fleet or flight surgeon or sea rescue service to do when they fish a nun out of the North Sea?
Are they to warm then in blankets or warn them in a cradle, or give them whiskey or put then in a hot bed or treat then with diathermy of the heart. These are of great interest. They do not issue those regulations which control the matters without complete and proper authority. That is precisely what he says here.
I would think it would be rather difficult for any defendant in this dock to get up and say "I knew nothing about these natters, because they were interested in medical aviation problems. They had discussion about it. Service regulations controlling these things were not issued without the knowledge and approval of. such non as Chief of the Medical Aviation Department under Freyseng, wit out knowledge of such people as Schaeffer? the second highest ranking medical officer in the Luftwaffe? an air fleet surgeon.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now take the noon recess until 1:30.
AFTERNOON SESSION (THE HEARING RECONVENED AT 1330 hours, 12 DECEMBER 1946)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will now be in order.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution before the noon recess had just introduced Document N0-401 as Prosecution Exhibit 93, which is the report on the Nurmber meeting in October, 1942, on freezing problems.
I read from Page 85 of the English document book on the lower part of the page, which is the opening address given by Anthony:
"During the 1st years soldiers of all services, especially a considerable number of fliers, could be rescued from sea distress by tho Sea Distress Service (Seenotdienst) of the Luftwaffe. A year ago, by order of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Inspektour des Sanitaetswesens der Luftwaffe), Generaloberstabsarzt Hippe had a discussion with a small circle about medical experiences at the Sea Distress Service. The results of this conference are summed up in a report. The conclusion was, among others, that exact examinations of the phenomena at general freezings are necessary to enable us to diagnose and treat these cases properly.
"During the winter campaign in the east, the freezing problem reappeared in another form.
"In tho meantime, systematic examinations concerning these problems have been made at various places. The first day of our meeting shall show us the results of these examinations and thus give us an idea, of the state of our knowledge of freezing in general.
"On the second day there will be reports on further medical experiences of the Sea Distress Service and of experiences during the Eastern campaign. After that specific scientific problems will be discussed which are of importance for rescues from distress at sea and for general and local protection against cold.
"On the following day the participants will also have tho opportunity to attend proceedings of the Dermatological Society (Dermatologische Gesellschaft) in Wuerzburg, dealing with local freezing injuries.