A. No, I knew nothing about such a connection and, of course, I did not know this letter.
Q. Witness, do you have the letter before you?
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. If you look at the letterhead and the signature, can you tell us what office this letter comes from?
A. Yes, it comes from the Technical Office and the abbreviation "GL/ce 54" indicates it comes from the office responsible for the development of equipment for airplanes. That was the department of Oberstingenieur Christensen. On the copy I have here I cannot decipher the signature because there is no signature given, but some time ago I saw the photostat of this letter and I know the signature on it. It is that of Hermann, who was a Generalingenieur and Christensen's superior.
Q. Now I come to the contents of the letter itself. Witness, the Technical Office writes in the first paragraph, and I quote:
"With reference to the inter-office conference between Oberstingenieur Christensen and Hauptsturmfuehrer Ing. Dohle regarding the matter it is announced that two processes have been worked out by the office to render sea water potable."
Does this statement not contradict what you have just said?
A. Yes, but the statement in this letter is definitely untrue. Neither the procedure of Dr. Schaefer nor that of Engineer Berka was worked out by the office, meaning the Technical Office, as it says here. Schaefer's process was worked out for the Medical Inspectorate and Berka worked first at the Technical College in Vienna without any assignment, and only when Anthony informed the Technical Office would the Technical Office have been turned over to Berka.
Q. Witness, the Technical Office now speaks of Schaefer's process and I quote.
That is No. 1.
"The IG method uses mainly sulpha nitrate. For this process quite a large plant needs to be set up and it requires about 200 tons of iron which costs about 250,000 Reichsmarks; the amount of the production needed by the Luftwaffe and Navy requires 2.5 or 3 tons of pure silver a month; besides the water which is rendered potable by this preparation has to be sucked through a filter in order to avoid absorption and percipitation of chemicals. These facts make the application of this process practically impossible."
In your opinion is this statement true, witness?
A No, I can say the following. These 200 tons of iron might be a lot for a goldsmith or a housewife, but for the Luftwaffe, which had enormous losses of planes, 200 tons of iron were really not an insurmountable obstacle, not even in 1944. The 250 thousand Reichsmarks which setting up a plant for Schaefer's method would have cost are, of course, quite a lot of money for a private citizen, but if one considers that the training of one pilot until he is ready for the front, until he is ready to be used a.s a fighter pilot or a bomber pilot at the front, costs the state about 50 to 100 thousand marks -I may remark that this includes costs of accidents in training and many other expenses -- if one contrasts this sum and considers that the first two or three fliers who are saved will reimburse the Luftwaffe for these 250 thousand Reichsmarks, then one can believe that this sum of money is no valid argument against the introduction cf Schaefer's method. As for the 2.5 to 3 tons of pure silver which would allegedly be needed every month, this is a great exaggeration, as I think I can prove later. These 2.5 to 3 tens cf pure silver were the amount of silver needed for the so-called primary equipment. In the course of future months there would be needed only for replacements the amount used in cases of distress at sea or by loss of planes. The Technical Office acts as if every flier would be forced down a.t sea once a month or that every plane would crash and be completely destroyed once a month. And new for the last reason, that is, the difficulty because a filter is needed in Schaefer's process. Even a non-chemist will be willing tc believe that that is a very harmless matter, which can be easily settled and which is no reason against introducing such a method.
Q Witness, the letter goes on to say, I quote:
"2. The second process which was worked cut is the so-called Berka method. According to this method the salts present in the sea water arc not precipitated but are so treated that in drinking they arc not disagreeable to the taste. They pass through the body without over-saturating it with salts and without causing undue thirst."
In my opinion this is a medical judgment on the Berka method. Was the Technical Office in a position to make such a medical judgment?
A No, and for that reason this propaganda for Berkatit is that cf a layman and is rather dumb. You indicated in your question that it was a medical statement, which the Technical Office was not competent to make, since it was composed purely of engineers. I said before that, at the beginning cf May, 1944, the rejection of the Berka method, which had been very clearly formulated and explained, was sent to the Technical Office. Nevertheless, on the 15th of May the Technical Office wrote this letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q In the next sentence, the Technical Office speaks cf the practical side of the process, I quote:
"No special plants are necessary for producing preparations needed for this process nor do the preparations themselves consist of scarce materials."
Will you please comment on this statement cf the Technical Office, witness?
A The only thing true in this sentence is that no special plants were necessary for producing this preparation. That was really an advantage to this method. Berkatit could be produced in any sugar factory. As for the statement that the preparations were not scarce materials, I may point out that the preparations needed were glucose. It is significant of the obstinancy of this Technical Office that 200 tons of iron they consider an unsurmountable obstacle, but glucose they say is not a scarce material. I don't think I'll be giving away any secrets if I say that, in 1944; glucose, which is made of corn primarily here, was a very scarce material and that glucose was used only for feeding sick persons and was available only in very limited quantities. Today, when all the papers are writing about calories, I cart say that during our discussion with the Technical Office about the introduction cf Berkatit, the Technical Office went to the Supply Office of the Luftwaffe and demanded the first two tons of glucose.
Fortunately, we learned about it and were able to stop it. One ton of glucose contains four million calories. If one takes the amount of two thousand calories per person per day, which is ideal under present day conditions, this one ton of glucose which the Technical Office wanted would be enough to feed a four person family, from the point of view of calories alone, of course, for five hundred days, and yet the Technical Office says that is not a scarce material.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the witness has been testifying as to the various methods that were suggested. I do not see that it has probative value before the Tribunal, the fact that they selected one method instead of another, and that they were even false with both methods. One method was selected and that method was attempted to be carried cut. Certainly, the relative merits of the two methods are not particularly important. If the higher authorities rejected the better method, I do not see that that would be relevant.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, the testimony of the witness has probative value inasmuch as he wants to prove what difficulties were raised by the Technical. Office and what prejudices existed in the Technical. Office and how the matter developed, so that finally, from the point of view of the Medical Inspectorate, the experiments became necessary. For this reason I think that the testimony of the defendant is relevant, but in order to avoid delaying the trial unnecessarily, I shall ask only the most important questions and I ask you, witness, to be as brief as possible in answering my questions. You heard what the President just said.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you may proceed.
DR, MARX: The letter of the technical Office continues, I quote: "It can be presumed that this method, that is the Berka Method will be introduced in the Luftwaffe and the Navy within a short time."
Q I ask you, could the Technical Office on its own initiative make such a decision?
A Yes, the technical Office could do that. The Technical Office alone was competent to decide whether a piece of equipment was to be introduced or not. I may add that in the organization of equipment customary in the German Luftwaffe, such as an item for making sea water drinkable was n t food--the food Office would be competent to handle that. It was not medicine:The Chief of Medical Service would have had to decide about that. Rather it was a piece of equipment, and thus fell under the authority of the Technical Office. But I may point out briefly that this statement of the Technical Office on 15 May 1944 indicated clearly that at that time the Technical Office was firmly determined to introduce Berkatit, and this prejudice on the part of the technical Office is extremely important for what I have to say about the discussions of the 19 and 20 May which followed.
Q Witness, did the Technical Office demonstrate this prejudice which you speak of before the discussions of 19 and 20 May?
A In regard to Berkatit, in part, yes, because before the 20th of May, for example, Christensen called up Dr. Schaefer or called him in and told him that he prohibited any comment against Berkatit. And from work in the Referat for Aviation Medicine I was used to similar prejudices in scientific attitudes from the same office, and in other fields, for example in the field night sight, which is of no interest here. However, I refer to it only because there is an affidavit on the subject.
DR. MARX: At this point I should like to refer to an affidavit of Dr. Heinrich Rose, who is not identical with Professor Gerhard Rose. Dr. Heinrich Rose, was also a doctor. He was a dye doctor, and he was called upon as a consultant from time to time.
I quote from the affidavit of Dr. Heinrich Rose. This is document 39, on pages 162 to 163, Document bock 3. This will be Exhibit 26. I quote only one paragraph, that is the one under "1"). The affidavit of the 27 December 1946. I quote:
"The technical Department of the Reich Air Ministry proceeded independently also in questions of medical research. For instance, the Technical Department gave orders to test Xipoid retinale - a remedy which was supposed to improve night sight on the troops without previous consultation with other medical authorities."
I shall not read the rest of this document. Is shall come back to it later in my argument. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit 26.
Q Witness, I ask you, when you went to the discussions of 19 and 20 of May you did not know that the technical Office has already decided on Beckatit and had promised that it would be introduced soon?
A No, I did not know that.
Q The Prosecution has submitted a document which is no doubt themost important one in the whole prosecution document book in this connection; in any case the Prosecution showed this Document to Professor Schroeder in cross-examination and drew the conclusion that the sea-water experiments were criminal. I should therefore like to discuss this document with you in detail. It is in Document Book 3, page 12, in the German Book, page 11 of the English. This is Document No 177, Exhibit 132; do you have the photostat?
A Yes, I have it.
Q Witness, how did the two discussions of the 19 and 20 of May come about; did you suggest them? Did you make the preparations for them? Did the Chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe call them, or who?
A These discussions were called by the Technical Office, and at both discussions the person who called them presided at them, that was Oberstingeniour Christensen, the head cf this department GL/ce 5. My department chief, as I said, sent me and Dr. Konrad Schaefer to these two discussions, and I may add that he did this because according to the information which we received, I think it was a telephone call to my department chief, we expected a small discussion attended solely by Rferents, and not a discussion, on the scale on which it actually took place.
Q Witness, will you first comment generally on this report?
A I should merely like to refer very briefly to what I said. Above all I should like to go back to Instrument No. 184, Exhibit 132, according to which, on the 13 May 1944, the Technical Office was already determined to introduce Berkatit. We, that is the office of the chief of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, were asked to attend two discussions on the 19 and 20, and went to these discussions convinced that it would be a purely technical discussion of this point question. Now, please look at the letterhead and the heading of this document, which on the 15th of December 1946 was submitted by the Prosecution page 525 of the German record; what you have to say about that.
A The heading, and if I may mention it right now, the signature of this letter shows that it came from the Technical Office, that is the Office of Oberstingenieur Christensen, and was signed by him personally. Above the document it says "Minutes". If the Prosecution thinks that it is a record transcript I must say that I do not know the exact definition of these terms in International Law. I merely know now a record came about in the Aviation Ministry, since I belonged to this office for almost five years.
At a meeting a person was appointed who either took down the entire wording of the meeting in shorthand or took down the main points of the meeting. At the end of the meeting this document was shown to those present. They had an opportunity to read it, to approve it and to sign it. Then it was signed by the recorder and in this way such a document obtained the character of what we call a "Protokoll", or if no recorder was appointed then at the end of the meeting a brief decision was drawn up in a few pregnant sentences which were dictated to a secretary and it was also signed by all participants at the meeting. There was a third possibility in very long discussions; the office which called the meeting, the representative of which was in charge of the meeting, drew up a report of the meeting, a report of the discussion rather, the draft of which was sent to the various agencies or persons who had participated with the request for signature, then one had an opportunity to read it through calmly. The persons justified to do so signed it. It was sent back to the office where it had come from, and then above such document it said, "In agreement with such and such agencies the following report is issued." according to ay rather thorough knowledge of the procedure of the Reich Aviation Ministry those were the three possibilities of how a binding record was drawn up.
A. (Cont.) This Document indicates that there was no person appointed or named here who kept the record and that the participants did not sign this document. It is not a shorthand record and it does not say tha.t it was issued in agreement with the agencies concerned and finally about the entire document, there is the wood "Niederschrift" and not "Protokoll", which means that the person who drew it up did not think it was a binding record. Therefore, I want to say that the person who drew up this Document, presumably the Referent of Christensen, and Christensen himself, who signed it, apparently are just putting down their impression of the meeting and what they thought should be passed on to other offices.
Q. Now the Document lists the people who were present. I do not want to read this part of the document, but I want to ask you from what point of view had these people been chosen?
A. I need not read all the names, but it is noteworthy that there were nine people there and that with one exception, all people except Dr. Schaefer rand myself were Majors or Colonels and as I shall explain later that they were all people who did not understand medical problems and were therefore all the more in favor of the introduction of Berkatit.
Q. Now, did you wonder why so many officers were called to this discussion?
A. Yes, especially on the 20th I noticed what was going on very quickly. It was a typically staged scene, at which every one except Dr. Schaefer and myself knew his role very well by heart. They were to out-vote us to see that Berkatit should by introduced.
Q. Before I go on with the document, witness, I should like to ask: was the discussion on a scientific basis or were there any debates or quarrels?
A. I must say that at this discussion I heard one of the participants, the chief of the Travemuende Government Testing Station, a Major Jeworek, attack me personally. He said I was against Berkatit only because I was financially interested in the other method.
I stood up and wanted to leave. Unfortunately, I did not and I lot Christensen and Jeworek's apologies induce me to stay.
Q. Now, witness, I shall go on with the document. I do not intend to read the next paragraph entirely. The first paragraph reproduces part of the discussion because Serany's experiments were not considered adequate, according to you. Then the document continues:
"The Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health and-- according to the opinion of Dr. Schaeffer -will finally result in death after not later than twelve days. External symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations and finally death."
Will you please comment on this passage; first a preliminary question. On 16 December 1946, page 526 in the German record, page 480 of the English transcript, the Prosecution said that the defendants Schaefer and Schroeder expressed the opinion that the experiments would cause injuries to the health of the experimental subjects. Before this meeting, did Professor Schroeder know about the plan for these experiments?
A. No, he was informed only after the discussion. I heard this statement of the Prosecution too. I think the names were confused: it should have been "Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer," or it may be that since it says Chief of the Medical Service, etc., that might have confused him. The Prosecution thought that it was the chief of the medical service, Dr. Schroeder, personally. In German military termology it was customary to speak of the office, to say Chief of the Medical Service and Chief of the Intelligence Service, etc., meaning the office not the person in charge himself.
Q. Witness, will you say whether you actually made the statement in this document and held the point of view reproduced here?
A. It is true that on May 19th I made a brief speech saying roughly what we had said three weeks before to the Technical Officer in writing.
I said more or less that Or. von Serany's experiments in Vienna did not seem valid to us because they contained a number of mistakes, but I would like to go into a statement contained in Schroeder's affidavit, that I said Serany's experiments were not strict enough. In my opinion, Serany's experiments were stricter and more dangerous than those which were later carried out under our responsibility. In Serany's experiments, every subject could drink as much as he wanted. This caused diarrhea, which made the thirst much Worse and this dearrhea was not included in Serany's records cf the experiments.
In my speech, I said when speaking on some definite experiments subject of Serany's that if this experimental subject, who drank seawater for four days, had gone on in the next few days to drink as much seawater, he would have last so much water because of diarrhea that after about six days there would have been serious consequences. I am unfortunately forced to make a very brief physiological remark on this subject in order to explain what will follow. The human body consists to a very great percentage of water. The body of a new born child is 90% water, this water gradually lessens in a normal adult to about 60 % water. This water is in part in the body tissues and is kept constant as a permanent supply. In addition to this supply of body water, we also have the so-called transport water, which we take in daily with our food and which we eliminate daily. This elimination is in part by respiration, in part through the skin, but the majority is through the kidneys. In our food, we ingest daily a quantity of salt which must be eliminated, also in metabolism a number of products are created which must be eliminated through the kidneys. For this reason the kidnies need a certain a mount of water. They need water because they are able to eliminate urine only up to a certain concentration of salt. If I now give the body either too much salt or too little water, then the normal transport will be insufficient for the kidneys and they will be forced to use the water supply of the body itself.
-M-12-4-pkp- Meehan (von Schon) No. 1 Now, if the water in the body tissues has been reduced to a certain limit, then we feel thirst.
At least, that is one reason for thirst. A loss of body water up to about 10% can be sustained without any danger. At 10% disruptive symptoms begin, the danger increases up to 20 %, and if the loss of water of the body reaches about 20 % then there is a certain danger of death.
I should like to point out one thing in connection with the experiments under discussion here. I have already said in Serany's experiments diarrhea occurred because Serany let his experiment subjects drink unlimited quantities of seawater of which the unpleasant taste had been covered by Berkatit.
It is generally known that in diarrhea large, quantities of liquid are lost. That was our preliminary argument against Berkatit.
It might seem that the Prosecution is right in saying that I called the Berkatit experiments very dangerous, but that is not the case I said that the use of Birkatit in practice in distress at sea was very dangerous for the following reasons. If one looks at the reports of cases of distress at sea, and there are some very good English descriptions, one observes generally that shipwrecked persons first try to go without drinking at all for one or two days. During this time, of course, they lose water and they become more and more thirsty. Finally they cannot sta nd the thirst and under these conditions they drink what they have in unlimited quantities, that is, seawater. In this condition, seawater can have very dangerous consequences. Cases have been described where after only a few hours a very serious condition was caused, and even sometimes with fatal consequences.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, at this time you will have to suspend the discussion until after recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 22 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. MARX: (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng) I shall now continue with the direct examination of the witness, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, with permission of the Tribunal.
BY DR. MARX:
Q Witness, a little while ago you were describing the physiological fundamental ideas which prompted you, and which constituted the basis for the experiments. May I ask you now to take up the threads once more and continue with the descriptions of this morning.
A Before the noon recess I shortly stated that the main danger in sea emergencies is that the ship-wrecked person in a completely dried out state after having suffered thirst for a number of days, is drinking sea water. And I further said that according to the agreement made by all experts in this field, the person in this dried out state suffers considerably and that his organism can therefore also be considerably damaged. The danger of Berkatit was seen by us in the following: The berkatit a sugar like drug which has the capacity to do away with the bitter and salty taste of sea water and to convert the sea water into a perfectly drinkable liquid. The person in sea emergencies with the aid of Berkatit will be able to prepare a certain amount of drinkable sea water. Since, however, Berkatit does not change the salt content of the sea water, the ship wrecked person after some time will, of course, become thirsty and again with the aid of his Berkatit will try to drink sea water. He again introduces a considerable amount of salt into his body which must again be eliminated from his body and, since, by and large, the water which is mingled with the salt is not sufficient, he will get more and more thirsty as time goes on and thereby will begin to drink increasingly larger amounts of sea water mixed with Berkatit.
As soon as he starts drinking more than 300 cubic centimeters at one time diarrhea will or must ensue. Not only will he lose water through the bladder but also as a result of diarrhea. This means that the thirst condition increases and at the same time the danger of being thirsty.
One could naturally say that one could prescribe exactly how much sea water can be drunk mixed with Berkatit. There is no need for a long discussion in stating that a shipwrecked person finding himself in an ocean full of sea water which he allegedly can make potable, by the use of Berkatit, can not be credited with a sufficient amount of self discipline in actually adhering to this dose as it was officially prescribed. At any rate, such an assumption can not be made the point of departure of any military directive. This is the big danger of Berkatit in the sea emergency practice. Entirely different, however, are the conditions for the Berkatit experiment. If I start to speak about the experiment which we carried out without much a do, the situation was as follows:
During this experiment the entire amount of sea water with or without berkatit had been determined beforehand. The amount of the individual dosage was pre-determined in such a manner that in no case could diarrhea result. That was very simple because only had to keep the individual dosage under 300 cubic centimeters. In addition, there was always a physician present during the experiment, who was in a position to observe and judge the condition of the experimental subject and could always interrupt at any moment this artificial sea distress condition by simply giving again normal water to each experimental subject. There is a very clear and absolutely logical difference for the expert between the application of Berkatit during the actual experience of sea distress where the shipwrecked person is swimming in his rubber boat somewhere in the middle of the ocean all alone and the experiment under permanent adequate medical control and exact predetermined conditions which take into consideration all of the dangers I just described. During the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944, in order to revert back to our original document, I had to instruct the technicians and engineers, who also were participants in this meeting, about the matter as I just described it. Very soon I noticed that I had described it in such a way as to really make it clear to the engineers what the danger of Berkatit actually meant. For very understandable propagandistic reasons I therefore painted the danger extremely black. I told these engineers that we medical men very well know the extremely serious consequences of thirst and the loss of water. We know it from a very dangerous sickness, namely, the cholera. In order to avoid any later misunderstanding I may now state that naturally there is considerable difference between the consequences of sea water and the thirst and the cholera. I gave this example, only to remind these people of cholera, since particularly during this illness continuous diarrhea results, and a great loss of water ensues as a result of these diarrhea attacks, which in turn provokes serious disturbances in the organisms which may lead to death. I quoted verbatim during this meeting, what we knew about the loss of water in the case of cholera as contained in the text book of internal medicine by Bergmann.
I at that time was in the possession of that book and I had read it through before. I am even now in a position to read to you the same passages.
Q Witness, you were just speaking of Bergmann's text book. I shall have it handed to you and I may ask you to read the passages to which you have just referred into the record.
A We are concerned with the text book for internal medicine by Assmann, Bachmann and Gustav Von Bergmann and a number of other professors, published by Julius Springer, Berlin Edition of 1942 -
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, it seems to me that this technical argument concerning the qualities of the Berka method is rather extensive and it seems to me that the defendant can get to the issues involved in this case without going through all of this technical argument and discussion. No doubt there is room for a considerable amount of this discussion here. However, he has covered quite a bit of ground now and the issue in the case is whether or not the experiments were performed, whether or not they were performed on non-volunteers and whether or not the experiments were criminal in their essence, and there are three factors in the experiments, one is the Schaeffer method which was followed out and the other was the Berka method, and the defendant has testified the Berka method was more dangerous, and I don't see what other matter is necessary now to get this matter before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the counsel for the defendant just what the purpose is of pursuing this particular phase of the interrogation any further. The Tribunal might well be convinced that the Schaeffer method for purifying sea water making it potable was the better method and that it was the method that was followed. This method was adopted and this defendant is charged with having carried it out to the prejudice of certain experimental subjects. Now just what is the purpose of reading from this book, counsel?
DR. MARX: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Tribunal we are here concerned with the following: The Prosecution charges the defendant that he in knowledge of the alleged danger of Berkatit has used this drug and permitted it to be used during the execution of the experiments. The witness says that there can be no question of any danger incurred as a result of Berkatit if the experiment is guided accordingly from a medical and scientific point of view. This book will prove that the statements by Dr. Freyseng are supported from a physiological point of view by medical authorities, including Professor Bergmann, and the other authors who participated in compiling that text book. I shall only read this passage into the record for the purpose of identification and for the purpose of later argumentation. This is merely a short passage which tends to confirm the testimony of the defendant. Furthermore, I shall endeavor to do everything possible to limit the testimony as much as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The text of a recognized authority may of course be used in argument, but if counsel desires the witness to read only a short passage from the book he may read that.
DR. MARX: Thank you, Your Honor.
WITNESS:
A We are only concerned with four sentences. I quote on page 28 of the book I just mentioned:
"Considerable loss of water through the intestines has to occur to a considerable extent during asiatic cholera but also during gastro enteritis can lead within a few hours to the most severe drying of the body tissues. Soon psychological disturbances occur, fatigue, a feeling of heat in the face, numbness and apathy. If the water in the tissues is decreased by ten per-cent considerable disturbances already occur. Decrease of the water content up to 20 or 22 percent has death has its result."
Q Is that all?
A Yes, I think that I either quoted this passage verbatim or indicated it to them in order to convince the engineers present about the danger of Berkatit. Layman who heard this matter for the first time considered it first to be an unpleasant symptom from the subjective point of view but it was my task to put the purely objective danger of this procedure to these people. I think that my description rather impressed these people. Everything contained in this document No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit 132 is an oral repetition of parts of this text book by Bergmann.
A. May I now refer you to another point in this document to which I shall have to take a position. In this connection, Dr. Schaefer is said to have stated that death would have to be expected after a period of twelve days. This period of twelve days, to a certain extent, was a necessary exaggeration. These twelve days referred to the expected loss of water, referring to a very definite experimental subject from the experimental series of Professor Sirany. At any rate, I succeeded with these rather pronounced arguments on the occasion of the preliminary conference of the 19th of May that Berkatit was not introduced as contrary to what the Technical Office had already decided, but that further experiments would be carried out concerning that question. It says in this letter, I quote:
"As a result of this pre-discussion, it was agreed upon that new experiments over short periods of time be started."
While according to Document NO 184, Exhibit 132, dated the 15th of May, 1944, the Technical Office was determined to introduce Berkatit, I had at least succeeded in dissuading this Technical Office from decision.
Q. Witness, how did it happen that in spite of your reasons given from the medical point of view, this office still insisted on using Berkatit and didn't drop it? From this report we see no reason for the attitude adopted by that office.
A. After I finished my lecture, one of the engineers present stated that Professor Eppinger of Vienna had examined the Berka procedure and had considered it to be reliable. Professor Eppinger is one of the leading German internists and with such support the Technical Office was naturally successful in opposing me. On the other hand, of course, I could not contradict the internationally renowned authority of Professor Eppinger.
Q. Witness, the witness continues on page 2 and I quote:
"In order to determine these experimental series a commission will have to meet, who, during the conference on the 20th of May, 1944, should be agreed upon in collaboration with the OKM."