Secondly, for this reasons we had done nothing to decide the question of the experimental subjects. Besides, my departmental chief expected that we could get the necessary subjects from the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe. Finally, Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder was on an official trip in France at that time and only he could decide this question. On the 25th no such decision had been reached yet.
Q. At the conference of the 25th of May was it said who was to carry on the experiments?
A. Yes, that was discussed, Professor Eppinger suggested the chief physician of his clinic, Professor Beiglboeck.
Q. Did you know Professor Beiglboeck personally at that time?
A. No, I did not know Professor Beiglboeck, but I knew his name from literature of course.
Q. On the 25th of May, was it not considered that the experiments might be carried out in the clinic of Professor Eppinger in Vienna.
A. Professor Eppinger suggested that, but when it was discovered that it would require 40 subjects for a period of four weeks he withdrew his suggestion again because that would not have been ****possible in his clinic.
Q. Did Professor Eppinger want to supervise the experiments himself?
A. Yes, he wanted, to and he was supposed to.
Q. Witness, did this discussion of the 25th of May go off without any disruption?
A. No, there was a little disturbance in the morning of the 25th of May. There was one of the feared American daylight raids on Berlin, which forced us to continue the discussion in the air-raid shelter, which is perhaps significant as this divided us into several groups and it is possible that not everyone heard every word that was spoken.
Q. Your Honors, to prove what has just been said regarding the meeting, the Defense Counsel of the defendant Schaefer will submit an affidavit by the Berlin Professor Dr. Jeubner and the Kiel Professor Dr. Nette.
We therefore need not go into this question any further.
Witness, what happened after the discussion of the 25th of May?
A. After the discussion on the 25th of May it had been decided that the experiments were to be carried out. My departmental chief told me to find out whether we could get the necessary subjects from the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe or from a Luftwaffe hospital. I did not succeed. At the end of May on the 29th or 30th, Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Schroeder came back from his trip and in the presence of my departmental chief I reported to him on this matter and he decided that he himself would first talk to the commander of the Berlin Medical Academy and to the biggest and best equipped Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick in order to carry out the experiments at one of these two places. After a few days, I was called to the chief again and I heard that his efforts with the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin and with the Luftwaffe Hospital in Brunswick had been unsuccessful. Together with my departmental chief, I suggested to Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder that we should try to get prisoners as experimental subjects; a question which was completely new to Professor Schroeder.
Q. Witness, did you not inform Dr. Schroeder that you personally had already tried in vain to obtain these 40 subjects from the Medical Department of the Luftwaffe and from the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, I told him that in my first report.
Q. Will you please continue then?
A. I told Professor Schroeder what I knew myself at the time about the prisoners. First that there were a number of examples in the medical history of the world of such experiments being carried out on prisoners. I pointed out that under his predecessors, Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Hippke and Holzloehner, such experiments had been carried out and finally I pointed out that the sea-water experiments were absolutely harmless, that nothing could happen to the subjects and that I was convinced that we would find enough volunteers among the prisoners for these experiments because before and after the experiments they would get especially good food.
Professor Schroeder asked me whether I knew any details about how Holzloehner had obtained his subjects. I had to answer in the negative. I could only say that I knew that Rascher had said in the Nurnberg meeting that the chief of the German Police had supplied the prisoners. Professor Schroeder said that he would talk to the chief of the Medical service of the German Police.
Q. Witness, did you not tell Professor Schroeder on this occasion that they were condemned criminals; criminals sentenced to severe penalties?
A. Yes, I am sure that I said that.
Q. Your Honors, I should like to refer at this point to the affidavit of the Commander of the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe which is Schroeder Exhibit No. 19 in the Schroeder document book on page - it is document 25 on pages 72-73 and has already been accepted as an exhibit. This affidavit confirms that the experiment was to be carried out in the medical academy of the Luftwaffe and also the Chief Physician of the Hospital in Brunswick, Generalarzt Harriehausen has made an affidavit which is Dr. Becker Freyseng 42 on pages 168-170 of document Becker-Freyseng No. 3, which I should like to offer in evidence as Exhibit No. 29. I shall read the last paragraph on Page 2. I shall not read the rest of the affidavit. Harriehausen writes:
"I recall very well that I was once asked whether it would be possible to carry out control experiments with sea-water, made drinkable by various methods, on patients suffering from minor complaints and the slightly wounded in the Luftwaffe Hospital in Brunswick which was under my supervision. Whether Prof. Dr. Schroeder or one of his representatives put this question to me, and at what exact time, I cannot recall exactly. It could have been in June 1944. I had to refuse the undertaking of such experiments, as I had strict orders to send all patients and wounded who could be released back to the troops; thus I did not have command of hospital inmates suitable for these experiments. Furthermore, the hospital was overcrowded at this time, and, therefore, was not suitable for scientific experiments. I can also recall clearly that, at a later time, I again spoke to Prof. Dr. Schroeder about this matter, and that he expressed his regret on this occasion that these experiments could not be carried out in the Luftwaffe Hospital in Brunswick which was under my direction."
This affidavit is signed and certified by the notary Eberhard Grimm on the 9 January 1947. This affidavit was to have been offered in the Schroeder case but the English translation was not yet available. I withdraw it in the Schroeder case and offer it as a Becker-Freyseng Exhibit.
Witness, you said that Professor Schroeder was to speak to the Medical Chief of the German Police, that is Reichsarzt SS Grawitz, do you know whether he actually talked to him and what result the discussion had?
A. Yes, I know that he did talk to him although I myself was not present, but after a few days my department chief ordered me to send a letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the German Police, or rather draft such a letter, since in the meantime Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder had talked to Grawitz. Grawitz had said that he was willing to cooperate but in order to deal with the matter officially he would need a brief letter. He said the letter need only contain the necessary information since Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder had discussed the matter orally with Grawitz.
Q. Witness, I shall show you document No. 185, Prosecution Exhibit 134, page 16 of the German, 18 of the English document book 5, sea water experiments. This is the letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior. Did you draft this letter?
A. Yes, I made the first draft for this letter. The department chief and the chief of staff changed a few minor points before it was signed by Schroeder.
Q. And the letter has the signature of your referat, does it?
A. Yes, it says 55 and the referat 2-F.
Q. At that time you were a referent and not an assistant referent any longer?
A. I had been a referent from the 15th of May on. The letter is dated the 7th of June.
Q. When did the referent, Professor Anthony, leave this office?
A. Anthony left about the 15th of May.
Q. Now how was this salutation formulated? I mean "Highly respected Reich Minister?"
A. That was at the special request of Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder.
Q. Your Honors-, this is a letter of the Medical Inspectorate for the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler, which is the English document No. 185, document book 5 of the Prosecution, Prosecution Exhibit 134. Before I go into a discussion of this document with the witness I should like to point out that at the beginning of this document there is a translation which we consider incorrect. It is the first sentence which has the words "voluntary experimental subject". In the English translation, which unfortunately we do not have officially yet, the punctuations are different from the German, and the "voluntary experimental subjects" was intended to refer to the new experiments and in the English it seems to refer to the former experiments.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, this is a point of considerable importance. Indeed for such a problem as this, it's being discussed should be dispensed with as well as argumentation of it before the Tribunal and the original document should be brought into the Court room by the Clerk and turned over to the interpretation department to construe as to whether this English version is correct. The Prosecution maintains that it is one hundred percent correct. We have had it checked.
THE PRESIDENT: The Clerk will procure from the Secretary General's office the original of this document No. 185, and the document will be submitted to the interpreters for a report by them to the Tribunal.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, on the 3 of May I submitted an application through the Secretary General about this translation but no decision has been reached yet. I have, therefore, had a translation prepared and my opinion corresponds to the wording of the German original document. May I give this translation to the Tribunal because in my opinion it is vital. This first sentence is the one on which the Prosecution wants to put great emphasis. I should like permission to submit this translation which was prepared by an Englishman and then the final translation by the interpreters may be made later but it seems to me important that the Tribunal be given this translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the benefit of the record give the name and position of the interpreter who made the translation to which counsel has just referred?
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I might state at this time that the translation division and the interpretation division of the Office of Chief Counsel for war crimes has certainly tested all interpreters and translators before a person can qualify as an interpreter and it might be well that this version of Dr. Marx be submitted, to the interpretation department and that they can take this into consideration when they are interpreting the document.
THE PRESIDENT: When counsel for defendant has answered my question I was going to suggest that.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I don't know personally. My staff told me that a translation had been prepared and when I asked whether prepared by a German or an American I was told by an Englishman with the necessary knowledge of the German as well as the English.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to be advised the name of the person who made that translation, if that can be furnished for the record.
DR. MARX: I have just been informed that it was a Mr. Dirks.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this gentleman who made the translation, this Mr. Dirks, hold any official position here with the American or British Government?
DR. MARX: As far as I know he is a member of the American Military Government and translates for the General Secretary, but I don't know exactly. I don't know him personally at all.
THE PRESIDENT: When the original document is presented to the Tribunal the translation in the possession of counsel for the defendant will be submitted to the interpreters together with the original document and the interpreters will then consider the matter and report in open court to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Did the Secretary General bring in the exhibit? The interpreters can take this up during the recess I think.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has instructed that the original document be brought into court.
MR. HARDY: I am not clear whether, your Honor is giving the translation to the interpreter at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I have instructed to be done, that the interpreter should be furnished this interpretation with the document. The interpreter will then report in open court to the Tribunal. The interpreters will consider this matter during the morning recess which will be called in a few minutes.
BY DR. MARX: Witness, please let us discuss the contents of this document. The first sentence reads: "Earlier this made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human beings."
What experiments does this refer to?
A The experiments that I knew about, that was Holzloehner's experiments.
Q Now I go on to the next sentence: "Today I again stand before a decision, which, after numerous experiments on humans and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final resolution." The Prosecution considers this sentence so important that on 16 December 1946 on page 530 of the German transcript they said so about it. I quote: "I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the words 'voluntary subjects'. This proves that they (meaning the defendants) had finished their work on volunteers and had to have recourse to inmates of concentration camps." Will you please comment on this, witness?
A Since this seems to be the most important sentence in the whole question of sea water, I would like to go into some detail.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I don't think it necessary to go into detail in this question until we have the translation settled. It would merely take up the time of the Tribunal unnecessarily.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this matter should be delayed until after the interpreters have reported on the translation.
DR. MARX: Very well. Mr. President, may I suggest that we recess now so that I can discuss this point with Dr. Becker-Freyseng since this is one of the most important points for the case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the interpreters prepared to report to the Tribunal on the translation of the document in question?
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, the original German of this passage reads as follows:
"Ich stehe heute wieder vor einer Entscheidung, die nach zahlreichen Tier und Menschenversuchen sine entgueltige Loesung verlangt."
The version of this passage, proposed by the Prosecution in English is as follows:
"Today, I again stand before a decision, which after numerous experiments on animals and voluntary human subjects, demands final solution."
And the version, proposed by Counsel for Defendant Becker-Freyseng, is as follows:
"Today, I again stand before a decision, which after numerous experiments on animals and humans demands a solution on voluntary experimental subjects."
In the opinion of the interpreters, the German sentence is ambiguously phrased and is open to both the Prosecution's and the Defense's construction. The fact which might make the Prosecution's interpretation somewhat more likely is the following: if the writer of the letter had intended to emphasize that the subsequent experiments were to be carried out on volunteers, he could have made his meaning perfectly clear by placing the phrase "on voluntary subjects" after the phrase "a final solution", or by inserting an adverb such as "now", or at least a comman, after the word "human experiments" and before the words "on voluntary subjects".
THE PRESIDENT: It appears from the report of the interpreters that the meaning of the original letter, as written in German, is at least ambiguous. The matter is open for argument, also open for further translation and further study by competent translators if either side desires to produce them. The Tribunal, of course, expresses no opinion at this time as to the meaning of the letter, that is a matter for argument which will be later considered.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I have taken notice of what the Interpreter said, but I have failed to hear the position of the Prosecution with reference to the assertion by the defense to the effect that neither the translation nor the interpreters have taken into consideration the two punctuation marks, which cannot be found in the German original, but which have been inserted into the English translation. That has brought about a translation to the disadvantage of the defendant. If it was stated that these two commas were erroneously inserted, we could then discuss the question as to whether the sentence is ambiguous or not. First of all, however, it would have to be stated that these two commas were wrongly inserted. They do not correspond to the German original.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that the matter might best be approached if the interpreters will make a written report and file one with the Secretary General, one with the Prosecution and one with Defense Counsel and one copy - with the Tribunal
MR. HARDY: Your Honors -
THE PRESIDENT: And one copy for each member of the Tribunal. Then the matter in so far as the mechanical translation is concerned could well be approached by written briefs by the prosecution and by defense counsel, and any evidence, which would throw any light on the subject may be offered, but the mere argument upon the meaning could be more appropriately conducted and more conveniently by everybody by written arguments as to the meaning of the words.
MR. HARDY: I might add at this time that the language division of OCC? W.C. has several referats therein, one of which is the translation division or section and one of which is the interpretation section. Mr. Paul Joos ten, who is chief of the translation section, I am informed has already prepared an extensive memorandum concerning this particular passage in the document 185. The Prosecution has no intention of submitting briefs or arguments on this point, but we will however make available for the defense counsel and tribunal the memorandum submitted by the Chief of the Translation division.
THE PRESIDENT: The Report of the interpreters will be submitted to the Tribunal and then any documents which they may add and memos can be added to the report of the Interpreters and the matter submitted to the Tribunal.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, permit me to put in an application in writing and also permit me that a German linguist who also knows English can express his opinion regarding this particular passage.
PRESIDENT: Certainly defense counsel may follow the same plan which is to be followed by the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, in that regard I have a point to make. We stressed this much importance on this passage, and if any opinions may be given by translators I think the translators should be qualified namely by tests, for instance when a translator is hired by OCC? W.C.-
THE PRESIDENT: The translators may be called as witnesses and submitted to an examination as to their qualifications, and either party, if they desire, may do that. That applies, of course, to both parties, translators on the part of the Prosecution and translators on the part of the defendant.
DR. MARX: Your Honors, I shall then wait to see how this matter is decided upon by the translators and experts and shall continue with this point in my case later.
Q. Witness, please state your point of view briefly regarding the rest of the contents of this letter which is very well known to you. There comes now the passage regarding the severe symptoms of poisoning. Since this matter has already been dealt with, you can touch upon it very briefly now.
A. What is said here about the danger involved in the Berka method refers only clearly to the use of berkatit in practical use during sea emergencies. What is said here about the fact that the method must be useable for twelve days running, the words here speak for themselves, namely the practical demand for a twelve day period of use, and this does not mean that each experimental subject would be treated with this berkatit for twelve days, and then in the next sentence it is stated what I myself knew about the possibility of experiments in the camp Dachau, namely, that there were suitable laboratories there.
Q. You are talking now of the forty healthy experimental subjects who must be made available for four weeks and then it goes on, as it is known from previous experiments that laboratories existed in the Camp Dachau, and therefore this camp would be suitable, is that what you are referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. Now in the last point in that document; and I quote:
"Due to the enormous importance which a solution of this problem has for soldiers of the Luftwaffe and Navy who have become shipwrecked, I would be greatly obliged to you, my dear Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my request."
You are writing then of the enormous importance attached to the solving of this problem. In this connection, let me remind you of the following, witness: It could be said that you really couldn't speak at that time of the enormous importance of solving this problem because it is was in the summer of 1944 and it could be said that the situation at that time was not such as to make this solution absolutely necessary. What do you have to say about that?
A. Let me refer to what I have already said that in my opinion such a method is of relatively greater importance for an inferior air arm than for a superior one. An inferior air force will suffer greater casualties and losses and will be more seriously affected by those losses than would a superior air arm.
Q. Witness, we have now reached the end of this document. What happened in this matter after the letter was sent off?
A. First, we waited for the answer from the minister of the Interior and Chief of the German Police and in the meantime Professor Beiglboeck was told to report to the office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate.
Q. Did you receive a prompt reply to this letter and did you do anything to expedite matters?
A. We waited a long time for the reply and I believe that finally the answer came only over the telephone four or six weeks after the letter was sent out. I myself had no reason to expedite or hasten the matter.
Q. What had happened in the meantime to Professor Beiglboeck?
A. At the middle or end of June Beiglboeck came to our office and stayed in Berlin for two or three weeks to study the newest literature on the problems of thirst contained in the libraries in the University in Berlin, and then at the beginning or the middle of July, when news came from the Reichs Arzt SS that the experiments could be carried through he went to Dachau.
Q. Now document book 5, page 20, of the English book, document No. 179, and on page 22, document No. 183, Exhibit 136, the first document is a letter from Grawitz to Himmler of the 28th of June 1944, and the second is a letter from Brandt to Grawitz, dated the 8th July 1944. Now tell me, do you know these two letters and the events discussed in them.
A. No, from the letter itself it can be seen clearly who sent it off and to whom it was addressed. This is purely an inter-office matter within the Police and SS office of the fact that Himmler was making available gypsies for these experiments, which I found out through Professor Beiglboeck only after the conclusion of the experiments. So long as Professor Beiglboeck was in Berlin he knew nothing of that decision either.
Q When did you find out then that gypsies were to be used as experimental subjects?
A That they were to be used I never found out. I just said that I found that out only after the experiments were concluded.
Q How did matters develop further with Professor Beiglboeck?
A First of all I discussed this matter with Professor Beiglboeck and informed him briefly of what it concerned. I had assumed that Professor Eppinger had already talked with him since he had proposed as director of the experiments. I assumed that had happened. Professor Beiglboeck didn't know anything about the matter. I went with him to my departmental chief and introduced him to Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder. From these two superiors he received the order to carry out the experiments and from the departmental chief he received, in my presence, the more precise instructions as to how they were to be carried out. In the preliminary discussion that I had with Professor Beiglboeck, Professor Beiglboeck asked me if it would not be possible to carry out these experiments elsewhere because he wasn't very anxious to carry out experiments in a concentration camp. I then explained to him that we had already attempted in vain to have the experiments carried out elsewhere but that we had been unsuccessful. Professor Beiglboeck said that he would still like to attempt that, attempt to have the experiments carried out in the hospital in which he was director in the department for internal diseases. I told him immediately that probably he would have as little success as we had but I said that, of course, it would be perfectly agreeable with me if he would make that endeavor. After we had seen the departmental chief, Beiglboeck asked me again whether this was a specific military order to him. I answered in the affirmative and then Beiglboeck said that that of course was from then on a binding order for him. The instructions that Beiglboeck received for carrying out the experiments were briefly as follows: Under no circumstances were the experiments to cause serious damage to the health of the subjects, and of course there should be no fatalities.
That was perfectly clear. Secondly, the experiments were to be interrupted on the basis of that instruction if they became dangerous. The experiments should be carried out according to basic scientific practice but, of course, that was clear to both of us anyway. It was also clear to us that the experiments were to be carried out in such a way as to provide perfectly clear results. I also discussed the question of the voluntary consent of the experimental subjects with Professor Beiglboeck, not for legal reasons but for purely medical reasons. Professor Beiglboeck is an internist. I also was a doctor dealing with internal diseases and we both had considerable experience with patients who had to be given a special diet because of purely therapeutic reasons in the clinic. Every doctor has had the experience that human beings depend to a great extent and want to keep on having their customary diet and every clinician has the experience that sick persons to whom certain foods are forbidden for medical reasons, desire that forbidden food in particular and even will procure it for themselves behind the doctor's back. For this reason Professor Beiglboeck asked me about the experimental subjects intended for these experiments. Should precautions be taken to see that they received only the food and amounts of water and sea water that were prescribed for the experiments? I answered that I did not think that particular precautionary measures should be taken because these were volunteers who because of their considerably better food which preceded the experiments were interested in the experiments and if it was explained to these people before the experiments what was here concerned I could not believe that Professor Beiglboeck would have any particular difficulties with the experimental subjects.
Q Witness, what did you see as the guarantee that the experiments really would be carried out according to this policy?
A I saw this guarantee on the one hand in the person of Professor Beiglboeck and secondly, in the person of Professor Eppinger who had proposed his chief physician.
Q Did any other office have the right to interfere in any way with these experiments in Dachau?
A No, either by my departmental chief or by me, Herr Beiglboeck was explicitly told that he had nothing to do with the rest of the camp of Dachau, that he was, so to speak, a little Luftwaffe unit of his own, and was subordinate only to the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. There was no such thing as any subordination to any authority within the camp of Dachau.
Q Witness, I put another Document to you now. It is in Document Book No. 5, page 23, NO-182, Exhibit 137. It is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer-SS Personal Staff to Dr. Grawitz of 26 July 1944. In this letter is a description of a conference that took place on the 20 July 1944 at Dachau between Dr. Brandt and the signer of this letter, namely Sievers. Did you know anything of this discussion?
A No, I knew nothing of it. It is possible that Beiglboeck told me something about this after he came back but during or before the discussion I knew nothing of it.
Q Was it not your duty to go to Dachau and to inspect or to observe?
A No. Perhaps one of my superiors could have given me that task but first of all it had been agreed with the technical office that Professor Eppinger was to supervise the experiments and that no one else was to concern himself with the experiments. Moreover, Dr. Beiglboeck was carrying out the experiments with Dr. Eppinger's supervision and no one considered it necessary to give these two men any further supervision.
Q Witness, in that case you were not in Dachau? Did you know how things were then going on there?
A I heard how they were going on only after Beiglboeck came back to Berlin or Saalow about the middle of September after the experiments had been concluded. It is surprising that, in the meantime, we had not been in touch with one another, but I must say, that in July and August, 1944, both Berlin and Munich were subject to almost daily air raids and that it took even telegrams four or five weeks to reach their destination in Germany; that enormous difficulties confronted one wishing to make an official trip; and that, therefore, travel was limited to an absolute minimum. Nevertheless, I had agreed to meet Professor Beiglboeck. He wanted to meet in Brandenburg on the Inn River, south of Kufstein, where we had business to attend to. We were both there, but my train was two days late and Beiglboeck had left long before I arrived. In the middle of September, I heard from Dr. Beiglboeck again and, in the presence of the department chief and myself, Professor Beiglboeck reported to Schroeder on how the experiments had been carried out. Before the beginning of the experiments, Beiglboeck had carried out an experiment on himself, using Berkatit, which lasted four and one-half days, I believe. Subsequently, he had begun the experiments with the experimental subjects. No damage was done to the health of the subjects. He showed us photographs of the subjects who looked strong and well fed. Having received 3500 calories per day, most of the experimental subjects weighed more after the experiments than they had before and what interested us most of all was that the results were perfectly clear, at least as far as practical use of them was concerned; namely, that Berkatit could not be introduced into emergency sea equipment for medical reasons. Professor Beiglboeck then worked on the results of the experiments, and about two weeks later, the middle or end of September, 1944, he reported on this at a discussion attended by many people. This discussion took place in the Flak Tower in the Zoo in Berlin as a protection against the air raid danger.
Q Witness, did you learn anything about the selection of the experimental subjects or their behavior during the experiments?
A Of course, I asked Beiglboeck how he had got his subjects and he said, that both an SS officer and the prisoners themselves had confirmed the fact that they were volunteers. He even described one or two cases where inmates in Dachau made several efforts to persuade him to let them into the experiments so that they could make up for some bad behavior previously (Fluchtpunkt). Since this German word "Fluchtpunkt", which the prisoners used, was not known to me before, I asked what it meant and Beiglboeck told me that this referred to a prisoner who had been caught while trying to escape, had been brought back to the camp, and was now in some punitive company or some other such unit and was receiving more severe treatment. This man, of course, wanted to erase that blot against him and I believe he applied to Professor Beiglboeck, through a prisoner nurse, for permission to be used in the experiments.
Q Your Honors, I put in, in this connection, the Document BeckerFreyseng 43, Document Book 3, page 171 to page 174. Please give this Exhibit #30. This is an affidavit by Dr. Theodor Lesse. I quote from this document, page 1. It can be seen that Dr. Lesse had to carry out clinical laboratory tests in these matters and knew them. I read page .....
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): Counsel, there is some difficulty with the translation. Just wait a moment.
BY DR. MARX:
Q Page 2, #7.:
"In my chemical tests I observed no kind of disturbance or damage to the health of the experimental subjects, other than the well-known symptoms of thirst. My actual duties kept me in the laboratory, so that I was never in constant contact with the experimental subjects themselves.
"8. I personally was a witness when SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploettner and several other SS officers, whose names I can not remember, explained to Professor Dr. Beiglboeck, at that time Luftwaffe Oberarzt, that the experimental subjects intended for the sea water experiments***had all volunteered for this purpose."