Yet you spent considerable time in the course of your direct examination to point out in connection with Document No. 934, which is not in a document book but was Prosecution Exhibit #458, which was a list of medical research commissions drawn up at the time when you were referent apparently, and within that list of research commissions you made an attempt to indicate to this Tribunal that the entry concerning the typhus research of Haagen was erroneously classified in that paragraph as secret and that you introduced an affidavit to indicate to this Tribunal that your stenographer may well have made a typographical error, or the stenographer who typed the copy introduced here into evidence made said error. Now, how do you consistently attempt to declare that there is an error in this particular list of commissions when we find this language prevalent in this letter of 29 August 1944?
A I shall go back to the beginning of your speech when you said that I reproached Haagen and told Haagen that he was to make these reports secret. I must say that the letter is signed by Kant, the Chief of Staff. It was not I but some one else who told Haagen......
Q (Interrupting) I don't believe I said you. If I did, I stand to be corrected. I refer to the writer of the letter and the writer of the letter is apparently Kant, but you wrote the first paragraph.
AAs to this famous list, No. 934, I have already explained very carefully that I am unfortunately unable to give a definite explanation, because I do not know where the list comes from. I gave a number of possibilities that might explain why the Haagen assignment is suddenly listed as secret, although in all documents, including the ones which you have submitted, it is considered open, and Dr. Tipp was kind enough to explain to the Tribunal that, according to the practice in German Wehrmacht correspondence, it might very well be that in Haagen's files this secret letter which Haagen sent to me, No. 132, was perhaps the top one and that my secretary then assumed that the whole assignment -everything connected with it - was secret.
That was a mistake, however. Not the assignment was secret, but only a report about a typhus epidemic in the camp of Natzweiler, and I think those are two entirely different things. But, since I unfortunately do not know where this list comes from, and since, there are a number of other very obvious mistakes in the list, since, in copying from the original photostat to this typewritten copy a number of further mistakes were made, I must assume that it is possible that this list was copied from our original somewhere else and that mistakes occurred there. I cannot say definitely that it was one or the other. I can only say that I do not know that Haagen's research assignment was ever secret and besides, I am convinced that this notation "secret" does not indicate any illegal experiments on the part of Haagen.
Q Doctor, let us turn to the next document, NO. 132 on page 99 of Document Book #12.
A Yes, I have it.
Q Will you kindly, under the word "reference" in the heading of the letter where it states: "Your communication dated 29 August 1944", then in parenthesis there is a code designation, will you read the code designation from your document so that the Tribunal may insert it in their document?
A Yes. The reference in NO. 132 reads: "Your communication dated 29 August 1944 -- File note: 55 No. 6028/44 secret (2 II A)."
Q Did you ever receive this letter, Doctor?
A I did not receive it. It was not addressed to me.
Q It wasn't forwarded to your office inasmuch as it had your registry designation on it?
A No, I am sure it was not because I have already explained how correspondence was dealt with in our office. All letters, without exception, were sent first to the department chief. Since my department chief knew very well that I had nothing whatever to do with epidemic reports and typhus epidemics, he certainly would not send this on to my referat but sent it to the referat which was interested in such epidemics.
That was the Hygiene Referat and therefore I never saw this letter before this trial and certainly never had to work on it.
Q Let us go on to the discussion of the sea-water experiments, Doctor. I notice in the sea-water document book, the affidavit of Schroeder...
A I do not have this document.
Q Wherein he states they had two methods of making sea-water drinkable, one was the Schaefer method and the other the Berka method?
A Yes, I have it now.
Q He states that certain experiments had been conducted on human beings with sea-water processed according to the Berka method by Dr. von Sirany; will you kindly tell us what you know about the experiments conducted by von Sirany?
A In the course of my direct examination I said that in the first few weeks of 1944, I did some scientific work at the Aviation Research Institute and was not present at the referat for aviation medicine. When on 16 April 1944 I returned to my office, I learned then that in the meantime the referent, Professor Anthony, had learned that an Engineer Berka in Vienna had allegedly developed a method for making of sea-water drinkable and Dr. von Sirany, who was a Luftwaffe medical officer, or had been a Luftwaffe medical officer, had performed experiments working in military hospitals with soldiers, I believe to test this method. I also learned that Professor Anthony suggested that Dr. Schaefer was in Vienna for a few days and looked at the experiments. My knowledge of Sirany's experiments I obtained from what Schaefer told me about the experiments and also from a report put out by von Sirany at the end of April, which I read.
According to these reports, these were experiments on hospital inmates who were convalescine or had slight wounds or illnesses. Since von Sirany was, I believe, a skin specialist and had only a slight knowledge of psychological experiments, an expert could see at first glance that he had made some fundamental mistakes in setting up his experiments. Nevertheless, the records of the experiments indicated that Sirany's conclusion was wrong.
Sirany had concluded on the basis of his experiments that the Berka method was suitable to be introduced into sea distress practice, although we did not consider the experiments thorough. From a scientific sense, one could still see from the record that Sirany's conclusion was wrong though easily to be explained.
Q Well then at that time, studying the records, we note that Professor Schroeder states in his affidavit on paragraph 4:
"The consulting expert (Referent) on Aviation Medicine, BeckerFreyseng, who had been my subordinate since January 1944 (prior to this time Becker-Freyseng had been assistant to Anthony who was chief under Hippke) took the position that the experiments conducted by Sirany were not conclusive since the conditions were not as difficult as those on the high seas."
Is that the position you took?
A No, my position was the opposite. Again this is a mistake on the part of Professor Schroeder, who for two years had nothing to do with this problem. In the course of my direct examination, I emphatically explained that I considered Sirany's test conditions even more severe and even more dangerous than the test conditions existing later in the experiments conducted by Dr. Beiglboeck in Dachau. The fact that experimental conditions are never as severe as the conditions existing on the high seas, I think is obvious. No experiment can be made severe enough to correspond 100% to actual conditions at sea, with all the psychological conditions, etc.
Q Just a moment, Doctor. You say this is a mistake on the part of Professor Schroeder; again tell me is it difficult to become a Generaloberstabsarzt in the Luftwaffe?
A It is clear that a chief who has about twenty five referents subordinate to him cannot be informed about all the details of each referent, so well that two years later he will know all the detail or one specific statement made by each of his twenty five referents.
I am convinced that even General Taylor may not be exactly or completely informed about every statement you have made here, that would be humanly impossible.
Q Tell me weren't you some sort of a super referent, you were the one that handled all the research assignments, they all went through your office; you were in the position to Professor Schroeder similar to the executive officer of General Taylor?
Be that as it may, Doctor, let us go on. In Document 184, which is Prosecution Exhibit 132, found on page 9 of document book 5, we find the first letter concerning the sea water problem. This letter is from the technical office, dated 15 May 1944. Under 1) in the letter, it states:
"The I.G. Method using mainly silver nitrate."
The I.G. method is the Schaefer method, is it not?
A Yes.
Q There is also another name for that method; isn't there?
A The factory name was W-o-f-a-t-i-t, that was the factory name, it has no significance.
Q Well, now, who informed the technical office about the Berka method?
A The Berka method?
Q Yes.
A I explained that in my direct examination too. Professor Anthony first heard of this Berka method and then in the course of March or April, I don't know exactly as I was not there, told the technical office that such a method existed and then the technical office no doubt got in touch with Mr. Berka.
Q Who informed the technical office about the Schaefer method?
A Here again I should like to refer to my direct examination. I said that in the first days of December of 1943, Dr. Schaefer himself demonstrated his method and gave the necessary explanation. In the case of this demonstration and this little lecture, the medical inspector Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke was present and so was Oberstingenieur Christensen, who was a deputy chief in the technical officer where this letter comes from.
Q What relationship did the chief of the medical services have to the technical office?
A They were both agencies of the Luftwaffe, there were no direct relations. In 1944 in particular, the chief of the medical service of the Luftwaffe was under the High Command of the Luftwaffe directly, while the technical office had other subordination, but I am not exactly informed about that.
Q Well, now, you have taken exception to the opinion of the writer of this letter wherein he states under paragraph 1 that this would require 2½ to 3 tons of pure silver a month. You said that was a great exaggeration and gave your reasons for it. Now, whether or not that would require 2½ to 3 tons of silver a month; can you tell us whether or not silver would have been readily available in Germany at that time?
A I know that Dr. Schaefer told me at the time that according to his information from the I.G. and from some agency of the Reichsbank he believed the necessary silver could be obtained even in 1944, but I may refer you to Dr. Schaefer. I did not inquire about that, I relied on what Dr. Schaefer told me.
Q Well, inasmuch as this Schaefer method would require the use of silver nitrate, would it not have been to the advantage of the Luftwaffe at war to make a serious attempt to develop the Berka method due to the fact that the Berka method was inexpensive as compared to the Schaefer method?
A I have explained in great detail as I believe that these economic reasons and raw material reasons were what influenced the technical office to advocate Berkatit and what in the final analysis determined Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder to have the question of Berkatit investigated by Eppinger and Heubner.
Of course if Berkatit had been just as good in its final effect, it would have been a great advantage if one could get along without the silver.
Q You would like to have the experiments to determine whether or not it was good?
A. I didn't want to have the experiments. Rather I had to participate in the preparation for these experiments because it was my duty. First of all I had to prevent the Berka method being introduced without being tested again and we had to determine what advice should be given to the aviators and seaman, if for medical reasons Berkatit could not be introduced, and for economic reasons the Wofatit could not be introduced.
Q. Yet all of the time, that is while laying these plans and instigating these experiments, I understand you know that Berkatit wasn't any good? Isn't that what you said on direct examination?
A. I must tell you that was my personal scientific conviction out since I had scientific opponents of the caliber of Professor Eppinger and Professor Heubner, who are recognized throughout the world and who have patients from everywhere in the world, I had to assume the possibility that even I might be mistaken once in a while.
Q. Then you are not a man of your convictions, doctor?
A. Of course, I upheld my convictions. I said if you think this method is good we can decide only through an experiment.
MR. HARDY: This will be a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I notice that on yesterday's witness sheet Eugen Haagen is listed as a witness to be called by the defendant, BeckerFreyseng. On this morning's witness sheet the name Eugen Haagen does not appear but Rolf Jaeger appears on the witness sheet for the defendant Becker Freyseng. What witness is it the defendant Becker Freyseng wishes to call?
MR. HARDY: As I understand it, your Honor, Dr. Haagen is going to appear after the sea water complex, namely after the case of Dr. Beiglboeck. Dr. Jaeger is the witness approved by the Tribunal for Dr. Steinbauer. Dr. Jaeger is the witness called by the defendant Beiglboeck.
At this time, Your Honor, I wish to request Dr. Steinbauer to provide me with a notation with reference to Dr. Jaeger outling substantially what he will testify to, where he was been and some of the particulars.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Beiglboech will furnish the prosecution with such a statement concerning the witness.
THE TRIBUNAL will now be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, will you kindly turn to Document No. 177, which is Prosecution Exhibit 133, found on page 11 of Document Book # 5.
A. I have it.
Q. I gather from your testimony here in direct examination that you think that this document is a fraud. Just who do you think perpetrated this fraud?
A. I believe you have completely misunderstood my whole defense if you assume I said this document was a fraud. I never said such a thing. I don't know how you could have come to that conclusion. I simply explained that the Technical Office had drawn up a medical report and that, unfortunately, in so doing a large number of errors were committed and, in 1944, I drew the Technical Office's attention to this fact but, since I couldn't know that this document was going to become involved in a murder trial, I didn't send in any written correction at that time nor did I ask the Technical Office to do so. However, there was no talk of a fraud at any time.
Q. Well, let us look at this document, Doctor. On the first page of the document we find the minutes of the conference regarding the methods for making sea water drinkable on 20 May 1944, and it lists the number of people present. Therein we notice that there were fourteen people present at the meeting. Now, might I ask you this. It seems that you have testified that you were unable to secure volunteers for the experiments from the civilian populace, from members of the Luftwaffe, and that was why it was necessary for you to resort to Himmler's source. Why didn't these fourteen men volunteer for the experiment? You had fourteen men right here, interested in the problem; you could have used those fourteen men rather than jeopardize the lives of concentration camp inmates, couldn't you?
A. So far as I am concerned personally, I should have had no misgivings regarding subjecting myself to such banal experiments, and, if you would like, I shall subject myself to a period of eight days without food or water if, thereafter, I receive three thousand calories a day and I know also that Herr Schickler and others did make themselves available for brief experiments. All of these people listed here, in the fifth year of the war, had a more or less important position in the war machinery and simply couldn't leave their offices for a month at a time to subject themselves to experiments. It was for the same reason that we could not find a total of forty - because it was forty we needed, not fourteen - in other segments of the population.
Q. You could have broadcast it on the radio and received some volunteers out of the millions of people living in Berlin, for a harmless experiment for the benefit of the German Wehrmacht. A call on the radio that "it is your patriotic duty to volunteer for this experiment." Something of that nature. You couldn't have received forty people in the whole of Berlin?
A. In my direct examination I also testified at great length regarding this, that I was convinced that for this experiment we undoubtedly could have found forty persons in Berlin, but not the forty people whom we needed for the experiment. It would have been easy enough for the prosecution to find witnesses to prove that, in the summer of 1944, there were certainly not forty healthy young men between twenty and thirty years old whose time was so available to them in such a way that they could take part in an experiment for four weeks. That was, in the summer of 1944 in Berlin, absolutely out of the question.
Q. You mean that the inmates of a concentration camp were healthier than the civilian populace in Germany?
A. The forty experimental subjects used for these experiments were assuredly more healthy than many of the inhabitants at that time. In the course of ruther presentation of evidence in the sea water experiments it will become perfectly clear that these forty persons were particularly healthy, and when this proof is brought forth you will be able to convince yourself of that fact.
Q. When did you physically examine these forty experimental subjects?
A. The examination of them was carried out by Professor Beiglboeck very carefully, and after the conclusions of the experiments I heard from Professor Beiglboeck a detailed report about this health examination that the experimental subjects received.
Q. When did you physically examine the forty experimental subjects?
A. Please, may I refer to my direct examination here in which I said that I was never in Dachau and myself never saw the experimental subjects. That was completely unnecessary since Professor Beiglboeck was commissioned to carry out the experiments.
Q. These experiments were conducted in 1944, weren't they?
A. End of July and August, 1944.
Q. You didn't see the subjects?
A. No, I was not in Dachau.
Q. The subjects were concentration camp inmates?
A. At least during the time the experiments were carried out, they were in the concentration camp Dachau. Just what their fate was before then and after then I don't know.
Q. Now, let's refer to page 12, Document Book # 5. This states in the first paragraph and this will be the second sentence after the list of these present at the meeting on 19 May 1944. It reads as follows:
"The Chief of the Medical Service (Chef des Sanitaetswesens) 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 Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer -- will finally result in death after not later than 12 days."
Now this report, that was written by a layman and not being a medical man, contained that information. Was that information incorrect?
A. Not only were they erroneous then, but they still are.
Q. Let's turn to Document No. 474, the affidavit of Dr. Konrad Schaefer, a defendant here, Prosecution Exhibit 131, on page 60, Document Book # 5, paragraph 3. Turn to the third sentence therein:
"It was decided at this meeting to conduct experiments on concentration camp inmates with the Berka process, although it was generally admitted that Berkatit sea water process seriously impairs the health after six days and causes death after twelve days at the latest. It was further decided that the human experimental subjects were to be fed only sea water, processed by the Berka method, for a period of twelve days."
Taking into consideration this affidavit of Schaefer, it appears that the entry in the minutes of the 19 May meeting are correct, does it not?
A. First, let me draw your attention to the fact that you yourself prevented me from speaking about Schaefer's affidavit in my direct examination when my counsel wished to ask me questions about it. Now, I don't know whether it is very fair to ask me about a document during during the cross examination.
Q (Interrupting) Bear in mind that I did not prevent you from doing that. The Tribunal did. The Tribunal ruled on that. Not I. Now, let's continue.
A. Then I can say now what I intended to say during my direct examination, on which matter the Tribunal, on your suggestion, passed a ruling.
I happened to know that Dr. Schaefer was shown this Christensen report before he signed his affidavit and that Dr. Schaefer believed that he would have to supplement his recollection on the basis of this peculiar report and, consequently, has set down in his affidavit what you just read to me, and I believe that Dr. Schaefer will discuss this affidavit at great length.
Q. You mean that you are testifying now on behalf of Dr. Schaefer that he perjured himself, under oath, in this affidavit?
A. No, no, no perjury. I think perhaps this question should better be discussed during the hearing of Dr. Schaefer.
Q. Well, it was evident to you, however, that death would result after not later than twelve days with the use of Berka sea water, wouldn't it? Didn't you say that you floated that as propaganda so that you could have the experiments conducted to prove that Berkatit was a fake and so that it wouldn't jeopardize the lives of aviators in the German Luftwaffe?
A. I am convinced that under certain circumstances death will occur much sooner than twelve days if the Berka method is used, and I have pointed out at great length that a sentence such as it stands here; namely, that after using the Berka method, serious damage is to be expected after six days -- that sentence is something that a medical layman could write but not a medical specialist. First of all, after you take Berkatit nothing can happen to you. What the layman wants to say is "after taking sea water which is treated with Berkatit". Thus, from this false formulation you can see that the person who wrote this sentence didn't really recognize the true medical and scientific implications.
Q. I am not a medical man, but I can recognize the implication you are trying to convey at the present time, I am sure that the Tribunal can see and I am sure that Christensen, the author of this report, whose signature is on the original, and it is to be assumed that it was written by Christensen, can certainly recognize it was stated at this meeting if the Berka method was used, it would result in death. It simply says that in this sentence and I think you have shown that same fact in the course of your examination here when you now say that it would result in perhaps less than twelve days. How long do you think it would take after drinking the sea-water treated by the Berka method; six days, seven days?
A. According to the available literature on shipwreck catastrophes death can follow even after a few hours after the person drinks sea water, that depends first of all on the person's condition who drinks the sea-water and secondly how much sea-water he drinks. What is to be ascertained here was really and in effect a specific experimental subject was taken from Sirany's experimental series and it was explained to the technician that if this specific person drank in the next six or twelve days as much sea water as he drank in the first two or three days, then this specific person under these very specific pre-conditions would probably die after twelve days. This was taken by the technicians and generalized by them and that is the basis of this unfactual report.
Q. We will let the Tribunal decide as to whether it is unfactual or not. Tell me, when are the symptoms apparent when a person drinks sea water for any period of time; What happens to them?
A. Here again it depends on what condition the person is in and how much he drinks.
Q. They might suffer from diarrhea; is that right?
A. That entirely depends on how much sea-water he drinks.
Q. It is possible, of course, that a person could have diarrhea as a result of drinking sea-water.
A. You cannot answer that question in such general terms.
Q. It it possible they could have convulsions, that is the symptoms of the effect of drinking sea-water; isn't it? In a hundred oases might it appear in one?
A. I never heard that.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, again the objection that I unfortunately had to make yesterday I have to make again. Mr. Hardy is not letting Dr. Becker-Freyseng finish his sentences. I believe it would contribute to the general clarity of the interrogation if the witness could conclude his sentences.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be allowed to finish any sentences he desires to answer as put to him by the Prosecution.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Is diarrhea a symptom after a person drinks seawater even one percent of the time; in one hundred cases might it happen once?
A. That has nothing to do with a percentage, it depends wholly on the quantity contained in the individual dose of sea-water. If you drink more than 300 cc of sea-water in one single dose then you have diarrhea, if the dose is smaller, then you do not.
Q. Can you suffer from convulsions as a result of drinking a certain amount of sea-water?
A. I cannot answer that question. From the literature that I read, I know of no single case of convulsions and since I did not see the sea-water experiments myself, it is impossible for me to answer that question in the affirmative.
I do know that in the case of the disease that I referred the technicians to as a horrible example, namely cholera, you do have convulsions, but these convulsions are not solely the result of drinking sea-water, but are a symptom of sickness itself. I cannot designate between those two possible sources of the reaction at the moment, what is the result of thirst or of the sickness itself, perhaps Professor Beiglboecke can answer that question.
Q. After drinking sea-water for some period of time, is it possible that the person may suffer from hallucinations; will they have hallucinations?
A. The literature I have read on cases of ship-wrecked persons and this is about all detailed descriptions of English sea-wrecks, they speak of "Fata Morgana" and other matters. Now whether in a strickly psychological sense these are genuine hallucinations or not I do not know, the literature is very limited in this matter. I am not a Psychiatrist and I cannot answer this question, but since I know that you are referring to this document, this Christensen document, let me say that in my direct examination I quoted a passage from Bergmann's text books regarding thirst symptoms of cholera and there was nothing there about hallucinations.
Q. And you have testified already death can result from drinking sea-water?
A. Yes.
Q. Well now this sentence here in this report written by a lay-man, Christensen, states: "External symptoms are to be expected, such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations and finally death." That is a pretty good accurate statement, isn't it?
A. Let me say first of all in general it frequently occurs that lay-men do more talking about difficult subjects and are more dangerous and unpleasant than specialists, and secondly, I have already told you what the basis of this lay-man's statement is, which is mainly the quotation from that text book. I mentioned that sentence in the text book and certainly it must have made a great impression on Mr. Christensen or perhaps os Schickler, if he drew up the report, that is why you find it reproduced here in this report. Moreover in Sirany's case experimental subjects actually did have diarrhea but Sirany's experiments wore much more unpleasant and dangerous than the experiments that my associates planned and which Bieglboeck carried out and in those cases of ours we did not have any diarrhea.
Q. Well, now, Christensen says here in this report that as a result of the preliminary discussions it was agreed to arrange a new series of experiments of short duration; that fact is true isn't it?
A. That is undoubtedly true. There isn't much in saving that, because everything revolved around that question.
Q. It was also agreed that in the series of experiments persons would be given sea-water processed with the Berkatit method; wasn't it? Let us just set aside the report for a moment. It was also agreed that persons would be used in the experiments and said persons would receive sea-water processed by the Berka method; isn't that right?
A. That did not have to be agreed upon, because that was the question we were trying to decide.
Q. It was also stated that persons selected would be control persons and they would drink merely plain water; didn't they?
A. That again is one of those control groups, which has frequently been mentioned in this trial, namely the control cases. They were much better off than the actual experimental groups who drank the Berkatit and sea-water. I possibly said that at that time because these were scientific objections which I made to Dr. Von Sirani's plan for the experiment as he did not have such a control group in his series of experiments.
Q. Now, you nave stated here in direct examination that persons would be given 500 cc of Berkatit, another gr up would be given 1,000 cc of Berkatit, the third group would be a normal group given ordinary drinking water, the fourth group would be given sea-water without anything and a fifth group would get nothing; is that right what you said here in direct examination?
A. That was a part of what I said in my direct examination, but not all and what you have left out I consider very important, namely the conditions under which the experiments were to be carried out, which were decided on in the presence of Professor Eppinger and Heubner, which was fundamentally difference from a medical experimental series.
Q. Well now you said in your direct examination that you intended to make the cheese more binding, Doctor, when you stated there was a fifth group and a fourth group. The fifth will get nothing at all, the fourth will get plain sea-water; you wouldn't even give them the courtesy of giving them sea-water treated with the Berkatit method; is that right? That is not prevelant here in this report either that you intended to use people and give them merely sea-water and nothing else.