"'Today again I am standing before a decision which after numerous experiments on animals and also on human beings demands a final solution on voluntary experimental subjects.'
"'Resolution' is, of course, wrong; it should be 'solution'. The German sentence is very awkwardly worded. You do not find a solution for a decision. But I cannot accept Dr. Marx's translation, however awkward the sentence may be put together in German. He asks for a correct literal translation, and the one he gives is supposed to have these qualifications. However, it will be seen that in this translation 'eine endgueltige Loesung' does not appear in the correct sequence. Dr. Marx makes an arbitrary transportation. A correct literal translation, without commas, just like the German original, is as follows:
'"Today again I stand before a decision which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution.'
"If the German meant what Dr. Marx claims it to mean, then the same sequence of words used in this English translation would also exist in the German version.
"The German sentence unequivocally states that up to now animal and human volunteers have been experimented upon and a final solution is now demanded.
"It is correct that part of the last sentence of the first paragraph is missing, namely the words 'nach unseren heutigen Kenntnissen' (according to our present knowledge)."
(Signed) Paul Joosten, Chief, Translation Branch.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I submit that the new literal translation intended by this memorandum reads as follows:
"Today again I stand before a decision, which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution."
I could ask if defense counsel is willing to accept that translation for the passage of the German document, in other words, this is different than the other two that have been offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may ask that question if they desire, but if they desire more time to study the matter they will not be required to answer that question now.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I do speak some English, but on this important point I should not like yet to say that the translation is completely correct. As far as I can tell, the translation last suggested agrees with the German words, but as I said I should like to have an expert in the field examine it.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may consider this matter over the weekend or sooner, if possible, and report to the Court as to the translation which they believe is literally, grammatically correct.
Meanwhile, in cross examining the witness, counsel for the prosecution could either ask the witness, upon the assumption that the translation is correct, or avoid that subject to be cross examined, if desired.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in this document, that is, the letter written to the Reichsfuehrer, signed by Schroder, was it your intention to ask for voluntary experimental subjects?
A. Yes, that was my intention. If you permit, I shall briefly give a few reasons which today too, prove it from this sentence. Perhaps that is a matter for later argumentation. I am not informed on that.
Q. I think we shall wait a bit on that, Doctor. After you had sent this letter, requesting that voluntary human subjects were to be used, did you after that time follow up the sequence of events and determine whether or not the persons used actually were volunteers?
A. In the course of further events I twice concerned myself with the question of whether these persons were volunteers. The first time before the experiments and the second time, after the experiments. Before the experiments, I talked to Professor Beiglboeck this question, as I have already testified on direct examination, not for legal reasons did not interest us at the time, but for medical reasons.
After the experiment, I talked to Professor Beiglboeck about the question of volunteers when I asked him what kind of prisoners ha had obtained and how these prisoners were actually put at his disposal at Dachau and were turned over to him for these experiments.
Q. Let us turn now to the next document, Doctor, which is Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit No. 135found on Page 20 of Document Book No. 5.
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. This is a letter of 28 June 1944 from Grawitz to Himmler including comments by Gebhardt, Gluecks and Nebe on who the experimental subjects should be, and in this I want to call your attention to Paragraph 2 where Grawitz reports the attitude of Gluecks, and therein Gluecks stated: "Referring to the above letter, we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station RASCHER in the concentration camp Dachau. If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to bo used."
Does that sound like a good expression of volunteer subjects to you, that is, "Jews or prisoners held in quarantine"?
A. I may say that I saw this letter here during the trial for the first time, that I am not accustomed to the wording of SS agencies and I don't know what this sentence is intended to imply. At any rate, it does not say that people are to be forced to submit to the experiments. Why prisoners were to be taken from quarantine I have no idea at the moment. I do not know I had nothing to do with the matter.
Q. Well now, if it is fully understood that you did not sec this letter-- the prosecution does not contend that you received a copy of the letter -- but I am now asserting, after all, the evidence is in at length that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that is, the evidence on the part of your defense, and we are now interested in shedding some light on the subject. I am sure that the Tribunal is interested in getting your understanding of the implications of this letter because it deals with those persons who were, in fact, selected to undergo these experiments you sponsored.
So let us forget whether or not you received this letter and just devote your attention to the letter itself and what it points out; and I will ask you if Gluecks' comment doesn't raise a little suspicion in your mind since he suggest the use of Jews or prisoners held in quarantine". Maybe they weren't going to be volunteers and maybe they were.
A. I thank your for admitting the theoretical possibility that it could have been volunteers, but unfortunately I am unable to answer your question because I do not know why SS-Gruppen-Fuehrer Gluecks suggests taking prisoners from quarantine. I had too little contact with conditions in concentration camps to know. Perhaps he meant people who have been through quarantine, so that one could know definitely that they are healthy, but, I don't know that is merely an assumption. I was not consulted and I was given no opportunity to make suggestions.
If Gluecks thought people should be taken who had just been through quarantine, - perhaps - who came from an epidemic district who had been in quarantine, and of whom it was definitely known that they would not become sick in the near future, then this was quite a sensible suggestion from the medical point of view.
It must have been clear to SS-Gruppen-Fuehrer Gluecks that for this experiment, which was to last four weeks, we needed healthy people.
But I am unable to say what Gluecks had in mind because I never talked to Gluecks in my life.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I am entirely unfamiliar with the German language. Is there any other word in German which might be translated as "quarantine" and also give some other translation?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I know of no such second meaning for the word quarantine.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. In other words, Doctor, if you had received a copy of this letter at the end of June, 1944 -- say you had seen a copy of this in June, 1944 -- would you have still gone ahead with the experiments?
A. May I ask for a moment to look at the letter first? I have not studied it as carefully as some of the other documents, since it did not refer to me.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Against at least two of the facts given here I would have objected. The first is in the statement of SS-Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks that the experiments be carried out at the Experimental Station Rascher. There was never any question of that. After the Nurnberg meeting, I never had anything more to do with Mr. Rascher. Neither I nor anyone else thought of bringing the sea water experiments into any connection with Mr. Rascher, not even the slightest connection.
The second would be that I would have suggested that it bo written to Reichsartz Dr. Grawitz concerning his view; that gypsies, since they are of a different race, might give unreliable results. This is a very childish statement from the physiological point of view; that would not to be expected at all.
If Prof. Schroeder had seen this letter he would probably have called up the Reichsarzt SS and reminded him that he had promised him to find the experimental subjects under the soldiers unworthy of bearing arms who were sent to concentration camps.
Those are the points which I can pick out immediately glance as things which I would have dealt with if I had got this letter; but, I did not get it. But I can say one thin: For me, in 1944, it would not have been clear, any more than today, that our prerequisites for the experiments, that volunteers be used, was in any way doubtful.
Q. Doesn't the third section of this letter, a comment Nebe, create some sort suspicion also, wherein he states, and I quote; "I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in order to evolve a method for making seawater potable. I propose taking for this purpose the as ocial gipsy halfbreeds. There are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards labor committment. Regarding these gipsies, I shall shortly make a special proposal to the Reichsfuehrer, but I think it right to select from among these people the necessary number of test subjects.
Should the Reichsfuehrer agree to this, I shall list by name the persons to be used."
Now, in fact gipsies were used in the seawater experiments and Nebe says that he still sit up in Berlin and list by name the persons to be used. Now, wouldn't that indicate that there would not be any volunteering here on the part of the subjects?
A. That is a conclusion on your part with which I cannot agree to. Mr. Nebe merely says that he will name the required experimental subjects to the Reichsfuehrer SS. He does not say how he will do that. At the time I would have assumed, quite naturally, that he would have gone to the Camp Auschwitz, which I actually heard of for the first time in 1945; that he would have had forty gipsies volunteer and would have sent this information on to the Reichsfuehrer. According to what we know today it is very easy to find a different interpretation, but at the time it would certainly not have occurred to me.
Q. Well now when did you learn gipsies were used in the experiments?
A. I learned that when Beiglboeck came back from Dachau after the experiments. In my direct examination, I said that I granted tho possibility that I might have learned it during the course of the experiments when I agreed to meet Beiglboeck near Vrutstein. And unfortunately came two days too late because of an air raid on a train on which I was traveling. I found a short note from Professor Beiglboeck when I got there and it is possible it said something about gypsies but in any case I remember only that Professor Beiglboeck said something about gipsies only after the experiments were finished and he came back to Berlin.
Q. Well would you have confirmed the experiments if you had known that before, that gipsies would be used?
A. First of all that is again a hypothetical question so that I can give a hypothetical answer; since I did not know before hand. Why should not gipsies volunteer? I don't know what I would have done at the time. I can't say.
Q. Did you see Beiglboeck before the experiments?
A. Whether I saw Beiglboeck before the experiments- yes, of course.
Q. Well did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?
A. I already said that for purely medical reasons I talked to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects and I told him I expected to got volunteers and would not have any difficulty from the subjects in carrying out the experiments. I should like to emphasize I had no anticipated legal reasons to say anything about these volunteers but a purely medical cause of the experiments for medical reasons.
Q. Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that tho experimental subjects who were volunteering for the experiments must be of German nationality?
A. I am sure I did not say that because I never doubted that. I never thought of any other possibility for I don't know how any other possibility could have occurred to me.
Q. Do you know whether or not gipsies were recognized as Germans under the racial law of the Reich?
A. I know that the racial laws of the Reich and the so called Nurnberg racial laws specifically left the question of gipsies open because just the racial affiliation gipsies is a question on which scientists are not quite agreed, but I know that certain gipsies were definitely recognized as full German citizens. I don't know how it was in general.
Q. Do you think that the gipsies were recognized as good Germans Nordic citizens?
A. Nordic Germans, I wouldn't want to reject that. The idea is held that the gipsies come from India and since there is a great many inter-Germanic racial families I consider it quite possible that some people hold the point of view that gipsies are Nordics but I don't know. I am no expert on racial problems.
Q. Of course, if they were good Germanic Nordic citizens they wouldn't have been in a concentration camp, would they?
A. I would not know for certain. I was never in a concentration camp but I have heard since and. I have seen the witness Kogon who looks definitely like a Nordic type, and I wouldn't consider it impossible for Nordic gypsies to be in a concentration camp.
Q. Now you have outlined just what you instructed Dr. Beiglboeck to do when he arrived at the concentration camp to commence his experiments?
A. Let me point out I did not say that. I talked to Professor Beiglboeck about it but I didn't give him any orders.
Q. Well you said that Dr. Beiglboeck--I will read it to you here in a minute.
You said on direct examination that you told Beiglboeck that this was a specific military order and that he was to follow the following instructions; when he received them, and one of the instructions was that there would be no serious damage to health and no fatalities, two; to interrupt the experiments if they became dangerous; and, three, that they ranted clear results from the experiments and also the experimental subject's consent. Now I understood you to say those were the instructions you gave Beiglboeck before he proceeded to Dachau.
A. I am convinced that if you will read over the transcript that you will find what I actually said. Beiglboeck received this order in my presence from my department chief and after we had left the department chief'f office and gone back to my office, perhaps it was the next day- I don't know- Professor Beiglboeck asked me whether that order which he had received from the department chief was to be taken as a definite military order and I said "yes", but I didn't give him the order myself. Besides if I had given him the order I would take the responsibility for it today since I consider the order which my department chief gave him quite a permissible matter.
Q. Well now was the judgment about whether or not the experimental subjects could continue to tolerate Berka water left up to the experimental subjects or was that left up to the discretion of Dr. Beiglboeck?
A. We at the time did not think of this question from the legal but from the medical point of view and I assume that I may still leave the legal decision to the Tribunal. From the purely medical point of view it is clear that the decision as to whether an experiment is to be broken off depends on the findings of the doctor, as roll as on the statements of the subjects. If I may clarify that by an example, it might be that one of the experimental subjects in the course of the experiment became unconscious:
If the man in charge of the experiment wanted to wait until the subject woke up, and said, "Let's stop the experiment now", that would have been too late.
Q. Then actually the conduct of the experiments was up to the discretion of the doctor?
A. I would like to put it like this: The responsibility for the health and life of the experimental subjects was, of course, in the hands of the doctor, and it is quite clear that a doctor like Professor Beiglboeck will take into consideration the statements of the subjects, that is, a matter of course to a doctor.
Q. Well then if someone died in these experiments Beiglboeck *** would certainly been held responsible by the Chief of the Medical Service. I am completely convinced of that, because that it would have been a violation of his instructions that no deaths were to be allowed to occur.
Q. Well if a death had occurred would you have felt responsible, in as much as you take full responsibility for the initiation of the experiments?
A. In 1944 I would have had to leave that up to a court martial of the Luftwaffe. I can't judge, perhaps I might have been indicted too. I don't know.
Q. Would you have expected to have been indicted had a death occurred in these experiments at Dachau?
A. That is a double or triple hypothetical question. I would have expected that if I had been indicted I would have been acquitted.
Q. Doctor, after the completion of these experiments a report was given, in October 1944, in a bunker near the Zoological Garden near Berlin by Dr. Beiglboeck. Who was present at that meeting?
A. I assume that the meeting was in October, I don't know. I heard it was in September; September or October, I am not sure. At any rate it was only one meeting.
I can remember definitely that Generaloberstabsarzt Schroeder was present, Professor Beiglboeck.?? of course, was there, Dr. Schaeffer was present, Mr. Berka was present, and representatives of the Navy were present. There were all together about perhaps twenty people. I can't remember any more individuals than those I have just given.
Q. Who presided over the meeting?
A. Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Schroeder opened the meeting Then I spoke a few words about the purpose of the experiments Then Professor Beiglboeck held his lecture. Then after it I believe, Professor Schroeder left, because in this bunker there was a Luftwaffe Hospital and Professor Schroeder had promised to attend an operation which he wanted to perform himself. In the discussion which followed, I presided because I was the referent in charge. But the discussion lasted only about ten minutes and that was the end of it.
Q. Dr. Beiglboeck gave a complete clinical report of the results of the experiments?
A. He gave a report on the clinical course of the experiments, yes.
Q. Did he state what symptoms were apparent as a result of the application of sea-water to the subjects?
A. Yes, I am sure he reported that because that was one of the purposes of the report.
Q. What symptoms did he find prevalent after a certain number of days?
A. In this trial I have heard so much about the symptoms that I am unable to tell you exactly what Professor Beiglboeck said then and what I have read in the meantime but those things Professor Beiglboeck will be able to give you a more definite answer. But, I shall try to tell you what I remember for certain. Professor Beiglboeck explained that the feeling of thirst was much stronger in the group which had drunk sea-water than in the group which had nothing to drink at all and that in the group which had drunk sea-water the people were more restless while the people who drank nothing were sleepy more than anything else. That is what I can definitely recall today.
Q. Would the report of the meeting in October contained in Schroeder's affidavit, which is paragraph 6, document NO-474 which is on page 6 of the Document Book 5, the passage is found on page 7. This paragraph 6 reads as follows:
"The experiments were carried out at the Dachau concentration camp by Dr. Beiglboeck, in summer of 1944. In October 1944, Beiglboeck reported on these experiments at a meeting which took place in a bunker near the Zoological Gardens in Berlin. Schroeder, Becker-Freyseng and I were present. It is possible that Dr. Schuster, an Air Force physician who worked at the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in Prague, was also present. Beiglboeck showed those present at the meeting numerous charts of analyses of the urine and blood of the experimental objects who were given only Berkatit to drink. Photographs and films were also presented and various groups of experiments were discussed. On the basis of this report, I estimate that 20 to 40 persons were used for these experiments, which were carried out during a period of seven to twelve days. Dr. Beiglobeck also reported that the experiments had resulted in the swelling of the liver and vervous symptoms. Delirium and mental disturbances also appeared. As a result of this meeting, it was decided that the Berka process was absolutely of no use to the Luftwaffe."
Now, is that a concise and more or less accurate report of what Beiglboeck had to say?
A. No.
Q. What discrepancies do you wish to point out?
A. First of all Dr. Schaefer is perhaps the only person who saw a film. It must have been such a secret showing that only Dr. Schaefer noticed it. No film was ever taken.
At any rate, I never saw one and there at the bunker meeting no pictures were shown.
Q. He could have meant by that merely photographs and used the expression film.
A. Let me point out first it says - photographs and films." Photographs were shown and will be submitted in evidence here.
Q. Any other discrepancies you wish to point out?
A. Yes, I want to point out above all the "nervous symptoms, the delirium, and the mental disturbances." First of all, the nervous symptoms, can mean so many things. I don't know what Dr. Schaefer meant by it but he will be able to explain that himself. I know nothing about any nervous symptoms. It could be, I believe Dr. Beiglboeck spoke of a tetanoid picture of symptoms. That is a condition in which the muscles are very easily excited if one taps a muscle, a muscle knot is formed. That is a very harmless thing. If that is called a nervous disorder that is possible, but it is a very harmless thing. "Delirium presupposed fever." The translation is impossible. Possibly it might be fever-delirium. I do not know from Professor Beiglboeck's report that the subjects had any fever. So, I don't know wherefrom they should have gotten "fever-delirium." And "mental disturbances", I know only that Professor Beiglboeck spoke only of so-called "apathy." That is nothing but strong sleepiness and some lack of interest to the outside world. That is known from all hunger and thirst cures that the people prefer to sleep and are not interested in anything, just as if a person is tired. According to what I know of psychiatry, I would not call that a "mental disturbance."
Q. Well, did Dr. Beiglboeck tell you how many people in the experiments?
A. He said definitely that no one died.
Q. Well, did he tell you what Joseph Sultoing says in his affidavit which is found on page 28 of Document Book 5 wherein he states, and I quote:
A. As far as I know this is not an affidavit. It is a Viennese Police record which is not sworn to.
MR. HARDY: This has been admitted provisionally and to be sworn to and Prosecution has had the same affidavit sworn to and when we introduce our documents formally, the one with the jurate on which contains the some information will be then admitted. The Tribunal had admitted this provisionally pending receipt of the jurate. Therefore we can use it here, doctor. Now, in this document---
A. Thank you for the information. Unfortunately I do not have the document.
DR. TIPP: Might I ask Mr. Hardy to give me the exhibit number of this new document. I know only what one is in the document book.
MR. HARDY: The same number, your Honor, since the affidavit was only sent down for the jurate.
DR. TIPP: Has it already been introduced? Has it already been given an exhibit number?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it was last January 15 when I introduced it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it here. It seems to be Exhibit No. 139.
MR. HARDY: It was admitted provisionally pending obtaining of jurates from the affiant in Austria. Now this document, in the English copy on page 28. The interpreters will note in the middle of the page the words page 2 of the original in parenthesis. If you will go up towards the top of the page to "page 2 of the original" in the middle of the page - 6 lines I will start reading where it says:
"Professor Beiglboeck came" -----
"Prof. Beiglboeck came with a staff of three Luftwaffe assistants, and the experiments began. As far as I know in various methods; starvation diets to begin with, seawater and salt diets, salt injections, and so on. The tortures led to enfeebling of the body which resulted in loss of consciousness and, as far as I know, in one death."
Now, did Dr. Beiglboeck mention anything of that nature in his report?
A. No.
Q. Now it says further down here - we skip one sentence and go to the statement beginning "Beiglboeck delivered these so-called troublemakers to the SS, which treated them in the manner customary in the camp."
Did he mention anything about that in his report?
A. No, he said nothing about that and I consider it a perfect lie.
Q. Well, now he says farther in this affidavit that will be down 2 - 3 more sentences beginning with "As in all the experimentation stations", that will be 2 sentences after the last sentence, I read: "As in all the experimentation stations, it was Beiglboeck's practice to send those prisoners undermined by the experiments, to the regular infirmary in order to conceal the number of deaths among the experimental subjects."
Did he call that to your attention?
A. Not only did he not call that to my attention, but at the time I saw the records of these experiments and w s able to note that all the subjects with whom he had started were still there at the end of the experiment.
I think that is up to Professor Beiglboeck to present proof of that.
Q. Doctor, did he tell you about the fact that when persons died in the experiments they were put then on stretchers, covered, with a white sheet and delivered to the morgue, as testified here to by the witness Viehweg.
A. I think you mean the criminal Viehweg who is charged again for calling himself a doctor illegally. So much for Viehweg. And as for the dead persons whom Viehweg says he saw for the sake of brevity I may refer you again to the case of Professor Beiglboeck and say in his defense because to my own knowledge I can say nothing about these deaths personally who were resurrected later.
Q Did Dr. Beiglboeck tell you where the experimental subjects came from?
A I consider that possible. I don't know today where they came from, but I don't know whether Professor Beiglboeck knows, I can't remember.
Q Did he tell you that they came from an other concentration camp other than Dachau?
A I just said that I can't remember that. It's possible that I asked Professor Beiglboeck what kind of subjects he got. It is possible that if Professor Beiglboeck knew that he told me, but in three years since that time I have forgotten again. It may be that he told me
Q Did he tell you that these volunteers were men who had volunteered for a "special commando"?
A "Special Commando". No, that was never mentioned.
Q I see. Doctor, in connection with typhus and virus research, did you know of the Typhus and Virus Research Institute in Lemberg, also known as the Lemberg Fleckfieber Institute, the Lemberg Spotted Fever Institute, or the Behring Institute-Lemberg?
A No, I heard of all these Institutes for the first time here. I never heard heard of them heretofore.
Q Do you know whether or not the Lemberg Institute had any connection whatsoever with the Luftwaffe?
A I can neither affirm or deny that. Never heard about it.
Q You don't know anything about the administration of the Lemberg Institute? Whether it was administered by the Luftwaffe or by I.G. Farben?
A I have no idea.
Q I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination by Defense Counsel?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it is my understanding that we are going to call the witness Jaeger at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask Dr. Steinbauer, is it satisfactory to you to, at this time, call your witness Jeager?