Now, if I understood you correctly, Doctors Clamann and Denzinger concerned themselves primarily with this problem, in their experiments.
Then comes the second problem, the problem of how the person who has been subjected to explosive decompression, and has survived it, can be brought down from this great altitude to the ground without injury? As you have said, Doctors Clamann and Benzinger did not solve this problem, and this problem was the main concern of Drs. Ruff and Romberg, this was the problem they were to solve. Is that correct, so far as I as a layman can understand this matter?
A. Yes, you understood me completely. I could merely add two supplementary details: First, that Doctors Ruff and Romberg also concerned themselves with the problem of explosive decompression in experiments on themselves. I myself saw such experiments performed by Ruff and Romberg and even took part in them to a very small extent.
The second addition I should like to make is that as I have already said. I do not know when Benzinger's concluding reports were published. It might have been before the Dachau experiments. I am included to think it was later, but if this question is very important, you could check up in Heidelberg as to just when these reports did appear. The reports are there.
Q. Benzinger's and Clamann's report did not concern itself with this second problem at all; that was reserved to Doctors Ruff and Romberg.
A. Right.
Q. Witness, so that you do not commit perjury, let me remind you of something. Doctors Benzinger and Clamann did not carry on simply explosive decompression experiments, of which we have just spoken, but also experiments of a different nature, to wit, experiments involving a "rescue dive", another specialized term. This is an experiment in which the flier, staying in bis plane, in case of danger, descends at great speed from a great altitude to a lower altitude, whereas in Ruff's and Romberg's experiments it is thought that the flier does not descend in the plane but leaves the plane and descends by parachute.
Did you know that Dr. Benzinger, I believe, also carried out experiments of this sort, and can you state that through this second type of experiment carried out by Benzinger the problem which Ruff and Romberg were trying to solve was still not solved but still had to be solved? Is that so?
A. I must give you three answers to this question. First, only Benzinger and not Clamann carried out these experiments. Secondly, Benzinger's idea was the following: If a man experiences explosive decompression. let us say at 19 kilometers, but the airplane is still maneuverable, the flier can still be expected to go through whatever maneuvers are necessary to bring his plane down to a lower altitude in a power dive, or you have to create a completely automatic mechanism which, independently of this sudden change in pressure, automatically and without the flier's having to do anything to manipulate it, is capable of bringing the plane down to a lower altitude.
The medical question involved was: At the height of 19 kilometers, in this specific case, how long does a flier remain capable of action? That is an entirely different problem from the problem that Doctors Ruff and Romberg clarified.
Now I come to my third answer. Through these special investigations of Benzinger's, the problem that Ruff and Romberg dealt with was not clarified.
Q. And I believe that is because in Benzinger's experiments the airplane, particularly the cabin, is still intact and can still be steered, whereas in Ruff's and Romberg's experiments the flier left the plane and descended outside the plane. Is that so.
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Do. Becker, it has been alleged that parachute descents from airplanes above 15,000 feet -- I repeat, "feet" -- were not undertaken in practice. Now, in order to clear this matter up, I should like to ask you the following.
Do you know that even several years before the Second World War an Italian, I believe his name was Petsi, ascended with a stratosphere plane without pressure cabin, only with a pressurized suit, and he did this in order to make the plane lighter -to 17,000 or 18,000 meters? This, as I say, was several years before the second World War. Did you know that?
A. Of course I did. That is the recognized altitude record with airplanes to date. This was the Italian Colonel by the name of Petsi, from the Italian Air Force Research Institute near Rome, in Guidonia. I believe this world record was setin 1937.
Q. These were altitudes between 17,000 and 18,000 meters?
A. I believe that the recognized altitude was 17,500, but I am not sure. At least over 17,000.
Q Dr. Becker, do you know that in other ways much greater heights have been reached, heights pf as much as 24,000 meters, at which the human being survived?
A Yes. The experiments were carried out several times. Once at the beginning or the middle of the thirties, two American Captains, I believe Orville Anderson and Albert Stevens, in the American stratosphere balloon Explorer II, reached a height of 17,200 meters; some time later the Swiss or Belgian Professor Piccard with his assistant, Dr. Kuepfer or Knoepfer, or some such name, went with his stratosphere balloon to a height of some -- what more than 24,000 meters without anything happening to them, but, of course, this was in a pressurized cabin.
Q Do you know, Doctor, that in the period that followed, these altitudes were even exceeded? I seem to remember a case where an altitude of as much as 26,000 meters was attained. I don't want to tell you the name for the moment. Perhaps you can remember the name yourself. I should prefer that.
A I don't know that 26 kilometers was actually reached, but from my activities as a Referent I know that the German Research Institute for Gliding in Ainring near Salzburg, under the direction of the wellknown aero-dynamic expert and aviation research man, Professor Georgij, developed an airplane, or rather was in the course of developing it, and this plane was intended to reach an altitude of 26,000 meters. However, I don't know whether the plane actually ever flew. That was at the end of 1944.
Q Now, Dr. Becker, when you reflect on Ruff's and Romberg's experiments, do you agree with me when I say that on the basis of these examples, an urgent necessity existed in the year 1942 for solving the problem of rescue from great altitudes, at least altitudes as high as 20 or 21 kilometers; do you as a specialist agree with me in that assertion or do you not?
A I am entirely in accord with you, Dr. Sauter.
Q Then Dr. Becker, I want to ask you a few questions about this low-pressure chamber. Do you know who delivered these low-pressure chambers?
A Yes, I do.
Q Who?
A They were all delivered by the I.O. Zeuzem firm in Frankfurt on the Main.
Q Do you know whether the chambers were delivered completely ready for use, or were the chambers when they were delivered not yet ready for use, and, if so, what was lacking in them?
A I don't know what you are driving at.
Q I said that simply because perhaps since I don't know what you are driving at my answer may be a little aside from the point. Well, for one thing the firm didn't itself manufacture the pumps but bought them from other firms. In addition the oxygen equipment was not manufactured and not entirely installed by this firm, and above all the inter-com system, that is, the telephone system; these pieces of equipment were usually built into the chamber later by Luftwaffe units.
Q Who built them in? Were they not built in, on the basis of orders from the Medical Inspectorate, by a technical department of the DVL -that is, the German Research Institute for Aviation -- because that technical department of the DVL had the necessary technicians available, always on orders from the Medical Inspectorate, that is?
A Yes, that is right, in the case of the four low-pressure chamber units.
Q The manufacture of the low-pressure chambers, including these pieces of equipment that were missing, the inter- com system, the oxygen system, and so forth, was not according to you, done by Dr. Ruff's Institute, is that so?
A Surely not, because Ruff's institute was a medical research institute; the equipping of the chamber was surely done by some workshop of the DVL. I don't know the details.
Q Now this mobile low-pressure chamber that came to Dachau in January or February, 1942, when it reached the DVL, was this chamber immediately allocated to Ruff's institute, or was it still under the orders of the Medical Inspectorate, that is to say, Prof. Dr. Hippke's orders?
A Dr. Sauter, I believe that that is an economic or legal problem, just who owns something which has been allotted to someone else but not yet delivered. So long as the chamber was in the DVL, Dr. Ruff could of course not dispose of it with complete freedom, but if he had some special purpose for the chamber, had to get Professor Hippke's permission.
Q Then the disposal of the low-pressure chamber, even the one at Dachau, was held by Dr. Hippke as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, is that what you are saying, and if I understand you correctly Dr. Ruff could not dispose of it independently but only with Professor Hippke's approval, is that what you are saying?
A That is what I think is the case. However, I cannot take responsibility for the economic and legal problems involved.
Q Now, how did this work out in practice? For example, who issued orders for this chamber was to be sent somewhere, there had to be travel orders, a directive with permission for the chamber to be moved. Now who issued these orders, did Dr. Ruff or his institute issue them, or did the Medical Inspectorate, or did some Luftwaffe unit issue them on orders from the Medical Inspectorate?
Are you personally informed regarding this matter?
A First let me tell you that of my own knowledge I can tell you nothing regarding the conditions at that time, because I had nothing to do with the transportation of these chambers. I can speak only on the basis of my general information. I can say for certain that Dr. Ruff could not sign such travel orders, because that was a purely military matter, and Dr. Ruff, as the head of a purely civilian institute, had no right to issue any such military orders, so these orders must have been signed either by Hippke himself or by someone else with the necessary military powers who was commissioned to do so by him.
Q Now, regarding the right of disposal of this low-pressure chamber, I should be interested in the following: When the chamber was in Dachau ready to be used for experiments, who, in your opinion -your are a doctor, not a lawyer -- who, in your opinion as Referent of the Medical Inspectorate, had the right to dispose of the chamber? Who determined whether it stayed there or was removed, and Dr, Becker, before you answer this question, lot me remind you of a letter that has frequently been read here, a letter from Prof. Hippke to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS, I believe of 20 May 1942, in which it is stated that the chamber was to be brought back to Berlin and. was to stay there and was to be used for front-line purposes, but was not to be used by the SS?
MR. HARDY: In view of this last question. Your Honor, I must object on the ground it is a leading question. It seems to me that the Defendant has exhibited that he can well testify for himself, and under the circumstances it is unfortunate that I cannot cross-examine Dr. Sauter. I can only cross-examine the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is certainly a leading one, The objection will be sustained. The question may be propounded to the witness, but let him answer it instead of counsel putting the words in his mouth.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, I shall then ask you the following question: Do you know Hippke's letter to Wolff of 20 May 1942? This is the letter in which Hippke writes that the low-pressure chamber is not to be made available any longer but is needed for front-line purposes; do you know this letter?
A I know it, but so that I may answer your question, may I ask you to hand me the document? I don't remember it well enough.
Q. Dr. Becker, you are not to answer the question as I asked it first. The Tribunal said it was a leading question, just answer the question I ask you, now, certainly no leading question, whether you know that letter which was frequently read during this trial. This is the letter in which Hippko writes that he cannot make the chamber available any long because it is needed for front line purposes. I believe it is the letter of 20 May 1942. Witness, I have a copy of the letter here. I see it is n t a letter ....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just submit the letter to the witness, the messenger will take it to the witness and ask the witness if he is familiar with the letter.
DR. SAUTER: It is not a letter from Hippko, as I see, but a letter from Field Marshal Milch. I must correct myself.
A. Yes, this is the infamous letter headed "Dear Wolfy", and I am of course, familiar with it.
Q. Dr. Becker, when you road this letter when you were a referent, what conclusion do you as an expert draw from this letter regarding who was entitled to dispose of the chamber while it was in Dachau? Was it the SS, or the Camp Commander of Dachau, or who was it?
A. It seems to me to be a rather difficult legal problem. Milch says, on the, one hand, that the chamber cannot remain in Dachau. Thus, Field Marshal Milch is apparently assuming that in this case he, as a representative of the Luftwaffe, was entitled to take the chamber away from Dachau. But who was legally competent to dispose of the chamber in Dachau, I as a person not familiar with legal matters cannot clearly see.
Q. Is there anything in the letter to the effect that Dr. Ruff or his institute had this right of disposition? Is there anything there to indicate that Milch had no rights in this matter and that Wolff or the SS had to go to Ruff? Is that in the letter?
A. That certainly is not in the letter.
Q. Nothing to that effect in the letter?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then who, according t this letter, has this right of disposition, or at least assumes it.
A. At least Field Marshal Milch feels that he has tho right to fetch the chamber away from Dachau at this date.
Q. As inspector General of tho Luftwaffe.
A. I don't know when ho received that commission. At any rate, he was State Secretary in the Reich Aviation Ministry.
Q. Dr. Becker, I have an their technical question which you surely can answer. It will be rather important to know what sort of electrocardiograph was used. This is perhaps important in Dr. Romberg's case. Day before yesterday I believe, you expressed the assumption that the low pressure chamber in Dachau was equipped with a Braun's tube, a Cathode-ray oscillograph. Do you know precisely what this apparatus was, the apparatus that was in the low-pressure chamber?
A. Since I was not present during these experiments I do not knew that. From what Dr. Romberg said, I gathered that this was an apparatus which enabled him to observe the course of the electrical graphic representations of the heart boats, and I suppose that this might have been an apparatus such as was manufactured by tho Viennese firm Karajan. The Karajan model was a cathode-ray oscillograph with a Braun's tube, but I cannot say for sure which machine Dr. Romberg had. There are certain machines which do not operate with Braun's tube but still work. It is a very likely conjecture, but I don't know for sure.
Q. Is this tho so-called Kleine Siemens apparatus? In answering this question, lot me remind you of Dr. Romberg's testimony n the stand. At that time ho said that it was a moving point of light on a small screen. That is what Romberg said. Now, perhaps you will remember that. Now, is this the sort of machine that y u just mentioned?
A. No, I must correct myself. In this case of the small screen there is a screen about 10x3cm, and this is the screen you find in the Kleine Siemens electrocardiograph.
Q. Now, by observing this moving point of light of which Romberg spoke in his testimony, can one come to a recise diagnosis of the condition of the heart or is that simply a vague indication cf tho heart activity? What can you, as a doctor, toll us about this?
A. Please do not construct what I am about to say as the testimony of a heart specialist because I am not one. However, I do know a little about electrocardiographs. I would not trust myself to draw an accurate diagnosis on the basis of this moving point of life.
Q. Last question, witness, regarding the barometer. Did this barometer have any technical connection with the pumps? Was it attached to the pumps, or where was it installed f r the purpose of measuring altitude?
A. There was no direct technical or mechanical connection between the barometer and the pumps. That can be soon from tho fact that the pumps were in a different truck from tho truck in which tho chamber was, and, cf course, the barometer was on tho low pressure chamber itself.
Q. I have no further questions, Mr. President.
DR. FRITZ FOR ROSE:
Q. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in your cross examination, witness, you said that the research assignments of tho Medical Inspectorate that did not concern aviation medical questions originated from Referat 2IB cf the Medical Inspectorate. From the word "originated" one understands that tho initiative was taken by that Referat in issuing these research assignments. Prof. Rose considers that statement incorrect and confronts y u with the fact that s far as ho knows n single hygiene research assignment, particularly none to Prof. Rose, was issued on tho initiative of the Medical Inspectorate; rather, those research assignments without exception originated in a n application on tho part of tho research man in question himself. Do you wish to supplement or correct the statement you made in cross-examination on tho basis of this information from Prof. Rose?
A. Of course, I unfortunately do not have the verbatim record of what I said in cross examination before no now, but I very much doubt whether I actually said what y u just said I said. In so many words lot me right away correct a mistake that y u made in naming someone. You said assignments to Professor Rose, and you mean Professor Haagen.
Q. Yes, that is right.
A. Then, when I was speaking of the Referat for Hygiene in cross examination, I was speaking only of a very few hygiene research assignments, and not all research assignments that were n t aviation medical assignments; and finally, if I really said that research assignments to Haagen really originated with the Referat for Hygiene, then what I meant to say in this connection was that the actual work the opinion expressed by the Referent, was done by the hygiene Referent. I, however, do not know whether the assignment to Haagen was issued on Haagen's application or because the Referent for Hygiene considered it necessary, but, according to the general custom, it is the most probably thing that Haagen applied to the Medical Inspectorate for the assignment, and I believe this question could be cleared up once and for all if Haagen would testify on it himself.
Q. And one other point, briefly. In the redirect examination you said that you had seen no documents here that originated from the files of the Medical Inspectorate in Harzburg, but the so-called "green folders" containing the reports on the Consulting Conferences, which were submitted by the Prosecution, come from those Harzburg files. That can be ascertained from the names on the covers of these folders, entries by hand in the text, etc. Does that give you any reason to wish to correct the statement you gave your counsel before?
A. I can't correct it, because I have never seen the green folders of which you are speaking in the original, and there is no stamp of the Medical Inspectorate on the copies that the Prosecution put in evidence. Since many thousands of these reports were issued, I supposed that the copy might have come from somewhere else. However, if you tell me that there is a stamp or a name of some member of the staff of the Medical Inspectorate, then I must correct my testimony.
Q. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few moments.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to the witness by any other defense counsel?
DR. GILM: (Representing Dr. Wille, defense counsel for Dr. Weltz) Witness, during cross examination, you described how in June of 1942 you were present at a discussion between Drs. Hippke and Rascher; now during that conference and in your presence did the name Weltz come up at all?
THE WITNESS: In my presence, no.
DR. GILM: Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions by any other defense counsel or any questions by the Prosecution concerning the subsequent examination of the witness?
MR. HARDY: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, do you have any knowledge as to whether or not in the year of 1943 Dr. Rascher received another pressure chamber at Dachau for further experimentation as solicited in the Siever's diary for the year 1943?
THE WITNESS: No, I have no knowledge of that, but considering everything that I know I think that it is absolutely out of the question that Rascher received yet another pressure chamber.
MR. HARDY: Did your office or did you have cognizance of any other correspondence which may have originated from Rascher or Sievers regarding the allocation of apressure chamber to Dachau in 1943?
THE WITNESS: Either during my direct or cross-examination, I said that during the winter of 1942 to 1943 my department chief asked me to define my attitude in writing briefly regarding the question of whether a sub-pressure chamber convoy could be handed over to Rascher. The requisite form I did not see, it may have been done over the telephone or it may have been done in writing, nor can I say that it came from Sievers, Wolff, Rascher or Himmler and whether there was a telephone call or letter I cannot say.
MR. HARDY: Do you have anything further to add to that?
THE WITNESS: Well, with regard to what I have already said upon this point in the direct or cross examination when I described the story in detail, I also said that I, as an assistant referent who had to deal with low pressure chamber questions, had. to give an opinion to the effect that no low pressure chambers were available, further I have nothing to add.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in the course of your examination we have heard your position in regard to medical ethics of experimentation on human beings. If I recall correctly, you stated that experiments on human beings should not be conducted until such time as the research on animals had been exploited to the last degree; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: I consider that it is an obvious pre-requisite for experiments on human beings that one would first attempt to solve the problem as far as possible by animal experiments.
MR. HARDY: Do you apply that also to the field of the high altitude research?
THE WITNESS: No doubt, certainly.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Sauter questioned you concerning the animal experiments of Dr. Lutz and Dr. Wendt and referred to the document No. 402, which is in document book 2. I have a point to bring out to you, which is on page 96 of the English document book 2, document No. 402. Does the interpreter have that; page 96?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
HR. HARDY: It is the paragraph in the middle of the page, beginning with the words.
"Before we go into a discussion on the falling experiments, it seems essential for us to cite the work of Lutz and Wendt on 'Animal Experiments on Parachute Jumping from High Pressure Cabins'. Unfortunately, this work was not available to us during the experiments so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and derived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the authors."
From that passage, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, is it not obvious that Drs. Ruff and Romberg conducted their experiments with referring to work on animals or without having previously worked themselves on animals?
THE WITNESS: With reference to that, I would like to say the following. The report to which Drs. Ruff, Romberg and Rascher are referring to in this case is merely the report made by Lutz and Wendt and the Air Department was not concerned with this, at least from the translation I heard from the words Lutz being mentioned. Lutz?
MR. HARDY: Yes, that is correct.
THE WITNESS: ...Then I consider from Drs. Ruff and Romberg examinations that they themselves in their institute of Adlershof had carried out experiments on animals with reference to this particular field and that they had also carried out certain initial informative experiments. Finally, I do not believe you can reproach any scientist when another scientist who has had made similar experiments in a similar field, if the other scientists work is unknown tp him and if therefore the original scientist conduct his original experiments without being able to utilize the work of the other scientist. I think the medical expert of the prosecution will confirm it that in extraordinary number of medical works you will find statements to the effect that during the time I carried out my work, I gained knowledge of work being carried out in the meantime by someone else." This will always happen and you cannot raise a single finger to prevent it.
MR. HARDY: During your testimony before Dr. Sauter in direct examination here this morning, he took the position and asked your opinion as to whether or not the animal experiments carried out by Lutz had solved the problem; you stated that the experimental conditions, under which Lutz carried out his work on animals, did not solve the problem. Is it not apparent from this report that Ruff and Romberg had no knowledge whatsoever of experimental work on animals and therefore they could not determine whether Lutz and Wendt had solved the problem, inasmuch as they state here?
"Unfortunately this work was not available to use during these experiments? so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it?"
THE WITNESS: Well? this would show that the authors of this report only learned of Lutz and Wendt's work after they had completed their own experiments.
MR. HARDY: Thank you? I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to be propounded to the witness, counsel may proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Mr. President? only two more questions arising from the questions which my colleagues put. First of all? a question? Dr. Becker. You said this morning when Dr. Sauter questioned you that you had learned from Romberg's report how the electro-cardiograph worked during the experiments at Dachau; may I ask you in order to clear up this measure that report you were referring to and when did you gain knowledge of these reports?
A In that case, I was referring to the report which Dr. Romberg had made from this witness stand here while being interrogated.
Q Therefore? you were not thinking of the reports from an earlier date as one might conclude you did?
A No.
Q In that case? one more question arising from the question which Hr. Hardy just touched upon? namely the transfer of the low pressure chamber to Dachau? which was supposed to have been carried out in 1943. Mr. Hardy was making reference to entries in Sievers' diary. Unfortunately the document is not before me at this moment and I cannot ascertain the document number. The interpreter may be able to help me in that connection.
A It is document 538, Exhibit 122. Unfortunately I cannot tell you the page. Exhibit 122.
Q Could you please tell me what document book it is in, I think it is 3.
A It is an appendix to 3, I am afraid this is all I can say.
Q But, you have the document before you. Would you be good enough to clarify this and to read just what Sievers said in regard to the high altitude experiments at Dachau. Perhaps in order to maintain continuity you can start with the beginning and then read the subsequent paragraph.
A I have only a brief extract here, an extract from the scientist's diary of the Ahnenerbe Society for 1943, kept by the Reichs Manager SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers, under No. 8.
Q Excuse me, witness, but would you mind telling me just what the date of this entry was?
A Unfortunately I cannot tell you the date, my document does not show it, but there are these words, "Continuation of Low Pressure Chambers."
Q Does the document show just what we were concerned with therein, in other words on what occasions was that reproduced in Sievers' diary?
AAs far as I know the entry was made in connection with the conference between sievers and Rascher on an inquiry Rascher made to Sievers.
Q Mr. President, I can clear this up. It is 6 March 1943, the reference is made to a conference between Rascher and Sievers during which a number of points are listed. Under No. 8 of this point of the conference there is mention of the continuation of the low pressure experiments. You cannot draw any other conclusion from this entry except that it was a conversation between Rascher and Sievers.
MR. HARDY: I request the Tribunal to instruct Dr. Tipp that that is an argument and cannot be taken up at this place.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is merely an explanation of the document and he did not state the contents of the document at all. Counsel may proceed.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this witness. If I may have the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to continue with the presentation of documents and the witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you understand the ruling of the Tribunal? You can proceed with the questioning of the witness, did you or did you not understand the objection by the prosecution was overruled; did you understand?
DR. TIPP: I understand Mr. President, but through the explanation I have assumed and the added testimony of the witness, the question is cleared up and I don't think there are any further questions necessary, In conclusion I want to ask you, Dr. Becker, you probably remember the contents of the Sievers' diary, do you agree with my interpretation that this is merely an extract of a conference between Sievers and Rascher which does not show anything about the continuation of the experiments?
THE WITNESS: That is my opinion too. At any rate, I am absolutely convinced that in 1943 no low pressure chamber was ever again moved to Dachau.
DR. TIPP: Again, in that case, Hr. President, I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the defendant Becker-Freyseng is excused from the witness stand and may resume his place.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, counsel, the defendant BeckerFreyseng will not call as a witness Eugen Haagen. His name was listed as a witness for the defendant Becker-Freyseng on the witness sheet of May 27th.
DR. TIPP: That is quite right, Mr. President, and I can clear up this point. I agreed with Mr. Hardy that in order not to interrupt the sea water case the witness Haagen will not be called until the whole sea water case has been completed, after the examination of Dr. Schaefer has been completed, as well as Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to see that nothing was overlooked. Counsel may proceed.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, the next document which is offered on behalf of the defendant Becker-Freyseng has exhibit no. 32. It is contained in Document Book III and is Becker-Freyseng Document 48. May I now continue with submitting the documents from Book III and it is no. 49. I should like to offer it as exhibit 33.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I have three or four document books and Dr. Tipp has several documents to introduce from each book and I don't want to interrupt the continuity of his case or the sequence of his case but it would be much more convenient if he would introduce the affidavits and documents through each book and complete the introduction of Document Book 1, then 2, 3, and 4 in that order if possible and I could follow so much more rapidly and could interpose my objections without too much difficulty.
DR. TIPP: I don't think this difficulty will arise. I am only going to submit the remaining documents from Document Book III. As far as the remaining documents in 1 and 2 which have not been offered in evidence, these are documents concerned with experiments on human beings which are impossible to offer now, in accordance with the ruling of the Tribunal all documents which were meant to be submitted since Prosecution has recognized the importance of the experiments. Therefore, as I said I will turn to document 49 in Document Book III on page 210 and I shall call it Exhibit 33.