A Yes.
Q And this exhibit NO 133 of 23 May regarding the conference of 19 and 20 May, you had never previously seen?
A No.
Q You saw it for the first time during your interrogation?
A Yes.
Q Then to sum up, this formulation was not made in your presence but was a compilation and summary from previous interrogations and was put to you as such?
A Yes.
Q Now to return to the conditions of this affidavit; now to return to the facts themselves, it is not true you were not a member of the commission that was to arrange for these experiments.
A Yes, that is so.
Q Could you have known anything precise about the experimental series as a consequence?
A The experimental series were discussed only on the 25 of May.
Q And we have already said that you look part in this only in part; now, lets take a look at No. 4, in your affidavit, the second sentence. "On orders of the office of the Chief of the Medical Services I looked over Sirany's experiments personally." No, no, -"I personally gave Becker-Freyseng a copy of my report which was meant for Schroeder, and therefore Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder must have known that the Berka method was very dangerous. Becker-Freyseng and I were of the opinion that Sirany's experiments were not complete since they did not simulate actual conditions of a sea emergency." It is true that you told Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder about the uselessness and dangerousness of the Berka method?
A Yes, that is so.
Q Does this question have anything to do with the question of the dangerousness of the experiment?
A Nothing at all.
Q But Dr. Schaefer you will admit that the way this No. 4 is formulated gives the impression that the experiments are being called dangerous?
A Yes, you could get that impression from this formulation.
Q. Did you overlook that fact when you accepted and signed this affidavit?
A. It is quite clear that as a former laboratory research man one does not weight every single word and think ones way through the possible consequences of every word.
Q. Let me read to you the last sentence from n umber four:
"Becker-Freyseng and I were of the opinion that Sirany's experiments were not consummated since they did not simulate actual conditions of a sea emergency."
Does that mean all the Sirany experiments were incomplete and therefore the necessity existed and you collaborated to carry on further experiments?
A. No. In my opinion Sirany's experiments were not sufficient to arrive at a judgment regarding the Berka method.
Q. But, Dr. Schaefer, here again you will admit that the formulation here gives the impression that you and Becker-Freyseng, because the Sirany experiments were incomplete, mediated for new experiments; was that the impression you wish to give in this formulation?
A. No, not at all. I believe that can be seen from my final summary, in which I stated my opinion of Sirany's experiments.
Q. Let us take a look at number six. There is discussion here of Beiglboeck's experiments in the summer of 1944 and it says here:
"Photographs and films were also presented and various groups of experiments were discussed."
Now, what do you have to say about these photographs and films, which by the way were already discussed in the interrogation or hearing of Becker-Freyseng; what did you understand by this word "films"; does that word "films" in the affidavit originate with you?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And what did you understand under the term?
A. I was not thinking of moving pictures, but I did recall that some photographs had been projected on a screen and thought that these were films of the same sort as x-ray files, dispositive films through which light passes.
Q. Further it reeds here:
"Dr. Beigleboeck also reported that the experiments had resulted in swelling of the liver and nervous symptoms."
A. That means the muscles were more sensitive, that expression "nervous symptoms."
Q. Did you use that phrase, "nervous symptoms" in your previous other interrogations?
A. Yes, it is quite possible that I did.
Q. What did you understand that to mean?
A. I understood that to mean a general increase in reflexes and increased sensitiveness of the musculatory system.
Q. Well, it says here:
"Delirium and mental disturbances also appeared."
A. The word "delirium" is an error on my part, arising from confusion as to thirst that is attendant to cholera.
Q. How did it happened that you made this confusion; how did you concern yourself previously with the thirst symptoms of cholera?
A. Thirst in Cholera, this thirst was the only thirst previously known resulting from a severe loss of water in the intestines. In my Nurnberg paper I made use of this analogy; that is where the confusion arose.
Q. Now, how about mental disturbances?
A. With this I meant an apathy and somnolence.
Q. Dr. Schaefer, do you have enough clinical experience, as you have not actually seen these symptoms yourself, to describe them yourself?
A. No, I did not have that degree of clinical experience. My clinical experience was not large. I was primarily a laboratory researcher.
Q. It says here further:
"As a result of this meeting, it was decided that the Berka process was absolutely no use to the Luftwaffe."
Had that always been your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. But I want to ask you what the word means "decided?"
A. Well, that is an ill chosen expression, I should have said it was ascertained or reported and that was the result of the experiments.
Q. Was anything decided at all, did you have the right to make any decision; does the military make decisions?
A. Those are the military orders.
Q. Now, I come to number seven.
"It was an open secret in the highest medical circles that the Berka method was used on inmates of concentration camps."
What do you want to say about the meaning of this phrase: "An open secret in the highest medical circles?"
A. The expression "open secret" did not originate with me.
Q. What had you then said in the preceding interrogations so that the interrogator chose this formulation; what did you actually say in detail?
A. I don't believe I said anything in this connection.
Q. But it was discovered in your interrogations first of all that Professor Schroeder knew of these things, secondly that Becker-Freyseng knew of them and who else?
A. Professor Anthony and Christensen.
Q. Now here by the phrase "in the highest medical circles" did you speak with the highest medical circles, or did you just happen to hear the names you just mentioned?
A. Yes, that is the phrase "in the highest medical circles" is not just the one that should have been used. I was told if a man like Professor Schroeder was present it would be perfectly justifiable to use the phrase, "in the highest medical circles."
Q. And that satisfied you?
A. Yes.
Q. in the same way you were satisfied to use the word "decided" entirely aside from the question whether you had the right to vote?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Schaefer, I shall sum up. You have just stated that this affidavit contains correct information and also incorrect information and the incorrect information results from the fact that correct statements are brought into association with one another, which lead to a construction which you did not intend; is that so?
A. Yes, that is so, but I must say also that at that time I did not see the full consequences of this erroneous construction.
Q. And your own attitude about the experiments is not expressed in this affidavit; is it?
A. No.
Q. In this affidavit only your attitude on the Berkatit method is expressed as such?
A. Correct.
Q. However, during the interrogation you did express your opposition to all experiments and consequently deny responsibility for all of them?
A. Yes, but apparently I did not do that clearly enough, besides I saw no reason for carrying out the experiments since there was nothing to investigate on Wofatit and the experiments on Berkatit were useless.
Q. Nevertheless you signed this affidavit, although it contained partly with your knowledge and partly without your knowledge many errors. It says here:
"No duress or threat of any kind."
Would you please make a statement about this statement, "I was subjected to no duress or threat of any kind?"
A It is quite true I was subject to no duress or threat but if one is suddenly put in prison there is a certain shock and one reacts to things that really don't exist.
Q Until your arrest you were working in the Aero Medical Center in Heidelberg; is that so?
A Yes.
Q You were arrested on 17 September?
A Yes.
Q And you were first interrogated here on the 27th of September?
A Yes.
Q Were you told with what you were charged?
A No.
Q How did the interrogation begin?
A It began by my being asked if I would recognize Professor Beiglboeck.
Q Didn't you ask why you were in custody?
A Yes, I was told that I first of all should give information as an expert.
Q Were you told you had the right to refuse to make statements?
A No.
Q Or were you told that you could refuse to answer such questions as might tend to incriminate you?
A No.
Q Well, were you never told that?
A Only after the indictment.
Q In other words you were not told that before this affidavit?
A No.
Q Were you told that you had the right to have counsel?
A Only after the indictment was the right of counsel granted.
Q I gather now from your testimony regarding this affidavit and all of your previous testimony that you asserted you were not responsible for the planning or carrying out of the experiments for the following reasons:
First, you considered them completely superfluous and then there was the further reason that during the conferences you could not say any more than you did, that you had spiritual misgivings about experiments in concentration camps, that we know particularly from Mrs. Koenig's affidavit, Exhibit No. 19. Now I should like to ask you the following: What should you have done had you received the order to carry out the experiments yourself?
A. After the conference if that had come up I should have asked that I neither be put in the commission or receive any order which had anything to do with that.
Q. That is all very well, Dr. Schaeffer, but I am asking you what you should have done if you had received that order to carry out the experiments.
A. That is a hypothetical question which is very difficult to answer. Of course, it is very easy for me to say today that I should not have carried out the order.
Q. Not have carried it out?
A. No, but what I really should have done in that case I don't know. I should have made efforts to extract myself from that situation. However, that would have been very difficult.
Q. How could you have extracted yourself? What risks would you have run?
A. I could have reported as sick.
Q. And if you were not actually sick?
A. I could have given myself an injection in the laboratory or something of the sort but that was just as dangerous itself, because after I was admitted to a Luftwaffe hospital it would have been easy to see what I had done and there would have been very serious disciplinary consequences.
Q. Did you have any chance to turn to the public, let us say, through the press, if you really did not feel that you could not have anything to do with these matters?
A. That was quite out of the question. There was no public, not even in peacetime. There was no one to turn to if you objected to obeying a state order.
Q. And through the regular channels, through official channels?
A. There was even less possibility there.
Q. Now a final question. Are you still opposed to those experiments today, after you know the defense put up by Becker-Freyseng and in part by Beiglboeck? Now you know that from the medical point of view these experiments were not dangerous or inhumane perhaps?
A. My reasons now are the same as they were, namely, I object to them on the grounds that the experiments were superfluous; secondly, because I myself would not have carried out any experiments on concentration camp inmates?
Q. Why not?
A. Because the voluntary consent of a concentration camp inmate is a very relative thing.
Q. And for you this reason was sufficient to determine your unwillingness to participate?
A. That is so.
DR. PELCKMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
DR. KRAUSS: Counsel for Rostock.
BY DR. KRAUSS:
Q. Dr. Schaeffer, I revert to the affidavit you signed, NO-474, Exhibit 131, in which under No. 7 you remark that it was an open secret in the highest medical circles that the Berka method was used on inmates of concentration camps. In the explanations you made during your interrogation by your counsel just now a number of further questions have become superfluous. Let me ask you the following questions. Was the Berka method as such a matter that concerned the Germans and that was familiar in general to the German physiological chemists?
A. No, by no means.
Q. Dr. Schaeffer, is it your opinion that for example a well-known German surgeon was informed about what the Berka process was?
A. A surgeon - certainly not.
Q. Dr. Schaeffer, do you have any concrete reasons for believing that the defendant Dr. Rostock knew of this process and of the experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. No, I didn't know Professor Rostock at all. I simply knew he had a surgical clinic.
Q. Is it true, Dr. Schaeffer, that the quoted statements under No. 7 in your affidavit could not and was not intended to include Professor Rostock?
A. Yes, that is so.
DR. KRAUSS: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Counsel for Beiglboeck.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. Witness, I have only three short questions to put to you. First, when did you make the acquaintance of Professor Beiglboeck?
A. In October 1944.
Q. In other words, after the experiments?
A. Yes, after the experiments.
Q. The second question: Did Dr. Beiglboeck participate in the planning of the experiments in any way, in particular, did he take part in the conference mentioned in Document Book 5?
A. No, Dr. Beiglboeck took part in no conferences.
Q. And until he was given the order he could not have known anything about the matter?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. And now a little final question. Did he tell you anything about his experiments on himself?
A. Yes, he did.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions by defense counsel, the prosecution may cross-examine the witness.
Prior to the beginning of the cross-examination the Tribunal will be in recess a few minutes.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal I is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Schroeder, you were in attendance at the freezing conference in Nurnberg in October 1942?
A Yes. On the second day of this meeting I held a lecture.
Q Who ordered you to that conference?
A Generalarzt Martius.
Q Who approached you and requested that you give a report at that conference?
A I received this assignment from Professor Anthony.
Q How did Dr. Anthony happen to approach you?
A He knew that I was working in that field.
Q Were you considered an expert in that field -- thirst?
AAt that time?
Q Yes.
A I really don't believe so.
Q Did you have any discussions with Professor Anthony prior to the deliverance of your lecture or report at the October meeting?
A Yes, I talked to him.
Q Did you have any dealings with Becker-Freyseng concerning this matter?
A Yes, I talked to Becker-Freyseng too.
Q What did you talk to him about?
A The thirst problem in cases of distress at sea. More or less what I knew up to that time, and that I had performed an orientation experiment.
Q What did you think Becker-Freyseng's position was at that time in reference to the October meeting?
A I had the impression that he had to take care of the business to supply billets, etc., but that is just a vague impression, I don't know exactly.
Q Well, why did you talk to him about your report?
A Because he happened to be present when I was talking to professor Anthony.
Q Well, then when you met with Professor Anthony to determine whether or not you would give a report at the October meeting Dr. Becker-Freyseng was present also?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear any of the other lectures while you were at the conference?
A Yes, on the second day I heard the others.
Q Did you hear Holzloehner's lecture?
A I cannot remember Holzloehner's lecture. I assume that it was on a different day.
Q Did you hear Rascher's lecture?
A No.
Q Did you see Becker-Freyseng at the meeting?
A Yes, I saw him.
Q You stated on direct examination that Becker-Freyseng was so busy that you didn't have the opportunity to talk to him at the meeting; can you tell us what he was busying himself with?
A I saw him in conversation with other people.
Q Were you able to ascertain from hearing the lectures, the various lectures at this meeting in October 1942 that concentration camp inmates had been used for experimental purposes?
A No.
Q Did you hear any talk about it after the meeting?
A No.
Q Did you read the reports that were published?
A When I saw the record of the meeting at the Institute for Aviation Medicine. I read my lecture to see whether it had been reproduced correctly and I was not interested in the rest.
Q Then the first time you heard about the experimental program with human beings was here in this courtroom?
A No, the meeting on the 19th and 20th concerning the sea water experiments.
Q And after having been to the Nurnberg conference in October 1942 and at a later date having read this portion of the report of the October meeting you were unable to ascertain that human beings were used in experiments by those various officers?
A That is correct.
Q And the first time that knowledge was brought home to you that concentration camp inmates were used as experimental subjects was that conference of 19 May 1944, is that correct?
A Not that they had been used, but that the idea of using them was being entertained. Before that time, it was through an officer of the Wehrmacht who had pointed out to me that he knew of difficulties of getting experimental subjects for my thirst experiments and suggested that I use prisoners.
Q Was the freezing problem of interest to you?
A No, not at all, not before or afterwards did I ever have anything to do with the subject.
Q Yet you listened to Holzloehner's lecture?
A I cannot say. I think I did not hear Holzloehner's lecture.
Q How surely, Doctor, you must recall whether or not you heard Holzloehner's lecture?
A I would certainly have remembered Rascher's remark, consequently I assume that Holzloehner's and Rascher's reports were on the first day.
Q In November 1943 you reported to the Medical Inspectorate that you had developed a method to make sea water potable, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Was that the first time you had reported to the Medical Inspectorate?
A Before that I had made a report that work was being carried on and I reported how far the work had gone.
Q Did you conduct experimentation on animals while you were developing Wolfatit?
A Yes. I carried out animal experiments, but they were in general completed.
Q Did you carry out experiments on human beings?
A Yes, I carried out experiments on volunteers, persons who were at liberty.
Q Where did you carry out these experiments?
A In Berlin.
Q Did you experiment on yourself likewise?
A Yes.
Q How long did your experiments take?
A Which? The ones on my human subjects?
Q Yes.
A Three or four days.
Q. How many human subjects did you use?
A. There were about four or five, some of them were used several times.
Q. Did you also use a control group; did you set your experiments up into a series wherein you subjected some to ordinary seawater, others to normal water and the others to sea-water treated by your method?
A. No, no control group was necessary in my experiments. I merely carried out tests on hunger and thirst. It never occurred to me to perform human experiments with sea-water from which the salt had been removed, according to the Berka method. I frequently drank this water myself and the chemical analysis was absolutely sufficient for such water.
Q. Doctor, would it be possible then to ascertain the potability of sea-water without having human experiments?
A. You mean natural sea-water?
Q. No, Doctor, if you treat sea-water with your Schaefer method; was it possible to determine the potability of that sea-water treated by your method without having resorted to human experimentation?
A. Yes, that is 100 possible.
Q. Would that be possible in the case of sea-water treated by ether methods?
A. That depends on the method; in the Berka water is was possible.
Q. It was possible to determine chemically whether or nut Berka water would be effective, that is water treated by the Berka process would be effective to render the sea-water potable?
A. That is true and I have proved that.
Q. Now Doctor, when you carried cut your experiments then you merely gave these experimental subjects, which you used in 1943, so many cubic centimeters of sea-water treated by your method; is that correct?
A. Are you speaking about the experiments, which I submitted as documents to my technical assistants on the experiments where I drank the sea-water treated with Wolfatit myself?
Q. Maybe I misunderstood you, Doctor, I understood you to say this morning, in answer to my questions, that in the process of developing your Schaefer method, you had experiments on animals and experiments on human beings. Now maybe I misunderstood, did you merely state that you had only tried the water on yourself and did not subject experimental subjects to sea-water treated by the Schaefer method?
A. That is true. That is true, my animal experiments and the experiments on human subjects were not connected with Wolfatit because it was not necessary.
Q. In the experiments, the animal experiments and the human experiments, did you subject the experimental subjects to sea-water?
A. Only in the animal experiments and in some cases in the human experiments at the end of the experiment.
Q. Well, what was the purpose of your human experiments that you conducted in 1943; to lay the ground work of developing the Schaefer method? What did you do in those experiments, did you give the human subjects water to drink; just what did you do with them?
A. These subjects were to demonstrate how long one could go without water and food without damaging the ability to concentrate and ability to work.
Q. Then I presume after they had gone for a few days without water or food, you would have them drink a certain amount of sea-water to see what the effects would be; can you explain to us in detail, Doctor, just what you were trying to accomplish by your experiments?
A. I held the point of view that it was better to go without food and water than to drink sea-water. Consequently, I wanted to test with my experimental subjects how long one can go without food and water without losing in efficiency and whether at the end if one drank salt water thirst was lessened or increased.
Q. Well, at the same time did you also have another group drinking sea-water, so that you could compare the two?
A. No, I did not have any group that drank sea-water all the time.
Q. Well how did you make a comparison, Doctor?
A. I questioned the same person before and after they had drank salt water, I asked them how they felt and whether that was a good thing.
Q. Well, now, when you are subjecting persons to salt water, is it necessary to confine them or can they conduct their usual business and tend to their work like the experimental subjects Professor Vollhardt used in his experiments?
A. That depends on how reliable the subjects are. If I have someone in whom I have complete confidence that he will keep the conditions of the experiments, than of course he can continue to perform his work.
Q. Certainly if a man volunteers for your experiments you would have confidence in him, wouldn't you?
A. Not if he was promised a reward, therefore my experimental subjects did not get any reward.
Q. Well if you were conducting experiments on volunteers and a man had drank sea-water for two days and then decided he could not stand it any longer and then decided he did not want to go through with the rest of the experiments and asked you for food and water, of course you would have given it to him, wouldn't you Doctor?
A. No, of course not.
Q. Then, he ceases to be a voluntary subject, doesn't he?
A. That is true unless he had obligated himself in the beginning for a certain reward to hold out for a certain period. If he withdraws from his contract, he would not get his pay and the experiments would be discontinued.
Q. Is it injurious, Doctor, to drink sea-water as your only source of water supply?
A. That depends on the amount of water and the period of time during which the water is to be drunk.
Q. What quantities of sea-water can a normal person tolerate without injury and for how long?
A. I would say 400 to 500 cc per day in individual doses during five to six days.
Q. Well now, after how many days under these conditions does the impairment of health take place?
A. In the dose of 400 to 500 cc?
Q. Yes, Doctor.
A. I would think from the sixth day on perhaps.
Q. Well would that occur if they continued to drink the seawater; normally when would death occur; after how many days?
A. That is extremely difficult to say.
Q. Can you tell us the reason why sea-water is injurious to health and can cause death?
A. Yes, the organism has to eliminate the salt which has been taken with the sea-water, but since the kidneys are unable to raise such a high concentration in the urine as sea-water, in the long run the body must use up its own supply of sea-water in ardor to eliminate this salt and consequently dehydration occurs. This loss of water of course influences unfavorably the biological process in the tissues.
Q. Then can it be said that the only reason why sea-water is injurious is the fact it is a hypertonic salt solution?
A. Yes, one can say that.
Q. Well, was this fact well recognized by medical scientists before 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, doctor, you say that if a person was to drink four to five hundred CC of sea water that an impairment of health may normally occur after five or six days, can you tell us when an impairment of health would occur to a person drinking one thousand cubic centimeters of sea water daily?
A. I would say that disturbances might occur in such cases as early as the third or fourth day.
Q. Well under those circumstances could you determine or is it possible to state when death would occur?
A. That is extremely difficult to say. I would not venture to say it. The capacity of the kidney varies greatly from one individual to another.
Q. Doctor, what symptoms develop while a person is being subjected to sea water exclusively, say after the first or second day, what symptoms develop that are unusual?
A. You mean in the case of distress at sea when one can drink unlimited quantities of sea water or definite doses?
Q. Well, are you familiar with practical cases at sea?
A. I know them only from literature. I have never experienced any such case myself.
Q. Well now what symptoms would develop in a practical case of a human being at sea where he has access to unlimited quantities of sea water?
A. If he has unlimited quantities available there would be severe diarrhea.
Q. When would that take place? Would it depend upon the amount of sea water he had drunk or is it ordinarily a second or third day occurrence?
A. That would depend on the size of the individual dose, from 300 cubic centimeters on.