Q. What other symptoms would appear?
A. Great thirst, then the symptoms of dehydration. dryness in the mouth and mucous membranes, dryness of the skin, reflex increases, the muscles become harder.
Q. May a person develop hallucinations as a result of drinking sea water?
A. Yes, I should think so, because of the need for water there would be hallucinations.
Q. Well now would an experiment conducted by a scientist in his laboratory on human beings wherein he applied four or five hundred cubic centimeters of sea water to the subject daily, would those same symptoms appear that would be found in practical sea water cases at sea?
A. No.
DR. MARX: (Defense Counsel for Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng) Mr. President, I should like to take the liberty of inquiring whether the Prosecutor is cross examining the defendant Schaeffer or whether he is consulting him as an expert.
If the latter is the case I should have to object. I cannot assume that Dr. Schaeffer is in any position to give an opinion here as to the harm which can be caused by sea water in this case or that, because from the point of view of the defense I cannot ascribe to Dr. Schaeffer the medical experience necessary in order to give an opinion here. Moreover, it is not compatible with the role of the defendant in the witness box to appear at the same time as an expert. Moreover, the defense could argue that he lacks not only the qualifications but the justification for doing so. I should, therefore, like to suggest that the Prosecution limit itself to cross examination and not ask questions of this defendant which should be put to an expert.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross examination by the Prosecution may proceed to the extent of determining the reasons of the defendant Schaeffer for establishing his opinion as to berkatit on the one hand and wofatit on the other. The cross examination should not proceed to the extent of examining the witness as an expert upon more general matters. The cross examination may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Well now, doctor, what symptoms would develop in an experiment after a person had drank 500 CC of sea water per day?
A. If it was given in individual doses of less than 300 cubic centimeters in the course of time the same symptoms develop as in ordinary thirst.
Q. Well would the same symptoms be apparent, that is diarrhea, hallucinations and those symptoms that you outlined that would be apparent in the case of a person actually at sea?
A. No, diarrhea would certainly not occur, but on the contrary constipation.
Q. Well if you used 1000 CC would diarrhea appear?
A. No, as long as the individual doses were under 300 CC.
Q. I see, doctor, was there ever a method invented or developed in the history of Germany to render sea water potable prior to the time you developed wofatit?
A. At least I knew of no method.
Q. Then you were the first one in Germany to develop a method which rendered sea water potable, an effective method?
A. Yes, one could say so.
Q. Then you are perhaps the only expert in Germany on the potability of sea water, doctor, you and Dr. Ivy held that distinction in common?
A. As far as removing salt from sea water is concerned that seems to be so.
Q. Well now in November 1943 when you reported to the medical inspectorate that you had a method to render sea water potable, I understood you to say that you actually had an experiment at the medical inspectorate and at such time Professor Hippke and others present drank the sea water rendered potable by the Schaeffer method, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Can you tell us or can you recall who else drank your sea water?
A. I assume Professor Anthony, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, I can't give the names of the other men, I didn't know them at the time.
Q. Now, when you conducted this so-called experiment at the medical inspectorate did you have raw sea water and then apply the wofatit to it in their presence so that they could determine you were actually using sea water?
A. Yes.
Q. And after applying your method the water was drinkable, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. The gentlemen at the meeting were fully aware of the fact that water treated by your method was no different than natural water, natural drinking water?
A. That is right.
Q. Then actually that was not an experiment, it was merely a demonstration on your part?
A. Yes, it was a demonstration.
Q. When did Professor Schroeder first hear of your sea water, pardon me, of your method to render sea water potable, that is wofatit?
A. I cannot say when he first heard of it. I can only say that I demonstrated it to him in 1944, perhaps in April.
Q. And Professor Schroeder was also aware of the fact that you had developed this method, and he in fact had drank some of this water?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. When did you first hear that Berka had developed a method?
A. That was in January or February 1944.
Q. And then you received an order to check and review the work by Dr. von Sirany, is that right?
A. Yes, that's right. I went to Vienna and looked at the experiments myself.
Q. Who ordered you to Vienna?
A. Professor Anthony.
Q. Was he the only one you dealt with in that matter?
A. Yes, at that time, yes.
Q. And you came to the conclusion after examining Dr. von Sirany's work with the Berka method, that this method was not of any value and would not in fact render sea water potable?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Well, were you of the opinion that Dr. von Sirany's experiments had not gone far enough?
A. No, that was not my opinion. I was of the opinion that conditions are different in the case of distress at sea but that the experiments were completely adequate to determine whether Berkatit was of any value or not.
Q. When did you decide, doctor, that that was your opinion?
A. That was always my opinion. In my report to the Medical Inspectorate at the time it says that there are the following decisive facts to aid in forming an opinion on the Berka method.
Q. Were you of the opinion that persons subjected to sea water treated with the Berka method would develop the same symptoms as people subjected to common ordinary sea water after a period of a few days?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Well did the Berkatit help at all? That is, you stated that Berkatit was nothing but hard candy as a fact. Would the application of Berkatit to sea water have aided a person distressed at sea to any extent? Or, to the contrary, would it have worked an additional hardship?
A. Berkatit would not change the sea water in any way but it inproved the taste and this brought about a psychological danger for the persons in distress at sea.
Q. Well, would the food value in Berkatit have aided the distressed person?
A. The food content of Berkatit is very great but the amount of Berkatit which was to be put into the sea water was so small that in practice one can really not speak of any food value.
Q. Then when you reported to Professor Schroeder you completely outlined all these disadvantages of the Berka method?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it obvious from your report that a person subjected to sea water treated by the Berka method would develop the same symptoms after a period of a few days that a person would develop had they drank common ordinary sea water?
A. I expressed that clearly.
Q. What did Professor Schroeder say? Did you talk to him about it?
A. I had the impression that he realized that.
Q. When you stepped over von Sirany's work were you able to test a sample of the Berkatit?
A. I obtained the Berkatit only later.
Q. Did you ever test it chemically yourself?
A. I did not analyze Berkatit itself. That would have been extremely difficult. That would have kept a whole institute busy. There were various compounds in there, sugar and fruit acids, etc., but the effect of Berkatit on salt contained in sea water I tested.
Q. Well, how long would it have taken to prove that Berka water was chemically nothing but sea water? Would it take ten years, two days?
A. Half an hour.
Q. Half an hour? Then the point could have been proven chemically within half an hour that Berka water was nothing more than sea water camouflaged as to taste?
A. It could only be proved that the Berkatit did not form any chemical compound with the salt.
Q. Well, did you suggest such a simple chemical test or a chemical test as a substitute for the experiments on the prisoners?
A. I said that the chemical analysis proves that Berkat does not form a chemical compound with the salt.
Q. Well, now would such a test not have had the advantage of saving time and also could you not have made such a suggestion tactfully without running the risks which you have said acted as deterrents against open criticism on your part?
A. I even said that that happened but that proved nothing. There were biological objections that said that Berkatit would increase the activity of the kidney and that was the point that also brought into the foreground this advocation of Berkatit, and that could not be proved.
Q. What was that again, doctor. I missed that last answer. Would you repeat that again?
A. The advocates of Berkatit, especially Professor Eppinger, said that Berkatit improved the capacity of the kidnies. That was something that could not be proved chemically.
Q. Well, how could you prove Dr. Eppinger's point? Merely by experimenting on human beings?
A. In my opinion that was a hypothesis which was not justified. The success could be only so slight that in practice it would be without significance.
Q. Well, after he had performed experiments on human beings how could he determine whether or not the Berka water would improve the kidney condition or would aid the kidney condition?
A. By the concentration of the urine.
Q. Well, would you have to make tests for a rather extensive and long period of time to determine that? Could that be done in 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 days or would that have to extend over a period of 12 days if the object of the experiment was to determine whether or not Berka water would act as an aid to the kidney condition?
A. One could determine that within six days.
Q. Actually, however in the Berka water the salt was never removed, was it?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Well how did you find out that the Berka method wasn't effective?
A. Took the tests which Mr. Von Sirany had already carried out.
Q. Well, did you make any tests yourself?
A No, but the records of Mr. von Sirany's experiments were turned over to me.
Q Well, could the point have been proven chemically by a simple device of psychological chemistry or physiological chemistry such as, for instance, that Berka water would still extract water from a cell like any other hypertonic salt solution?
A Yes, that could have been determined.
Q How long would that have taken?
A Perhaps half day.
Q Did you suggest such a simple chemical test as that?
A That would not show the capacity of the kidneys. That would have nothing to do with that. Through a physiological chemistry test one cannot demonstrate the work of the kidneys. The way the kidneys work has not been clarified even today.
Q Well, as a result of the Berka method coming into the picture it became necessary to hold a meeting to determine which method would be adopted. Is that correct?
A I didn't understand your question.
Q Well, the purpose of this meeting on the 19th of May and the other meeting on the 20th of May was to have a discussion to determine which method was to be used? That is, the Berka method or the Schaefer method? Is that correct?
A Yes, that is right.
Q From that point on, it was a contest between Berka and Schaefer? Is that correct?
A No, that's not right. I expressed my opinion and the other people had to decide.
Q Well, your method had proven itself to be effective, had it not?
A Yes.
Q Berka's method was still to be proven?
A It had been proven by experiments by Mr. von Sirany.
Q In your opinion?
A Yes.
Q Not in the opinion of the other members of this conference?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Well, what was the cause for the refusal of these men in the Luftwaffe - men like Schroeder, Christensen and these various men at this meeting - to refuse to adopt your method that had already been proven which did not necessitate further experimentation or further argument?
A I cannot give you any answer. I don't know.
Q Was it because they deemed the production of your method to be too expensive?
A The Technical Office - Christensen - said there was no silver available.
Q Of course, if the Berka method had been effective - that is, Berkatit had been effective - it would have been far more reasonable to produce than Wofatit, is that right?
A Yes.
Q At this meeting on the 19th of May, just what did you. say concerning the Berka method?
A I said that the Berka method merely improved the taste; that it did not change the sea water, in any way; that Sirany's experiments had showed that, in spite of Berka, the salt is absorbed and has to be eliminated through the kidneys; that Sirany's experiments had shown that the patients lose water. I also said that one can still find salt - that is, sodium chloride - in the sea water, and I said that even if there were a compound formed between Berkatit and the salt in the sea water, this compound would probably not be absorbed and if it were absorbed the organic part would be turned and the salt would remain in the kidneys. Sirany's experiments proved this.
Q Well, now, you have described to us your objection at that meeting. Did that objection bring home to these laymen that the Berka method was nothing more than sea water with a camouflaged taste, and that a person subjected to sea water treated by the Berka method would suffer injuries to health and, after a sufficient length of time, die?
Did you bring that homo to the members of that meeting?
A Yes, I did.
Q Well then, the note by Christensen on page 12 of Document Book #5, Document NO. 177, Prosecution Exhibit 133, wherein he states on page 12, the second sentence after the list of names of those present at the 19 May meeting:
"Thu Chief of the medical Service (Chef des Sanitaetwesens) 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 twelve days."
Then, it is apparent, that Dr. Christensen was fully aware of the dangers of Berkatit as described by you. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you emphatically state, that damage would result in permanent injuries to health and finally result in death after not later than twelve days?
A Permanent injury to health - I did not say that. There was no proof of that. I only said that after twelve days one would have to expect death.
Q Well, as a result of this expression of your opinion, do I understand that you were threatened?
A On the 20th - at the end of the 20th of May, Schickler took me to one side and said "If you go on like this, you will have to answer to Milch for sabotage." And I assume, and it is probably true, that he made this statement because I said that the experiments which were to be performed were unnecessary.
Q Did you immediately tell Schroeder about that?
A I told Dr. Becker-Freyseng about this threat on sabotage.
Q When?
A Immediately after the meeting.
Q Did Becker-Freyseng go to Schroeder about it?
A I don't know. But, according to what I know now, it was impossible because Dr. Schroeder was not in Berlin at the time.
Q Did you consider it your duty to attempt to stop the experiments at Dachau? You were an expert on sea water. That is, the potability thereof.
A I considered it my duty to express my opinion that the experiments were unnecessary and I did so.
Q Did you ask Schroeder for his support?
A Professor Schroeder was not in Berlin at the time.
Q Well, is it possible, Doctor, that you were anxious to have the experiments conducted with the Berkatit so that a comparison could be drawn and, as a result of the experiments, your method would be the outstanding one and it would be necessary to produce your Wofatit in preference to the ineffective Berkatit? Is that the reason why you took this passive resistance to the experiments?
A I didn't show passive resistance to the experiments. I had no interest in bringing this about. I didn't want Wofatit to be introduced because of ambition. I had a method which was bettor. If Wofatit were introduced it would benefit only I.G.
Q This is a good breaking point, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 4 June 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 4 June 1947).THE MARSHAL:
Persons in the courtroom please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: As Counsel for Dr. Hoven, Mr. President, I ask that Dr. Hoven be excused from attending tomorrow's session for the purpose of preparing his case.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of counsel for Defendant Hoven, Defendant Hoven may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow morning in order to consult with his counsel for the preparation of his case which will be heard very soon.
DR. GAWLIK: I have one further request, Mr. President. For several days I am having a witness here by the name of Dr. Horn who must leave by the end of this week. Perhaps it might be possible for me to put the witness Horn on the stand Friday morning. I already talked it over with the counsel for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- how long?
MR. HARDY: Dr. Steinbauer anticipates his direct examination of the Defendant Beiglboeck. It might be feasible to call the witness Horn after the case of Beiglboeck who will not take more than a day. If not, I am agreeable to having Horn called upon the completion of the Schaefer case if the Tribunal feels it will not interrupt the sequence of the sea water evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will probably be better to call the witness after the conclusion of the Schaefer case.
MR. HARDY: It is agreeable with me, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask counsel for defendant Beiglboeck how long he anticipates.
DR. STEINBAUER: I agree that this witness is heard after the completion of the Schaefer case.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask counsel for Defendant Beiglboeck that.
MR. HARDY: Counsel for Dr. Hoven is Dr. Gawlik. Now counsel for Dr. Beiglboeck is Dr. Steinbauer. I request that Dr. Steinbauer should call this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: It is desired to ask Dr. Steinbauer a question. How long do you anticipate it will take to present the evidence for Defendant Beiglboeck?
DR. STEINBAUER: I believe a day and a half or two days.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear the witness Horn at the close of the Schaefer case.
DR. GAWLIK: Correction, Mr. President. The witness's name is Dorn, nor Horn. However, I should like to know when the Schaefer case will be concluded. I cannot contact the witness today. It will have to be tomorrow morning at the hearing.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Tomorrow morning will be satisfactory.
MR. HARDY: We have a request of Defense Counsel for the file in my office with notice of the background of the witness Dorn -- that is, his nationality, date of birth and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Hoven will find the usual statements concerning the witness as soon as possible.
DR. KONRAD SCHAEFER - RESUMED CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q The conference 19 May 1944 -- did the members thereof discuss at that time what plan would outline the actual experiments which would be later performed at Dachau?
A One suggestion or another was made but plans in detail were not drawn up.
Q Was it obvious from that meeting on the 19th May that experiments were inevitable?
A I don't know how you intend that question.
Q What I am driving at, Doctor, is simply this. On the 19th of May, Christensen, Schickler, Berka, Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng, Mr. Pahl and Mrjor Jeworek met together to discuss further research as to the potability of sea water. Can you kindly tell me whether or not on the 19th of May -- not the 20th or the 25th, but the 19th -- a discussion took place concerning experiments to be conducted; or was that a meeting limited merely to the discussion concerning the attributes and qualifications of the Berka method as opposed to the Schaefer method?
A. The conference on the 19th was limited to comparing these two methods to one another. However, the proposal was also made that this difficulty be attacked experimentally.
Q. Did you raise any objections to a proposed experimental plan on the 19th of May?
A. Yes. I said that I-- I said I couldn't see why experiments should be carried out about that.
Q. Why did you object, more specifically?
A. Because I didn't see the reason for that.
Q. You thought that they were absolutely unnecessary?
A. That is right.
Q. Did you consider that these experiments would have been criminal?
A. No, one could not have been of that opinion.
Q. Then the entire basis for your objection was merely because the experiments were scientifically unnecessary?
A. The reason for my objection on the 19th was that the experiments were scientifically unnecessary, because the further details about how long and on whom and where the experiments were to be performed, and so forth, were not mentioned.
Q. Then you after the strenuous objections attended the meeting on 20 May?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because I was ordered to and because the representatives of the Navy were to appear on the 20th and because it could be assumed that the discussion would be carried on. For this reason I was ordered to attend as an expert.
Q. Did you have any misgivings about attending the second meeting on 20 May inasmuch as you had strenuously objected to the developments of the 19th meeting?
A. Why should I have had misgivings in attending the conference.
I couldn't argue about it. I was simply ordered to attend. I wasn't a private citizen who could do or refrain from doing what he wanted to do. If I had been a private citizen, I would have said, "I have enough of this natter."
Q. If you had been a private citizen, you would have said you had enough of this matter and would not have attended, is that right?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Did you tell that to Schroeder on the evening of the 19th?
A. On the evening of the 19th I didn't see Schroeder at all.
Q. Did you see Becker-Freyseng and ask that you be relieved from further attendance at these conferences?
A. There was no reason to do so. You simply can't refuse to obey a military order. That is a perfectly absurd idea. That isn't done in the army.
Q. If you thought a military order criminal in nature, would you carry it out or would you refuse to carry it out, hypothetically?
A. I should have tried to find some way of avoiding carrying out the order.
Q. And just what did you do on the evening of the 19th of May? Did you make any further attempt to further explain to Becker-Freyseng or Schroeder or any other member of the office or Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe that these experiments were absolutely unnecessary and that if the subjects used were to subjected to sea water rendered potable or allegedly rendered potable by use of the Berkatit method a danger would exist?
A. On the 19th of May there was no talk at all of any criminal experiments. And an unnecessary experiment is not a criminal one.
Q. Well, now, on the 20th of May, Doctor, we hear for the first time that an actual experimental plan was discussed. On page 15, Document No. 177, which is Prosecution Exhibit 133, Document Book 5, we note at the top of the page that a commission was to be set up for the arrangement of these series of experiments and then it states:
"The series of experiments shall include the following:
"1) a. Persons to be given sea water processed with the Berka method;
"b. persons to be given ordinary drinking water;
"c. persons without any drinking water at all;
"d. persons given to drink according to the present method."
When did it arise or when was it decided that a further group would be given the Schaefer sea water?
A. Neither on the 19th nor the 20th. When that was decided I cannot tell you at all because as far as I know it wasn't decided on the 25th either. I assume that this additional group was included at the very end.
Q. Who included it?
A. That I can't tell you.
Q. Did they ask your permission?
A. No.
Q. What would be the purpose in experimenting with the Schaefer drug or Schaefer method as opposed to the Berka method if these experiments as you state were merely to determine what effect the Berka method would have on the kidneys?
A. I can't tell you that either. That would have been a perfectly senseless order. At least, I do not know I am responsible for that.
Q. And you feel that the commission that made the arrangements for these series of experiments were not properly informed or were they so blind that they would not see?
A. The commission, no, the commission probably had some ideas about this, but I don't know whether the commission was the agency that ordered it. Possibly it was thought that instead of using the normal control group, and I think Becker-Freyseng stated that here. In other words, instead of having a group drinking fresh water a group would drink water treated with Wolfatit.
Q. Well, now, in an experimental series, Dr. Schaefer, is it necessary to employ a control group to discover whether or not Berkatit would have effect on the kidneys? Could not you do that simply by having five experimental subjects and subject them to sea water made potable or sea water treated with the Berka method without having 44 subjects employing control groups giving some of them 500 cc, others a thousand cc, or having a starvation group, etc?
A. Well, food plays a role, too. You had to have a comparative group, a group which for the sake of comparison received normal water and food like people in sea distress. Moreover, Becker-Freyseng has started here in detail that when drawing up the plan for these experiments they considered what procedure should be introduced and they had to find out whether people should be left thirsty or whether they should be given large or small quantities of sea water.
Q. Then the express purposes of the experiments were not as Professor Eppinger had intended; Becker-Freyseng had some ideas about the matter, is that it?
A. Yes, and they were extended by Professor Eppinger.
Q. With your knowledge as to the efficiency of the Berka method, having reviewed Sirany's work and later having heard Beiglboeck's report concerning the experiments at Dachau, do you think that you could have possibly conducted experiments to determine the effectiveness of the Berka method on the kidney without using such a substantial number of experimental subjects as used at Dachau; for example, could it have been done with five or six experimental subjects as the purpose of the experiment was outlined by Professor Eppinger?
A. Well, that's very hard to answer, hard for me as a laboratory researcher. The characteristics of individuals are so different in all biological experiments that it would probably be well to use such a large group.
Q. However, you could have determined the effect of Berkatit on the kidney and have answered Professor Eppinger's question without such an exhaustive experimental plan and program, could you not?
A. The simple question whether Berkatit increased the concentration capacity of the kidneys or not would of course have been answered with only a part of the total experiment.
Q. Well, what do you propose to tell us what the reason for the extensive program was? Did Becker-Freyseng have another idea? What was his purpose?