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?
DR. PELCKMANN : I should like to object. Mr. Hardy is asking questions regarding throughts which Becker-Freyseng perhaps entertained or could have entertained regarding the reasons for the experiments that were undertaken. I believe that this is a hypothetical question because the defendant Dr. Schaefer cannot state what thoughts Becker-Freyseng has. He has repeatedly said that he repudiated the experiments and that he had to do only with Wofatit. I do not believe that the witness can answer any other hypothetical questions but those relating to that.
MR. HARDY : I am unaware that I asked him for his opinion, I asked the witness just what thoughts Becker-Freyseng expressed when they planned these experiments.
DR. PELCKMANN : Then in that case I did not understand the translation, it is perfectly alright for Hr. Hardy to ask the witness what thoughts were expressed.
THE PRESIDENT : Counsel on cross-examination may ask the witness what was said at these meetings by the different members and present if he remembers what was said and if he has the information, but he should not be asked for their thoughts, ideas or purposes insofar as they were not expressed in words.
BY MR. HARDY :
Q.- These experiments, Dr. Schaefer, as I understand them - and I might admit that at this point I am slightly confused - were conducted for two purposes , one was to satisfy the curiosity of Professor Eppinger ; what was the ether purpose for ?
A.- To satisfy Professor Eppinger's curiosity ; I don't believe that was the purpose of the experiments.
Q.- Well, one was to test the efficacy of Berkatit on the kidney and that was Professor Eppinger's question ; was there another purpose ?A.- I assume that . As Becker-Freyseng stated it here.
There was also the purpose of deciding whether it is better to thirst altogether or to consume small quantities of sea water, but who first had this idea or drew up that plan I cannot recall that. His opinion was that also small quantities of that sea-water should to drunk.
Q.- Well, in view of your constant protests to BeckerFreyseng, didn't he also strenuously object to any experiments ?
A.- No, he did not.
Q.- Was he also a doubting Thomas, so to speak ?
A.- He was convinced that Wofatit was good, but Christensen said there is no silver and everybody including me thought that Wofatit is out of the question because there was no available silver. Now, I assume that then the question was, should the Berka method be used or not, should a little bit of sea-water be drunk or should the person thirst By the way in quite a different position than I was in. I do not know it, I do not know his motives.
Q.- Thank you, Doctor. Was it discussed at this meeting on the 13th or at the meeting on the 20th of May as to the duration of the experiments ?
A.- Regarding the duration of the experiments only this was said, a drug or preparation is needed which will permit people to survive for twelve days at sea and the experiments are to be continued until some physical disturbances occur in the experimental subjects and if no disturbances occur, then the experiments are to be discontinued after the twelfth day. That was roughly the general impression one ga thered from that discussion.
Q.- Did it annoy you that the meeting went this far after your objections had been raised ?
A.- Yes, that did annoy me.
Q.- Well, when they discussed the duration of the experiments did they at that time discuss the subjects to be used ?
A.- The discussion of the experimental subjects was taken up later. It was generally ascertained that there were no experimental subjects available and so far as I can recall, Dr. Schickler spoke to Becker-Freyseng, and they were speaking at this time of another possibility, and then the proposal was made to use prisoners.
Q.- Was the proposal not to use prisoners brought up because of the fact that you emphasized that any experiments lasting twelve days wherein Berkatit was used that death may finally result ?
A.- No, I consider that quite out of the question. It was not said that the experiments had to last twelve days, but that they should last that long if there were no disturbances that occurred.
Q.- This passage on page 13 of document book No. 5, the same document, No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit No. 133, under 2 states ;
"Duration of experiments : 12 days.
"Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service (Chef fes Sanitaetswesens) permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experimental subjects had to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as well be put at the disposal by Reichsfuchrer SS."
Doesn't that passage, written by Christensen, convey the thought that the necessity of resorting to the Reichsfuehrer SS to obtain subjects was simply because the death of the experimental subjects had to be expected ?A.- No, no one ever said anything like this nor do I recall anything of that sort.
Q.- Does that passage convoy that thought even of itself ?
A.- Yes, if you would read this passage you could get that thought. That is however simply a compilation on the part of the person who wrote this statement.
Q.- Was this the first time that you have heard that experimental subjects were available in concentration camps, inasmuch as you were unable to ascertain from Helzloehner's report of the Nurnberg conference in October of 1942 that concentration camp inmates were used ; was this the first time that information was brought home to you ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did this horrify you, Doctor ?
A.- I must say that I found that a very unpleasant thought, because I dislike experiments on prisoners.
Q.- Had you ever been horrified at any other methods used in certain research circles ?
A.- Are you thinking of other literature ?
Q. No, I am thinking of a passage in your document book No. 1, in Schaeffer document book No. 1, Document No. 3, which is Schaeffer Exhibit No. 3, on page 5, which is the last page of an affidavit by Dr. Helmuth Reichel, and he states therein in the last paragraph as follows:
"I was separated from Dr. Schaeffer by the war. Not until the war was over did I meet him again in Bad Pyrmont, where, as he had done before the war, he expressed to me his horror at the methods of certain research officials."
Now, Dr. Schaeffer, what methods do you have in mind and what were the horrors which were so repulsive to you, that are outlined here?
A. I was thinking of the Berka mathed.
Q. Then you considered it rather horrifying, horrifying to use the Berka method on human beings in concentration camps, is that right?
A. I meant to say it was horrifying that such dilletantism reached such proportions as to set three governmental offices in motion and to experiment in this direction beyond the limits of all reason.
Q. Well, now when the subject of volunteers was brought up at this meeting, did you take a mental note of that?
A. From the words that were used, one could see that the subjects were only to be volunteers, and I think Becker Freyseng said enough persons would volunteer in view of the increased rations they would get.
Q. You actually heard Becker freyseng say that they would only use concentration camp inmates if certain inmates would volunteer or did he merely state - pardon me doctor, go ahead.
A. I was about to answer your question.
Q. Answer it please.
A. You asked whether he said that only subjects were to be used if they were volunteers. Now perhaps you couldn't assume that from what he said but you could assume he was thinking exclusively of volunteers. I can only repeat the words as I now remember them.
Q. Well now these experiments with Berkatit were to be performed on volunteers at your disposal or at this committee's disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS, the experiments were to be supervised by Professor Beiglboeck in a manner prescribed by this committee so that no conditions would exist which might impair the health of any of the experimental subjects, yet you were horrified, - why?
A. There are so many thoughts embodied in that question of yours that I am not sure I can remember them all. In my answer I will have to take them up one by one.
Q. Kindly do that.
Q. You said first that they "were to be made available either to you or to the committee". None were made available to me, I needed none and wanted none, nor did I want to carry out any experiments for I did not see any necessity for them and I had my own field of work. In addition I wouldn't do anything after others drew up the plans for the experiments. Moreover, I have already made clear that the repugnance that is expressed in this affidavit which you just quoted refers to the quackery on the part of Berka and Sirany, who, not only in this field, but also in other fields, were sold on throwing their weight around. To me personally experiments on prisoners did not appeal.
Q. Do you feel in your opinion that a person incarcerated in a concentration camp or a prison is not in a position to volunteer for medical experiments?
A. It looks as if he could but his motive for so doing cannot be checked on and psychologically easily influenced persons might under certain circumstances apply to be subjected to such experiments when under other circumstances they would not. This is in a certain sense an exploitation of the situation in which these people find themselves, and the matter is still being debated.
Q. Now at these various conferences where it was decided to experiment at Dachau were you offered the opportunity to supervise the experiments?
A. This was not offered to me. Moreover, my attitude before then had been much too clearly expressed for any one to think of offering me that opportunity. Mr. Berka was a member of the committee and he was also in Dachau and watched the experiments.
Q. Was Mr. Berka offered the opportunity to conduct the experiments?
A. Whether he was offered that opportunity or whether he made active efforts to do this I don't know, but in my opinion he went there more or less on his own initiative.
Q. Then I submit to you, doctor, the reason for offering the opportunity to conduct the experiments to the defendant Beiglboeck was simply to a void having a prejudiced report made out by the two men who had produced or developed the Schaeffer and the Berka methods, is that a correct assumption on my part?
A. No, I do not believe that is a correct assumption because the director of the experiments was Professor Eppinger and he was a man whom Berka had proposed and an informed person. Berka, moreover, was in the commission; he was also at Dachau, so I cannot see where any sort of neutrality would still have been preserved here.
Q. After these meetings in May of 1944, did you hear any more about the experiments, that is, did you hear any more prior to the September meetings?
A. No, I heard nothing before the meeting.
Q. Well now in this meeting which you have outlined which was in this affidavit which took place in October, 1944.
A. Yes.
Q. Wherein Beiglboeck reported on the experiments, was that the first time that you heard anything about the manner in which the experiments were conducted?
A. I have seen a report but I cannot say today for sure whether this report reached me before or after.
Q. You mean before or after the actual meeting in the zoological gardens?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Did Beiglboeck report at that meeting about the experiments he performed on himself?
A. Do you mean whether he reported on it officially? I don't know, but later he told about them.
Q. Did he tell you about them?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said that by and large he had tremendous thirst but that he continued his regular work and I can't remember anything particularly remarkable in what he told me otherwise about this experiment on himself.
Q. Well did he go through the regular routine in his own experiments, in his self experiment of relying on sea water only throughout the entire experimental period or did he merely fool the experimental subjects by drinking sea water in front of them?
A. I didn't understand the question.
Q. Well as I understand it, the purpose of his experiment was to convince himself and to convince the experimental subjects that the experiments would not be dangerous, is that right?
A. That I cannot tell you. I can only state the fact that he told us that he had carried cut an experiment on himself. Perhaps he wanted to reassure them and as I say, I don't know.
Q. How long did he carry out this self experiment, how many days?
A. That I can't tell you. I don't know.
Q. Well now in his report at the October meeting, didn't he outlines the experiments that he conducted on himself?
A. I don't know. I can't tell you.
Q He didn't tell you how long he had experimented on the experimental subjects?
A Yes, he gave us the times for the individual group.
Q Well, did he say that in his experiments with the concentration camp inmates he went as high as 12 days and that some of the experimental subjects were experimented on twice with only a few days of rest in between the experiments?
A He did not say that he went as far as 12 days. That can only have been true of those treated with Wofatit and I believe that was only 10 days.
Q Did he tell you what symptoms developed during the course of the experiments?
A Yes.
Q Did the symptoms develop as outlined in your affidavit on page 7 of Document Book 5 wherein you state: "Dr. Beiglboeck also reported that the experiments had resulted in swelling of the liver and nervous symptoms. Delirium and mental disturbances also appeared". Did he outline that or do you wish to correct that?
A I don't want to correct it, I want to elucidate it. Swelling of the liver ...
Q You want to add to it?
A I would have to delete delirium. That was my mistake. When I said that I heard the nervous symptoms were increased -- reflexes and sensitiveness of the muscles. And the mental disturbances were apathy and somnolence.
Q Well, do you report that some of these subjects developed hallucinations?
A That I do not know. I don't remember.
Q Didn't you emphatically tell Mr. McHaney in the course of one of your interrogations that Beiglboeck outlined the symptoms prevalent in these experiments?
A I never spoke to Mr. McHaney.
Q Didn't Mr. McHaney sit in on an interrogation wherein you were interrogated last fall.
A Can't remember that he did.
Q I will have to produce the interrogation, doctor. When you were interrogated last fall didn't you explain rather emphatically that the symptoms outlined by Beiglboeck indicated that these experimental subjects endured considerable suffering during the course of the experiments?
A The thirst experiments certainly weren't pleasant.
Q That is all you have to say about it?
A Yes.
Q Come now, doctor, you have been answering my questions quite well to this point. Now, you attended this meeting. Beiglboeck gave a report. He must have said more than that. Didn't he give you an outline of all the observations he made, didn't he tell you what symptoms appeared, didn't he tell you whether or not some of the experimental subjects attempted to drink water off the floor? Wasn't he more elaborate than I have gathered from your testimony?
A He didn't say that anybody drank water off the floor, no. Above that I couldn't make out a question from your last summary.
Q Now I want to know, wasn't he more elaborate than you have testified to thus far? Can't you tell us?
A Yes, yes, of course. That was a long time ago. It is extremely difficult to remember all these things and the consequences of one little word that might be wrong I have seen here.
Q Well, did he tell you, for instance, that it was necessary in the course of the experiments to tie one of the experimental subjects in bed because the experimental subject had succeeded in getting some water to drink? Didn't he tell you that?
A He didn't say that anybody was tied to bed, no.
Q Well, you recall in Document Book 5, the affidavit of Bauer which is on page 25. I anticipate an objection, Your Honor. This docu ment was admitted provisionally.