DR. STEINBAUER FOR BEIGLBOECK: I object to this question because this document was admitted only under the condition that a sworn certificate be submitted later. The Prosecution can, therefore, not use this document and I object to this question.
MR. HARDY: The document has been submitted provisionally, your Honor. The Prosecution was to obtain a jurate to the document. That has been obtained. The document is in due form and will be offered formally when the Tribunal sets aside a date for Prosecution to do so. I have the jurate, it states: "Before me, Lionel Shaffrow, special agent, CIC, appeared Ignaz Bauer, to me known and in my presence signed the foregoing statement written in the German language." Signed by Lionel Shaffrown, CIC. So that hurdle has been overcome and I should like to continue my cross examination.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you for the explanation.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Now in this Document on page 26 of the Document Book, 4th paragraph, this witness states: "The thirst was so terrible that some patients did not hesitate to drink dirty water used for washing the floor. I saw one of these poor devils ....."
Do you have the page, page 26 of Document Book 5, Document NO-910, Prosecution Exhibit 140, the second page of the affidavit, the paragraph in the middle of the page commencing with the words "The thirst was so terrible that some patients did not hesitate...." It may well be ---- you have it? "The thirst was so terrible that some patients did not hesitate to drink dirty water used for washing the floor. I saw one of these poor devils falling on his knees, begging in vain for water. Doctor Beigelboeck was pitiless. One youth, who succeeded in getting some water to drink, was bound to his bed for punishment." Now, did Beiglboeck report about any of those conditions that he encountered during the course of his experiments?
A No.
Q Well, didn't you ask the all important question of the experimenter Beiglboeck - how well the experimental subjects cooperated and whether or not using concentration camp inmates would be advisable in the future? Weren't these questions important to a scientist and a man who was horrified at using concentration camp inmates?
A I don't understand the last part of your sentence.
Q I say, weren't you interested in knowing how well these experimental subjects cooperated?
A Yes, the Beiglboeck said that many of them drank water.
Q Did he tell you whether or not deaths occurred?
A He said that there was no death and that all patients recovered extraordinarily.
Q Did he tell you what he did with the subjects after he had completed the experiments?
A He said that he gave them a follow-up examination and at the end the patients got very good food, and that they were given specially good care for a certain time afterwards.
Q Well, do you recall in the affidavit by Pillwein where Pillwein stated that the patients were put back into the regular infirmary in a very weakened and damaged condition where they died after a short time?
DR. PELCKMANN: May I make an objection, Mr. President. Mr. Hardy is here asking the witness whether he remembers the affidavit of Mr. Pillwein. I believe this question is relevant. The issue is not to test the memory of the witness - whether he is able to remember an affidavit which was submitted four weeks ago or 8 weeks ago. Only that can be shown by these questions. The witness can say he can remember it or cannot remember it but that is completely irrelevant in the cross examination of this witness. I see therein only a moans of bringing up for discussion prosecution documents which have already been submitted and I think that should be avoided.
MR. HARDY: I think the objection is very well taken, your Honor.
I will rephrase my question.
BY M. HARDY:
Q Did Beiglboeck report at the meeting in October that patients were put back in the regular infirmary in a very weakened and damaged condition where they died after a short time as set forth in Pillwein's affidavit?
A.- No, Professor Beiglboeck did not report that, and I do not believe that that is in the affidavit of Mr. Pillwein.
Q.- You will find it in the affidavit of Mr. Pillwein, which is Prosecution Exhibit ** 139, Document No. 912, in Document Book ** 5, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT : Counsel should exhibit these affidavits to the witness if he desires to question him.
BY MR. HARDY :
Q.- I have no further questions on the affidavit.
Did Dr. Beiglboeck tell you what nationality the subjects were that he used ?
A.- No.
Q.- Did he tell you whether or not they were volunteers?
A.- I remember that he said that they were volunteers in the experiment.
Q.- Did he tell you that Gypsies had been set aside by the Reichsfuehrer SS for use in the experiments ?
A.- I heard that Gypsies were used, but I do not remember from whom I heard that.
Q.- Do you have Document Book ** 5, Doctor ?
A.- Yes, I do.
Q.- Will you turn to Document No. 179, which is Prosecution Exhibit 135 ? It is on page 20 of the English. The letter from Grawitz, Reichsarzt SS, to Heinrich Himmler, concerning the experimental subjects to be set aside for these sea water experiments at Dachau. Would you kindly turn to the paragraph numbered with 2 stating the opinion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks from which I quote :
"Referring to the above letter, we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station Rascher in the concentration camp Dachau.
If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used."
Now, Doctor, I am fully aware of the fact that you did not receive this letter and that here in this court room is the first time that you have soon it? However, does it appear, to you that the language "If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used" conveys the thought that these subjects were volunteers ?
A.- I don't know how many prisoners there were in quarantine. I could imagine that if there were several hundred prisoners there, one could go and ask for volunteers. That conclusion is not compelling.
Q.- Well, does the next paragraph, written by SS Gruppenfurhrer Nebe convey to you that the subjects used were volunteers ? The paragraph reads as follows :
"I agree with the proposal to conduct experiments on prisoners of concentration camps in order to evolve a method for making sea water potable. I propose taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half breeds."
DR. PELCKMANN : Mr. President, I should like to object to the continuation of this line of questioning. Mr. Hardy has already confirmed that Dr. Schaefer saw this document here in the court room for the first time. Therefore, questions as to his interpretation of the contents of this document cannot be the subject of an examination of a witness. Just as well as this witness, or even better, the Tribunal can interpret what the letter means.
MR. HARDY : May I call to the attention of the Tribunal that this same objection was raised when I put - or maybe Mr. McHaney put the sane questions to the defendant Schroeder and I put the same questions to Becker-Freyseng, and, at that time, the Tribunal overruled the objection.
THE PRESIDENT : There is no recollection of the ruling of the Tribunal on any similar question, but it seems that the answer would be merely a supposition on the part of the witness.
MR. HARDY : The question I an driving at, Your Honor, is to ask the witness whether or not, if he had knowledge of the facts elicited in this letter, would he more strenuously objected to the experiments on the inmates at Dachau.
JUDGE SEBRING : Why don't you ask him that, Mr. Hardy ?
MR. HARDY : I'm building up to the question, Your Honor.
Witness, will you kindly answer that question.
THE PRESIDENT : Propound the question again to the witness.
MR. HARDY : If you had received this letter, would you have more strenuously objected to the experiments at Dachau ?
DR. PELCKMANN : I should like to object again. The prosecutor himself has said that he knows that the witness did not get the letter. Therefore, it is unnecessary to ask whether he did get the letter.
THE PRESIDENT : Objection sustained.
BY MR. HARDY :
Q.- Dr. Schaefer, when you executed your affidavit, which is Document NO-474, Prosecution Exhibit 131, was that submitted to you in the German language for signature ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- That was on the 23rd of October, 1946, was it not ?
A.- Yes, that's what it says. It's probably right.
A.- Did anyone compel you to sign this affidavit ?
A.- No.
Q.- Did you have the opportunity to make corrections therein ?
A.- Yes. May I finish answering your question ?
Q.- Certainly.
A.- On the unimportant points it was very easy, but on the more important things it was more difficult and, to wholly oppose the arguments of the interrogator was difficult. I, at the moment, thought it was true.
Q.- You, in fact, did make a considerable number of corrections in the original, did you not ?
A.- Yes, in the original, Yes, I did make a number of corrections.
Q.- You were under oath when you executed this affidavit ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Doctor, now in summation, you were in attendance at the conference on the 19th of May, were you not ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- At that conference you submitted objections to the testing and use of the Berka method ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- You attended the conference on the 20th of May ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And you attended a conference in October, 1944, when Dr. Beiglboeck reported the results of his experiments ?
A.- Yes, bat I was ordered to attend all three. I was ordered to attend all three meetings.
Q.- I understand that.
I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT : Any further questions to be propounded to this witness in connection with the cross examination ?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. PELCKMANN :Q.- Dr. Schaefer, the prosecutor asked you whether you demonstrated your method among others also to Professor Schroeder, in the presence of Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
Then, on the basis of this demonstration, was everything done - all steps taken for the introduction of Wofatit in the Luftwaffe ?
A.- You mean my demonstration in December, 1943, to Professor Hippke ?
Q.- Yes.
A.- Not Professor Schroeder. Yes, of course.
Q.- Orders were given to do everything to introduce this method ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- The prosecutor spoke of your opposition to the experiments and said that there was only a passive resistance because you saw an opportunity in these experiments to make it quite clear, by way of experiment, how good your method was and how poor the Berka method was. He said that, didn't he ?
A.- Yes, he did.
Q.- First, I should like to ask you, was your resistance passive ?
A.- No, it was not passive. There were violent altercations.
Q.- But you didn't have any success with your resis tance.
Therefore it must have been weak.
A.- One couldn't say that. After all, I was only an Unterarzt. I could not do much against a group of university professors, world famous men. I couldn't do much against my superiors with the highest military ranks.
Q.- And the possibility that you wanted to bring out through these experiments that Wofatit was good and that Berkatit was bad, that would probably have existed only if experiments had also been conducted with Wofatit ?
A.- Yes, that idea is divergent....
Q.- (Interrupting) Just a minute, just a minute. Answer my questions concretely.
The possibility of contrasting these two methods in an experiment and proving how good your method was could have existed only if your method had been included in the experiment ?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And did you do anything to have your method included in the Dachau experiment ?
A.- No, nothing at all.
Q.- On the 19th or the 20th, at these meetings, was anything said about introducing a series of experiments with Wofatit ?
A.- No, nothing.
Q.- At the meeting of the 25th of May, while you were present, was anything said about introducing a series of experiments with Wofatit ?
A.- No.
Q- Do you consider it possible that the introduction of a Wofatit series of experiments was ordered after the 25th of May on the basis of deliberations of the so called commission ?A.- That is possible.
Q.- And is it possible - the defendant Becker-Freyseng testified this - is it possible that a series of experiments with Wofatit is exactly the same things as a series of experiments with fresh water ?
A.- That is not only possible, but that is a certain fact.
Q Then summing up all these considerations which we have just elicited in individual questions, what do you have to say to the assumption of the Prosecutor that you had a personal interest in the execution of the Dachau experiments, would you reject that assumption?
A Yes, completely. In this connection I should like to remind the Tribunal of Exhibit 37, the testimony of the Witness Pohl where Pohl says that no mention was ever made of the introduction of a Wolfatit series of experiments. I should like to say that if I had had the slightest interest in this I would have taken an active interest in the experiments, and how they were arranged. Professor Eppinger had been involved by Berkatit. He was in charge of experiments for Sirany. The experiments showed what the method of the execution of the experiments, what significance it has and the objectivity of results can improve on the method of experimentation.
Q On the 19th of May you opposed Berkatit, you also objected to undertaking experiments?
A Yes.
Q But experiments on prisoners had not been mentioned yet?
A Yes, that is right.
Q For what reasons did you object to experiments on the 19th of May?
A Because I considered them superfluous.
Q Did you have any reason to refuse to obey the order to attend on the 20th of May?
A No, there was no reason to do so.
Q Was there any reason you had to know that experiments would be performed or would at least be discussed, experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A No, I did not know that.
Q If you did not particularly want to go to this meeting on 20 May why was that?
A I was annoyed because the other people refused to understand.
Q You thought the whole thing was superfluous, the discussions of experiments?
A Yes.
Q Then on the 20 of May as Becker-Freyseng and yourself have testified, the idea of experiments on prisoners was brought up for the first time?
A Yes.
Q What feeling did you have then aside from your consciousness that the experiments were superfluous?
A I felt that it was unpleasant to carry out experiments on prisoners.
Q Did your antipathy extend only to performing experiments on concentration camp inmates or were you then are you now convinced that experiments on prisoners should not be performed at all, either on concentration camp prisoners, or prison inmates, prison inmates in Germany or America or any place else in the World?
A Yes, that was my conviction then and it is my conviction now.
Q Now, after the 20th of May did you do anything toward expressing once more your deviating opinion?
A Yes.
Q What did you do?
A I talked to Becker-Freyseng about it.
Q You telephoned to him?
A Yes.
Q And was your telephone conversation included in the affidavit Exhibit 19 of Mrs. Koenig of which I have submitted, and is it described correctly?
A Yes, it is described correctly?
Q What caused you to attend the conference of May 25th, first externally there was a military order, second what considerations what inner attitude did you have at that time?
A The experts were to consult with each other. Professor Eppinger, Professor Huebner and Professor Netter were to decide whether experiments were necessary at all.
Q Your medical opinion was settled?
A Yes, and I assumed for sure that these three gentlemen would realize that Berkatit was completely useless.
Q And then in the meeting at least so far as you were present, until you were separated from the others because of the air raid, you were seriously disappointed in this opinion?
A Yes, I was quite bitter and I lost my faith in -- I will have to speak generally, -- my faith in scientific judgment.
Q Do you think that these gentlemen gave their opinion against their better knowledge?
A No, no, why should they do that.
Q The reason I ask is that the Prosecutor has stated that Professor Eppinger committed suicide, and as the Prosecution said apparently because he was aware of his guilt; therefore, I ask you do you know whether all the other gentlemen are still alive?
A Yes, the others are still alive, and are still working as professors in their fields.
Q They have not committed suicide?
A No, they have not committed suicide.
Q So apparently they are not suffering from a guilty conscience?
A No, apparently not.
Q If experiments were performed with Wolfatit was your permission required to perform experiments with Wolfatit?
A No, one could get the Wolfatit from the I.G.
Q Can you imagine that the permission of a Unterarzt would have to be obtained?
A No, that is quite fantastic.
Q Can you imagine that the experiments with Wolfatit were performed to see what effect Wolfatit or rather the sea water treated with Wolfatit had?
A No, there was nothing to be seen.
Q Mr. Hardy asked you about what Professor Biegelboeck reported concerning the experiments in Dachau; I assume it escaped your attention that Mr. Hardy always asked did Professor Biegelboeck ask you and you answered repeating a great deal of what Professor Biegelboeck reported about the experiments; did you mean to say that Professor Berkatit told you all that personally or that he told that in his lecture?
A No, I meant to say that he said that in his lecture, at least most of it.
Q Professor Biegelbock spoke to you only briefly?
A Yes, only briefly.
DR. PELCKMANN: I have no further questions.
BY DR. MARX (Defense counsel for Professors Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng.)
Q Dr. Schaefer, you said in your cross examination that Professor Anthony had given you orders to go to Vienna and look at Sirany' experiments; do you know exactly whether Professor Anthony gave you this order on his own authority or whether he passed this order to you an behalf of the department chief?
A I assume that he gave it to me on behalf of the department chief.
Q Can you remember who signed the travel order and the military ticket for this trip?
A No, I cannot recall that.
Q You said that you warned Prof. Schroeder and Dr. BeckerFreyseng that Berkatit was dangerous; now did you warn them about the danger of Berkatit in practice of sea distress or the danger in experiments?
A This warning referred of course to cases of distress at sea.
Q Then I should like to ask you something else, the Prosecutor asked you whether in the meeting when it was decided to perform the experiments in concentration camps, these are the words of the Prosecutor, "whether you were offered to supervise these experiments or to carry them out yourself"; in the three meetings on the 19th, 20th and 25th of May was it decided to carry out experiments in concentration camps - the emphasis on the word "decided"?
A No, that was not decided.
Q On 19 May 1944 was it mentioned at all that experiments were to be performed on prisoners?
A No.
Q On 20 May 1944 at the meeting, what was said; was a decision reached at this meeting?
A No, the suggestion was made, i.e. the possibility was brought up.
Q On the 25th of May, 1944, were prisoners mentioned at all or was not everything else to be tried first to carry out the experiments; for example in the Luftwaffe agencies, in the Military Medical Academy, etc.; were not all other possibilities to be exhausted first?
A I was present at only a part of this meeting on the 25th, as long as I was there nothing was said about prisoners, that is shown by a few affidavits, too. The possibility of carrying out the experiments in Brunswick seemed to be the predominant idea.
Q You can remember that Brunswick was discussed, the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Do you remember any other agency; perhaps the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe?
A Yes, I remember the Military Medical Academy.
Q You remember that too?
A Yes.
Q It was not then said that the carrying out of experiments in camps was the primary idea?
A No, no.
Q No further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: (Counsel for the Defendant Beiglboeck).
Q Witness, the Prosecutor examined you as an expert, I ask you, have you worked on the effect of sea-water on human beings or have you only concerned yourself with the question of removing the salt?
A I worked primarily on the removal of salt.
Q Then you have no practical experience?
A No.
Q Your statements about the loss of water with 500 cbcm and 1000 cbcm with various kidney concentrations are then purely an as sumption from your part?
A That is my personal opinion gained from literature, reports and theoretical opinions of my own.
Q Then you cannot say that this opinion of yours is absolutely scientific and accurate?
A No, of course I cannot ascertain that 100%.
Q No further questions.
MR. HARDY:
Q I have two further questions, Your Honor, if there are no further questions by defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Does defense counsel desire to propound any further questions to the witness?
DR. PELCKMANN: At the end, I have a remark to make. I have no further questions to the witness.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:Q When did you learn for the first time, Dr. Schaefer, that sea water treated by your method was to be employed in Dr. Beiglboeck's experiments?
A As far as I know now that was in October.
Q In other words, you did not know about it until after the experiments had been completed?
Q No one told me anything about it.
A They employed your method and never informed you?
A It was not necessary. I did not have the material and it was not generally known that I was connected with this method. The I.G. Farben industry was in contact with the technical office and with the Navy; whether the gentlemen knew, I don't believe they did.
Q Did you develop this Schaefer method of rendering sea water potable in your capacity as an Unterarzt in the Luftwaffe or in your capacity as an employee of the I. G. Farben?
A In my capacity as Unterarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q Have you ever had any clinical training, Doctor?
A Yes, after I took my state examination, I was for about one year an interne and then I was an assistant for one year and in 1938 I had to leave the clinic.
Q I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. PELCKMANN: At the end of my opening statement many weeks ago I made application that the defendant Schaeffer be released from custody and not subjected to the trial. I am of the opinion that this is a case where according to the practice of American and English Courts, the Court is able now to accede to such a request, and I make the same application once more.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the motion by counsel for defendant Schaeffer for a discharge at this time. The Court will take the motion under advisement and announce its ruling on it in due time.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock in the morning.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, the Tribunal had ordered that tomorrow the defendant Hoven may remain away. I made this application on the assumption that the witness Dorn would be examined only Friday, but since the witness Dorn is being examined tomorrow, I would like to cancel application and have the defendant Hoven present tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until ninethirty in the morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9:30 5 June 1947).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in Court with the exception of the defendant Gebhardt, absent because of illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of the defendants in Court, save the defendant Gebhardt, who will be excused from attendance today pursuant to certificate of the Captain of the Medical Department in charge of the prisoners, as to the illness of defendant Gebhardt. The Secretary General will file the certificate for the record.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: (Counsel for Hoven): With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to call the witness Paul Friederich Dorn to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please repeat? I did not have the earphones on.
DR. GAWLIK: With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to call the witness Paul Friedrich Dorn to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Pursuant to agreement between counsel approved by the Tribunal, the Marshal will call the witness Paul Friedrich Dorn a witness for defendant Hoven.