AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WILHELM BEIGLBOECK - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q Professor Beiglboeck, regarding the subject, volunteers to be used in medical experiments, what is your opinion about the ability of a layman to volunteer for medical experiments?
AA layman who is informed what will take place during the experiments is, of course, in my opinion, perfectly capable of voluntarily deciding whether he wants to participate in that experiment or not.
Q Then do you feel that first of all the field of research must be exhaustively studied, experimentation on animals must he exploited to the fullest extent prior to resorting to experimentation on human beings?
A I am of the opinion that when animal experimentation is useful every human being experiment must be preceded by experiments on animals.
Q And the experimental subjects must be warned of the hazards of the experiments, if any?
A Yes.
Q What is your opinion regarding the ability of a person incarcerated in a concentration camp to volunteer for a medical experiment?
AAs I have already indicated in my direct examination, it is my opinion that every prisoner is, to a certain extent, limited in his freedom; but, within the framework of this limitation of his freedom, he can, of course, answer the question yes or may whether or not he wants to participate in that experiment, presupposing, of course, that an answer in the negative would not lay open to any sort of reprisals.
Q What type prisoner in a concentration camp do you deem fit to volunteer for medical experiments, meaning by that using the word "Volunteer" in the true sense of the word.
A With the limitation that I have just stated for the prisoner, I consider that any type of prisoner can decided "yes" or no in such a question.
Q These prisoners or gypies used in the sea water experiment, can you tell us in what manner they were selected for the sea water experiments?
A So far as I heard regarding this from them, they were asked whether they wished to apply for experiments in Dachau and then from the top or some large group of them there the number in question did apply.
Q Did you participate in the actual selection of the gypies used?
A No. Regarding this I can only give you details about the gypies who volunteered from the concentration camp at Dachau.
Q Did you consider the selection of the gypies to be used a matter for the SS?
A Yes.
Q And you had received a direct order not to mingle in SS matters?
A I received the order or the instructions not to interfere in matters that concerned the concentration camp. I was assured that it had been agreed with the SS that only volunteers were to be used for the experiments and the SS had to carry out the selection of them within the framework of its duties because, of course, the Luftwaffe, as far as I myself personally had any influence or power to issue complaints to the concentration camp, I think that has to be emphasized again and again -- namely, that the situation were not the same as they are in any free community. On the one hand there was the Wehrmacht, on the other hand the SS; and the affairs of the concentration camp concerned the SS solely and I could exercise no influence on them. I simply had to rely on what my superior officer told me or what I was told by the officers who were in charge of the affairs of the concentration camp.
Q Now, you say that you checked with Dr. Ploedner, the camp adjutant, and the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the transport as to the status of the gypsies. Is that right?
Q. Why did you make such on exhausted check?
A. Because I wished to be absolutely certain that they really were volunteers.
Q. Did you have some misgivings as to whether or not they were volunteers, and that was the reason why you questioned three persons in that regard?
A. I had no misgivings. I was told that volunteers were to be used for these experiments but, of course, I was interested in being absolutely certain on this subject.
Q. Well, now, were these Gypsies in these experiments full blooded or halfbreeds?
A. So far as I know, they were in the most part halfbreeds, but in this matter also, I have no specific or precise data, And, in conversations I did not concern myself too much with this matter because at that time it did not seen to me to be very important. I was simply told that these Gypsies; that was the assurance I received when I inquired into the matter of the insigna they were wearing.
Q. Were they rendered or judged social simply because they were Gypsies?
A. That, I cannot tell you in detail; I only can tell you what the SS officers told me about this: They told me explicitely they were not in custody because they were Gypsies but because they were asocial; most of those had already been previously sentenced. And, I asked them what their punishment had been, and the Gypsies said nothing really serious. So, I asked them what they had done and they said, well, nothing of importance. I had the impression that they did not like to be questioned about that.
Q. What tape of criminal offense must they have committed to be rendered asocial?
A. That, I do not know; but, I believe that for the most part, if I can judge what I read in the medical periodicals, they were called aso cial for family reasons.
Such asocial families were being checked in Germany at that time. Now, whether this was the reason for taking them into custody, or whether that gave them a right to take them into custody, that I cannot tell you, I did not put them there. I saw no papers on them, and I know nothing about the previous convictions they had received. I simply was informed that they were held as asocial persons, and it was not important for me to carry out the sea water experiments on asocial persons. I did not have the impression that asocial persons were being specifically turned over for the experiments. I took them for the experiments simply because they were given to me by the SS, and I assured myself whether they were volunteers or not. If volunteers with another triangle on their arm had been turned over to me, I should have used them just as well. And, as I said, I did not concern myself at all with the question whether they were asocial.
Q. Now, Doctor, would a child be adjudged asocial if his father was classified as asocial?
A. It is not easy to answer that question. There are some families who have been investigated very carefully, and a large number of the members of such families belong in the category of asocial. The family Jucke, if I am pronouncing it correctly, is such a family; they received much attention as asocial family, when having been investigated by use of psychiatric and heriditary problems. Members of that family have distinguished themselves by being guilty of crimes and other asocial actions. This does not exclude the possibility that, in this family, there can be a large number of persons who did not commit any crimes. Nevertheless, the family is declared asocial. Now, if there are children from a family in which, let us say among 100 members an estimate of 70 are characterized by a criminal life, then that whole family will be scientifically classified as asocial family. I do not know what the basis for giving the insigna was, namely, the insigna that classified people as asocial; that is, as I say, I do not know.
Q. Well, now, what did you actually say to each subject when there reported people to you for the experiments, did you talk to each one of them individually?
A. I called the experimental subjects together and told them what the experiment was about. I did not repeat this information to each one individually, because that would have taken a whole day; and, then I told them that they could think about whether or not they wanted to participate. I had been informed that some of the prisoners in Dachau wanted very much to participate, and if necessary, I should have made substitutions.
Q. Did you, in the course of your lecture to these 44 subjects, tell them what your experimental problem was to be, and what might be expected?
A. I could not tell them what was to be expected because I could not prophecy what the results would be; that was the whole purpose of the experiments.
Q. You mean it would be scientifically ethical to conduct an experiment on a human being without having any conclusive knowledge as to what the results may be?
A. What the possible results might be, that was more or less known, but if the precise results were known, that would make any experimentation superfluous. Before you enter upon an experiment, of course, you have a plan. You know what you are looking for, but you do not know what you are going to find when you are looking for it. I could tell my experimental subjects that I could guarantee to them that nothing would happen to them; that was the most important thing to the experimental subjects. Whether the concentration in the kidneys was going to be 2 or 3 percent, that was unimportant to the experimental subjects. And, that as I say, I am sure they did not want to know that.
Q. Did you warn them of any possible danger or hazard during the the course of the experiments?
A. I told them that they would feel severe thirst, and they would probably become nervous because every one who is thirsty becomes nervous. I told them moreover, that I would also be near them and protect them from any danger.
Q. Did you tell them that they could quit whenever they wished?
A. I told them you must put up with that thirst for a few days, I cannot tell you for how long exactly, and I told them that they would not have to thirst any longer than I could take the responsibility for. And, I told them if they simply could not stand it, they should tell me and I would take that into consideration. But, I did not tell them and I could not tell them that as soon as they felt thirsty they should just come and tell me and then we would give them water, because after all, this was a thirst experiment. And, I had to require of the experimental subjects that they should thirst for a certain period of time, that was the very nature of these experiments. I know that you are trying to make a charge out of this against me, and are trying to appraize the feeling of thirst in this way; thirst being one of the most uncomfortable feelings of all feelings, but that was the agreement I made with them--I told them that such and such and such and such for four or five days, I do not know how long that is going to be--you are to have to stand this thirst you feel.
Q. The discussion as to whether or not they would be relieved from the experiments or whether or not they could be relieved lied solely with you; is that right?
A. That decision lay with me, yes.
Q. What reward did you offer these experimental subjects?
A. I told them that afterwards they would be spared what they had previously been subjected to, and that they should come to me with their wishes, and I would do what I could. Moreover before and after the experiments, they would receive the extra rations; before they could rest for three weeks, and after the experiments for three weeks, and also I communicated any special wished of theirs to the camp commandant, and received his approval for many of these wishes.
Q. Well, did you offer them cigarettes in addition to that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they get them?
A. Certainly.
Q. Did you have a vast quantity of cigarettes on hand?
A. I got the cigarettes from the same place I got the food, the air field. And, I cannot tell you how many there were in toto, but it was several thousand cigarettes.
Q. Were you in a position to get all the cigarettes you needed within reason?
A. To the extent that the Mess Sergeant gave me the cigarettes; to that extent I could provide them.
Q. Well, then, why was it necessary for your mother-in-law and father-in-law to send you cigarettes?
A. Because I received the cigarettes from the Mess Sergeant not for myself, but for my experimental subjects; and my parents did not have to send me these cigarettes. They sent them to me; that sort of thing happens in the best of families.
Q. Did you check and absolutely make certain that each one of these subjects received, as his due reward, after having been subjected to the sea water experiments?
A. I distributed the cigarettes according to a certain arrangement: Those who had kept on with the experiment received the most cigarettes, and those who from the second day on kept on drinking fresh water did not get any cigarettes.
Q. Well, what other reward did they get beside the cigarettes?
A: I can only repeat that they applied on the condition that previous and thereafter they should receive better rations. After the experiments they were to be treated as convalescents and were not to work. They were promise mitigation of their detention. And, what I did on my own initiative was to supply the cigarettes and, also, I went personally to the camp commandant and told him that these persons had carried out the experiments in a good way and that they should be rewarded.
Q: Wouldn't it have been dangerous to have pardoned or to have commuted the sentence of a person adjudged asocial in Nazi thinking?
A: Only very few of the asocial persons are dangerous, namely those professional criminals who are guilty of violent crime. The others are not dangerous. I am thinking of asocial persons as I understand them in medical terms. Such people are those who are malingerers - who won't work. Such people are not dangerous, just useless. Pickpockets are asocial persons. They are somewhat dangerous, particularly for people whose pockets they pick. But they are not dangerous criminals in a criminal sense of the word.
Q: Then would, you say that each and every one of the forty-four experimental subjects used in your sea water experiments at Dachau were criminals and were a menace to society and hence deserved nothing but incarceration in a concentration camp, or do you feel that some of the inmates you used were falsely imprisoned?
A: I am convinced that a great majority, and perhaps all of them, were not dangerous. I am fully persuaded of that but I do not know why they were included in the category of asocials nor do I know why these asocials were in a concentration camp. I was not a friend of Himmlers nor did I belong in his office, nor did I have any power to interfere in the plans of Reich Minister Himmler. I was just a Luftwaffe officer who had received an order to carry out experiments and if I had gone to Himmler and told him, "Reich Minister, you are keeping these gypsies here unjustly, I consider that a crime". I would have been shot, killed, or at best locked up in an insane asylum.
Q: When did you arrive at Dachau, at the concentration cargo, the date? You must remember that in as much as in letters to your mother-inlaw and father-in-law you explained this as the most unfortunate incident in your career. Now, surely you can remember the date you arrived at Dachau.
A: I estimate on the 18th. I can't ell you for sure but I think the 18th of July because very shortly thereafter, the next day or the day after, the conference took place with Sievers which I attended. Then I went to Vienna to get my laboratory equipment.
Q: When did you leave Dachau?
A: After the experiments you mean?
Q: Yes, when did you leave for good, and go back to Vienna?
A: 15 or 16, I believe the latter, of September.
Q: 15th or 16th of September?
A: Yes.
Q: What did your working day at the concentration camp consist of? What time did you arrive there in the morning?
A: 7 a.m.
Q: What time did you leave in the evening?
A: Usually at 8 I went to dinner. Then I returned and finished up my report. It was frequently 10 or 11 before I was done with them.
Q: Do you recall the nationality of each one of these subjects used, whether any of these gypsies were Czechoslovakians, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, or Poles?
A: I have already told you this morning what I know about that.
Q: Do you know whether or not any of them were ether than of German nationality?
A: Regarding their citizenship I have no precise knowledge. I saw the papers of none of them.
Q: Well then you are not in a position to tell us whether or not they were Czechoslovakian citizens, Austrian citizens, Hungarians or Poles or whatever they may have been? You actually do not know, do you?
A: I know that some of them came from there. I saw no papers on them but I know that they were arrested in Germany.
Q: Well, now didn't any of these gypsies come from another concentration camp by transport to Dachau to be used in your experiments?
A: Almost all of them came from Buchenwald.
Q: Buchenwald? Not Auschwitz?
A: I have heard from Pillwein that some of them were alleged to have been in Auschwitz. But that transport which arrived for me came from Buchenwald.
Q: They actually volunteered for this experiment while at another concentration camp, is that right?
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: Were you informed as to what they actually volunteered for when they were in the other concentration camps?
A: I was told that they were asked whether they wished to participate in experiments involving sea water and that on being so asked that gypsies applied. I then told them, when they came to me what would go on in the experiments and asked them whether they wanted to participate or not. In other words, if they had been told in Buchenwald something that was not true I did learn of it then and they were given a chance to correct the false impression they had. I told them perfectly clearly what would go on and asked them again if they wished to take part.
Q: Did you ever tell the subjects that it would be to their best interests if they underwent the experiments?
A: In what respect? It would have been to their interest to the extent that this would result in advantages to them but I never told them they had any personal interest in the experiments. I told them the experiments were being carried on in order to help people distressed at sea. I told them explicitely.
Q: And you told them there would be an advantage to them if they underwent the experiments?
A: I told them that before and after the experiments they would receive these extra rations, I told them the SS had told me they would receive mitigation of their sentence after the experiments.
I told them that after the experiments I would see to it that they would not have to work immediately and would receive additional food. If you are of the opinion that was an advantage for them then I told them it would be an advantage to them.
Q: Was the alternative obvious?
A: They could have said no.
Q: What would have happened to them?
A: What I would have done would have been that I should have returned them to the camp management and asked the camp management who was going to take their place. It was entirely indifferent to me who was the experimental subject in these experiments. I had no special group in mind.
Q: Were the experimental subjects certain of the consequences that would develop had they refused to undergo the experiments?
A: I was never asked about that. I was not an experimental subject. I can say that if any experimental subject had said no to me I should not have done anything to him. What opinions the experimental subjects had themselves I do not know. At any rate I did not threaten them or put up any duress.
Q: Kindly tell the Tribunal the names of the three Frenchmen who worked with you in this experimental plan?
A: One was named Christian.
Q: Yes.
A: One was named Senes.
Q: Spell that please.
A: S-e-n-e-s. And one was named. Reinhardt.
Q: Tell us the names of the three Luftwaffe officers?
A: One was named Dr. Lesse, one Dr. Schuster, and one Dr. Foersterling.
Q: Tell us the names of the three male prisoner nurses.
A: From the Luftwaffe or from among the prisoners?
Q: From among the prisoners.
A: Pillwein.
Q: Yes.
A: Worlicek.
Q: Yes.
A: And that was all I had.
Q: Did you have any other employees so to speak at this experimental station or is that the entire complement?
A: There was a Spanish chemist whose name I have forgotten and then on occasions a man who worked in Ploedner's laboratory worked for me although he was nit one of my assistants. A young Slav, professor of Chemistry from Laibach I believe, occasionally dial chores for me. I can't recall his name either.
Q: How many of these people you have mentioned were also medical doctors?
A: The three men from the Luftwaffe were MDs.
Q: Did they work as long hours as you did. That is, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. or 11 p.m.?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, did you have all your men working the same number of hours, that is from 7 to 10 or 11?
A. We doctors did work those hours. The nurses and the medical students spelled each other off.
Q. I see. Then the medical students more or less had watches, so to speak. One would be on watch at night and the other in the day time. Is that correct?
A. The students helped me in analyzing the blood samples. They took measurements of blood pressure, They m lyzcd the urine - measur d the specific gravity of the urine, etc., whereas, for the night duty, the members of the Luftwaffe were used.
Q. Well, who served after the members of the Luftwaffe left at 10:00 or 11:00 PM? Who was on duty between that hour and 7:00 AM in the morning when you came?
A. The Luftwaffe assistants did only night duty.
Q. In other words, the Luftwaffe doctors stayed on duty all night long?
A. The Luftwaffe medics were the one who stayed all night.
Q. Now, isn't it true medically, doctor, that delirium in organic or toxic conditions usually comes out at night? Comes on at night?
A. Delirium occurs when the cause of the delirium comes about whether that be day or night, presupposing that delieium occurs at all.
Q. Isn't it more apt to be more severe in the evening hours then in the daylight hours? That's a matter of comon knowledge, isn't it, even for the laymen?
A. That is true. However, deliria are unpleasant whenever they occur, but let me reassure you by saying that the medics who had the night duty had been carrying out that night duty for years and years with our soldiers in our hospitals. Moreover, I told you that the medical students, one of whom had been in school for nine semesters, were used to this work and I told them that they were to call me as soon as there was any need for me, particularly in case there was any delirium.
However, no cases of delirium occurred.
Q. Well, at any event, you wore not in a position to know the worst mental symptoms among your subjects, except by hearsay, inasmuch as you were not on duty during the late evening hours? Is that right?
A. If a serious symptom had occurred during the night I should have been on hand in five minutes.
Q. Where did you live?
A. I lived in a barracks adjacent to the concentration camp in the 88 camp.
Q. You didn't live in the center of the village of Dachau?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Josef Vorlicek?
A. Vorlicek?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I told you he was a nurse at my station.
Q. He worked in your laboratory?
A. Vorlicek was a nurse at the experimental station. He worked in the sick ward.
Q. Did he see the subjects used?
A. Why, of course.
Q. Was he in a position to talk to them?
A. He had to talk to them. He was a nurse at this station. This Vorlicek fellow was also from Vienna and was brought to the station by Pillwein.
Q. Was he a reputable sort of fellow?
A. I never heard anything to his detriment.
Q. Did you ever have to chastise him for some of his actions in the line of duty?
A. Not that I can recall. If he had done something he shouldn't I certainly should have chastised him.
Q. Do you recall the rag incident?
A. I don't know what you are talking about, at the moment.
Q. Didn't Vorlicek, at one time, spill some water on the floor and then wipe it up with a rag and, rather negligently, forget to remove the rag from the experimental station and the inmates were allowed to such the water from the rag?
A. It happened several time, of course, because of some one's thoughtlessness that water was left lying around or a damp cloth, and I always told them that that was forbidden. I forbade that strictly because I didn't want water to appear in the experimental room and, if Vorlicek left water standing around or a damp cloth, I certainly reprimanded him, I can assure you, because he, like every other nurse or any one else who had something to do there, was under orders not to leave water standing around in the experimental room.
Q. What did you say to Vorlicek?
A. I probably told him that that was forbidden and I might have said "I'd like to know what you would do if you were very thirsty and saw water sitting around all the time." I presume that I told him something to that effect, but I don't recall any specific episode. It happened, on occasions, that such thoughtlessness took place and that water was loft in the experimental room.
Q. Did you ever threaten to use Vorlick in an experiment.
A. I believe that I certainly did not. I was more than satisfied with the number of experimental subjects that I had and wished to have no more. The work that I had with those 44 was quite enough.
Q. Let us look at Document No. 3283, Your Honor, which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit #508. This is an affidavit of the Nurse Vorlicek. This is an affidavit that is dated Vienna, 9 May 1947.
"Before me appears Herr Josef Vorlicek, residing in Vienna XVIII, 24 Geymuellergasse, 35 years old, married, a driver, and makes the sworn statement as follows:"
I will skip the oath and proceed with the third paragraph.
"After having been arrested by the Gestapo in the year 1939, and after having been sentenced to and having served your years of penal servitude, I was sent to Dachau. I became assistant-nurse in Professor Beiglboeck's experimental block in March, 1944. After the incident with the soaked securing-cloth, when the human experimental subjects had confessed how they got the water, Professor Beiglboeck threatened to use me as well as a guinea pig if it would happen again. I took this threat for granted, and the incident did not happen again. In the course of the experiments, a very sick man was transferred to the typhoid block. After the experiments, the human experimental subjects were transferred portly to tne overcrowded labor blocks, partly to the outdoor 1 bar squads. The outdoor labor squads were very bad because the work there was harder and there was less food than in the camp.
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): Counsel, I am unable to find in this document handed up to me, Document #3282, the portion which you are reading.
MR. HARDY: Just a moment, Your Honor, it may be that I have handed you the wrong document.
I'm sorry. Just a moment.
Yes, I have handed you the wrong document. I have two h cements from Josef Vorlicek. One's 3283, the other is 3282.
THE PRESIDENT: We have Document #3232.
MR. HARDY: Document #3282 will be offered as 508 and 3283 will be offered as 509, Your Honor. Both these affidavits are from the same affiant. One takes in a little more information than the other. I am referring now to Document #3283.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the one we have not received.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I object to the submission of both of these documents, for it cannot be seen from the document who took the affidavits from the affiant. It started out in the first sentence "Before me appears Herr Joseph Vorlicek." I certainly want to know who that "me" is. The date is 9 May 1947. I ask that I be told who took this affidavit and I wish also to be sure the signature is certified, that is correct but it says "before me" and doesn't say who "me" is. New, consequently I want an opportunity to cross-examine Vorlicek. This man was known in January to the Prosecution from the police record but he was not brought as a witness. I must protest against that. The police records are available to the Tribunal and to the prosecution, and he could have been brought at that time. He all know what he was charged with, and I want to apply for Vorlicek being brought to Nurnberg as a witness.
MR. HARDY: Vorlicek is on his way. He will he here next week. Those documents are in due order, before a Notary and the signatures are sworn to, and are in the hands of the defendant and have the signature of the Notary thereon.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution stated the witness Vorlicek will be in Nurnberg next week and a appear before the Tribunal. The documents have obviously been sworn to before the Notary, Bolzani. His name appears as having administered the oath to the document. The documents are in order.
Q: Now, in Document 3283, which is called for identification Prosecution Exhibit 509, I will now refer to the next to the the last sentence from the bottom on the first page, and I quote:
"Among those experimental subjects were citizens of all nations; Czechs, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, Poles, but no Jews. I remember the Poles and Czechs very well because I talked in the Czech language with the latter. These experimental subjects told me that they had been requested in Auschwitz to volunteer for a 'soft job,' but they were not told what it was. They were surprised and frightened when they learned on arrival at Block 1 at Dachau that medical experiments were concerned. They stated to have nevertheless been forced to undergo those experiments, and they were menaced when a sign of a revolt appeared among them.
Professor Beiglboeck himself told then: 'It is in your interest to undergo those experiments because if everything turns out alright, you will get a good detail.' The alternative was obvious. I know from my own experience that Professor Beigelboeck meant such threats in earnest, since I also took such menaces against myself seriously." Do you remember those instances, Doctor?
A: I have already said that it is possible that Vorlicek left water lying around and perhaps I put it in the way he says, -- but if he construed that as a threat on my part to take him into the experiment. -- He says the alternative was obvious. "I know from my own experiences that Professor Beigelboeck meant such threats in earnest, since I also took such menaces against myself seriously." In other words, he took my threats against him seriously. These grounds of his don't seem very serious to me. I never told the experimental subjects it was to their interest to submit to the experiments, nor did I say "if everything turns out alright you will get a good detail." Vorlicek was not present when the experiments started consequently he cannot know what I die with the experimental subjects a few weeks earlier. I told the experimental subjects if they did the experiment well; if everything comes out alright, then I would try to get easier work for them. That is what I told them. I never forced anyone to submit to these experiments and there were signs of a revolt not for the reasons he gave but this revolt which was the only revolt that took glace when Max refused to give them their extra rations. The gipsies revolted against not getting the food they were promised. That was that hunger revolt. I don't know what will become of this further; it might be a revolt which spread through out the camp with 100 casualties. I can only tell you what took place. I didn't tell the experimental subjects it is to your interest to undergo the experiments. What I did tell them was if they did undergo an experiment they would receive the rations promised. That I never threatened to use Vorlicek as an experimental subject was certainly not correct.