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.
I took Vorlicek down to the station only because Pillwein asked me to and because he was a Viennese, and in this way he got out of his work, I think, and into the hospital which was something he wanted very much.
Q: What is your thought, Doctor?
A: For doing him this favor, although I don't really need him he has put this understanding of his down on paper.
Q: Is it necessary to keep the subjects confined when you are using them for sea water experiments, must the doors be locked and the guards be posted?
Q: The experimental subjects were locked in when the experiment began. That was necessary. They should have been locked in a lot better than they were because then they would have had no opportunity at all to get fresh water on the side.
Q: That adds to the voluntary nature of the experiments, doesn't it?
A: If you read medical literature you will see that thirst experiments are always carried on behind locked doors. That is not a special characteristic of the thirst experiments in Dachau.
Q: Professor Vollhardt didn't carry it on behind locked doors?
A: Professor Vollhardt had doctors as subjects.
Q: He didn't carry it on behind locked doors, did he?
A: No, Vollhardt didn't, but there are numerous cases of thirst experiments in literature which are carried on behind locked doors. If you really want to carry out a thirst experiment accurately you have to see to it that experimental subjects do not have access to water.
Q: Then these experimental subjects actually were locked into the experimental station, the doors were locked and guards -
A: There were no guards. The door to the experimental room was locked.
Q: Was there any watchman?
A: On the experimental station there were always nurses, day and night.
Q: I note in Document NO 910 which has been introduced by the Prosecution, page 140, the affiant Bauer states in his affidavit that several series of experiments were carried out forcibly. Is he incorrect in that assumption too?
A: He is certainly wrong in that assumption.
Q: Can you tell me how you could ascertain whether or not these subjects were getting water was that because their urinary output would be less then. It should have been had they been drinking seawater?
A: You can deduce that water has been drunk in several ways, you can judge from the samples of Urine and the samples of blood, and you can deduce it from the weight of the experimental subject.
Q: Is it customary for the person who has volunteered for an experiment to throw some of his urin away to deceive you. You stated on direct examination that some of these subjects threw their urine away. If that be so it would be next to impossible to determine the excretion of each one, wouldn't it?
A: Yes, it is impossible under those conditions. I have already said that those people were interested in receiving the cigarettes I mentioned. That was a mistake on my part. I readily admit that I promised them in advance. For that reason they drank fresh water thinking they would be able to stand the experiment longer and this would give than more cigarettes. That was their motive.
Q: That is a true act of a volunteer to throw away his urine, is it?
A: In this case where the man wanted cigarettes it is perhaps not quite customary, but it is understandable.
Q. Now, you promised all these people better food; didn't you as a reward for the experiment?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you give it to them?
A. As long as they were with me they did got it and after they were released from my station and the station was closed, I demanded that they should receive the food in the future and I was told that they were.
Q. Vorlicek says on Page 2 of his affidavit, NO-3282that good food after the experiments was also promised to them, but these premises were not kept; do you know whether or not the promises were kept?
A. I only know that on my reiterated request this promise was made to me. I then left Dachau and assumed the promise would be kept. If I had known that such a thing was possible, namely that the promise would not be kept, I should probably have attempted to find even more assurances that the promise would be kept, but there was nothing else I could do. The Chief Physician promised me that this was ordered and if he says the camp commander will bo told they should receive extra calories and extra food and if in the office of the camp, I say this is the list of people who should receive extra rations, I of course had to rely on that statement as I could not stay in Dachau.
Q. Yes, but the volunteers relied on your statement, didn't they? When you left you did not care whether or not they received their food; isn't that right?
A. I did care, I made efforts to see to it that this request of mine reached the competent offices and I was told that these promises would be kept by the office.
Q. Well now, why did you not bring the food with you and reward them yourself after the experiments? I notice rather interestingly in the document you introduced on page 103 of your Document book 2 those documents concerning the food allocated to you by the Luftwaffe, that you only got enugh feed for seven days for 32 men and you used 44 men in these experiments and the experiments lasted from 18 July to 16 September; You did not seem to make much of an effort to feed these poor follows then, you left them and didn't care if they got their promised food or did you got other shipments of food?
A. If you look at this document you will see that those 32 persons are called the first experimental groups that was the first shipment of food I received from the air field. I did not save the other receipts because in July of 1944 I did not think that in June of 1947 I would have to produce them in front of the trial. I saved them because I needed them as a basis for the calculation of the percentage of salt contained in the food. I can assure you that this amount of food, so long as I was there, was delivered by the Luftwaffe, with the exception of these one or two days of irregularities which I have already spoken of. Then I did not give the subjects Luftwaffe food, but asked that they receive extra rations from the concentration camp, and this was promised to me. If I had known that they would not receive these extra rations from the concentration camp after I left, I would have applied to the air field and seen that the Luftwaffe rations were delivered.
Q. Why did you not call Becker-Freyseng and say, "They are not fulfilling their obligations here; I have been promised these individuals good food; they have not been getting it;" could you not contact Becker-Freyseng or Schroeder, the people who assigned you and ordered you down to Dachau?
A. Apparently you misunderstood me. For two days the delivery was delayed because the air field was bombed. Becker-Freyseng and Prof. Schroeder could not have prevented this, but two days later this food was delivered, and as long as I was there the food deliveries were in order.
Q. Now, Pillwein says in his affidavit, which is NO-912, found in Document Book No. 5 on page 30; this will be on page 31, the second paragraph:
"When the people were chosen for these experiments, they were also promised better care for some time. In reality, this care was only accorded patients in the first group; all the others received water and skimmed milk for two days after the end of the experiment and about the third day were placed on the normal camp diet. The first group received some sausage, bread, butter, cheese, marmalade, and 2 cigarettes for 4 to 5 days. I remember that disagreements arose between the camp administration and the competent authorities of the Luftwaffe, since the Luftwaffe did not make sufficient provisions available for the diet. The ones we bore the brunt of this were naturally the participants."
Now, isn't it evident from Pillwein, from Vorlicek and these others, Tschofenig, that you did not fulfil your promise even daring the course of the experiments?
A. During the experiment, when the second group had finished the experiment, I did not receive the food from the air field for the reasons I have already given you. Rather, I did not got it immediately. If they had been fed by the camp I should hot have had any difficulties with the 88, as that was under the direction of the SS. I did have difficulties with the 88, because I asked them to give me food of this caloric content, and this caused difficulties since they said they could not do that on credit and would have to have authorization from the Luftwaffe.
After two or three days I received this food delivery, and from then on the experimental subjects did receive this diet.
Q. That is your explanation of the accusation made by Pillwein?
A. Yes.
Q. I assume, of course, that you flatly deny any deaths in the course of these experiments?
A. I have nothing to deny; there were no deaths in these experiments, nor can any deaths have taken place later as a result of those experiments; that is impossible.
Q. Did you know Tschofenig?
A. I did not know him; I know his name and where he came from; and I learned later that he was Capo of the X-ray station, and therefore I must have spoken to him once or twice.
Q. Do you know what his duties were at the X-ray station?
A. Presumably he took care of the machinery there. I don't know.
Q. Was he over in a position to have X-rayed any of the subjects you used in the course of your sea-water experiments?
A. Probably Tschofenig was present when the subjects were X-rayed on arrival and then later I sent over a couple of people for an X-ray check-up, and he was probably present then, too.
Q. Then he was in a position to have X-rayed or have seen subjects X-rayed?
A. I assume so.
Q. However, you exclude tne possibility that one of the subjects used in your experiments died three days after leaving your experimental block?
A. At the beginning I received X-rays of the subjects when the subjects themselves came to me, two of these subjects had affections of the lungs. I did not keep these two people in my experimental station, but sent them directly to the lung department of the hospital. Those were not experimental subjects of mine, they were people who came along on the transport, in whom the X-rays found a tuberculosis of tne lungs and whom I turned over to the hospital for treatment. I saw these experimental subjects for perhaps half an hour and then had them transferred, as I said in my direct examination. Now, you cannot hold me responsible for people with lung diseases being on the transport. I eliminated them immediately. If I had not had them X-rayed immediately, this tuberculosis of the lungs would probably not have been discovered at all.
Q. Can a person become too weak to walk as a result of being submitted or subjected to sea water experiments?
A. Thirst brings about a certain weakness in the muscles.
Q. Now, you say that these persons that were suffering from a lung disease you never used in your experiments?
A. No.
Q. How many X-rays does it take to determine whether or not you can use a person in your experiments; one?
A. One X-ray is enough for the preliminary examination yes.
A. Well, let us turn to Document NO-3342, which is offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 510. Would you kindly return those other two to me, Doctor? Do the interpreters have copies of this affidavit?
This is another affidavit from the affiant Josef Tschofenig, dated Klagenfurt, 14 May 1947. He states in the third paragraph of this affidavit as follows:
"In the experiments of Dr. BEIGELBOECK, which took place in the summer of 1944 in DACHAU, only healthy gypsies were used at first. I know that because I received the whole transport, which came from SACHSENHAUSEN, in the X-ray ward for lung examination. Altogether about 60 gypsies were used, chosen from a group of 80 or 90. They were certainly not volunteers, because they all wished to evade it. I noticed that from their conduct during the assignation. As regards their nationality, I only know that they were gypsies; they were described by race and not by nationality. The 20 or 30 who were not used were sent back for health reasons and were excluded from the experiments; they remained in the sick quarter. During the experiments, which lasted about 6 weeks, the state of health of the originally healthy participants deteriorated rapidly. One went mad and was taken in a strait jacket to the mental ward in the middle of the period of the experiments. I do not know what happened there. From my general experience of camps, I know that if he fell into good hands he might have got over it, if he did not get into a sick transport.
During the experiments I again made X-ray photographs in a few cases, about the middle le of the experiments, and in a few cases they were made by Dr. BEIGELBOECK himself, because he did not trust my findings; for I, as I am glad to admit, had in a few cases given him findings which had the purpose of saving the people from the continuation of the experiments.
At the end of the experiments the experimental subjects were divided into two groups, namely those who were fit to work and these who were sick, by the responsible physician Dr. BEIGELB0ECK himself.
Those who were fit tp work were directly released for 1 bar immediately after the termination of the experiments and were employed in various labor sounds. Those who were not fit to work, about 20 people, those were the obvious invalids, who were manifestly incapable of working and sick, were transferred from the experimental station into different sections of the General Prisoner Hospital. Amongst them were a number who were very weakened and apparently dangerously ill, and whose survival seemed unlikely.
I know that because I had to radiograph all the people coming into the prisoner hospital and knew that these purple came from the experimental station. I had radiographed alll of them once and some of them twice already, and therefore I knew them. Moreover it could be seen from the patients' charts where they came from?
"Amongst these various people who remained in the prisoner hospital three went into the 'internal' section; I can no longer remember their names. I know from my own experience of one death case amongst the three who went to the 'internal' section. This was a nan about 1.68 meters in height. I still remember him in particular because he was brought into my x-ray ward on a stretcher, since he was too weak to walk anymore. I am certain that on the day the experiments were completed he was transferred from the Beiglboeck ward to the 'internal' ward and next day came to be x-rayed as a normal prisoner hospital patient. I recognized him immediately as I had already x-rayed him twice before when he was still with Beiglboeck.
"I know that this man died three days later. Out x-ray ward received the mews of his death from the office. I had to send the findings according to whether the patient was dead or still lived, either to the depot (in case death occurred) or to the ward (if the patient still lived).
"I remember exactly that I reported this finding to the depot as I had been informed of his death. I remember this one case so particularly well because the lung finding was in order, that is, normal and also that he did not suffer from other pathological symptoms. There fore, I knew that this man died as a direct result of the experiments three days after they ended.
"The others who were unfit to work, about seventeen, were divided between various other prisoner hospitals; a few were handed over to the invalids' block and I do not know that became of them.
"From my general experience of camps I assume that about 30% did not survive the invalids' block and other fatigues due to their weakened condition as a result of the experiments. Without the experiments their chances of surviving the camp would certainly have been much better since they were originally healthy prisoners who formed Dr. Beiglboeck's experimental group.