Q. During the course of an experiment, considering that your experimental subject is one who has been put on a salt water procedure, how much weight will such an experimental subject be expected to lose each day during the course of an experiment?
A. Theoretically one can assume the following: If someone drinks 1,000 cc of sea water, the kidneys, which receive sea water containing 2.7 percent salt water, will eliminate this as a 2 percent solution on the first day or second day; in other words a urine output of 1,350 cc is necessary in order to eliminate the entire amount of salt. In addition, water is eliminated through the skin and through the lungs. One can count op it amounting during the first days to 500 to 600 cc. This elimination of water is then reduced in the following days, that is, considerably restricted. That would be a loss of water of 850 to 950 cc and that would be the loss of water per day. In addition, these experimental subjects lose not only water but through the change in the food they eat they have to lose in weight what a person who is fasting is losing and this amount can be calculated from the experimental group which drank the Schaefer water. These experimental subjects did not lost any water; therefore, they are a suitable group to decide how much is lost through starving. I also calculated these changes in the weight and always deducted that from the entire loss of weight, so that one can from that see how much is lost due to the water. I calculated the following values and found out that through hunger alone on the first day 1,000 cc is lost; on the second day 1950 cc is lost; on the third day 2,400 cc is lost; on the fourth day 2,500 cc is lost; on the fifth day 2,850 cc is lost. This is always the total. Then 3,400 cc on the sixth day, 3,500 cc on the seventh day and 3,780 cc on the eighth day.
These values, which I had gained as average values for the Schaefer group, I compared with the statements made in medical literature and that agrees with the amounts which had so far been observed in loss of weight with fa.sting and thirsting experiments. One thus has to calcu late that an experimental subject on the average loses one and a half kilograms per day if they drink 1,000 cc of sea water.
One has to consider that during the time when the experiments were carried on daily about 500 cc has to be attributed to loss due to starving, so that a gaining of weight and weight remaining on the same level during the experiment mean that considerably more sea water was taken in than was conditioned by hunger. I may perhaps point out some experiments which were carried out relatively well.
Q. I have to ask you that in particular in this. Will the experimental subject be expected each day to lose an increasingly greater amount of weight than on the preceding day?
A. These figures, which I have stated, are always the total in each case; that is, the loss of weight in the preceding time is always added; thus there must be a progressive loss of weight. In a case of fasting it is so that gradually the loss of weight is reduced. That is the difference. Turing the first days they are greater than during the latter days, while the loss of water is not considerably reduced, and if the kidney concentration were found, it is possible that no water is lost through the urine but through the skin and through the lungs about 350 cc are lost. The experiment, which gave more or less successful results, is from this 1,000 cc of sea water group. At the beginning the weight is 67.5; the next day 65, then 63.5, then 61.5 and then 60.3 and here there is a weight loss of one kilogram and I believe that some water had been drunk in between. In that manner the loss of weight would take place if the experiment were continued regularly, while lesser losses of weight, that is, less than one kilogram per day, show in this experiment with certainty water was being drunk.
May I perhaps pull out these charts and in the form of a written report submit them in order to show where from case to case they drank water ?
Q. Here is the thing I am interested in. In the course of an experiment is the place eventually reached theoretically where from a certain day on the loss of weight will be expected to be substantially the same each day instead of progressively greater, or perhaps will a cally he has lost all of the weight that he can and then from day to day thereafter his weight will remain substantially the same?
Do you understand?
A. Yes. This is perhaps true only to a certain extent in the case of thirst experiments. If somebody starves and thirsts, the loss of weight due to the starving is gradually reduced to 200 or 250 grams, but the loss of weight due to the water output becomes progressively smaller in the case of thirst. If we administer salt solution, a certain loss of weight is forced, because the elimination of salt must be accompanied by water. Even if the kidneys were to concentrate very well and if the lung and skin still eliminate very little water, there still must be a loss of weight, due to that and fasting, about one kilogram.
What confused me here was the fact that due to the throwing away of the urine very little salt was eliminated per day. Due to that fact it would have been possible theoretically to save water, and that the loss of weight was caused by the starvation alone. That was the first opinion I had on these losses of weight because I did not know at first that the experimental subjects drank water on the side; therefore, I assume that. In the beginning, therefore, this confusion resulted and therefore the experiment was not always discontinued when the loss of weight was not accordingly, and that is medically possible.
Q. If the defendant is of the opinion that the preparation of any statement or a table of these losses of weight would be helpful to the Tribunal or will throw light on the case now before the Tribunal, such a statement may be prepared and offered to the Tribunal by defense counsel. Its admissibility as evidence will then be considered when it is offered.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I would like to proceed now to Case 25. Would you kindly make that A, B, and C, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding to that, I would like to ask the witness regarding Case 30, in connection with which you made the stenographic notes. What was the age of that experimental subject?
THE WITNESS: He must have been about, as far as I remember, 24 or 25 years old.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you remember his name?
THE WITNESS: I believe you can see that from the chart. Krotschinski was his name.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. Proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Case 25, Professor Beiglboeck, is that a case where the subject was drinking sea water treated by the Berka method?
A. No, it is a case--- Oh, the Berka method, yes. I confused that with the Schaefer method, but it is the Berka method.
Q. Can you tell us whether or not this subject cheated in the course of the experiments?
A. This experimental subject on the 24th and 25th stayed at the same level of weight; therefore, he must have taken in water, a liter of water. Furthermore, from the 26th to the 27th there was a relatively small loss of weight. Furthermore, from the 30th to the 31st there was a loss of weight of only 300 grams; thus he must have drunk at least three times.
Q. Well, now, I note on the 28th of August, in Chart B-25, the 15th day of the experiment, that the temperature of this subject rose above normal and again on the 29th of August his temperature was about normal. Now, in the course of an experiment when a person's temperature increases to that extent would you not consider the fever a good reason for stopping the experiment?
A. The temperature of 37.2 or 37.5 degrees centigrade during an administration of a great amount of table salt is what we call the "table salt fever," "sodium chloride fever." It is not a real lever but a rise in temperature which is caused by the administration of salt.
Q. Now, on the 31st of August which is on chart C25, the 18th day, we note here that by the familiar red arrow with the red circle on the end thereof, that the experiment had been interrupted and then I see a stamp indicating an-x-ray had been taken. Could you tell us the purpose of having the x-ray taken on this date for this subject?
A. This experimental subject had bronchitis: That is, dry bronchitis of a thirsting person. I had an x-ray taken in order to see whether anything else was wrong with the lung but the result of the examination was negative.
Q. The x-ray form with some markings therein contained, under the date 4 September, 22nd day, on Chart C25, purports to be the results of the x-ray ordered the 31st or is this an additional x-ray?
A. That is an additional x-ray. The patient then got a fever three days after the conclusion of the experiment and caused an acute bronchitis and then I again sent him to be x-rayed.
Q. Did this fever that we see, that skyrocketed up to 39.8 give you cause for worry that is indicated on the date, 3rd of September, on Chart C25?
A. Yes, of course. That's why I sent him to be x-rayed, because he had bronchitis.
Q. Who x-rayed this man?
A. I believe it was a French x-ray specialist.
Q. Where was the x-ray taken?
A. In the x-ray room.
Q. That's the room in which Tschofenik worked?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, I note on the date of September 1 that there was no indication of any urinary output of this patient.
A. That probably was not recorded. May I ask you to show me the notebook?
A. Sure.
A. They forgot to record it, on the 25th of August, he had 870 cc's urinary output.
MR. HARDY: I wish the records to show, your Honor, that the urinary output which is lacking on chart C25 for the date , 1 September, is contained in the book which has been referred to as the "black book," indicating that these reports in the book are all a part of the same situation on the reports of these experiments.
Q. What did the two pencil markings in the interior of the diagram under the date, 4 September, on Chart C25 indicate -- that is, the x-ray diagram, the pencil marks contained therein? Do they convey something of significance to you?
A. Well, at that time I received a written report on the examination and from that diagram I can today no longer state what the results were exactly.
Q. Now, I also note that the pulse curve terminates from the beginning of the 4th of September but the fever curve continues until the 6th of September. What is your explanation for that?
A. Probably, the pulse was no longer taken, only the temperature, because the patient had a fever.
Q. Could you record temperature in a person without recording pulse in the human body?
A. Of course, one can do that.
Q. It is most unusual, isn't it?
A. Well, I must not have noticed it at the time. I must have overlooked it.
Q. Can you determine from the black book whether or not his pulse rate was taken? Does the black book contain that information?
A. No.
Q. Now, on the reverse side of Graph B25 we see pencil notations. Is that your handwriting?
A. No.
Q. Is that legible so you could read it to us?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you read it very slowly so the interpreters can follow? I imagine there may be some medical terms that may confuse.
A. "On the 2nd of September some pains in the area of the stomach. Otherwise, subjectively no complaints. Temperature up to 38 degrees centigrade. Bronchitis above the bases of the lung.
"3rd of September, left basel on both sides above the lung; a shortening of the sounds at the lung itself." I cannot read the next word.
Q. Read whatever you can. If you find a word in the sentence that is not legible so that the sentence will not convey the meaning, then don't bother to read that sentence.
A. I can't decipher this word. "Bronchitis, individual rasping sounds which don't reverberate, O.B. After administration of pyramidon the fever sank immediately."
"4th of September, on both sides increased healing. Both points in shadows. When there is a coughing spell they almost do not lighten up.
"12th of September, subjectively the same complaints of stomach pains as before the beginning of the experiment."
Q. Will you stop for a moment there, doctor? You state there are stomach complaints as before the beginning of the experiment, Now, if a man complained of some ailment, why did you use him in your experiment if he complained of some stomach ailment? I would have thought that you would have eliminated people with complaints.
A. Yes, probably he had some gastritic complaints which certainly were not extensive and this note says during the final examination that due to the experiment there were no changes in the complaints.
"Condition of nourishment not satisfactory. Paleness of the skin. Turgor reduced. Musculature still excessively excitable. Heart O.B. , not enlarged."
Q. Well, now, is there a term there that says "nomo-phlebitis." spelled n o m o - p h l e b i t i s ?
A. Yes. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Probably, it was supposed to mean thrombophlebitis.
Q. What does that mean?
Q: What does that mean?
A: That is an inflammation of the veins.
Q: Then it goes on to say "Nutritional state, non specific"; what do you mean by that?
A: It apparently means satisfactorily.
Q: Then it A: (Interposing) This patient when he was discharged, I believe, weighed 56 kilograms; thus, he had,not yet regained his original weight.
Q: Then, the further statement in those notes says, "Palor of skin, Turgor decreased". Was this men pretty well dehydrated?
A: Turgor reduced, it says -- Turgor reduced; thus he had not yet been fed enough.
Q: Well, now on the 12th of September, does it state that the Musculator was still very strongly over-excitable.
A: It does not say, "very strongly" but "strongly".
Q: Strongly over-excitable?
A: Yes. That is something that he retained from the experiments.
Q: Well, is that a condition which would require that the subject be given same attention, medical attention?
A: Yes.
Q: And you left Dachau on the 15th?
A: Yes, that is why I required that the experimental subjects still be kept under medical attention. It was my request that they should again be examined.
Q: Then you turned these subjects over to the tender mercy of the SS physicians in the camp hospital?
A: Yes, the care and in the camp hospital for the prisoners was not done by the SS physicians, but by the prisoner's physicians.
Q: I wish to take up now case No. 36, your Honor. This case we have only two sets; one will be marked "A" and the other "B".
Dr. Beiglboeck, were there other charts made out on this subject or are these the only two charts?
A: The experimental subject is from the Second experimental group. In the case of the second experimental group, as you have probably seen, all the charts start only on the 30th of August.
Q: Well, now, this man's name is clearly legible, isn't it; that is, Savier Reinhard?
A: Yes.
Q: 21 years of age, and his number was, 91149. Now, these experiments here indicate he took 500 cc's of sea water every day for a total of six days; is that correct? -- five days?
A: Actually only four days.
Q: Do you think that this subject was faithful in the experiments in as much as the intake on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of September is indicated on the chart A-36, the urinary output exceeds to a great proportion of sea water intake. Apparently this subject was faithful in drinking the sea water; was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: Did this man give you any trouble in as much as his temperature is about normal a considerable part of the time?
A: Yes. I also regarded that as table salt fever. He was 21 years old, and young people have -- but, now I saw that he had a Angina before. He had already lost his temperature when the experiment was started. And during the drinking he again got a rise in temperature and, therefore -
Q: (Interposing) Well, it seems rather strange to me that on the 30th day of September this man had a temperature above normal; yet you used him in the experiment?
A: Yes, because on the next day his temperature went down. It was a very slight inflammation of his throat, and it had disappeared; and therefore, at the beginning of the experiment he did not have any temperature.
Q: Well, isn't it rather dangerous to use a man who, perhaps, just recovered or is on the road to recovery from an illness as indicated by the temperature curve in an experiment?
A: Well, that depends upon what illness he had. If someone has a little inflammation of the throat which has already disappeared, that really is not a serious illness.
Q: I note that on the dates from 1 September to 10 September that this man's pulse rate rose continually, stayed about normal for an extensive period of time, and that in some instances when the pulse rate rose above normal the fever curve was below normal. Now, doesn't that indicate a rather dangerous condition?
A: Well, the subnormal temperature which is recorded here is 36.5, 36.2, 36.8; if that is a subnormal temperature, then all of humanity has subnormal temperatures.
Q: Do you know what happened to this patient?
A: He remained there until the end.
Q: Did you see him after the 12th of September?
A: Well, I saw him until the 15th.
Q: We note in the last day that the temperature and pulse curves arc recorded, that the temperature and pulse curves cross one another?
A: Every human being in the course of a day has slight variations of his body temperature. And the falling of the temperature curve in this case occurred to the alarming extent of 36 degrees, and that is the most normal temperature you can imagine. That is, these are absolutely normal values which are recorded here for the last days, and the patient after he had lost 5 kilograms during the course of the experiment also gained almost 6 kilograms; that is, when he was discharged he weighed somewhat more than he weighed at the beginning of time experiment. At the beginning of the experiment he weighed 60.3 kilograms and on the 12th, 61.5 kilograms.
Q: Doctor, obviously some one here has made a drastic error in that throughout these reports we notice that in ink weight has been placed on the charts; that is, on all these charts.
That is indicated on chart C-14, that is the weight on the 12th of September was 59 kilograms, on chart C-14, and I have called the attention of the Tribunal throughout to these pencil marks, in some cases it is made with a blue pencil and in some cases in ink. Now, here we see that this patient on the 12th of September, his weight is recorded as 61.5 kilograms, and somebody at a later date put 60.5 kilograms for the 12th of September. Now, can you maintain that these weights were put in all these other charts, in ink, and in this chart in blue pencil, some of the other charts also in blue pencil, were put in at Dachau or were they also put in here at Nurnberg, in as much as the ink is rather fresh and does not look to be three years of age?
A: I can tell you with certainly that this was not done in Nurnberg. And if you look at the figures which are written in such a characteristic manner are thus in the handwriting of the French medical student. If you will compare them with the other figures you can see that it is the same handwriting I believe, however, that in the case of the second experimental group the final weight, one or two days later, perhaps even only on the last day, was taken, and that was not recorded quite correctly. If I may ask you to show me other fever curve from the experimental group No. 2, from 2 to 44, I can probably clarify that quite easily.
Q: We will cover two or three of those, Doctor, before we finish. How do you account for the discrepancy here: Now, the fact -- on this chart, which in NO. B-36, under the date of 12 September, we see the man has two different weights -
A: (Interposing) I have just tried to explain that to you. This one group from 1 to 32, was weighed on one day, and the medical student apparently recorded it in ink; while the second experimental group, in my opinion, was weighed later; and, that is what he had done incorrectly, it was not that he wrote these weights later but he wrote it down there. I believe that it can be seen from the entire second experimental group, from 32 to 44.
Q: In view of the constant rise in temperature in the patient, A-36, and chart A-36 and B-36, indicating that his temperature remained above normal during the entire time that he was subject to the drinking of sea water, and that you had to interrupt it after four days, and had to give the man some injections of Steriofundin and so forth.
Are you certain that the subject was not one of the men whom the witness Viehweg saw being taken to the morgue?
A. This experimental subject on the 12th September still gained 2 kilograms in weight above the body weight at the beginning of the experiment. That is how the subject is recorded here. I don't know why a person who gains weight so well should die and anyhow from a throat inflammation he doesn't die.
Q. It isn't certain on these charts that the man weighed 61.5 kilos on the 12th September or whether he weighed 60.5 kilos. It is apparent from the chart, and the chart speaks for itself, that you don't know what he did weigh, isn't that so?
A. I am telling you the weights which are recorded here on the lower line are the daily weights that were taken. These figures that were recorded up here - that is the final weight. That is the last weight that was taken. I would like to say for sure that the medical student recorded it on a wrong day because we had agreed that the final weight will be recorded up here.
Q. Did he do the same for all those charts in the second series? Record the final weights on the wrong day?
A. Yes, that is what I suppose. That is the final weight, the last weight, that was taken. The same medical student recorded on all the charts in the same handwriting and apparently he recorded the final weight on the 12th perhaps only later.
Q. I request, your Honor, to mark....
THY PRESIDENT: IF we are starting on a new chart the Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, before proceeding with the examination of these records, I might add that I have only two more charts to go over with the defendants, and then perhaps three or four other questions which raise questions and my cross examination will be completed. I understand that Dr. Steinbauer has redirect exanimation of the defendant. In any event, the Prosecution has now Dr. Ivy her in Nurenberg. Dr. Ivy is the Vice President of the University of Illinois and performed tests with sea-water, and is qualified to testify as an export witness on the part of the Prosecution. Inasmuch as Dr. Ivy's connections and associations in the States require that he return on next Tuesday, the Prosecution respectfully requests that we be allowed to call Dr. Ivy out of order and have him take the stand this afternoon at 1:30, inasmuch as it is anticipated that his direct examination will take a considerable the length of time, and in addition thereto it is anticipated that defense counsel will have a considerable number of questions to ask in cross examination. So, if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal, I should like to call Dr. Ivy on direct examination at 1:30 this afternoon.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, for purely formal reasons, I should like to speak against the calling of an expert at this stage of the proceedings. As far as I know, Dr. Ivy was in Nurnberg on the 20th of January, during the prosecutions case. He could have been examined as an expert at that time by the prosecution and, of course, I think it important considering certain occurrances that the matter be investigated by an objective third party. I will not object particularly because, in my opinion Dr. Ivy is only a cross examination witness for Schaefer for whom he has given an affidavit, but I ask permission that, instead of the written opinion of Professor Glatzel, which is in my document book, I be allowed to call this expert too as a witness so that he can comment on the material submitted by Professor Ivy. I was not able to give him this material before when he wrote his opinion because I did not have it in my possession, but I merely gave him some tables supplied to me by Professor Beiglboeck. The opinion of Glatzel I shall not submit for the time being, but shall ask for permission to call this expert as a witness here personally, and then the prosecution will also have an opportunity to examine him so that we will have two experts.
THE PRESIDENT: When will this witness be available, counsel?
DR. STEINBAUER: I believe, if he is asked to come by telegramhe is in Flensburg, in Northern Germany, near Kiel-I think he could be here in a day and a half.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might state in that connection that Professor Volhard has already appeared as an expert in the sea-water experiments for the defense counsel. I have no objection to further experts if he wishes to call them, however.
TEE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which can be determined later. The Tribunal will afford the defendants reasonable opportunity to call witnesses who can be of assistance to the Tribunal in determing these issues.
While the Tribunal is of course reluctant to interrupt the examination of a witness, particularly one of the defendants, it appears to the Tribunal that Dr. Ivy, being here, should be heard and the request of the prosecution will be accordingly granted. Dr. Ivy may take the stand at 1:30 this afternoon.
At that time, the Tribunal will sit, as it did yesterday, from 1:30 to 5:00, and will observe those same hours tomorrow, and will sit certainly Saturday morning and possibly Saturday afternoon, in order to complete the testimony of this witness.
Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. I wish to turn to Case #39. I respectfully request the Tribunal to mark it please.
Would you kindly read the subject's name from the top of Chart A-39, Professor Beiglboeck?
A. Johann Jablonski.
Q. What is his age here, please?
A. 49.
Q. Was a man 49 years of age a suitable subject to be used in an experiment?
A . I remember this man very well. I did not want to take him into the experiment, but then he wanted to remain at the station and I assigned him to the experiment with 500 cc of sea-water and the LF probably means Lactoflavin, and he was in the experiment for three days altogether. He lost 2 kilograms.
Q. Well, a man 49 years of age didn't meet with the qualifications of the Luftwaffe, did he?
A. I have already said I did not want to take him in the first place, but he wanted to stay there and I accepted him into the experiment symbolically, as it were. It was an experiment which meant practically nothing. During these two days the man lost about 2 kilograms or, in three days, rather, and then he went back to his original weight.
Q. Did he receive 500 cc of sea-water?
A. Yes.
Q. For a period of three days?
A. Three days, yes.
Q. Was that sea-water treated with the Berka method or was that plain sea water?
A. That was Berka and Lactoflavin.
Q. Due to the age of this subject, why didn't you use him in the Schaefer experiment? That is, subject him to drinking seawater treated by the Schaefer method? He would have been a more fit subject to have drunk the Schaefer water inasmuch as the Schaefer water was harmless.
A. I said it was not my intention to keep him in the experiment. He was taken out immediately. He would have probably lost much more weight with the Schaefer water than in this symbolic experiment, and besides he drank water in between. One can see from the end to the 3rd he dropped from 40.2 to 40 kilograms. That is, in effect, he actually did not participate in the experiment at all.
Q. Did this man become ill at all during the course of these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did his condition become below normal?
A. I didn't understand.
Q. Was he below normal at any time during the experiment?
A. No he was unchanged.
Q. Then, why was it necessary to give him a sterofundin injection, together with glucose and calcium?
A. I did that more or less regularly because that was the best method to break off. I treated this case very, very carefully. He was in the experiment for three days, then he was put into the easiest group.
Lactoflavin was an aid for him. Third, I broke off with all possible precautions. It was not because he needed it, but to help him.
Q. The easiest group of the experiments actually was those that were drinking the Schaefer water, isn't that true?
A. But they were in the experiment for 12 days. If I had let him go without eating for 12 days he certainly would have suffered more than he did in this three day experiment. Actually the experiment lasted only for one day. I did not want to take him in the beginning.
Q. Let us turn now to Case #40. Will the Tribunal kindly mark that, please? Here we have, on Chart A-40, an obvious erasure of the name of the subject. Do you see that, Doctor? I have been able to decipher that to read Ferdinand Daniel. Would that be correct?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. How old was that young man?
A. 16, it says here.
Q. Did you have the consent of his parents?
A. I have already said, neither in this case nor in the case of any other patient, did. I negotiate with the parents.
Q. What did he do to be branded Asocial at the age of 16?
A. I have already testified about that. I said that I do not know the causes of this classification.
Q. Let us look at his charts more specifically, Doctor. What was his weight on the first day of the experiments. That is, the 31st day of August?
A. 52.5, the first day was 52.7.
Q. Was this young man subjected to 1,000 cc of sea-water?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his weight at the end of the experiment?
A. 47.9.
Q. What was his weight when you discharged him and left Dachau?
A. 50.7.
Q. Approximately four pounds underweight at that time?
A. Not quite.
Q. Now, the water balances--that is, the urinary output and the intakes which are indicated on these charts A-40 and B-40 show that he did not take the entire 1,000cc because the effect of what he did take--that is, perhaps he got normal water--that on the middle of the fifty day, nevertheless, it was necessary for you to support his heart action by an injection of sterofundin, glucose and calcium, wasn't it?
A. I broke off a large part of the experiments by intraveneous injections of liquids and for the reasons which I have already given. Because suddenly the amount of blood in the circulation is increased, not as a treatment but as a support, a precautionary measure,I administered a circulation: and not because he needed it. One con see from his pulse rate very clearly that he was quite normal.
Q. How many aviators did the German Luftwaffe have aged 16? Pilots?
A. Pilots of that age? There were none, only assistants, socalled A A gunners.
Q. You mean you had boys of 16 years of age in gun crews in airplanes?