a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt,
Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng,
Schaefer, and Beiglboeck were charged with special responsibility for
and participation in criminal conduct involving sea-water experiments
(par. 6 (G) of the indictment). In the course of the trial the
prosecution withdrew the charge in the case of Mrugowsky. On this charge
the defendants Schroeder, Gebhardt, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and
Beiglboeck were convicted and the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,
Rostock, Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, and Schaefer were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sea-water experiments
is contained in its final brief against the defendant Schroeder.
Extracts from that brief are set forth below on pages 419 to 443. A
corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant
Schroeder and from the closing brief for the defendant Beiglboeck. It
appears below on pages 434 to 446. This argumentation is followed by
selections from the evidence on pages 447 to 494.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_
_Sea-Water Experiments_
* * * * *
On 19 May 1944 a conference was held at the German Air Ministry which
was attended by Christensen, Schickler, Becker-Freyseng, and Schaefer,
among others. This conference was concerned with the problem of the
potability of sea-water. Two methods of making sea-water drinkable were
then available to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. One, the
so-called Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently
produced potable sea-water. It had the disadvantage, however, of
requiring substantial amounts of silver which was available only in
limited quantities. The second method, so-called Berkatit, was a
substance which changed the taste of sea-water but did not remove the
salt. It had the advantage of simplicity of manufacture and use.
At the conference on 19 May the defendant Becker-Freyseng reported on
certain clinical experiments which had been conducted by von Sirany to
test Berkatit. He came to the conclusion that the experiments had not
been conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress.
He reported that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was—
“* * * convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to
health had to be expected not later than 6 days after taking
Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to
health and—according to the opinion of Unterarzt Dr.
Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than 12
days. External symptoms are to be expected such as dehydration,
diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death.”
(_NO-117, Pros. Ex. 133._)
As a result of this conference it was agreed to conduct new experiments.
They were to include a series of experiments for a maximum of 6 days
during which one group was to be given sea-water processed with
Berkatit, another group ordinary drinking water, another group no
drinking water at all, and the final group such water as was available
in the emergency sea distress kits then used. A second series of
experiments was decided upon and the report stated:
“Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also
the emergency sea rations.
“_Duration of experiments: 12 days._
“Since in the opinion of the chief of the medical service
permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the
experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental
subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the
disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.” (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133._)
Thus, with full knowledge that the use of Berkatit for periods of 6 days
would result in permanent injuries to the experimental subjects and that
death would result no later than the 12th day, plans were made to
conduct experiments of 6 and 12 days’ duration. _It should be noted that
the conference report does not state that the duration was a maximum of
12 days as in the case of the first series of experiment._ The duration
was to be 12 days in any event. Since it was known that volunteers could
not be expected under such conditions, the conference determined to use
inmates of concentration camps which would be put at their disposal by
the SS. At a second meeting on 20 May 1944, the report states that “it
was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments were
(to be) conducted.” (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133._) Copies of the report on
the conferences were sent, among others, to the Medical Experimentation
and Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbog, to which the
defendants, Schaefer and Holzloehner, who conducted the freezing
experiments with Rascher, were attached; to the German Aviation Research
Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, to which the defendants Ruff and Romberg
were attached; to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe (L. In. 14);
and to the Reich Leader SS. The report was signed by Christensen of the
Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry.
On 7 June 1944 the defendant Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz
asking for concentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in the
sea-water experiments. This letter reads in part as follows:
“Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to
settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human
beings. _Today again_ I stand before a decision which, after
numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on
voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The
Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making
sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical
officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it
into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an
engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes
the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in
contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From
the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically,
as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce
severe symptoms of poisoning.
“_As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be
carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands
require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12
days, appropriate experiments are necessary._
“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available
for 4 whole weeks. _As it is known from previous experiments
that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp
Dachau, this camp would be very suitable._” [Emphasis supplied.]
(_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._)
Schroeder concluded his letter by stating that the experiments would be
directed by the defendant Beiglboeck.
* * * * *
That these experiments were carried out on nonvoluntary subjects is also
proved by Grawitz’ letter to Himmler on 28 June 1944. (_NO-179, Pros.
Ex. 135._) In this letter Grawitz reports the opinions of Gebhardt,
Gluecks, and Nebe, as well as his own, on the proposed experiments.
Gluecks stated that he had no “objections whatsoever to the experiments
requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be
conducted at the Rascher experimental station in the Dachau
concentration camp. _If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine
are to be used._” It is impossible to imagine a Jew being asked to
volunteer for anything in the Third Reich when they were being
slaughtered by the millions in the concentration camps. Nebe stated: “I
proposed taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There
are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as
regards labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make
a special proposal to the Reich Leader, but I think it right to select
from among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should
the Reich Leader agree to this, _I shall list by name the persons to be
used_.” It is a little difficult to imagine how Nebe, chief of the Reich
Criminal Police, could “list by name” gypsy volunteers for these
experiments. Grawitz raised the objection to the use of gypsies on the
ground that they were “of somewhat different racial composition” and he
therefore wanted experimental subjects racially comparable to European
peoples. Himmler decided that gypsies plus three others for control
should be used. (_NO-183, Pros. Ex. 136._)
Schroeder testified that he tried to arrange for carrying out the
sea-water experiments at the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick. He
remembered very specifically, according to his testimony, that he had
contacted the commander of that hospital on 1 June 1944. He stated that
he also attempted to obtain students as experimental subjects from the
Luftwaffe Medical Academy in the latter part of May 1944. Both of these
attempts to obtain volunteers allegedly failed because of the lack of
clinical facilities and the calling up of students to active service.
Schroeder testified that he went to the SS only after he had exhausted
all other possibilities. He would have the Tribunal believe that there
was no place to find 40 volunteers and the necessary clinical
facilities, although von Sirany had conducted such experiments in Vienna
on Wehrmacht soldiers, but of course _for only 4 days_. (_Tr. pp.
3657-9._)
In connection with this testimony of Schroeder’s, it should be noted
that the records of the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944 were
immediately sent to the SS. The decision to use concentration camp
inmates did not await any efforts to find volunteers but was made at the
conference of 19 May. It was known that because of the very nature of
the experiments which were planned volunteers could not be obtained.
Contrariwise, it is impossible to believe that the commanding officer of
the whole of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was unable to obtain
40 volunteers for the experiments which he claims were so innocuous.
There were no regulations which forbade experiments on members of the
Wehrmacht. (_Tr. p. 3660._) The defense witness Haagen, in connection
with his proposed epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings, as set
forth in his letter of 27 June 1944 to Kalk, who was attached to the
staff of Schroeder, insisted at great length that he planned to use
volunteers from the student companies of the Wehrmacht at Strasbourg,
Freiburg, or Heidelberg. (_Tr. p. 9578._) He was positive that student
volunteers would have been made available. He stated that he could have
used them during their vacations. (_Tr. p. 9579._) Kalk was also sure
that this could have been done. Haagen emphasized repeatedly that
volunteers were available. (_Tr. p. 9580._) Clinical facilities would
have been easily obtained in reserve hospitals. (_Tr. p. 9581._)
Schroeder testified that he did not know that Berkatit would cause death
in not more than 12 days. (_Tr. p. 3666._) He could not remember whether
Schaefer had told him that taking Berkatit for 12 days would cause
death. In a pretrial interrogation, he specifically denied that. (_Tr.
p. 3668._) He testified that while both Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer
were at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942 at which the report on the
freezing experiments at Dachau was given, neither of them reported to
him about it when he proposed going to Dachau to conduct the sea-water
experiments. (_Tr. p. 3669._) Schroeder denied that he had ever seen the
report on the meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944 (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133_) on
the sea-water experiments. (_Tr. p. 3662._) Although a copy of this
report was sent to Himmler, he would have the Tribunal believe that it
was a sheer coincidence that he turned to Himmler for experimental
subjects without having seen the report. (_Tr. p. 3669._) He testified
that he told Grawitz in a meeting with him that he wanted the
experiments carried out on dishonorably discharged soldiers. (_Tr. p.
3670._) Grawitz allegedly said that he would respect this wish.
Schroeder stated that he made it clear to Grawitz that the subjects had
to be volunteers, with a little food as a reward. (_Tr. p. 3672._) He
further testified that he told Grawitz that the experiments had to be
controlled by the Luftwaffe. During a pre-trial interrogation, he swore
that he knew nothing about the sea-water experiments, that the SS took
it out of his hands and he had no influence. (_Tr. pp. 3610-1._)
Schroeder had no idea, according to his testimony, that foreigners were
incarcerated in concentration camps. He said that he knew that gypsies
were used as experimental subjects only after the report by Beiglboeck
in Berlin in October 1944. (_Tr. p. 3676._) He testified that he
instructed Beiglboeck that Berkatit was to be used only until the
subjects said they could not tolerate any more. (_Tr. p. 3677._) He
admitted having heard the report by Beiglboeck on the experiments,
together with Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer, among others, but that he
did not hear the complete report as he had to leave the meeting early.
(_Tr. pp. 3679-80._)
The charts kept by the defendant Beiglboeck on each of the experimental
subjects—which the defense was finally forced into submitting in
evidence, after attempting to use them through the defense “expert”
Vollhardt without offering the documents themselves—give some of the
details as to the experiments, although under the circumstances their
reliability is doubtful. (_Tr. p. 9381._) Certain alterations in these
records which will be discussed at a later point, indicate that they are
not entitled to great weight. The experiments began in August 1944 and
continued until the middle of September. Forty-four experimental
subjects were used. Subjects one to six were deprived of all food and
water for periods from 5½ to 7½ days. The duration of the experiments
given herein is based upon the starting date of the morning of 22
August, as contended by the defense, although there is some evidence
indicating that the starting date was 21 August. If the experiment was
interrupted in the forenoon, no additional day or part thereof is
counted. If it was interrupted between noon and 1700 hours, one-half day
is added, while if it was interrupted after 1700 hours, a full day is
added. Subjects 7 through 10 were given 1,000 cc. of Schaefer water for
12, 13, and 12 days, respectively, and hungered for 7, 8, and 9 days,
respectively. Subject No. 9 was not used for reasons of health. This was
the defense witness Mettbach. Subjects 11 through 18 were given 500 cc.
of sea-water plus the emergency sea ration which contained approximately
a total of 2,400 calories. These experiments lasted from 5 to 10 days.
They hungered up to 6½ days. Several of these subjects, for example, 11,
13, 17, and 18 were subjected to two separate experiments of 8 and 6
days, 6 and 5 days, 7½ and 5 days, and 10 and 4 days, respectively.
Subjects 19 through 25 were given 500 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency
sea ration. The duration of the experiments lasted from 5 to 9½ days
with periods of hunger up to 6½ days. Subjects 19 and 20 underwent two
separate experiments of 7 and 5 days each. Subjects 26 through 30 were
given 1,000 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. Duration of
the experiments was from 5 to 9½ days with periods of hunger up to 6½
days. Subject 29 underwent two experiments of 8 and 5 days. Subjects 31
and 32 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 8 and 6 days, respectively.
Subject 31 was subjected to an additional experiment of 5 days. Subject
33 was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for 6 days; subject 34, 1,000 cc. of
Schaefer for 12 days, subjects 35 through 37, 39, 41, and 42 were given
500 cc. of sea-water for periods ranging from 4 to 6 days; subjects 38,
40, and 43 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 6, 5, and 6 days; and
subject 44 was given Schaefer water for 12 days.
The clinical charts on the experiments also supply us with the ages of
the experimental subjects. Subjects 17, 19, 20, 35, 37, 40, and 43 were
all under the age of 21. Subject 40 was 16 years old; subjects 17, 19,
and 37 were 17 years old; subject 35 was 18 years old; subject 43 was 19
years old; and subject 20 was 20 years old. Needless to say, no effort
was made to obtain the consent of the parents or guardians of these
minors.
The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end
of June 1944 where he was told by Becker-Freyseng that he was to carry
out the sea-water experiments in Dachau. He also saw Schroeder
previously in connection with the experiments. He said he attempted to
withdraw because he had a horror of working in a concentration camp. He
did not refuse to perform the experiments because he was afraid of being
called to account for failure to obey orders. (_Tr. pp. 8828-9._)
Becker-Freyseng told him that the purpose of the experiments was, first,
to find out if Berkatit was useful; second, to test the Schaefer method;
and third, to see whether it would be better to go completely without
sea-water or to drink small quantities of it. (_Tr. p. 8832._) He said
he was told by the officials in Dachau that the gypsies who were to be
used in the experiments were held as “asocial” persons. Beiglboeck
apparently considers himself an expert on asocials. He testified that it
was his understanding that a whole family could be classified asocial,
although this “does not exclude the possibility that, in this family,
there may be a large number of persons who did not commit any crime.”
(_Tr. p. 8848._)
He testified that he called the experimental subjects together and told
them what the experiment was about and asked them if they wanted to
participate. (_Tr. p. 8849._) He did not tell them how long the
experiment would last. He did not tell them that they could withdraw at
any time. He testified that he _had to require_ that they thirst for a
certain period. The decision as to their being relieved from the
experiment lay with him. (_Tr. p. 8850._) During the course of the
experiments he testified that the subjects revolted on one occasion
because they did not get the food they had been promised. (_Tr. p.
8863._) They did not get food for several days because of a delay in
delivery. (_Tr. p. 8868._) The subjects were locked in a room during the
experiments. Beiglboeck testified that:
“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.” (_Tr. p. 8864._)
He stated that the danger point would be reached in about seven days
drinking 500 cc. of sea-water, while in cases of 1,000 cc. of sea-water,
it would be 4½ days. (_Tr. pp. 8876-7._) Compare the much longer
duration of the experiments as set out above.
It was readily apparent to the prosecution after an inspection of the
clinical charts kept during the course of the experiments that a number
of alterations had been made in them. These records were in the
exclusive possession of defense counsel prior to the testimony of
Vollhardt, whose expert opinion was based in part upon such records. In
a large number of instances the names of the experimental subjects have
been erased from the charts, obviously in an effort to make it
impossible to locate such persons for the purpose of giving testimony.
An examination of the charts further reveals that the final weights of
the experimental subjects were written on the charts in a different
shade of ink from the remainder of the records. In some cases these
weights were written over the original pencil notations; for example, on
chart C-2 the final weight of 62 kilograms in pencil was written over in
ink to read 64½ kilograms. Beiglboeck admitted that the red arrows
purporting to indicate the start of the experiments, usually appearing
under the date August 22, were made by him in 1945, long after the
experiment had been completed. (_Tr. p. 8909._) In charts 1 to 32 a red
mark under the date August 21 appears, which would indicate that the
experiments very probably began on that date. Certain notes in German
shorthand appear on the back of chart C-23. Beiglboeck admitted that he
wrote these notes himself. (_Tr. p. 8970._) Beiglboeck testified that:
“We [Beiglboeck and his defense counsel] were in agreement at
all times that the charts and curves should be submitted in the
same way as we received them here.” (_Tr. p. 8921._)
He repeatedly stated that he did not make any erasures on the charts in
Nuernberg. (_Tr. pp. 8922, 8973, 8975-6._) When the proof left him no
alternative, Beiglboeck finally admitted having made changes and
erasures in the notes on the back of chart C-23 in Nuernberg. (_Tr. p.
8978._) These notes give a clinical report on one of the experimental
subjects who was critically ill. The following is a restoration of the
original stenographic notes insofar as they could be translated:
“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies
there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. He takes no notice
of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from
his semiconscious condition (half a line erased).
“The appearance is very bad—looks doomed. The general condition
gives cause for alarm.
“Respiration more shallow, labored, moderately frequent.
“Respirations 25 per minute.
“The eyes are deeply hollowed, the turgor of the skin greatly
reduced.
“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle
fairly loose.
“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter
covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis lower
border VI-XII, sharpened vesicular respiration.
“Heartbeats very low hardly audible. Filling of the pulse
weaker. Increased thickness of walls of blood vessels. Frequency
72, liver, 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft,
moderately sensitive to pressure; spleen on percussion slightly
enlarged.
“Musculature hypotonic. Joints over-extendable. Calves slightly
sensitive to pressure. Indications of transverse welt formation,
marked longitudinal welt formation. Romberg plus plus. Reflexes
plus plus. Abdominal reflexes plus plus. Babinski negative. Eife
phenomenon. Oppenheim negative. Rossolimo negative. Tonus of the
bulb of the eye bad. Bulbus reflex positive. (Interruption.)”
Beiglboeck had substituted the word “somnolent” for the word
“semiconscious” in the last line of the first paragraph. In this same
paragraph half a line was completely erased and could not be translated.
Beiglboeck purported not to remember what it said, an obvious falsehood
since it was erased out of fear of the truth. In the last sentence of
the second paragraph, Beiglboeck altered the notes to read “The general
condition gives no cause for alarm.” In the first line of the eighth
paragraph, Beiglboeck substituted the word “poorly” for “hardly.” The
notation “Romberg plus plus” means that the subject has an “uncertain”
ability to stand. (_Tr. p. 8982._) He said that these notes refer to
subject number 30 rather than subject 23. (_Tr. p. 8984._)
Beiglboeck testified that he made no further changes, erasures, or
alterations in Nuernberg. (_Tr. p. 8992._) That Beiglboeck’s testimony
as a whole is completely unreliable is evidenced by the fact that he
also made erasures in the notes on the back of chart A-29. These notes,
insofar as they can be translated, read as follows:
“The thirst again becomes very severe. Patient lies down on his
back and rolls about. Also gets * * * a typical stereotyped
organic rigid seizure with severe tetanic symptoms such as from
his * * *, symptoms * * *. In view of the fact that in the last
two days he has been drinking a great deal of water * * *
quarter plus half liter, he is being taken out of the
experiment.
“3/9 Again taken into the experiment.
“5/9 Again complains about very severe thirst.
“6/9 Feeling of thirst very severe, tongue dry and coated. Fetid
smell from the mouth. Skin dry and hot, liver significantly
enlarged, reflexes very lively, blood vessels show thickening of
walls, musculature over-excitable.
“7/9 Psychic state has changed. Somnolence. Tongue dry,
musculature feels stiffened. Considerable weakness of
musculature with atoxic manifestation. Romberg positive. Blood
vessels still * * *, pulse poorly filled, marked bradycardia,
respiration accelerated. General condition [the next word erased
and not legible], liver greatly enlarged.”
In the case of subject 25, Beiglboeck testified that this man was
X-rayed several times and apparently had acute bronchitis. His fever
went up to 39.8 Centigrade. (_Tr. p. 8998._) He complained of a stomach
ailment before the experiment began. (_Tr. p. 9000._) He was still sick
when Beiglboeck left Dachau on 15 September. (_Tr. p. 9002._) Subject 39
was a man 49 years old; He was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for a period of
four days, namely, from 1 September to 4 September, when the experiment
was interrupted at 1930 hours. Beiglboeck used the truth with
characteristic economy when he testified that the man was undergoing the
experiment only three days. (_Tr. p. 9010._) He admitted having
performed numerous lumbar and liver punctures on the subjects. (_Tr. p.
8933._)
A number of experimental subjects were able to gain access to fresh
water in spite of the efforts of Beiglboeck to prevent them. Beiglboeck
and his defense counsel assumed the anomalous position that this somehow
mitigates his guilt. It is difficult to understand how this self-help on
the part of the subjects, which undoubtedly saved the lives of the
majority of them, could be raised as a mitigating factor when Beiglboeck
did everything in his power to prevent that. As a matter of fact he did
not even know that the experimental subjects in the first group, that is
to say from 1 to 32, had been able to get at fresh water. He testified
that:
“I should like to say that in the second group, when I knew
their devices from my experience with the first group, I knew
what to do and broke off the experiments. If I had wanted to
continue the experiments, I would have done it in the second
group too. This I did in the first group _only became at first I
did not realize the significance of their failure to lose
weight_.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_Tr. p. 9022._)
_Thus Beiglboeck says, in effect, that although he did not know that the
experimental subjects gained access to fresh water, and although he
continued the experiments far beyond what he himself knew to be the
danger point, nonetheless he is to be excused because some of the
experimental subjects drank fresh water secretly in spite of his efforts
to prevent it._
The expert witness, Dr. Ivy, testified for the prosecution concerning
sea-water experiments. He, himself, participated in an experiment of
three days during which he consumed 2,400 cc. of sea-water with a
caloric intake of 108 per day in the form of candy. He suffered marked
dehydration and was at the point of developing hallucinations. A second
volunteer in these experiments took 2,000 cc. in a little over one day
and developed vomiting and diarrhea to such an extent that the
experiment had to be stopped. (_Tr. p. 9038-9._) Compare the amounts of
sea-water taken by Beiglboeck’s subjects. For scientific data concerning
the effect of sea-water on the human body, see Transcript pages 9039-41.
Dr. Ivy pointed out certain basic inconsistencies in the testimony of
the defense expert witness, Vollhardt. (_Tr. pp. 9041-43._) Dr. Ivy
testified that it was entirely unnecessary to perform these experiments
for the purpose of establishing the potability of sea-water processed by
the Berka method. This could have been determined chemically in a matter
of one-half hour. (_Tr. pp. 9043-4._) He stated that if 1,000 cc. of
sea-water or Berkatit were taken per day, it would cause death in less
than 12 days. Death would occur between the 8th and the 14th day if 500
cc. were consumed per day under ideal conditions. (_Tr. p. 9045._) The
statement in the report of the conferences on 19 and 20 May 1944 that if
Berka water was used, damage to health was to be expected not later than
six days and would lead to death not later than 12 days is essentially
correct. (_Tr. p. 9044._) This document shows that the planned duration
of the experiments was 12 days. Dr. Ivy testified that it would be
unnecessary to conduct experiments for more than three or four days to
show that Berkatit was just as dehydrating as sea-water. (_Tr. p.
9046._) He stated that these experiments make sense only if they were
trying to determine the survival time of human beings on 500 cc. and
1,000 cc. of sea-water per day. It is clear that the experimental plan
anticipated deaths. (_Tr. pp. 9046-7._)
Dr. Ivy testified that, on the basis of his studies of the charts kept
during the course of the experiments, there was an insufficient
observation period after the experiments to determine whether there were
any delayed damaging effects to the experimental subjects. (_Tr. p.
9049._) The results of the experiments are not scientifically reliable.
(_Tr. p. 9051._)
Dr. Ivy pointed out that the chart of subject 3 proved that he was too
weak to stand and have his blood pressure taken on several occasions.
(_Tr. p. 9052._) This was one of the subjects in the fasting and
thirsting group. He was given an injection of coronine on 29 August and
strychnine on 30 and 31 August. Both of these drugs are heart stimulants
and the clinical picture indicates that this subject was ill or markedly
disabled by the experiments. (_Tr. p. 9053._) Eight to fourteen days is
the range of _survival time_ of strong men under ideal conditions for
thirsting and fasting. (_Tr. p. 9053._)
As a result of his study of the clinical records, Dr. Ivy testified that
subjects 3, 14, 36, 37, 39, 31, 23 (or 30), 25, 28, and 29 were ill
during the experiments. Subjects 3, 23, (or 30), and 25 were especially
ill and there is a possibility that they were permanently injured or
died as a result of the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9058-9._)
The subject to whom the notes on the back of chart C-23 applied was very
sick and in a coma. (_Tr. p. 9061._) The changes made in the
stenographic notes by the defendant Beiglboeck make the subject appear
to be in a better condition than he actually was. (_Tr. pp. 9062-3._)
The bulbous reflex referred to in these notes means the pressing of the
eyeball to determine the degree of coma. “Tonus of ball of eyes is bad”
indicates the blood pressure was low and the circulation was quite poor.
This is a bad prognostic sign and might indicate impending death. (_Tr.
p. 9064._) These notes indicate that the subject was in a dangerous
condition and required immediate remedial therapy. The follow-up
observation for subject 23 was four days, while for subject 30 it was
five days. This was entirely insufficient. This subject could have died
if not properly cared for. (_Tr. pp. 9065-6._)
Dr. Ivy testified that of the 44 subjects, 13 were too weak to stand on
one or more occasions, had fever, required cardiac stimulants, or were
unconscious—namely, subjects, 3, 4, 14, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37,
39 and 40. (_Tr. pp. 9067-8._) The statement of the affiant Bauer to the
effect that he observed symptoms of heart weakness in the experimental
subjects as a result of certain electrocardiograms he took was
corroborated by Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9069._)
In Dr. Ivy’s opinion, an experimental subject who agrees to undergo an
experiment is no longer a volunteer if, during the course of the
experiment, he is forced to continue after having expressed a desire to
be relieved. (_Tr. pp. 9076-7._)
The testimony of the defense expert Vollhardt is entirely unreliable.
Although Vollhardt had nothing whatever to do with these experiments in
Dachau, he repeatedly testified in a highly partial manner concerning
matters about which he could not possibly have had any knowledge. For
example, he insisted that the subjects in Dachau were volunteers. He
testified that Beiglboeck eliminated three subjects before the
experiments began because of their physical condition, and that three
other persons immediately volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 8457-8._) Even
Beiglboeck made no such contention. He said that he considered it “quite
out of the question that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to
drink water out of mops, because there were air raid buckets and if they
felt they needed a drink, they could have drunk out of them.” (_Tr. p.
8467._) It is passing strange that Vollhardt could have such information
when he was never in Dachau. He believed it quite impossible that any of
the experimental subjects had cramps, although subject 29 is proved to
have had cramps and organic seizures by the notes quoted above. Although
Vollhardt admitted that the clinical data showed that a number of the
experimental subjects had secretly obtained fresh water, and although
Beiglboeck admitted that some of the subjects threw their urine away
(_Tr. p. 8865_), Vollhardt was quite sure that the experimental subjects
were all volunteers.
Vollhardt made no study of the clinical notes himself but turned them
over to a 25-year-old assistant to digest for him. (_Tr. p. 8432._) He
admitted that he relied on descriptions of the experiments made by
Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck since the trial began. (_Tr. p. 8438._)
Vollhardt had had no previous experience with sea-water problems, nor
had his assistant. (_Tr. p. 8451._) Vollhardt testified that he
conducted a volunteer experiment on five of his doctor assistants after
he had been approached by defense counsel. His subjects drank 500 cc. of
simulated sea-water per day and received 1,600 calories per day. (_Tr.
pp. 8440-2._) Four of the subjects continued the experiment for five
days and one for six days. The latter subject drank an extra 500 cc. on
the last day. The purpose of these experiments was to ascertain how much
a person suffers when undergoing a sea-water experiment. (_Tr. p.
8443._) Vollhardt’s subjects continued their work about the clinic,
although they ate and slept in the same room. He does not know whether
they went to the local cinema or left the clinic for other purposes
during the course of the experiments. (_Tr. p. 8445._) Four of the
subjects quit on the fifth day because of an engagement with a young
lady. (_Tr. p. 8450._) He testified that his subjects had no severe
thirst on the first two days, it became unpleasant on the third, reduced
thirst on the fourth, and very strong thirst on the fifth day; the
subject who went six days reported that it made very little difference.
All continued their work during the experiment. (_Tr. p. 8453._) It is
obvious that this experiment in no way compared to those conducted in
Dachau. While some of the experimental subjects in Dachau were too weak
on many occasions to have their blood pressure taken, Vollhardt’s
subjects were able to continue their work.
While Vollhardt’s subjects were trained doctors who participated in the
experiment because of interest, who were permitted to withdraw from the
experiment at any time, who were permitted to control their own
activities during the experiment, none of these important factors were
present in the Dachau experiments. (_Tr. p. 8479._) The wretched gypsies
were not permitted to withdraw when they felt like it. They did not know
how long the experiments were to last, they had no freedom of activity,
they had no interest in the experiment. Vollhardt’s regard for these
gypsies is apparent from his statement that “* * * people like that will
of course find a way” to cheat. (_Tr. p. 8468._) That Vollhardt knew
nothing of the experiments he purported to testify about is apparent
from his testimony regarding their duration. For example, he stated that
in the Berkatit group of 500 cc., the experiments were discontinued
after six days. (_Tr. p. 8462._) _The clinical charts which Vollhardt
had in his possession, and upon which his testimony purported to be
based, show that the duration of the experiments in this group ran as
high as 9½ days, and in all but two cases exceeded six days. He
testified that the group on sea-water was also discontinued after six
days while the clinical charts show some of them to have run as long as
ten days. In the fasting and thirsting group he testified that they were
discontinued after four to five days, while the chart shows that they
lasted from 5½ to 7½ days._ (_Tr. pp. 8462-3._) No, Vollhardt’s
testimony would indeed have been an unreliable substitute for the
charts.
The testimony of the prosecution witnesses proves that the sea-water
experiments resulted in murder and tortures. The Austrian witness
Vorlicek, who was tried for “preparation of high treason” in 1939 and
sentenced to four years in a penitentiary, was transferred to Dachau in
March 1944 and acted as an assistant nurse in the experimental station
during the course of the sea-water experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9383-5._) One
of the inmate guards who fell asleep was transferred to a penal company.
(_Tr. p. 9386._) At least one of the subjects suffered a violent attack
of cramps. (_Tr. p. 9386._) On one occasion Vorlicek spilled some fresh
water on the floor and forgot the rag which he used to mop it up. The
experimental subjects seized the dirty rag and sucked the water out of
it. Beiglboeck threatened to put him in the experiments if it ever
happened again. (_Tr. p. 9387._) The experimental subjects were not
volunteers. Vorlicek talked to some of the Czech subjects who told him
they had been asked in another camp to volunteer for a good outside
assignment and only when they got to Dachau did they find out that they
were to undergo the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9388, 9392._) He testified
that the subjects were of Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian, and German
nationalities. (_Tr. p. 9388._) Some of the subjects were quite ill and
he was under the impression that they would not live much longer. About
three months after the experiments he met Franz, one of the subjects,
and he told him that one of the victims of the experiments had already
died. (_Tr. p. 9390._)
The witness Laubinger, who was subject number 7, testified that he was
arrested by the Gestapo in March 1943 because he was a gypsy. He was
sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943 without having been tried for
any crime. (_Tr. p. 10199._) He was later transferred to Buchenwald for
a few weeks and while there, together with other inmates, was asked to
volunteer for a cleaning-up work detail in Dachau. The inmates were
under the impression that conditions were better in Dachau, so they
agreed to go. Upon their arrival at Dachau they were given a physical
examination and X-rayed and then taken to the experimental station.
(_Tr. p. 10200._) Beiglboeck told them that they were to participate in
the sea-water experiment and that was the first they knew of it. (_Tr.
p. 10201._) Laubinger identified Beiglboeck in the dock. (_Tr. p.
10202._) He told Beiglboeck that he had had two stomach operations, but
Beiglboeck did not permit him to withdraw. Beiglboeck did not ask
whether the subjects wished to volunteer, and they did not volunteer.
(_Tr. p. 10203._) Laubinger, who was in the Schaefer group, was given
Schaefer water for 12 days and fasted for at least nine days. He got so
weak he could hardly stand up. The experimental subjects received
special food for only one day after the experiment. Beiglboeck had
promised them extra rations and an easy work detail but these promises
were not kept. (_Tr. p. 10205._) One of the subjects tried to persuade
the others to refuse to drink the sea-water. Beiglboeck threatened to
have him hanged for sabotage. The subject later vomited after drinking
sea-water whereupon Beiglboeck had the water administered through a
stomach tube. (_Tr. p. 10207._) Another subject was tied to his bed and
adhesive tape was plastered over his mouth, because he had obtained some
fresh water and bread. Most of the subjects were Czech, Polish, and
Russian nationalities, with approximately eight Germans. (_Tr. p.
10208._). A number of subjects suffered attacks of delirium and two were
transferred to the hospital. Laubinger did not see them again. (_Tr. p.
10209._)
The witness Hoellenrainer corroborated the testimony of Laubinger on all
important points. He testified that the experimental subjects did not
volunteer (_Tr. p. 10509_) and that the majority of them were non-German
nationals. (_Tr. p. 10513._) Hoellenrainer testified further that
Beiglboeck showed no concern for the experimental subjects, but, on the
contrary, threatened to shoot them when they became excited. (It hardly
seems appropriate to wear a gun when experimenting on volunteers.) He
had no pity for them when they became delirious from thirst and hunger.
(_Tr. p. 10510._) The witness Hoellenrainer unfortunately assaulted
Beiglboeck in open Court. This impulsive act of the witness, however,
speaks more forcibly than volumes of testimony as to the inhuman
treatment of the experimental subjects and the suffering which was
inflicted on them as a result of these experiments. We may rest assured
that Hoellenrainer was no volunteer. When explaining his behavior to the
Tribunal, Hoellenrainer characterized Beiglboeck a “murderer”. (_Tr. pp.
10233-4._)
The witness Tschofenig was committed to Dachau in November 1940 where he
remained until April 1945. He was a political prisoner. (_Tr. p.
9331._). He is at present a member of the Carinthian Land Diet in
Austria. (_Tr. p. 9332._) From the summer of 1942 until the end, he was
in charge of the X-ray station in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 9334._) He examined
the transport of gypsies in the summer of 1944 before the experiments
began and excluded a number of them as being unfit. (_Tr. pp. 9334-5._)
He saw Beiglboeck several times in the camp and in the X-ray station.
(_Tr. p. 9335._) During the experiments a number of those who got sick
were brought to the X-ray station for examination. Their physical
condition had deteriorated considerably as a result of the experiments.
He heard that one of the subjects had a maniac attack. (_Tr. p. 9336._)
At the conclusion of the experiments, three of the subjects were brought
to the station for internal diseases. One was on a stretcher and unable
to walk. All of them were X-rayed by Tschofenig. (_Tr. p. 9338._) It was
customary to send the results of the X-ray examinations to the hospital
ward where the inmates were kept. Tschofenig received an official order
from the station for internal diseases that it was not necessary to
report on the stretcher case as he had died two days after his transfer.
The station physician reported that the death resulted from the
sea-water experiments. Tschofenig examined the death records himself.
(_Tr. p. 9339._)
Even Dr. Steinbauer, defense counsel for Beiglboeck, has apparently
convinced himself that these experiments involved torture. He said, in
explaining his conduct in withholding part of a document the Tribunal
had ordered to be produced, that: “I do not want to say anything about
the experimental subjects, who suffered terribly.” (_Tr. p. 9378._)
c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_[47]
* * * * *
I now come to the count of the indictment “Participation of the
defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea-water experiments which
were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.”
In the case of these experiments, Professor Schroeder’s participation
has been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as
the preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned.
Professor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the prosecution of having
permitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp.
The prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated
that these experiments were not necessary at all, and it drew the
conclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to
torture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it
also stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental
subjects been volunteers.
Therefore it is the task of the defense to show in the following
paragraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder, as Chief
of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, these experiments had to
be considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his
approval for the carrying out of the experiments in a concentration
camp.
The first question therefore is—why and from what considerations were
there experiments ordered at all? It must be stated in advance here,
that as far as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was
concerned, he did not have to examine the question whether one or the
other method for making sea-water drinkable was more suitable; the
problem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It
was to rescue shipwrecked persons from death from lack of water and find
the best method of protection against this danger. This problem had
already been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time,
and various individual questions for the solution of this problem had
arisen. No method for making sea-water drinkable had been found and it
was not clear what procedure should be advocated.
In the course of the year 1943 two methods for making sea-water
drinkable were offered almost simultaneously. One of them, the so-called
Wofatit method, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with
I. G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of
Stabsingenieur Berka.
It was quite clearly recognized that Schaefer’s Wofatit represented the
ideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the
sea-water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let
the salt remain in the sea-water and only improved the taste of the
sea-water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We
agree with the prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they
state that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided
by means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkatit was better.
The participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe,
Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, realized that quite
clearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have
been solved in a simple manner.
The difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this
problem, however, lay in another field; this was the shortage of raw
materials prevailing at the time, which had arisen in Germany because of
the war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of
the Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider
the Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method
could be procured without any difficulty and production could be started
right away, since production facilities for the appropriate amounts were
already in existence. It was different in the case of Wofatit.
Considerable amounts of silver were required for its production, which
could not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging
other production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical
Office of the Luftwaffe, therefore, had already decided in favor of the
introduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his
capacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have
assumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to
his professional medical care equipped with the Berka method, because
the danger existed that shipwrecked aviators, deceived by the
improvement in the taste of sea-water, would drink it in larger amounts
and thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also
had to be clarified whether the shipwrecked crew of an airplane
completely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever
or whether they should consume a certain amount of sea-water rather than
no water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying
out an experiment on human beings. An experiment on animals would not
suffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body
of animals differs from that in a human being. By proving its medical
objections, the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make
its point of view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert,
Professor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best known specialists for internal
diseases not only in Germany, but in Europe, had not sided with the
Technical Office. Professor Eppinger, in the conference at the Technical
Office on 25 May 1944, expressly voiced the opinion that the Berka
method was suitable, because for a certain time the human kidney could
concentrate salt up to 3 percent, and because the vitamins which had
been added to the Berka method would be suitable for speeding up the
excretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also
shared at the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner,
who is still one of the leading specialists in the field today.
Professor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods.
He would then have been reproached with the fact that he had not done
everything within his power in order to make the position of shipwrecked
German soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying of lack of
water. It, therefore, becomes evident that these considerations on the
part of Schroeder give us proof of his great feeling of responsibility;
it was not easy for him to give his approval for the carrying out of
such experiments.
Further developments also show clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the
fact that he was extremely busy with official matters, devoted the
greatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just
decide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be
carried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he
intended to have the experiments carried out as a troop experiment in
institutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily
considering the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1
July 1944 he turned to the chief medical officer of this hospital, who
was competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it. This
becomes evident from the certificate of Dr. Harriehausen, who was a
Generalarzt at the time. Now Professor Schroeder began to consider the
Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended
to use the young cadets in this academy as experimental subjects. An
inquiry which he made there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his
requests were turned down in each case was that just at this particular
time the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect that all
convalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to
their units, and that the cadets of the academy were to be given a
combat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor
Beiglboeck to carry out the experiments at the Tarvis Field Hospital
also remained unsuccessful.
The further possibility of perhaps using German civilians for the
experiments was completely out of question because at this time it was
not possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case
among the German civilian population, because all of them had either
been conscripted for military service or for labor service. Professor
Schroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion of
considering Dachau concentration camp for his experimental station.
Professor Schroeder was not informed at all about conditions in a
concentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no
different from those prevailing in a military camp, and only the names
Dachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this
connection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the
concentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy.
Schroeder never listened to foreign radio stations. In the circles of
his medical officers such events were never discussed. I may point out
here that an express opponent of National Socialism, no less than the
former Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a
witness in the IMT trial that he had had no knowledge of the events in
the concentration camps, and he had different sources of information at
his disposal from Professor Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had had
any idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from
Germany, then in view of his ideology as a faithful Christian, he would
have refused such contact with concentration camps arising out of
ordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder’s favor is
that the experiments were not to be carried out under the supervision
and command of the SS camp leadership but completely separate, under the
special leadership of a Luftwaffe medical officer and recognized
specialist. As a further consideration, Professor Schroeder had to take
into account that a useful result could be achieved in these experiments
only if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance.
Because of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the whole of
Germany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these
experiments could be given in any spot in Germany. However, it was known
that air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the
charge cannot be brought against Professor Schroeder that he chose a
concentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who
perforce had to subject themselves to the experiments. The very opposite
is true. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that if he wanted to be
successful he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary
experimental subjects, for the director of the experiments was dependent
on the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, since in no
other way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary
experimental subject would have had the power to drop out of the
experiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this
way, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it
prematurely.
For the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder’s conduct, his
conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered
especially. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he
could only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons, whose
age corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made
the further condition that the experimental persons should have the same
physiological and racial requisites as the members of the German
Wehrmacht in question. On direct examination, Professor Schroeder
testified under oath that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about
dishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he
knew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the
seriousness of their offenses.
Professor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of
Grawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not
accept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German
Wehrmacht, gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes.
Professor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to
make arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to
expect that the SS would decide upon experimental subjects, against his
well-founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the
prerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder.
Because of the extremely heavy official duties caused for Professor
Schroeder in his capacity as chief medical officer by the imminent
collapse of German military resistance, this affair was only a small
segment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not
concern himself further with this affair.
A further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to bear in mind
was whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the
health of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly
studied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the
problem. Professor Schroeder also knew that sea-water is used by doctors
for drinking cures and that the criterion of harmfulness depends on the
doses. If there was medical supervision then there would be no danger to
health. Therefore, the prosecution’s charge that he failed to take the
possible hazards sufficiently into account is not justified.
Nothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized
Professor Schroeder more than the instructions which the medical
inspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments.
Professor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to
the experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reich
Physician SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when
the quantity of sea-water to be taken was regulated in accordance with
the best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that
the experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore,
if the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on
the basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments
would be carried out in a humane manner, taking into account all medical
and clinical considerations.
Therefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he,
from his position as a physician and a leading medical officer,
considered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible
sources of danger as far as humanly possible. His direction to the man
in charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental
subject refused to take in further water, and if dangerous injury to the
body were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder’s favor. The
person carrying out the experiments was furnished with all necessary
assistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as
well as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion.
The contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments
by Schroeder can stand any examination, that that planning was with full
moral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was
reaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Vollhardt, as
well as by the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable
that instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct
from a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked
out.
By this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder
in the sea-water complex are refuted.
* * * * *
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK_
* * * * *
_The Persons Subjected to the Experiments_
As regards this subject [sea-water experiments] I want to put the
defendant’s statements first (_Tr. pp. 8703-4_):
“DR. STEINBAUER: Did you have influence on the selection of the
experimental subjects?
“DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: No. I was told at the Medical
Inspectorate that arrangements had been made with the SS, and
the SS in accordance with these arrangements would supply the
experimental subjects. I did not have to worry about that.
“Q. Did you have orders to find out where the experimental
subjects came from and what the specified circumstances and
conditions were?
“A. No. That too was not a decision that I could have made, nor
could the Luftwaffe.
“Q. Did you know before that gypsies had been used?
“A. I only found out that gypsies were coming into Dachau from
the camp commandant. * * * I, therefore, do not feel that I am
responsible either for the selection of the place where the
experiments were carried out nor for the selection of those
persons who were used.”
Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder states regarding this (_Tr.
pp. 3676-7_): [Transcriber Note: The text ends here. No further
statement printed in the original text.]
_CROSS-EXAMINATION_
“MR. MCHANEY: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the
experimental subjects?
“DEFENDANT SCHROEDER: No. We only spoke about the matter as
such. I am not quite sure whether the question ‘concentration
camp’ was already established at that time. Please, why don’t
you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don’t know if it was before or
after 1 June.
“Q. You didn’t say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that
only German volunteers were used in the experiments?
“A. That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about
it. It was no subject of discussion. There wasn’t anything to be
discussed.
“Q. Well, you didn’t tell him that then?
“A. I don’t know. I can’t tell you that under oath. I know that
there were volunteers; and I certainly did not say that they had
to be German because I didn’t take any other possibility into
consideration at all and couldn’t have said it. These are all
reconstructions which came up later, but at that time weren’t
subjects of discussion at all.”
These were gypsies wearing the black badge of the asocials. The
defendant states that the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the shipment
told him that these persons were all asocials, who were interned on
account of punishable offenses and not for social reasons. As we read in
Kogon’s book “The SS State”[48] the black badge was in fact the
designation of the asocials. We see from Document NO-179, Prosecution
Exhibit 135, that SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe suggested as persons to be used
for the experiments asocial persons of mixed gypsy blood in Auschwitz
concentration camp, who were in good health but at the same time
unsuitable for labor. In the book on gypsies of the Royal Police
Directorate Munich 1905, (_Beiglboeck 28, Beiglboeck Ex. 11_), we read:
“The greatest difficulty arises in securing a census of gypsies.
The majority of them make every effort to obscure their identity
through false statements or through a pretense of ignorance * *
*.”
Their asocial character led to a series of police regulations, of which
the most important are the following, as far as Germany is concerned:
Decree of 16 May 1938, RMB1.i.V. (_Bulletin of the Reich
Ministry of the Interior_) pages 883-4, concerning measures
against the gypsy nuisance.
Decree of 8 December 1938, RMB1.i.V., page 2105, concerning
measures against the gypsy nuisance.
Decree of 10 November 1939, RMB1.i.V., page 2339, concerning
employment records for gypsies.
Decree of 2 September 1939, Reich Law Gazette, I, page 1578.
Prohibition of wandering of gypsies in the frontier zone[49]
(_Sec. 4 of the ordinance concerning frontier protection_).
The witness Dorn states (_Tr. p. 8618_):
“As far as I know, the brown sign was done away with in
Buchenwald in 1940 and all gypsies arrested for racial reasons
were asocial. In other words, from 1940 on, there were no
gypsies in the camp who were not designated in the filing system
as asocial, as unwilling to work.”
The same witness states (_Tr. pp. 8661-2_):
“I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for
racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the gypsies
who were not declared asocial elements were removed from Dachau
to the Labor House in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.”[50]
The famous Swiss Psychiatrist E. Bleuler, Zuerich, writes in his
Textbook on Psychiatry, Berlin, Springer, 1937 on pages 397-400 about:
_Constitutional ethnical deviations_
“* * * A large number of asocials show what type of character
they are while still young. Most of them are backward at school,
even if their intelligence is good, because they adjust
themselves too little and show too little industry and
attention. Extraordinary achievements in any single direction
are rare. Many of them are lazy, thieving, lying, cruel to
animals and people, exacting, often deliberately and negligently
damaging their own and others property, vain, unreliable, and
egotistical. They cannot submit to authority, run away if they
do not like anything; punishments are not respected, altogether
neither sugar plums nor the whip have any visible effects. When
carrying out mean tricks they develop cunning and energy, soon
learn from others what is bad, with difficulty or not at all
what is good, have an instinctive inclination for bad company.”
I have not made any special reference to asocial character to point out
that we must be particularly careful when estimating their
trustworthiness, on account of their tendency to mendacity and because
of a certain psychotic cupidity concerning claims for compensation. This
is not necessary where the judges are so experienced; I am referring to
this fact for _legal_ reasons. It is well known that there is no legal
definition of crimes against humanity. According to legal authors, such
crimes can only be committed against persons who are persecuted for
political, religious, and racial reasons.
To complete this chapter in its legal aspects, I would also like to
mention the racial regulation of the gypsy question as far as it can be
seen from German legislation. According to the 12th decree implementing
the Reich Citizenship Law, dated 25 April 1943 (_Reich Law Gazette I, p.
268_), gypsies who are not yet German citizens cannot acquire
citizenship. Section 4 of this decree reads:
“Jews and gypsies cannot become citizens. They cannot become
citizens either subject to revocation, or protected persons * *
*.”
According to the first decree implementing the Law for the Protection of
German Blood and German Honor of 14 November 1935 (_Reich Law Gazette I,
p. 1334_), marriage between gypsies and Germans is prohibited. Section 6
of this decree reads:
“A marriage shall furthermore not be contracted if the progeny
to be expected from it would endanger the purity of German
blood.”
In all fairness, however, one must admit in this connection that in the
practice of the Third Reich no strict distinction seems to have been
made when gypsies were put in a concentration camp, so that we should
need the criminal record and family history of each person subjected to
the experiments to be able to ascertain accurately the asocial character
of each individual. It is a fact that in the gypsy book mentioned by me,
11 names of persons subjected to experiments are to be found, who must
no doubt be characterized as asocial.
_Origin of the gypsies as to nationality_
As I have already mentioned, the gypsies themselves like to leave this
point vague. Therefore no point of the evidence contains so many
conflicting statements as this particular one. Beiglboeck himself cannot
make any definite statements as to this matter, but as he used to speak
to all of them, they must all have understood German. Among the names we
also find plenty of Slav names, having a Polish, Ukrainian, or Southern
Slav sound. In the old Austrian Monarchy, these people were jumbled
together a good deal and in their wanderings they also entered German
Reich territory. After the break-up of the Monarchy, some of the
so-called Carpatho-Russians became citizens of Hungary or Slovakia. In
the eastern provinces of the German Reich, there were many Poles or
Germanized persons with Polish names. The mere name, therefore, admits
of no conclusion as to nationality. The fact, however, that most of them
could make themselves understood in the German language allows the
conclusion that none of the persons subjected to experiments were
imported from the _Allied_ countries.
* * * * *
The witness Fritz Pillwein states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 32,
Beiglboeck Ex. 21_):
“The experimental subjects in most cases spoke their gypsy
dialect. Many of them were obviously of Slav origin. I did not
see identification papers, however, as this was quite impossible
in a concentration camp and as I did not ask them anything of
the kind, I cannot make any exact statement regarding the
_nationality_ of the individual gypsies. I did not ask them
because the gypsies were very primitive people, and some of them
did not even know their own birthdays.”
The witness Mettbach stated when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (_Tr. p.
9729_):
“DR. STEINBAUER: What language did you speak among yourselves?
“WITNESS METTBACH: Mostly gypsy language.
“Q. What was the citizenship of the individual experimental
subjects?
“A. Mostly they were Germans. There were a lot of Austrians and
a lot of them came from East Prussia and Upper Silesia and the
Burgenland [Province bordering Austria-Hungary].”
When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Mettbach
stated (_Tr. pp. 9737-8_):
“MR. HARDY: Were there any foreign nationals—that is, men other
than Germans—used in these experiments?
“WITNESS METTBACH: Austrians and Burgenlaender and some from
Upper Silesia and East Prussia.
“Q. No Czechs?
“A. No.
“Q. No Russians?
“A. No.
“Q. No Poles?
“A. A couple of them talked Polish but I think they came from
Upper Silesia or East Prussia. That very often happens. Lots of
Upper Silesians can talk Polish.”
When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Joseph
Vorlicek stated (_Tr. p. 9388_):
“MR. HARDY: Do you know the nationality of the various subjects?
“WITNESS VORLICEK: For the most part I do.
“Q. Can you tell the Tribunal the nationality of the various
subjects, as near as you can recollect?
“A. There were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and
Germans.”
During direct examination the witness Vorlicek stated (_Tr. p. 9388_):
“MR. HARDY: Well, did they ever volunteer for any special
detachment or some such thing?
“WITNESS VORLICEK: Well, this is how it happened. Since I know
the Slavonic language, and there were some Czechs among them, I
spoke to them.”
Therefore, the defendant’s statement, that the persons concerned were
Slovaks from the Bratislava area (Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia)
is not without foundation.
_The Rations of the Gypsies_
The defendant states that the persons subjected to the experiments got
the Luftwaffe flight rations before the experiments, and the same
rations after the experiments, and that there was a hitch only once due
to the bombing of the provisions warehouse. During the experiments, the
persons got shipwreck rations. The Englishman, Ladell also says that he
gave his soldiers shipwreck rations during the experiments. On this
point, see extract from Beiglboeck 20, Beiglboeck Exhibit 8:
“* * * In all the experiments the food given was the ‘shipwreck
diet’; this comprises 1 ounce each per day of biscuits;
sweetened condensed milk; butter, fat, or margarine; and
chocolate.”
That food was provided is evident from two documents. (_Beiglboeck 26,
Beiglboeck Ex. 13_; _Beiglboeck 27, Beiglboeck Ex. 14_.)
The witness Massion states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck
Ex. 12_):
“Before beginning the experiment, the experimental subjects were
given the same food as that supplied to the flying personnel of
the Luftwaffe, that is to say, a very nutritious diet of
sardines, butter, cheese, milk, meat, etc. During the
experiment, 4 persons assigned to the thirst group received no
food whatsoever, the others received sea-emergency rations, with
chocolate, etc. I know that on one occasion difficulties arose
in the food supply which possibly were connected with an air
raid. I was sent to Frankfurt with the urgent order to obtain
sea-emergency rations there.”
* * * * *
_The Treatment of Gypsies_
Beiglboeck treated the experimental subjects in a humane manner. It is
natural that he insisted the strict observance of the whole experiment
was not to be a farce. The whole experiment was a constant struggle
against the understandable attitude of the experimental subjects who
wanted to save themselves by cheating the director of the experiment (by
secretly drinking water and pouring away the urine), and by obtaining
special favors, in particular cigarettes, which in 1944 were hard to
get—and that not only in the concentration camps.
In regard to this point I refer to a document in which Professor Dr.
Dennig writes (_Beiglboeck 29, Beiglboeck Ex. 15_):
“While the people are able for the first few days successfully
to fight their thirst with good grace, their strength of will is
insufficient during the later stage; they devise extremely
subtle means of obtaining water, e. g., the case of Juergensen.”
Witness Ernst Mettbach states in regard to this point when questioned by
Dr. Steinbauer (_Tr. p 9722_):
“DR. STEINBAUER: The professor forbade your bringing them water.
Did you nevertheless bring them water? Now, be honest.
“WITNESS METTBACH: Several times I brought my relative,
Mettbach, water to drink.
“Q. Where did you give it to him?
“A. Sometimes I smuggled it in to the experimental station
myself. Sometimes I stuck it through the fly screen on the
window which was a little bit loose.”
Later we shall speak in detail about the secret drinking of water. At
this point I just want to say in general that every drop of water which
was consumed in secret not only diminished the scientific value of the
experiments, but is also of greatest significance from the point of view
of criminal law, because it decreased the feeling of thirst. As I said
before, the treatment of the experimental subjects was a humane one. In
regard to this point compare the statement of Dr. Lesse (_Bieglboeck 14,
Bieglboeck Ex. 20_):
“Q. What was his attitude to the prisoners in general?
“A. Very humane and benevolent.”
Witness Massion states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex.
12_):
“Dr. Beiglboeck treated the prisoners as humanly as ordinary
patients. He was rough to them only when they obtained drinking
water contrary to orders. I know definitely that none of the
experimental subjects were turned over to the SS for punishment
because of any offenses.”
Witness Pillwein states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 32, Beiglboeck Ex.
21_):
“Q. How did Beiglboeck treat the inmates?
“A. Beiglboeck treated the patients well, which was a striking
contrast to the treatment which we inmates received from the SS.
Beiglboeck only became very angry when the gypsies lied to him
regarding the drinking of water, and when he found out about it
from the blood test.”
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Pros.
Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
NO-184 132 Letter from the Technical Office of the Reich 447
Minister of Aviation (Goering) to Himmler’s
office, 15 May 1944, concerning methods to
render sea-water potable.
NO-177 133 Minutes of conference at the Reich Ministry of 448
Aviation, 20 May 1944, concerning methods
for making sea-water potable.
NO-185 134 Letter from Schroeder to Himmler and Grawitz, 452
7 June 1944, requesting subjects for
sea-water experiments.
NO-183 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, 453
undated, concerning experimental subjects.
NO-182 137 Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 24 July 1944, 454
concerning experiments on the potability of
sea-water.
_Defense Documents_
Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document
Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig 455
42 Ex. 29 Harriehausen, 9 January 1947,
regarding use of patients in
sea-water experiments.
_Testimony_
Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Karl 456
Hoellenrainer
Extracts from the testimony of defendant Beiglboeck 468
Extracts from the testimony of defense expert witness Dr. Franz 474
Vollhardt
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-184
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 132
LETTER FROM THE TECHNICAL OFFICE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF AVIATION
(GOERING) TO HIMMLER’S OFFICE, 15 MAY 1944, CONCERNING METHODS TO RENDER
SEA WATER POTABLE
[Stamped] Secret
[Letterhead]
Reich Minister of Aviation
and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe
Technical Office
Ref. Nrs. 91a, 0016 GL/C-E (51V)
_No: 26 773 secret_
(In your answer to the above
reference, please give date and
short summary.)
Berlin W 8, 15 May 1944
Leipziger Strasse 7
Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin
Phones: Local: 520024
218241
120047
Long distance: 218011
Extension: 4335
Re: Rendering sea-water potable.
Reference: Letter of the Reich Leader SS
No. 39/4/44 secret of 17 January 1944.
To: Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police,
Personal Staff.
Berlin
With reference to the interoffice conference between Oberstingenieur
Christensen and Haupsturmfuehrer Engineer Dohle regarding the
above-mentioned matter, it is announced that two processes have been
worked out by the office to render sea-water potable:
1. The I. G. method, using mainly silver nitrate. For this process quite
a large plant needs to be set up, which would require about 200 tons of
iron and cost about 250,000 RM. The amount of the product needed by the
Luftwaffe and Navy requires 2.5 to 3 tons of pure silver a month.
Besides, the water which is rendered potable by this preparation has to
be sucked through a filter in order to avoid absorption of precipitated
chemicals. These facts make the application of this process practically
impossible.
2. The second process which was worked out is the so-called Berka
method. According to this method, the salts present in the sea-water are
not precipitated, but are so treated that they are not disagreeable to
the taste. They pass through the body without oversaturating it with
salts and without causing an undue thirst. No special plants are
necessary for producing preparations needed for this process; nor do the
preparations themselves consist of scarce materials.
It can be presumed that this method will be introduced in the Luftwaffe
and the navy in a short time. Now that German technical science has
actually succeeded in rendering sea-water potable for people in distress
at sea, in accordance with the above, the knowledge as to how foreign
countries intend to solve this problem is no longer of prime importance.
Naturally the office is very much interested in ascertaining how, above
all, the United States has solved this problem, and it is requested that
this information be sought, without, however, compromising any person or
any office too much.
Should the office there be interested in the Berka method, let us know.
Samples can then be delivered.
The cube dispensed is not a preparation to render sea-water potable, but
a milk cube such as is already familiar to the offices.
[Signature illegible]