Q. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word
“flatter”, didn’t the word “hardly” appear originally in place of the
word “moderately”? The word “hardly” was erased and replaced by
“moderately” and then crossed out twice.
A. Here it said “troublesome”.
Q. It says, “respiration flatter”. It could say “hardly frequent” before
the changes, couldn’t it?
A. “Hardly moderately” it says here. That means: “Hardly moderately
frequent”.
Q. Has the character been changed at all?
A. I said already originally it read “troublesome”.
Q. Have any erasures been made in that sentence?
A. It was written over.
Q. And then crossed out?
A. Yes.
Q. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over,
that is now legible, the word “moderately” or is that the word “hardly”?
A. It didn’t read “hardly”. It read: “troublesome”.
Q. Well, which character said “troublesome”, the one that is legible now
or the one that has been written over?
A. It is legible; it was “troublesome”.
Q. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eighth paragraph
with the words: “Heartbeats very low, poorly audible,” in that sentence
has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the
character “scarcely” been erased and replaced by “poorly”? I believe the
marks of the original symbol for “scarcely” can still be clearly
distinguished, can they not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Who made these changes, Doctor? Did you make them yourself?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you make them?
A. I am no longer able to tell you exactly when I made them.
Q. Did you make them at Dachau?
A. No.
Q. Did you make them in Nuernberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you erase these shorthand characters that appear on the fourth
line here in Nuernberg?
A. Yes, I did that too.
* * * * *
Q. Now, Doctor, you have had the opportunity to think over during the
course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told
this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself
here in Nuernberg; are you prepared to tell this Tribunal now just why
it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?
A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I
changed these notes before these sheets were handed in, that is, after
they had been returned from Professor Vollhardt. I only made some
changes in these stenographic notes, and then I told my defense counsel,
whom I had not informed about this—this I want to emphasize—I said to
him we should withdraw the weight chart, because I was immediately sorry
that I had changed something. I originally intended to submit the weight
charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights
alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then,
when I had committed this thoughtless action, my conscience immediately
bothered me, and I told my defense counsel that I should not submit it.
But I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the
report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as
well as in the temperatures, and especially in the case of the weights,
they are definitely the original values, as also in the case of the
blood pressure. So in what you see here, on the front pages of the
chart, nothing has been changed since these charts arrived here.
Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the
stenographic notes?
A. Because a person who does not know the condition of thirst would
receive a stronger impression of the condition from the description as
it was here than the actual condition really was.
Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor?
You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection
with those alterations if you wish.
A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. As I
said, I only intended to submit the charts to show the weights, and not
because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am
of the opinion that from the weight charts one can definitely recognize,
first, how much weight the experimental subject lost; secondly, they
reveal unequivocally on which days water was drunk; thirdly, they reveal
clearly that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment there
was a gain in weight in the case of all the experimental subjects; and,
fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases
they had again reached their original weight.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have
been erased from many of these charts?
DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: This erasing of names must have been done before.
I did not do that here. I did not change anything on the front pages of
these charts. It is possible that this already happened in Dachau. I
can’t tell you that. It is possible that I erased them later on in
Tarvis. I did not erase them here.
* * * * *
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS DR. FRANZ
VOLLHARDT[53]
_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
DR. MARX: Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your
scientific activities have been and in what special field you have taken
a particularly great interest, and since when?
WITNESS VOLLHARDT: I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfurt and
predominantly I have dealt with the questions of circulation,
metabolism, blood pressure, and kidney diseases.
Q. Which are the German universities where you have been a lecturer?
A. Halle and Frankfurt.
Q. Are you an author of scientific works regarding this special field of
activity?
A. Yes.
Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in
foreign languages?
A. Yes, they have been translated into Russian, behind my back.
Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, it would be right to say
that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad; so
would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have
received abroad?
A. I really have to?
Q. Which foreign academies and foreign societies have you been a member
of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because my
questions pursue certain purposes.
A. I am Honorary Doctor of the Sorbonne, Paris, of Goettingen and
Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of
them, Medical Society at Edinburgh, at Geneva, at Luxembourg. I am an
Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.
Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you
whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections
they were and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps you
might answer the last question first.
A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America, and when I was
giving a lecture in Cordoba, Argentina, before a medical congress, I
received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my
office and the reason given was lack of anti-Semitic attitude.
Q. When was that?