Chapter VII: Extracts From Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (16)

When I was in my room I remarked to fellow prisoners that we were operated on in very bad conditions and left here in this room and that we were not even given a chance to recover. This remark must have been heard by a German nurse who was sitting in the corridor, because the door of our room leading to the corridor was opened. The German nurse entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered that we could not follow her order because we had great pains in our legs and we could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our room with Dr. Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and come to the dressing room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable to walk, we had to hop on one leg into the operating theater. After one hop we had to rest. Dr. Oberheuser did not allow anybody to help us. When we arrived at the operating theater, quite exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us to go back, because the change of dressing would not take place that day. I could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I don’t remember, helped me back to the room.

Q. Witness, you have told the Tribunal that you were operated on the second time on the 16th of September 1942? Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you leave the hospital after this second operation?

A. After the second operation I left the hospital on 6 October.

Q. Was your leg healed at that time?

A. My leg was swollen up, caused me great pain, and the pus drained from my leg.

Q. Were you able to work?

A. I was unable to work, and I had to stay in bed because I could not walk.

Q. Do you remember when you got up out of bed and were able to walk?

A. I stayed in bed several weeks, and then I got up and tried to walk.

Q. How long was it until your leg was healed?

A. The pus was flowing from my leg till June 1943; and at that time my wound was healed.

Q. Were you operated on again?

A. Yes, I was operated on again in the bunker.

Q. In the bunker? That is not in the hospital?

A. Not in the hospital but in the bunker.

Q. Will you explain to the Tribunal how that happened?

A. May I ask permission to tell something which happened in March 1943, March or February 1943?

Q. All right.

A. At the end of February 1943, Dr. Oberheuser called us and said, “Those girls are new guinea pigs”; and we were very well known under this name in the camp. Then we understood that we were persons intended for experiments, and we decided to protest against the performance of those operations on healthy people.

We drew up a protest in writing and we went to the camp commandant. Not only those girls who had been operated on before but other girls who were called to the hospital came to the office. The girls who had been operated on used crutches and they went without any help.

I would like to tell you the contents of the petition made by us. “We, the undersigned, Polish political prisoners, ask the commandant whether he knows that since the year 1942 experimental operations have taken place in the camp hospital, under the name guinea pigs, explaining the meaning of those operations. We ask whether we were operated on as a result of sentences passed on us because, as far as we know, international law forbids the performance of operations even on political prisoners.”

We did not get any answer; and we were not allowed to talk to the commandant. On 15 August 1943, a policewoman came and read off the names of 10 new prisoners. She told us to follow her to the hospital. We refused to go to the hospital, because we thought that we were intended for a new operation. The policewoman told us that we were probably going to be sent to the factory for work outside the camp. We wanted to make sure whether the labor office was open because it was Sunday. The policewoman told us that we had to go to the hospital to be examined by a doctor before we went to the factory. We refused to go then because we were sure that we would be kept in the hospital and operated on again. All prisoners in the camp were told to stay in the blocks. All of the women who lived in the same block where I was were told to leave the block and stand in line in front of Block 10 at a certain time. Then the Overseer Binz appeared and called out 10 names, and my name was among them.

We went out of the line and stood before Block 9 in line. Then Binz said: “Why do you stand in line as if you were to be executed?” We told her that operations were worse for us than executions and that we would prefer to be executed rather than to be operated on again. Binz told us that she might give us work; there was no question of our being operated on, but we were going to be sent for work outside the camp. We told her that she must know that prisoners belonging to our group were not allowed to leave the camp and go outside. Then she told us to follow her into her office, that she would show us a paper proving that we were going to be sent for work to the factory outside the camp. We followed her and we stood before her office. She was in her office for a while and then went out and went to the canteen where the camp commandant was. She had a conference with him probably asking him what to do with us. We stood in front of the office for half an hour. In the meantime one fellow prisoner who used to work in the canteen walked past. She told us that Binz had asked for help from SS men to take us to the hospital by force. We stood for a while and then Binz came out of the canteen accompanied by the camp commandant. We stood for a while near the camp gate. We were afraid that SS men would come to take us, so we ran away and mixed with other people standing in front of the block. Then Binz and the camp police appeared. They drove us out from the lines by force. She told us that she was putting us into the bunker as punishment for not following her orders. Five prisoners were put into each cell although one cell was only intended for one person. The cells were quite dark, without lights. We stayed in the bunker the whole night long and the next day. We slept on the floor because there was only one couch in the cell. The next day we were given a breakfast consisting of black coffee and a piece of dark bread. Then we were locked in again. People were walking up and down the corridor of the bunker the whole time. The same day in the afternoon we learned our fate. The woman guard of the bunker unlocked our cell and took me out. I thought that I was to be interrogated or beaten. She took me down the corridor. She opened one door and behind the door stood SS man Dr. Trommel. He told me to follow him upstairs. Following Dr. Trommel I noticed there were other cells, with beds and bedding. He put me in one of the cells. Then he asked me whether I would agree to a small operation. I told him that I did not agree to it because I had already undergone two operations. He told me that this was going to be a very small operation and that it would not harm me. I told him that I was a political prisoner and that operations could not be performed on political prisoners without their consent. He told me to lie down on the bed; I refused to do so. He repeated it twice. Then he went out of the cell and I followed him. He went quickly downstairs and locked the door. Standing in front of the cell I noticed a cell on the opposite side of the staircase, and I also noticed some men in operating gowns. There was also one German nurse ready to give an injection. Near the staircase stood a stretcher. That made it clear to me that I was going to be operated on again in the bunker. I decided to defend myself to the last. In a moment Trommel came back with two SS men. One of these SS men told me to enter the cell. I refused to do it, so he forced me into the cell and threw me on the bed.

Dr. Trommel took me by the left wrist and pulled my arm back. With his other hand he tried to gag me, putting a piece of rag into my mouth, because I shouted. The second SS man took my right hand and stretched it. Two other SS men held me by my feet. Immobilized, I felt somebody giving me an injection. I defended myself for a long time, but then I grew weaker. The injection had its effect; I felt sleepy. I heard Trommel saying, “That is all.”

I regained consciousness again, but I don’t know when. Then I noticed that a German nurse was taking off my dress, I then lost consciousness again; I regained it in the morning. Then I noticed that both my legs were in iron splints and were bandaged from the toes up to the groin. I felt a severe pain in my feet, and had a temperature.

On the afternoon of the same day, a German nurse came and gave me an injection, in spite of my protests; she gave me this injection in my thigh and told me that she had to do it.

Four days after this operation a doctor from Hohenlychen arrived, again I was given an injection to put me to sleep, and as I protested he told me that he would change the dressing; I felt a higher temperature and a greater pain in my legs.

* * * * *

Q. How many times did you see Gebhardt?

A. Twice.

Q. I will ask you to step down and walk over to the defendants’ dock and see whether or not you find the man Gebhardt sitting in the dock.

(The witness complied and pointed to the defendant Gebhardt.)

Thank you. Sit down.

I will ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the defendant Gebhardt.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will show that the witness identified the defendant Gebhardt in the dock.

MR. MCHANEY: I have no further questions at this time.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Will Dr. Alexander again be put on the stand in connection with the examination of this witness?

MR. MCHANEY: Yes, but if there is any cross-examination we can probably finish that before lunch.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do any of the defense counsel desire to cross-examine this witness?

DR. SEIDL (counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer): I do not intend to cross-examine this witness, but this does not mean that my clients admit the correctness of all statements made by this witness.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does any other of the defense counsel desire to examine the witness?

(No response.)

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS DR. LEO
ALEXANDER[46]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

MR. MCHANEY: Doctor, can you express any opinion as to the purpose of the type of operation to which she [Karolewska] was subjected, that is the bone removal?

DR. ALEXANDER: I think it must have been one of the experiments which aimed at the question of regeneration of bone or possible transplantation of bone. Chances are that this tibial graft was either implanted in another person or that grafts had been exchanged. Of course today, 3 years after the experiment, no trace of transplantation is left in this individual. Or if the object was, as alleged in some statements I have seen, that tibial grafts were exchanged between the two legs, one must conclude that the experiment was negative because there is no evidence that a graft took. All we see now are the consequences of removal of a graft, and the graft had included the entire compact part of the bone, otherwise the repair would have been better. If some part of the compact had remained, the periosteum would have probably regenerated and today, 3 years after the operation, no X-ray would have shown the defect. So I feel that rather deep grafts were taken which went down into the spongiosa. Whether anything was replaced that later was destroyed, I do not know, except the patient stated that there was a purulent discharge, indicating that the wound had become infected, and her statement of a subsequent operation, in fact, if I am not mistaken, two subsequent operations, indicates the probability that the grafts did not take and that they were removed after infection had become obvious.

-----

[43] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, pp. 10874-10910.

[44] Dr. Maczka appeared as witness before the Tribunal, 10 January 1947, Tr. pp. 1430-1462.

[45] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. 1946, pp. 815-832.

[46] This testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. 1946, pp. 832-838.

7. SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

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._)