d. Evidence

_Prosecution Documents_

Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NO-875 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka 400 Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D., of Prague, concerning experimental operations conducted on fellow inmates at Ravensbrueck concentration camp. NO-861 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 402 April 1946, concerning experimental operations on inmates of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. NO-579 288 Phosphorous burns artificially 904 inflicted on inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp. (_See Selections from the Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution._)

_Defense Documents_

Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from “Clinic and 405 Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 9 Practice”, weekly journal for Oberheuser 6 the practicing physician, regarding bone transplantation. Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from affidavit of Dr. 407 Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 Oberheuser 21 March 1945, concerning scientific experiments conducted at the clinic of Hohenlychen. Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 408 Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 21 Josef Koestler, 27 February Oberheuser 22 1947, concerning Dr. Gebhardt’s activities.

_Testimony_

Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Miss Karolewska 409 Extract from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo 417 Alexander.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-875 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 230

AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ZDENKA NEDVEDOVA-NEJEDLA, M. D., OF PRAGUE, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON FELLOW INMATES AT RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP

1. I, Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D. came to Ravensbrueck concentration camp in a transport from Auschwitz on 19 August 1943, and I worked in the sick bay as a doctor prisoner from September 1943 until 30 May 1945. In the beginning I worked in the Department for Contagious Diseases at Station No. 1 and the Ambulatory. Besides this, I was in charge of Sucking Block from the fall of 1944 until May 1945.

2. Of the victims of experimental operations, I nursed personally Helena Piasecka, who was suffering from chronic osteomyelitis after completed operation of both shin bones. I knew that these operations were performed under Professor Gebhardt’s supervision by Doctor Fischer, and a woman, Doctor Oberheuser, from the SS Hospital Hohenlychen, but I do not know which one of them had operated on Piasecka. The operation was performed in the “bunker,” camp prison, where there were not even the most primitive sanitary installations and even fewer aseptic installations. Her general condition was good, but the defect in both bones made her an invalid for life. Before the operation Piasecka was completely healthy.

3. All women on whom experimental operations had been performed were placed in one block and they were generally known as “rabbits,” so that I saw the effects of the operations on those women who had survived them. In each case of abbreviation of limbs, muscular atrophy of the highest degree set in, proving a grave injury of nerves during operations and deep indrawn scars where parts of muscles had festered away.

4. From lay reports of nursing personnel without any special training, I tried to construct the types of experimental operations.

_a._ Culture of virulent germs (streptococci, staphylococci, maybe even tetanus and gas phlegmon) were injected subcutaneously, intramuscularly, and even directly into bones. These were the attempts to produce osteomyelitis experimentally. The resulting sepsis was checked by daily examination of the blood and urine to test the effectiveness of new medicaments of the sulfanilamide group.

_b._ Parts of long bones, as much as 5 centimeters (fibulae and tibiae), were removed and in some cases replaced by metal or left without connection. These operations were probably to prove the inability of bone to grow without periosteum.

_c._ High amputations were performed; for example, even whole arms with shoulder blade or legs with osiliaca were amputated. These operations were performed mostly on insane women who were immediately killed after the operation by a quick injection of evipan. All specimens gained in operations were carefully wrapped up in sterile gauze and immediately transported to the SS hospital nearby (Hohenlychen presumably), where they were to be used in the attempt to heal the injured limbs of wounded German soldiers.

5. Operations were performed on 1 Yugoslav, 1 Czech, 2 Ukrainian, 2 German, and about 18 Polish women, of whom 6 were operated on by force in the bunker with the help of SS men. Two of them were shot after their operation wounds had healed. After operations, no one except SS nurses was admitted to the persons operated on, whole nights they lay without any assistance and it was not permitted to administer sedatives even against the most intensive postoperational pains. From the persons operated on, 11 died or were killed, and 71 remained invalids for life.

6. The report mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 5 was prepared on the basis of evidence given to me at Ravensbrueck in the autumn of 1943 by these fellow prisoners: Sofia Maczka, M. D., Poland; Isa Siczynska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Jola Krzyzanowska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Krisa Iwanska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Emilie Skrbkova, medical student, Praha, Czechoslovakia; and Inka Katnarova, M. D., Hradec Kralove, Czechoslovakia.

* * * * *

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-861 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 232

AFFIDAVIT OF SOFIA MACZKA[44], 16 APRIL 1946, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL OPERATIONS ON INMATES OF THE RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP

* * * * *

Information concerning the experimental operations which took place in Ravensbrueck concentration camp.

The operations were carried out in the period between the summer of 1942 and the summer of 1943. The operations were conducted in the camp hospital, under the direction of Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer. Professor Gebhardt was the head of the Hohenlychen sanatorium at Hohenlychen (Mecklenburg). The operations were conducted with the help of Dr. Fischer, who was Professor Gebhardt’s assistant. There was also another assistant whose name I do not know. The following camp doctors participated in this matter: Dr. Herta Oberheuser, Dr. Rolf Rosenthal, Dr. Schiedlausky; all German nurses who were employed there at the time and two German prisoners (Schutzhaftgefangene), Gerda Quernheim and Fina Pautz, gave assistance. Polish political prisoners in protective custody, from the transports from Warsaw and Lublin, numbering 74, were chosen as victims. All those who were chosen were young, healthy, and well-built women. Many were college or university students. The youngest was 16 years of age, the oldest 48 years of age. The operations were to be carried out for scientific purposes, but they had nothing to do with science. They were carried out under horrible conditions. The doctors and the assisting personnel were not trained properly medically. Conditions were neither aseptic nor hygienic. After operations, the patients were left in shocking rooms without medical help, without nursing or supervision. The dressings were made according to the whim of the doctors with unsterilized instruments and compresses. Dr. Rosenthal, who did most of the dressings, excelled himself in sadism. In the summer of 1943 the last operations were carried out in the “bunker”. “Bunker” is the name of the horrible prison in the camp. The victims were taken there because they resisted, and there in the cell their dirty legs were operated on. This was the “scientific atmosphere” in which the “scientific” operations were carried out.

All operations were carried out on the leg and all under anesthetic. The operations were divided into two main groups:

1. Operations for infecting the patient.

2. Experimental aseptic operations.

The soft part of the calf of the leg was opened and the open wounds were infected with bacteria which were introduced into the wounds. The following were used: staphylococcus aureus, oedema malignum (clostridium oedematis maligni), gas gangrene bacillus (clostridium perfrim gens), and tetanus. Weronika Kraska was infected with tetanus. She died after a few days. Kazimiera Kurowska was infected with gas gangrene bacillus; she died after a few days. The following were infected with oedema malignum: Aniela Lefanowicz, Zofia Kiecol, Alfreda Prus, and Maria Kusmierczuk. The first three died after a few days; Maria Kusmierczuk survived the infection. She was lying ill for more than a year and became a cripple, but she is alive and is living evidence of the experiments. Mostly pyrogen stimulants were employed. The wounds were stitched after the infection and serious illness began. Many of the patients were ill for months and almost all of them became cripples.

Why did Professor Gebhardt, with his education, carry out these experiments? To test the new drugs of the German pharmaceutical industry; mostly cibazol and albucid were used. Even tetanus was treated in that way.

The results of the treatment were not checked, or if they were, it was done in such an inadequate and superficial manner, that it was of no value.

The aseptic, experimental operations consisted of bone experiments, muscle experiments, and nerve experiments.

The bone experiments were checked by X-ray photographs. As ward attendant I had to do all the X-ray photographs. In this way I was given the opportunity of gaining an insight in this matter. The following were carried out: (_a_) bone breaking; (_b_) bone transplantation; and (_c_) bone grafting.

_a._ On the operating table, the bones of the lower part of both legs were broken into several pieces with a hammer, later they were joined with clips (for instance Janiga Marczewska) or without clips (for instance Leonarda Bien) and were put into a plaster case. This was removed after several days and the legs remained without plaster casts until they healed.

_b._ The transplantations were carried out in the usual way, except that whole pieces of the fibula were cut out, sometimes with periosteum, sometimes without periosteum. The most typical operation of this kind was carried out on Krystyna Dabska.

_c._ Bone grafting. These operations were with the school of Professor Gebhardt. During the preparatory operation two bone splints were put on the tibia of both legs; during the second operation such bone splints were cut out together with the attached bones and were taken to Hohenlychen. As a supplement to the bone splint operations such operations were also carried out on two prisoners in protective custody who suffered from deformation of bones of the osteomyelitis type. These two were not Poles, one of them was a German who was a Jehovah’s Witness, Maria Konwitschka, and the other was a Ukrainian, Maria Hretschana. It was interesting for Professor Gebhardt to see how the diseased bones would react to such an operation.

The muscle experiments consisted of many operations, always on the same spot, the upper or lower part of the leg. At each further operation larger and larger pieces of muscles were cut out. Once a small piece of bone was planted into a muscle (this happened to Babinska). During nerve operations parts of nerves were removed (for instance Barbara Pytlewska).

What problem did Professor Gebhardt and his school wish to solve by these experiments? The problem of the regeneration of bones, muscles, and nerves.

Was the thing carried out? No. It was not checked at all, or only insufficiently. I do not know what was done at Hohenlychen with those pieces of bone, muscle, and nerves which were cut out and taken there.

What was the fate of the patients after they left the hospital? Almost all of the patients became cripples, and suffered very much as a result of these operations. Even more severe was the moral torture inflicted on them since they lived under the conviction that they would all be shot in order that they should not be evidence of these murderous operations. The camp authorities—Commandant Suhren, Adjutant Braeuning and Chief Supervisor Binz—ensured through their orders that the victims should not forget that they were condemned to death. In the meantime, six of the patients were shot after surviving the operations.

* * * * *

As a supplement to these operations I am submitting a description of “special operations” which were carried out at the same time.

A few abnormal prisoners (mentally ill) were chosen and brought to the operating table, and amputations of the whole leg (at the hip joint) were carried out, or on others, amputation of the whole arm (with the shoulder blade) were carried out. Afterwards the victims (if they still lived) were killed by means of evipan injections and the leg or arm was taken to Hohenlychen and served the purposes known to Professor Gebhardt. Ten such operations, approximately, were carried out.

During the whole of the time these operations were carried out, I was employed as a worker in the ward and investigated this matter risking my own life, with the idea that it was my duty, if I were saved, to tell the truth to the world. I conclude my statement with two questions: What kind of recompense can the world offer to those who were operated on in such a manner? What kind of justice has the world for those who carried out such operations?

[Signed] DR. MACZKA, ZOFIA Dr. med. Zofia Maczka X-ray specialist from Krakow. Former political prisoner in protective custody No. 7403 at Ravensbrueck, now in Stockholm, Serafimerlasarettet, Roentgen.

Stockholm, 16 April 1946

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DOCUMENT 6 GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 9

EXTRACT FROM “CLINIC AND PRACTICE”, WEEKLY JOURNAL FOR THE PRACTICING PHYSICIAN, REGARDING BONE TRANSPLANTATION

Editors: Dr. Herbert Volkmann and Dr. V. E. Mertens, Munich 2, Alfonsstrasse 1

No. 1 Munich, February 1946 Volume 1

[page 12]

_Discussions and extracts_

[page 14]

_Surgery_

Ludwig Stumpfegger—Hohenlychen: The free autoplastic bone transplantation in the restorative surgery of limbs—experiences and results.

During the past 10 years, 471 free autoplastic bone transplantations were carried out in Hohenlychen. Recent research results clearly showed that apart from the osteoplastic activity, a metaplastic formation of new bone occurs in the tissue. The newly formed bone trabeculae between transplant and old bone begin to connect with those formed in the osteoid tissue in the seventh week, and in this way constitute the bone connection between the graft and the original bone which have completely grown together in the ninth week. After the twelfth week no old bone can be detected in the entire region of the original graft, but only new bone trabecula. The question of the ever present hematoma can be answered in this way: a blood extravasation, lying in the gap between the transplant and the old bone, and not being subject to pressure, represents an adequate stimulation to the mesenchymal germinal tissue formation, while the large hemorrhage represents a negative stimulation and permits only a scarry connection of the transplant and the defective stump. The periosteum is no more important than the other layers, it is transplanted with the bone, because in connection with the bone it has osteogenetic properties, but above all it effects a speedy supply from the surroundings. A careful technique must be employed to spare the tissue layers, and bleeding must be stanched. Foreign bodies in the shape of wire slings to hold the transplant usually heal well into the body. Firm fixation in a plaster cast safeguards the result. When the graft has taken, a careful start with remedial exercises may be made in the third or fourth month. The clinical use of free bone transplantations is discussed with the help of numerous examples and many X-ray illustrations. The first task of the bone transplant to bridge over a gap in the bone is to provide sufficient support for the defective stump and, therefore, it has to be fairly strong. Bone splinters in the lower arm have roentgenologically completely taken after 1-1½ years, those in the tibia after 1½-2 years. The free bone transplant, some distance from the joints, has proved to be particularly valuable with the usual dislocations of the shoulder and the hip joints. The overlapping bone ridge prevents the bone from coming out of the articular cavity. In the course of years, the piece lying in the soft parts is considerably reduced, so that only a small bone ridge remains. The graft effects a regeneration of the damaged edge of the articular cavity and in this way prevents further dislocation. Bone transplants in bone gaps after removal of growths are subject to special conditions of taking. Hyperemic phenomena in the zone of the tumor edge in the form of a mild inflammation, possibly also fermentation processes, accelerate the taking of the transplant compared with the process in healthy tissue. Increased local resorption processes, occasionally with spontaneous fractures, infrequently prevail, but they again are apt to heal well. In wounds which heal with difficulty owing to suppurative inflammations, there is a great danger of the transplant being pushed out. When the whole transplant region is inflamed, total sequestration cannot be stopped. If suppuration remains localized, partial sequestration of the transplantation must be awaited. (_German Surgical Journal, 1944, Vol. 299, H. 9-12. H. Floercken-Frankfurt am Main._)

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DOCUMENT 21 GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20

EXTRACTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KARL FRIEDRICH BRUNNER, 14 MARCH 1943, CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT THE CLINIC OF HOHENLYCHEN

* * * * *

I can state the following regarding the scientific experiments at the clinic [of Hohenlychen]: It was in accordance with the principles of the clinic and, therefore, of the chief and his deputy to collect scientific results arrived at through clinical observations. All reports at congresses and lectures as well as publications were based on these results. The scientific work and research were normally determined by the observations made on the patients. In addition to this, and in order to clarify the question of surgical treatment of nerve injuries, experiments on dogs were carried out in close collaboration with Gebhardt—first by Dr. Koestler in 1939-40, later by myself from 1943 to the end of the war. I was ordered by Dr. Gebhardt to carry out the experiments on animals at the training and experimental station for dogs [Hundelehr- und Versuchsanstalt], which establishment was situated outside the concentration camp Ravensbrueck, and I was strictly cautioned not to enter into any kind of contact with the concentration camp itself. The animal experiments were strictly continued until the end of the war. The results were never published because of war conditions.

* * * * *

Regarding Dr. Stumpfegger, I can state that he was an assistant of the clinic in peacetime, before I arrived. At the outbreak of war in 1939 he joined the Waffen SS, and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards an escorting physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my return to Hohenlychen in autumn 1943, nor had he any official connection with the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a military sense. He did not have to report his return or departure to the chief physician or to his deputy. His family, however, still lived at Hohenlychen. I still met him occasionally outside the medical sphere. I emphasize that during my presence at the clinic from 1 September 1943 up to the end of the war, as far as I know—and finally I was directing the clinic—no assistant was drafted from Hohenlychen to Ravensbrueck.

I know that the specialist in pulmonary diseases, Dr. Heissmeyer, was working as an assistant and later as chief physician in the so-called sanatorium Hohenlychen even before Professor Gebhardt took over Hohenlychen. This sanatorium was strictly detached from the surgical wards of the hospital at Hohenlychen and was not under the professional supervision of the chief physician nor of his deputy; i. e., Dr. Heissmeyer looked after his patients without any supervision by the surgeon, he made no reports to the chief or his deputy, he did not participate in the daily discussions of the physicians, he had his own staff of assistants and carried out his treatments and operations independently; he also planned his duty journeys independently and made these without reporting to the chief or his deputy on departure or return.

TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DOCUMENT 22 GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 21

EXTRACT FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JOSE KOESTLER, 27 FEBRUARY 1947, CONCERNING DR. GEBHARDT’S ACTIVITIES

* * * * *

When Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the Third Conference of Consulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, lectured on surgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one hand, interpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on dogs from 1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital, Berlin, and in the institutes of Professor Holz (Institute for Experimental Hormone and Cancer Research) and Professor Ostertag (Pathological Institute), and, on the other hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been frequently used during the previous years.

Under the title of “Preparatory and Restorative Surgery in cases of Peripheral Nerve Damage,” I recorded these experiences in the “German Journal for Surgery,” volume 259, Nos. 1-4, 1943, and in my habilitation paper (1943, University of Berlin).

I emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out exclusively on animals.

From 1 July 1938 to 26 August 1939 I was in the Red Cross hospital at Hohenlychen (Department for Sport and Industrial Injuries). During the following war years, after I was drafted into the Wehrmacht, I worked there repeatedly for short periods. I am convinced that the medical care there was on an especially high level and that Professor Gebhardt as chief physician did everything possible to improve the treatment and its results.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS MISS KAROLEWSKA[45]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. MCHANEY: What is your name, please?

WITNESS KAROLEWSKA: Karolewska.

Q. And that is spelled K-a-r-o-l-e-w-s-k-a?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you born on 15 March 1909 at Yeroman?

A. I was born on 15 March 1909 in Yeroman.

Q. You are a citizen of Poland?

A. Yes, I am a Polish citizen.

Q. And have you come here as a voluntary witness?

A. Yes, I came here as a voluntary witness.

Q. What is your home address?

A. Warsaw, Inzynierska Street, No. 9, Flat No. 25.

Q. Are you married?

A. No.

Q. Are your parents living?

A. No, my parents are dead.

Q. Will you tell the Tribunal what education you have received?

A. I finished elementary school, and completed the training school for teachers in 1928.

Q. And what did you do between 1928 and the beginning of the war in 1939?

A. I worked as a teacher in a children’s school in Grudenz.

Q. And when did you leave that post?

A. I finished my work in June 1939 and went on holiday.

Q. And did you go back to this position after your holiday?

A. No, I did not go back because the war broke out and I stayed in Lublin.

Q. And what did you do while you were in Lublin?

A. I lived with my sister and did not work at all.

Q. Were you a member of the Polish Resistance Movement?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what did you do in the Polish Resistance Movement?

A. I was a messenger.

Q. And were you ever arrested for your activity in the Resistance Movement?

A. I was arrested on the 13th of February 1941 by the Gestapo.

Q. Was your sister arrested with you?

A. Two sisters and two brothers-in-law were arrested with me on the same day.

Q. What happened to you after you were arrested?

A. I was taken to the Gestapo.

Q. And what did the Gestapo do with you?

A. The first day the Gestapo took down my personal data and sent me to the prison in Lublin.

Q. And then what happened? Just go on and tell the complete story about what the Gestapo did with you and where you went.

A. I stayed 2 weeks in the prison in Lublin and then I was taken again to the Gestapo. There I was interrogated and they wanted to force me to confess what kind of work I used to do in the Resistance Movement. The Gestapo wanted me to give them the names of persons with whom I worked. I did not want to tell them the names and, therefore, I was beaten. I was beaten by one Gestapo man, with brief intervals, for a very long time. Then I was taken to a cell. Two days later, at night, I was taken again to the Gestapo for interrogation. There I was beaten again. I stayed in the Gestapo office one week and then I was taken back into the prison in Lublin. I stayed in the prison till 21 September 1941. Then I was transported with other prisoners to the concentration camp Ravensbrueck, where I arrived on the 23d of September 1941.

Q. Now, Witness, before you continue, will you tell the Tribunal whether you were ever tried by any court for the crime of being a member of the Resistance Movement?

A. I was only interrogated by the Gestapo and I think that the sentence must have been passed in my absence because no sentence was ever read out to me.

Q. All right. Will you tell the Tribunal what happened to you at Ravensbrueck?

A. At Ravensbrueck our dresses were taken away from us and we received the regular prison dress. Then I was sent to the block and I stayed in quarantine for 3 weeks. After 3 weeks we were taken to work. The work was hard physical work. In the spring I was given other work and I was transferred to the workshop, which was called in German “Betrieb.” The work I did there was also very hard, and one week I had to work in the daytime and the next week at night. In the spring the living conditions in the camp grew worse and worse, and hunger began to reign in the camp. The food portions were smaller. We were undernourished, very exhausted, and we had no strength to work. In the spring of the same year, shoes and stockings were taken away from us and we had to walk barefoot. The gravel in the camp hurt our feet. The most tiring was the so-called “roll calls”, which we had to stand several hours, sometimes even 4 hours. If a prisoner tried to put a piece of paper underneath her feet, she was beaten and ill-treated in an inhuman way. We had to stand at attention at the roll call place and we were not allowed to move our lips, because then we were supposed to be praying and we were not allowed to pray.

Q. Now, Witness, were you operated on while you were in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. When did that happen?

A. On 22 July 1942, 75 prisoners from our transport that come from Lublin were summoned to the chief of the camp. We stood outside the camp office, and present were Kogel, Mandel, and one person whom I later recognized as Dr. Fischer. We were afterwards sent back to the block and we were told to wait for further instructions. On the 25th of July, all the women from the transport of Lublin were summoned by Mandel, who told us that we were not allowed to work outside the camp. Also, five women from the transport that came from Warsaw were summoned with us at the same time. We were not allowed to work outside the camp. The next day 75 women were summoned again and we had to stand in front of the hospital in the camp. Present were Schiedlausky, Oberheuser, Rosenthal, Kogel, and the man whom I afterwards recognized as Dr. Fischer.

Q. Now, Witness, do you see Oberheuser in the defendants’ dock here?

INTERPRETER: The witness asks for permission to go near to the dock to be able to see them.

MR. MCHANEY: Please do.

(Witness walks to dock and points to Dr. Oberheuser.)

MR. MCHANEY: And Fischer?

(Witness points to Dr. Fischer.)

MR. MCHANEY: I will ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the defendants, Oberheuser and Fischer.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will show that the witness correctly identified the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer.

MR. MCHANEY: Witness, you have told the Tribunal that in July 1942, some 75 Polish girls, who were in the transport from Lublin, were called before the camp doctors in Ravensbrueck.

WITNESS KAROLEWSKA: Yes.

Q. Now, were any of these girls selected for an operation?

A. On this day we did not know why we were called before the camp doctors and on the same day 10 out of 25 girls were taken to the hospital, but we did not know why. Four of them came back and six stayed in the hospital. On the same day six of them came back to the block after having received some injection, but we did not know what kind of injection. On the 1st of August, those six girls were called to the hospital again; those girls who received injections were kept in the hospital, but we could not get in touch with them to hear from them why they were put in the hospital. A few days later, one of my comrades succeeded in getting close to the hospital and learned from one of the prisoners that all were in bed and that their legs were in casts. On the 14th of August, the same year, I was called to the hospital and my name was written on a piece of paper. I did not know why. Besides me, eight other girls were called to the hospital. We were called at a time when executions usually took place and I thought I was going to be executed because some girls had been shot down before. In the hospital we were put to bed and the ward in which we stayed was locked. We were not told what we were to do in the hospital and when one of my comrades put the question she got no answer but an ironical smile. Then a German nurse arrived and gave me an injection in my leg. After this injection I vomited and I was weak. Then I was put on a hospital cot and they brought me to the operating room. There, Dr. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal gave me the second intravenous injection in my arm. A while before, I noticed Dr. Fischer, who left the operating theater and had operating gloves on. Then I lost consciousness and when I revived I noticed that I was in a proper hospital ward. I recovered consciousness for a while and I felt severe pain in my leg. Then I lost consciousness again. I regained consciousness in the morning, and then I noticed that my leg was in a cast from the ankle up to the knee and I felt very great pain in this leg and had a high temperature. I noticed also that my leg was swollen from the toes up to the groin. The pain was increasing and the temperature, too, and the next day I noticed that some liquid was flowing from my leg. The third day I was put on a hospital trolley and taken to the dressing room. Then I saw Dr. Fischer again. He had on an operating gown and rubber gloves on his hands. A blanket was put over my eyes and I did not know what was done with my leg but I felt great pain and I had the impression that something must have been cut out of my leg. Those present were Schiedlausky, Rosenthal, and Oberheuser. After the dressing was changed I was again put in the regular hospital ward. Three days later I was again taken to the dressing room, and the dressing was changed by Doctor Fischer with the assistance of the same doctors, and I was also blindfolded. I was then sent back to the regular hospital ward. The next dressings were made by the camp doctors. Two weeks later we were all taken to the operating theater again, and put on the operating tables. The bandage was removed, and that was the first time I saw my leg. The incision went so deep that I could see the bone. We were told then that there was a doctor from Hohenlychen, Doctor Gebhardt, who would come and examine us. We were waiting for his arrival for 3 hours, lying on our tables. When he came, a sheet was put over our eyes, but they removed the sheet and I saw him for a short moment. Then we were taken back to our regular wards. On 8 September I went back to the block. I couldn’t walk. The pus was draining from my leg; the leg was swollen up and I could not walk. In the block, I stayed in bed for one week; then I was called to the hospital again. I could not walk and I was carried by my comrades. In the hospital I met some of my comrades who were there after the operation. This time I was sure I was going to be executed because I saw an ambulance standing outside the office, which was used by the Germans to transport people intended for execution. Then we were taken to the dressing room where Doctor Oberheuser and Doctor Schiedlausky examined our legs. We were put to bed again, and on the same day, in the afternoon, I was taken to the operating theater and the second operation was performed on my leg. I was put to sleep in the same way as before, having received an injection. This time I again saw Doctor Fischer. I woke up in the regular hospital ward, and I felt a much greater pain and had a higher temperature.

The symptoms were the same. The leg was swollen and the pus flowed from my leg. After this operation, the dressings were changed by Dr. Fischer every 3 days. More than 10 days afterwards, we were again taken to the operating theater and put on the table; and we were told that Dr. Gebhardt was going to come to examine our legs. We waited for a long time. Then he arrived and examined our legs while we were blindfolded. This time other people arrived with Dr. Gebhardt, but I don’t know their names, and I don’t remember their faces. Then we were carried on hospital cots back to our rooms. After this operation I felt still worse, and I could not move. While I was in the hospital, Dr. Oberheuser treated me cruelly.

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._)

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._)