A. Medical Experiments (continued 9)

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.

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.)

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT SCHROEDER^[47]

I now come to the count of the indictment “Participation of the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea-water experiments which were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.”

In the case of these experiments, Professor Schroeder’s participation has been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as the preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned. Professor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the prosecution of having permitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp. The prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated that these experiments were not necessary at all, and it drew the conclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to torture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it also stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental subjects been volunteers.

Therefore it is the task of the defense to show in the following paragraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder, as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, these experiments had to be considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his approval for the carrying out of the experiments in a concentration camp.

The first question therefore is—why and from what considerations were there experiments ordered at all? It must be stated in advance here, that as far as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was concerned, he did not have to examine the question whether one or the other method for making sea-water drinkable was more suitable; the problem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It was to rescue shipwrecked persons from death from lack of water and find the best method of protection against this danger. This problem had already been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time, and various individual questions for the solution of this problem had arisen. No method for making sea-water drinkable had been found and it was not clear what procedure should be advocated.

In the course of the year 1943 two methods for making sea-water drinkable were offered almost simultaneously. One of them, the so-called Wofatit method, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with I. G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of Stabsingenieur Berka.

It was quite clearly recognized that Schaefer’s Wofatit represented the ideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the sea-water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let the salt remain in the sea-water and only improved the taste of the sea-water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We agree with the prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they state that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided by means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkatit was better. The participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, realized that quite clearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have been solved in a simple manner.

The difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this problem, however, lay in another field; this was the shortage of raw materials prevailing at the time, which had arisen in Germany because of the war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider the Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method could be procured without any difficulty and production could be started right away, since production facilities for the appropriate amounts were already in existence. It was different in the case of Wofatit. Considerable amounts of silver were required for its production, which could not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging other production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical Office of the Luftwaffe, therefore, had already decided in favor of the introduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have assumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to his professional medical care equipped with the Berka method, because the danger existed that shipwrecked aviators, deceived by the improvement in the taste of sea-water, would drink it in larger amounts and thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also had to be clarified whether the shipwrecked crew of an airplane completely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever or whether they should consume a certain amount of sea-water rather than no water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying out an experiment on human beings. An experiment on animals would not suffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body of animals differs from that in a human being. By proving its medical objections, the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make its point of view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert, Professor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best known specialists for internal diseases not only in Germany, but in Europe, had not sided with the Technical Office. Professor Eppinger, in the conference at the Technical Office on 25 May 1944, expressly voiced the opinion that the Berka method was suitable, because for a certain time the human kidney could concentrate salt up to 3 percent, and because the vitamins which had been added to the Berka method would be suitable for speeding up the excretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also shared at the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner, who is still one of the leading specialists in the field today.

Professor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods. He would then have been reproached with the fact that he had not done everything within his power in order to make the position of shipwrecked German soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying of lack of water. It, therefore, becomes evident that these considerations on the part of Schroeder give us proof of his great feeling of responsibility; it was not easy for him to give his approval for the carrying out of such experiments.

Further developments also show clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the fact that he was extremely busy with official matters, devoted the greatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just decide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be carried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he intended to have the experiments carried out as a troop experiment in institutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily considering the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1 July 1944 he turned to the chief medical officer of this hospital, who was competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it. This becomes evident from the certificate of Dr. Harriehausen, who was a Generalarzt at the time. Now Professor Schroeder began to consider the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended to use the young cadets in this academy as experimental subjects. An inquiry which he made there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his requests were turned down in each case was that just at this particular time the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect that all convalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to their units, and that the cadets of the academy were to be given a combat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor Beiglboeck to carry out the experiments at the Tarvis Field Hospital also remained unsuccessful.

The further possibility of perhaps using German civilians for the experiments was completely out of question because at this time it was not possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case among the German civilian population, because all of them had either been conscripted for military service or for labor service. Professor Schroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion of considering Dachau concentration camp for his experimental station.

Professor Schroeder was not informed at all about conditions in a concentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no different from those prevailing in a military camp, and only the names Dachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the concentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. Schroeder never listened to foreign radio stations. In the circles of his medical officers such events were never discussed. I may point out here that an express opponent of National Socialism, no less than the former Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a witness in the IMT trial that he had had no knowledge of the events in the concentration camps, and he had different sources of information at his disposal from Professor Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had had any idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from Germany, then in view of his ideology as a faithful Christian, he would have refused such contact with concentration camps arising out of ordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder’s favor is that the experiments were not to be carried out under the supervision and command of the SS camp leadership but completely separate, under the special leadership of a Luftwaffe medical officer and recognized specialist. As a further consideration, Professor Schroeder had to take into account that a useful result could be achieved in these experiments only if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance. Because of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the whole of Germany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these experiments could be given in any spot in Germany. However, it was known that air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the charge cannot be brought against Professor Schroeder that he chose a concentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who perforce had to subject themselves to the experiments. The very opposite is true. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that if he wanted to be successful he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary experimental subjects, for the director of the experiments was dependent on the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, since in no other way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary experimental subject would have had the power to drop out of the experiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this way, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it prematurely.

For the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder’s conduct, his conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered especially. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he could only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons, whose age corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made the further condition that the experimental persons should have the same physiological and racial requisites as the members of the German Wehrmacht in question. On direct examination, Professor Schroeder testified under oath that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about dishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he knew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the seriousness of their offenses.

Professor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of Grawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not accept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German Wehrmacht, gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes. Professor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to make arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to expect that the SS would decide upon experimental subjects, against his well-founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the prerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder.

Because of the extremely heavy official duties caused for Professor Schroeder in his capacity as chief medical officer by the imminent collapse of German military resistance, this affair was only a small segment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not concern himself further with this affair.

A further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to bear in mind was whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the health of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly studied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the problem. Professor Schroeder also knew that sea-water is used by doctors for drinking cures and that the criterion of harmfulness depends on the doses. If there was medical supervision then there would be no danger to health. Therefore, the prosecution’s charge that he failed to take the possible hazards sufficiently into account is not justified.

Nothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized Professor Schroeder more than the instructions which the medical inspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments.

Professor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to the experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reich Physician SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when the quantity of sea-water to be taken was regulated in accordance with the best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that the experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore, if the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on the basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments would be carried out in a humane manner, taking into account all medical and clinical considerations.

Therefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he, from his position as a physician and a leading medical officer, considered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible sources of danger as far as humanly possible. His direction to the man in charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental subject refused to take in further water, and if dangerous injury to the body were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder’s favor. The person carrying out the experiments was furnished with all necessary assistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as well as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion.

The contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments by Schroeder can stand any examination, that that planning was with full moral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was reaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Vollhardt, as well as by the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable that instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct from a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked out.

By this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder in the sea-water complex are refuted.

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK

The Persons Subjected to the Experiments

As regards this subject [sea-water experiments] I want to put the defendant’s statements first (Tr. pp. 8703-4):

“Dr. Steinbauer: Did you have influence on the selection of the experimental subjects?

“Defendant Beiglboeck: No. I was told at the Medical Inspectorate that arrangements had been made with the SS, and the SS in accordance with these arrangements would supply the experimental subjects. I did not have to worry about that.

“Q. Did you have orders to find out where the experimental subjects came from and what the specified circumstances and conditions were?

“A. No. That too was not a decision that I could have made, nor could the Luftwaffe.

“Q. Did you know before that gypsies had been used?

“A. I only found out that gypsies were coming into Dachau from the camp commandant. * * * I, therefore, do not feel that I am responsible either for the selection of the place where the experiments were carried out nor for the selection of those persons who were used.”

Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder states regarding this (Tr. pp. 3676-7): [Transcriber Note: The text ends here. No further statement printed in the original text.]

CROSS-EXAMINATION

“Mr. McHaney: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the experimental subjects?

“Defendant Schroeder: No. We only spoke about the matter as such. I am not quite sure whether the question ‘concentration camp’ was already established at that time. Please, why don’t you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don’t know if it was before or after 1 June.

“Q. You didn’t say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that only German volunteers were used in the experiments?

“A. That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about it. It was no subject of discussion. There wasn’t anything to be discussed.

“Q. Well, you didn’t tell him that then?

“A. I don’t know. I can’t tell you that under oath. I know that there were volunteers; and I certainly did not say that they had to be German because I didn’t take any other possibility into consideration at all and couldn’t have said it. These are all reconstructions which came up later, but at that time weren’t subjects of discussion at all.”

These were gypsies wearing the black badge of the asocials. The defendant states that the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the shipment told him that these persons were all asocials, who were interned on account of punishable offenses and not for social reasons. As we read in Kogon’s book “The SS State”^[48] the black badge was in fact the designation of the asocials. We see from Document NO-179, Prosecution Exhibit 135, that SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe suggested as persons to be used for the experiments asocial persons of mixed gypsy blood in Auschwitz concentration camp, who were in good health but at the same time unsuitable for labor. In the book on gypsies of the Royal Police Directorate Munich 1905, (Beiglboeck 28, Beiglboeck Ex. 11), we read:

“The greatest difficulty arises in securing a census of gypsies. The majority of them make every effort to obscure their identity through false statements or through a pretense of ignorance * * *.”

Their asocial character led to a series of police regulations, of which the most important are the following, as far as Germany is concerned:

Decree of 16 May 1938, RMB1.i.V. (Bulletin of the Reich Ministry of the Interior) pages 883-4, concerning measures against the gypsy nuisance.

Decree of 8 December 1938, RMB1.i.V., page 2105, concerning measures against the gypsy nuisance.

Decree of 10 November 1939, RMB1.i.V., page 2339, concerning employment records for gypsies.

Decree of 2 September 1939, Reich Law Gazette, I, page 1578. Prohibition of wandering of gypsies in the frontier zone^[49] (Sec. 4 of the ordinance concerning frontier protection).

The witness Dorn states (Tr. p. 8618):

“As far as I know, the brown sign was done away with in Buchenwald in 1940 and all gypsies arrested for racial reasons were asocial. In other words, from 1940 on, there were no gypsies in the camp who were not designated in the filing system as asocial, as unwilling to work.”

The same witness states (Tr. pp. 8661-2):

“I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the gypsies who were not declared asocial elements were removed from Dachau to the Labor House in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.”^[50]

The famous Swiss Psychiatrist E. Bleuler, Zuerich, writes in his Textbook on Psychiatry, Berlin, Springer, 1937 on pages 397-400 about:

Constitutional ethnical deviations

“* * * A large number of asocials show what type of character they are while still young. Most of them are backward at school, even if their intelligence is good, because they adjust themselves too little and show too little industry and attention. Extraordinary achievements in any single direction are rare. Many of them are lazy, thieving, lying, cruel to animals and people, exacting, often deliberately and negligently damaging their own and others property, vain, unreliable, and egotistical. They cannot submit to authority, run away if they do not like anything; punishments are not respected, altogether neither sugar plums nor the whip have any visible effects. When carrying out mean tricks they develop cunning and energy, soon learn from others what is bad, with difficulty or not at all what is good, have an instinctive inclination for bad company.”

I have not made any special reference to asocial character to point out that we must be particularly careful when estimating their trustworthiness, on account of their tendency to mendacity and because of a certain psychotic cupidity concerning claims for compensation. This is not necessary where the judges are so experienced; I am referring to this fact for legal reasons. It is well known that there is no legal definition of crimes against humanity. According to legal authors, such crimes can only be committed against persons who are persecuted for political, religious, and racial reasons.

To complete this chapter in its legal aspects, I would also like to mention the racial regulation of the gypsy question as far as it can be seen from German legislation. According to the 12th decree implementing the Reich Citizenship Law, dated 25 April 1943 (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 268), gypsies who are not yet German citizens cannot acquire citizenship. Section 4 of this decree reads:

“Jews and gypsies cannot become citizens. They cannot become citizens either subject to revocation, or protected persons * * *.”

According to the first decree implementing the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 14 November 1935 (Reich Law Gazette I, p. 1334), marriage between gypsies and Germans is prohibited. Section 6 of this decree reads: