[Handwritten remark]
Gbl 29.7
Subject: Experiments on the potability of sea-water.
Refer: Your letter of 11 July 1944, Journal No. 13/SS top secret
Dear Obergruppenfuehrer!
I want to inform you about my talks with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner and Chief Physician Beiglboeck in Dachau on 20 July. There will be employed: 1 person in charge, 3 medical chemists, 1 female assistant, 3 ranks for supervision. Prospective time: 3 weeks. In our research station only the 40 experimental persons can be accommodated, otherwise there is absolutely insufficient room since the Ploetner section is fully occupied and work cannot be interrupted. Our laboratory is insufficiently equipped, since some essential equipment is wanting. In spite of serious difficulties, the following agreement was arrived at: 1. In the Ploetner section a desk will be reserved (in the laboratory). 2. The remaining rooms will be placed at our disposal in our Entomological Institute for a period of 3 weeks. Equipment needed must be provided by the Luftwaffe. Thus it will be assured that the female assistants can work in Dachau too, because the Entomological Institute is located outside the concentration camp. 3. Billet must be arranged between Chief Physician Dr. Beiglboeck and the commandant’s office, since we have no billets at our disposal. 4. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner will give his assistance, help, and advice. He was, however, not selected for internal guidance, because this is being done by the Luftwaffe physicians themselves.
The experiments are to begin on July 23 if experimental persons are available by then and the camp commandant is in possession of the required order of the Reich Leader SS. Dr. Beiglboeck himself wanted to get in touch with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Frowein, Adjutant of the Reich Physician SS, on this subject.
I hope that this arrangement may permit a successful conduct of the experiments. When the results are reported at the proper time, please arrange to point out the participation and assistance of the Reich Leader SS.
With best regards and
Heil Hitler!
[Signature] Sievers
SS Standartenfuehrer
Dr. Schroeder, as my superior, often visited the hospitals in my charge, especially the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick of which I had been medical superintendent since 1942.
I recall very well that I was once asked whether it would be possible to carry out control experiments with sea-water, made drinkable by various methods, on patients suffering from minor complaints and the slightly wounded in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my supervision. Whether Professor Dr. Schroeder or one of his representatives put this question to me, and at what exact time, I cannot recall exactly. It could have been in June 1944. I had to refuse the undertaking of such experiments, as I had strict orders to send all patients and wounded who could be released back to the troops; thus I did not have at my disposal hospital inmates suitable for these experiments. Furthermore, the hospital was overcrowded at this time and was, therefore, not suitable for scientific experiments. I can also recall clearly that, at a later time, I again spoke to Professor Dr. Schroeder about this matter, and that he expressed his regret on this occasion that these experiments could not be carried out in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my direction.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Now, Witness, for what reasons were you arrested by the Gestapo on 29 May 1944?
Witness Hoellenrainer: Because I am a gypsy of mixed blood.
Q. And after your arrest you were sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you remain in Auschwitz?
A. About 4 weeks.
Q. And then where were you placed?
A. I was sent to Buchenwald.
Q. How long did you stay in Buchenwald?
A. I only stayed there for a few days.
Q. And then what happened to you?
A. I was in Buchenwald, and suddenly our numbers were called. Forty men were called out, including me, and we were told that we were going to Dachau to work. As soon as we arrived at Dachau we were put in a quarantine block. One day an SS man came and wrote down our numbers, and then we were X-rayed. Afterwards they sent us to the surgical department of a certain Luftwaffe doctor. I am afraid I can’t remember the physician’s name. I know that he was in the Luftwaffe and that he was an Austrian. He examined all of us, and then we were divided into groups for a sea-water experiment.
Q. Just a moment, Witness. I now want to ask you some brief questions concerning what you have just told us. You state that you went to Dachau to work. Did you consider going to Dachau to be good fortune?
A. Yes; a friend of mine, a gypsy, had already been to Dachau, and he told me that the situation was much better and that we would get better food. But that was not the case.
Q. Well, did you understand what you were to do when you went to Dachau, what type of work was it, bomb disposal or removal?
A. Yes. We went there to work.
Q. Did you understand that you were going to Dachau to volunteer for sea-water experiments?
A. No, never.
Q. Now, upon arrival in Dachau you then went to the quarantine block, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You stayed there for a day or two and were given a physical examination?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also get an X-ray examination?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you were transferred to the experimental block?
A. Yes.
Q. And there you met a professor or a doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think you would be able to recognize that doctor if you saw him today?
A. Yes, immediately. I would recognize him at once.
Q. Would you kindly stand up from your witness chair, take your earphones off, and proceed over to the defendants’ dock, and see if you can recognize the professor that you met at Dachau?
(Witness leaves the stand.)
Q. Walk right over, please.
(Witness attempts assault on the defendant Beiglboeck.)
Mr. Hardy: The prosecution apologizes for the conduct of the witness, your Honors. Due to the manner of this examination, the prosecution will have no further questions, your Honors.
Presiding Judge Beals: The marshal will keep the witness guarded before the Tribunal.
Dr. Steinbauer (counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I have no questions to put to the witness.
Presiding Judge Beals: Will the marshal bring the witness before the bar of this Court? Will an interpreter come up here who can translate to the witness?
Witness, you were summoned before this Tribunal as a witness to give evidence.
Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.
Q. This is a court of justice.
A. Yes.
Q. And by your conduct in attempting to assault the defendant Beiglboeck in the dock, you have committed a contempt of this Court.
A. Your Honors, please excuse my conduct. I am very excited.
Q. Ask the witness if he has anything else to say in extenuation of his conduct.
A. Your Honors, please excuse me. I am so worked up. That man is a murderer. He has ruined my whole life.
Q. Your statements afford no extenuation of your conduct. You have committed a contempt in the presence of the Court, and it is the judgment of this Tribunal that you be confined in the Nuernberg prison for the period of 90 days as punishment for the contempt which you have exhibited before this Tribunal.
A. Would the Tribunal please forgive me. I am married and I have a small son. This man is a murderer. He gave me salt water and he performed a liver puncture on me. I am still under medical treatment. Please do not send me to prison.
Q. That is no extenuation. The contempt before this Court must be punished. People must understand that a court is not to be treated in that manner. Will the marshal call a guard and remove the prisoner to serve the sentence which this Court has inflicted for contempt? It is understood that the defendant is not to be confined at labor. He is simply to be confined in the prison, having committed a contempt in open court by attempting to assault one of the defendants in the dock.
Mr. Hardy: At this time, your Honor, the prosecution will request a brief recess, if your Honors please.
Presiding Judge Beals: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for a moment.
(A recess was taken.)
The Marshal: The Tribunal is again in session. [1 July 1947.]
Mr. Hardy: The prosecution wishes to recall the witness Karl Hoellenrainer to the witness stand, your Honors.
Presiding Judge Beals: The marshal will summon the witness Hoellenrainer.
(The witness Karl Hoellenrainer took the stand.)
Judge Sebring: You will raise your right hand and be sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated the oath.)
Presiding Judge Beals: Counsel may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Witness, your name again is Karl Hoellenrainer?
Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.
Q. Witness, at the close of your testimony the other day, you were proceeding to tell the Tribunal about your activities after your arrival at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when did you arrive for the first time at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. That was about the middle of July.
Q. And then you stayed at the camp hospital for a period of 1 or 2 days?
A. In Auschwitz?
Q. No, in Dachau, after your arrival?
A. Yes, yes, in Dachau.
Q. And then you were examined physically and also X-rayed?
A. Yes.
Q. After you had been physically examined and X-rayed, what happened to you?
A. Then, we came into the so-called surgical department. We were 40 men. Then a Luftwaffe doctor came and examined us. We had to take our clothes off and stand in line. Then he said, “Well, you will be given good food, such as you have never had, and then you won’t get anything to eat at all, and you will have to drink sea-water.” One of the prisoners whose name was Rudi Taubmann jumped up and refused. He was in an experiment, a cold-water experiment, and he didn’t want to be in any more experiments. The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you are not quiet, and want to rebel, I will shoot you on the spot.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe always had a pistol, and then we were all quiet. For about one week we got cookies, rusks, and brown sugar. There were about 21 little cookies, and three or four little pieces of dextrose. Otherwise, we got nothing. The 8 days—
Q. Just a moment. Did you at any time volunteer for these experiments?
A. No.
Q. Were you asked whether or not you wished to volunteer for the experiments?
A. No.
Q. Were any of the other inmates asked if they would like to volunteer?
A. No.
Q. Was the young Mettbach a volunteer, the youngest Mettbach?
A. I know only one Ernst Mettbach from Fuerth, but I don’t know whether he volunteered.
Q. Was Ernst Mettbach in the experiments throughout; that is, did he complete the experiments?
A. No, he was only there a short time, 2 or 3 days maybe. Then, the doctor from the Luftwaffe put him out, and where he went I don’t know.
Q. Now, did the professor ask anyone for his approval before he was subjected to the sea-water experiments?
A. No.
Q. Did the professor or any of the other Luftwaffe physicians talk to the inmates and advise them as to the hazards of the experiment prior to the commencement of the actual experiments?
A. No.
Q. Now, will you, in detail, tell the Tribunal just what food the experimental subjects received prior to the experiments, during the course of the experiments, and after the experiments, and in doing so, Witness, kindly talk very slowly and distinctly so that the interpreters will be able to translate you more efficiently.
A. Yes. At first we got potatoes, milk, and then we got these cookies and dextrose and rusks. That lasted about 1 week. Then we got nothing at all. Then the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now, you have to drink sea-water on an empty stomach.” That lasted about 1 or 2 weeks. This Rudi Taubmann, as I already said, got excited and didn’t want to participate; and the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you get excited and mutiny, I will shoot you,” and then we were all quiet. Then we began to drink sea-water. I drank the worst kind, that was yellowish. We drank two or three times a day, and then in the evening we drank the yellow kind. There were three kinds of water, white water, and yellow water [two kinds]; and I drank the yellow kind. After a few days the people became raving mad; they foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came with a cynical laugh and said, “Now it is time to make the liver punctures.” I remember one very well.
Q. Talk more slowly, Witness. Thank you.
A. Yes. The first row on the left when you came in, the second bed, that was the first one. He went crazy and barked like a dog. He foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe took him down on a stretcher with a white sheet over him, and then he stuck a needle about this long (indicating) into his right side, and there was a hypodermic needle on it, and it bled, and it was very painful. We were all quiet and excited. When that was over, the other inmates took their turn. The people were crazy from thirst and hunger, we were so hungry—but the doctor had no pity on us. He was as cold as ice. He didn’t take any interest in us. Then, one gypsy—I don’t know his name any more—ate a little piece of bread once, or drank some water; I don’t remember just what he did. The doctor from the Luftwaffe got very angry and mad. He took the gypsy and tied him to a bed post and sealed his mouth.
Q. Witness, do you mean that he put adhesive tape over this gypsy’s mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead, continue.
A. Then a gypsy, he was lying on the right, a big strong, husky fellow, he refused to drink the water. He asked the doctor from the Luftwaffe to let him go. He said he couldn’t stand the water. He was sick. The doctor from the Luftwaffe had no pity, and he said, “No, you have to drink it.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe told one of his assistants to go and get a sun. Naturally, we didn’t know what a sun was. Then one of his assistants came with a red tube about this long (indicating) and thrust this tube first into the gypsy’s mouth and then into his stomach.
Q. Just a moment. That tube was how long? How long would that be, a half a meter long?
A. About this long (indicating).
Q. That will be about a half a meter?
A. Yes, about a half a meter. And then the doctor from the Luftwaffe took this red tube and put it in the gypsy’s mouth and into his stomach. And then he pumped water down the tube. The gypsy kneeled in front of him and beseeched him for mercy but that doctor had none.
Q. Witness, during the experiments was your temperature taken?
A. Yes.
Q. Who took your temperatures?
A. There were two Frenchmen, one tall thin and one short blond one; and they took the temperatures and the doctor from the Luftwaffe took the temperatures, too.
Q. When you say “the doctor from the Luftwaffe” you mean the man you referred to as the “professor.” The professor and the doctor from the Luftwaffe are the same or are they two different people?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Thank you. Now, who performed the liver punctures?
A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe carried out the liver punctures himself. Some people were given liver punctures and at the same time a puncture in the spinal cord. The doctor from the Luftwaffe did that himself. It was very painful. Something ran out at the same time at the back. It was water or something—I don’t know what it was.
Q. Well, did you receive a liver puncture?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the professor tell you for what reason he gave you that liver puncture?
A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came to me and said, “Now, Hoellenrainer, it’s your turn.” I was lying on the bed. I was very weak from this water and from not having anything to eat. He said, “Now, lie on your left side and take the clothes off your right side.” I held on to the bedstead on top of me and the doctor from the Luftwaffe sat down next to me and pushed a long needle into me. It was very painful. I said, “Doctor, what are you doing?” The doctor said, “I have to make a liver puncture so that the salt comes out of your liver.”
Q. Now, Witness, can you tell us whether or not the subjects used in the experiments were gypsies of purely German nationality or were there some Polish gypsies, some Russian gypsies, Czechoslovak gypsies, and so forth?
A. Yes, there were about seven or eight Germans and the rest of them were all Poles and Czechs, Czech gypsies and Polish gypsies.
Q. Were any of the experimental subjects ever taken out of the station room to the yard outside the experimental barracks?
A. Yes, at the end when the experiments were all finished; and three people were carried out with white sheets over them on a stretcher. They were covered with sheets but I don’t know whether they were dead or not. But we, my colleagues and I, talked about it. We never saw these three again, neither at work nor anywhere in the camp. We often talked about it and wondered where they were. We never saw them again. We thought that they were dead.
Q. Do you know where they were taken?
A. No, I don’t know.
Q. Well, during the course of the experiments were you weighed every day?
A. Yes. We were weighed, too.
Q. Was that every day or every other day?
A. I don’t remember exactly.
Q. Well, now, after the completion of the experiments in early September what happened to you?
A. When we had finished the experiments?
Q. Yes.
A. I told you that already. We were sent to the hospital and the doctor from the Luftwaffe came and said we were to take our clothes off and we lined up and were divided into three groups. The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now you will be given good food. You have never had such good food.” We were given potatoes, dextrose, cookies, milk—
Q. Just a minute, Witness. I am referring to the end of the experiments, after the experiments were all completed. Could you tell us what date your experiments were completed and you were transferred from the experimental station?
A. The experiment lasted, maybe, 4 or 5 weeks altogether. I don’t know the date.
Q. Well, then, they were completed in early September. Is that correct? You arrived—
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after the experiments were completed did you then return to the camp proper or to the camp hospital?
A. No, to the camp, into Block 22. We couldn’t walk. We all had to support each other. We were exhausted. I forgot to tell you one thing. Before we began the experiments and we had this good food for about one week, the doctor took us out into the courtyard near the hospital. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came. He had a little bottle in his hand and we all had to line up. There was some liquid in the bottle and he put a number on our chest. I had number “23.” It burned a lot. Then we went back into the block. On every bed there was a number, the same number we had on our chests. One man—but I don’t remember who it was—one of the inmates, said: “That is what they call the death number.” I was pretty scared and the inmates said, “Yes, that is the death number so that the doctor of the Luftwaffe will know right away who is dead.”
We didn’t want to go on with the experiments but what choice did we have? We were just poor prisoners. Nobody bothered about us. We had to let them do with us what they wanted. We couldn’t resist. I haven’t got the power to relate everything as it—
Q. All right. Just a moment. Was your bed number “23”?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you were considered to be experimental subject number 23?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you sick during the course of the experiments, Witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Witness, after the completion of the experiments in early September were you then called in and weighed to determine your weight about 2 weeks later?
A. No, not after 2 weeks.
Q. Were you called in and weighed 1 week after you had completed the experiments? Do you remember?
A. I don’t remember. But we were weighed.
Q. You were weighed every day during the experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. What I want to know is, were you weighed after the completion of the experiments? For instance, you were weighed every day during the experiments; then the experiments were completed; then you were not weighed again for a period of 1 or 2 weeks. Did you get weighed 1 or 2 weeks after the completion of the experiments?
A. When the experiment was all finished? No.
Q. Well, now after you left the experimental block and went to the camp how long was it before you were able to resume work?
A. A few days. Then we were sent in a detachment to a farm in Feldmochingen. We had to work hard and the food was better than in the camp but, you know, if you are a prisoner, what did the farmers give you? A little bread, some soup—but, in any case it was better than in the camp; and then every evening we came back to our block and then we got the regular camp food.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Dr. Steinbauer: When you were examined the first time you said that you had no previous convictions. Do you maintain this assertion?
Witness Hoellenrainer: No, I have been convicted.
Q. Then why did you lie?
A. I did not lie. I meant from the experiments.
Q. The question was whether before you came to the Gestapo you had ever been convicted and punished by the police. Nothing was mentioned about experiments at that time. That’s an excuse. Do you admit that you lied? It’s much better for you.
A. No. I did not lie.
Q. Well, you have been convicted?
A. Yes.
Q. For theft?
A. Yes.
Q. For fraud?
A. Yes.
Q. For assault?
A. Yes.
Q. For blackmail?
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. Well, coercion.
A. No.
Q. For using a false name?
A. No. I never used a false name.
Q. You have to speak more slowly. We will come back to that. You were arrested then for desertion?
A. Yes.
Q. You were prosecuted for desertion?
A. Yes.
Q. You refused to obey your draft order?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t that why you were sent to the concentration camp?
A. No, I was sent to the concentration camp merely because I am a gypsy. My brothers were in the war and they came back from Russia and were sent to Sachsenhausen and were murdered there, because there weren’t supposed to be any more gypsies in the German Army.
Q. What kind of a badge did you wear in the camp?
A. A black one.
Q. You and your wife, too, have stated that you participated in malaria, phlegmon, typhoid, and sea-water experiments?
A. No, only this one experiment, no malaria.
Q. Do you admit that you lied to the young doctor who talked to you?
A. No, I didn’t lie to the doctor. I just told him the exact truth. My wife and I weren’t allowed to marry. My wife had a child from me and it was cremated in Birkenau. My sister was cremated and both her children.
Q. Don’t get excited. I asked you whether you told the young doctor that you were in four different experiments. All you have to say is yes or no.
A. I told the doctor I drank salt water.
Q. Listen, Herr Hoellenrainer, don’t be evasive as gypsies usually are. Give me a clear answer as a witness under oath. Did you tell the doctor that you participated in other experiments, yes or no?
A. No. I just drank salt water.
Mr. Hardy: Your Honor, the testimony of this doctor is not in evidence before this Tribunal. I don’t understand what Dr. Steinbauer is referring to.
Dr. Steinbauer: You said you were in Auschwitz?
Witness Hoellenrainer: Yes.
Q. Were you in the Birkenau extermination camp?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the gypsies in a big camp there?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there women and children there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a wife there?
A. Yes, my fiancee, Ida Schmidt. She was gassed. She was burned to death. I never saw her again.
Q. Didn’t you once beat your wife until the blood spurted out on to the wall?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever beat her?
A. No.
Q. I asked you whether what I have just read to you is true, that you were divided up and your numbers were called out, etc.?
A. We weren’t asked at all. Forty of us were collected together and we were sent to Dachau.
Q. Now, I have to tell you that your countryman—he is from Fuerth too, called Mettbach—said that he talked to you and particularly said that he wanted to go to Dachau because it was nearer Fuerth than Buchenwald; is that true?
A. That might be. I didn’t mind going to Dachau either because my brother lived in Munich.
Q. Then you did go voluntarily?
A. No, I did not.
Q. How does it happen that Laubinger said something else? Laubinger said you were deceived, that is why you volunteered?
A. No, I never volunteered. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer for these death experiments.
Q. Well, you went to Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the old Herzberg?
A. No.
Q. You don’t remember the gypsy from Bratislava?
A. No.
Q. Who was the oldest gypsy?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You were with your comrades for weeks and don’t know their names?
A. No.
Q. It is possible that Mettbach did not know all the names then, isn’t it?
A. How should I know? I did not have time to ask everybody what his name was.
Q. When the experiments were to begin, did the professor explain the purpose? That it was for rescuing people from shipwrecks, and that it was a sea-water experiment?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did he explain that you would be very thirsty?
A. Yes, he did first.
Q. And that thirst was very unpleasant?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, the thirst dried out the mouth?
A. Yes.
Q. How can you explain that these people foamed at the mouth?
A. They had fits and foamed at the mouth, they had fits of raving madness.
Q. I am just asking you how there can be foam on a mouth which is completely dried out?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know. Then some became mad?
A. Yes.
Q. You gypsies stick together, don’t you?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then you must be able to tell me who became mad?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You must know. If a friend of mine—I was a soldier twice—and if a friend of mine had gone mad then I would have noticed it.
A. It was a tall man who was in the first row. He was the first one to start. He became raving mad and had fits and thrashed around with his hands and feet. He was a tall slim gypsy.
Q. You said that you were weighed?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it possible that after the experiment, when you received good food again and plenty of water, you were re-weighed?
A. No.
Q. But then they had a chart showing where you were weighed every day?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Were you weighed standing up or lying down?
A. Standing up.
Q. Were some of the people weighed lying down?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Were the scales ones on which people could be weighed lying down?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What did these scales look like?
A. Well, they were big scales. You had to stand on it. There was an indicator which showed the weight.
Q. The man who had his mouth sealed, did he have a tube in his stomach too?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Your liver was punctured?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a scar?
A. A scar? I don’t know.
Q. Don’t you ever look at your body?
A. Yes. You want to see it?
Q. No. I am just asking you if you have a scar?
A. You mean a little mark?
Q. Have you a little round scar there?
A. I did not look as carefully as that.
Q. Well, do you think you have one or not?
A. I don’t know. I didn’t bother with these camp matters any more, otherwise I would go crazy. I don’t want to hear anything more about the camp. We suffered long enough.
Q. Witness, do you think you are mad or mentally retarded?
A. No. I don’t think I am mad. I said, I’d very soon go mad if I thought about these things at the camp.
Q. Do you think there is something wrong with you mentally?
A. No.
Q. You say you are going crazy?
A. Well, if I keep thinking of that camp.
Mr. Hardy: I object to this line of questioning, your Honor.
Dr. Steinbauer: Well, your liver was punctured?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether you have a scar, yes or no?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What was the nationality of the people in the camp who were experimental subjects?
A. Poles and Czechs.
Q. How many Germans were there?
A. Seven or eight, who spoke German.
Q. Were there some Hungarians and Burgenlaender?
A. No. I don’t know.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Mr. Hardy: Do you have any ability to write shorthand, Doctor?
Defendant Beiglboeck: Yes, I know shorthand.
Q. Are these your stenographic notes on the back of Document C-23?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you kindly read those to the Tribunal—transcribe them? Would that be too difficult, or would you like to have me give you my transcription of them to aid you?
A. It says: “The thirst acquires forms which are difficult to bear. The patient is apathetic.”
Q. Pardon me, Doctor. It might be helpful if you used this transcription. I have had experts transcribe the notes; and then the interpreters can follow us more readily. I have the English copies also for the Tribunal to follow you, and if you have any discrepancy to point out with transcription as set out in the English—
Judge Sebring: Are you offering this, Mr. Hardy?
Mr. Hardy: That is a problem, your Honor. I want to have him transcribe the notes, and when the Tribunal settles who will offer this document into evidence, either the defense or prosecution, at that time, if necessary, I will give this a document number. I think we will have to wait to clarify that point later.
Q. Would you check that transcription, Professor?
A. That is correct, except in the first line it says—
Presiding Judge Beals: You have read your own stenographic notes, have you not?
Defendant Beiglboeck: Yes, and I have compared them with this transcription.
Q. What you should now read is your own version of these shorthand notes as you say they are correctly read. You understand that? You can read them from that, as you corrected it. You can read them from shorthand direct or from the typewritten transcription, as you please. Read slowly, too, please.
Mr. Hardy: While he is reading that, your Honor, I suggest that he stop at the correction he wishes to make and we can correct our English copy and the interpreters can correct the German copy.
Presiding Judge Beals: He will call attention to the corrections which you make.
Defendant Beiglboeck: “The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure.” The second version reads: “already unendurable”. My notes do not read like that.
“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. The patient lies apathetically. He takes little notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition.
“The appearance is very bad and shows signs of a decline. The general condition gives no cause for alarm.
“Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent.
“Respirations 25 per minute.
“The eyes are deeply hollowed”, it should read “deeply”. Here it says “often”.
“The turgor of the skin greatly reduced.
“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly free.
“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis, lower border VI-XI.” It is supposed to read “XI”. Originally it said “XII” and apparently I corrected it to read “XI.”
“Sharpened vesicular”, the word “breathing” is omitted here, of course.
“Sharpened vesicular breathing”—that is a medical expression.
“Heart beats very low, barely audible. Pulse weak. Filled. Palpability of the pulse worse.” Here it says that the pulse is “felt” and it should be “filled”. The pulse is less full.
Then this which is described here as undecipherable reads: “The cell walls are somewhat thickened.” Here I probably said “more strongly thickened”.
“Liver 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure.”
“Spleen soft” is wrong. It says: “Spleen reutoric, enlarged in a ring form, slightly enlarged.”
“Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure.” Then what is described here as illegible reads: “Indication of horizontal welt formation strong welt vertical formation.” That refers to the reaction of the muscle upon knocking, the so-called ideo-muscular welt.
Q. Would you kindly start that paragraph again and read it as it is written?
A. It reads here: “Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indication of horizontal welt formations. Strong vertical welt formations.” Up to this point, that is how it reads in the text; then in order to explain it, I added that we were concerned with the so-called ideo-muscular welt.
Further the text continues: “Reflexes” with two little crosses, that is, they react strongly. “Abdominal reflexes”, also two little crosses. “Romberg” as it says here. “Babinski negative”.
“Left”—here it says “Leif” “phenomenon”. Here on the left, “phenomenon of Becher”. “Oppenheim negative”. “Rosselimo negative”. “Bulbous reflex bad”. “Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad”. “Bulbous reflex” with a little cross—that is positive.
[Interruption.]
Q. Now, Professor Beiglboeck, looking over these stenographic notes in the sentence in the first paragraph, which will be the third sentence, which states: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, has an erasure been made in the stenographic notes in that sentence?
A. No. I can’t see any.
Q. In place of the word “little” which appears in the present text on the back of C-23, was there originally a symbol, stenographic symbol for the word “no” and then the word “no” was erased and replaced by the word “little”?
A. I see here that actually something else had been written there; probably at the time I wrote over it. I don’t see anything erased.
Q. Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the fourth sentence where it states: “He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition”, did another word appear in the same place as the character for “somnolent condition”? Did another word appear in the same place as the character for “somnolent” now appears, and can you make out whether or not that other character that has been erased was the word “semiconscious” and has now been replaced by “somnolent”? I think the original character can be well recognized to read “semiconscious”.
A. What is legible under here says: “Numb”.
Q. After the sentence that I have just read: “He asks for water—”
Presiding Judge Beals: I did not understand the witness’ explanation of that last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation, Witness?
Defendant Beiglboeck: The German word “benommen”, numb.
Q. Numb? Not unconscious?
A. Numb.
Mr. Hardy: In the first instance, in the sentence: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, is an erasure noticeable there, in that the word “no” has been replaced by the word “little”?
Defendant Beiglboeck: Something has been written over.
Q. Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has been written over? Would you point that out to them, Doctor? Point out the character in that sentence: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, and point that out, this character here (indicating) on the second line of characters.
Mr. Hardy: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page.
Q. Now, would you show the Tribunal also where the word “semiconscious” or “numb” appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last character on the third line.
A. Yes, here (indicating).
Q. Now, after the sentence: “He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition,” which is the fourth stenographic line on the back of chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been erased. This half line had previously contained stenographic symbols but they are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct?
A. Yes. Something has been erased here.
Mr. Hardy: Your Honors can see the red erasure that has been used to erase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is still obvious there.
Q. Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic notes, the second sentence reads: “The general condition gives no cause for alarm.” Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, throughout your writing of these characters, between each word you usually leave a space to indicate another word, do you not? That is very clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between each character signifying words. Is that correct?
A. No. It varies. Sometimes the words are written closer together, quite closely, for example here (indicating).
Q. Well now, here in this sentence where it says, “The general condition gives no cause for alarm”, the word “no”—that is, this character here—does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters on the sheet have, does it? In fact, the symbol for “no” touches the previous symbol for “general condition”, leaving no spacing. Did you add the word “no” at a later date in a different pencil?
A. No. I do that quite frequently. When something is written above the line in shorthand I raise the adjoining sign as well.
Q. Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which reads: “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent”. The word “is” appeared instead of “somewhat” originally, did it not, before an erasure was made? Didn’t it read originally “Respiration is flatter, moderately frequent”?
A. It still says so: “somewhat frequent; moderately frequent.” I wrote that twice.
Q. Well, now, how does that sentence read?
A. “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25 per minute.”
Q. Did the word “is”, the character for the word “is”, appear in that sentence before a change was made?
A. Which word?
Q. “Is”—“i-s”.
A. No.
Q. Can’t you clearly see in that sentence that the word “is” has been erased and in its place the word “somewhat” has been written, the character “somewhat”?
A. No.
Q. You can’t see that. Did you look at it through the glass, Doctor?
A. In shorthand I write the word “is”—
Q. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word “flatter”, didn’t the word “hardly” appear originally in place of the word “moderately”? The word “hardly” was erased and replaced by “moderately” and then crossed out twice.
A. Here it said “troublesome”.
Q. It says, “respiration flatter”. It could say “hardly frequent” before the changes, couldn’t it?
A. “Hardly moderately” it says here. That means: “Hardly moderately frequent”.
Q. Has the character been changed at all?
A. I said already originally it read “troublesome”.
Q. Have any erasures been made in that sentence?
A. It was written over.
Q. And then crossed out?
A. Yes.
Q. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over, that is now legible, the word “moderately” or is that the word “hardly”?
A. It didn’t read “hardly”. It read: “troublesome”.
Q. Well, which character said “troublesome”, the one that is legible now or the one that has been written over?
A. It is legible; it was “troublesome”.
Q. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eighth paragraph with the words: “Heartbeats very low, poorly audible,” in that sentence has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the character “scarcely” been erased and replaced by “poorly”? I believe the marks of the original symbol for “scarcely” can still be clearly distinguished, can they not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Who made these changes, Doctor? Did you make them yourself?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you make them?
A. I am no longer able to tell you exactly when I made them.
Q. Did you make them at Dachau?
A. No.
Q. Did you make them in Nuernberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you erase these shorthand characters that appear on the fourth line here in Nuernberg?
A. Yes, I did that too.
Q. Now, Doctor, you have had the opportunity to think over during the course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself here in Nuernberg; are you prepared to tell this Tribunal now just why it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?
A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I changed these notes before these sheets were handed in, that is, after they had been returned from Professor Vollhardt. I only made some changes in these stenographic notes, and then I told my defense counsel, whom I had not informed about this—this I want to emphasize—I said to him we should withdraw the weight chart, because I was immediately sorry that I had changed something. I originally intended to submit the weight charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then, when I had committed this thoughtless action, my conscience immediately bothered me, and I told my defense counsel that I should not submit it. But I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as well as in the temperatures, and especially in the case of the weights, they are definitely the original values, as also in the case of the blood pressure. So in what you see here, on the front pages of the chart, nothing has been changed since these charts arrived here.
Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the stenographic notes?
A. Because a person who does not know the condition of thirst would receive a stronger impression of the condition from the description as it was here than the actual condition really was.
Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor? You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection with those alterations if you wish.
A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. As I said, I only intended to submit the charts to show the weights, and not because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am of the opinion that from the weight charts one can definitely recognize, first, how much weight the experimental subject lost; secondly, they reveal unequivocally on which days water was drunk; thirdly, they reveal clearly that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment there was a gain in weight in the case of all the experimental subjects; and, fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases they had again reached their original weight.
Judge Sebring: Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have been erased from many of these charts?
Defendant Beiglboeck: This erasing of names must have been done before. I did not do that here. I did not change anything on the front pages of these charts. It is possible that this already happened in Dachau. I can’t tell you that. It is possible that I erased them later on in Tarvis. I did not erase them here.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Marx: Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your scientific activities have been and in what special field you have taken a particularly great interest, and since when?
Witness Vollhardt: I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfurt and predominantly I have dealt with the questions of circulation, metabolism, blood pressure, and kidney diseases.
Q. Which are the German universities where you have been a lecturer?
A. Halle and Frankfurt.
Q. Are you an author of scientific works regarding this special field of activity?
A. Yes.
Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in foreign languages?
A. Yes, they have been translated into Russian, behind my back.
Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, it would be right to say that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad; so would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have received abroad?
A. I really have to?
Q. Which foreign academies and foreign societies have you been a member of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because my questions pursue certain purposes.
A. I am Honorary Doctor of the Sorbonne, Paris, of Goettingen and Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of them, Medical Society at Edinburgh, at Geneva, at Luxembourg. I am an Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.
Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections they were and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps you might answer the last question first.
A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America, and when I was giving a lecture in Cordoba, Argentina, before a medical congress, I received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my office and the reason given was lack of anti-Semitic attitude.
Q. When was that?
A. 1938.
Q. And since when have you been reinstated and active again?
A. Since 1945.
Q. As a full professor?
A. Yes, as full professor for internal medicine at the University of Frankfurt.
Q. Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of kidney diseases. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst treatment?
A. Yes.
Dr. Marx: Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this expert witness, I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion. There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility, the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that would distort the context and would not give as clear a picture of the situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr. President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an opinion in the form of a lecture first.
Presiding Judge Beals: If counsel would propound to the witness a hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue, and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows, we might proceed as suggested by counsel. The hypothetical question should cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a group of people, a control group, a noncontrol group, and others, then the witness may answer that question without further interruption by counsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on generalities.
Dr. Marx: Very well, Mr. President.
Q. Now, Professor, have you sufficient insight into the planning and carrying out of the so-called sea-water experiments to give an expert opinion on that subject?
Witness Vollhardt: Yes.
Q. What documentary evidence did you have?
A. I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck.
Q. I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the experiments. Are there differences between the character of these sea-water experiments and experiments with artificial infection with malaria and cholera and if there are differences, what are they?
A. You can’t compare the two at all, because in the case of the sea-water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can interrupt so instantaneously, and because the experiments take such a short time that the danger of injury could be excluded with absolute certainty. In the case of artificial infection you cannot do that.
Q. You are saying that in the case of sea-water experiments, providing they are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided with certainty or bordering on certainty.
A. Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty.
Q. I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. I suppose you know of the meeting of 25 May 1944, which was decisive for the planning of the experiments. Did the presence of Professors Eppinger and Heubner guarantee the purely scientific and medically proper treatment of the problem?
A. Undoubtedly it did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an extremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading clinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both of these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be carried out, presumably in order to strengthen the medical men, vis-a-vis, the technicians. Secondly, Eppinger’s idea apparently was that under such stringent experimental conditions, the kidney would suffer to an unusual degree and that Berkatit, which contains vitamins, might assist the work of the kidney.