Was he Hippke's deputy?
A No. He has never been his deputy. His deputy was Generalstabsarzt Weumueller.
Q And did you have the opportunity to observe Professor Schroeder during his assignment as Air Fleet Physician in Berlin, and did you have the opportunity to see him and to talk to him during that period of time?
A Professor Schroeder visited Berlin on very rare occasions only. As far as I can remember, only two or three times. However, I have repeatedly visited him in his various offices because my official duties used me to travel to units at the front in order to obtain information about the extent of dental care and the extent of supplies.
Q Where was that?
A In a part that was in Belgium. And I have also been in Russia, *Smo**** and in Italy and also in Greece.
Q Can you remember approximately if in the year, 1942, you visited him in those areas?
A I had also visited him in 1942, yes.
Q Was he already in Italy at that time?
A Yes, At that time he was already in Italy.
Q Therefore, during a four-year period, Schroeder only visited Berlin two or three times?
A Yes.
Q Because from the beginning of 1940 until the end of '43, he was assigned as Air Fleet Physician?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us something about the fact whether Professor Schroeder, during this period of time, had any official or private contact with the Medical Inspectorate?
A He definitely did not have any contact because whenever I visited him, he repeatedly asked me what actually was going on at the Inspectorate.
Q And were you able to give him any information about that?
A Only as far as my special field was concerned.
A When Professor Schroeder became chief of the medical service, did you also remain referent for medical supplies under him?
A Yes. I remained in this position until the final collapse.
Q What was the collaboration between the referents, the specialist experts and Mr. Schroeder?
A The relationship of the expert specialists among each other and to the Chief was fundamentally changed when Professes Schroeder began to occupy the position of Medical Inspector. While Professor Hippke only had a few of the expert specialists report to him, Professor Schroeder availed himself of every opportunity in order to have direct contact with the expert specialist. I was never told once to report to Professor Hippke, but Professor Schroeder called me to see him very frequently, especially since he showed a special interest in the dental field.
Q Did Dr. Schroeder have special fields in his capacity as Chief of the Medical service to which he devoted his special interest?
A. Professor Schroeder was particularly interested and had shown previously such interest in the establishment of hospitals. At the time of the one-hundred-thousand men Army he worked on that problem at all times. However, he also had a special interest in the medical training of the new medical officers and students, and, further, he was expecially interested in the development of the care for the nursing system, and also for the people who had been discharged, and he also showed a particular interest in dental questions.
Q. I believe you have already stated that he showed a particular interest in your special field. Now you stated that Professor Schroeder had a specially comradeship added to it, and what was also a confirmed thing, his method of entertainment and his attitude during meals?
A. Yes, we had a constant connection with Professor Schroeder as our chief.
Q. Have regular discussion evenings been established?
A. When he took over the office as Inspector, Professor Schroeder immediately established discussion evenings, in which all expert specialists were able to participate in giving reports in their special field, and, also the attitude between the Referent and us became closer, and there was much more comradeship. This was caused in the least by the fact that Professor Schroeder was living with us at the camp, and he took his meals in the noontime and in the evening together with us.
Q. Therefore, general interesting questions from the individual special fields were discussed, and also questions which exceeded these things which were discussed officially and also privately?
A. Yes.
Q. Now was there a certain relationship of confidence exist ing between the individual participants, between and members of the office, and their Chief?
A. Yes. Professor Schroeder gave us an example of comradeship as we had always wished it, and the relationship of the Referents towards each other was filled with much more comradeship than it had previously been.
Q. Were experiments on human beings discussed on such occasions, which had been carried out at some time or other, or at some place?
A. I can remember a discussion which I had with BeckerFreyseng. At one occasion he tell me, and only very briefly while we were walking, that experiments would be carried out in order to make the sea water drinkable. I can still remember that I asked him who was participating in there experiments, and to which he replied, there were persons who had volunteered for this purpose. That is the only thing which I have heard with regard to experiments on human beings.
Q. Were you not more interested in making sea water drinkable?
A. No, this was not within my specialized field, and I did not occupy myself at all with this question.
Q. What is your opinion that Professor Schroeder would have or would not have told you if he had obtained knowledge of experiments which were conducted on human beings in the concentration camps?
A. I am convinced of the fact that he would have told me about that, because of this field which was so far removed from the large field of tasks of the Luftwaffe, and that this would have caused a greater amount of work. I frequently engaged in discussions with Professor Schroeder. They were also of private nature, and he certainly would have told me if this extraordinary difficult field was to be included in his work.
Q. Did he never told you anything about the freezing, or the high altitude experiments?
A. I have never heard anything about them.
A. What was his knowledge about the concentration camps?
A. I could not tell you that, because we never discussed the subject. That is a field of which very little was generally known. We had heard of Dachau and of Orienburg, because of the fact that we were living in Berlin.
Q. Witness, I would now like to ask you, on the basis of your acquaintance for many years with Professor Schroeder, to give us a description of your judgment of him, Dr. Schroeder, as a human being, as a soldier, and as a physician, and, also, about his attitude towards the church, and his general ideaology. However, I must ask you to be as brief as possible, so that this will not take, too much of the time which is made available by the Tribunal.
a. Professor Schroeder for me is the personification of a scientifically striving, ethical and hightly valuable medical office. He has always used good judgment in dealing with persons, and situations, and the added circumstances that he was never engaged in any disputes or competition. Always carried as a hope that at some time he would became Inspector of the medical --- of the entire medical service. This special characteristic of him is due to his high degree of modesty, and the fact that he was very reserved. This was also indicated by the fact that he refused to have his pictures taken.
Politically, regarding his criticism about methods of education in the Third Reich, he always told he his views on that subject. Then there was a strict lack of harmony between his conception of duty and the basic principles of the party.
There were discussions at some times about he had a high degree of what he occasionally considered his reasoning, it was only his fooling that he had to fulfill his duty, and only his care for the medical students, and his specialized work or that he perhaps was paving the way for some false tendency. It was because of this that he has failed to lay down his office. I can not remember that he has over placed the Nazi Ideaology, or any part of it, in the foreground. That at the end of his speeches, which he had make before the staff, he always asked us to perform clean work, and to strictly fulfill our duty, and, he also required us to be an example for Germany.
He even told me that the best time of his professional life was at the time he spent in the one-hundred-thousand non army, where he was influence by political momentum, and he was not influenced by politics at all. His care for the nursing system was well known, and no inspection of the the medical passed without his engaging in discussions with the medical lists of the non, or of the medical non in the service, without his listening to their desires and requests, and as a result of this he was very popular in these circles.
I would like to summarize that he was noble and ethical human being. He was a physician who was continually striving for the better, and he was a very good superior. He was honest, and he strictly had a fooling of fulfilling his proper duty, and he had a profound sense of justice, and he had a pronounced love for the truth and that for me is a picture of the character of Professor Schroeder.
DR. MARX: May it please the Tribunal, I have reached the end of my examination of this witness.
DR. TIPP (for the defendant Becker-Freyseng):
May it please the Tribunal, the witness has also been approved to testify on behalf of Dr. Becker-Freyseng. First he is to testify as to the character; and, second, he is to testify for his activity as a referent in general; third, he is to testify as to the relationship between Dr. Becker-Freyseng and his next higher superior.
I believe that I can assume his activities as a referent has been clarified to a sufficient extent. This has been done by Professor Schroeder as well as by Dr. Augustinick, and therefore I shall not have more questions on this matter to put to the witness.
In order to comply with the ruling of the Tribunal, that not too many character witnesses should testify here for the individual defendants, I also refrain from asking general questions about the character of Dr. BeckerFreyseng.
I, therefore, confine myself to the questions which refer to the relationship of Dr. Becker-Freyseng with his next higher superior.
A. Witness, when did you make the acquaintance of Dr. Becker-Freyseng?
A. Dr. Becker-Freyseng, I believe it was in 1942. He came into the Nodical Inspectorate as an assistant referent. He came into the Department for Aviation Medicine which was directed by Professor Anthony.
Q. And, you were also working in the Department for Aviation Medicine at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And, you worked in the same Medical Department, that is, in the 2nd Medical Department?
A. Yes, in the same department.
Q. Very well -
A. (Interposing) And, our superiors were the same.
Q. Now, we have heard today that the referent did not have the authority to make any decisions; that he only could carry out a prepatory activity; that the decisions were reached in each case by the section head or by the chief of staff or by the medical chief, himself; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And, you know both the section heads?
A. Yes.
Q. The were the superiors of Dr. Becker-Freyseng and yourself?
A. Dr. Martius, and in the end it was Oberstarzt Merz.
Q. Now, can you tell us what specialized training had been given to these gentlemen whom you have just mentioned?
A. First of all Dr. Martius was a Pathologist, formerly in the old Army, and I do not know who his predecessor was Morz was a ENT physician; no, he was an eye physician, and he came from the front where he was also a pilot. He had obtained a large amount of knowledge of aviation problems.
Q. And, therefore, both of these men were in a certain way experts on the questions of aviation medicine?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Now, what was your personal attitude? Were you very critical or did you frequently, personally, intervene in the decisions?
A. If you asked me that in such a way, then I must say it was not easy to work together with them. Both of these men were really critical, and they were very exact to the last small details, and they were very hard in their criticism of drafts which had chosen submitted to them.
Q. Were those criticisms and these interferences limited to things of a purely formal nature or did they also intervene in decisions which had been made in certain special work?
A. Both men, I assume, acted in the same way with Dr. Becker-Freyseng as they acted toward me, and they always participated in the work to a high degree.
Q. Well, that can be assumed, because as you have just stated, both men were also experts in the field of aviation medicine, but not on your field?
A. No.
Q Well, I believe that question has been clarified now. You have stated that both these men also included themselves in the decisions which were reached in the special fields?
A Yes, very intensively.
Q Therefore, the referent in your department was not in any way independent?
AA referent in your department was not in any way could only carry out the preliminary work which was finally signed by the section head and was passed on as a draft.
Q And, you also know I Professor Anthony, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And, you know that Becker-Freyseng was assistant referent under Professor Anthony?
A. Yes.
A Do you knew how long he carried on this activity?
A. I believe that Anthony left in the beginning of 1944.
Q Could it be correct that he left in May 1944?
A Yes, it was around that period of time.
Q Very well, now, how was Professor Anthony? Was he very active?
A I believe that Professor Anthony would have not agreed that Becker-Freyseng should not do anything independently, and as far as I know, Professor Anthony was not willing to hand any of his own authority over to nobody else.
Q Now, my last final question, Witness. It has been stated here by the Prosecution that Dr. Becker-Freyseng in his position as referent had issued orders; that he issued them to Oberstabsarzt Dr. Haagen, the Director of Hygienic Institute of the University of Strassburg. Is it possible that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was able to issue such orders? Can you tell us anything about it?
A That is completely out of the question because a referent does not have the authority to issue orders. He was only able to make pre parations in some field of work but otherwise it would not have been possible for him to cause anybody to comply with his orders.
Q Therefore, it was impossible for Dr. Becker-Freyseng to issue such an order to Haagen?
A Yes, that is completely out of the question.
DR. TIPP: I have no more questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution may cross examine the witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HARDY:
Q Witness, if I understood you correctly, you stated that the defendant Schroeder told you account the sea-water experiment; is that correct?
A Dr. Becker-Freyseng told me that.
Q When did he tell you that?
A That must have been on the occasion of a visit of Dr. Schaefer at Saalew. I still remember that I inquired on the way to our barracks who was the visitor, the officer who had been here today; and, BeckerFreyseng told me that was a certain Dr. Schaefer who had discovered a new method for rendering sea water drinkable.
Q Where were you when he told you that?
A That was when we were walking between our barracks, from our office barracks to our barracks which we inhabited.
Q At Berlin?
A Yes, at Saalow.
Q What did he tell you about this sea-water experiment?
A He told me that aviators who were adrift at sea, that the possibility was to be given to them to convert sea water drinking water.
Q Who else was there? Was any one else there when he told you this?
A. No.
Q Did he tell you how they were going to conduct the experiment?
A. No. Three minutes later we arrived at our barracks, and at that our conversation ended.
Q You are a dentist, are you not?
A Yes.
Q You are not a scientist?
A No.
Q And, Becker-Freyseng actually had no reason to tell you about this, did he?
A No, I only asked him because I was curious about the personality of the physician who had been there. However, I am convinced that if such an experiment on human beings had been carried out that Becker-Freyseng would have also told me something about it because since we were living in the same barracks, we frequently discussed all possible questions in the evening.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no further questioning of this witness, the witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused).
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, before Dr. Marx proceeds with his introduction of his documents from document book No. 1, I have noticed that several of these documents are character reference affidavits, and in keeping with the ruling recently made by Tribunal II, whereby they ruled that certain documents of this nature can be incorporated into the record, without necessitating the reading of them before the open court. I have not had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Mars, but I suggest that we could complete this case more expeditiously if such a procedure of this nature would be followed. When he come to each document he might summarize it as to what it might be. It might be advan tageous if he stated or summarized it without reading it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal %...uld !ae inaccrd with the suggestion made by counsel for the prosecution. If counsel for the defense desires simply to note the exhibit, the document number, and have it introduced as the exhibit, giving a brief resume of that document, it may be received in evidence without reading.
DR MARX: May it please the Tribunal, I naturally whall try to limit the presentation of the documents as much as possible. However, it is impossible for the defense also to fail thread certain important places in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel is entirely correct. It was not the intention of the Tribunal to limit the reading of important documents. I was referring merely to character affidavits.
DR. MARX: May it please the Tribunal; Mr President, the documents which I take upon myself to read fall into various groups. The numbers 1 to 3 contain descriptions of three priests on various confessions. It is an affidavit of the president of the Central Committee for the Internal Miss on of the German Protestant Church, Dr. Frick; a statement by the Apostlic Protonotar prelate Dr. Kreutz, who is president of the Charity Association of the Catholic Church; and an affidavit by the Jesuit Priest Ernst Lutze. These priests, Frick and Kreutz, know Prof. Schroeder from their common with the German Hospital Society, in which all of them were engaged. Mr. Lutze, who is a Jesuit priest, was a private first class in the medical service during the war; and he knew Prof. Schroeder when he was the medical officer of Air Fleet 2. These three priests have two confessions; and, though Schroeder himself ..../... is a Protestant, they make statements about the generally clear, human and positive attitude of Dr. Schroeder towards religion and his refutation of national socialism and its forcible methods.
The second group contains well-known scientists, who certify about the professional activity and the professional concepts of Professor Schroeder. In the third group of the documents I have taken it upon myself to present a number of documents which indicate the non-participation of Schroeder in the experiments with which he has been charged, about hepatitis, typhus, and similar other experiments.
MR. HARDY: Do I understand correctly that Dr. Marx at this time is offering exhibits 1, 2, and 3, or is he merely explaining that he is going to offer them, and offer them separately later?
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel was simply explaining the documents to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Thank You.
DR. MARX: That is the stage of affairs, Mr. President; and I only wanted to show into what groups the document book is divided. I am also of the opinion that this was clearly indicated. From the affidavit of Pastor Frick I take it upon myself to read tho following, which is Paragraph 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I understand that you are offering this document as an exhibit in the case and reading from it?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: I offer the affidavit of the Pastor Frick as Exhibit 1; and I read the following from that document:
"Prof. Schroeder was known to me at that time in my office as president of the Central Committee for the Internal Mission of the German Protestant Church and as a member of the advisory board of the German Hospital Association. On official occasions we had manifold contacts so that I also became acquainted with him personally; and he won my esteem. I not only learned about the absolutely critical attitude he showed towards national socialism and its dangers and damages but also that he was a convinced Christian. In spite of the fact that he was watched by the well-known Nazi system of informers wherever he went and even in his private life, he never made a secret of his conviction and even admitted it in public with the greatest courage and did not hesitate to interfere on behalf of the Protestant Church, the Internal Mission, and the confessional orders of Sisters."
I request that this document be admitted in evidence; and it will become Exhibit 1 of my document book. I now come to the affidavit of the Prelate Dr. Kreutz.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I must object to the admission of this document into evidence. This document here does not comply with the regulations of the Tribunal in that an affidavit must be duly sworn to, either by a notary or in the presence of a defense counsel; and on the face of this document, it is merely certified to be a correct copy of the letter by the defense counsel and does not indicate whether or not any oath was given or whether this was signed in the presence of a witness in lieu of an oath. It is merely a signed statement and doesn't bear any assemblance to a document which would be admissible here.
DR. MARX: May it please the Tribunal, the objection on the part of the prosecution is justified in itself because the document does not comply with the rulings which the Tribunal has fixed for an affidavit. However, it can be declared admissible as evidence if the previous exchange of letters and correspondence is submitted and if it is stated for what reasons the Prelate Dr. Kreutz refused to give an affidavit. I therefore, request that I be given permission briefly to give information on the exchange of correspondence which preceded this statement; or may I read the letter which Dr. Kreutz addressed to me?
MR. HARDY: I might add at this time, your Honor, that Dr. Marx has two or three other documents of a similar nature in his document book; and it might be well that we take them all up at the same time and avoid my having to make objections later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has promulgated rules for the admission of these documents and that is that they be made under oath or by way of a statement in lieu of oath; and this document, at least, complies with neither one of those regulations.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, here we deal with an Apostolic Protonotar and Prelate of the Catholic Church, who, solely on the basis of religious considerations, has refused to give an affidavit. After all, there cannot be any doubt that this statement conforms to the true*; and I therefore request permission to submit the correspondence which was written by Dr. Kreutz and myself in this matter and which indicates for what reasons Dr. Kreutz has refused to give a statement in lieu of an oath.
THE PRESIDENT: This precise question was presented to the Tribunal with a similar statement by a Catholic Protonotar a few days since; and the affidavit was rejected because it was neither made under oath nor did it contain any statement that it was made in lieu of an oath, under knowledge of the penalties of perjury for false swearing, or words to that effect. Is counsel aware of any legal authority for the admission of any such document as this? Any legal precedent or authority?
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I believe that if the correspondence containing the reasons for this were submitted, then the exhibit which has been offered would exceptionally be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel aware of any authority in German law for the admission of such a statement as this? The Tribunal would examine the correspondence referred to by counsel. Counsel will hand that correspondence to the Secretary General and the Tribunal will examine it. I assume, however, it is in the German language. Are there translations from German?
DR. MARX: No, we do not have the translation, Mr. President; but this could be done now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be glad if counsel will during the noon recess ascertain whether or not there is any provision in German law for the admission in evidence of such a statement as this. The Tribunal will again consider the matter when the Tribunal meets at 1:30. The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, as for the statement of Prelate Dr. Kreutz, I should like to withdraw it. The affidavit of Pastor Frick and of Ernst Lutze has confirmed these facts sufficiently.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if counsel procures the affidavit in another form, it may be offered later.
DR. MARX: Very well, I understand, Mr. President. I shall take the liberty if it is possible to offer the document later.
The following documents from 3 to 9 are affidavits of a number of scientists, of well-known scientists, with whom the defendant Schroeder worked for years. They testified to professor Schroeder's attitude toward the medical profession, science, and research, and in addition gave information about his attitude as a human being and his attitude toward the party.
I shall take the liberty of reading from the affidavit of Professor H. Buerkly De La Camp. This is on page 12 of the document book and it says on page 1, at the very bottom, the first paragraph:
"1. Mr. Schroeder had a very high conception of the profession of physician. He was one of the few high-ranking medical officers who were not only administrative officials of the medical service and superior officers, but who kept the standard of the medical profession high and who had remained physicians. I never again during the whole war met another highranking active medical officer who had such a deep and thorough understanding as Mr. Schroeder, although I came in contact with a very great number of these high-ranking medical officers."
I shall omit the last part but the next paragraph reads:
"I should like to stress especially, as regards the treatment of wounded prisoners of war, he always judged from the physician's point of view and always did everything and had everything done that was within his reach and that was possible in order to help the wounded prisoners.
"The hospitals within the jurisdiction of Airfleet 2 were exemplary. Mr. Schroeder's visits to hospitals were always welcomed by the physicians because he inspected the hospitals, their installations, and work as a physician and not as a superior officer."
And then I should like to speak of the political attitude of Mr. Schroeder as this witness sees it. It says that he had nothing to do with national socialism or any outgrowth of national socialism.
I offer this affidavit as Exhibit - I offered the Lutze affidavit as Exhibit No. 2 and Buerkle De La Camp affidavit as Exhibit No. 3. I ask that both exhibits be admitted.
The following affidavit of Professor Dr. Huenermann I offer in evidence and I would give it exhibit No. 4. I ask that this exhibit be admitted in evidence.
MR. HARDY: This Document No. 5 is similar to Exhibit No. 2, which does not contain any jurat as perscribed by the rules and regulations of the Tribunal, and, therefore, I object to the submission of this document in evidence.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, unfortunately, it was not added in the document that the Huenermann affidavit was certified by a notary at Dusseldorf.
MR. HARDY: I will withdraw my objection.
DR. MARX: The next affidavit is an affidavit of Professor Dr. H. Siegmund, Director of the Pathological Institute in Muenster, Westphalia. He is a Professor at the University of Muenster. This affidavit also deals with Schroeder's attitude toward the medical profession and the medical ethics. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document No. 6?
DR. MARX: Yes, in my document book it is No. 6. It will be given exhibit number 5, because one affidavit was left out of this statement, being Dr. Kreutz.
The next affidavit is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Strughold.
Mr. President, this Professor Strughold is a man who worked with Professor Schroeder for many years. Professor Strughold was in the United States for many years. He knows the American Universities from New England to the Middle West and now again he is working in a high position at the American Aviation Medical Institute at Heidelberg. He will be called to the United States again. I think that this affidavit has particular importance since Professor Strughold is well known for his reserve in judging other people and I believe that his words should be given special weight, because of his international reputation.
I merely offer this affidavit in Evidence as No. 6, Exhibit No. 6.
The next document is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Weski. Processor Dr. Weski lives in Berlin. He has also testified to his knowledge of the character and professional attitude of Dr. Schroeder. I offer this affidavit in evidence as Exhibit No. 7.