Python Programming Exercises Gently Explained Al

Sweigart download

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-exercises-
gently-explained-al-sweigart-49467034

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Python Programming Learn Python In A Week And Master It An Handson

Introduction To Computer Programming And Algorithms A Projectbased
Guide With Practical Exercises Computer Programming Academy Computer
Programming Academy
https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-learn-python-in-a-
week-and-master-it-an-handson-introduction-to-computer-programming-
and-algorithms-a-projectbased-guide-with-practical-exercises-computer-
programming-academy-computer-programming-academy-35391376

Python Programming For Beginners Crash Course With Handson Exercises

Including Numpy Pandas And Matplotlib Ibnul Jaif Farabi

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-for-beginners-crash-
course-with-handson-exercises-including-numpy-pandas-and-matplotlib-
ibnul-jaif-farabi-47378174

Python Programming Mastery A Comprehensive Beginners Journey Through

Practical Exercises Chloe Annable

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-mastery-a-
comprehensive-beginners-journey-through-practical-exercises-chloe-
annable-57498174

Python Programming For Beginners Python Mastery In 7 Days Topsecret

Coding Tips With Handson Exercises For Your Dream Job 1st Edition
Oswald Thornton

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-for-beginners-python-
mastery-in-7-days-topsecret-coding-tips-with-handson-exercises-for-
your-dream-job-1st-edition-oswald-thornton-55556426
Python Programming For Beginners 2 Books In 1 The Ultimate Stepbystep
Guide To Learn Python Programming Quickly With Practical Exercises
Mark Reed

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-for-
beginners-2-books-in-1-the-ultimate-stepbystep-guide-to-learn-python-
programming-quickly-with-practical-exercises-mark-reed-43835132

Python Programming For Beginners The Definitive Guide With Handson

Exercises And Secret Coding Tips Maxwell Ernstrom

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-for-beginners-the-
definitive-guide-with-handson-exercises-and-secret-coding-tips-
maxwell-ernstrom-55556946

Python Programming For Beginners From Basics To Ai Integrations

5minute Illustrated Tutorials Coding Hacks Handson Exercises Case
Studies To Master Python In 7 Days And Get Paid More Prince

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-for-beginners-from-
basics-to-ai-integrations-5minute-illustrated-tutorials-coding-hacks-
handson-exercises-case-studies-to-master-python-in-7-days-and-get-
paid-more-prince-54975116

Python Programming Bible 3 In 1 The Complete Crash Course To Learn And

Explore Python Beyond The Basics Including Examples And Practical
Exercises To Master Python From Beginners To Pro James P Meyers

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-bible-3-in-1-the-
complete-crash-course-to-learn-and-explore-python-beyond-the-basics-
including-examples-and-practical-exercises-to-master-python-from-
beginners-to-pro-james-p-meyers-56059682

Python Programming The Ultimate Beginners Guide To Python Language

Fundamentals A Crash Course With Stepbystep Exercises John Russel

https://ebookbell.com/product/python-programming-the-ultimate-
beginners-guide-to-python-language-fundamentals-a-crash-course-with-
stepbystep-exercises-john-russel-53747934
PYTHON
PROGRAMMING
EXERCISES,
GENTLY EXPLAINED

AL SWEIGART
AUTHOR OF AUTOMATE THE BORING STUFF WITH PYTHON

INVENTWITHPYTHON.COM

FORWARD BY TREY HUNNER

Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained.

Copyright © 2022 by Al Sweigart. All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any
information storage or retrieval system, beyond the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license without the
prior written permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN-13: 979-8-3553-8768-6

Cover Illustration: Al Sweigart

For information about this book and its content, please contact
[email protected].

First printing.

The information in this book is distributed on an "As Is" basis, without warranty.
While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this work, the
author shall not have any liability for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be
caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. For a copy of this license,
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
 DEDICATION

To Laura and Alexandra, and the rest of the next generation.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Exercise #1: Hello, World! ................................................................................................. 5
Exercise #2: Temperature Conversion ............................................................................... 8
Exercise #3: Odd & Even ................................................................................................. 11
Exercise #4: Area & Volume ............................................................................................ 13
Exercise #5: Fizz Buzz ..................................................................................................... 16
Exercise #6: Ordinal Suffix .............................................................................................. 19
Exercise #7: ASCII Table ................................................................................................. 23
Exercise #8: Read Write File ............................................................................................ 26
Exercise #9: Chess Square Color...................................................................................... 28
Exercise #10: Find and Replace ....................................................................................... 30
Exercise #11: Hours, Minutes, Seconds ........................................................................... 34
Exercise #12: Smallest & Biggest .................................................................................... 38
Exercise #13: Sum & Product .......................................................................................... 41
Exercise #14: Average ...................................................................................................... 44
Exercise #15: Median ....................................................................................................... 46
Exercise #16: Mode .......................................................................................................... 49
Exercise #17: Dice Roll .................................................................................................... 52
Exercise #18: Buy 8 Get 1 Free ........................................................................................ 54
Exercise #19: Password Generator ................................................................................... 58
Exercise #20: Leap Year................................................................................................... 62
Exercise #21: Validate Date ............................................................................................. 65
Exercise #22: Rock, Paper, Scissors ................................................................................. 68
Exercise #23: 99 Bottles of Beer ...................................................................................... 70
Exercise #24: Every 15 Minutes ....................................................................................... 74
Exercise #25: Multiplication Table .................................................................................. 76
Exercise #26: Handshakes ................................................................................................ 79
Exercise #27: Rectangle Drawing .................................................................................... 82
 Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained

Exercise #28: Border Drawing ......................................................................................... 85

Exercise #29: Pyramid Drawing ....................................................................................... 88
Exercise #30: 3D Box Drawing........................................................................................ 91
Exercise #31: Convert Integers To Strings ....................................................................... 95
Exercise #32: Convert Strings To Integers ....................................................................... 98
Exercise #33: Comma-Formatted Numbers ................................................................... 101
Exercise #34: Uppercase Letters .................................................................................... 104
Exercise #35: Title Case ................................................................................................. 107
Exercise #36: Reverse String ......................................................................................... 110
Exercise #37: Change Maker.......................................................................................... 114
Exercise #38: Random Shuffle ....................................................................................... 117
Exercise #39: Collatz Sequence ..................................................................................... 120
Exercise #40: Merging Two Sorted Lists ....................................................................... 123
Exercise #41: ROT 13 Encryption ................................................................................. 127
Exercise #42: Bubble Sort .............................................................................................. 130
Appendix A: Solutions ................................................................................................... 134
About the Author ............................................................................................................ 152
 FORWARD
I met Al Sweigart on a chilly April day in Montreal, Canada. It was PyCon 2015 and I got
together for lunch with a few new conference friends—including Al. I immediately clicked with him
because he’s a teacher, he enjoys playing with ideas, he’s concerned about the world, and he has an
absurd (read: wonderful) sense of humor. When I met Al, I didn't know he was famous, and neither
did he. It was during another meal when a reader of Automate the Boring Stuff with Python who had been
sitting with us discovered that the Al at our table was the Al Sweigart.
New conference friend: ―Wait, you’re Al Sweigart? Your book is amazing!‖
Me: ―Al, you didn’t tell me you were famous.‖
Al: ―I didn’t know I was famous either!‖
If this book is your first introduction to Al, you should know that he’s a pragmatic Python
programmer who is marvelous at embracing Python’s power to churn out code that solves real world
problems. I don't always agree with Al’s code style choices (camelCase in Python, Al?!) but Al
comments his code clearly and breaks down problems succinctly, and I know many Python
programmers who were introduced to the beauty of Python through Al’s work.
So now you know that I'm in the Al Sweigart fan club. But who am I, and why am I writing the
forward for this book?
My name is Trey Hunner. I’m a Python team trainer and I run Python Morsels, which helps
Python developers grow their skills through Python exercises and detailed solution walk-throughs. I
started a Python exercise service because I know that the most important part of my team training
sessions is exercise time.
In fact, there’s a mantra I repeat to my students before every Python exercise session: We don’t
learn by putting information into our heads; we learn by trying to retrieve information from our
heads.
Learning happens when we attempt to use our memory. Whether we're remembering rote facts,
practicing muscle memory, or attempting to identify which tool in our mental toolbox applies to the
situation at hand. You can watch YouTube videos on Python all you want, but you’ll quickly forget
each new Python feature you see unless you actually use those features in your own code.
If you want to learn Python, you need to write Python code. That’s where Python exercises (and
this book) come in. You can't grow your Python skills by writing yet another ―hello world‖ program.
You need to write code that pushes you just outside your learning comfort zone (―the zone of
proximal development‖, as learning nerds call it).
I hope you'll find a few exercises that push you out of your comfort zone in this short book—
written by the Al Sweigart.
Trey Hunner, https://treyhunner.com/
Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained
 INTRODUCTION

―How can I get better at programming?‖ I see this common question often from those who have
started their programming journey. Of course, there are plenty of Python programming tutorials for
total beginners. However, these tutorials can carry the reader so far. After finishing these lessons,
readers often find their skills more than capable for yet another ―Hello, world!‖ tutorial but not
advanced enough to begin writing their own programs. They find themselves in the so-called ―tutorial
hell.‖ They learn the basic syntax of a programming language, but wonder where to begin when it
comes to applying them to their own programs.
Programming is like any other skill: it gets better with practice. I’ve chosen the exercises in this
book because they are short and straightforward. Each exercise involves only a handful of
programming concepts and you can solve them in a single session at the computer. If you’ve been
intimidated by ―competitive programming‖ or ―hacker challenge‖ websites, you’ll find these to be an
instructive and gentler way to level up your coding skills.
When I wrote Automate the Boring Stuff with Python, I wanted to teach programming to as many
non-programmers as possible. So, I released that book (and all of my other programming books)
under a Creative Commons license so they could be downloaded and shared for free from my website
https://inventwithpython.com. You can pay for a physical print book but it’s important to me to lower all
barriers to access, so the books are available online for free. I’ll cite some of these books in the
Further Reading section of the exercises in this book.

What Will This Book Do For You?

This book offers 42 programming exercises for inexperienced Python programmers. I’ve
gathered them into this book and combined them with plain-English explanations. You can read the
description for each exercise and start on the solution immediately. If you need further help, you can
read about the programming concepts you’ll need to know for the solution. You can also find out
about any surprising ―gotchas‖ you might encounter while writing your solution. Finally, if you still
need help, I provide a fill-in-the-blank template of the solution. Try to resist the temptation to
immediately jump to the hints; try to solve these exercises yourself first.
As you work through these exercises, you’ll find that some use the same coding techniques as
other problems. A lot of programming expertise develops this way: being able to solve a problem isn’t
about how smart you are but if you’ve seen similar problems before. My aim isn’t to stump you with
complex, contrived programming challenges but help you explore simple problems with gentle
explanations.

Prerequisites
While this isn’t a book to teach programming to complete beginners, you don’t need to be a
programming expert before tackling the challenges here. Any beginner’s resource, such as one of my
free books, Automate the Boring Stuff with Python or Invent Your Own Computer Games with Python, is more

1
 Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained

than enough to prepare you for these exercises. You can find these books for free at
https://inventwithpython.com. I also recommend Python Crash Course by Eric Matthes as an excellent book
for people with no programming experience. These books are published by No Starch Press, which
has an extensive library of high-quality Python books at https://nostarch.com/catalog/python.
To solve the exercises in this book, you should already know, or at least be familiar with, the
following Python programming concepts:
 Downloading and installing the Python interpreter
 Entering Python code into the interactive shell and into .py source code files
 Storing values in variables with the = assignment operator
 Knowing the difference between data types such as integers, strings, and floats
 Math, comparison, and Boolean operators such as +, <=, and not.
 How Python evaluates expressions such as (2 * 3) + 4 or 'Sun' + 'day'
 Getting and displaying text with the input() and print() functions
 Working with strings and string methods such as upper() or startswith()
 Using if, elif, and else flow control statements
 Using for loops and while loops, along with break and continue statements
 Defining your own functions with parameters and returning values
 Using data structures such as lists, tuples, and dictionaries
 Importing modules such as math or random to use their functions
You don’t need a mastery of classes and object-oriented programming. You don’t need to know
advanced concepts such as machine learning or data science. But if you’d like to eventually build your
skills to advanced topics like these, this book can help you start along that path.
Even if you’ve moved past the beginner stage, this book can help you assess your programming
ability. By the time you’re ready to start applying to junior software developer positions, you should be
able to solve all of the exercises in this book easily.

About the Exercises

The exercises are generally ordered from least to most difficult. But you don’t have to solve them
in order, so feel free to jump around to any exercises that you find interesting.
Each exercise has the following sections:
 Exercise Description – A description of the exercise, followed by a list of assert
statements that specify the results it expects from your solution program. There is also a list
of prerequisite concepts you’ll need to understand to solve this exercise. If you don’t
understand any of them, you can do an internet search of these terms along with ―Python‖
to find explanations of them. This is the only section you need to read to solve the exercise.
The later sections provide additional hints if you need them.
 Solution Design – Additional information about concepts you’ll need to know to write a
solution, along with a brief, gentle explanation of them.

2
 Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained

 Special Cases and Gotchas – Describes common mistakes or surprising ―gotchas‖ you
may encounter when writing code for the solution. Some exercises have special cases that
your solution will need to address.
 Solution Template – A copy of my own solution for the exercise, with selected parts
replaced by blanks for you to fill in. Your solution can still be correct if it doesn’t match
mine. But if you’re having trouble knowing where to start with your program, these
templates provide some but not all of the solution code.
Many solution programs to the exercises in this book are only a few lines of code long, and none
of them are longer than 50 lines. If you find yourself writing several hundred lines of code, you’re
probably overthinking the solution and should probably read the Exercise Description section
again.
Each exercise has several assert statements that detail the expected results from your solution.
In Python, assert statements are the assert keyword followed by a condition. They stop the
program with an AssertionError if their condition is False. They are a basic sanity check and,
for this book, tell you the expected behavior of your solution. For example, Exercise #3, ―Odd &
Even‖ has assert isOdd(9999) == True, which tells you that the correct solution involves the
isOdd() function returning True when passed an argument of 9999. Examine all of the assert
statements for an exercise before writing your solution program.
Some exercises don’t have assert statements, but rather show you the output that your
solution should produce. You can compare this output to your solution’s output to verify that your
solution is correct.
I provide complete solutions in Appendix A. But there are many ways to solve any given
programming problem. You don’t need to produce an identical copy of my solutions; it just needs to
pass the assert statements. I wrote my solutions to be conceptually simple and easy for the
intended audience of this book to understand. They produce correct results but aren’t necessarily the
fastest or most efficient solutions. As you get more experience programming, you can revisit the
exercises in this book and attempt to write high-performance solutions to them.

3
 Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained

Most of the solutions involve writing functions that return values based on the arguments passed
to the function call. In these cases, you can write your code assuming that the arguments are always of
the expected data type. So for example, if your function expects an integer, it will have to handle
arguments like 42, 0, or -3 but doesn’t have to handle arguments like 3.14 or 'hello'.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between a parameter and an argument. When we define a
function such as Exercise #3’s def isOdd(number):, the local variable number is a parameter.
When we call this function with isOdd(42), the integer 42 is an argument. The argument is passed to
the function and assigned as the value to the parameter. It’s easy to use ―parameter‖ and ―argument‖
interchangeably, but this book uses them in their correct technical sense.
Python is a practical language with many helpful functions in its standard library. Some exercises
will explicitly forbid you from using these functions. For example, Exercise #34, ―Uppercase Letters‖
tasks you to write code to convert a string to uppercase letters. Using Python’s built-in upper()
string method to do this for you would defeat the purpose of the exercise, so the Exercise
Description section points out that your solution shouldn’t call it.
I recommend solving the exercises in this book repeatedly until it becomes effortless. If you can
solve an exercise once, try solving it again a couple of weeks later or without looking at the hints in
the later sections. After a while, you’ll find yourself quickly being able to come up with strategies to
solve these exercises.
Let’s begin!

4
 EXERCISE #1: HELLO, WORLD!

print('Hello, world!') → Hello, world!

―Hello, world!‖ is a common first program to write when learning any programming language. It
makes the text ―Hello, world!‖ appear on the screen. While not much of a program, it serves as a
simple test for whether the programmer has the language interpreter correctly installed, the computer
environment set up, and a basic understanding of how to write a complete program.
This exercise adds an additional step to collect keyboard input from the user. You’ll also need to
concatenate (that is, join together) string values to greet the user by name. The exercises in this book
are for those with some experience writing programs, so if this exercise is currently beyond your skill
level, I’d recommend reading some of the beginner resources I discussed in the Prerequisites section
of the Introduction.

Exercise Description
Write a program that, when run, greets the user by printing ―Hello, world!‖ on the screen. Then it
prints a message on the screen asking the user to enter their name. The program greets the user by
name by printing the ―Hello,‖ followed by the user’s name.
Let’s use ―Alice‖ as the example name. Your program’s output should look like this:
Hello, world!
What is your name?
Alice
Hello, Alice

Try to write a solution based on the information in this description. If you still have trouble
solving this exercise, read the Solution Design and Special Cases and Gotchas sections for
additional hints.
Prerequisite concepts: print(), strings, string concatenation

5
 Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained

Solution Design
There is no surprising design to the solution. It is a straightforward four-line program:
1. Print the text, ―Hello, world!‖
2. Print the text, ―What is your name?‖
3. Let the user enter their name and store this in a variable.
4. Print the text ―Hello,‖ followed by their name.
The program calls Python’s print() function to display string values on the screen. As always,
the quotes of the string aren’t displayed on the screen because those aren’t part of the string value’s
text, but rather mark where the string begins and ends in the source code of the program. The
program calls Python’s input() function to get the user input from the keyboard and stores this in a
variable.
The + operator is used to add numeric values like integers or floating-point numbers together,
but it can also create a new string value from the concatenation of two other string values.

Special Cases and Gotchas

Make sure that there is a space before printing the user’s name. If the user entered ―Alice‖, the
program should print 'Hello, Alice' and not 'Hello,Alice'.
Now try to write a solution based on the information in the previous sections. If you still have
trouble solving this exercise, read the Solution Template section for additional hints.

Solution Template
Try to first write a solution from scratch, But if you have difficulty, you can use the following
partial program as a starting place. Copy the following code from https://invpy.com/helloworld-template.py
and paste it into your code editor. Replace the underscores with code to make a working program:
# Print "Hello, world!" on the screen:
____('Hello, world!')
# Ask the user for their name:
____('What is your name?')
# Get the user's name from their keyboard input:
name = ____()
# Greet the user by their name:
print('Hello, ' + ____)

The complete solution for this exercise is given in Appendix A and https://invpy.com/helloworld.py.
You can view each step of this program as it runs under a debugger at https://invpy.com/helloworld-
debug/.

Further Reading
A ―Hello, world!‖ program is a good target program to create when learning a new programming
language. Most languages have a concept of standard streams for text-based, command-line
programs. These programs have a stream of input text and a stream of output text. The stream of
output text the program produces appears on the screen (via print() in Python). The stream of

6
 Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained

input text the program accepts comes from the keyboard (via input() in Python). The main benefit
of streams is that you can redirect them: the text output can go to a file instead of the screen, or a
program’s input can come from the output of another program instead of the keyboard. You can
learn more about the command-line interface, also called terminal windows, in the free book ―Beyond the
Basic Stuff with Python‖ at https://inventwithpython.com/beyond/. Command-line programs tend to be
simpler than graphical programs, and you can find nearly a hundred such programs in the free book,
The Big Book of Small Python Projects at https://inventwithpython.com/bigbookpython/.

7
 EXERCISE #2: TEMPERATURE
CONVERSION

convertToCelsius(32) → 0.0
convertToFahrenheit(100) → 212

Converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit involves a basic calculation and provides a good
exercise for writing functions that take in a numeric input and return a numeric output. This exercise
tests your ability to use Python’s math operators and translate math equations into Python code.

Exercise Description
Write a convertToFahrenheit() function with a degreesCelsius parameter. This
function returns the number of this temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. Then write a function named
convertToCelsius() with a degreesFahrenheit parameter and returns a number of this
temperature in degrees Celsius.
Use these two formulas for converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit:
 Fahrenheit = Celsius × (9 / 5) + 32
 Celsius = (Fahrenheit - 32) × (5 / 9)
These Python assert statements stop the program if their condition is False. Copy them to
the bottom of your solution program. Your solution is correct if the following assert statements’
conditions are all True:
assert convertToCelsius(0) == -17.77777777777778
assert convertToCelsius(180) == 82.22222222222223
assert convertToFahrenheit(0) == 32
assert convertToFahrenheit(100) == 212
assert convertToCelsius(convertToFahrenheit(15)) == 15

# Rounding errors cause a slight discrepancy:

assert convertToCelsius(convertToFahrenheit(42)) == 42.00000000000001

Try to write a solution based on the information in this description. If you still have trouble
solving this exercise, read the Solution Design and Special Cases and Gotchas sections for
additional hints.

8
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 A. Twice.
Q. I will ask you to step down and walk over to the defendants’
dock and see whether or not you find the man Gebhardt sitting in
the dock.
(The witness complied and pointed to the defendant Gebhardt.)
Thank you. Sit down.
I will ask that the record show that the witness properly
identified the defendant Gebhardt.
Presiding Judge Beals: The record will show that the witness
identified the defendant Gebhardt in the dock.
Mr. McHaney: I have no further questions at this time.
Presiding Judge Beals: Will Dr. Alexander again be put on the stand
in connection with the examination of this witness?
Mr. McHaney: Yes, but if there is any cross-examination we can
probably finish that before lunch.
Presiding Judge Beals: Do any of the defense counsel desire to
cross-examine this witness?
Dr. Seidl (counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and
Fischer): I do not intend to cross-examine this witness, but this does
not mean that my clients admit the correctness of all statements
made by this witness.
Presiding Judge Beals: Does any other of the defense counsel
desire to examine the witness?
(No response.)

EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION EXPERT

WITNESS DR. LEO ALEXANDER[46]
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: Doctor, can you express any opinion as to the

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

[43]
Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July
1947, pp. 10874-10910.
[44]
Dr. Maczka appeared as witness before the Tribunal, 10
January 1947, Tr. pp. 1430-1462.
[45]
Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed
transcript, 20 Dec. 1946, pp. 815-832.
[46]
This testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20
Dec. 1946, pp. 832-838.

7. SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder,
Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-
Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck were charged with special
responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving sea-
water experiments (par. 6 (G) of the indictment). In the course of
the trial the prosecution withdrew the charge in the case of
Mrugowsky. On this charge the defendants Schroeder, Gebhardt,
Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Beiglboeck were convicted and the
defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Rudolf Brandt,
Poppendick, and Schaefer were acquitted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sea-water
experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant
Schroeder. Extracts from that brief are set forth below on pages 419
to 443. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense
on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the
defendant Schroeder and from the closing brief for the defendant
Beiglboeck. It appears below on pages 434 to 446. This
argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages
447 to 494.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT

SCHROEDER

Sea-Water Experiments

On 19 May 1944 a conference was held at the German Air

Ministry which was attended by Christensen, Schickler, Becker-
Freyseng, and Schaefer, among others. This conference was
concerned with the problem of the potability of sea-water. Two
methods of making sea-water drinkable were then available to the
Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called Schaefer
method, had been chemically tested and apparently produced
potable sea-water. It had the disadvantage, however, of requiring
substantial amounts of silver which was available only in limited
quantities. The second method, so-called Berkatit, was a substance
which changed the taste of sea-water but did not remove the salt. It
had the advantage of simplicity of manufacture and use.
At the conference on 19 May the defendant Becker-Freyseng
reported on certain clinical experiments which had been conducted
by von Sirany to test Berkatit. He came to the conclusion that the
experiments had not been conducted under sufficiently realistic
conditions of sea distress. He reported that the Chief of the Medical
Service of the Luftwaffe was—
“* * * convinced that, if the Berka method is used,
damage to health had to be expected not later than 6 days
after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent
injuries to health and—according to the opinion of Unterarzt
Dr. Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than
12 days. External symptoms are to be expected such as
dehydration, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and
finally death.” (NO-117, Pros. Ex. 133.)
As a result of this conference it was agreed to conduct new
experiments. They were to include a series of experiments for a
maximum of 6 days during which one group was to be given sea-
water processed with Berkatit, another group ordinary drinking
water, another group no drinking water at all, and the final group
such water as was available in the emergency sea distress kits then
used. A second series of experiments was decided upon and the
report stated:
“Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as
diet also the emergency sea rations.
“Duration of experiments: 12 days.
“Since in the opinion of the chief of the medical service
permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the
experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental
subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the
disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.” (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133.)
Thus, with full knowledge that the use of Berkatit for periods of 6
days would result in permanent injuries to the experimental subjects
and that death would result no later than the 12th day, plans were
made to conduct experiments of 6 and 12 days’ duration. It should
be noted that the conference report does not state that the duration
was a maximum of 12 days as in the case of the first series of
experiment. The duration was to be 12 days in any event. Since it
was known that volunteers could not be expected under such
conditions, the conference determined to use inmates of
concentration camps which would be put at their disposal by the SS.
At a second meeting on 20 May 1944, the report states that “it was
decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments
were (to be) conducted.” (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133.) Copies of the
report on the conferences were sent, among others, to the Medical
Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbog,
to which the defendants, Schaefer and Holzloehner, who conducted
the freezing experiments with Rascher, were attached; to the
German Aviation Research Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, to which the
defendants Ruff and Romberg were attached; to the Medical
Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe (L. In. 14); and to the Reich Leader
SS. The report was signed by Christensen of the Technical Office of
the Reich Air Ministry.
On 7 June 1944 the defendant Schroeder wrote to Himmler
through Grawitz asking for concentration camp inmates to be used
as subjects in the sea-water experiments. This letter reads in part as
follows:
“Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to
settle urgent medical matters through experiments on
human beings. Today again I stand before a decision which,
after numerous experiments on animals as well as human
experiments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands
a final solution. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously
developed two methods for making sea-water potable. The
one method, developed by a medical officer, removes the
salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real drinking
water; the second method, suggested by an engineer,
leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes the
 unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in
contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From
the medical point of view this method must be viewed
critically, as the administration of concentrated salt
solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning.
“As the experiments on human beings could thus far
only be carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical
demands require a remedy for those who are in distress at
sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments are necessary.
“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be
available for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous
experiments that necessary laboratories exist in the
concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be very
suitable.” [Emphasis supplied.] (NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134.)
Schroeder concluded his letter by stating that the experiments
would be directed by the defendant Beiglboeck.

That these experiments were carried out on nonvoluntary

subjects is also proved by Grawitz’ letter to Himmler on 28 June
1944. (NO-179, Pros. Ex. 135.) In this letter Grawitz reports the
opinions of Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Nebe, as well as his own, on the
proposed experiments. Gluecks stated that he had no “objections
whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical
Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the Rascher
experimental station in the Dachau concentration camp. If possible,
Jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used.” It is impossible
to imagine a Jew being asked to volunteer for anything in the Third
Reich when they were being slaughtered by the millions in the
concentration camps. Nebe stated: “I proposed taking for this
purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There are people among
them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as regards
labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make a
special proposal to the Reich Leader, but I think it right to select
from among these people the necessary number of test subjects.
Should the Reich Leader agree to this, I shall list by name the
persons to be used.” It is a little difficult to imagine how Nebe, chief
of the Reich Criminal Police, could “list by name” gypsy volunteers
for these experiments. Grawitz raised the objection to the use of
gypsies on the ground that they were “of somewhat different racial
composition” and he therefore wanted experimental subjects racially
comparable to European peoples. Himmler decided that gypsies plus
three others for control should be used. (NO-183, Pros. Ex. 136.)
Schroeder testified that he tried to arrange for carrying out the
sea-water experiments at the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick. He
remembered very specifically, according to his testimony, that he
had contacted the commander of that hospital on 1 June 1944. He
stated that he also attempted to obtain students as experimental
subjects from the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in the latter part of
May 1944. Both of these attempts to obtain volunteers allegedly
failed because of the lack of clinical facilities and the calling up of
students to active service. Schroeder testified that he went to the SS
only after he had exhausted all other possibilities. He would have the
Tribunal believe that there was no place to find 40 volunteers and
the necessary clinical facilities, although von Sirany had conducted
such experiments in Vienna on Wehrmacht soldiers, but of course for
only 4 days. (Tr. pp. 3657-9.)
In connection with this testimony of Schroeder’s, it should be
noted that the records of the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944
were immediately sent to the SS. The decision to use concentration
camp inmates did not await any efforts to find volunteers but was
made at the conference of 19 May. It was known that because of the
very nature of the experiments which were planned volunteers could
not be obtained. Contrariwise, it is impossible to believe that the
commanding officer of the whole of the Medical Service of the
Luftwaffe was unable to obtain 40 volunteers for the experiments
which he claims were so innocuous. There were no regulations
which forbade experiments on members of the Wehrmacht. (Tr. p.
3660.) The defense witness Haagen, in connection with his proposed
epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings, as set forth in his
letter of 27 June 1944 to Kalk, who was attached to the staff of
Schroeder, insisted at great length that he planned to use volunteers
from the student companies of the Wehrmacht at Strasbourg,
Freiburg, or Heidelberg. (Tr. p. 9578.) He was positive that student
volunteers would have been made available. He stated that he could
have used them during their vacations. (Tr. p. 9579.) Kalk was also
sure that this could have been done. Haagen emphasized repeatedly
that volunteers were available. (Tr. p. 9580.) Clinical facilities would
have been easily obtained in reserve hospitals. (Tr. p. 9581.)
Schroeder testified that he did not know that Berkatit would
cause death in not more than 12 days. (Tr. p. 3666.) He could not
remember whether Schaefer had told him that taking Berkatit for 12
days would cause death. In a pretrial interrogation, he specifically
denied that. (Tr. p. 3668.) He testified that while both Becker-
Freyseng and Schaefer were at the Nuernberg meeting in October
1942 at which the report on the freezing experiments at Dachau was
given, neither of them reported to him about it when he proposed
going to Dachau to conduct the sea-water experiments. (Tr. p.
3669.) Schroeder denied that he had ever seen the report on the
meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944 (NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133) on the sea-
water experiments. (Tr. p. 3662.) Although a copy of this report was
sent to Himmler, he would have the Tribunal believe that it was a
sheer coincidence that he turned to Himmler for experimental
subjects without having seen the report. (Tr. p. 3669.) He testified
that he told Grawitz in a meeting with him that he wanted the
experiments carried out on dishonorably discharged soldiers. (Tr. p.
3670.) Grawitz allegedly said that he would respect this wish.
Schroeder stated that he made it clear to Grawitz that the subjects
had to be volunteers, with a little food as a reward. (Tr. p. 3672.) He
further testified that he told Grawitz that the experiments had to be
controlled by the Luftwaffe. During a pre-trial interrogation, he
swore that he knew nothing about the sea-water experiments, that
the SS took it out of his hands and he had no influence. (Tr. pp.
3610-1.) Schroeder had no idea, according to his testimony, that
foreigners were incarcerated in concentration camps. He said that he
knew that gypsies were used as experimental subjects only after the
report by Beiglboeck in Berlin in October 1944. (Tr. p. 3676.) He
testified that he instructed Beiglboeck that Berkatit was to be used
only until the subjects said they could not tolerate any more. (Tr. p.
3677.) He admitted having heard the report by Beiglboeck on the
experiments, together with Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer, among
others, but that he did not hear the complete report as he had to
leave the meeting early. (Tr. pp. 3679-80.)
The charts kept by the defendant Beiglboeck on each of the
experimental subjects—which the defense was finally forced into
submitting in evidence, after attempting to use them through the
defense “expert” Vollhardt without offering the documents
themselves—give some of the details as to the experiments,
although under the circumstances their reliability is doubtful. (Tr. p.
9381.) Certain alterations in these records which will be discussed at
a later point, indicate that they are not entitled to great weight. The
experiments began in August 1944 and continued until the middle of
September. Forty-four experimental subjects were used. Subjects
one to six were deprived of all food and water for periods from 5½
to 7½ days. The duration of the experiments given herein is based
upon the starting date of the morning of 22 August, as contended by
the defense, although there is some evidence indicating that the
starting date was 21 August. If the experiment was interrupted in
the forenoon, no additional day or part thereof is counted. If it was
interrupted between noon and 1700 hours, one-half day is added,
while if it was interrupted after 1700 hours, a full day is added.
Subjects 7 through 10 were given 1,000 cc. of Schaefer water for
12, 13, and 12 days, respectively, and hungered for 7, 8, and 9 days,
respectively. Subject No. 9 was not used for reasons of health. This
was the defense witness Mettbach. Subjects 11 through 18 were
given 500 cc. of sea-water plus the emergency sea ration which
contained approximately a total of 2,400 calories. These experiments
lasted from 5 to 10 days. They hungered up to 6½ days. Several of
these subjects, for example, 11, 13, 17, and 18 were subjected to
two separate experiments of 8 and 6 days, 6 and 5 days, 7½ and 5
days, and 10 and 4 days, respectively. Subjects 19 through 25 were
given 500 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. The
duration of the experiments lasted from 5 to 9½ days with periods
of hunger up to 6½ days. Subjects 19 and 20 underwent two
separate experiments of 7 and 5 days each. Subjects 26 through 30
were given 1,000 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration.
Duration of the experiments was from 5 to 9½ days with periods of
hunger up to 6½ days. Subject 29 underwent two experiments of 8
and 5 days. Subjects 31 and 32 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water
for 8 and 6 days, respectively. Subject 31 was subjected to an
additional experiment of 5 days. Subject 33 was given 500 cc. of
Berkatit for 6 days; subject 34, 1,000 cc. of Schaefer for 12 days,
subjects 35 through 37, 39, 41, and 42 were given 500 cc. of sea-
water for periods ranging from 4 to 6 days; subjects 38, 40, and 43
were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 6, 5, and 6 days; and subject
44 was given Schaefer water for 12 days.
The clinical charts on the experiments also supply us with the
ages of the experimental subjects. Subjects 17, 19, 20, 35, 37, 40,
and 43 were all under the age of 21. Subject 40 was 16 years old;
subjects 17, 19, and 37 were 17 years old; subject 35 was 18 years
old; subject 43 was 19 years old; and subject 20 was 20 years old.
Needless to say, no effort was made to obtain the consent of the
parents or guardians of these minors.
The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at
the end of June 1944 where he was told by Becker-Freyseng that he
was to carry out the sea-water experiments in Dachau. He also saw
Schroeder previously in connection with the experiments. He said he
attempted to withdraw because he had a horror of working in a
concentration camp. He did not refuse to perform the experiments
because he was afraid of being called to account for failure to obey
orders. (Tr. pp. 8828-9.) Becker-Freyseng told him that the purpose
of the experiments was, first, to find out if Berkatit was useful;
second, to test the Schaefer method; and third, to see whether it
would be better to go completely without sea-water or to drink small
quantities of it. (Tr. p. 8832.) He said he was told by the officials in
Dachau that the gypsies who were to be used in the experiments
were held as “asocial” persons. Beiglboeck apparently considers
himself an expert on asocials. He testified that it was his
understanding that a whole family could be classified asocial,
although this “does not exclude the possibility that, in this family,
there may be a large number of persons who did not commit any
crime.” (Tr. p. 8848.)
He testified that he called the experimental subjects together and
told them what the experiment was about and asked them if they
wanted to participate. (Tr. p. 8849.) He did not tell them how long
the experiment would last. He did not tell them that they could
withdraw at any time. He testified that he had to require that they
thirst for a certain period. The decision as to their being relieved
from the experiment lay with him. (Tr. p. 8850.) During the course of
the experiments he testified that the subjects revolted on one
occasion because they did not get the food they had been promised.
(Tr. p. 8863.) They did not get food for several days because of a
delay in delivery. (Tr. p. 8868.) The subjects were locked in a room
during the experiments. Beiglboeck testified that:
“They should have been locked in a lot better than they
were, because then they would have had no opportunity at
all to get fresh water on the side.” (Tr. p. 8864.)
He stated that the danger point would be reached in about seven
days drinking 500 cc. of sea-water, while in cases of 1,000 cc. of
sea-water, it would be 4½ days. (Tr. pp. 8876-7.) Compare the much
longer duration of the experiments as set out above.
It was readily apparent to the prosecution after an inspection of
the clinical charts kept during the course of the experiments that a
number of alterations had been made in them. These records were
in the exclusive possession of defense counsel prior to the testimony
of Vollhardt, whose expert opinion was based in part upon such
records. In a large number of instances the names of the
experimental subjects have been erased from the charts, obviously
in an effort to make it impossible to locate such persons for the
purpose of giving testimony. An examination of the charts further
reveals that the final weights of the experimental subjects were
written on the charts in a different shade of ink from the remainder
of the records. In some cases these weights were written over the
original pencil notations; for example, on chart C-2 the final weight
of 62 kilograms in pencil was written over in ink to read 64½
kilograms. Beiglboeck admitted that the red arrows purporting to
indicate the start of the experiments, usually appearing under the
date August 22, were made by him in 1945, long after the
experiment had been completed. (Tr. p. 8909.) In charts 1 to 32 a
red mark under the date August 21 appears, which would indicate
that the experiments very probably began on that date. Certain
notes in German shorthand appear on the back of chart C-23.
Beiglboeck admitted that he wrote these notes himself. (Tr. p. 8970.)
Beiglboeck testified that:
“We [Beiglboeck and his defense counsel] were in
agreement at all times that the charts and curves should be
submitted in the same way as we received them here.” (Tr.
p. 8921.)
He repeatedly stated that he did not make any erasures on the
charts in Nuernberg. (Tr. pp. 8922, 8973, 8975-6.) When the proof
left him no alternative, Beiglboeck finally admitted having made
changes and erasures in the notes on the back of chart C-23 in
Nuernberg. (Tr. p. 8978.) These notes give a clinical report on one of
the experimental subjects who was critically ill. The following is a
restoration of the original stenographic notes insofar as they could
be translated:
“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The
patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. He
takes no notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only
when he awakes from his semiconscious condition (half a
line erased).
“The appearance is very bad—looks doomed. The
general condition gives cause for alarm.
“Respiration more shallow, labored, moderately
frequent.
“Respirations 25 per minute.
“The eyes are deeply hollowed, the turgor of the skin
greatly reduced.
 “Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the
middle fairly loose.
“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry,
latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry
bronchitis lower border VI-XII, sharpened vesicular
respiration.
“Heartbeats very low hardly audible. Filling of the pulse
weaker. Increased thickness of walls of blood vessels.
Frequency 72, liver, 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin,
rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure; spleen on
percussion slightly enlarged.
“Musculature hypotonic. Joints over-extendable. Calves
slightly sensitive to pressure. Indications of transverse welt
formation, marked longitudinal welt formation. Romberg
plus plus. Reflexes plus plus. Abdominal reflexes plus plus.
Babinski negative. Eife phenomenon. Oppenheim negative.
Rossolimo negative. Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad.
Bulbus reflex positive. (Interruption.)”
Beiglboeck had substituted the word “somnolent” for the word
“semiconscious” in the last line of the first paragraph. In this same
paragraph half a line was completely erased and could not be
translated. Beiglboeck purported not to remember what it said, an
obvious falsehood since it was erased out of fear of the truth. In the
last sentence of the second paragraph, Beiglboeck altered the notes
to read “The general condition gives no cause for alarm.” In the first
line of the eighth paragraph, Beiglboeck substituted the word
“poorly” for “hardly.” The notation “Romberg plus plus” means that
the subject has an “uncertain” ability to stand. (Tr. p. 8982.) He said
that these notes refer to subject number 30 rather than subject 23.
(Tr. p. 8984.)
Beiglboeck testified that he made no further changes, erasures,
or alterations in Nuernberg. (Tr. p. 8992.) That Beiglboeck’s
testimony as a whole is completely unreliable is evidenced by the
fact that he also made erasures in the notes on the back of chart A-
29. These notes, insofar as they can be translated, read as follows:
 “The thirst again becomes very severe. Patient lies down
on his back and rolls about. Also gets * * * a typical
stereotyped organic rigid seizure with severe tetanic
symptoms such as from his * * *, symptoms * * *. In view
of the fact that in the last two days he has been drinking a
great deal of water * * * quarter plus half liter, he is being
taken out of the experiment.
“3/9 Again taken into the experiment.
“5/9 Again complains about very severe thirst.
“6/9 Feeling of thirst very severe, tongue dry and
coated. Fetid smell from the mouth. Skin dry and hot, liver
significantly enlarged, reflexes very lively, blood vessels
show thickening of walls, musculature over-excitable.
“7/9 Psychic state has changed. Somnolence. Tongue
dry, musculature feels stiffened. Considerable weakness of
musculature with atoxic manifestation. Romberg positive.
Blood vessels still * * *, pulse poorly filled, marked
bradycardia, respiration accelerated. General condition [the
next word erased and not legible], liver greatly enlarged.”
In the case of subject 25, Beiglboeck testified that this man was
X-rayed several times and apparently had acute bronchitis. His fever
went up to 39.8 Centigrade. (Tr. p. 8998.) He complained of a
stomach ailment before the experiment began. (Tr. p. 9000.) He was
still sick when Beiglboeck left Dachau on 15 September. (Tr. p.
9002.) Subject 39 was a man 49 years old; He was given 500 cc. of
Berkatit for a period of four days, namely, from 1 September to 4
September, when the experiment was interrupted at 1930 hours.
Beiglboeck used the truth with characteristic economy when he
testified that the man was undergoing the experiment only three
days. (Tr. p. 9010.) He admitted having performed numerous lumbar
and liver punctures on the subjects. (Tr. p. 8933.)
A number of experimental subjects were able to gain access to
fresh water in spite of the efforts of Beiglboeck to prevent them.
Beiglboeck and his defense counsel assumed the anomalous position
that this somehow mitigates his guilt. It is difficult to understand
how this self-help on the part of the subjects, which undoubtedly
saved the lives of the majority of them, could be raised as a
mitigating factor when Beiglboeck did everything in his power to
prevent that. As a matter of fact he did not even know that the
experimental subjects in the first group, that is to say from 1 to 32,
had been able to get at fresh water. He testified that:
“I should like to say that in the second group, when I
knew their devices from my experience with the first group,
I knew what to do and broke off the experiments. If I had
wanted to continue the experiments, I would have done it
in the second group too. This I did in the first group only
became at first I did not realize the significance of their
failure to lose weight.” [Emphasis supplied.] (Tr. p. 9022.)
Thus Beiglboeck says, in effect, that although he did not know that
the experimental subjects gained access to fresh water, and
although he continued the experiments far beyond what he himself
knew to be the danger point, nonetheless he is to be excused
because some of the experimental subjects drank fresh water
secretly in spite of his efforts to prevent it.
The expert witness, Dr. Ivy, testified for the prosecution
concerning sea-water experiments. He, himself, participated in an
experiment of three days during which he consumed 2,400 cc. of
sea-water with a caloric intake of 108 per day in the form of candy.
He suffered marked dehydration and was at the point of developing
hallucinations. A second volunteer in these experiments took 2,000
cc. in a little over one day and developed vomiting and diarrhea to
such an extent that the experiment had to be stopped. (Tr. p. 9038-
9.) Compare the amounts of sea-water taken by Beiglboeck’s
subjects. For scientific data concerning the effect of sea-water on
the human body, see Transcript pages 9039-41. Dr. Ivy pointed out
certain basic inconsistencies in the testimony of the defense expert
witness, Vollhardt. (Tr. pp. 9041-43.) Dr. Ivy testified that it was
entirely unnecessary to perform these experiments for the purpose
of establishing the potability of sea-water processed by the Berka
method. This could have been determined chemically in a matter of
one-half hour. (Tr. pp. 9043-4.) He stated that if 1,000 cc. of sea-
water or Berkatit were taken per day, it would cause death in less
than 12 days. Death would occur between the 8th and the 14th day
if 500 cc. were consumed per day under ideal conditions. (Tr. p.
9045.) The statement in the report of the conferences on 19 and 20
May 1944 that if Berka water was used, damage to health was to be
expected not later than six days and would lead to death not later
than 12 days is essentially correct. (Tr. p. 9044.) This document
shows that the planned duration of the experiments was 12 days. Dr.
Ivy testified that it would be unnecessary to conduct experiments for
more than three or four days to show that Berkatit was just as
dehydrating as sea-water. (Tr. p. 9046.) He stated that these
experiments make sense only if they were trying to determine the
survival time of human beings on 500 cc. and 1,000 cc. of sea-water
per day. It is clear that the experimental plan anticipated deaths. (Tr.
pp. 9046-7.)
Dr. Ivy testified that, on the basis of his studies of the charts kept
during the course of the experiments, there was an insufficient
observation period after the experiments to determine whether there
were any delayed damaging effects to the experimental subjects. (Tr.
p. 9049.) The results of the experiments are not scientifically
reliable. (Tr. p. 9051.)
Dr. Ivy pointed out that the chart of subject 3 proved that he was
too weak to stand and have his blood pressure taken on several
occasions. (Tr. p. 9052.) This was one of the subjects in the fasting
and thirsting group. He was given an injection of coronine on 29
August and strychnine on 30 and 31 August. Both of these drugs are
heart stimulants and the clinical picture indicates that this subject
was ill or markedly disabled by the experiments. (Tr. p. 9053.) Eight
to fourteen days is the range of survival time of strong men under
ideal conditions for thirsting and fasting. (Tr. p. 9053.)
As a result of his study of the clinical records, Dr. Ivy testified
that subjects 3, 14, 36, 37, 39, 31, 23 (or 30), 25, 28, and 29 were
ill during the experiments. Subjects 3, 23, (or 30), and 25 were
especially ill and there is a possibility that they were permanently
injured or died as a result of the experiments. (Tr. pp. 9058-9.)
 The subject to whom the notes on the back of chart C-23 applied
was very sick and in a coma. (Tr. p. 9061.) The changes made in the
stenographic notes by the defendant Beiglboeck make the subject
appear to be in a better condition than he actually was. (Tr. pp.
9062-3.) The bulbous reflex referred to in these notes means the
pressing of the eyeball to determine the degree of coma. “Tonus of
ball of eyes is bad” indicates the blood pressure was low and the
circulation was quite poor. This is a bad prognostic sign and might
indicate impending death. (Tr. p. 9064.) These notes indicate that
the subject was in a dangerous condition and required immediate
remedial therapy. The follow-up observation for subject 23 was four
days, while for subject 30 it was five days. This was entirely
insufficient. This subject could have died if not properly cared for.
(Tr. pp. 9065-6.)
Dr. Ivy testified that of the 44 subjects, 13 were too weak to
stand on one or more occasions, had fever, required cardiac
stimulants, or were unconscious—namely, subjects, 3, 4, 14, 21, 23,
25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39 and 40. (Tr. pp. 9067-8.) The statement of
the affiant Bauer to the effect that he observed symptoms of heart
weakness in the experimental subjects as a result of certain
electrocardiograms he took was corroborated by Ivy. (Tr. p. 9069.)
In Dr. Ivy’s opinion, an experimental subject who agrees to
undergo an experiment is no longer a volunteer if, during the course
of the experiment, he is forced to continue after having expressed a
desire to be relieved. (Tr. pp. 9076-7.)
The testimony of the defense expert Vollhardt is entirely
unreliable. Although Vollhardt had nothing whatever to do with these
experiments in Dachau, he repeatedly testified in a highly partial
manner concerning matters about which he could not possibly have
had any knowledge. For example, he insisted that the subjects in
Dachau were volunteers. He testified that Beiglboeck eliminated
three subjects before the experiments began because of their
physical condition, and that three other persons immediately
volunteered. (Tr. pp. 8457-8.) Even Beiglboeck made no such
contention. He said that he considered it “quite out of the question
that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to drink water out of
mops, because there were air raid buckets and if they felt they
needed a drink, they could have drunk out of them.” (Tr. p. 8467.) It
is passing strange that Vollhardt could have such information when
he was never in Dachau. He believed it quite impossible that any of
the experimental subjects had cramps, although subject 29 is proved
to have had cramps and organic seizures by the notes quoted above.
Although Vollhardt admitted that the clinical data showed that a
number of the experimental subjects had secretly obtained fresh
water, and although Beiglboeck admitted that some of the subjects
threw their urine away (Tr. p. 8865), Vollhardt was quite sure that
the experimental subjects were all volunteers.
Vollhardt made no study of the clinical notes himself but turned
them over to a 25-year-old assistant to digest for him. (Tr. p. 8432.)
He admitted that he relied on descriptions of the experiments made
by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck since the trial began. (Tr. p.
8438.) Vollhardt had had no previous experience with sea-water
problems, nor had his assistant. (Tr. p. 8451.) Vollhardt testified that
he conducted a volunteer experiment on five of his doctor assistants
after he had been approached by defense counsel. His subjects
drank 500 cc. of simulated sea-water per day and received 1,600
calories per day. (Tr. pp. 8440-2.) Four of the subjects continued the
experiment for five days and one for six days. The latter subject
drank an extra 500 cc. on the last day. The purpose of these
experiments was to ascertain how much a person suffers when
undergoing a sea-water experiment. (Tr. p. 8443.) Vollhardt’s
subjects continued their work about the clinic, although they ate and
slept in the same room. He does not know whether they went to the
local cinema or left the clinic for other purposes during the course of
the experiments. (Tr. p. 8445.) Four of the subjects quit on the fifth
day because of an engagement with a young lady. (Tr. p. 8450.) He
testified that his subjects had no severe thirst on the first two days,
it became unpleasant on the third, reduced thirst on the fourth, and
very strong thirst on the fifth day; the subject who went six days
reported that it made very little difference. All continued their work
during the experiment. (Tr. p. 8453.) It is obvious that this
experiment in no way compared to those conducted in Dachau.
While some of the experimental subjects in Dachau were too weak
on many occasions to have their blood pressure taken, Vollhardt’s
subjects were able to continue their work.
While Vollhardt’s subjects were trained doctors who participated
in the experiment because of interest, who were permitted to
withdraw from the experiment at any time, who were permitted to
control their own activities during the experiment, none of these
important factors were present in the Dachau experiments. (Tr. p.
8479.) The wretched gypsies were not permitted to withdraw when
they felt like it. They did not know how long the experiments were
to last, they had no freedom of activity, they had no interest in the
experiment. Vollhardt’s regard for these gypsies is apparent from his
statement that “* * * people like that will of course find a way” to
cheat. (Tr. p. 8468.) That Vollhardt knew nothing of the experiments
he purported to testify about is apparent from his testimony
regarding their duration. For example, he stated that in the Berkatit
group of 500 cc., the experiments were discontinued after six days.
(Tr. p. 8462.) The clinical charts which Vollhardt had in his
possession, and upon which his testimony purported to be based,
show that the duration of the experiments in this group ran as high
as 9½ days, and in all but two cases exceeded six days. He testified
that the group on sea-water was also discontinued after six days
while the clinical charts show some of them to have run as long as
ten days. In the fasting and thirsting group he testified that they
were discontinued after four to five days, while the chart shows that
they lasted from 5½ to 7½ days. (Tr. pp. 8462-3.) No, Vollhardt’s
testimony would indeed have been an unreliable substitute for the
charts.
The testimony of the prosecution witnesses proves that the sea-
water experiments resulted in murder and tortures. The Austrian
witness Vorlicek, who was tried for “preparation of high treason” in
1939 and sentenced to four years in a penitentiary, was transferred
to Dachau in March 1944 and acted as an assistant nurse in the
experimental station during the course of the sea-water
experiments. (Tr. pp. 9383-5.) One of the inmate guards who fell
asleep was transferred to a penal company. (Tr. p. 9386.) At least
one of the subjects suffered a violent attack of cramps. (Tr. p. 9386.)
On one occasion Vorlicek spilled some fresh water on the floor and
forgot the rag which he used to mop it up. The experimental
subjects seized the dirty rag and sucked the water out of it.
Beiglboeck threatened to put him in the experiments if it ever
happened again. (Tr. p. 9387.) The experimental subjects were not
volunteers. Vorlicek talked to some of the Czech subjects who told
him they had been asked in another camp to volunteer for a good
outside assignment and only when they got to Dachau did they find
out that they were to undergo the experiments. (Tr. pp. 9388, 9392.)
He testified that the subjects were of Czech, Polish, Hungarian,
Austrian, and German nationalities. (Tr. p. 9388.) Some of the
subjects were quite ill and he was under the impression that they
would not live much longer. About three months after the
experiments he met Franz, one of the subjects, and he told him that
one of the victims of the experiments had already died. (Tr. p. 9390.)
The witness Laubinger, who was subject number 7, testified that
he was arrested by the Gestapo in March 1943 because he was a
gypsy. He was sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943 without
having been tried for any crime. (Tr. p. 10199.) He was later
transferred to Buchenwald for a few weeks and while there, together
with other inmates, was asked to volunteer for a cleaning-up work
detail in Dachau. The inmates were under the impression that
conditions were better in Dachau, so they agreed to go. Upon their
arrival at Dachau they were given a physical examination and X-
rayed and then taken to the experimental station. (Tr. p. 10200.)
Beiglboeck told them that they were to participate in the sea-water
experiment and that was the first they knew of it. (Tr. p. 10201.)
Laubinger identified Beiglboeck in the dock. (Tr. p. 10202.) He told
Beiglboeck that he had had two stomach operations, but Beiglboeck
did not permit him to withdraw. Beiglboeck did not ask whether the
subjects wished to volunteer, and they did not volunteer. (Tr. p.
10203.) Laubinger, who was in the Schaefer group, was given
Schaefer water for 12 days and fasted for at least nine days. He got
so weak he could hardly stand up. The experimental subjects
received special food for only one day after the experiment.
Beiglboeck had promised them extra rations and an easy work detail
but these promises were not kept. (Tr. p. 10205.) One of the
subjects tried to persuade the others to refuse to drink the sea-
water. Beiglboeck threatened to have him hanged for sabotage. The
subject later vomited after drinking sea-water whereupon Beiglboeck
had the water administered through a stomach tube. (Tr. p. 10207.)
Another subject was tied to his bed and adhesive tape was plastered
over his mouth, because he had obtained some fresh water and
bread. Most of the subjects were Czech, Polish, and Russian
nationalities, with approximately eight Germans. (Tr. p. 10208.). A
number of subjects suffered attacks of delirium and two were
transferred to the hospital. Laubinger did not see them again. (Tr. p.
10209.)
The witness Hoellenrainer corroborated the testimony of
Laubinger on all important points. He testified that the experimental
subjects did not volunteer (Tr. p. 10509) and that the majority of
them were non-German nationals. (Tr. p. 10513.) Hoellenrainer
testified further that Beiglboeck showed no concern for the
experimental subjects, but, on the contrary, threatened to shoot
them when they became excited. (It hardly seems appropriate to
wear a gun when experimenting on volunteers.) He had no pity for
them when they became delirious from thirst and hunger. (Tr. p.
10510.) The witness Hoellenrainer unfortunately assaulted
Beiglboeck in open Court. This impulsive act of the witness, however,
speaks more forcibly than volumes of testimony as to the inhuman
treatment of the experimental subjects and the suffering which was
inflicted on them as a result of these experiments. We may rest
assured that Hoellenrainer was no volunteer. When explaining his
behavior to the Tribunal, Hoellenrainer characterized Beiglboeck a
“murderer”. (Tr. pp. 10233-4.)
The witness Tschofenig was committed to Dachau in November
1940 where he remained until April 1945. He was a political prisoner.
(Tr. p. 9331.). He is at present a member of the Carinthian Land Diet
in Austria. (Tr. p. 9332.) From the summer of 1942 until the end, he
was in charge of the X-ray station in Dachau. (Tr. p. 9334.) He
examined the transport of gypsies in the summer of 1944 before the
experiments began and excluded a number of them as being unfit.
(Tr. pp. 9334-5.) He saw Beiglboeck several times in the camp and in
the X-ray station. (Tr. p. 9335.) During the experiments a number of
those who got sick were brought to the X-ray station for
examination. Their physical condition had deteriorated considerably
as a result of the experiments. He heard that one of the subjects
had a maniac attack. (Tr. p. 9336.) At the conclusion of the
experiments, three of the subjects were brought to the station for
internal diseases. One was on a stretcher and unable to walk. All of
them were X-rayed by Tschofenig. (Tr. p. 9338.) It was customary to
send the results of the X-ray examinations to the hospital ward
where the inmates were kept. Tschofenig received an official order
from the station for internal diseases that it was not necessary to
report on the stretcher case as he had died two days after his
transfer. The station physician reported that the death resulted from
the sea-water experiments. Tschofenig examined the death records
himself. (Tr. p. 9339.)
Even Dr. Steinbauer, defense counsel for Beiglboeck, has
apparently convinced himself that these experiments involved
torture. He said, in explaining his conduct in withholding part of a
document the Tribunal had ordered to be produced, that: “I do not
want to say anything about the experimental subjects, who suffered
terribly.” (Tr. p. 9378.)

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:
“A marriage shall furthermore not be contracted if the
progeny to be expected from it would endanger the purity
of German blood.”
In all fairness, however, one must admit in this connection that in
the practice of the Third Reich no strict distinction seems to have
been made when gypsies were put in a concentration camp, so that
we should need the criminal record and family history of each
person subjected to the experiments to be able to ascertain
accurately the asocial character of each individual. It is a fact that in
the gypsy book mentioned by me, 11 names of persons subjected to
experiments are to be found, who must no doubt be characterized
as asocial.

Origin of the gypsies as to nationality

As I have already mentioned, the gypsies themselves like to

leave this point vague. Therefore no point of the evidence contains
so many conflicting statements as this particular one. Beiglboeck
himself cannot make any definite statements as to this matter, but
as he used to speak to all of them, they must all have understood
German. Among the names we also find plenty of Slav names,
having a Polish, Ukrainian, or Southern Slav sound. In the old
Austrian Monarchy, these people were jumbled together a good deal
and in their wanderings they also entered German Reich territory.
After the break-up of the Monarchy, some of the so-called Carpatho-
Russians became citizens of Hungary or Slovakia. In the eastern
provinces of the German Reich, there were many Poles or
Germanized persons with Polish names. The mere name, therefore,
admits of no conclusion as to nationality. The fact, however, that
most of them could make themselves understood in the German
language allows the conclusion that none of the persons subjected
to experiments were imported from the Allied countries.

The witness Fritz Pillwein states in his affidavit (Beiglboeck 32,

Beiglboeck Ex. 21):
“The experimental subjects in most cases spoke their
gypsy dialect. Many of them were obviously of Slav origin. I
did not see identification papers, however, as this was quite
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com